As some of you know, I won a set of Audiobytes from Axiom in the naming contest. For Christmas, my wife had them upgraded to HG burled walnut, and ordered me an EPZero! Woohoo!

Well, the Audiobytes arrived yesterday, but I didn't pick them up from the office until today. The finish is gorgeous (and very glossy). I set them on top of the M80s and hooked them up to the ol' (newish) iPod. First song? "A Home" by the Dixie Chicks from the Top of the World discs. Second was "I Hung My Head" by Sting from Mercury Falling.

Wow... these things are great! Second thought: I can't wait to get the sub! (oh, greedy, greedy me)

I figured then that since they were a) sitting on top of the M80s and b) the iPod had 2 outputs (headphone jack and line out), I could do a little comparison.

Fiddling with the volume knobs is not the greatest way to compare speakers, but it will suffice for this. The Audiobytes really are as good as we think. Bass is obviously lacking, but at least it's a smooth lack; they're not trying to do stuff they can't. Here's the odd bit--it seemed again like they were brighter (again not a bad term) than the M80s, much like the M3s and the M50s. I'm getting even more confused now about that little issue.

The Audiobytes have fantastic imaging and soundstage, especially considering I was sitting about 7 feet away, had them halfway turned up, and was not centered between them. Axiom's got a winner here.

Pictures to come when I get around to taking them off the camera.

Hey Ken, maybe the lower frequency reproduction of the M80s creates a better balance to the music? Could it be a trick of the ear?

Dunno.

It is interesting that you find both Audiobytes and M3s brighter than the M80s. Kinda goes against convention around here.


Congrats on the new speakers!! Yes, we need pics. By the way, your wife did a good thing upgrading the finish to High Gloss Burled Walnut. Thumbs up.

Yes, yes she did. She said that that was actually a present for her, but I think we both made out well on that one.

Where oh where are those pics?

M3's/M50's and AB's brighter than M80's? You sure you have the terminology right? Maybe its the source? Are you using a Yamaha We all hear things differently. Maybe just say they sound more similar to the M3s than to the M80's.

I would have suspected they sound close the M2s sonically.

Can anyone with Audiobytes and M80s confirm or disprove my results? Mojo?

Obviously I haven't done a scientific test; I don't have the time, my wife doesn't have the patience... but I am curious. Perhaps there's something screwy with my 80s or my reciever. I know that when I switched the receiver off of stereo onto Neo6, the high end increased. Of course, the VP100 also turned on when I did that, so we're back at square one.


On another note, now we own all of the drivers Axiom is currently making, other than the subwoofer drivers. Heh...

By my figures, we have 13 tweeters, 2 3" woofers, 4 4.5" woofers, 6 5.25" woofers, and 8 6.5" woofers. (!)

I am not certain exactly what it is you want confirmed? Comparisons between Audiobytes and M80s are a stretch at best...

Well, that the Audiobytes are brighter than the M80s, really. I know it's a stretch, but the high end is where they should be the most similar.

Thanks for the clarification.

At high enough volume, I found them much closer to the M80s (highs only) than what I remember of the M3s (I re-listened to them during the hollidays). What would really be interesting is people comparing with M22s!

So, for me, I don't feel they are "brighter" than the M80s when used with material that has little or no bass (solo violon or solo flute, for example).

Hmm... How odd. Hopefully I can forget all about this again and go back to enjoying my M80s.

Ken, your ears are broken.


Hope you saved the receipt.

Why would you stop enjoying your M80s? Or did I miss something?

Oh, it's just that when Adam, Peter, and I compared the M3s, M50s and M80s, we heard the same thing--a reduced high end (in comparison). I promptly forgot about that comparison, but now I'm just wondering if something is wrong.

Just to confirm (because I think I missed something fundamental in your previous statements): are you saying that you find your M80s may be lacking in the highs?

That is correct; not exactly lacking, but the high output seems lower on the M80s than on other Axiom speakers in the same room/position.

Gotta get some more banana plugs...

Maybe during that test the binding straps were a little loose? That would give lowered high frequencies. One bad driver?

During Mojo and I's testing of the M60,M22 and M80, the M22s were the most bright followed by the M80 and then M60. When we had Robb's M3s, we found them to be more like the M60s, still less bright/forward than the M80's and even lesser than the M22's.

I am still thinking that the AB's are probably like the M22's and M2's(I have never listened to these yet) and should sound more forward/bright than the M80s.

