I think Axiom's aged box design is the cause of many poor comments, might be time for a new outer shell.

Like, totally! I looked for months. Nothing < $3.5k came close. Even some $5k+ were no match. (Who wants Klipsch or Martin Logan @ any price?) And more than a couple o' mfg's designs sure warn't pretty--at all.

You run the risk of looking like the future Enterprise-D from "All Good Things."

Which I thought was awesome when I was a kid.

</dork>

Keep in mind those S8's are....$$$$$.

Here is the actual S&V write-up of the M60.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/axiom-audio/2011/01/test-report-axiom-audio-m60-v3-tower-speakers

They have rear ports so placement from the wall is something you just have to play with each room. Not a big deal unless your room is small - listening distance is short.

I've stopped subscribing to all the mags (and I've gotten an awful lot over the years) because I realized that I primarily got them for the pictures... and when I found out about airbrushing... the pictures couldn't be trusted.

Comparing the S&V graph to the Axiom graph (http://www.axiomaudio.com/gallery_m60ti_diagram.html), if you mentally move the S&V graph over the Axiom graph, they're very similar. The S&V graph has a little teeny higher response in the >10K range (probably maybe 1 dB--not much), but over all, veyr similar. But mysteriously, the Axiom graph looks a lot prettier--because it's not zoomed in like the S&V graph. Gotta look at scale.

I still can't hear a damn thing from that graph.

Don't audiophiles care about how the speaker measures? So weird this is being glossed over. Brent mentioned several times that the tweeters were too bright and there was too much bass hence he had to move the speakers far off the back wall than he is used to. His listening comments seem to correlate with the measurement despite that he seems to downplay it towards the end. I think he was being kind b/c of all the Axiom ads on their site and in their magazine. Read between the lines...Did he really like this speaker?

I don't know, I thought the review was very kind especially considering the measurement. I prefer critical reviews that teach me something about the product I can't learn on the manufacturers website.

Funny how the revels in his same room measured so flat...

So, nothing in his room has changed, and he's using exactly the same equipment, with the speakers in exactly the same position, and the mic set up in exactly the same way?

I doubt it. Measurements taken in room are useless for anything other than looking at how things are measuring at that time. You especially can't compare them against each other.

I'm sure the Revels are better speakers, but can't trust anything he says to back that up.

Funny how the revels in his same room measured so flat...

Isn't that why we're all here?

Seriously, I own a Hyunia Genesis Coupe.

Jay, what Axioms do you own?

I believe you meant Hernia.

Now that I've been reading several pro reviews also saying Axiom speakers are bright, it has me rethinking this.

Sorry I mispelled Hyundai but if your post was to insult the car, it doesn't offend me, especially considering what a great ride it is

Well....that ought to spark another round of newbie "Bright" questions/accusations.

Argon has mystical predictive powers!

Seriously, this is quite the entertaining thread.

You nailed it on both points. At my age the highs may begin to roll off. Any additional brightness is a benefit.

Bill

Wow people don't like to have stuff they owned critically criticized. Seriously, I own a Hyunia Genesis Coupe. I very much enjoy reading all the pros/cons from pro reviewers even if I may not agree with them all. It's amazing how quickly owners are willing to dismiss findings.

I looked at several reviews from Brent and others at S&V and haven't seen any speakers such as the NHT's, Monitor Audios, exhibit so much high frequency boost. Perhaps its fair to ask how he measured the speaker but why discredit the reviewer solely b/c you don't like the outcome. I would have to assume since he is a professional, he is consistently testing each speaker. Just b/c he moved the speakers for listening doesn't mean he didn't test them all on the same location using the same protocol.

It's obvious that he is easily influenced by the name, price, and looks of a speaker. Many people are, but as a reviewer he needs to be more objective and less biased.

Above a certain price level, the price of the speaker has no relation with its sound quality.

Neither the M60 or Salon 2 have rolled off highs.

Then the reviewer has a personal preference for rolled of highs, since he apparently had to toe out the M60's to tame them. I'm sure having the tweeters 12 inches above your ears like the Revels helps tame the highs and make it more forgiving / less affected by speaker toe in/out angle.

That's true of a lot of high end speakers. The Salon 2 is not one of those.

