Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Review of my M60's (long)

As I had promised, I am posting my opinion on my newly acquired M60ti's. I received them Monday and have only spent about three hours total listening to them, but I think I've heard enough of them to provide a personal review. Keep in mind that I'm not an audio expert like a lot of you, but I think I can provide a decent description of what I hear.

I'll first explain that when I got the speakers home, I immediatly uplugged my Infinity RS4's and hooked up the M60's to my system which is powered by a Denon 3802 receiver. I sort of regretted that I didn't give a quick listen to my previous speakers first so I could do an immediate comparison (I was way too excited to hear the Axiom's). So instead of doing a comparison of the Infinity RS4's to the Axiom's M60's, it was the other way around so to speak. Generally, it probably doesn't matter which order you compare speakers, but I'm thinking that if they are your own, you should listen to the old ones first before the new ones in order to feel immediate satisfaction about your new purchase. The only reason I mention this is because in all honestly, I didn't get the "Wow!" factor that I so hoped for and expected upon my first listen of the Axiom's. This is not to say that I wasn't impressed with them to start with, but I wasn't in awe about them either. I guess it's just a personal preference. It's like knowing a surprise before it happens which doesn't make it fun anymore...if that makes any sense! Of course, if the old speakers sounded *better* than the new, the letdown would be greater. Oh, well!

I'll also tell you that listening to the Axiom's the very first time was with my roommate who prefers deep thumpy bass whereas I like crystal clear highs and natural tight bass. Her comments may have had an influence on what I initially thought about the Axioms. The first cd we listened to was Keiko Matsui's "Live" cd which may have not been the best choice, but it was one that I listen to often.

My roommate thought too much highs were present and not enough bass. Well, to test to the speakers, I had turned off the subwoofer. For me, I had no problem with the bass output...I thought it sounded wonderful right from the start. In fact, leaving the sub on with it's current setting at 80Hz and turned half way up sounded muddy with the M60's (I'll have to figure out a new adjustment for the sub).

As for the treble, I must admit that I was in agreement with my roommate...at first! At this point, I decided to plug back in my RS4's. As I listened a bit to the same tracks from the cd, I was expecting the treble of the RS4's to be much more laid back than the M60's, but was surprised that the output was about the same (volume wise). The treble was just as loud as the M60's, but did seem a lot "warmer" from the RS4's. I thought it must have to do with the differences in the tweeter material. That may have been part of it, but after a closer listen, the difference was definitely in the clarity of the highs. Although the M60's seemed "bright" in comparison to the RS4's, the treble was more detailed and "real" with the M60's. I was surprised that this so-called "brightness" actually sounded more real. Perhaps, what was perceived as "warm" with the RS4's may have been the lack of clarity and detail. However, I cannot say that all speakers which I describe as "warm" lack clarity and detail. In my opinion, they just do not seem as "open". This is how I felt about B&W 603's when I listened to them. I heard detail and clarity (only with levels turned up), but they were not as open and free...very restrained in my opinion. This is why I didn't like them.

During the second day of listening, the "wow" factor had indeed started to kick in! Yes, I would have liked the sensation sooner, but I was not at all disappointed. In fact, I'm loving these speakers with every new listen. Specifically, I've really enjoyed listening to music with acoustic guitar, jazz drums, and female vocals. The realism in these sounds is hard to describe. I hate repeating the same adjectives, but they are so clear and detailed. One other thing that I noticed was that you can pump a lot of volume through the M60's without them sounding harsh. Although one might not find the volume pleasing, the sounds remain clear and tight. This is not achieved with my RS4's.

Needless to say, the M60's will remain in my home. I'm anxious to get the rest of the set to complete my home theater. The Infinity center channel that I have now just doesn't sound very good with the M60's.

Overall, I feel the M60's are a very balanced speaker, with all ranges in sound coming out equally. Perhaps, the highs are a little too detailed for some, but this is my personal preference. Before I knew of Axiom, I almost purchased Klipsch RF3's because of their detailed highs. They also got excellent reviews. But I listened to them on two different occasions to be sure that I liked them and was disappointed the second time around. To me, the Klipsch's horn tweeter was not shrilly or harsh, but it seemed like whatever sounds dominated them, like electric guitars and vocals, seemed to take over the speaker and not let much of anything else through. Basically, it seemed that the instruments were not playing together. Anyway, that's a whole other story.

