Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Re: i just purchased some polk lsi7s.... will comp

I've posted before that I like Polk speakers. I think they are among the best mass produced speakers you can pick up at Circuit City or other mass retail outlets. I like them better than the speakers from Infinity, Sony, and certainly, better than Bose.

I've enjoyed a pair of Polk Rt25i bookshelf speakers. I have not had the pleasure of auditioning the LSi series Polks, so I cannot compare them to the M22s. I can comment on the review, however, especially the reviewer's observation that the M22's soundstage does not extend beyond the speaker location.

I've argued with folks on this board as to the relative contributions of source, amplifier, and speakers to soundstage and imaging. My experience has led me to the conclusion that source and amplification play a very large part in the size of the soundstage, imaging and sound quality.

I currently use a pair of Axiom M22 like speakers - the Michaura M55s - they use the same 5.25" aluminum drivers as the M22s, but use the 3/4" titanium tweeter used in the previous generation M2Tis. The M55s use a hex shaped cabinet which like the Axiom trapezoid shaped cabinets avoid standing waves.

I have also had a pair of M22s which were comparable in sound quality, soundstage, imaging, etc., to the M55s. I use these speakers in a 2 channel stereo system with a modest tube amp and a tube output Ah! Njoe Tjoeb CDP.

The M55s cast an enormous soundstage - far wider than the speaker positions - the speakers disappear in a wall of sound - a wall of music, high, wide and fairly deep, and beautiful. I've also used a pair of Michaura M66s, much larger bookshelf speakers than the M22s, which use a pair of 6.5" aluminum drivers - same as the drivers used in the M3s, M40, M50, M60 and M80s. These cast an even higher and deeper soundstage than the M22s or M55s.

BigWill is coming by next week and can verify this. Why would your M22s cast a narrow soundstage with fairly indistinct imaging when mine cast a truly enormous soundstage with exceptional imaging?

Analysis of a few factors may provide an explanation. One factor may be the rest of your equipment - the Axioms are revealing speakers, and if your source and amplification are subpar, perhaps more forgiving, less accurate speakers would work better for you. A second possible reason is that the Polks are simply better than the Axioms. A third possible reason is that you may have an axe to grind.

Normally, we avoid discussing the 'intentional falacy,' however, your review suggests that you may not be a neutral, detached and objective observer. You note the M22's superior midrange but discount that virtue by pointing to the M22s lack of bass, a deficiency. So, you opine that it may only be in relation to the deficient bass that the Axiom's mids sound so good.

The true fact is that the M22s are pretty flat down to about 80Hz, they are honest speakers without bloat - they are not tuned to a lower frequency than they can accurately produce.

If a speaker cannot get the mids right, then you may as well toss them - sound quality is anchored in the midrange.

Does anyone here feel that their Axioms are deficient in the higher frequencies? We all know better. Well, if the M22s get the highs and mids right, then they do everything we can expect from a book shelf speaker.

Stereophile's founder, J. Gordon Holt, has stated that it's in the midrange where music's magic lies: if a speaker doesn't get the midrange right, it doesn't matter what else it does get right. Yet, this reviewer acknowledges that the M22s midrange is superior, but still he damns the M22 with faint praise when comparing it to the Polks.

The M22s lack of bass output is not a defect. We do not expect that a bookshelf speaker will be a full range speaker. We use subs to fill in what we need below 80 Hz.

So, the bottom line is, this fella's review is flawed. It may well be because of the low audio quality of the rest of his equipment, equipment incapable of casting a large soundstage - or it may be that he prefers the lower quality midrange output of the Polks, or it may be that he has an agenda.

Just some thoughts.

2x6spds,

I read your post with great interest, as we have both expressed our thoughts on the importance of source and amplification to the overall balance and quality of a system. I have, over the years created test scenarios and systems comprised of low cost, and extreme high cost equipment - only to determine that source is the most important component. I have 3 distinct systems, ranging from a few thousand in total cost to 10 times that amount. Everytime I have had someone over, I can prove my theory of source to the listener.

