Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's

Posted by: GTZ

Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 04:46 PM

I'm posting this here because the review was just for a pair of M60's, not a complete 5.1 setup. They did earn a '2010 Sound & Vision Certified & Recommended' status even though the overall score was only a 6.3 Here's the breakdown:

Design - 4
Performance - 8
Value - 7

I don't get the 4 on design. Other box type speakers they've reviewed in the past have gotten better that a 4. But the written part of the review was quite positive. The bottom line reads like this:, (and I quote)
"The Axiom Audio M60 V3 gave me the reliable engineering experience I expect from the Canadian school. It also gave me something I didn't anticipate: that extra dose of audio excitement I often hear in more exotic designs. This is one pair I can recommend for anyone, from the home theater aficionado seeking studio-quality perfection to the audiophile seeking something a little more than mere technical competence. SV"
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 07:26 PM

I like that quote. I think Axiom's aged box design is the cause of many poor comments, might be time for a new outer shell.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 07:35 PM

The last time they tried to change the appearance, they got crucified for it...
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 07:35 PM

They tried before?
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 07:42 PM

v3s...
Posted by: solarrdadd

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 10:21 PM

the axiom speakers look just fine to me, much like almost any other speaker in it's class but what's more important to me is the sound quality and the price for said sound quality. that's where i want my money to go, not into some crazy looking cabinet design! for me, with the 5 speakers i bought from Axiom, i got just what I wanted! of course that's me!

"Sorry Charlie, we're not looking for tuna with good taste, we're looking for tuna that taste good!"
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 10:32 PM

Never knew they tried to change the shape of the enclosure for the v3's.
Posted by: Wid

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 10:36 PM


What did they try and change? I don't recall a substantial change being put forth.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 10:37 PM

"Design" can mean a lot of different things. If they are talking about the shape of the cabinets, then one would hope that it's all relative....in other words, any boring square shaped cabinet would get a "2" according to their scoring system.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/21/11 10:50 PM

Oh never mind. I was talking about changing the driver color, which was a long standing request. Fuggetaboutit.
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 12:01 AM

Ken, your point is still valid. If that's the backlash for making a cosmetic change that minor, how much more freaked out are people going to be with an entirely new appearance? As for me, I think I would like a new look, as long as prices remained comparable and performance improved along with it. I'm sure Axiom will make the change when they can accomplish that.
Posted by: GTZ

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 09:25 AM

I'm with solarrdadd. I bought Axiom's because of the great reviews they got from owners for the way they sound, not for their looks, which IMHO is better than a 4.
Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 10:17 AM

Yeah, pushing Ken's point a bit more...

There WOULD be a certain level of backlash against a redesigned enclosure. Imagine the people that are building their system piecemeal and find that their future speaker cabinets aren't even the same design as their older ones... that would likely be MUCH more of an issue than a dustcover color change.

Axiom might feel a need to have two lines available for a period of time, substantially increasing tooling costs.

And really, if the cabinet design is functional as it currently is, it might be better to lose an occasional customer who wants a cabinet with more pizazz than have to deal with all of the above...
Posted by: 2x6spds

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 10:45 AM

Looks are very subjective. If they are reviewing speakers, I think it would be more appropriate for them to comment on the quality of construction, speaker binding posts, cabinet rigidity, and features (spikes, puckered gorilla rectum porting). If the reviewer was able to articulate short comings, or compare the Axes to some other similarly priced speakers then we'd have an opinion which is more valuable than a naked and unilluminating conclusion.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 11:13 AM

I was thinking much along those lines too, Mark.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 11:22 AM

I agree, 2x6. I know a lot of speakers out there now have nifty plastic flanges and accents, but I can't imagine those really add to anything but cost.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 11:23 AM

Really. Does anyone actually think that B $ W's look good? (They should ditch the ampersand and use a cash sign instead.)

That karaoke microphone tucked into a shellaced gourd never tugged at my emo strings.

There are speakers in the $15-20k range that look like sea shells, totems, plain ol' sq. boxes, obelisks, picture frames, curliques, ...

And for even $4-5k, some mfgrs. will still give you either vinyl or black only.

Not one of my architect, desinger, or artist friends has had anything but compliments for their visual presentation (in wood, ya cheap basterds, in wood).

Besides, I listen to them with my eyes closed anyway. And, at any price, shape, or finish, that's when their amazing disappearing act takes hold of me.

A '4', indeed! I wanna see his visual arts resume/experience, please.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 11:28 AM

Maybe it was 4 out of 4!?
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 11:33 AM

None of us except the OP has even read the review. Except seen the scorecard. Its really hard to base an opinion of the review with only a snippet of the article. Design could mean many things including cosmetics like the cabinet and finish. Design could also relate to design philosophy and overall build quality - bracing, type of drivers, grilles, driver complement, crossover design, typology and quality of components used. Without reading the article and its context it is hard to form an opinion on what the rating 4 really stands for.
Posted by: donlboy

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 01:24 PM

I subscribe to S&V but missed this review. Can you point me to which issue it was in, or a URL?
Posted by: GTZ

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 06:45 PM

Dr. House,
I was uncomfortable, for copywrite reasons, to include the whole article in my OP.

Don,
The review is in the Feb/March 2011 issue, page 64. I can't do a URL on a current issue.

2X6,
"puckered gorilla rectum porting" - now that's funny
Posted by: LT61

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 09:44 PM

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


If I'm not mistaken, I believe this is the main reason for the current design of the cabinets: "Anti-Standing-Wave cabinets that suppress internal resonances which color sound". It may not be so easy to reconfigure.
Posted by: SirQuack

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 09:50 PM

Right you are Larry, that is the point of the design. Now I suppose they could keep the interior the same, but change the exterior a bit, maybe round it off a bit to make it more sexier.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 10:27 PM

My thnking exactly Randy, keep the interior design but have the exterior a little smoother.

I know the costs to manufacture such a cabinet would be more and would we, the consumer, be willing to pay a little more for a 'sexier' cabinet.
Posted by: JohnK

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/22/11 10:40 PM

Yes, and also keep in mind that in addition to the effect on internal standing waves, a perhaps even more significant benefit of non-parallel enclosure walls is to reduce the external diffraction which occurs at square corners and parallel sides. Yes, a more rounded "teardrop" form which some manufacturers have adopted would furnish similar benefits, but presumably at a higher manufacturing cost.
Posted by: bridgman

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/23/11 12:46 AM

Bondo to the rescue ?
Posted by: terzaghi

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/23/11 10:26 AM

I think axioms approach is to make a speaker that sounds great, looks good, and sell it at a low cost... and I think they do that very well. I don't think an exotically shaped cabinet fits into this business model very well. I'd much rather them devote their resources to continuing and make sound improvements to existing speakers, develop new products, etc. than to try and figure out how to make their speakers look like some other brand. For those that want to pay more money they offer some very nice finish options.

JohnK, good point about the Teardrop shape. I imagine that 99% of customers would not notice any audible difference though. I'm sure they would all notice the price increase on the other hand.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/23/11 11:18 AM

There's no question any sort of curved/elliptic shape would completely change the manufacturing process which is fairly straight forward and relatively inexpensive with a couple of angles on the sides, but make it elliptical you either layer it with many thin sheets of mdf or layer it the other way using several thick layers cut from solid mdf. Only other method I can think of is if they can form the mdf into a mold and compress it in it's "mushy" state....all of these options increase the cost of manufacture considerably. It probably would have little or no effect on sound, only on appearance. I do, for the record, like curved cabinets though.
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/23/11 12:12 PM

I like curves too, buddy smile .
Posted by: originalstarlite

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/23/11 12:38 PM

Being totally oblivious to the fact that they have curves, I did not see it coming until the boxes were opened. Having had traditional Polk's fro 13 years, it is great to have something a little different. I keep them slightly inward for additional emphasis.
Posted by: Worfzara

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 07:58 AM

As a tool designer in a past life, the word design doesn’t mean cosmetics to me at all. Form an engineering perspective, I think Axiom speakers are designed very well. They sound great and have a very cost effective manufacturing process. They are also easy to service if needed. This constitutes, at least to me, a good design, and should warrant an 8 or 9 out of 10.