Since you stated the M3's/M50s being brighter than the M80s, which most around here don't agree with, certainly sounds like you might have something wrong.....er, with the speakers or receiver that is.

Nope, the tests were about a year apart, and I've attached and detached the cables a couple of times since. Also, my cabling system pretty much avoids this altogether. It doesn't seem to be a bad tweeter; I've checked this a few times.

Hope it's not the receiver... that's out of warranty, and I can't swing a new one right now.

Do the M80s sound good? If so, I think you are looking for an inexisting problem. If there was an actual problem, I'm pretty sure you would know with confidence there was one. Room acoustic can also play tricks at times.

Try test tones with a SPL meter if you want to make absolutely certain.

Oh, they sound good. They sound very good. I suspect that you're right; I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Next problem: where the heck do I put the Audiobytes?

Ah, what a difficult, difficult position...

Problem solved.


I'll PM you my shipping/receiving address.

Heh... nice try.

Nah, I think I've got the solution for you.

Get a heavy duty headband/neckbrace, attach a couple 2-ish foot long metal rods out in front of you at oh, 30 degree angles or so, then stick the audiobytes on the ends facing you. Of course you'd want to have the rods be hollow (cable management, naturally). Then get a fanny pack, stick a T-amp or some other small battery powered amp in there along with an iPod, and voila! Your own personal, mobile listening rig - nearfield monitoring, wherever you go!

for those moments when headphones are just not enough.

mmm. hmm.

Well I don't see you coming up with suggestions.

Ken,

Let me try to shed a little light here.

Jason is right. The M22s were the brightest, followed by the 80s, followed by the 60s and the 3s. Even someone with one ear would have agreed with this assessment .

Now having said that, Ian and the gang apparently tweak these speakers every month. I don't know what the heck these speakers sounded like years ago.

Now to the audiobytes. You said you were 7 feet away. Is that on the diagonal? How far apart were the audiobytes?

The audiobytes are less bright on the highs than the 80s. I'd say they compare to the 3s in that regard. Using the WMP EQ, I've tweaked them a bit as shown below. Note the third slider. This takes away some nasty resonance on the low end. I don't know if this is natural resonance from the audiobytes or if it has to do with coupling to the surface below. I haven't had time to experiment with that. And then look at how I've knocked up the highs.

Now the forwardness is a different matter. I find that when I form the famous equilateral triangle, I lose the magic. I have to be closer to them and I suppose that's what Ian intended when he said that they solved the "near-field" problem or something to that effect. I work with my keyboard drawer out and I think this is "far-field" for these speakers when they are 32" apart as shown on my desk below.

When they are 32" wide and I'm 24" on the diagonal (keyboard tray stowed), I am "in the zone". The soundstage is simply incredible. I can pick out instruments between the speakers and outside the boundaries of the speakers. And the centre image is right there! I mean, if I close my eyes, I could swear that the singer and I can lip-lock if I was to move forward an inch. It really is amazing. When I form an equilateral triangle with them 32" wide and me 32" away (keyboard tray deployed), the centre image is still solid but more recessed and the sound collapses to the left and right. Now don't get me wrong. It still sounds marvellous and perhaps "collapses" is too harsh of a word. But not as marvellous as sitting close up. If I had bought the Future Shop flavour-of-the-month PC speakers for $90 I wouldn't be as critical. But these are audiophile-grade PC speakers and I want the best possible sound. And I'm not willing to sacrifice my keyboard tray either. If I can't find a solution to this, I am not so sure I'll keep them. It would bother me to no end to know that I am 8" away from Nirvana.

I've also found that the SRS sandbox does amazing things to the sound. I agree with Eric that it's all hocus-pocus and they fiddle with the frequencies but then again, Tom cheats too and uses capacitors, MOSFETS and DSPs . My point is that all recorded sound reproduction is an illusion anyway so let's get the best tools to make the illusion as real as we possibly can.

I'd be curious to hear yours, Eric's and John's impressions on my soundstage problem. My wife definitely agrees with me on this point but she thinks that I'm totally nuts worrying about it . I guess that's why I'm an engineer.

BTW, this isn't shown in the photo below but the audiobytes are now elevated by 4 or 5" on some CD cases to bring the tweets to ear level.

Hmm... I think it's somewhat criminal to equalize any Axiom speakers, but that's beside the point (and likely to cause a firestorm)

Like I said, I was not in the optimal listening position at all; when I noticed the differing forwardness, I was actually kneeling down next to the receiver fiddling with the knobs. My ears were therefore about level with the M80s' lower tweeters, with the Audiobyte tweeters about a foot above.

