We are having round 2 of the speaker face off tonight. This time it is at Mark's place. He has the M22 and the Ascend 340 speakers and is trying to decide which ones to keep. His early findings are similar to what we found when comparing to the 170's in an earlier thread, but we'll see how it goes tonight.

I look forward to the reports!

same here!

How much do I have to pay you to "fix" the face-off so the M22s come out on top? I've got a lot of money riding on this one and my rent check will bounce if I lose...

Just buy me a set of M60's

Note to self, don't use the word metallic.

Actually...I want to know what you guys think of the CMT-340's. Even if you don't like them. Not many people have heard the L/R version. We've already done the M22/CBM-170 thing. Although...different place different equipment now.

Oho! You bet Adam, didn't you?

Fresh from 3+ hours of listening/comparing/philosphizing, etc...here goes...

Set up #1 - Pioneer 45TX in stereo mode without the subwoofer off because the sub would not work with the "B" speakers. We alternated listening to the Ascend 340 LR speakers and the Axiom M22s - occasionally listened to the Ascend 170s. Music - classical, Broadway, Dave Matthews.

Classical - Axioms displayed incredible detail and presence with strings, piano, sax, percussion (Sushi - we thought of you!), although if we blasted the sound at times it bordered on too intense for me. Ascends had a fuller sound, with horns especially. They also displayed a large amount of detail, only a bit muted. Both were enjoyable to listen to.

Broadway - score from "Big River", with a good deal of guitar, banjo and base. Axioms - as if the singers were in the room - a more forward sound. Would have liked to have added the sub to give a more full dimensional sound. Ascends - once again fuller, yet a bit more recessed in the singers voices. At higher volumes easier to listen to.

Dave Matthews Band - I don't remember the name of the song because I wasn't too familiar with his music. At times I couldn't tell whether the vocals were coming from the Ascends or the Axioms - however, with the Ascends the instrumentals sounded a bit muddy.

Setup #2 - Movies - Ascend 340 center, Ascend 340 LR fronts, Ascend 170 surrounds and HSU VTF-2. Axioms M22s, VP150, and Ascend 170 surrounds (didn't order the QS8s for testing).

We listened to the opening beach scene in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. Much more resonant mids with the Ascends and more power behind the explosions, yet with Axioms more detail with bullets ricocheting off helmets or machinery. Both were enjoyable.

I am learning that I want the best of both worlds - fullness of the Ascends with the detail of the Axioms. My decision will be based on which is more important to me in the long run. I am a 50/50 movies/music person and listen to Broadway, Jazz, cabaret vocals, very occasional classical (although tonight has made me much more curious about that venue) - not any hard rock.

It is really not a question for me of which speaker is better - because I think both are very well built and an incredible value - it is which sound I prefer in the long run, realizing that there will be compromises with each. I can say that I prefer the detail of Axioms for Home Theater, yet some recordings on them sound harsh to me.

I need to decide by this weekend. Will stay in touch about where I end up.

Major thanks to John and Jason for coming down. We would like to find a way to take our listening sessions on the road. It has been a great experience for me because I have met two great people as well as begun to expand my musical horizons.

Also much appreciation to all of you on this board who have helped me along the way.

MarkT

I agree with most of what was said, except the Dave Matthews part. The song we played was Crash. We played it on the Ascends first and although I have heard the song through car speakers on the radio many times it was the first time hearing it on a "true" stereo/HT system. I felt like I was hearing the song for the first time! There was an extra fullness to the song that I really liked, and with either set of speakers we could hear a lot more detail that I was not used to hearing in that song.

Overall, I agree that both are good speakers, and it mostly comes down to detail vs. fullness. So the question for me is this...what Axiom speaker is fuller then the M22?

We always hear about the M3/M40/M50 being more laid back than the M22/M60. How about fullness? Will the M60's only improve bass performance, or do they add fullness as well? A speaker that could keep the Axiom detail and add the Ascend fullness would be the best of both worlds.

