I already have two people coming, so why not open it up to anyone else in the area. On Wednesday evening (7/9) there will be a speaker face off at my residence in King Of Prussia, PA. I have the VP150, M22, QS8, and HSU VTF-2. Someone else will be bringing over Ascend speakers to compare them to. Those who are interested are welcome to attend, just send me a PM for more information. We'll be sure to post a review of our results. One note to get out of the way before any results are posted...this will most likely NOT be a scientific review. There are no plans to do blind testing or anything of the sort. I like my Axioms, but will try to be as unbiased as possible in posting any comparisons.
Cool...have fun! Which Ascends are you comparing to? The 170's or the new 340's?
i'm envious, i never see a face off in the boston area.
Hi,
Sounds like fun. How far is King of Prussia, Pa, from Manhattan?
Just get the volume levels exactly the same. Even a 1-dB difference will cause most listeners to choose the slightly louder speakers as "better". And if you want to do a really rigorous test, listen to each speaker first in mono, A/B'ing between the two. The differences in tonal balance will hit you in the face immediately.
Regards,
I'd say I'm about 2 1/2 hours from Manhattan. I have an SPL, so I can check volume levels that way. The one part I concerned about is that I have the Onkyo SR600 receiver. The binding posts on the B speakers are not as good as the A ones. How much will this affect the sound quality, if at all?
Hi Zarak,
Not at all, no effect. Even those terrible old spring connectors make an electrically sound connection.
Hey...I've been through this before!
Alright, so tonight was the night. Axiom M22 and Ascend 170. I'm going to make this short, since it's just about bedtime. It will likely be added to by myself and others later.
Disclaimer....not a scientific test. Volume levels were checked with a SPL when switching between speakers. Axiom had to be turned up 2-4db on the receiver(Onkyo SR600) to equal the 170's volume.
Let me start by saying that the two speakers sounded pretty similar in a lot of instances...I don't think you could go wrong with either one. Any differences stated below are dependent on the CD and track played, they did not hold true across the board. When we did see differences, the major ones were:
1. The M22 had more detail then the 170's. I believe it was track 5 on the Cranberries CD (the one with Zombie on it) that we noticed this the most. The piano and guitar in the beginning seemed more real...almost like you could see the musician playing the instrument. The 170's still sounded good, but that same feeling wasn't there.
2. On the other hand, there were other tracks where the fullness of the 170's stood out. The have a fuller sound in general then the M22, which I believe others have called thin in the past. I'm not saying they are thin, just not as full as the 170's.
3. The final difference is the forwardness between the two. The M22's were more forward. The singer seemed further out in front during multiple pieces, as opposed to the voice being more laid back by comparision with the 170's.
I would say they are both good speakers, and it's mostly a tradeoff of if you want a little extra detail with the M22 or the extra fullness of the 170's.
Zarak
Yep...what he said.
I'm on a 30-day trial with both of these and tested them out at a local hifi store. Needless to say they embarassed some speakers costing twice as much. The only other pair there that I thought was near them in performance was the jmlabs chorus 706.
Gary...how much are those JMLabs? Which store did you go to?
The JMLabs were $450/pair but they said they would sell them for $400 if I was interested(they weren't pushy or anything). I tried the axioms on some nice parasound amps and a denon receiver. The denon was not very clean with the bass for my tastes. The parasound sounded great. The guy working there couldn't believe the clarity of the m22s, but we both agreed that they have a whispy sound in the treble(personal preference).
Very cool...you lugged in the Ascends and Axioms? Wish I was there. I've thought about doing that at my local hi-fi...the one where the rep was not very helpful! I'm also thinking about getting a Parasound power amp.
The guy there was a college student like me and was not commissioned. It was his idea for me to bring them in. The store was called Sight and Sound. They were also installing a new $11,000 Pioneer HDTV and had a HDTV satellite broadcast playing on it..........wow.
Hello all, I'd like to thank Zarak for hosting this little get together. This is the second time a total stranger has invited me into their home to listen to their equipment and I hope someday to return these favors.
I'd also like to preface this by saying these are my opinions and that I do not have the experience and knowledge that some of you may have, but I am learning.
I have to agree with everything Zarak has already said. There were times that both of these speakers sounded a lot alike, but what really separates the two are that the Axioms have a little greater detail and the Ascends a bit more body or fullness.
Here are my impressions of these speakers with the music I brought as I am more familiar with these discs than the others we listened to.