The optimized and uniform power response of the Revel Salon 2 is what makes it such a great speaker and not picky to room placement. But comparing the Salon 2 to much less costing designs is not a good idea. Revel has some of the brightest minds, technology and most importantly a ridiculous amount of resources to work with. They can spend so much more on R&D and it all trickles down under the different Harman brands, its just not fair. Revel is not typical of most loudspeaker companies and the price tag that comes along with this speaker reflects it. Apples and oranges comparison IMO.

In the mid-90's, I really wanted an M3 (BMW, not Axiom). It was a time when I actually could have afforded to do it without strain ('cept maybe for the 5g's to insure it in El Paso!)

I bought an Acura GSR. Differences aside, was the BMW really worth the cost of two Acuras. NO!
I'd never own both cars, so I would never be keenly and constantly aware of the differences. And I lost way fewer thousands of dollars in depreciation.

Besides, I coudn't afford the Beamer AND almost 6k for car stereo now, could I? Nothin' like a 400w Mac in a car and a 300w/ 12" cannon.

If everyone had unlimited resources, we'd subscribe to TAS and actually buy that stuff, 'cause we're nuts.

The word here is value, overwhelmingly. And we all got great ones.

Money-no-object folk don't hang here.

Does Axiom advertise in Sound & Vision magazine?

. . . Some here seem to think Axiom/Revel are on the same level in performance regardless of price which I think is just ridiculous.

I think someone needs to sell their EP800 system and put a down payment on a Revel tweeter. It sounds like the only solution here.

... he has "Audio Expert" attached to his name (like JP has "script jockey").

As one expects of Canadian-school speakers, the M60 v3 measures beautifully, with generally flat response overall and practically dead-flat response from 400 Hz to 10 kHz - a region that encompasses most of the midrange and all but the top octave of treble. There's a very mild bump at 500 Hz that may be the result of floor bounce, and a strong +4-dB peak at 15.5 kHz. Off-axis response is very good; except for the expected treble rolloff, the sound barely changes as you move off-axis.

. . . what with all that spare time you have after your 58 hour week is through.

JBall,
I like the Revel speakers; they are great. Harman is doing an exceptional job at designing outstanding speakers. I could not agree more about their knowledge, research and know how.

I still stand that scientifically controlled double-blind listening tests is the only reliable fashion to evaluate an audio speaker. I will add that it will simplify things if the auditioner is familiar with the material (music) played.

You probably realize based on our exchange that simply the fact that you know that it is a Revel speaker your evaluation will not be objective. Blind listening tests; you don't know what you are listening to . . . It makes all the difference in the world.

JC;
So are you implying that a pair of M80v3s would perform as good or better in a blind test than those $20k / pair Revels?

JC;
So are you implying that a pair of M80v3s would perform as good or better in a blind test than those $20k / pair Revels?

I think you're missing the gist of JC's statement. He's just saying that you need to take any visual bias away from an auditory test. Many reviewers don't want to do this for fear of looking silly to their reading public if they happen to prefer the Isavdatun speakers over the Uberching ones. Same can be said for a lot of amplifiers, I'm sure.

I simply enjoy my pair Axiom M80v3 - dual VP180 - six Axom QS8v3 (side,rear, heights) and four EP800 powered by two Axiom A1400-8 amps. It is very difficult to walk away from it ! ! !

JBall,

What you do not realize is that the simple on-axis curve published by the reviewer in Sound&Vision is a relatively primitive measurement by comparison to the sophisticated set of measurements Axiom is able to do in a large anechoic chamber (the latter is a duplicate of the chamber at the National Research Council, where Kevin Voecks, the designer of Revel, learned much of what he knows about speaker design, along with Ian Colquhoun, and Paul Barton (PSB), Andrew Welker Mirage/Energy, Scott Bagby (Paradigm) and others). It's all about the "family of curves", not just an on-axis curve.

In your room at home, at least 50% of the sound reaching your ears is a combination of off-axis sounds reflected from room surfaces and radiated at increasing angles away from the center of the speaker. These, combined with the on-axis radiation, make up the overall spectral balance presented to listeners. So to properly gauge the output of a speaker, measurements have to be done at increasing angles to each side, above and below and even to the rear of the speaker in the anechoic chamber. When these curves are all combined, and the shape of the off-axis curves mirrors the on-axis curve, they have a very high predictability in terms of sound preference in double-blind tests. The smoother the off-axis and on-axis curves, the greater the likelihood it will be an excellent sounding speaker. In the NRC days, some 70 measurements were done at all angles to the speaker in the chamber. Similar groups of measurements are done at Axiom.

