Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions M60 Enclosure

Does the M60 have separate enclosures for the 6.5" woofers and the Mid/tweeter? And how are the ports positioned in relation to the drivers?

The 6 1/2" woofers are in a seperate internal enclosure from the 5 1/4" woofer and tweeter. The ports (front and rear) are all in the 6 1/2" portion of the cabinet.

Ian Colquhoun
President & Chief Engineer

Does the M80 also separate the woofers from the mid/tweeters. Also, does the M80 crossover the woofers at 300 Mhz.

The M80, like the M60, does have separate enclosures for the 5 1/4" woofers and the 6 1/2" woofers. Crossover points between the 5 1/4" woofers and the 6 1/2" woofers are the same for the M60 and M80 at 300Hz.

Ian Colquhoun
President & Chief Engineer

Check out how much the design has changed since the early days. Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg.

It would be great to see pics of an m60ti intervals and bracing versus current. It looks like grills might be different, flat across the bottom versus the angular half a hexagon cut mine have. I’m also curious if the specs and power handling have changed at all over the years.

Currently the m60v4 ( not hp ) states 250w rms with 1000 watt dynamic peaks. Do my ti have the same handling capability? I can’t really find a reliable statement of old specs.

Another difference is the HP option. We’re the cabinets beefed up at all to handle the additional stress? Another final thought, if the HP woofers can handle more SPL are the tweet and mid designed to handle more too? Or do the HP woofers actually play lower hz at a wider range of volumes. ( ie : “ choose the HP for 2 channel playback with no subwoofer needed. “).

The m60 lives on.

Edit: Another change is the Bryston A3. Suspect it has more bracing and is rated 6 ohms so likely gets the HP woofers standard. Power handling recommendations are 100-250 watts per speaker rms. No dynamic quoted. Like the black woofers.

A lot has changed, and much of it is unknown to us. Axiom has experimented a ton to extract as much fidelity as possible from the Millenia architecture while preserving capital investment. This is my educated opinion as an outsider looking in.

I'm sure your M60s can handle 250W "average" with 1000W peaks. The fundamental architecture of the drivers supports these numbers. The question is "to what levels of performance?" There is a big chasm between function and performance. And it is this chasm that Axiom has narrowed.

The free-standing cabinets were beefed up and I think any audible remaining resonances were treated within the realm of practicality given passive filters. With the actives, some of these resonances were further addressed. With the Brystons, Axiom went even further and the price reflects that. I would expect the Model T acoustically disappears better for example than an M100 and it is also more visceral.

The mid and tweeter were re-designed partly so they can handle more power. There is a big difference audibly between v2 and v4 in this regard. That doesn't mean one can't like v2 mids. But v4 mids are more emotionally impactful.

The only reason for the HP driver is to play louder with less distortion - particularly at the lower end of the woofer's range. That doesn't mean the standard driver is crap. Axiom has never quantified how the standard vs. HP drivers compare. But I am sure if a prospect was to describe their listening room, system and habits, Axiom can make a reliable recommendation.

Ian has said he prefers the M60 with the standard drivers more than the M5. He's also said an M2 with sub is like an M60. I think with the current sub technology, M2 with sub is better than just an M60.

Nice response mojo. Thanks. Very interesting. I agree they are wise to capitalize on the millennia design, especially because it works well.

While the m80 and m100 are amazing speakers , no doubt, I feel like the m60 is the unsung hero of the line up. I’m curious what their best selling model is within floorstanders and within the entire line up.

I remember a video of Andrew saying they test everything well beyond what they are rated. I’m curious what these m60 can do with maximum power behind them, which I could test now with my larger space. ( Very grateful you told me to wait to upgrade components awhile back bc it’s a totally different game now in this house. ). The thought would be to get some quality amps that will eventually drive some m100 or LFRs ( want to avoid subs if possible in the great room ) and then the m60 will be the mains for my basement theatre. But until then I can enjoy maximum power playing thru the m60s.

But I digress, it’s very interesting to look forward and look back at the changes and evolution.

I wonder what is next for the venerable m60?

The number of reviews on this page may reveal which floor-stander Axiom sells the most of. I think while they sold more of the M80 due to the small difference in price, the M60 has not been an unsung hero.

https://www.axiomaudio.com/floorstanding-speakers

Sure Axiom tests well beyond spec but what does that really mean? I think what it means is you can exceed the maximum ratings, to a point, and not damage the speaker. It doesn't mean you won't hear the effect of playing them out of their specified range.

With regard to playing them to their full potential, I expect a 2-channel ADA-1000 would do that with your version of the M60. With the M60v4, the ADA-1000 would quit before the speakers do.

Ha true!! There’s a lot of reviews for both! Wow. Never really looked at that. I guess I was just going on forum chatter and general perceived interest. The big guns always get more attention ( m80 m100 ) but in reality a compact quality floorstander is really all most folks need I guess and are easier to drive generally. It’s a well placed and specked product. And sounds awesome too!

The m60 is a stalwart player for sure. And they look great as well.

Regarding the Bryston A3, it is an M60 with HP drivers, more bracing, black drivers and a 20 year warranty through dealers. Note it achieves 5Hz better low end performance compared to the M60 with standard drivers.

I downloaded the manual for the Bryston A3 at the link below. The impedance and listening window curves are slightly different between the standard M60 and the A3. The standard M60 alpears to be a tad mote linear between 100Hz and 200Hz. Low frequency performance doesn't appear to be any different but I'd bet at higher SPLs the HP woofers in the A3 perform better.

https://bryston.com/passive/a3/

The A3 comes at a 30% premium over the M60HP with ICW. That 30% gives you more bracing, black drivers, a 20 year warranty and dealer accessibility. What it doesn't give you is Axiom's loyalty discount, trade-in program and access to more finishes.