1) The cranberries - No Need to Argue - Track 5 - Empty
This is a track we focused on because we all felt the differences between the 2 speakers was really noticable. Things sounded fine with the Ascends, but the Axioms better detail gave something extra to the piano, guitar and percussion. I really enjoyed hearing this song through the Axioms.
2) Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms - Track 4 - Your Latest Trick
On this song I prefered the Ascends. The sax just sounded more warm and full. With the Axioms, it sounded a little to harsh.
I really wish I could have more time with the Axioms in my own home to really compare the two with my musical preferences. I'll echo Zarak again and say both of these speakers are really nice but I could not pick one over the other without more time with both.
John
Thanks for another valuable report! One question and one comment:
(1) Again, how did they sound with a subwoofer engaged in a 2.1 configuration? I believe that this is relevant because many people prefer to engage a sub when using bookshelf mains, not only in a multi-channel system but also in a 2-channel stereo. In that sense, the 2.1 auditioning is a more "practical" exercise, reflecting the real-world use.
(2) I remember Curtis was reporting that the Ascend 170 was appreciably more sensitive (efficient) than the M22. It is interesting to see that the 170 was indeed more efficient, by as much as 2-4dB. OTOH, I also remember that Axiom's efficiency specs were pretty much dead on, according to third-party measurements. So, Ascend's efficiency spec is probably underrated.
I am the third member of last night's face-off. I will echo everything said before by Zarak and John. Some of our more specific impressions were definitely CD and track dependent. Nevertheless,
1. I was impressed by the detail of the Axioms with piano, violin and percussive instruments. It felt like the instruments were there in the room. The Ascends were a bit more laid back.
2. For vocals I preferred the warmer, sometimes fuller sound of the Ascends.
3. In a perfect world, I would take the best of both world - the detail of the Axioms and the fullness of the Ascends.
My situation is that I will receive delivery of the Ascend 340 center, a pair of the 340 LRs, and a pair of the 170 surrounds tomorrow. They will be combined with an HSU VTF-2 and the Pioneer Elite 45TX. I am holding judgment on this setup until I have everything hooked up, the MCACC on the 45TX run and I have listened for about a week or two.
We are planning on listening to this combo at my house in the near future with the option of bringing other speakers as well.
I found last night to be a not only a lot of fun, but an invaluable way to compare two great speakers.
Mark
Unfortunately, we didn't get to do much in the way of testing with a sub. We had it hooked up early on, but turned it off completely once we realized it only worked with the speakers hooked up to A. The sub doesn't play with the B speakers....I assume this is because B is meant for speakers that are in a different room, in which case the sub wouldn't be in the same location. Without the sub the Ascends probably had a little more bass, but I suspect add the sub evens this out. If I would do another comparison like this, I would want to have the switch box from radio shack that has been mentioned.
Curtis can probably say better, but I belive the Ascend 340's are going to sound a bit more forward ("brighter") than the 170's you heard. And they're CRAZY efficient.
Good morning everyone.
It is too bad Mark's CMT-340's didn't arrive before the session.
Here are some of my opinions on the CMT-340:
More forward than the CBM-170, more detail in the highs, better bottom end. Plays louder easily as well. Simply a more dynamic speaker. I think whatever critcism (I use that word lightly) that was given to the CBM-170, Ascend addressed it in the CMT-340.
In listening to the 340 and M22 side by side briefly at spiffnme's place last week, I detect more differences in midrange area between the two, than the highs. Since we had been listening mostly to the M60 and the Veritas 2.2, my mind seemed to match the mids of the 340 with that of the M60, and the M22 with the 2.2's. Would love to do more comparisons....but they are time consuming, and setup can be a pain.
I am going to try and A/B the CMT-340 with the M60 next week. No promises though, my room just does not lend itself well to floorstanders.
One thing for sure......they are all nice speakers, and will give the traditional brands great cost/performance competition. I love the internet direct model.
curtis
I think we might try another comparision once Mark gets his, so stay tuned....
MarkT, could you give a quick initial first impression as soon as you get a chance? With the Axiom/Ascend comparison still fresh to your ears. Then maybe a more involved and detailed report later.
Excellent comparison btw...I've been wanting to hear a Axiom/Ascend comparison for some time now.
In reply to:
Unfortunately, we didn't get to do much in the way of testing with a sub. We had it hooked up early on, but turned it off completely once we realized it only worked with the speakers hooked up to A. The sub doesn't play with the B speakers...
Yeah, I understand. And another complication of the 2.1 auditioning is, you have to re-adjust the sub level every time you switch the main speakers, according to the differing efficiencies of the mains. And the adjustment has to be always accurate to conduct a meaningful comparison.