My problem with the review is the 7 score on value. Most people who buy Axiom are buying based on quality / price ratio relative to other manufactures. When I compare the M60’s to other (retail) speakers, I think Axiom has a much better “bang for the buck”. In this category I would expect at lest a 9 but probably a 10.

It is difficulty to find a speaker that sounds better than the M60 for less money!

paul
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 11:33 AM

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.
Posted by: radtek2

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: BobKay
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.


I agree!,I don't own the M60s but the same can be said for the M80s V3 I do own!

Also, I hear Klipsch, which I have owned in the past, is being taken over by Audiovox. They will undoubtedly do unto them as AMF did unto Harley Davidson in the 70s. So kiss their status goodbye.
Posted by: PeterChenoweth

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 02:31 PM

Good for Axiom for getting a little mainstream AV press. Congrats!

It's always baffled me why DI sales companies like Axiom, Emotiva, Outlaw, etc don't push harder to get big-press reviews of their products. Unless they have something to hide...

At great risk from drawing the ire of other Axiomites, I think 4 is a little low on the 'design' scale, but not by much. While you can get nicer cabinet treatments via the custom shop, I really don't think Axiom speakers are all that visually beautiful.

I fully realize that they are not designed to be froo-froo pretty. They are designed to be acoustically amazing for their price. That is Axiom's raison d'ętre! And that's something that all of us owners know.

Aesthetics are the epitome of subjectivity, so it's basically impossible to have a meaningful conversation of which is a "prettier" speaker. But IMHO, while my M80V2's are great speakers (love em!), they look a little lower-rent compared to something like ...

B&W CM9's


or (to some degree) Paradigm Reference Signature S8's


vs..


Of course, in the case of the CM9's, they're roughly twice as expensive as M80's, so they darn-well ought to look nice. smile Then again, maybe I just like yellow mid-bass drivers. blush
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 02:57 PM

Don't much like the B&W's but eyez likes the Paradigms.
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 03:37 PM

I can't say they look better, myself. The Axioms have a homesy woodsy look, whereas the other 2 have a chineesey plastic look.

If anything, I think Axiom should concentrate on improving the wood look of their speakers, maybe with a little brass/gold colored trim.
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 03:37 PM

I think phase plugs and concave dust caps look better than convex dust caps.

Overall, I have to agree with Peter. The Axiom aesthetic seems - to me - a little dated. At a minimum, I'd like to see Axiom consider some different baffle designs/treatments. Perhaps contrasting colors, different materials or other approaches could be incorporated without fundamentally altering the manufacturing process.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 03:39 PM

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>
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 03:55 PM

Keep in mind those S8's are....$$$$$.
Posted by: PeterChenoweth

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 03:57 PM

Originally Posted By: kcarlile
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>


The Enterprise-D from that alternative time line was awesome. wink
Posted by: PeterChenoweth

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 04:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
Keep in mind those S8's are....$$$$$.


No doubt.

Knowing little about Paradigm these days, are the S8's the replacement for the Studio 100's? I know that "back in the day", I nearly bought a pair of S100's instead of my M80's. Went to a Paradigm dealer and demoed them. I remember thinking they were pretty amazing and only slightly more expensive than M80's. Was about to pull the trigger. Until I saw the "EACH" on the price tag. Oops. Nevermind.

Had the same experience with a set of Energy Veritas 2.4's. Really lovely. And hey, they're only $2,100/pair. Oh wait, "EACH". Dag nabbit. wink
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 04:12 PM

Not a replacement. The S8's are from the Signature line...I think they are TWICE the price of the Studio line. I'd guess they are up around the $6-7 mark.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 05:15 PM

Last I looked the S8's were double the Studio line up and are very smooth and detailed.
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 07:56 PM

Yowzers, the S8 system was $15,000 in 2008. Beautiful speakers though.
Posted by: michael_d

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 08:55 PM

The Axiom design is eficient, but I do have a preference for something a bit more elegant, which is why the Axioms are in the HT and I have something else in the great room. The Opus on the lest has a simular shape, just a bit softer. But they arn't exactly cheap either. It's pretty hard to lable one better sounding than the other too.





Posted by: SirQuack

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 09:03 PM

Now those are great looking speakers Mike.
Posted by: Worfzara

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 09:19 PM

I think the M80/60 and even the m50's could benefit from a custom base / stand. Something to give them a wider stance. It would at least make them look like they won't fall over.

paul
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/24/11 09:41 PM

Would like to see the M80's in shiny black sitting beside those, instead of the Boston Cherry.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 01/25/11 05:09 AM

Beautiful speakers Michael. That teardrop shape would be my choice for a new Axiom case.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/08/11 07:53 PM

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


Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/08/11 08:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Dr.House


Well....that ought to spark another round of newbie "Bright" questions/accusations.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/08/11 09:27 PM

Odd that the reviewer used the 'b' word, but also stated that his own measurements didn't back up the percieved brightness.
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/08/11 09:54 PM

The chart on page 4 makes the speaker look too bassey and too bright. I wonder where this chart came from? It doesn't say how they came up with it, or what the room it was like where they did measurements. Perhaps the listening room was far from optimal.
Posted by: JohnK

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/08/11 09:59 PM

Yes, Adrian; the upper mid-range/lower treble where any "brightness" in program material or equipment lives(not the relatively insignificant top octave), was excellent, confirming Axiom and NRC measurements, plus most user reports.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/08/11 11:01 PM

That's +/-3dB, so not really. It's just really zoomed in.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 09:00 AM

The biggest issue I see with that measurement (on-axis) in his room is the big mid-bass hump relative to midrange between 80hz - 500hz (part of the vocal region). That could cause unnutural, "fat" and "chesty" sounding vocals on a lot of recordings.

Keep in perspective that is an incomplete set of measurements we are talking about here and I assume taken in his room.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 10:20 AM

Seriously, it's <3dB. That ain't nuffin. If it had been a standard, zoomed out graph, it wouldn't look so dramatic.
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 10:37 AM

I wonder why he "had" to pull the speakers so far out from the wall to get an "acceptable" bass response?
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 10:44 AM

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.
Posted by: alan

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 10:44 AM

Hi all,

The bass hump is bizarre, not supported by Axiom's own anechoic measurements or double-blind listening tests, which I've done on the M60 v3. BB's measurements are in-room, which are fraught with problems, so the measured bass hump is an artifact of Brent's room and speaker placement.

As to the brightness comment, I also find that peculiar; on the other hand, Sound & Vision magazine does not do double-blind or blind listening tests, so psychological bias will always play a huge role.

I've known Brent Butterworth, the reviewer, for 20 years. Reading other speaker reviews of his, it seems he's impressed by glitzy design. Or perhaps he was bending over backwards to show he wasn't biased by our collegial friendship. Who the hell knows? I can't figure it out.

Alan
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 10:53 AM

I didn't notice his name until now. Any relation to Stephen?
Posted by: alan

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 11:20 AM

Hi Chris,

I don't know. Who is Stephen?

Regards,
Alan
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 11:22 AM

Stephen Butterworth, the engineer who first came up with the Butterworth filter, which is commonly used in crossover design.
Posted by: alan

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 11:40 AM

Oh! I doubt it; I think Brent would have let me know that if it were the case. "Butterworth" is not an uncommon name. I've known a few over the years.

Brent B is an interesting guy.
But when I read that review and then looked at the ratings, my reaction was "What the f___??!!"

Cheers,
Alan
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 11:43 AM

I didn't figure, but since Brent is involved in audio there might have been a chance. The only other Butterworth I've heard of is Mrs. smile

Unfortunately the review is pretty much what I've come to expect from S&V. If it isn't exotic, they don't seem to rate it well.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 12:00 PM

There's a moderator over at the S&V forums called IrritateGuy that does excellent reviews that are extremely comprehensive (much more than the magazine). Here is just the list and you would be surprised how low he scores a lot of speakers. Very critical of a lot of speakers and thorough.

http://forums.soundandvisionmag.com/show...p=7400#post7400
Posted by: casey01

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 12:23 PM

Why is it that so many of these reviews nowadays have to be an exercise in literary gymnastics and what exactly is the Canadian School of speaker design? I thought pretty well everyone in the speaker business is looking for as neutral, transparent and linear sound as possible? Regardless of price, isn't that what they all advertise?

