Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Outdoor Speaker Placement

Speaker Placement: Unusual Room Layouts and Elevating Speakers

Wall'O'Fame
Greetings fellow Axiom owners...
HG Rosewoods Part 3
Who's Online
3 registered (Ken.C, SirQuack, MarkSJohnson), 48 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13312 Members
11 Forums
22855 Topics
403807 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17754
pmbuko 16268
SirQuack 13325
CV 11170
MarkSJohnson 10856
Meanwhile On Facebook

Hurry - sale ends Sunday!

Get a Gift Card Worth 20% of Your Purchase! Save hundreds!

Got your new In-Ceiling speakers yet? #atmosready http://axiomaudio.com/m3-in-c...

(y) Can't wait for the next evolution of surround sound to go mainstream!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#92306 - 04/26/05 09:55 AM Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
I'm curious to hear what stereo amps people are using to drive their M50's. Thanks!!
_________________________

Top
#92307 - 04/26/05 12:17 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
ravi_singh Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 03/14/02
Posts: 1351
Loc: Montreal
i\m not
but try Cambridge Audio Azur products

Top
#92308 - 04/26/05 12:55 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Merkaba Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 83
Loc: NL, Canada
I use the NAD C320 integrated amp with my M60's and it's great. I can't imagine it being ungreat with the 50's
_________________________
Axiom M60ti Hsu VTF-2 Mk2 NAD C320BEE NAD C542 Systemdek IIX Cables by Unity Audio

Top
#92309 - 04/27/05 04:25 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
Yea, was thinking of the NAD 352, Maybe a Marantz PM7200. They have a warm sound. MAYBE the M50ti needs a brighter amp???? For Rock, Pop, Dance....

ALAN LOFFT...Any ideas??
_________________________

Top
#92310 - 04/27/05 05:20 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
chesseroo Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 4801
Loc: western canada
Twebbz, i doubt Alan will be helping you to find any 'bright' or {insert adjective here} amps anytime in the future.
They are tons of amps out there to choose from. I suggest starting with budget and features then move to aesthetics. Apparently sound quality starts at $30 and a handful of AA batteries these days.

_________________________
"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."

Top
#92311 - 04/27/05 08:28 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
I guess I'm naive to think a company would want to make suggestions on necessary products that would compliment something they're trying to sell. Good research makes for a good purchase and without consumer & expert recommendations, where would THIS company's products be?
IN RETAIL STORES.
_________________________

Top
#92312 - 04/27/05 09:29 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
JohnK Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 05/11/02
Posts: 10379
TW, I believe that the point chess was making is that Alan is far too experienced in this area to suggest that a "warm", "bright", or whatever amplifier is either necessary or even possible. The object of competent amplifier design is to produce transparent amplification which doesn't audibly change the sound other than to amplify it. This is commonly available these days at quite low cost. So, don't be misled by some of the nonsense we somewhat read about having to "match" speakers and receiver/amps. Get the features that you want at a price that fits your budget.
_________________________
-----------------------------------

Enjoy the music, not the equipment.



Top
#92313 - 04/27/05 09:59 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5355
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
Exactly. Alan has all kinds of good advice regarding speakers and amplifiers in just about every other area you could imagine... it's just that not a lot of people believe that one amplifier is "brighter" than another.

For those who do believe, I think the conventional wisdom is "Yamaha bright, Denon slightly bright, Marantz slightly warm, HK most warm". I haven't looked into it much because I have *not* heard any difference myself.

On the other hand I do consistently hear a small difference between a small solid state amp working hard and a big powerful amp loafing along... with the big powerful amp sounding better every time. Interestingly enough, in THAT comparison the little amp always seems to sound a bit "brighter" (thinner actually) than the big amp so that might be where some of the alleged brand differences come from.

Top
#92314 - 04/27/05 10:04 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5355
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
I'm just guessing, but I think most of the M50 owners on here are using them with AV receivers instead of stereo amps. Might be worth broadening the question to "what are you driving your 50s with and why ?". Probably some good answers there...

I already spouted my personal views in the last post -- don't worry about "bright" or "dull" amps, just get a "good" amp with some decent power and enjoy. My HK is supposed to be about as "un-bright" as they come but I have never heard such crisp, clear mids and highs in my life....