But I digress....

You mention 3 factors. I would suggest a fourth - listening room....or in this case, the store. It is typically the most prevelant listener experience to spend the first listening experience in a store. These stores - big box, and not a true audio store with quality listening rooms - are complete with walls of amps, rows of speakers, a comparator switch system controlling ALL various inputs and outputs, low gauge connection wires/cables, multiple customers walking around...the list goes on. Even the stores that attempt to provide "listening rooms" do so with the same mentallity, and rarely will attempt to provide a single system approach.They simply can't, for economic reasons.

A side note - if anyone has ever visited a Linn dealer, they place a SINGLE system (speakers especially) in a room, and listen. If you want to hear another piece, it is removed from the room, and replaced. I was shocked when the rep carried the Isobariks (extremely large speakers) from the room when I asked to here another model!!!! BTW, Linn makes some of the best sources and amplification systems IMO.

I am not suggesting that this review is based on that, but the concepts discussed do show at least a modicum of knowledge. But simply listening in a room at Best Buy is not a great way to critically evaluate speakers - which is what has been done. He does continue the review and testing at home, but as you mention, system limited.

BBIBH

You are absolutely correct. If you audition a pair of speakers which stand among many other speakers, even if the other speakers are not receiving signal their drivers will be excited by the sound waves produced by the speakers which are the subject of the 'demo.' Each driver, in such a listening room, will demonstrate the characteristics of a Helmholtz resonator.

Here are some frequency response plots for the Polk LSi9

Frequency response, 20Hz - 20kHz (measured @ 2m, plotted @ 1m) Loudspeaker sensitivity (averaged 300Hz - 3kHz, 2.83V/1m)

Listening Window, 20Hz - 20kHz (measured @ 2m, plotted @ 1m)

Response curve is an average of five measurements:
on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis,
15 degrees up and down off-axis


Here are the frequency response plots for the M22


Listening Window, 20Hz - 20kHz (measured @ 2m, plotted @ 1m)

Response curve is an average of five measurements:
on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis,
15 degrees up and down off-axis

We can see that both speakers test excellently - the Polks are slightly bumped up in the upper bass region. The Axioms demonstrate remarkably flat response curves.

Where it gets a bit more interesting is if we look at the efficiencies of these speakers (not sensitivity, they both test about the same at 87.5 db.)

The impedance/frequency plot of the Polks show they're a load to drive.


Here's the impedance/frequency plot for the M22s


I'd say the Polks are a more demanding load for an amp, especially a low powered tube amp, than the Axioms because the Polks appear to hit the 2 ohm level and make 4 ohm demands for much of the lower and mid frequencies.

The M22s present as a very easy load except at about 4KHz.

BTW, thanks to SoundStage for their graphs and measurements!

Isn't it interesting how well the Axiom M22s compare to the $1,300 (MSRP) a pair Polk LSi9's?

BTW, the frequency response graphs for the LSi9 v. M22Ti permit 2 further conclusions: (1) the off axis response of the M22s is much better than the Polk LSi9s; (2) the LSi9s suffer from a rather dramatic high frequency drop off at about 10 KHz unless you're directly in line with the radiator tweeter.

That having been said, I feel the need to say it again, I really like Polk speakers, I think they are the class of the litter among mass produced speakers offered at mass retail outlet chain stores.

My Rt25is were wonderful book shelf speakers, easy to drive, efficient, sweet sounding and cheap - not quite in the same class as the M3Tis but still a very good value.

I understand that there are factors that affect the soundstage width, depth... among many other speaker (sound) characteristics.