The access to more finishes at no further cost is worth it right there.

I read the manual and saw one spec I haven’t seen before , max SPL. The A3 has a 90 db max SPL. I get what it s saying but at what distance away from the speakers and what level of distortion? Anybody know what the parameters are of that spec?

Edit: answered my own question. I dug deeper into the specs. Max SPL is measured at 1 meter. No distortion percentage is given. The manual says 90db for the A3 but the brochure chart states 111db. That’s plenty loud even 15 feet away!

Bryston has screwed up the specs on their speakers so bad, it's actually quite sad. The specs are all over the place depending on where you find them. For anyone who wants to know about Bryston speakers, talk to Axiom.

90dB is not the max. It is the in-room SPL with 1 Watt input at a distance of 1 meter. Distortion is virtually nil at that level across the entire specified frequency band.

As for max SPL at 1 meter, it's about 110dB for the A3 before dynamic and thermal compression kick in.

Yeah. Pretty important to keep the specs tight and in order. Just looks bad.

The Model T active plays at 118db?! (at 1 meter away) that’s nuts!The LFR actives must be able to do that too no?

That’s incredibly loud to still have clean and clear sound.

Even 110db for the m60 is impressive.

The actives are specified at 124dB continuous and 130dB dynamic in-room at 1 meter. I measured 116dBC peaks at 10 feet away and I had not yet reached amp limits. I couldn't tell you if that was audibly clean because I had ear plugs and my shooting muffs on. The HP drivers were visibly distressed though and I smelled coils and adhesive. I also smelled 1000 and 1500. I didn't want to push further.

So those specs I gave you above are likely the absolute physical limits. Distortion sets in before those limits. In any practical residential application, there really are no limits for the actives.

Edit: I can't see the T playing cleanly at 118dB. It won't destruct though.

That’s incredibly loud and entirely non practical!! But to know when you’re playing really loud at 105 db or something and still have the dynamic overhead to not compress is amazing.

Ok now this is dragging the thread off topic, however, this is where chat led us…..

How does the type or quality of recording impact the dynamic overhead when reaching those upper limits? IE: even though your system may be able to handle it the recording may not have ability to squeeze enough dynamics out of its self to feed the system. I’m kinda making this up as I go so please correct me but it seems there’s a limit to the information in the audio.

Also, why do you think the Bryston Active T won’t go clean to 118db but perhaps the LFR actives will? Better DSP? Or are both susceptible to breakup at those limits , DSP notwithstanding.

I don't know about the active Model T. I was talking about the passive. In Bryston's brochure, there is very little difference in the frequency response curve between 90dB and 110dB. That is actually incredibly impressive. It means that for typical listening (75 to 80dB nominal), a listener is afforded 30 to 35 dB of pristine dynamic range. Even if you want to liven it up a little (say 90dB nominal), that's 20dB of dynamic range. Even high quality recordings top out at 18dB between the quietest and loudest sounds. So the Model T, is for all practical purposes, a dynamo.

Based on the data presented in the brochure, the passive Model T can hit around 110dB before audible distortion kicks in. It's advertised at 118dB max which means that is likely close to some destruction limit.

The bottom line here is application. Like Ian has always said, if you are throwing parties and your space is large, you need gobs of SPL. For typical home applications though, even the puny little M2s offer adequate dynamic range at 10 feet MLP particularly when teamed up with a sub and crossed at 80Hz.

I just downloaded the Model T Active brochure and that too specs it at 118 dB SPL max. That can't be right if the passive is also 118dB. The crossover in the passive robs the drivers of 3dB of SPL so I'd expect the active to hit 121 max.

Max sound out unrelated to power in … (didn’t read spec so just going by your “max SPL” statement)
The driver can only put out so much

The passive and the active T are rated for the same peak power input. But without a passive cross-over, I'd expect the active to hit 3dB SPL higher.

But second line still applies does it not? Same drivers same max.

If you look at the LFRs, the passives are rated for 600W and the actives for 1200W "average". Peak power in is 4 times those numbers. That suggests the limiting factor for power input is the twin, passive cross-overs; not the drivers.

Both the passive and active T are rated at 500W average and 118dB peak SPL. And the sensitivities of both are 89dB! That can't possibly be. The actives must be more sensitive and I would expect they can take more power and hit a bit higher in SPL.

Ok, that makes sense for that crossover but what if the crossover is not the limiting factor?

I suppose it is possible the T max power in is limited by the drivers. How likely is that though given the M100 can take 600W vs. the T's 500W.

That still doesn't explain the sensitivity. The active must be more sensitive even if only by 1 dB.

max power is dictated by the first component to go ... and the drivers are the best suspects in this case ...

There are trade offs with everything ... giving up max power on the driver might have gotten an improvement elsewhere that Bryston deemed more important ... what and why needs to be answered by the designer. In any case I'm still not sure where sensitivity comes in ... unless we are not talking about the same spec.

Sensitivity: if I feed 1 Watt broadband in, how much SPL do I get out?

A passive crossover reduces the amount of power incident at the driver.

no argument ... what you state is true ... but it's also not relevant ...
My take ...
Max SPL is max SPL and what ever you need to put in to get it is moot.

I am so damned confident the specs between the passive and active Ts are wrong, that I'd bet my left 'nad. But if I'm right, Tanner will have to forfeit both of his.

Not sure what you've been doing with that spec sheet ... but you brain seems to be stuck to it

I think we all know what we ought to do with that spec sheet.