Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo M60's vs Rockets Home Audtion saga

That's a great job of comparing speakers, and articulately stating your views. I hope you'll stick around and post now and then. Thanks.

Excellent review. I have a pair of M60's and had to throw on my Dark Side of the Moon CD to see if I got the same effect. Didn't seem so to me but I can't do a side by side comparison with the Rockets. When I upgraded to M60's from my Abstract Acoustics the first thing a noticed was the tightness of the bass on the M60's - they didn't sound boomy at all.

Sean

Thanks for the excellent input murray. I'm sure you will enjoy the 750s for years to come. Assuming you figure out the Denon .

Not meaning to step on anyones toes here but ...

The Denon actually might have trouble running those M80's at sustained high volume . The Denon is only rated stable to 6 ohms .

I had this problem with my Thiels over heating a Denon 5800 (Which supposedly could play satble down to 3.2 ohms tlb) and switched to Sunfires stereo amp which has been trouble free.

Also ... As a firm believer in break-in and the proud owner of M22's and M3's .... I test all speakers before and after and IMO they both definately benefitted from a wee bit of break in.

Definately not as much as some others , but benefit none the less.

At first the M22's where a tiny bit harsh and thin on the bottom end . So I took some notes on songs and played them for a few days with out listening ... then went back to them and the rough spots were gone and the bottom end seemed more natural and slightly fuller.

The M3's were identical in the highs as the M22's , but much weaker in the midrange and the bottom end although present was a tad compressed as I noticed the decays in certain instruments seemed too quick. I played these for a few days as well ... not listening to them and returned to the same music and voilà! The evened out beautifully.

The M22's in particular produce a wonderful clean clear soundstage and the mids and highs are fabulous. NOTHING like the way Drmurray described the M60's.

The difference before and after break-in is very subtle on these IMO but there none the less. I know I am disagreeing with the resident expert here ... but this is a theory I've tested over and over in speakers having owned more brands then I can remember.

To be sure these do not require heavy break-in like some speakers I've had. As an example ... My Sunfire Signature Subs (2 of them) required many many hours of break-in (Real pounding actually)... I would say easily 200 hours to fully loosen up those beasts of stiff surrounds. The difference was measurable in absolute output at various frequencies.

I argued this over at AVS ... one reviewer there tested this theory on output of the subs tested ... his findings agreed with mine and he found that indeed the output level produced a measurable change on 2 of 3 subs tested before and after break-in. 2 VERY popular subs ... mentioned in this thread.

Anyway ... I personally think the M80's would have been a better match , if for no other reason than the mismatch of driver configuration . The 750's use 4 5.25" drivers which is going to tip up the mid range much like the M22's do which produces a wonderful soundstage and fantastic detail.

I'm guessing the 60's much like the M3's may be tipped up slightly in bass where as the double mids and tweets on the 80's would have given him the detail he was looking for. That's what happens though when you compare apples to oranges.

Knowing the Vifa tweeter quite well ... I'm wondering how much he'll like it in a few months . Personally I feel it's one of the few tweeters that sounds better newer than after many months when to my ears they get flat (Or as some put it "They smooth out")

The Axiom tweeters I like a LOT.

As a musician for many many years I can say for a fact that Live is sometimes harsh or brite ... this is a fact ... Accurate reproduction will also sometimes be harsh or bright . I don't expect a speaker to smooth this out ... if it does it's taking something away that should be there. Accuracy means that SOME recordings won't sound that great because THEY WERE NOT.

But at least you are getting what was intended.

I got my M80's, VP150 and QS8's on Monday and one thing I noticed was that the M80's are EXTREMELY sensitive to positioning. I could vastly change the soundstage just by toeing in the speakers just a few degrees or by separating the speakers a few more inches. I had a friend over last night who sat in the "prime spot" and told me "better or worse" as I moved the M80's around. Seems like the M80's and probably the M60's, in my home theater area anyway, like to be spread almost as far apart as the distance from them to the seating area and like to be toed in about 15degrees or so.

I heard differences in songe with width and depth of soundstage just by positioning and soundstage. I didn't try increasing the distance from the M80's to the back wall to see if that would make a difference. Additionally, I have an SVS 20-39PCi almost right next to each of the M80's (on the outside).

