Haven't noticed this review posted yet.
Not the most favorable I've read...
>http://www.audaud.com/audaud/MAY04/component/comp1.html
Cheers, mike
Hmmm, sounds like this guy already had a pre-defined view of what a speak should be...
In reply to:
My hesitation about the larger model related to the dual tweeter placement—that is, on opposite sides of the speaker. This goes contrary to what I would expect to see in a correctly-designed speaker
(that was in reguards to the VP150)
Also, don't think I've EVER read this about an Axiom speaker before
In reply to:
The Axiom had a softened high frequency response in comparison with the Paradigms, and although the midrange was not as hard sounding as with the Paradigm, there seemed to be a sacrifice in definition—also described in my notes as relaxed/depressed.
In reply to:
also described in my notes as relaxed/depressed
Hmmm... maybe his Axioms were on Prozac?
Bren R.
My thinking also.
In reply to:
The VP-150 center channel was well matched with the M60ti front speakers, but the compromise towards softened high frequencies give me some pause.
Say what? Any critisms I've ever heard have been in the complete opposite direction. ie: b****t.
Something seems amiss. Perhaps he's got some funny equilization going on there or odd room acoustics.
In reply to:
Normally, when I think of buying an expensive product through mail order, I associate my purchase with a monetary savings in comparison to a locally available product, or the possibility of obtaining a better product for the same money. In the case of the Axiom speaker system, I could not establish this relationship.
I'd like to know what those alternatives would be? 1 year of looking I haven't seen anything comparable.
Oh well, its always interesting reading contrary opinions.
Cheers, Mike
this review was posted about a month ago on this site. i thought the review was fair, but it was obvious he had some preconceived notions of what to expect.
he kept talking about "slight differences" between the axioms and the paradigms. well, they are different speakers, that makes since. but his perception of sound, and what he considers to be good and bad, will be different from the next guy.
i didnt put a lot of concern or interest into this review the first time i read it, and still dont now.
bigjohn
This reviewer lost my respect with these three sentences:
"I opened the front speakers first and played music through them for a week or two to break-in."
"I connected both center speakers to the front channels of another system to break them in."
"I connected both center speakers to the front channels of another system to break them in."
Any reviewer that lends credence to long "break in" periods automatically becomes suspect for me. Also, does he not remember if it was one week or two that he allowed for "break in" on the front speakers?
Biased review is right.
His mind was made up before he even heard them based on his impression of their colour, 'apparent' build quality and driver orientation. Notch another score for the use of blind tests.
I quit reading after his first paragraphs did nothing but describe his 1000 piece equipment set mostly about his umpteen different audiosnob cable brands followed by this lovely gem of a statement:
"The speakers are fairly heavy, but you can tell where the bracing is by using the knuckle test. Rapping on the top and the middle of the side produced a noticeably different sound than in other places along the cabinet. Surely compromises need to be made given the modest price of the speaker system—I waited until later {which equates to this very moment} to determine how much this affected their sound."
Guy IS a LAME
Why WE wasting OUR time paying ANY attention to that self indulging BS?
Practically EVERY professional reviewer in the world "breaks-in" their speakers before they compare them. You must not believe in any professional reviews...
In reply to:
Practically EVERY professional reviewer in the world "breaks-in" their speakers before they compare them.
Come now player8. That's a rather overly broad declaration.
As far as break-in goes - how does the old saying go? "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear".
I think that "break-in" amongst pro reviewers has become sort of an obligatory "it must be true because someone important once said it " kind of thing.
Perhaps MOST pro reviewers do "break-in" their speakers before reviews but it does not mean that they
all believe it.
There are some pro reviewers that I have great respect for but for the majority of them, I don't hold thier word to be gospel.
Kooky as it is, this is just my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions.
.
Funny thing is that since Axioms are not sold in retail stores, most folks rely on reviews to assist them in choosing Axioms. I read a few reviews of the M3Tis years ago, and that planted the idea in my audiosotted brain that these were desirable speakers. Which ever review it was that I read is the reason I finally tried some Axiom products and glad I did. That's why a review like this one can do a lot of harm to Axiom.