For the gentleman who wanted to hear my thoughts of the Axiom's as compared to the Boston Acoustics VRM-60's . I can't recall the exact sound of the BA's, but I do remember them being very detailed. In my opinion, the Axiom's sound is similar...very "airy" in the highs. I had also listened to the VRM-90's which are the floor standing model. First of all, they were way too expensive, and to my surprise, I actually didn't like the sound as much as the bookshelf speakers! I can't remember exactly why. There is no doubt in my mind that you will enjoy your Axiom's when you get them. It seems like to me that most everyone here has similar taste in sound.

OK, that's all folks....phew!
Mary

Glad you enjoy your M60s, Mary. Your ears and brain seem to have had a quicker "break-in" (the speakers don't change)to the new sound than your room-mates'.

A suggestion about your subwoofer, which you didn't describe. If it's good enough that you want to use it along with the M60s, be careful about overlapping them too much, which might be the "muddy" effect you noticed. I'd suggest setting the speakers to "small" on your 3802 to cross over the M60s and sub around 80hz. Then turn the crossover on the sub all the way up(or bypass it if your sub has that option)and leave it there to get it out of the way of the crossover on your Denon.

Mary,
I have a similar setup (M50s with the Denon 3802) and I am curious as to how you listen to your music. I am assuming you listen to it direct w/ no sub as opposed to stereo with a sub. I am currently messing around (not experienced enough yet to say tweaking!) my 2 week old receiver with my 3 week old speakers and trying to find the perfect sound.

Colesy

A lovely long review.
I think your personal perspective of your new speakers are just as valid as anyone else regardless of your experience in home electronics. As for "experts like us", that is simply flattering, and according to Randyman, flattery will get you everywhere.

I think very few of the forum posters could be considered actual experts. Maybe audio enthusiasts and the odd audiophile but the true fulltime 'experts' like Alan and Ian are rare. I'm personally waiting for Alan to write a book.
Maybe we should start another poll on what people on the Axiom forums consider themselves to be classified as, just for interest sake.

There have been a couple of lengthy reviews over the past several months and i found them to be quite helpful in trying to understand or comprehend all the nuances of the sound of speakers, Axioms or otherwise.
I would have to say that your impression of the M60s seems very similar to my own. The first day i received my M60s i hooked them up right away and was expecting to be 'blown away', but i sadly was not. It took about a day for me to begin understanding that the speakers just sounded very different from what i was used to hearing. Then i had to decide if this new sound was better than the old sound so i started to scrutinize the various sound ranges, low, medium, highs. I also had the same preconceptions as yourself but instead, my mind had to adjust to the new type of sound.
After playing several types of songs (classical, jazz, rock, instrumentals and vocals) the conclusions i made about the M60 brightness coincide with your own evaluation. There is a clarity at the high end that smashes my other speaker listening sensations to bits. The best way of discerning this was to use QUALITY recordings. Much of my favorite music was put to the test on these speakers but only the really well recorded songs could show me just how detailed the Axioms were and hence, the word 'bright' was possibly better described by 'superb clarity in the high range'.
As for the bass thing, again, on my first day, i was surprised at how much bass seemed to be missing from the music. It wasn't so much that the bass was missing but instead, it was being played properly. THe bass was tight, not overbearing and fit seamlessly into the rest of the music. Those who prefer the loud thumpy bass really are not looking for true sound, but instead want an overplayed range in the low end frequencies. Often this works well in dance clubs so you can feel a rhythm above the din but doesn't do much for that Diana Krall vocal type music. If she hits a piano key or someone plays a cello note, i would prefer to hear her voice in concert with the note and not have the sound boom and shake things in the basement.

JohnK makes a good point about the new sub settings but keep in mind, you can also keep the M60s set at Large (instead of small) in your receiver settings and simply turn down the crossover on your sub to lower levels. Both methods have the effect of reducing the same sound frequencies that the sub and M60s will play simultaneously (the muddy sound). I simply preferred the tight bass of the M60s for music ranging down to 50Hz or so as opposed to the sound of my EP350 sub playing frequencies up to 80Hz or beyond. Try both methods and you will find a nice range i'm sure.

If you decide on any further Axiom purchases, keep the reviews comin. Come to think of it, i have yet to post anything myself on my EP350 and VP150.

Ditto from me for most of chesseroo's comments!
(geeze - he loves to type!)
I think you did a great job of describing what you hear/experience.