This research over 25 years conducted by Dr. Floyd Toole, forms the design background of Ian Colquhoun, Kevin Voecks--he was with Mirage then Snell when he did much of the work--Paul Barton and others. That scientific approach was taken to Harman by Floyd Toole when he moved to Harman as vice-president, and is carried on by Dr. Sean Olive. When Harman acquired Revel, it was a natural fit for Kevin Voecks, who was already very familiar with the NRC scientific guidelines on speaker measurement and testing. Harman has a large anechoic chamber much like Axiom's. Very few others exist in North America.

Having done over 20 years of double-blind tests of speakers in my role as editor of Canadian audio-video magazines, often in the company of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Ian G. Masters and others, I can attest that there is often no correlation between price and sound quality. I have data and rating sheets in my files that regularly show speakers from Axiom, PSB, and Paradigm that sold for roughly $1,000 per pair or so besting speakers from B&W, Kef and others that sold from $5000 to $7500 per pair in the late '80s and early '90s.

I have heard various excellent Revel and Snell speakers over the years, and I'd quite happily put a pair of M80 v3s in a double-blind test up against some of the exotically priced Revels. I expect there'd be frequent use of the phrase "similarly good", with at times a preference for one or the other speaker depending on the source material and minor spectral differences. But the ranking scores would be very close.

This was nicely illustrated by the double-blind tests conducted at the Axiom 30th anniversary, in which many forum members participated. The $330 pair Axiom M3s were preferrred by a majority of listeners over a pair of B&W Nautilus bookshelf models that sold for $2,500/pair. The Nautilus were very pretty, with the teardrop tweeter perched on top, and they sounded quite good, but they were not as linear and neutral as the Axiom M3s.

Over the years, I've found that once you reach a price point of about $1000 to $2000 per pair in loudspeakers from a talented designer, more money will not buy you "better" sound reproduction. It may be similarly good, but the more expensive speakers won't necessarily rank higher in double-blind tests.

The NRC testing protocol is largely bullet-proof, and the evidence is out there to be heard from Axiom, Revel, PSB, Snell, Paradigm and, in past years, from Energy and Mirage.

How can a double blind test be biased, what is wrong with you? I give up!!

Compared to many here, I don't post my ramblings here that often, but I must say...

This is approaching the most dismissive, thoughtless and borderline rude posts I've read here in some time. And for those who've been here awhile, that might be saying something.

Regardless of Mr. Lofft's current employment, the man knows of what he speaks, and if you'd take a moment to actually listen without bias, you might actually learn something. Then offer some well conceived questions with which to expand your knowledge on the topic.

To have such an expert in the field who willing, concisely and frequently shares his knowledge is a rare gift in any industry, and I for one respect the hours and dedication that such experts put into their craft. You might consider doing the same.

I am not a very scientific oriented person . . . .

I'm not sure that that's the same thing at all, because they were all Axioms. Axioms will sound similar. I think the true test would be someone that's not familiar with any of the speakers in question, performing a blind listening test. That may be more informative than the way it's currently being done, with all possible bias removed.

doubts about the necessity of closely controlled blind listening tests for judging audio equipment can't be taken seriously

At this late date doubts about the necessity of closely controlled blind listening tests for judging audio equipment can't be taken seriously. It's been too well established that human beings can't "Just trust their ears" when their brains keep getting in the way and, for example, imagining that a component which costs ten times as much just has to be better. Correlations between price and sound quality even in items where there actually are audible differences, i.e. speakers, are quite low, although they're not zero.

Dr. Toole has discussed this at length in his book "Sound Reproduction", but a convenient on-line summary of some of the findings is provided by Dr. Olive in "The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests" . Major differences in sound judgments were greatly narrowed and in one case reversed when the blind comparisons began. The significance of changes in speaker positions was also clearly demonstrated.

I simply enjoy my pair Axiom M80v3 - dual VP180 - six Axom QS8v3 (side,rear, heights) and four EP800 powered by two Axiom A1400-8 amps. It is very difficult to walk away from it ! ! !

I see the merits in a blind test to remove visual bias provided the actual blind test doesn't add its own bias - having the listeners/operators of the test participate knowing the sound character of one of the speakers in the test is a huge bias. I don't think people here are realizing.

. . . I didn't know you were running a pair of VP180s together, is there much more of an advantage using that configuration over a single VP180? How far apart are the top and bottom 180s?