Given his American/Canadian comments????, I detect a hint of envy in that although it may not be to his particular taste, long-term well established Canadian speaker companies like Axiom do a damn fine job of designing and building speakers that are at least as good or better than the esoteric, artsy designs that he seems to covet and like so many reviewers nowadays, they just don't know how to deal with it. Many are still coping with the fact, especially with the "Internet-only" operations like Axiom that audiophile grade equipment can be had without mortgaging the house.

Related to that, unless I missed it and whether or not it was intentional, nowhere in the article did I see a price for the M60s.




Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 12:47 PM

I've stopped subscribing to all the mags (and I've gotten an awful lot over the years) because I realized that I primarily read them for the reviews...yet the reviews couldn't be trusted.

My last holdout was Home Theater Magazine. An irritant that finally got to me was that every time that they review a monitor, they use a different movie, and every time they review an audio product, they use different CDs.

When there is no standard, familiar material, how can they possibly hope to do the subjective portion of a review? Even WITH familiar material, there's the problem of non-instantaneous, non-blind comparisons. But to say whether or not you found the color or black levels on a TV to be a certain way when you're basing it on a movie you've never seen????

If I reviewed music reproduction equipment by using currently-released CDs, I would think ALL the equipment sucks because the recordings do. smile

Shouldn't they at least attempt to use good-quality and often-thought reference media for their subjective tests?


Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 01:25 PM

Originally Posted By: Dr.House
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.


Thanks, Doc - I know, as I have the 60's. I've read a bazillion posts here and can not reacall anyone with the 60's or 80's having to place them almost 3 feet out to achieve the desired affect - and I wondered if that could be what caused the bass anomoly. Reading Alan's post, it could be the reason. At any rate, I am with Mark as I used to subscribe way back when it was Stereo Review and stopped for the same reason.
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 01:36 PM

Rob, pulling them out from the wall is an adjustment for ALL boundary surfaces in the room. He may have had a null but couldn't change the room dimensions, knowhatimean?
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 02:32 PM

yeah, I know. Just kinda looking for a means to discredit the conclusion. Alan seems to have issue - with the conclusion that is wink
Posted by: pmbuko

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 04:05 PM

Quote:
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.

I think this is what you meant to say, Mark.
Posted by: medic8r

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 04:20 PM

There's always Perfect Ten magazine.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 06:52 PM

Man those M60s have a huge bump below 200Hz and above 10kHz in the S&V graph. It almost looks like a smiley EQ. That doesn't look very linear to me. Axiom should offer a pad down on the tweeter for those wanting a more laid back sound. I don't recall the V2's measuring like this. I wonder if this is a deliberate design change to go after more casual listeners?
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 06:54 PM

Jeezus people, it's in room, and it's bloody 3 dB! the rating is +/-3dB!
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 06:57 PM

S&V typically does nearfield close miced measurements. I don't think this is in-room. If it was in-room, it still won't explain the bass bump which is too low Q. The bump above 10Khz would be room independent. It looks to me the tweeter output is too high or the mic was placed too high. S&V should have better documented how they did the measurement.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 07:16 PM

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.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 07:19 PM

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 smile
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: kcarlile
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.


Yes the Axiom measurement scale is too large to really see anything. I much prefer the S&V zoomed in graph.
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 09:39 PM

I still can't hear a damn thing from that graph.
Posted by: JohnK

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 09:43 PM

Casey, no the online version of the review doesn't have, among other things, the price. In the magazine itself, at p.65 under "Key Features" it lists the price at $1040. For some reason this is among the things S&V leaves out when they make a review available on-line a few weeks later.
Posted by: FrankeeD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/09/11 10:45 PM

I don't mind the look of my M60s, but love the sound. I have a pair of KEF iQ1 bookshelf speakers that sound pretty good, but look great. Marking the M60s down to 4 for appearance seems somewhat uncharitable.

More disturbing, though, is the snide tone of the review. It sounds more like something someone might write in high school when they haven't got a clue about tone in writing and think sarcasm is cool.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 11:57 AM

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.
Posted by: medic8r

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:07 PM

Originally Posted By: tomtuttle
I still can't hear a damn thing from that graph.

Amen.

What kind of audiopile gives equal consideration to how a speaker looks and sounds? I mean, come on. Why do you buy the things?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:17 PM

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?
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:28 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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?


So....you know Brent?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:30 PM

I don't know him personally but I can see his tone change when he really digs a speaker. Look at his comments about the Revels. That review has a much different tone...
Posted by: chesseroo

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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.

If you believe that review of the M60 for the reasons you state, then i have some ice cubes to sell you...

The words chosen for his review give away his obvious bias of expectation before he listened to the speakers.
And yes, his room DOES make a huge difference in those measurements. Listing his specific methods would be of great use, but somehow i doubt they used an anechoic chamber to remove the room effect from this equation.
Without normalizing the data for room effects, his entire review becomes specific to that one room.
Many graphs have been put up on the forums over the years demonstrating someone's Axiom speakers in their listening space and every one has been unique.
Posted by: medic8r

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:33 PM

My point was not about the graph or measuring issue, even though I did piggyback it on Tom's comment.

My issue with the review is that I value sound way more than looks, and I think it's idiotic for a professional journalist to weigh them equally when reviewing a speaker. If you or I choose to do that, then, you know, free country and all that. But I can't fathom that, on the whole, people who buy high-quality loudspeakers do it as much for their looks as for their sound.

I'd have done what Car and Driver does and given each category a relative maximum of points and then totaled them, e.g.

Sound: 48 out of 60
Value: 28 out of 30
Appearance: 4 out of 10

Total: 80 out of 100.

Since "Sound" is such a big area, it could be subdivided into Bass, Treble, soundstage, whatever subcategories you'd like.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:34 PM

Funny how the revels in his same room measured so flat...
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:38 PM

It sounds like his room is designed to add bass and treble, so that poor quality speakers sound better.

I know, just stating the obvious.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 12:53 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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.
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 01:09 PM

Keep in mind that the "review" is completely subjective, and is the antithesis of "blind testing".

Likewise, we know almost nothing about the testing conditions which produced the alleged "objective science" part (the graph), making it of relatively limited use, except perhaps to justify the subjective part. Which came first - the listen or the measure? We just don't know, and it matters.

I think it is dangerous to discuss someone's perceived "tone".

Didn't the M60's get a "Approved and Recommended" out of this?

JBall, I simply don't understand your point. We have speakers to derive enjoyment. The measure of that enjoyment can only be your ears in your room. The graph doesn't come from either your room or a scientifically controlled environment, and your ears can't hear the graph. So, why does the graph matter so much to you?
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 01:29 PM

The graph for the Revels is flatt-"er", but it still looks +/- 2db's to me assuming all things being equal, and that's a big assumption given the lack of testing details.
Posted by: chesseroo

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 01:35 PM

Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
Originally Posted By: JBall
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.

Exactly.
He stated in the review he had the M60s at 30" from his back wall, twice what he normally "prefers".
That already leads to the idea that his speaker locations were not the same when measuring.
Same as angle of placement, something he also referred to as a difference.

His total score at the end is useless when incorporating a subjective opinion as part of that score, but more so, what was the objective bar used to score the other categories?
I didn't see a defined scale.
If build quality is a 9, how was that ranked? By speaker weight? # of internal bracing components? Driver shape and dimensions? etc.

These reviews are like watching the aftermath of a car crash as you drive by.
You can't help but be intrigued and want to look at it, but on the other hand, you probably shouldn't be gawking at it either.

Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 02:51 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
Funny how the revels in his same room measured so flat...


Yeesss......isn't it?
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 04:46 PM

Revels were what I was just about to pull the trigger on when I found Axiom.

Honestly, I REALLY like them. But I got M60/500 plus 4 QS8's with stands, and I spent less than the two Revel towers would have cost. And, though I have VaSSallo's, my choices of finish with ANY Revels were black ash, maple or cherry (black grilles only). I think they've dumped the maple and now the choices are two.

Their appearance would not have been a consideration, as long as they're not sprayed flat black with orange peel up the kiester. Seen $$$$ speakers that come that way. My Fender and Ampeg road equipment looked better.