When I first got my M50s I was LESS than WOWed! Compared to my big Sonys, I thought man, these 50s SHOULD really sound a lot better than my 15 year old speakers! So after about 2 weeks of back and forth and some hair pulling, (and I don't have too much more to loose!) that's when I decided to go for the 60s. I had much more of the "WOW" factor when I got them - but mostly because there was so much difference between the 50s and the 60s. But I think the real "WOW" factor is over rated. If indeed you DO get it, then you MUST have been using Bose speakers before (HA! a subtle joke)

Anyway - thanks for a great review - and stick around the forums. I always appreciate all views AND reviews.

Randyman

Colesy,
Actually I do listen on stereo mode from the Denon with the sub, but I'm not exactly sure if I prefer it that way. When I play in direct mode with my Toshiba 2109 DVD player, the sound is a little brighter. I haven't decided which way I like better. So it seems as if we're in the same boat! The only other cd player I have is a dual Sharp minidisc/cd player deck. I don't really use this player at all except for recording and playing back minidiscs (unless the Toshiba doesn't like to take my cds...which it's been doing lately). When I do use it, I use stereo mode from the Denon. Do you have a really good cd player? I've been curious about those $1000+ cd players to see if they are at all worth the money. I can't imagine paying that much for a cd player!

Mary

Alan had some remarks on cd players not long ago. On the quality of systems most ppl here own, a largely expensive cd player would not show much of a difference. Even with true hifi equipment, the differences in present day cd players would be very small.
So far i've found the largest sound difference in cd players comes from the time they were made. I had a 10 year old Technics which i recently paired up against my new Panasonic and the difference was audible (major diff in DACs being the most probable cause). But the Panasonic vs. anything else newer that i had (a Denon and a Hitachi), provided no distinguishable differences according to my feeble ears with my Axiom setup.

Interesting. When I first set up my M3s, I grabbed a Technics SADX940 receiver for power and dusted off a 9 year old JVC carousel CD player. Sounded great. I did my research and ordered a Cambridge Audio D500SE, a supposed "giant killer." Hooked it up, let it burn in for a week, sat down and was stunned. The JVC blew it away. The Cambridge had a boomy, blowsy bass, unremarkable mids. The JVC provided honest straightforward music reproduction.

I finally went with an Ah! Njoeb Tjoeb CD player, upgraded the output tubes with Ediswans, got the premium power cord, yadayada ... lightened my purse considerably, and indeed, did improve on the JVC's sound. It is now accurate, but rich, full, I dunno, expensive sounding.

Anyway, the moral of the story is, find a nice JVC carousel CDP for $10 at a garage sale, get a nice used Technics SADX940-1050 for under $200 and enjoy those M3s!!!

Chesseroo,

You and I were the biggest debaters on this fact. I agree with you that most modern CD and DVD players, particularly Japanese models, are virtually interchangeable in sound quality. However, having finally broken down and auditioned so-called "mid-fi" players and bought an Arcam CD72, there IS a difference in performance with a pricier player (apart from the balance on my credit card statement). I almost went with a NAD, but there are complaints all over the net about it's reliability and build quality.

Doing a head-to-head with my JVC DVD player, the Arcam does a better job separating vocals and instruments, and bringing rhythm instruments more prominently into the fold. In some cases, the additional detail can be a detriment...true hard rock is supposed to sound a little "muddy", after all. However, with most other music (esp. jazz and classical music), the difference has been enormous, and I'm hearing new details on albums I thought I knew note-for-note. Not just details like the buzzing of John Coltrane's saxophone reed, but shocking revelations like ANOTHER guitar in the mix of U2's "Achtung Baby". It's been a blast listening to my oldest CDs with a new life to them.

Worth the extra cash? What the hell, a little extra debt keeps hair growing on the chest as it slowly fades from the crown.

I knew Alan had a good rant on some of this material not long ago.
Alan's rant

But i'm still always up for auditioning new components if i can find it locally.

Do you have a price and a web locale on some info about the Arcam?
I really have not been 100% happy with the panasonic i just bought but perhaps more auditioning against other players will help me to finalize my buying jitters. If the sound is similar in the areas that i think it might be then i will be happy with the Panasonic. If however the Arcam is any smoother somehow...oh, its tempting.
But to be honest, my preconceived notion even before i even audition it is that i don't think i will hear a difference.
I guess we shall see.