I don't know if this is typical that positioning would affect the soundstage of speakers this much or if the Rockets just aren't as sensitive. I would suggest, however, that people who try out the Axioms, especially the M60/M80 floorstanders, play with positioning A LOT to get the soundstage that these speakers are portrayed as having.

I've just listened to 2 channel music the past few days - but I just got my QS8's mounted so I'll update on how movies sound. My previous surround setup, to be frank, was terrible. (I was using Infinity powered bookshelf speakers on stands even with the listening position - so my surrounds were direct radiators at ear level which was FAR from optimal) I listened to the first 30 seconds of Matrix: Revolutions last night and was amazed at the envelopment provided by the QS8's. I'll be doing more critical HT listening in the next few days.

I think that is typical of towers with many drivers ... in my experience anyway with a few exceptions. This I think is due to tactile pressure and the wall of sound that you get from the large speakers and multiple drivers . (That would be my guess anyway)

That's one of the reasons I like bookshelves and good quality stands.

The M22's and M3's were very easy to set up and the soundstage is fantastic. The sound surrounds the speakers very nicely setting players up in space and producing nice depth.

Adding a sub into the mix creates even great space in the soundstage ... truly phenominal.

In reply to:

---

The Denon actually might have trouble running those M80's at sustained high volume . The Denon is only rated stable to 6 ohms

---

The rating is moot.
The Denons have been tried and true with the M80s for quite some time now which is why Axiom recommends them (along with H/K).
You cannot compare what the Thiels may do to a receiver against the M80s. They are not the same speaker regardless of the listed average ohm rating.

In reply to:

---

As a firm believer in break-in and the proud owner of M22's and M3's .... I test all speakers before and after and IMO they both definately benefitted from a wee bit of break in.

---

Like so many others have gone before you, they all conclude that speakers break-in without having accounted for the largest variable in the listening test...their own mental preconceptions.
You cannot control this consciously.
That is why Axiom uses blind tests for such experiments and have concluded the following.
These are not casual listening tests but are experimental results from a controlled setting. The general theory on break-in is fundamentally flawed as the experimental process for concluding the results as fact did not cover a major influencing variable.
A submitted paper for publication with such an experimental design would get tossed into the "completely unacceptable" pile. Return to writer with suggestions on redoing the experiment.

I've heard this arguement many times and trust me ... I'm not imagining anything.

As I said in some instances the difference was measured.

Further what that link describes is in fact simply getting accoustomed to a speaker through listening.

The tests I have run for years on various speakers have all been before and after tests .

Listen for an hour and take notes of things that stand out good or bad.

Then let play for a few days and listen again to the exact same passages.

The difference is most cases is very subtle ... but definately there with some brands more than others.

I've found this to be especially true of any passive radiator system where the PR usually takes a few good days or even weeks to reach an efficient peak.

This is also true of any really stiff surround driver.

Most all subs in my experience improve with time

Petre,
This is not an argument, this is fact. This is the reality of how science proves what is real and what is just perceived as real.

I never doubt that you believe what you heard. No one ever wants to think that what they immediately see or hear is wrong, but our brains are easily fooled and easily biased by things as simple as how you felt that day, or what colours you have on your walls, etc. etc. What i question is that you even know what bias your mind had before coming to a conclusion regarding the phenomena you report. The mere statement that you made regarding playing the speakers, w/o llistening to them, in order to break them in says that you were expecting already to hear a difference following a break in period. Once the perception of a speaker requiring break-in has been planted, you will always believe that all speakers need break-in. This is the very nature of human thought and experience, but it doesn't mean it is a fact.

If you have some measured difference, by all means, share the data with us. Tell us how you measured, what you measured, where was it done, what were the controls, what were the variables.
I have yet to come across a single published paper that has valid scientific proof of speaker break-in related to perceivable and human heard observations but if you have proof, let it be evaluated by your peers.

I always find it so amazing how so many ppl can conclude the speaker is the source for the cause of changes in sound with break-in and yet bringing them another possibility, that it is their own auditory response to new sound which makes a temporal difference, they just cannot accept it.