Do I like them better than Axioms? Yes. Do I long for them? Not al all. For me, the point of diminishing returns kicks in at around $5k/pr.
And that's where I had to go ($$$) to begin to close in on the Axioms. Revels top out at appx. $20k/pr.

All Revel's are direct-firing, so their "HT systems" must be murderously unforgiving to place.

Once again, it's a snake oil sideshow when trying to assess value/$. Isn't that why we're all here?
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 04:49 PM

I'm here because JP gives me free meds.
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 04:51 PM

Originally Posted By: BobKay
Isn't that why we're all here?

I am here for the clever repartee
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 04:55 PM

I was looking at Revels too, before I considered JBL, and finally Axiom. But not their Ultima(2) line, the Concerta instead. The Concerta S12 is not direct firing, and neither is their Performa S30.
Posted by: avjunkee

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:05 PM

OK, I don't post much but I could not let this go. Here are some thoughts, in no particular order, worth the price that you paid, proceed at your own risk.

The reviewer contradicts himself when talking about the use of titanium. With the M60, he said "Lockheed used a lot of titanium on the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, so it must be awesome." To me, that felt like somewhat of a snide / sarcastic and unprofessional remark, yet he applauded the Revels for "boasting snazzy titanium cones," but he doesn't say what advantage it offers, which ironically was another one of his criticism's toward Axiom.

He also said this about the M60, "I ended up with the M60s placed so that their backs were 30 inches from the wall, almost double the distance I usually prefer." and said this about the Revels: "To sound its best, (the Salon2) needs to sit about 3 feet out from the wall behind it." So what does this mean?

1. Both Salon2 and M60 are good because they need to be that far from the wall?
2. Both Salon2 and M60 are bad because they need to be that far from the wall?
3. The Salon2 is good because it needs to be that far from the wall, but the M60 is bad because it needs to be that far from the wall?

Sure, the Revel graph is flatter, but is it really worth an extra $20,000 just to even out the small bump below 100Hz and above 10kHz? Heck, if I spent an extra $20,000 for these Revels - or any speaker for that matter - then they had darn well better be flatter, look superior, sound superior, smell superior, taste superior, AND cook me breakfast in the morning.

That's it, flame away.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:18 PM

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.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:20 PM

Jay, what Axioms do you own?
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:23 PM

Debating subjectivity is funny wink smile.
Posted by: pmbuko

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:23 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
Seriously, I own a Hyunia Genesis Coupe.

I believe you meant Hernia.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:43 PM

Originally Posted By: ClubNeon
Jay, what Axioms do you own?

I own an Epic 80-600 system that I am fairly happy with. I do sometimes feel the speakers are bright and I usually blame the source material. Now that I've been reading several pro reviews also saying Axiom speakers are bright, it has me rethinking this.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:44 PM

Originally Posted By: pmbuko
Originally Posted By: JBall
Seriously, I own a Hyunia Genesis Coupe.

I believe you meant Hernia.


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 smile
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:47 PM

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


If you think it, they'll definitely become more bright to you smile .
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 05:52 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
Originally Posted By: pmbuko
Originally Posted By: JBall
Seriously, I own a Hyunia Genesis Coupe.

I believe you meant Hernia.


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 smile


Don't take it as insulting. My friend, Peter, suffers from andropause grin wink .
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 06:02 PM

I remember with my original Axiom all on-wall system, that I was fairly pleased with at the time. I had a visitor that listened to them that pointed out some additional brightness that I wasn't aware of. After this happened, I couldn't listen to the speakers without noticing that brightness and this ruined the listening experience for me. This brightness was apparent only with the on-wall speakers. When I listened again with the bookshelf speakers, that additional brightness went away. But then I wasn't satisfied with just the bookshelf speakers by themselves any more either. This is because the on-walls created a bigger wall of sound. Hence the combined system that you see when you click on my signature line. This is how it sounds the best.

Edit: Probably means that I need the M80's.

Edit: I moved the on-walls up later, so this wasn't what was making them sound brighter. Actually they sound less bright this way, placing the tweeters further from the ears.
Posted by: Kruncher

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 06:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Argon
Well....that ought to spark another round of newbie "Bright" questions/accusations.


Argon has mystical predictive powers! grin

Seriously, this is quite the entertaining thread. Just as Mark mentioned somewhere in there, I subscribed to S&V and HT for years, and finally gave up on both for the same reasons. No consistency in testing/reviewing approaches. Once in while there would be something there that would be interesting that I wouldn't necessarily see discussed elsewhere. But if it was really genuinely useful then it would be a discussion topic here anyway, among those that I learned to trust much more that the "professionals". Don't let it go to your head Pete. wink

BobK mentioned a point of diminishing returns that for him personally was around $5k. For me, after enjoying my M22s for a few years now (really? already?), that point is anything more that I'd pay for Axioms. One of my relatives manages a boutique electronics shop. It's a very nice place, and the staff is well educated. I'll buy TVs from him and some other stuff, and support him (he's a good guy), and he's constantly trying to talk me into trying out the speakers he carries. Very nice looking, and good sounding stuff. The last I listened to were Focals.

But there's no way that I can justify that kind of coin for marginal improvements. Not gonna happen.

Nope. Unless something drastically changes in the marketplace, I'll be speaker shopping right here.

Subs, specifically, however might be another issue when/if the time comes for me.
Posted by: wilwom

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 07:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Kruncher
Originally Posted By: Argon
Well....that ought to spark another round of newbie "Bright" questions/accusations.


Argon has mystical predictive powers! grin

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
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/10/11 10:42 PM

Originally Posted By: wilwom
Originally Posted By: Kruncher
Originally Posted By: Argon
Well....that ought to spark another round of newbie "Bright" questions/accusations.


Argon has mystical predictive powers! grin

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


Go to Radio Shack and buy a super tweeter and place it on top of your speakers. LOL.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 12:20 AM

And if you don't like the brightness, turn down the treble.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 07:29 AM

turning down the treble adjusts more than just high frequencies. Not a good solution for dealing with a bright speaker IMO.
Posted by: avjunkee

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:59 AM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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.



I was critical of his inconsistencies, not his personal tastes or opinions. Clearly he prefers a warm, colored speaker with rolled off highs. Nothing wrong with that. If he doesn't like rolled off highs then that tells me his room must be accentuating the highs, which would make a warm speaker sound neutral and a neutral speaker sound bright. The Revel is over 12 inches taller than the M60, so raise the M60 another 12 inches and I'm sure it wouldn't sound as bright. Either way just be consistent in the comments and testing procedure and the article will have much more weight. 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.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 09:59 AM

Neither the M60 or Salon 2 have rolled off highs.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 10:55 AM

Originally Posted By: avjunkee
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.

I could not agree more. Many reviewers try to justify the cost of the speaker with their comments. Furthermore, they try to demonstrate that "they" posses the talent and the ears to perceive the difference which the higher price implies. Above a certain price level, the price of the speaker has no relation with its sound quality.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 10:57 AM

Originally Posted By: Jc
Originally Posted By: avjunkee
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.


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

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 11:06 AM

Originally Posted By: Dr.House
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.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 11:07 AM

I am not renewing my subs to any stereo OR a/v mags.

They're fun to look at (like the Xmas Nieman-Marcus catalog), but I'm never gonna own any of that stuff. I'm not in the market for anything for quite some time now.

And, as I said in Dwight, NO review is valid if the subject of that review gets to, in the same effen issue, profusely thank the mag and it's reviewer for all of their brilliant insights, their amazing sensitivity and, more importantly, their correctness!

No critical review publication in ALL of academia would/could exist under that "model." And it's not true in all newsstand mags either. In art mags, you will see reviews that are quite harsh, and on the flip page is an ad for the gallery showing that work.

So the sound mags are all just big circle jerks. Everyone's got their fingers in everyone else's ears.

You can read a review about almost anything and, with an accompanying reproduction, or quoted text, come to some sort of first impression. You can't do that with sound. Ever.

So, while it may be worth discussing any speficic review brought here, there can never be an ultimate, empirical outcome.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 11:35 AM

Originally Posted By: avjunkee
Originally Posted By: Dr.House
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.