On the other hand, great as our speakers are, there are more and more good competition for Axiom and Axiom can't stand still with its product line. So here's hoping for quality upgrades at the same price or only the smallest possible increase in price. Heck, Axiom could make upgraded cross over kits available to us with fancy capacitors and resistors maybe even drivers and keep us current without having to buy new speakers.
If a "pro" reviewer is "breaking in" speakers before listening to them, I'd love to pop him/her an email and ask why... is it to quiet down the believers in speaker break-in (selling one's soul for readership)... or does the guy actually believe in it?
Bren R.
Some speaker manufacturers recommend breaking in the speakers. Lowthers are notorious for requiring breaking in. It's not a question of the ears breaking in because no one has to be around for the procedure.
And any good reviewer follows manufacturers' recommendations, whether it be a break-in period or smearing jelly over the midrange - minimizes the chance of a manufacturer whining about their recommendation not being followed. Also, the more difficult the manufacturers' stipulations, the easier it is for them to weasel out of a bad review... "Well, John Smith DID say our speakers sounded like someone playing a carp with xylophone mallets, but he did not follow the required steps of speaker break in, we recommend that our patented "Brake-Inn SeeDee" be played for 3 months straight with the speaker in an absolute vacuum, had he done so, we feel he would have experienced a much different sonic soundscape - one that more resembled a trout being played by xylophone mallets!"
Bren R.
I don't mean to get into the "break in controversy." But could it be possible (whether speakers actually do break in or not) that speaker companies recommend a break in period so that, if a customer is dissatisfied with what he/she initially hears at home, he/she, rather than returning them, says "Oh well, they just aren't broken in yet. They'll sound better after awhile," thereby maximizing the purchaser's potential of becoming acclimated to the speakers sound, and thus increasing the likelihood that the purchaser will keep the speakers?
By the way, should anyone be interested, Craigsub is testing the "break in" theory in
this thread over at the AVS Forum. Bring your flame retardant underwear.
I think Ajax hit the nail on the head.
You make a valid point about "break in". Many reviewers simply connect the pieces to be reviewed, and let them play - without paying much attention to them ie. UHF Magazine.
I am not inclined to put much stock in reviews from magazines. I do however, like to know that the reviewer is using equipment that would not hinder the sound - ie. 22g speaker wire, and interconnects that were "thrown in".
Regards,
BBIBH
I'm not saying that I believe in break-in myself, it's just that in most every review I've read (the absolute sound, Stereophile, and Home Theatre Sound-over the last two years) somewhere in the first two paragraphs I read something along the lines of
"After 40 hours of break-in, the bass sounded tighter and the highs appeared to be less harsh and abrasive"
My origninal point was that if someone is going to believe that a reviewer loses ethos simply because "he believes in break-in" then he must not believe in very many professional reviews at all. I was referred to Axiom myself by professional reviews (as well as board recommendations on Audioreview.com) and I must say that Axiom's reputation does rely somewhat upon professional reviews.
It's been many years since I had my logic and critical thinking class, but I believe that getting everybody to believe something by simply repeating all the time is known as the "ad hominem" fallacy. Like how the media keeps calling the situation in Iraq a "catastrophe".
I would agree with you - on both counts...as break in seems to be subjective to each listener.
To simply dismiss the review because the person did allow, or did not allow, for break in time would also be subjective, and in my view not allow the reader to proceed with an open mind.
Regards,
BBIBH
Ajax,
I read the thread. I was mortified by the test design to audition speakers, one broken in and one brand new, without actually randomizing the variable units beyond left vs. right.
There is a fundamental error in having craigsub KNOW that the speakers could potentially sound different b/c he KNOWs one of each variable (broken in or new) sits in front of him for the 'test'.
You absolutely need 2 pairs of speakers to do a proper blind test on this subject and he doesn't have it. The results of that test will mean no more than anyone else's unsubstantiated opinion on the subject and it appears that few understand such a simple concept. This does not at all question craigsub's honesty, but that is not the point. Bigus understands it quite clearly.
Repetition of a lie is a technique perfected by the Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, known as the "big lie." "Ad Hominem," is the use of an attack against the character of the person making the argument in order to discount the argument.
Some cheapy speakers I designed/built many years ago (while in highschool) sound way worse to me now than they did back then... I guess the break in period had an opposite effect in this case?
/jokingly
That's right, 2x6.
Thank you very much. At least I didn't call it a logical "phallus-y".