Some of you may wonder how would M60s compare to a really high end speaker.

I was fortunate to have Meadowlark Blue Heron 2 speakers in my dedicated audio room for a week, which I compared closely to my M60s. The Blue Heron 2 is a high end (about $12k), floor standing, three-way, time & phase coherent design (Vanderstein, Thiel, etc). They weigh 110 lbs each.

http://www.meadowlarkaudio.com/bh2.htm

Over a week, I did about 100 A/B tests with a wide variety of material, inc'l CD, SACD, and Dolby 5.1 HT. About 80% of the comparisons "direct stereo" mode with all DSP off. All tests were volume-compensated to the same loudness. We did a few blind tests, but most were non-blind. From one to four listeners participated.

Executive summary: the Meadowlarks were definitely better (they'd better be at 13x the price), but the M60s weren't bad. You can't beat Axiom for the price, or several times the price. I did a few tests of Meadowlark stereo vs. Axiom surround (both discrete SACD and PLII). That's fair because collectively all my Axiom speakers plus sub cost a fraction of the Meadowlarks. For some material, that tilted things in favor of Axiom, at least to some listeners.

Visually of course the Meadowlarks were stunning. To my eye they're among the most beautiful of floor standing speakers.

Details
=====

Listening room: 17x20 ft. Cloth-covered fiberglass acoustic panels on left, right and rear walls. Listening position: about 13 ft from main speakers.
Speaker config: Meadowlark Blue Heron 2, Axiom M60, VP150, QS8, Hsu VTF-3R sub. All speaker wire 12 gauge zip cord.

Equipment: Yamaha RX-V1400 receiver, Sony DVP-NC685V SACD player.

The Meadowlarks are incredibly efficient. Their specs indicate 1-2 db less efficient than the M60s, but white noise tests with a RS sound meter show them 4-5 db MORE efficient at typical listening levels.

Overall the Meadowlark sound is musical, full, expansive. The sound stage and stereo imaging seemed fuller, more three dimensional, better resolved than the M60s. No hint of brightness, yet no feel of missing something, not laid back, no rolled off highs. It didn't call attention to itself with any colorization or exaggerated characteristic. By comparison the M60s sounded accurate, "technical", bright, somewhat forward. None of that in a bad way, just a different sound quality.

Price not considered, I significantly preferred the Meadowlarks, esp for stereo material. The difference was dramatic to most listeners. The tonal quality was more pleasing, very musical and detailed. If it was false coloration, I liked it

Ah, but price is a factor for most people. Also the decision of pure stereo vs surround is an issue. An all-Meadowlark surround config would further magnify the price difference.

For well-engineered surround music (e.g. Pink Floyd DSOTM) the Axiom 5.1 config (inc'l Hsu VTF-3R sub) was often more impressive than 6 channels downmixed to stereo on the Meadowlarks. That might seem like cheating (2 ch vs 5.1), but it's one valid comparison, esp if surround music is important to you.

However stereo vs stereo the Meadowlarks beat the M60s most of the time for most listeners. We noticed an odd effect: Switching from Meadowlarks to M60s, the M60s didn't sound so bad. I kept thinking, "it's just a little different, not hugely worse". But switching back the OTHER way, from M60s to Meadowlarks, was a Wow! experience. I don't know why the difference. Volume was normalized to the same level.

I'm not a believer in super-audiophile interconnects, or that modern solid-state amps have a characteristic sound (if tested at identical volume levels in direct stereo mode with all DSP disabled). However there's no question that speakers are often audibly different. It's true you don't always get better sound for more dollars invested. It's also true different listeners have different preferences. However my experience shows people buying high end speakers aren't necessarily throwing away their money for no audible difference, buying just for status, etc. In my tests, there was a significant difference most (but not all) listeners described as superior.

The Meadowlarks (along with Vanderstein, Thiel, etc) belong to the "time and phase coherent" camp of speaker design. I'm agnostic on the relevance of that, but whatever the reason, the Meadowlarks sounded very nice.

OTOH I have absolutely no qualms about my M60s, VP150, and QS8s. They sound superb. Many, many people have had overwhelmingly favorable reactions. "I can't believe it", "it's soooo clear", "I didn't know it could sound so good", etc.