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.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 12:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Dr.House

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

I agree Revel is one of a few brands which supports its design with a serious scientific approach. I have auditioned the Studio 2 model powered by Mark levinson amps and a Mark Levinson No512 CD/SACD player. I was greatly impressed. Was it really worth all that money - may be if you are plenty rich ?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 12:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Dr.House
Originally Posted By: avjunkee
Originally Posted By: Dr.House
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.


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.


True so we can agree that in the case with a Revel speaker, you get what you pay for, a superior speaker. Some here seem to think Axiom/Revel are on the same level in performance regardless of price which I think is just ridiculous.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 12:34 PM

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.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 12:38 PM

Originally Posted By: BobKay
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.


True dat, hence why I bought a Genesis Coupe instead of a Porsche 9/11 wink
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 12:52 PM

I think we should review Lindsey Lohan's dress.

Whoops - wrong thread.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 01:03 PM

If we were to, in any way at all, it would be entirely valid. Why? Because our comments would not be followed by the praises of her publicist.

Crap, can you imagine being her publicist? Combat pay.

And you don't go before a judge in white tight-knit midi. Boy, did I learn that the hard way in my teens!
Posted by: Dundas

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 01:17 PM

Does Axiom advertise in Sound & Vision magazine?
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 01:19 PM

She had on a tight off-white tie dress that sold out yesterday at $575 a pop. I don't think the '60s sold out after the ringing endorsement they received at S&M - er, I mean S&V
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 01:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Dundas
Does Axiom advertise in Sound & Vision magazine?


Yes right next to the M60 review I saw Axiom ads all over the site. I have also seen Axiom ads in the S&V print magazine.

This gives reasonable concern that the reviewer is only allowed to go so far with their comments/ratings to not upset the advertiser.... hence why I pay more attention to the reviewers measurements and repeated subtle statements that the speakers were too bright and boomy which is why he had to deal with placement issues moreso than other speakers he tested.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 01:46 PM

Seriously. I just got an offer in the mail yesterday for S & V for only $7. I'm thinkin' 'yes.' Afterall, we do have a dog.
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 02:02 PM

In the past there has been free 1 year subscription offers. Most recently online there was a 2 year subscription offer for $4.99 (with coupon).
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 02:17 PM

Good Dr.: I truly appreciate the heads up on some savings (the dog won't care), but it's kinda like driving 3 miles outta my way to save 10 cents per gal of gas. S'not like the saving's gonna get me significantly closer to Revels (or Ravenna).
Posted by: davidsch

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 02:27 PM

I took Stereophile for awhile but have not subscribed in the last two years. I did get pretty good at reading between the lines in the reviews to tell whether the reviewer really liked the product or not. Many reviews seemed fairly complementary on the surface, but you could tell by just a few words thrown in here and there that the reviewer did not care that much for the product.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 02:43 PM

I'm cool with electronics reviews, but I'm just never going to buy speakers without spending a good deal of time with them. If I really like anything at all, the only thing I want to know is its reliability history.

That is something they're just not going to address.
It isn't sexy, because it would imply that you're going to keep it a long time and not jump at their next thing. It also isn't sexy for advertisers to get a glowing performance review and then warn you that it's gonna STB in 34 months, like Alan's Oppo.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 02:49 PM

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

Under double-blind listening tests you might not find it so ridiculous. It is often shocking what you discover under blind listening tests (forget Lindsey Lohan).
I have auditioned speakers which were much more expensive than the Revel that could not even come close to the sound quality of the Revel . . . These high ridiculy priced speakers were not even as good as the Axiom M80v3.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 02:53 PM

See, dweebs?!! And he has "Audio Expert" attached to his name (like JP has "script jockey").

Thanks, JC. Bang on!
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:03 PM

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.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:11 PM

JC;

Measurements show the Revels are a much more linear speaker than the Axioms. This is kind a stupid comparison considering the price difference, and as others here pointed out Harman has more engineering resources and know how than probably anyone in the business. Imagine comparing 0-60 times and skidpad results between my Hyundai Coupe vs a Porsche 9/11. Both are "sports cars" but of much different caliber and price. Imagine trying to apply a Blind test procedure to compare ride quality between those cars? You will wind up with two crashed cars. LOL

One needs NOT do "blind tests" of steaks from Denny's vs a Shula's steak house to appreciate the difference in quality, same with cars….

Blind tests seem more needed for determining differences in two things that taste (or sound) so similar (IE. Coke vs Pepsi, amp A vs amp B, etc).

As long as levels are matched, I think its arrogant presumption to declare preference for one over the other is simply b/c of appearance or brand prestige especially if the listener themselves aren't familiar with the brands in question.

Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
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.


If I could afford Revels, I wouldn't be driving a Hyundai smile

It's my nature to criticize and compare what I have to "dream" items I can't afford. Luckily I am not married LOL
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:14 PM

Blind testing is the only real/fair way to compare speakers. It removes all other biases. Most overpriced speaker manufacturers would NEVER allow this.
Posted by: medic8r

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:16 PM

Originally Posted By: BobKay
... he has "Audio Expert" attached to his name (like JP has "script jockey").

The proper term is "Pez Dispenser".
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:32 PM

LOL'ing, still. Advantage, JP!
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:32 PM

FWIW, Brent has updated the test page on that review.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:36 PM

Oh, that's right. Psychopharms are script jockeys.
Doi!
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:44 PM

Quote:
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.


And there's your money quote.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 03:58 PM

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.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 04:04 PM

You da man, JC. You should visit more often, what with all that spare time you have after your 58 hour week is through.
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 04:21 PM

Yeah baby, stick to those guns like Cuba Gooding, JC!!
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 04:30 PM

Originally Posted By: BobKay
. . . what with all that spare time you have after your 58 hour week is through.

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 ! ! !
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 04:34 PM

I'm sure when it's crankin,' it'd probably be difficult to achieve any muscle resitance at all.

Threshold of pain. My kinda guy.

To the rest of you: Don't. Just don't.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Jc
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?
Posted by: Kruncher

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 04:45 PM

I suspect that he's not implying anything. wink

This is for you, Jc.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:00 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall

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?

Not at all; it is the ony way to compare the two of them objectively. Furthermore, you should not know what you are listening to. It should be several sessions with unknow speakers and for one of the sessions there would be the Revel against the Axiom without you knowing that it is their turn. The difference might be small in some areas and larger in others. You might vastly prefer one over the other or they could be close. You can't tell and be sure until you do it.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:08 PM

Quote:
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.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:10 PM

Did you guys like my JC impersonation?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
Quote:
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.


How do you know "reviewers" don't want to do this b/c of feeling silly? I just don't buy the argument that obvious tonal differences can't be discerned b/c one product looks nicer than the other. If one speaker is compressing/distorting, it should be quite obvious to the listener without having to cover their eyes.

It is however very convenient to say, you can't prove speaker A is better than speaker B unless a blind comparison is made. If you follow this logic that means as I stated before you can't determine if the Denny's or Shula's steak is better unless the taster tries in blind. Come on!

Again the measurement differences between the speakers is pretty dramatic. The audible differences are likely equally dramatic making it easier to pick a winner either sighted or blind...
Posted by: RickF

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Jc
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 ! ! !


Jc 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?
Posted by: alan

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:31 PM

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.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 06:59 PM

It baffles me how some people can't see(pardon the terminology) the benefit of blind testing. Alan, didn't you mention a while back that some reviewers were dead set against such tests?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 07:01 PM

Originally Posted By: alan
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.



So let me see if I understand your post correctly.

Axiom conducted a Blind test where Axiom employees and Axiom owners participated and preferred the Axiom speakers? There seems to be a bias despite it being a blind test.

If a guy farted and another guy burped and you blind folded a listener, the blinded listener would still recognize the difference between a fart and a burp sound wouldn't you agree?

You seem to be indicating that the M80V3s can at the very minimum tie the most expensive most elaborate speaker out there if the test is done blind....and controlled by Axiom???

If this is true then thanks I am the proud owner of the best speakers ever made smile
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 07:03 PM

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

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 07:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
How can a double blind test be biased, what is wrong with you? I give up!!
If a participant and/or the tester is familiar with the sound of the product under test, that is a BIAS. I am not a very scientific oriented person but that is very clear to me. The point is even blind, a listener can discern the sonic signature of a speaker they are very familiar with, same as my fart analogy....


