Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Difference Between Axiom M3 and Ascend 170??

Jerry, I used to hang on the AVS forums a lot, I think I have about 3,000 posts. 5 years ago when I was looking at speakers, I got so sick of the Axiom bashers over there talking about how Axiom speakers are bright, this simply is not true.

They are designed to be very neutral and have a flat freq response in anechoic testing. They will bring out the true recording as it was intended to be heard. Now, if you have a poorly engineered/recorded cd, that is not the fault of the Axiom speakers, but I can guarantee top quality recordings will sound fantastic.

Back in the day, "bright", was used to define a speaker that was detailed and true to the original source. For some reason the AVS trolls have a changed this definition to be a bad thing.

You may want to check the audition threads in our "Hearing Things" section to see if you can find someone up in your neck of the woods that will let you listen to Axioms.

To answer your question, I think the Axiom speakers are much better than any retail type brand, like Polk.

I think the M3s are Axiom's best speaker. I own three pair!

They do put out some killer bass for their size.

"Can anyone tell me how the M3's might differ from Polk speakers? Specifically the Polk RT series?"

I own Polk RTi8s (floorstanders) and M22s. I know this is not the exact comparison you are looking for but I think there are a couple general principles that apply. Both sets of speakers are excellent. Neither speaker is "bright" like Klipsch (my previous favorite speaker) - they are revealing. The M22s sound like slightly smaller versions of the RTi8s - which they should as they are bookshelf speakers. Both speakers have allowed me to hear instruments I didn't previously appreciate on CDs that I have had for many years - and heard on some relatively good speakers (Mirage and Klipsch) many times. I think both Axiom and Polk (at least at the top of the Polk line) make excellent speakers that sound very similar, but with Axiom you probably get at least 25% more for your money in terms of quality when you compare them to the Polk's retail prices.

If you think the Ascends offer more than that, go with them. But I can assure you, you won't be disappointed if you choose Axiom.

The only person that I know that's heard my M3s and refers to them as bright (in a negative way) is my brother.

But we both have Edirol MA-20D Digital Stereo Micro Monitors on our desktops - identical speakers, and I have my bass and treble controls set to just a pinch over flat (two pinches for treble) - he has his set a bit higher on the bass side and cuts the treble hard.

I've always just attributed it to his hearing damage from playing in bands for 20 years... but he also swears by his set of early 80s floorstanders with paper cones and a big treble attenuating dial on the front as being "the best sounding speakers he's ever heard"... I'm sure the response graph for them looks something like a bell curve.

Either way, I wouldn't give too much weight to either side of the argument... take advantage of Axiom's return policy and give them a listen for yourself.

Bren R.

My memory of the old shoot-out comparing the M22s and the Ascend cbm 170s was that it was very very close. Curtis Chang, the guy who runs the Ascend forum, was part of it, if I remember correctly. (I was not there - but I read the comparisons with interest since I own both speakers).

Some people thought the M22s had more detail and some people thought the M22s were slightly too bright. All seemed to agree they were very close.

I think everyone agrees that the M22s are "brighter" or more detailed than the M3s. So, calling the M3s brighter than the Ascends seems way off.

The Ascend 170 charts show it has a very flat frequency response for the money, slightly better than the Axiom M22s. The newer version 170s have more bass than the old ones did, I hear. But the M22s and the M3s have also been tweaked over the years to sound better.

I think the result was it was a matter of personal taste which speaker someone would prefer. I can't say I like the M22s or the 170s better.

As to the "ugly" charge - Ascends now can be gotten with custom finish, but that adds to the price. I think it is still neck and neck for great $400-500-600 speakers.

Hmmm - the above post almost sounds like I work for the Ascend company and am advertising on the Axiom site. Sorry.

I did buy 5 new Axiom speakers and only 2 used Ascends. The Axiom surrounds are definitely superior, IMHO, and that might/should sway one's choice. Also, the Axioms look better for about the same price (last time I priced them)

The graph on the Ascend site notes they are quasi-anechoic frequency response. What the heck is that?

When you click the link on the left for more response graphs it takes you to a graph from Soundstage from 2003 which was done at the NRC(like Axioms graphs) and that graph shows the M22 to be slightly better - less peaks and valleys, but like you said some will like the M22 others will like the 170.

I guess I stand corrected. The graphs I compared were close but the 170s looked flatter. They may have been different graphs - comparing apples to applesauce.

The one on the main page is flatter, you weren't wrong, it is just a little deception on their part as that graph is not from the same source as Axioms.

Like you said, apples to applesauce, close but not the same.

Let's not forget the real issue is how they sound to each one of us and we will all have slightly different views on what we like.