I've done no experiments with the Audiobytes other than what I've described; as I haven't figured out where they're going to be used yet (on the computer? in the bedroom?), they haven't moved off of the M80s. Which is probably criminal.

Criminal...I had the exact same thoughts when I started sliding around the EQ switches. But ultimately, it's what sounds best in your environment.

The further you sit from the speakers the less linear sounding they will be oweing to the greater influence of room acoustics as you move away from the speakers. I leave mine on flat equalization but its a matter of taste and it depends on what is playing. They do sound best in nearfield listening but we are splitting hairs. My family says they sound good from anywhere in the room, especially compared to my old Koss computer speakers.

Mo, on the soundstage thing, the only thing that comes to mind immediately is if when you moved up to 24" and if you didn't increase the toe-in to compensate for the closer positioning, that you were then inside the axis of the tweeters(or farther inside than before). If so, decreasing the toe-in while at your preferred listening distance might have a similar effect. Another possible adjustment, although you don't have much room to spare, is to separate each AB a few inches wider.

Ok...
First: Tex, you must have beaten the single-day record for posts/threads in this forum's history!

As for the imaging, I have no problem providing the volume matches. At lower volume (11 o'lock, for example), then the image deteriorates depending on what I'm listening if I move back. But if I just boost a bit, it's back. But I agree that they are meant to be better from fairly close. Although I did do the dishes a few times while they were on (15 feet away, from another room) and the sound was great.

BTW, I tried for two days to have the Audiobytes more at ear level and it actually made things worse (loss of bass and soundstage). I thought I could adjust so I left it there the whole two days. My ears learned to compensate somewhat, but as soon as I put them back down on the desk, bass improved quite a bit and the whole stage widen significantly. They won't be leaving their position anytime soon!

I will try experimenting with toe-in and also possibly separating them a few inches. I was thinking of screwing down a couple of extensions on the top of my desk. I may end up fouling with my laptop though. The other thing I thought of doing was somehow dropping some plastic rods from the ceiling and securing them on there. That might be kind of kludgey though.

That's very interesting what you describe about soundstage and bass, Eric. I find that when I put them on the desk, they couple with the surface below and I get a bad resonance. Even now when they are mounted on 7 or 8 blank CD cases, I still get resonance. I've been thinking of putting some bubble wrap underneath them or maybe the same, beefy mounting feet that are on the amp.

As for the soundstage, when they are on your desk, do you have them angled up in some way? I find it difficult to understand how the soundstage can possibly be better when the sound field is below your ear level.

Did you put the little tiny rubber feet on? Before I put them on, I did get some vibrations.

No, they are not angled up. They have a pretty impressive dispersion field and I have less than 10 degree angle. The bass is probably what makes the difference in soundstage. When you don't have anything to "anchor" the perception of position, I find it is hard to get good soundstage. I tried this once (2-3 months ago) with the M80s by setting their xover at 150hz and shutting off the sub. It sounded airy and, altough I could pick up at all the instruments as well as before, they felt ghostly and unreal. With my AB up, it wasn't anywhere near as drammatic, but it feels similar (I just tried by raising my 9" with kleenex boxes--actually, they were "noname" tissues, but I don't think there is an audible difference).

Did you try with mouse pads under them?

Curious to explore this more (as long as you're the one doing the job!).

I did indeed put those tiny feet on. I wish I had the bigger ones like on the amp.

I don't have mouse pads. I got rid of them when I went to a thumb-style, roller ball mouse.

Did you try putting your thumbs under them, then?

Just realized... Weren't you supposed to use your **brand name witheld** subwoofer?

Yep...I am indeed using the Sony 150W sub that just won't die. I thought I killed it when I was doing head-to-head comparisons with the 600. It smelled like it was cooking and I bottomed out the motor so bad I thought it would come shooting out the port in the back . But it's still rocking...because it wasn't designed by Sony.

It sounds just awesome for this application in my 1000 cubic foot office.

Hey, they came with rubber feet? I need to check the box again.

What I'm starting to hear here is that I should just use these on the computers. That means I need to dig out my desk... and probably disconnect the M50s from the computers.

Tiny, tiny transparent feet; they're easy to miss. The same that comes with M3s.

M50's are your current computer speakers?

Ken,

The pads are in the plastic bag with the user manual.

Pretty much, although they're not positioned at all right. I usually use headphones. They're in the same room as the computer, so why not hook them up?

Tex: Found 'em, thanks!

Let us know what you think.