One final note....the listening environment certainly seems to make a difference as well. I just put in Wagner's "Ride of the Valkryies" on my home setup. On the M22's at Marks, it was getting to the borderline of what was considered harsh....on my system here just now(also M22) I did not get the same harshness.

Interesting reviews, Mark and Jason, but what is fullness? If this is the upper bass area I know that my M22s are as full as things are supposed to be. An M3, for example, has been said to give a greater impression of fullness because the upper bass area is slightly elevated above the lower midrange, also leading to slightly less midrange detail. If this is the case, maybe you can't have both. What makes me doubt this though is that the 170 doesn't have that upper bass boost and I'd doubt that they'd design one into the 340. Is it possibly the low and mid-bass which the sub would handle?

Incidentally Mark, your comment about classical reminded me; did you ever get that Ma Vlast we discussed a couple months ago?

It wasn't really extra bass. There were times when I noticed extra bass out the Ascends, but since we weren't using a sub I tried to ignore that...as I know from listening to my M22's the sub does a great job of filling in those sounds.
Perhaps richer sound is a better descriptor? The M22 speakers seemed a little thin by comparison during Crash. If you are looking for more detailed description, I'll have to think on a way to explain it better, or perhaps someone else can jump in to help me out.

Overall, I'm still happy with the M22 and glad I have them...it really just depends on what you like and what you listen to mostly. For the most part I prefer the M22's, but there are songs that sound better on the Ascends.

A useful review of 2 speaker types indeed.
It appears that each speaker has a different sound, each with its own advantages/disadvantages depending on the listener. I wish more ppl would review speakers with a 'difference comparison' in mind as opposed to searching for the answer to the question of 'which is better'.

As for the 'fuller' issue, i can attest to the more broad sound that the M60s produce compare the M22s. Although i found the upper frequencies to be very equivalent, you simply cannot overlook the fact that the M60s utililize not only an extra driver, but 2 larger drivers beyond the 5.25" midrange woofer along with a larger cabinet.
The "fullness" that may be missing from an M22 i personally feel can be found in the M60/M80. The M22 is excellent when paired with a subwoofer though giving the M60s a run for the money.

John,

No I have not yet purchased the Ma Vlast yet, but it is on my list of must-haves. I would really like to hear it on the Axioms.
In so far as the "fullness" concept is concerned, sometimes the M22s sound like I have taken the treble knob up to its max and other times it is just amazing crispness and detail. On the Ascends, The horns in one our selections this evening sounded like another musician was playing along only an octave lower, whereas the Axiom horns were more detailed but had less of a bass to them. I realize I might not be explaining this correctly because I by no means have a great deal of experience critically listening, but I do know that treble appeals to me, but not to the point of lacking any bass at all.
We were listening without the sub and the Ascends still had that extra bass in their sound.
I have been wrestling with this difference in the sound characteristics between the two manufacturers for at least 6 weeks now and need to make a decision soon.

Mark

Yes, I certainly did not feel that it was a case of which is better with these speakers. They both have their advantages and disadvantages. I would love to hear the M60's to compare with the M22 and the Ascend 340's.

Chesseroo,

I have read on more than one occasion on these forums that some people prefer listening to the M60s without a sub, so for me that speaks volumes about its capability of perhaps filling in some of the mid-range sound, as you have mentioned. I can accept that the highs will be the same as the M22s - it is the lower mids to low end of the sound spectrum that I am referring to.

Mark

But did you guys have fun?

Zarak.....I have heard the M60, and I think they sound "fuller" than the M22's. I like them a lot, but the highs on some material is still too much for me eventhough they are a bit more refined than the M22's. But if you looking for added fullness to your M22's....the M60's are the ticket.

The 340's definitely have more bottom end than the M22's. But I think that the fullness is not due to a midbass boost, because the 170's even sound a little more full than the M22's. I think it has more to do with the forward and high detailed nature of the M22.