Top
#92315 - 04/27/05 10:12 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
F107plus5 Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 01/24/05
Posts: 2034
Loc: Fla. Orig. Mich.
We need a couple of our "Tube" experts to chime in here-or, rather, I'd like a couple of our tube experts opinions about something I remember from the 60s(and undoubtedly earlier)It probably dosen't mean anything today, at least not in the context of the main thrust of this thread, but maybe in a historical context to help explain how myths get perpetuated even when they may no longer apply. Now, if memory serves...

(insert hearty laughter...Here!...)

...didn't we have to "Match" speakers and output stages of amps back in the "Golden days"(ok, that's over the top)OK, maybe even "Matching" is too strong a word, but it seemed that the phrase was bandied about quite a bit by the "Real" audiophiles of the day.

I seem to even remember that there was a list of parameters published for speakers and amps to meet before they would be a good match for each other. (In Hi-Fi Stereo Review if I recall correctly) I read it while I was in the Navy on an Aircraft Carrier-or was it a Battleship, no; no, it was an Aircraft Carrier, that's right, more than one plane aboard.

Top
#92316 - 04/27/05 10:22 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
...But you see, I do believe components do bring their own sound to the party. I Purchased Athena AS-F2s and used them with a Yamaha RX-595 ($550 when new) receiver which produced shrill highs and thin overall sound. I then replaced it with a NAD 370 and the sound was immediately warm, balanced and full. I've heard the difference and I believe it.
_________________________

Top
#92317 - 04/27/05 10:28 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5355
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
No argument with that... I believe in "thin" sounding amps but don't really believe in "bright" sounding amps. I have heard "thin" before but I normally associate that with an underpowered (ie not enough power supply, not necessarily low power rating) amplifier.

In other words I agree that components can bring a "bad" sound to the party but I don't ever remember hearing different kinds of "good" sounds from amplifiers (tube amps notwithstanding -- they DO have their own sound).

Here's the thing -- the M50s "lack of brightess" (whatever we want to call it) is a slight drop in off-axis response around the crossover region (2-5 KHz). That's not the kind of thing a "bright" or "not bright" amp is going to compensate for. A thin amp with weak bass is just going to give you dips in bass AND midrange, not correct for a slight midrange dip.


Edited by bridgman (04/27/05 10:35 PM)

Top
#92318 - 04/27/05 10:32 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
F107plus5 Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 01/24/05
Posts: 2034
Loc: Fla. Orig. Mich.
Hey, while I'm here maybe I can answer the AV receiver question.

Simple-In my case it was a no-brainer!

I had an Onkyo before and it worked quite well with no problems for quite a few years....so....Just got a bigger one to go with the bigger speakers in a larger room...simple answer!

Why did I get the first Onkyo? It was a no-brainer. I had an Onkyo stereo receiver before and it worked quite well....

Why did I get the very first Onkyo? I dunno, just got up one day, put on my Leisure Suit and went shopping...The rest, as they say,...is long forgotten.

Do I like my Onkyos'? Yeah! My 602 is doing a good job and has most if not all of the features I need-is it bright or warm-I dunno, how can you tell? (I think I used to have a "Matching" set of parameters once, but that was back in the "Tube" days}



Top
#92319 - 04/27/05 10:52 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
And because of that off axis drop at the crossover the difference is such that the M60 is actually the smoother (better?) speaker here. (I am very much struggling between the two more so than choosing an amp.) The midrange driver smooths it all out. But, Because the midrange driver is covering a relatively large and critical area of the sound spectrum, can it by it's size pack a punch for rock music. In the M50s, two sixes push that air. Of course, a 6" can't accelerate as fast as a 5" (all things being equal) that's why there is a loss of detail too.
_________________________

Top
#92320 - 04/28/05 12:20 AM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
chesseroo Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 4801
Loc: western canada
In reply to:

No argument with that... I believe in "thin" sounding amps but don't really believe in "bright" sounding amps. I have heard "thin" before but I normally associate that with an underpowered (ie not enough power supply, not necessarily low power rating) amplifier.

In other words I agree that components can bring a "bad" sound to the party but I don't ever remember hearing different kinds of "good" sounds from amplifiers (tube amps notwithstanding -- they DO have their own sound).



I agree with that Bridgman, 100%.
(A rare occasion i say such a thing no?).
Of all the amps i've heard so far (or receivers), power seems to be the only real difference maker and to second that, many low budget, crappy made HTIB receivers just don't have any mustard.
No wonder so many go from smallish, all in one systems to something more dedicated and are so amazed (referring to several friends who bit the bullet and put a bit more money into their home systems). You just can't make a good amp with plastic parts. Something about electrical conductivity i think, but i could be in error.

