Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater cnet slams the axiom epic master system...

http://electronics.cnet.com/electronics/0-6342413-1305-9387841.html?tag=rev-rev

i have heard that the vp100 isn't the best center channel but is it true that this center and the qs-4 surrounds don't timbre match with the m3ti?

I hardly feel this is a slam....

The comments are not a condemnation of the product, and I actually read that for the most part they enjoyed them. Remember, as with any reviewer, they are not in the business of selling audio equipment, they are in the business of sellling magazines. As this is an online review, they need to generate website hits to attract the attention of advertisers.

I would have questions about there testing methods, and equipment involved. Moreover, using a numeric scale is convenient, but what happens if they rated something as a 10/10....and then reviewed a product that simply outperformed the 10/10 in every way? What would they do? Suddenly the scale becomes suspect.

Anyway, I think that a review is a good thing. Maybe they did not think as much of the package as you would have liked, but we can each have opinions.

(sound of BBIBH jumping off soapbox....)

BBIBH

i don't own a full set of axiom speakers but do plan on getting a full set sometime. The major concern that the cnet articles raises is that the vp100 and the qs-4 surrounds do not timbre match with the m3ti. I thought that all axiom speakers are timbre match, but if what cnet says is true than you have to be carefull when matching particular axiom speakers for a ht setup.

the real problem is though that the system reviewed by cnet is actually one of axioms recommeded systm configuration. Why would axiom suggest a configuration that isn't timbre match.

The title of your posting is probably where BBIBH got the idea of your comments......

You both make good points, in terms of what was said. You mention the system assembled by Axiom, and BBIBH wanted to know how they tested, and what supporting equipment was used.

That is if I have read your posts correctly!

Let’s see if I can answer your questions without unduly berating the reviewer, which is not my intent. Certainly, as BBIBH mentioned, the review is quite complementary and I appreciate that. The VP100 and QS4s are timbre matched to the M3s. In fact Steve Guttenberg does not say that the QS4s are not timbre matched but rather raves about them, his only comment is on the VP100. The problem that he was hearing with the VP100 is not related to timbre matching but is actually inherent in all woofer / tweeter / woofer Center Channel configurations. This design in the off axis response does not perform well due to the configuration and in a linear loudspeaker will manifest itself in a slight change in the mid range versus the front channel speakers, and he does mention that this effect is subtle. This manifestation can be masked by artificially increasing the output of the speakers in the high frequencies but this obviously then makes the system coloured (inaccurate). I looked over a number of his reviews and in all cases he either likes the system on music and not Home Theater or vice versa. In all cases the systems he likes for music are natural and the systems he likes for home theater are coloured. Needless to say he thought the Epic Master was excellent for music. Though a bullet may sound better with an accentuated high frequency this does not mean it was recorded that way. Our design philosophy is natural sound is best for both Home Theater and music. Oddly enough I just covered the Center Channel design trade offs in a post in our Technical Questions section. The VP150 will eliminate the inherent problems with Center Channel design (and not by artificially increasing the high frequency) but the question becomes is it worth the extra money in a smaller Home Theater System for this subtle change? I would say not if it means reducing some other part of the system to achieve it.

I did not like this review at all. It seemed like they only tried two or three different things with the setup, the made a quick judgement. This seems like one of those reviews that are time saving just to get traffic to their website, as previously mentioned. They also did not mention what other equipment they were using with it, so we cannot see if it is the fault of the speakers, or the other equipment. I'm not convinced this is a review that is worth taking any information from.

The only thing that struck me about this review was the arbitrary ranking out of 10. He made strongly positive comments about the M3's, QS4 and EP175, mentioned a few problems which seem relatively minor, then slapped a "6/10" label on the system. What does that mean?

The only thing sillier are of course Home Theater's asinine markings for electronics. What on earth does Value 97 mean versus 94? Is it 3% cheaper? How substantial is the difference between an Ergonomics score of 78 versus 81? How does one measure 3% differences in performance, let alone "build quality" or ease of use.

Though they tend to be "audiophile" oriented (i.e. nitpicky to the nth degree), and never really say anything bad about a product, I'm really impressed with the Soundstage network reviews. They're through, and give an exhaustive description of what to expect when listening to a speaker.

Well, that and they started out as a Canadian publication

fhw

I think what you say is very true. Soundstage reviews are very thorough. And for those who like sound graphs, they show those as well.

the rating did seem very arbitrary.