I didn't get to do a lot of critical comparing between the M60's and 340's, but I can easily tell you what stands out is still the highs of the Axiom.

curtis

Yea...we had a good time. I'm just worried hearing this fullness is going to give me upgraditis and I'll want the M60's if they can give me the fullness and keep the detail!

Upgraditis never dies....there is no cure.

If you want fullness combined with the detail of the M22s, go with the M60s. I originally ordered the M22s, which I compared to the Athena AS-F2 floor-standers. The M22s were superior to the Athenas except in fullness. I also wanted the best of both worlds and ordered the M60s. It fit the bill perfectly.

Well as the third person at the session I thought it was time for me to chime in and take some of the heat off of the others. Just let me state that I currently own an Ascend 5.1 package with 4 CBM-170’s and a 340 center with a VTF-2. Would also like to thank Mark for sharing his home and “speaker collection” with us. That said, I think nothing has changed about my opinions of both of these fine speakers.

The greatest differences with these speakers are that the Axioms are more detailed and forward than the Ascends (both the 340 and 170) and the Ascends just seem to have a fuller sound. Also with the Axioms, as the volume levels were increased, there became a point where the detail was just overwhelming and they started to sound to bright for me. I’ll tell you how these opinions came to be with the movies and music we threw at these speakers.

First we listened to the opening beach assault scene from Saving Private Ryan. With the Axioms, the bullets ricocheting off of the beach obstacles and the falling of shell casings from the machine guns were just more pronounced than with the Ascends. But on the other hand with the Ascends, you got a more noticeable “thud” sound as the bullets hit their mark on those poor soldiers.

Next we put in The Matrix and watched The Lobby scene. As with SPR, the Axioms just had more detail that showed again with things like falling shell cases and machine gun fire. All these sounds were there with the Ascends, just not as pronounced. I will say that with the Axioms on this particular scene, the detail was almost at a level FOR ME of being to much.

Next up was some classical music. This is where I think the Axioms really shined. We listened to Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries” and I think one other piece from a disc Zarak brought. The extra detail of the Axioms just gave these pieces more air and made them more engaging over the Ascends. The only think I liked more about the Ascends over the Axioms on the classical music was the sound of horns.

With the Rock/Pop stuff we listened to, both speakers had their moments. Preferred the Axioms again with “the cranberries” and “Empty” and Dave Matthews Band and “Crash” sounded best on the Ascends.

I don’t think we helped Mark any with his decision. Thanks again Mark, I hope you get this worked out.

I was going to say marriage and children are a cure for upgraditis, but that's not correct. Marriage and children merely aggravate the situation by putting upgrades further out of reach!

When you guys say "horns," you specifically mean French Horns, not other brass instruments (trumpets, trombones, etc), right? -- just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding...

I recently compared the m22s and 170s and most of your comments are the same as mine. One thing I disliked about the Ascends was an extra resonance with horns. For example, a saxaphone or trumpet had a very, very strong bite(attack) to the sound, more so than I have ever heard (and I play trumpet). I agree that the Ascends sounded fuller. On Dave Matthews Band's cd Crash, track 4 is the song "Too Much". The openening features all of the intruments playing the same chord. On the Ascends the instruments kind of mushed together(but not too bad), whereas on the Axioms they were very clean. I ended up sending back both speakers and am now considering getting the m60s.

FYI for everyone...the other classical track was Wagner Lohengrin - Prelude to Act III.

I'd be curious to hear track 4 on Crash now, after the other comment that was made about it.

Just thought of this too....

The extra thud in Saving Private Ryan is from the extra bass the Ascends put out. However, Mark didn't have the sub on while watching the movie samples...the VTF-2 would handle the thud part, so I don't know that that is as big of a deal.

OK...I'll jump in.

I first bought and loved a pair of M22's. I was able to compare them side by side with several different speakers, including the Energy C-3, Rocket RS-150, and Ascend 170's. In the end I still loved my M22's. There clarity and details are unsurpased.

