Some of you may wonder how would M60s compare to a really high end speaker.
I was fortunate to have Meadowlark Blue Heron 2 speakers in my dedicated audio room for a week, which I compared closely to my M60s. The Blue Heron 2 is a high end (about $12k), floor standing, three-way, time & phase coherent design (Vanderstein, Thiel, etc). They weigh 110 lbs each.
http://www.meadowlarkaudio.com/bh2.htm
Over a week, I did about 100 A/B tests with a wide variety of material, inc'l CD, SACD, and Dolby 5.1 HT. About 80% of the comparisons "direct stereo" mode with all DSP off. All tests were volume-compensated to the same loudness. We did a few blind tests, but most were non-blind. From one to four listeners participated.
Executive summary: the Meadowlarks were definitely better (they'd better be at 13x the price), but the M60s weren't bad. You can't beat Axiom for the price, or several times the price. I did a few tests of Meadowlark stereo vs. Axiom surround (both discrete SACD and PLII). That's fair because collectively all my Axiom speakers plus sub cost a fraction of the Meadowlarks. For some material, that tilted things in favor of Axiom, at least to some listeners.
Visually of course the Meadowlarks were stunning. To my eye they're among the most beautiful of floor standing speakers.
Details
=====
Listening room: 17x20 ft. Cloth-covered fiberglass acoustic panels on left, right and rear walls. Listening position: about 13 ft from main speakers.
Speaker config: Meadowlark Blue Heron 2, Axiom M60, VP150, QS8, Hsu VTF-3R sub. All speaker wire 12 gauge zip cord.
Equipment: Yamaha RX-V1400 receiver, Sony DVP-NC685V SACD player.
The Meadowlarks are incredibly efficient. Their specs indicate 1-2 db less efficient than the M60s, but white noise tests with a RS sound meter show them 4-5 db MORE efficient at typical listening levels.
Overall the Meadowlark sound is musical, full, expansive. The sound stage and stereo imaging seemed fuller, more three dimensional, better resolved than the M60s. No hint of brightness, yet no feel of missing something, not laid back, no rolled off highs. It didn't call attention to itself with any colorization or exaggerated characteristic. By comparison the M60s sounded accurate, "technical", bright, somewhat forward. None of that in a bad way, just a different sound quality.
Price not considered, I significantly preferred the Meadowlarks, esp for stereo material. The difference was dramatic to most listeners. The tonal quality was more pleasing, very musical and detailed. If it was false coloration, I liked it
Ah, but price is a factor for most people. Also the decision of pure stereo vs surround is an issue. An all-Meadowlark surround config would further magnify the price difference.
For well-engineered surround music (e.g. Pink Floyd DSOTM) the Axiom 5.1 config (inc'l Hsu VTF-3R sub) was often more impressive than 6 channels downmixed to stereo on the Meadowlarks. That might seem like cheating (2 ch vs 5.1), but it's one valid comparison, esp if surround music is important to you.
However stereo vs stereo the Meadowlarks beat the M60s most of the time for most listeners. We noticed an odd effect: Switching from Meadowlarks to M60s, the M60s didn't sound so bad. I kept thinking, "it's just a little different, not hugely worse". But switching back the OTHER way, from M60s to Meadowlarks, was a Wow! experience. I don't know why the difference. Volume was normalized to the same level.
I'm not a believer in super-audiophile interconnects, or that modern solid-state amps have a characteristic sound (if tested at identical volume levels in direct stereo mode with all DSP disabled). However there's no question that speakers are often audibly different. It's true you don't always get better sound for more dollars invested. It's also true different listeners have different preferences. However my experience shows people buying high end speakers aren't necessarily throwing away their money for no audible difference, buying just for status, etc. In my tests, there was a significant difference most (but not all) listeners described as superior.
The Meadowlarks (along with Vanderstein, Thiel, etc) belong to the "time and phase coherent" camp of speaker design. I'm agnostic on the relevance of that, but whatever the reason, the Meadowlarks sounded very nice.
OTOH I have absolutely no qualms about my M60s, VP150, and QS8s. They sound superb. Many, many people have had overwhelmingly favorable reactions. "I can't believe it", "it's soooo clear", "I didn't know it could sound so good", etc.
There are many factors that greatly affect sound besides speakers. The big two are room acoustics and source material. If someone is thinking about spending a lot more money (than Axioms) on speakers, they might well consider having their listening area professionally analyzed and treated. That can make a big difference, for a fraction of the cost of high end speakers.
Likewise source material quality makes a big difference. A well engineered album sounds vibrant, detailed and three dimensional (on either M60s or Meadowlarks), and a poorly engineered album (even on Meadowlarks) sounds flat, muddy and lifeless.
Done over again, the only thing I'd do differently is upon getting my M60s is I'd drag them to a higher-end audio place for some A/B tests with their speakers. I doubt it would make a difference, since store brands usually can't compete with Axiom on a price/performance basis. But audio is a very personal taste, like food or wine.