HOWEVER, if the M22 is powered by a Rotel amp and a Pre/pro that anchors the Paradigm Sig 2 at the SoundForum shop - and, yet, it STILL does not produce soundstage even nearing that of the Paradigm Reference Studio 20s... then how much more can better amplification do? The salesman - a friend of mine - told me that he was being completely unbiased in the shootout I was allowed to do in HIS store said, "the axioms DO seem boxed in."

i concur with his opinion. EVERYONE in the store concured. I was very SADDENED to find this out the hard way - but in my opinion, the M22 do not extend well beyond the two speakers' perimeter.

also, the same EXACT audio source was played everytime in my shootouts and the exact same amplification was used in each speaker - this alone should equalize the field in terms of controllable factors in the shootout. the fact that the axiom m22 always sounded boxed in relative to the all speakers (excluding the RTi) suggest one of two things:

1. The m22 are deficient in soundstage width.
2. My axiom m22 are defective.

Did you connect the M22s?

No one can tell you which speaker you should prefer, but when you report the soundstage of the M22s did not extend past the speaker positions, something just sounds very wrong to me. Maybe the M22s were not properly connected.

In reply to:

---

the fact that the axiom m22 always sounded boxed in relative to the all speakers (excluding the RTi) suggest one of two things:

1. The m22 are deficient in soundstage width.
2. My axiom m22 are defective.

---

Don't forget:

3. The M22s were not positioned well in the room.

When it comes to soundstage -- like they say in real estate -- it's location, location, location that matters. You can make the best speakers in the world sound boxed in by not positioning them well.

During your tests, did you take the time to tweak the positions of the speakers? Just because one speaker souinds great in a certain location doesn't mean another one will.

Room interaction is extremely important to keep in mind when auditioning speakers. It's impossible to rule it out unless you're doing the audition in an anechoic chamber.

May be I did not read all post good enough, but here is wnat happened to me when I bought M60s ( sorry, no 22 exprerience ).

I set them side by side with Piradigm Monitor 7v3,
moved from the wall same distance, TOED IN almost pointing to sweet spot an the very top of my left ear (my SOH suffered from that test ),
and I thought that
M60 DO NOT esxtend beyond outer sides of boxes.

Then, I set M60s almost in parralel with the wall and moved them further AWAY from the wall, like 20".

AND I fell in love...
With only stereo setup it sounds better then surround system
in the living room, even in my so far away from acoustic perfection basement, it fills all of it and goes far beyond, well , speakers dissapired - so how would I know "how further" off speakers it goes.
Point is, 1. room, 2. position
I did even more - I brought M60 ( crazy guy I am )
into dealer's listening room, and, you might not like that - but I did NOT like the sound of M60s in there - I think all the speakers around colored and boomied sound.

So, again 1 ROOM, 2 POSITION
Then again, it used to be a free country - I'm just stating MY opinion :-)

i just love it when it gets like this.. NOT!

bigjohn

firs things first, big john... u dont like it when things get like this? what.. you dont like when someone disagrees about the invincibility of the m22 (or axioms in general)... sorry my friend, but last i checked, axioms werent the only company selling speakers - neither are your ears the only ears everyone else in this world has. a little healthy competition and a little disagreement is healthy for the human spirit anyway =).

i never tried to flame anything nor did i belittle anybody - lets get that out of the way. i am merely carrying a civil conversation with the rest of my axiom brethren (i still own the axioms) regarding other speakers... no harm in that.

ok ok.. enough of that... lets see, where were we? oh, extension of soundstage.. yes.

ok, here is what i did. i toed in the speakers, i even exchanged the speakers on the stands (axioms were on the farther stands, then into the inside stands). nothing truely changed the soundstage width RELATIVE to the other speakers.. the only thing that managed to somewhat widen the soundstage was... you said it... making the m22s parallel to the walls alongside it.

BUT, this came with a cost... the imaging was SEVERELY compromised right down center!

On my other threads over at the HTF, several other posters told me that the m22s are hampered by the not so great soundstage beyond the speaker limits... i guess im not the only one.

lastly, i am not trying to flame the axiom m22, i am merely stating my opinions on the subject. the m22 are a fine speaker - and a great one for the price... PERIOD.