In reply to:
I love the internet direct model.
I think there are reasons why the internet-direct speakers are so good. The lack of a middleman in the distribution chain is certainly one thing, benefiting both the manufacturer and consumer with respect to cost. But more importantly, IMO, it's the lack of all those rhetorical BS thrown by salespeople at the local dealers as well as by the "traditional" audiophile magazines. The reputation of internet-direct models, by definition, almost entirely depends on the words-of-mouths in the internet community, which tend to me much more honest and upfront, simply because they don't have to constantly "stroke" the sponsors, advertisers, or for that matter, the conventional marketing system itself. In order to survive, the internet-direct speakers have to sound darn good in their own -- and they have to in your room, where you are the boss and the pickiest reviewer.
Mark has been waiting for his speakers/setup for a LONG time. Let him enjoy it for a while before you make him lug the speakers somewhere for a comparison.
Or bring your M22's to his place. Then again, he will have a 45TX, so MCACC will come into play.
"The reputation of internet-direct models, by definition, almost entirely depends on the words-of-mouths in the internet community, which tend to me much more honest and upfront, simply because they don't have to constantly "stroke" the sponsors, advertisers, or for that matter, the conventional marketing system itself. In order to survive, the internet-direct speakers have to sound darn good in their own -- and they have to in your room, where you are the boss and the pickiest reviewer."
I agree, but I want to point out that by saying "internet community" that we do not just mean customers, but also "professional" reviews, and non-customers.
Look at me for instance and how much I want people to hear Ascends. If I were someone looking to buy speakers, I would look at what Curtis' says with a grain of salt, and do more research. I am skeptical of something that only has customer reviews.
curtis
He was mentioning something about the MCACC last night. Can someone explain better what this is and how it affects the sound?
MCACC
sushi would be better with this because he has a 45TX. But basicly what it is an automatic mechanism the adjust sound levels for each speaker...so you do not have to do it by hand with a SPL meter. And on the Elite models such as the 45tx, it also automatically does frequency equilization to adjust for a flat room response. Everything I read about it is impressive. It even does the sub's level too!
It does not EQ the sub. It only sets volume and distance.
In reply to:
If I were someone looking to buy speakers, I would look at what Curtis' says with a grain of salt, and do more research. I am skeptical of something that only has customer reviews.
I guess that depends on how much you trust the self-proclaimed professional/audiophiless or pros influenced by the almighty dollar and publishers.
I'm sure Alan could relate a ton of stories having edited the S&V mag for some years.
If an item has a relatively good number of reviews (for example audioreview.com on the VTF2 sub which has 100 reviews), i would tend to still believe the customers.
You certainly need to read between the lines a fair bit to sort out the consistently good points and bad points for both customer or professional opinions.
chesseroo,
Agreed....very much...it is a combination of both, and being able to read between the lines. Let the buyer beware.
curtis
Yes, Curtis, I meant by the "internet community" all kinds of information/opinions/testimonials available online as a whole. The truly great thing about the internet is, behind one sushi who constantly blurbs about his Axioms, there usually are ten people who try to "trash" the Axioms in a (sometimes
) constructive manner. I mean, as long as you do your homework carefully, you'll always get upfront opinions, both positive and negative. That way, you can get a fairly accurate and "honest" summary on both the strengths and weaknesses of the speakers in a short period of time.
As for the MCACC, yes, it does automatic level/delay/EQ adjustments for all channels (level/delay only on the sub), using a dedicated measurement mic placed at the "sweetspot" listening position. Most importantly, you can defeat the EQ by one-click on the remote (without affecting the level/delay settings), allowing you to listen to the "native" sound of the speakers. I guess it will be very nifty for these comparison sessions.
Sushi,
When we get around to doing an A/B comparison between the Axiom M22 and the Ascend 340 and are using MCACC, would I just save the MCACC configs to Custom 1 and Custom 2 respectively and then just toggle back and forth between them?
We are trying in these sessions to equalize the listening parameters as much as we possibly can, realizing full well they will be very unscientific at best.
Mark
I think I would do it with MCACC turned off.
Well, Mark, that would be VERY interesting. Please do that in addition to the "formal" comparison with the EQ turned off. And please report here how much of an effect, if any, the MCACC has to make the two brands of speakers sound more similar to each other.
I can tell you that MCACC definitely makes my VP150 sound even more similar to my Hales (as I said here before, the Hales and Axioms are surprisingly similar-sounding to start with).