Posted by: Kruncher

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 07:14 PM

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.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 07:16 PM

Originally Posted By: Kruncher
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.


Um how can I be biased if I own Axioms and just curious about better performing product. I guess its offensive to owners here that there can't be better product? Perhaps I should start a thread at HT Shack or HometheaterSpot to get a more balanced perspective. Sorry peeps...
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:10 PM

Quote:

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


shocked
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:19 PM

I feel like I'm sitting here on the sidelines and listening to both sides without taking sides, other than leaning towards Alan's comments because I figure he knows much more on the subject. But, there rings some truth in what JBall is saying also. If you are used to the Axiom sound, from hours upon hours of listening, you brain will be attuned to the Axiom sound (whether good or not so good). So when a new sound is introduced, even though it might sound better to the majority of listeners, the Axiom trained brains may still prefer the Axiom sound.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:21 PM

Not true. Audio memory is incredibly short. When I heard M80s over at someone's house, I thought to myself, well, other than the volume (which was tremendous), my M50s are just about as good as this. Back to back comparo (which, admittedly, was not blind or instantaneous), the differences were quite a bit more pronounced. Still, when we did the M50/M22 comparison at my house, I walked out for a tad, came back in, and had to ask which one was playing. And they did not sound very similar!
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:26 PM

A blind test will eliminate any bias and only the speakers sound can be compared. I agree that most owners of what ever brand they have are very familiar with it's sonic signature and would stand a good chance at picking those speakers out during a blind test, however when all speakers in said test share a similar sound it becomes much more difficult to pick them out.
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:26 PM

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.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:48 PM

Originally Posted By: CatBrat
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.


Yep agreed. You can't have an employee or owner of a speaker who knows exactly how that speaker sounds run a "blind' test. They will be able to determine when they are listening to that speaker and of course they will pick it as the winner. Kinda comical actually.

This kind of logic is how a manufacturer can claim their speaker at wost case will tie the very best speaker in the world as what seems to be what is claimed here.

Imagine if Hyundai made such a claim when their car was compared directly to a Porsche smile
Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 08:54 PM

As someone who took part in the double-blind test between the Axiom M3s and the B&Ws, I can say that the fact that I currently own Axioms was irrelevant.

To me, the amazing part was that they sounded very, very similar.

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

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 09:28 PM

I've participated with several blind wine tastings, knowing what the line up was going into it. It was very sobering picking a $25 bottle over a $300 bottle as being "better", when I thought for sure I would be able to pick the high dollar bottle. When you no longer know what your are drinking, the playing field is leveled. I suspect the same can be said for auditioning speakers blind. Haven't tried it, but sure would like to.
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 09:41 PM

I just want to ask a question regarding our capacity to retain audible differences, because it does seem acceptable to me that we become accustomed to the sound of anything that we hear over and over again; and I don't understand why speakers would be any different.

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.

Now, this is probably a silly analogy because speakers would have more subtle differences, but it's just a hypothetical to exemplify my question.

Oh yes, and I just thought of another thing-it's my understanding, via quantum physics, that when we do any task repetitively, like listening to the same brand of speaker, we creat a neuronet in our brain, by the law of associated memory. Physiologically, nerve cells that fire together, wire together; which is a result of doing something repetitively. I honestly don't understand why listening to the same brand of speaker would be any different; it just seems like a logical extension.

Maybe I'm way off, and I'm not making any sense, but it's just a question that hopefully somebody can address. I'm just trying to learn smile.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 10:33 PM

I have a friend that has Bose 701s. He brought them over to compare to my Axioms. Needless to say the Axioms killed them. Everytime I hear a Bose speakers in general I detect the same type of sound, lots of midbass boom, not real bottom end and a mushed top end. I don't need a blind test to identify the difference between a Bose and an Axiom speaker.

Everytime I drive my Genesis, I know the type of driving experience to expect, hence I know how fast I can take a corner. If I were in a Porsche and got used to it, I would adjust my driving habit. I believe we do get used to things and our brains figure it out very quickly when we reaclimate to a familiar thing whether it be sound, smell, taste, etc.
Posted by: JohnK

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 11:11 PM

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.
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 11:21 PM

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


QFT.

JBall, I don't know why you so steadfastly refuse to "get it". The speakers involved don't matter - you long ago started disputing the perceptual process and accepted testing methodology. If you didn't profess to own M80's, I'd think you were just a straight-up troll.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/11/11 11:34 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnK
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 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 seem to be offending people here to simply discuss this. I will drop the subject and be content like the rest of you that our M80v3s will at worst case tie the very best speakers in the world in a blind test. It's kinda cool to say I have the best speakers money can buy and have the scientific proof of it smile
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 03:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Jc
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 ! ! !


Heckuva system. I'll get there eventually. 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.
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 04:01 AM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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.


It's come up before in discussion. I know sonicfox has made the point, and I'm sure it has been suggested by others. I, myself, am not convinced that direct double-blind ABX listening tests are the final word in speaker comparisons, as I think spending time with each speaker on its own DOES have value. We often talk of how speaker break-in is the brain breaking in, not the actual speaker, and we usually suggest a longer time to get used to the sound than anyone is going to dedicate to a listening test. So how are we supposed to fairly compare speakers when our brains don't have the proper time to acclimate to each speaker's sound? Unfortunately, we have no better way to compare the subjective performance of speakers. In any case, I'll defer to the people who have put in more hours of actual research.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 07:34 AM

Originally Posted By: RickF
. . . 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?

My screen is 74" high so they are about 76" apart, not more. Yes, certainly there are advantages:
- The dialogue is locked in the center of the screen.
- The sound is seamless with the main left and right speakers having their tweeters also at the middle of the screen.
- Because of the eye-brain role/relation when you see an action at the top or the bottom of the screen the sound seems to follow it perfectly.
- All the benefits of having twice as much transducers/drivers to do the work.

I recently move all my speakers to the v3 models, added a pair of heights and a second A1400-8. Each A1400-8 is powering one side plus one center speaker - 5 Axiom speakers each.
Posted by: Jc

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 07:58 AM

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

You should; once you have lived with duals there is no getting back to singles. I was forced to for awhile and it was painful !

Originally Posted By: CV
. . . When are you going to grace us with new pictures of your system?

All the surfaces of my dedicated Axiom Home Cinema are black (ceiling, floor, side and rear walls). Previously, I add one side wall deep blue and the other one dark brown. Even if you had to very carefully look at them to confirm if they were black or not the fact that they are now pitch black has improved the sensation when watching the picture. [/quote]

So far, even when I bring all the extra lights that I can in the room to take pictures - they don't look good and unfortunately, they don't show much either. My Axiom speakers blend with the walls; you see drivers only and Axiom name plate logos. Highly frustrating for an amateur photographer . . .

Originally Posted By: CV
. . . I keep wanting to move there and work at Axiom.

I completely understand not only the products are outstanding the Axiom family is exceptional !
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 11:38 AM

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.
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 12:46 PM

This might be interesting for those reading this thread:

http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-new-evidence-that-generation-y.html

Quote:

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.

Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 01:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Dr.House
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.


Dr. House you are a voice of reason on his forum. Excellent points.

I read the Axiom M3 vs B&W blog here on this site and found it quite disturbing that an Axiom employee (Alan) whom is extremely familiar with the sound participated in an Axiom run speaker comparison and guess what.... he picked the Axiom speakers. Big surprise! Sadly the blog doesn't list the bias that Alan is a trained Axiom listener and knows the sound of his own speakers sighted or blind. Also the blog refers to it as a Double Blind Test when according to your post it clearly is not.

I guess this is how you can declare Axiom speakers in a blind test cannot be beaten and only tied. What a way to never lose a blind test!

But as you said, we aren't saving lives here....
Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 01:15 PM

And here I thought you were dropping it....
Posted by: pmbuko

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 01:19 PM

Originally Posted By: wheelz999
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. 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. It's not trying to be neutral, transparent, colorless, etc, like good speakers are designed to be.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 02:54 PM

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
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 06:50 PM

Originally Posted By: pmbuko
Originally Posted By: wheelz999
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.


