Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners The Mother of All Posts, Part I

Pictures.......................finally.

Nooooow I understand your avatar. Great post. Have you considered selling it in a bound format?

wow Mark. Thank you so much for your thoughts and experiences. I'll definately be bookmarking this post for future reference.

Thanks!

Well, Mark, your post is the only one that's ever taken me two sessions to read and study. I got about half way through and then took off to do a couple of investment and tax answers on another board. Now, with everything digested and all those details, yet another one is when you set the M60s "large", what is the subwoofer mode on the 3805 set to? If LFE, then the 350 gets LFE from 5.1 material(if any)plus the below 100 Hz bass from the QS8s and VP150. If the mode is set LFE+Main, M60s run full-range and the 350 also doubles the M60 bass below 100Hz.

On your point about being able to do a more accurate equalization if the parametric EQ had manually adjustable parameters, I believe that only the new Yamaha 2500 provides for this. Although the details on them aren't entirely clear yet, the two apparently most advanced systems(HK635 developed by Dr. Toole's group and Denon 5805/4806 where Denon licensed the MultEQ system)don't seem to provide for full manual control.

WOW! That's th most comprehensive and detailed post I've ever seen. The photography was stunning. (guys, I think he's looking to work for Axiom ) Incredibly good job, Mark!

i think mark is seeing a whole team of "specialists"...

i havent even read it all yet, but i know it will be worth it. give me a few days. this one will get bookmarked for sure for future reference. should be required reading for all newbies. not just for the information, but so they can see the kind of lunatics we got around here..

BTW- great job on the center stand. from design, to finish. just a great job. its obvious you are a craftsman who is meticulous in your work. very well done.

bigjohn

Very nice Mark, from all sides of the hobby!

Wow, Mark - that is a REVIEW! When I get a library addition on the house, I'll order the leather-bound set. I have no room for it right now.

I was 57 when I sat down to read this thing. When I finished, I understood how tough it must have been for Rip Van Winkle. My children have grown, married and moved out of the the house. An old woman just entered to den claiming to be my wife, but my wife never had a hunch back, so I've got to figure out who this is. This will be difficult since I apparently no longer live in the same house as I did when I started to read the review. Hmmmm, odd sensation having only 3 teeth and I've also got an overpowering desire to go to a Willy Nelson concert.

Anyhow - the input is articulate, long, fabulous, long and extremely well thought out. Did I mention long? The depth and breadth of the information is not only educationally effective, but for the most part, it will be meaningful to anyone who reads it. Some, like me, will experience headaches and vertigo with the technical stuff, but there's nothing wrong with that. This will be perfect for the newbie who wants to learn AND age at the same time.

Please - don't let my attempt at humor detract from your effort. This is a wonderful piece of work and you should be proud of it. Good on you.

Ray

Ray

Hi Mark,

I'll add to the chorus of appreciation. That is a wonderful piece of work, and Axiom ought not lose it.

Thank you very much for sharing yourself in such a meaningful way.

Now, get back to work!

- Tom

From your review:

As mentioned, I have found that there are good and bad recordings, and the Axioms make you very aware of that. [snip] Still, it's unfortunate that the discs I have aren't more uniform. Just a moment ago, as I'm writing this, I popped in U2s' "War", expecting thunderous beats from Larry Mullen, Jr. and I didn't get them. There really wasn't much punch to them at all. Again, I don't blame the Axioms (recent U2 releases sound much improved) my old speakers just never allowed me to hear how mediocre this CD sounded!

In my own time as a recording artist, we almost always mixed with an ear for the low end gear (i.e. radios and boomboxes). Indeed, we'd do a rough mix, make a CD, play it on three or four CD players, from high end to low end, and base all retweaking on how the low end sounded. As a general matter, we found that it sounded "least bad" across the spectrum of gear if we mixed to the lowest common denominator. If you mix for the high-end gear, it's hard to keep the mix from sounding muddy (esp. vocals) on the things that people listen to the most - boomboxes and, these days, little computer speakers. That was the justification, anyway, for having almost all of the EQing on the tracks push the mid-highs and highs, and to a lesser extent trim the lows.

Do I regret that decision now! All of our recordings sound seeringly bright (EDIT: on my axioms, I mean), with sibelance to break the band. Everything is clear, but the vocals are just piercing. Fortunately, I own the tapes and tracks, and I think I'm going to remix/remaster the material. I think had we had a better engineer in the first place (ours was good, but not great), we could have found a way to balance good sound for the boombox set and good clear sound sans sharp high end.

I'm not attempting to hijack your massive, impressive thread. I just thought I'd mention this - it happens, it's real. Mixing for the masses can lead to the kind of experience to which you refer, Mark. Indeed, I am not surprised to hear that your hi res experience with Aerosmith was "bright." They're a classic example of a band that does "mix for the masses."