Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo large room, small speakers

The driver surface area on an M22 is roughly the same as an M3, so any additional surface area would come from the sub and only be effective below the crossover freq. I expect there would be a difference in quality of sound, but not so much in terms of ability to play at higher volumes.

This is based on a lot of testing of M2 + sub vs M60, M3 and M40 at various times, not M22s, but for casual listening (where casual does not imply low quality) I ended up going with M40s and being very happy.

Really? That surprises me, though I admit I never looked at it closely.

OK, curiosity got the better of me so I calculated the increased area of the M22. If you compare the 1x6.5" of the M3 to the 2x5.5 of the M22, the M22 has 43% more cone area, a fair increase. It also ups the efficiency slightly and has slightly better power handling.

OK, playing with a power calculator, you are only going to get 2db more out of the M22. You can still reach 95db at 68w with the M3, at 4 metres. Given that this is well inside the maximum power handling of 175w for the M3, they should still sound good.

Interesting. I guess there really is not much difference in volume between the two.

Just enough for the M22s to be noticeably louder.

I have M22s and my father has M3s. I took my M22s to his house one day and we compared the two sets. They both seemed to play equaly loud and clear as far as we could stand being in the room listening. :-) As for quality of sound, well I prefer the way the M22s blend perfectly with a sub woofer, while my father prefers the richness of the M3s. I guess we both have the speakers we like in the end.

I have learned something. Thanks all. Too bad I am not in the market for a new small speaker.

Thanks everyone!



This is the conclusion I am coming to. If I wanted big sound I would need a lot more power for starters, and then look at different speakers.

For what I want, which is not big sound, I think M3s would suffice.

>>OK, curiosity got the better of me so I calculated the increased area of the M22. If you compare the 1x6.5" of the M3 to the 2x5.5 of the M22, the M22 has 43% more cone area, a fair increase. It also ups the efficiency slightly and has slightly better power handling.

If you measure the active cone area the difference is quite a bit smaller. Measuring to the center of the surround the sizes are 5" and 3.75" respectively, which results in about 12% area difference.

The Axiom specs indicate that M22 has roughly 1dB higher efficiency relative to M3 and essentially the same power handling (200W vs 175W) so in terms of ability to play loud I would say the two are essentially the same. AFAIK you buy M22s for the sound, not for their ability to play loud.

>>For what I want, which is not big sound, I think M3s would suffice.

Yep. IMO you would need to step up to M50s or M60s to get a "bigger" sound. I guess the simplistic picture is that M50s sound like big M3s, M60s sound like big M22s, and M80s sound like big M60s

So if I wanted to get a pair of bookshelves for my kitchen (and no sub) (to run off my second channel on my 2309) which would sound better as a standalone speaker at low to moderate volume? (Kitchen area and table area combinesd 24' long. Speakers at the end of the table area facing into the kitchen area throwing the 24' length)

There is ongoing debate about M3 vs M22; M22 strictly speaking goes slightly deeper on bass, but M3 has a bit of a bass "bump" which gives the illusion of deeper bass without the bass bump being obvious (as it is with, say, Paradigm Atoms). I really like M3s, even though I ended up with M40s.

M2s are wonderful speakers but really benefit from a sub.

I haven't had a chance to compare M3s with Algonquins; if they are close enough in sound then Algonquins would be an interesting choice because you could haul them outside for the summer.