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.

Originally Posted By: pmbuko
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?


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

Originally Posted By: pmbuko
Your car's engine is an instrument. It has its own tone.


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.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 06:59 PM

Originally Posted By: jakewash
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


Fantastic read and I agree with many of the points presented. So nice to get a more balanced view to put things into perspective.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: wheelz999
Originally Posted By: pmbuko
Originally Posted By: wheelz999
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.


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.

Originally Posted By: pmbuko
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?


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

Originally Posted By: pmbuko
Your car's engine is an instrument. It has its own tone.


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.


Most definitely they do.

I can tell when I am listening to a Bose speaker, boomy bass, lack of detail in highs. Klipsch speakers tend to have a very bright in your face sound. Cerwin Vegas have a very bassy sound.

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.
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 07:33 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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.


Definitely? Based on what research? Your hunch?
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 07:36 PM

Originally Posted By: jakewash
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


I think his statements about a conspiracy to discredit audiophiles are a bit much.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 07:52 PM

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.
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 08:36 PM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
but compare speakers who's engineers have the same design goal(which should be a flat freq response through it's range).
That was what I ment way back in the thread when I said similar sound.

I know if I were to blind test Paradigm Studio 100's, Monitor Audio Gold's and M80s I am pretty sure I wouldn't know which is which, especially through an entire listening session including various types of music as each would excell at some and not with others. Blind testing can allow for a more bias free approach to speaker comparisons, it isn't perfect but the best one can do, IMO.
Posted by: bridgman

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 10:46 PM

There seem to be two or three different questions being discussed here, making it difficult for the discussion to make progress).

One question is "are people who spend a lot of time with a particular brand of speaker able to recognize the sound of their brand in a double-blind test ?". The answers to this question seem to lean towards "yes".

Another unspoken question is "would people who recognize their brand of speaker consciously or unconsciously choose it over an otherwise better speaker in a double-blind test, out of loyalty to the product they own or the company they work for ?". Based on the people I have met in this business over the last decade or so, the answer is a pretty emphatic "no".

The third, and most difficult question is "does exposure to a specific brand/sound of speaker for a long period of time colour your preferences, so that your preference between speakers is biased towards the sound you are most familiar with ?". Studies seem to suggest "no" but I haven't actually seen any studies whose focus is that specific question, so I guess it remains a job for the Mythbusters (or is this where JohnK steps in with a link ?).

EDIT - adding back the "Mythbusters" reference to maintain thread continuity wink
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 10:47 PM

That would be a really boring episode. I think I read or heard that Adam would love to do a speaker cables episode, but he just can't think of a way to make it good TV.
Posted by: CatBrat

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 11:23 PM

I remember once, long before I was interested in good audio systems, going into a BB in one of their showcase rooms where there were 2 large tower speakers on either side of a tv. The mid/upper bass was so overwhelming that I couldn't see why anyone would want to listen to one of these. Not sure why I put this here, but it triggered an old memory.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/12/11 11:27 PM

I had an MP3 on my work computer that was sent to me via IM. For months I only heard it on my computer's speakers. I finally burned it to a CD, and played it on my home system. It sounded completely different, but I preferred the newer fuller fidelity.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 01:07 AM

Originally Posted By: CV
Originally Posted By: jakewash
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


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


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?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 01:18 AM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
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.
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 01:56 AM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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.

Originally Posted By: MarkSJohnson
FWIW, I found out later that I chose the B&Ws.... but just barely.

Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 02:05 AM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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?


Yes, different. One's paranoia. The other is denial. laugh
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: JBall

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.

You actually think B&W would test their $2500 speaker up against a $350 speaker? laugh
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?
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:09 AM

Originally Posted By: CV
Originally Posted By: JBall
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?


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


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!
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
Originally Posted By: JBall

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.

You actually think B&W would test their $2500 speaker up against a $350 speaker? laugh
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?


You didn't participate in a double blind test. You participated in a single blind test run by the manufacturer who participated. Yet you think there was no bias here.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:20 AM

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.
Posted by: SirQuack

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:27 AM

Ken, it is a losing battle. Some people just don't understand how a true A/B test is done and no matter how many people try to explain it, it just goes in one ear and out the other.
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:28 AM

Originally Posted By: kcarlile
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.


A true double blind test cannot have the listener, observer or the persons comparing the data know what products were tested. Since Axiom actually set the test up, that's a huge source of bias. How can you be sure they didn't position or setup their own speaker at an advantage? How can you be sure they didn't tamper with their competitor speaker? Not saying that they did, but it is a source of bias and concern. Years ago Bose got busted for doing this very thing making people think they were listening to their cubes when instead they had towers running behind a curtain.

It was stated by two Axiom employees in this thread that they were confident the M80s would be at worst case "similarly" good to the cost no object Revels. Seems like a lot of kool aid is being passed around here.

Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:39 AM

JBall, I think you should sell your B&Ws and buy some M3s.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:41 AM

I guess magical fairy elves set up the speakers then, eh? At what point does the person setting up the speakers stop being the tester?

I'm pretty sure Axiom actually showed people which speakers were playing after they did the test.

He's got M80s, Adrian...
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:42 AM

Originally Posted By: Adrian
JBall, I think you should sell your B&Ws and buy some M3s.
I don't own B&Ws. 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!
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:45 AM

JBall is correct. Controlled listening tests can never be considered double-blind if the individuals choosing and setting up the listening test or have participants in the listening panel that have vested interest in the outcome. The whole idea of double-blind protocol and the whole purpose of adhering to this VERY strict scientific method is to try to control even the tiniest of bias whether unintentional/intentional as well as consciously/subconsciously from both the experimenter and its participants taking part in the study.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 10:48 AM

We didn't know either of the speakers tested until well into the evening on Ian's dock, when he addressed the gathering before the band played. I would hazard a guess from talking to some of the group after the test, that we thought we were listening to two pairs of AXIOM speakers, not Axiom vs BrandX.
Posted by: Ken.C

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 11:02 AM

OK, so let's go with this: maybe Axiom's DBX was not a valid test (a supposition I'm not prepared at this time to accept, but let's just go with it.) And maybe Alan's being a tad enthusiastic in his statement.

In what way does that invalidate the base premise that we simply don't know about which speaker is better or whether speakers are, in Alan's phrasing, "similarly good," without a valid DBX test? Are we to assume, then that reviewers magically hide their preferences and can be completely unbiased (unlike the rest of us)? THAT was the original statement that we're all arguing about, as far as I can tell.

What makes the S&V reviewer the arbiter? What makes him neutral? One simple graph? A few lines of glowing review? A few snarky lines about this design school or that one?
Posted by: BlueJays1

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 11:13 AM

It is a valid test in proper context. That being a single blind test for the listening panel. There is NOTHING wrong with single blind listening tests. No listening tests are without bias, its just trying to figure out and letting the reader know what the potential biases are.
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 11:15 AM

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


There. Fixed that for ya.

Enjoy your speakers or don't. Masturbate to the Revels or don't. Your unwillingness to listen and to reason grew tiresome long ago.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 11:41 AM

Here's what Doug Shneider has to say about blind testing and also mentions the Robert Hartley blog. Doug was present at the Axiom gathering last fall, many of you might recall. He also links to Sean Olive's "The Dishonesty of Sighted Listening Tests" in his editorial....
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 12:08 PM

I'm removing EVERYONE from this topic. Then I'm going straight to my dealer and buying a pair of Hansen's.

Will someone get that poor man a life, please?
Posted by: alan

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 12:12 PM

Dr. House,

The Axiom listening tests are set up by an Axiom technician (Debbie, for those who met her at the 30th Anniversary), not by Ian, nor Andrew Welker, nor myself. Strict protocol and statiscal analysis are employed, as they were for years at the National Research Council.

We keep a variety of different brands of speakers on hand, so anyone participating cannot assume they are listening to Axiom speakers.

Re. the speaker shuffler. Dr. Toole introduced this in the Harman lab, when he left the NRC, thanks to the enormous financial resources of Harman International. The protocol that was used at the NRC was as follows: Each speaker being tested was rotated through four different locations behind the acoustically transparent curtain; in addition, each member of the listening panel rotated through five different seating locations. After a couple of days, all members had sat in each of the listening seats, and auditioned all the speakers in all of the locations, thus randomizing the room/location variables.