. . . A second A1400 would be great, and dual VP180s is where I'm leaning for center channel.

. . . When are you going to grace us with new pictures of your system?

. . . I keep wanting to move there and work at Axiom.

Do High School Students Prefer Neutral/Accurate Loudspeakers? Given that the high school students preferred the higher quality music format (CD over MP3), would their taste for accurate sound reproduction hold true when evaluating different loudspeakers? To test this question, the students participated in a double-blind loudspeaker test where they rated four different loudspeakers on an 11-point preference scale. The preference scale had semantic differentials at every second interval defined as: 1 (really dislike), 3 (dislike), 5 (neutral), 7 (like) and 9 (really like). The relative distances in ratings between pairs of loudspeakers indicated the magnitude of preference: = 2 points represent a strong preference, 1 point a moderate preference and = 0.5 point a slight preference. The four loudspeakers were floor-standing the models (slide 22): Infinity Primus 362&#65532; ($500 a pair), Polk Rti10 ($800), Klipsch RF35 ($600), and Martin Logan Vista ($3800). Each loudspeaker was installed on the automated speaker shuffler in Harman International’s Multichannel Listening Lab, which positions each loudspeaker in same the location when the loudspeaker is active. In this way, the loudspeaker positional biases are removed from the test. Each loudspeaker was level-matched to within 0.1 dB at the primary listening location. Listeners completed a series of four trials where they could compare each of the four loudspeakers reproducing a number of times before rating each loudspeaker on an 11-point preference scale. Two different music programs were used with two observations. At the beginning of each trial, the computer randomly assigned four letters (A,B,C,D) to the loudspeakers. This meant that the loudspeaker ratings in consecutive trials were more or less independent (slide 23).

Results: High School Students Prefer More Accurate, Neutral Loudspeakers When averaged across all listeners and programs, there was moderate-strong preference for the Infinity Primus 362 loudspeaker over the other three choices (slide 25). In the results shown in the accompanying slide, as an industry courtesy, the brands of the competitors’ loudspeakers are simply identified as Loudspeakers B,C and D. As a group, the listeners were not able to formulate preferences among the three lower rated loudspeakers B,C, and D, which were all imperfect in different ways. For an untrained listener, sorting out these different types of imperfections and assigning consistent ratings can be a difficult task without practice and training [5]. The individual listener preferences (slide 26) reveal that 13 of the 18 listeners (72%) preferred the Infinity loudspeaker based on their ratings averaged across all programs and trials. When comparing the student's rank ordering of the loudspeakers to those of the trained Harman listeners (slide 27), we see good agreement between the two groups. The one exception is Loudspeaker C, which the trained listeners strongly disliked. The general agreement between trained and untrained listener loudspeaker preferences illustrated in this test is consistent with previous studies where a different set of listeners and loudspeakers were used [5],[6]. As found in the previous study, the trained listeners, on average, rated each loudspeaker about 1.5 preference rating lower than the untrained listeners, and the trained listeners were more discriminating and consistent in their ratings[5],[7]. The comprehensive set of anechoic measurements for each loudspeaker is compared to its preference rating (slide 28). There are clear visual correlations between the set of technical measurements and listeners’ loudspeaker preference ratings. The most preferred loudspeaker (Infinity Primus 362&#65532;) had the flattest measured on-axis and listening window curves (top two curves), and the smoothest first reflection, sound power and first reflection/sound power directivity index curves (the third, fourth, fifth and sixth curves from the top). The other loudspeaker models tended to deviate from this ideal linear behavior, which resulted in lower preference ratings. Again, this relationship between loudspeaker preference and a linear frequency response is consistent with similar studies conducted by the author and Toole [9],[10]. Finally, sound quality doesn't necessarily cost more money to obtain as illustrated in these experiments. The most accurate and preferred loudspeaker - the Infinity Primus 362&#65532; - was also the least expensive loudspeaker in the group at $500 a pair. It doesn't cost any more money to make a loudspeaker sound good, as it costs to make it sound bad. In fact, the least accurate loudspeaker (Loudspeaker C) cost almost 8x more money ($3,800) than the most accurate and preferred model. Sound quality can be achieved by paying close attention to the variables that scientific research says matter, and then applying good engineering design to optimize those variables at every product price point.