The more I listen to the audiobytes the more I am starting to believe that they are a cross between an M3 and an M22. They are more detailed than an M3 and have more body than an M22.

I'm listening to "Not too late" by Norah Jones right now and they sure sound wonderful. No one should rush out though and buy a pair of these instead of 80s. The 80s reveal tremendously more detail...besides other things. I just had to laugh though when I compared them against the HK speakers we use on the home PC. Through those, Norah sounded like she was behind a thick drape.

I'm astounded though by the soundstage created by these little speakers when I stow my keyboard tray and move forward. The soundstage is certainly not like the 80s but it's almost like there are 80s in a plane behind them and leaning forward opens up a little window to listen to the 80s through.

I can't wait to hear them with the additional woofers. That should give them more "body". Another 2-3 weeks... When I used them with the EP500, sound was good, but I was not in a comfortable listening position so I cut the test short.

Audiobytes have more body than the M22? huh??

I just listened to the Audiobytes (Ken brought his over), and it's quite clear that they're impressive for their size, but nowhere near the level of the M3 or M22. Perhaps it's the nearfield setup that gives the impression of extra body?

I suspect if one were to listen to the M22s in a nearfield setup they'd blow the audiobytes away.

Who said they had more body than the M22???

I said that with the EP0, the Audiobytes would have more body than without the EP0...

Mo just did.

Oops. I sit corrected. (I would stand, but I have already 2 beers in!)

No...it's my Sony sub that gives them that body. I keep forgetting that I have that beast on . Thanks for setting me straight.

So you're saying I should get M80s for use as my computer speakers? Seriously, is anyone here using floorstanders for nearfield listening?

I'm sure you could do some great near-field listening with the M80s if you had them two feet apart .

Not really. They tend to break up when you get that close to them; you can hear the individual drivers.

I guess I just need my computer desk in the middle of the room, huh?

Why don't you just get 6 or so audiobyte pairs and stack them up on your desk?

Two feet apart...with the listener between them...pointing right down each auditory canal.

Ha ha ha. Well, considering how much time I spend at my computer, I really shouldn't skimp.

Welp, I sit about 4 ft from my Advents (2-way floorstanders, 10" woofers) when using my computer. I guess that qualifies as 'nearfield', but I only occasionally use them for listening to music on my PC... it does make for a pretty immersive experience for wargaming, adventuring, and the like!

I'm so happy to hear someone is doing that.

If they sold the audiobytes in sets of three you could juggle them and then you would never have to juggle in silence again!

I can juggle 4 things at once...I guess I need two sets

It's so nice to have better sound -- I used to have the Gigaworks 750 7.1 set. Oy, so many wires and speakers to give so many headaches.

Need the sub soon tho...

OK, you asked for pictures...here they are, a week later.



An excellent picture of the HG finish, taken by my lovely wife. (I can't take photos that good.)




Elliott meets the Audiobyte. Elliott wants the Audiobyte.



See, Dad, this stuff is actually mine. Really.

Good pics! Thanks Ken.

I like the last two for scale purposes....seeing it in your hand and then on top of the other speaker gives a good idea of the size of these things.

Hey, those look like mine .

Has anyone tried connecting an iPod or MP3 player up to these? I just tried connecting my son's Sandisk Sansa and it shuts down when I plug it into the power port.

I've noticed that this particular MP3 player communicates with the PC when its power/comm cable is plugged in. The Axiom amp is for power only so I'm sure it's getting confused because it's not hearing back and hence shutting itself down.

For an iPod, you need the "docking" thing. Then you can both play music and charge it. At least, that's what the instructions say. An iPod by itself does not work (tried it).

Yeah, I get it. So I have to find the equivalent of an iPod dock for my MP3 player.

They need to make the firmware for the players a little smarter to eliminate the need for docks. Maybe shorting pins 2 & 3 together would work because the music player comm lines would loop back.

That's odd. I assumed the Apple docks pretty much were a passthrough to the dock connector, with a few lines going off for remote control and audio out.

That would mean they could not charge you 60+$.

Mojo, Sansa makes docking stations as do others for the Sansa MP3 players, My wife has a Sansa for running and I have looked at them before. They are about the same price range as Ipod docks.

Who is the dude in the red hair?

maybe I'm oversimplifying but why can't you just use a cable from the headphones out jack into an input on your amp or PC.

There's someone in Ken's hair??

The USB port is for charging, not audio input.

The dock is for the audio. You need the line out to have proper sound out of the iPod.

Not necessarily. It works fine from the headphone port.