The speaker shuffler is an elegant albeit costly solution. However, the speaker and listener locations can be removed as variables through the time-consuming process outlined above.

And to JBall: I have never stated that there is no speaker that is better than the M80s. I certainly haven't heard all the speakers in the world! And there may be one out there that in double-blind tests I'd choose, or rank higher than the M80s. But I have heard many very good expensive speakers and plenty of equally good modestly priced ones, a large enough sample that I can confidently state that there is no necessary correlation of loudpspeaker sound quality with price.

By the way, your car analogy doesn't hold.

Alan
Posted by: MarkSJohnson

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 12:29 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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!

Well, Alan just answered that HE didn't state such a thing. I was going to add that no one else had either. Where did someone say that there is no better speaker?

The simple point is that more expensive is not automatically better sounding.

Quote:
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.

Well, again, you're exaggerating your point, but I'll mention that with Axiom being an internet-direct company, there aren't warehouses and store stock and brick and mortar rents and salespeople's salaries involved so, yes, they CAN represent a very good real-world value in comparison to most other speaker companies. You've got break-even and profit at one level only...not at three or four or five.

You keep making the point that we're all biased towards our Axioms here and close minded to other speakers. That's not the case in this forum at all. Of course, since most here are Axiom owners, we DO like them...or we wouldn't have bought them in the first place.

But you're assumption here that we're all blind fanboys is incorrect and insulting.
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 12:51 PM

I guess the first time I was to subtle.

There becomes a point where “reasoned” discussion becomes pointless:

Quote:

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

Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 01:07 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
Originally Posted By: CV
Yes, different. One's paranoia. The other is denial. laugh


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!


I don't think you understood what I was saying, or you weren't responding to me. I wasn't using logic, but rather a sense of humor. Maybe I was arrogant in thinking that your unscientific mind could have one, too.
Posted by: J. B.

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 01:37 PM

JBall,
around 1974 i was living in Europe and i bought an Electrolux vacuum cleaner for the equivalent can. money of around $70.
one year later, i was back in Canada and a salesman knocked on my door and wanted to sell me the very same model, for $500.

reasoning like you do here, i should have thought that, in the space of one year, the machine had made a giant leap in quality.

Without prejudice. ;-)
Posted by: michael_d

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 02:18 PM

Originally Posted By: kcarlile
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.


....classic. smile
Posted by: ClubNeon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 03:06 PM

I too stand that analogies are usually worthless, because the two things are not actually analogs of each other.

That said, in the motor industry, at least in the UK, there are "shed" companies that build cars in small quantities and sell directly to the end user. The level of performance from some of these cars surpasses the big name makers, and the cost is much lower.

There's Caterham with their excellent sport tourers.

And Ariel, who's Atom holds the top spot on Top Gear's power lap time. Above the Bugatti Veyron, the most powerful, and expensive production car made today.

But those cars aren't as much to look at as typical super cars. They are built for a specific function, with little regard given to form.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 03:09 PM

I'm partial to the Ultima GTR myself.
Posted by: avjunkee

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 03:36 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall
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 smile


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


lol, you can't even be consistent with your own argument
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 03:47 PM

:::taps avjunkee on shoulder:::

ahem....this thread is about the British Kit Car industry now.... laugh
Posted by: JBall

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:24 PM

Alan and others here did say that they would put the M80s directly up against the top Revels and they would likely score "similarly good".

So let's assume that is true and Axiom built the perfect speaker that can't be beat and only tied in a blind test. If that's the case, there should never be a rev 4 or beyond b/c a point has been reached where a better performing speaker cannot be made since any more money thrown at it would be solely for cosmetic value.

Alan did state beyond $2k/pair you simply cannot get better performance and I quote it below:

Quote:
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.


Also note that this is still being referred to as a Double Blind Test despite others and myself clearly proved Axiom tests are NOT double blind.

So following this logic in how Axiom designs and compares speakers, one must wonder why there is even a rev 3? Wasn't rev 1 already the perfect speaker that could beat or tie all others in a blind test?

I sense a lot of dislike here against me from people whom actually believe in the Axiom doctrine that dictates their speakers are so good that they are similarly good to the best designs in the world regardless of price and if anyone refutes that claim it's b/c they are biased by looks or brand appeal. Yet we are to believe this from a blind test run by the manufacturer that has a vested interest in the outcome of the results.

If someone other than Axiom measures the product, the measurement is invalid b/c it wasn't done in an anechoic chamber. This is how the S&V measurements are so easily dismissed here.

That is how Axiom and their fans can so easily dismiss 3rd party measurements of Axiom products such as the tests Ikka did on the EP600 showing design issues with the sub:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/subwoofer-tests-archived/973-axiom-ep-600-2nd-test.html

Wow this sound like a wonderful start for a religion.

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

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. Axiom seems to be following the Bose business model (their research produces the best sound and can only be measured and compared using their protocol) which isn't such a bad thing since Bose is the most profitable speaker company in the world.

Thanks for the discourse, its been most enlightening.

Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:32 PM

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


When one of your main points is that we're all unthinking drone zealots, what kind of reaction are we supposed to have? I tried acknowledging some of your points, but you seem to be more interested in insulting everyone than in conducting an actual conversation about it.
Posted by: Adrian

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:33 PM

Who said it was a perfect speaker? can you quote someone. All Alan and everyone(most) are trying to tell you is that there isn't really a corellation between price and performance(generally speaking). I think it may be you who is not being open minded in fact.
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:34 PM

I love being a student of Social Psychology. It never ceases to amaze me how easily people are baited into the same arguments over and over again. Human nature . . . ?
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:36 PM

My existence certainly involves a lot of repetition. My arguing is like your exercise. smile
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:37 PM

Quote:

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

I love this sort of post. Not enough just to stop posting but have to announce the fact as if it’s “really important.” I’ll alert the press!
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:38 PM

Quote:

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

The difference is my exercise validates my existence while arguing also validates the other’s.
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:39 PM

No sense of community?
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 04:44 PM

Quote:

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. wink
Posted by: CV

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 05:03 PM

I'm not too popular where I work, either. I'm not sure how much is my ideology and how much is just that I want to feel cool, though. Either way, management makes it easy to provide resistance when they don't know what they're doing. smile
Posted by: Da_Gimp_Pimp

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: grunt
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. wink


Daddy? I think you may have found your illegitimate son grin .
Posted by: grunt

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 06:22 PM

Originally Posted By: wheelz999
Originally Posted By: grunt
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. wink


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


You know Cam I was thinking of you when I posted that and almost made a commented, however, I figured you would pick up on it. wink
Posted by: audiosavant

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: JBall

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.



Oh no you didn't! shocked

Them's fightin' words there my friend!



grin
Posted by: pmbuko

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/13/11 11:52 PM

[[THIS THREAD HAS BEEN LOCKED]]
Posted by: medic8r

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 10:27 AM

You're not top post jockey any more. Your superpowers have faded.
Posted by: pmbuko

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 10:38 AM

Now you've done it.



See what you made me do?
Posted by: medic8r

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 10:57 AM

Shake your groove thing, shake your groove thing, yeahhhh ...
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 11:32 AM

Man oh Man. I don't sign on over the weekend and see what I missed? I was left back on page 16 or 17 - and was thinking of something that I would post....as I was reading to get to the end, I saw where Tom had beaten me to it.

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.
Posted by: GOD

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 11:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Argon


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.


Most higher-order mammals have that inner ear complement.

So, next time anyone goes a/b'ing, bring your ferret----before she gets her own column in an audiomag.
Posted by: michael_d

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 12:18 PM

Someone say "Anvil"???

http://www.coolestone.com/media/895/Anvils_Away/
Posted by: tomtuttle

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 12:34 PM

That's just some good, old-fashioned fun, right there.

I love how one of them actually said "Acme".
Posted by: Argon

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 12:48 PM

They were shooting anvils in the movie "Sweet Home Alabama"
Posted by: jakewash

Re: Sound & Vision mag reviews M60's - 02/14/11 11:12 PM

I was thinking Coyote and Roadrunner right from the first time anvil was mentioned smile