Double-blind is a catchy term but most people don't understand the strictness you have to adhere to properly conduct a true, controlled double-blind study. Controlled audio listening test are much more difficult and costly to setup and have many other variables that can introduce bias from both the experimenter and listening panel that almost make it a impossible to adhere to the double-blind standard (compared to the food example).

A true, double-blind listening test IMO you would need all these things.

Expertise: 3rd party (multiple) expert(s) in the field choosing the individual speakers and setting up the listening test and another 3rd party that is an expert in statistics and basic computer statistical analysis like linear regression/ANOVA that can take the data and perform and interpret the significance of the data.

Speaker Shuffler and acoustically transparent curtain: Adhering to the double-blind standard would be that you control any bias big or small and that would mean having all speakers being played in the exact same position in the room through a speaker shuffler and having the speakers not visible to the listeners.

Large random sample (100+) of people that we nothing about except having their hearing checked to get on the panel. They use their own source material, one at a time in the listening room, taking all the time they want.

The process would be expensive, time consuming and STILL be subject to plenty of error. That said, a controlled single blind test using random listening panels is more than appropriate for testing audio equipment. We are not talking about saving lives here.

Anyone that has a vehicle, knows the sound of their vehicle when it's idling because we hear it so frequently. I would venture to bet that everyone would be able to pick out the sound of their vehicle when juxtaposed to another, regardless of the environment.

That comparison is quite pointless, similar to comparing a cello to a violin.

Your car's engine is an instrument. It has its own tone. It's not trying to be neutral, transparent, colorless, etc, like good speakers are designed to be.

The real question is would you be able to consistently pick out a particular speaker over other "similarly good" speakers playing a recording of your vehicle's idling sound?

Your car's engine is an instrument. It has its own tone.

Here is an interesting read with a few other lnks to other articles on blind testing, not specific to speakers though.

http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1

Peter, that was simply a hypothetical to illustrate my question of whether or not our brain can become trained to a specific sound, based on what I mentioned in the rest of my post.



I know, but my entire post was questioning our brains auditory memory capacity.



Don't speaker brands have their own tone i.e. "the Axiom sound"?

Definition of tone is-

Music
a. A sound of distinct pitch, quality, and duration; a note.
b. The interval of a major second in the diatonic scale; a whole step.
c. A recitational melody in a Gregorian chant.
2.
a. The quality or character of sound.
b. The characteristic quality or timbre of a particular instrument or voice.

IF you work for a speaker company you can most definitely recognize the "tone" of the speakers you build/sell even if you are blindfolded.

Here is an interesting read with a few other lnks to other articles on blind testing, not specific to speakers though.

http://www.avguide.com/forums/blind-listening-tests-are-flawed-editorial?page=1

but compare speakers who's engineers have the same design goal(which should be a flat freq response through it's range).

I think his statements about a conspiracy to discredit audiophiles are a bit much.

But not obvious when compared to companies which use the same design philosophy such as Axiom, Paradigm, PSB, B&W ect. Sure you can make references to obvious choices like Bose, Klipsh ect...but compare speakers who's engineers have the same design goal(which should be a flat freq response through it's range). I also took part in the M3/B&W test and thought I was listening to two different Axiom speakers. The point is, for two sonically close speakers, do you want to pay $350 or $2500? regardless of the outcome of the test, that to me was the main revelation of the test. You can keep going on about the problems associated with testing speakers, but the simple fact is, the greatest biases are the appearance and price which is why that shuld be eliminated. Blind testing may not be the perfect system, but it's superior to sighted tests as shown by the heavy hitters who support it. If you you read the posts below the link Jay provided, you'll see some very strong professional rebuttals that are more interesting than the blog(imo). When I buy speakers, I listen with my ears, not my eyes. When I buy paint for my kitchen, I use my eyes, and don't tap the can to see what it sounds like.
Getting back to the M3/B&W comparison. The M3, though an Axiom speaker, is known to have somewhat different characteristics than the rest of Axioms speakers and most of the people involved in the test had never heard an M3 before, nor had most heard the B&W if any. So to imply that we "knew" which was the Axiom because we own M80s or M60s or whatever, is just heresay. Some speakers are easy to tell the difference sonically like the ones you mentioned, but most would be hard pressed when comparing similarly designed ones.

I wonder if that test was conducted at B&W, if you would have preferred the B&Ws. Paradigm ran a similar blind test claiming their speakers beat B&Ws too. Seems like speaker companies like to compare themselves to B&W alot and of course when they host a blind test at their facility, using their setup, they....ALWAYS win.. HMMM.