_________________________
"Those who preach the myths of audio are ignorant of truth."

Top
#92321 - 04/28/05 08:48 AM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
MERKABA...So you like your NAD & M60ti combination...
_________________________

Top
#92322 - 04/28/05 11:54 AM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Merkaba Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 83
Loc: NL, Canada
Yes. I have no complaints at all, especially for the price of the 320. Now, having more power would not hurt, but I guess that's just the testosterone speaking as I've never had the thing past half throttle.

NAD amps have a tendency to sound a lot bigger than the ratings suggest, as I'm sure many of you know. Yay NAD, haha.
_________________________
Axiom M60ti Hsu VTF-2 Mk2 NAD C320BEE NAD C542 Systemdek IIX Cables by Unity Audio

Top
#92323 - 04/28/05 09:07 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
F107plus5 Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 01/24/05
Posts: 2034
Loc: Fla. Orig. Mich.
Hi Twebbz;

You're the first one to hear a new update on M50s.

I finally got the chance, today, to actually listen to MUSIC on my new M50s, in my accoustically challenged listening room. No wife, OR kids around!!! I could even reposition my favorite chair!

I was able to pull my speakers out from their cabinets to give them some breathing room, and with a bit of positioning, and scattering of pillows and throw rugs in places you don't normally see them, they delivered an outstanding soundstage plus excellent imaging(really!)Maybe still not as good as in my previous house, but for this room, Wow!! But that's not the best part!

Now for midrange: I did some things in my Onkyo receiver (that some folks would frown at) but which makes breaking glass sound more like breaking glass, gives horns more of an edge, and like that. And, something I've never heard anyone say before: And this is significant.

On a couple of pieces on a couple of CDs, (This IS exciting!) They sounded possitively "Bright"!!! Almost to the point of "Ear Fatigue"!! Gads! It was almost painfull!!

You heard it here first.
Rich.





Top
#92324 - 04/28/05 09:33 PM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
bridgman Offline
axiomite

Registered: 08/25/04
Posts: 5355
Loc: Bowmanville, Ontario, Canada
>>But, Because the midrange driver is covering a relatively large and critical area of the sound spectrum, can it by it's size pack a punch for rock music. In the M50s, two sixes push that air. Of course, a 6" can't accelerate as fast as a 5" (all things being equal) that's why there is a loss of detail too.

This is one of those simple questions with complicated answers. Yes the 5" midrange on a 60 covers a fairly wide range (~200 to ~3000 hz IIRC) but it doesn't have to cover the bass where most of the air moving has to happen.

Strictly speaking the M60 is "better" in the sense that it is more accurate in the midrange and (probably) can sound a bit cleaner at high volumes because the midrange driver isn't waggling around playing bass notes at the same time, but on the other hand most rock albums seem to be mixed for speakers with a similar midrange dip so you could make a valid argument that 50s are more accurate for many modern rock recordings BECAUSE those recordings are mixed a little "hot" in the midrange.

In other words, technically speaking the 60 *is* a better rock speaker than the 50 but because it is also better than the speakers modern music is often mixed for you might find some recordings to be too bright on the 60s and better on the 50s. It's never simple.

The jazz and classical worlds seem to be a bit more refined and generally mix for good speakers all the time so the 50 vs. 60 comparison is easier -- the 60 is slightly better (flatter, more accurate, more clear, all of the above) in the midrange than the 50.

My understanding is that the difference from 50 to 60 is fairly small. I compared M2 to M3 and was really surprised how subtle the midrange differences were -- and the M50 to M60 difference is supposed to be even less.

Top
#92325 - 05/05/05 08:23 AM Re: Stereo Amps for M50's
Twebbz Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/16/05
Posts: 61
Yea, considering everything (Brent @ Axiom sent me a M50 freq response curve.) and the $200 jump to the M60ti, I think I'll still go with the 50s. I have a NAD 370 with Athena AS-F2s in the living room. They have a one inch dome and two eight inch poly woofers. There is great punch and surprising detail with the two eights delivering all that is south of 2kHz. So, I'm hoping that the M50s will be in the same genre. I'll team them up with a Rotel RX-1052.

Thank you for your very informative responses!





_________________________

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.