There are many factors that greatly affect sound besides speakers. The big two are room acoustics and source material. If someone is thinking about spending a lot more money (than Axioms) on speakers, they might well consider having their listening area professionally analyzed and treated. That can make a big difference, for a fraction of the cost of high end speakers.

Likewise source material quality makes a big difference. A well engineered album sounds vibrant, detailed and three dimensional (on either M60s or Meadowlarks), and a poorly engineered album (even on Meadowlarks) sounds flat, muddy and lifeless.

Done over again, the only thing I'd do differently is upon getting my M60s is I'd drag them to a higher-end audio place for some A/B tests with their speakers. I doubt it would make a difference, since store brands usually can't compete with Axiom on a price/performance basis. But audio is a very personal taste, like food or wine.

Excellent comparison! Thank you for writing it up so thoughtfully. Those Blue Herons are gorgeous (visually... not much chance of me hearing them!)

Nice post.
Thanks.

That was a wonderful read. For whatever reason, I'm not fond of the appearance of angled front speakers. I have no logical explanation for that. It's purely a matter of personal taste. However, if they sound as good as you feel they do, I'm sure that would overcome my irrational bias.

I'm getting a little tired of the "they're as good as speakers that cost 3 times as much" thing. I hear (see) that applied to so many speakers that I'm becoming a little jaded by it. But, the point that you make, so clearly, is that the M60s are an excellent bargain.

For those of us with shallow purses, it's VERY important we feel that we got more than we should for the money we spent. I think that's the case with the M60s.

Thank you for taking the time to share your experience with us. I really enjoyed it.

Thank you for the thoughtful review of these 2 great speakers, joema. I like your choice of DVD player! The Sony DVP-NC685V SACD player is one of my favorite modestly priced DVD players - a very musical DVD player.

I don't know enought to comment about time coherent speaker design theory, but many of my favorite speakers are time coherent, including the Thiels and gorgeous Meadowlarks.

Great review.

Joema, that was FUN reading! Thanks for making the effort to post your thougths.

cheers, Mike

I'm on my way out the door for the Holidays, but HAVE to say thank you for the post- very informative and just plain fun!

Thank you for taking the time!

Nice piece joema; very interesting reading. I've often wonder what expensive equipment (electronic and speakers) sounds like in comparison to the kind of equipment most of us can afford. It's tough to find a retailer with that array available for auditioning; there are certainly none in Rochester. Thanks for the insight.

I agree, great write up and review. I think just about everyone who buys an Axiom product knows they are getting much more bang for the buck, and in just about all cases, a better sounding speaker in the same price range. Having worked in A/V retail with access to many different brands of "high-end" speakers at significant discounts, I still went with Axiom; not because of the M60's, the VP-150, or QS8's sounding good individually, but because they have great synergy. Together, these speakers outperform many other "complete" commercial systems hands down.

Thanks for the post...interesting read. I visited the Meadowlark site, and was surprised to see that the majority of their speakers aren't nearly as obscenely priced as the Blue Heron 2. I'm quite interested in hearing some of their speakers.

Although the MSRP of the Blue Heron 2 is high, keep in mind that's MSRP. I think demo models are often available at greatly reduced prices. It's possible you could get the BH2 for $7k if you looked around.

I know that's still seems high, but it's less stratospheric. Their other speakers are even less.

Speakers are so amazing -- like food, wine, physical beauty -- so many different and varied ways of producing a product that appeals to certain tastes.

With an amp the goal is don't change the signal, just amplify it. Electrical engineers often talk about the "ideal amplifier".

With speakers it's different (at our current technology). I'm not sure there's a single "sonic truth" out there for speakers. If the sound appeals to you, then buy that.
It's unfortunate there aren't more opportunities for extended A/B speaker testing.

I think the internet companies like Axiom, Rocket, Ascent, etc. have a great idea. It's well worth the shipping price to order and compare the speakers in your own home. You could burn up that much time and gasoline going from store to store, and still be unsure if the store's acoustic environment represented your place.

At a decent Hi-Fi shop you can bring in your Axioms to do A/B tests with their store brands.

With any comparision, always make sure the amplifier is in pure direct stereo, all DSP is disabled, no electronic EQ, and loudness is normalized between speakers.

I think the ideal A/B test for speakers would be, first you listen to Norah Jones sing a song (A). Then she sits down with you and you listen to the same song played through your sound reproduction system. (B) If they sound the same, then it is a good system. Competing systems are graded by how true to the original source material they come.