FWIW, I found out later that I chose the B&Ws.... but just barely.

Is it any different than people on this thread, including manufacturers themselves thinking properly designed speakers costing above $2k can only improve looks and not performance? and that the high end speaker market is nothing more than eye candy?

I wonder if that test was conducted at B&W, if you would have preferred the B&Ws. Paradigm ran a similar blind test claiming their speakers beat B&Ws too. Seems like speaker companies like to compare themselves to B&W alot and of course when they host a blind test at their facility, using their setup, they....ALWAYS win.. HMMM.

Yes, different. One's paranoia. The other is denial.

You actually think B&W would test their $2500 speaker up against a $350 speaker?
You seem intent on discrediting the results of this test or Paradigms for whatever reason. For the record, I never even told you which speaker I preferred, so once again, you've made another assumption/heresay.
In fact, I had the two speakers in a virtual tie, I kept switching back and forth between the two on various material and found them both pleasant and very, very similar. Each pair had their advantage on certain material...In fact I thought they were two versions of exactly the same speaker(V1/V2 or V3). You're intent on not believing (double) blind testing, so just what kind of testing do you in fact advocate?

Why don't you think it was a double blind test? The manufacturer knew which speakers were being tested, but not which speakers at a given time. The manufacturer wasn't changing the speakers, the user was.

And I wasn't there, by the way, so you can save your inferences on me.

Also, I don't think ANYONE has said explicitly, as you seem to keep stating, that M80s would beat Revels in a double blind test. Only that one would NEED a double blind test to see whether they would or not.

Stop making car analogies. Jeezus christ, everyone stop making car analogies for everything. Macs are not BMWs, Axioms are not Hyundais, a woman isn't a Corvette, and Cheerios are not Lincoln Continentals.

JBall, I think you should sell your B&Ws and buy some M3s.

they should be able to make a car perform like a Porsche and cost less than a CamryHyundai Genesis Coupe

I'm a happy Axiom owner though a bit taken back by the arrogance displayed on this forum that no speaker can possibly be better, only "similarly good" to our Axioms based on Axiom run blind testing. Amazing!

Wow Axiom should build cars too b/c with this logic, they should be able to make a car perform like a Porsche and cost less than a Camry.

I am not a very scientific oriented person . . . .

Wow Axiom should build cars too b/c with this logic, they should be able to make a car perform like a Porsche and cost less than a Camry. It's amazing that they can slop some drivers in a box costing thousands less than the most elaborate designs and be at worst case similarly good. Amazing!

Stop making car analogies. Jeezus christ, everyone stop making car analogies for everything. Macs are not BMWs, Axioms are not Hyundais, a woman isn't a Corvette, and Cheerios are not Lincoln Continentals.

Here is a measurement of a Revel speaker by the same reviewer. Notice no bumps below 100Hz or above 10kHz. I am pretty sure the bumps in the Axiom are NOT room related since Brent is a credible reviewer that tests products in a similar fashion each time.

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/content/revel-ultima-salon2-stereo-speakers

Wow this makes me salivate to own some Revels

Measurements show the Revels are a much more linear speaker than the Axioms. This is kind a stupid comparison considering the price difference...

Over the years, I've found that once you reach a price point of about $1000 to $2000 per pair in loudspeakers from a talented designer, more money will not buy you "better" sound reproduction. It may be similarly good, but the more expensive speakers won't necessarily rank higher in double-blind tests.

Seriously I'm done with this topic as I made all my points and nobody wants a open minded discussion on this topic.

Seriously I'm done with this topic as I made all my points and nobody wants a open minded discussion on this topic.

My existence certainly involves a lot of repetition. My arguing is like your exercise.

No sense of community?

Nope. I’m an antisocial non-conformist which makes it next to impossible. Probably why I piss off the “leadership” of every organization I’ve ever been a part of.

Daddy? I think you may have found your illegitimate son .

It's great that Axiom has convinced everyone that we have the best speakers in the world regardless of price. I was actually convinced too when I made my purchase.

Bose has done the same to so many people.

There is one little known fact that no one has mentioned here. Most humans have an inner ear mechanism made up of the Anvil, Stirrup and Hammer. Trolls have an extra bone called the Knowall that gives them discerning auditory capability.