Have you tried? Because here, it sounds awful from the headphone port. The output ossilates too much and loses precision.

Certainly have, and had no problems whatsoever. In fact, with modern (5G and later) iPods, the line out is essentially a headphone port.

Jason, thanks. I'll have to look for one.

I ran the Sansa off battery and it sounds just fine when I connect it to the amp via its headphone jack. So Eric, I am not sure why you are having a problem?

The problem is not that it does not work. It's just a bit imprecise. With the same MP3 files, if I play them out of a MP3 compatible diskman out of its line out, the sound it very crisp. Out of the headphone jack, I get the same "almost good" effect. Out of the computer (still same MP3 files), no problem whatsover.

Anyone knows what is the impedence of the line in of the Audiobytes' amp?

This calls for a double blind test!

You close the double blinds, I do the test! He he he...

Okay, this is no good. I tried the blind thing and I managed only to connect my digital camera to the sub output and my razor does not sound very good in stereo only. On top of that, I got a shock trying to find the wall socket.

It is really hard to inter-connect all these devices with my eyes closed... I wonder how they do it at CNRC?

I think you are supposed to be standing on a rubber mat while making the connections.

I just realized that my laptop has an SPDIF output. I connected the audiobytes to this and, although I haven't done any A/B tests, it now sounds a little harsher than the headphone output I was using. What's SPDIF anyway?

Some Pretty Darned Inane Format.

Actually, it's Sony/Phillips Digital Interconnect Format. Basically it's the digital audio (compressed or not) interconnect format and is typically carried over optical/toslink cables or 75-ohm coax.

SPDIF is a digital output. In other words, you must have a dual function jack there, otherwise you'd probably have destroyed your speakers.

I figure if the jack fits, it must be compatible. I did make sure to lower the amp's gain though.

The sound is more detailed...but harsher. I now need to tweak the SRS Sandbox settings.

It would have been a square wave.

To clarify, SPDIF is the same protocol as ye olde coax and optical connections on audio equipment.

Toshlink... (it's a non-blueray thing)

Yeah, my laptop also has the dual SPDIF/headphone jack. If your just using a miniplug RCA cable you're using the headphone functionality. You'd need a digital cable with a mini-plug end or adapter to get the full digital stream.

So the fact that SPDIF sounds different than the headphone output is a figment of my imagination? I'll need to A/B when I have some time.

It might not be your imagination. Some players re-sample systematically to 48K for SPDIF output while playing native 44.1 on their analog circuits (Soundbridge M1001 is a good example of such a difference).

But he's not using SPDIF if he's plugging the Audiobytes into that dual jack; he's using, essentially, a headphone jack.

It does not mean it is the same output than the single-usage headphone jack.

Why not? Why would a manufacturer put a separate audio processor in for outputs that are essentially doing the same thing? Sure, the traces are going to be a little different, but do you think that there's going to be that much variation in the sound (audibly) from a few millimeters of copper?

It might not be coming out of the same chip.

So they've put 2 sound chips on the board.

This is just speculation (on BOTH sides). Two outputs serving two purposes can very well have two separate chips. The Soundbrige mentionned earlier is a perfect exemple of that.

Since, again, we are all speculating here, let's try to keep this friendly and avoid putting words into posts!

Oh fine... as usual, I should be a little more careful with my posting in the morning. Sorry about that.

However, from my knowledge of system architecture in computers, I would wager that the outputs are both from the same chip, unless there is sound processing on the south bridge (rare, possibly nonexistent) or has an "add-on" chip/card on the board (such as an X-Fi) in addition to the typical Realtek chip. '

This post is an invitation for someone to come along and tell me I know jack-all about system architecture.

A designer could want (speculating again) separate channels for special applications: one output channel to the sound system and some "direct CD" or special app (virtual soundcard?) for someone wearing headphones at the computer!

Ken, you know jack-all about system architecture.

Hey, I think it's rude to not respond to invitations.

Sorry, I was in a meeting!

I don't understand the reasoning behind providing SPDIF and headphone outputs using, what appears to be, the same physical and application layer.

SPDIF is digital. For some reason, the manufacturer decided to put a dual mode jack in there, one that has digital and analog. Possibly the reason is this: you hook your speakers up to your audio output (probably a more precise designation for this jack than SPDIF). If you want to hook up headphones, you plug those into the headphone jack, deactivating the audio out jack. This way, you don't have to swap cables. It's pretty common, actually.

Yes, you could be right. I'll have to get my headphones out to try that.