Then I heard the Energy Veritas 2.2's and fell in love with them. (Yeah,yeah - I'm a speaker whore) I ended up buying a pair of the Veritas 2.2's (only because they were 50% off - which STILL put them at $750!) I got them home and I was in bliss. They had the detail of the M22's but a fuller richer sound. A really stunning speaker.

Then I heard the M60ti. Now I own a pair of M60's and my hunt for speakers is over.

The M60ti has a tremendous soundstage. HUGE compared to the M22 and even the Veritas 2.2's. It has all the clarity and fine details of the M22 without the same harshness at louder volumes. (at lower volumes I never had a problem with the M22, but I do know what people mean by "harsh" at louder volumes) The only edge I'd give the Veritas over the M60's was in "brassy" instruments. They had a nicer resonance than the M60's. This same rich resonance was also nice on female vocals as well. But the greater detail and that enormous soundstage really won me over to the M60's. (Beside that, the msrp on the Veritas was $1500 - I don't want to support a company that's going to gouge people like that!)

Yeah Axiom - quality products at FAIR prices.

So there you have it. Sounds to me like you would be well suited for a pair of M60ti's as well.

Sushi, I don’t know what horn/brass/woodwind instruments were being played on the classical music pieces from Wagner, but as far as the rock pieces that I preferred the sound on the Ascends over he Axioms are: Dire Straits, Your Latest Trick, Sax and DMB, Crash, Crash Into Me, also sax. There just seemed to be more depth, resonance, fullness, whatever you want to call it on the Ascends with these instruments that I preferred.

I’d also like to comment on Zarak’s remarks about the “thud” sound on the SPR beach scene. Both speakers were crossed over at 80 so both speakers were playing the same frequencies. I don’t think adding the sub will change the fact that this sound was just more pronounced on the Ascends. Just like the other sounds I mentioned were more pronounced on the Axioms.

Johnny,

I'm no expert, but I'd like to add my .02 cents to your last comment. You claim that the sub would not have had an effect on the performance of the Axioms or Ascends with the "thud" sound during SPR. And you state "Just like the other sounds I mentioned were more pronounced on the Axioms" (I presume you were talking about the highs on the Axioms).

I think Zarak is arguably correct that the sub would fill in some of the "thud" sound in SPR on either speaker. I've compared my M22's with and without a sub, and there is a big difference in the fullness of sound when using a sub. So I would be shocked if a sub did not have an effect on a "thud" sound or any other sound during the SPR beach scene.

Conversely, if the highs are better with the Axioms than the Ascends, then that is being caused by one thing, the speaker itself. There is nothing else to fill in the high end other than turning up the treble.

There is no doubt that the Ascends sound like excellent speakers, and could be preferable to some people over the M22's. But I would tend to support Zarak's comment that a sub would help any deficiency of the M22's with a "thud" or similar sound. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Hmm...

I re-looked at the published anechoic frequency responses of the Ascend CBM-170 and Axiom M22. It seems that these measurements may very well explain the impressions you guys are reporting here (assuming that the 340 is similar to the 170).

(1) Both speakers have a respectably flat frequency response overall, and a nice dispersion patters.

(2) The Ascends are definitely more sensitive (as Curtis has reported) by a few dB.

(3) The Axioms have a shallow but broad 2-3dB dip between 200-600Hz or so, which may explain the comparative "leanness" or the lack of "fullness" of brass sounds.

(4) The Axioms have wider lateral dispersion patterns in the 1-5kHz "presence" region, as well as in the top octave. This may explain the more muscial "details" and forward presentation heard on the Axioms.

(5) As compared to the Axioms, the Ascends exhibit more harmonic distortions in midwoofer frequencies above 200Hz. This might in fact contribute to the perceived "fullness" of the sound. Also, it may explain the sound getting "muddy" or opaque occasionally, as reported above.

gem,

There is an argument for judging a speaker on its own merits or with the use of a sub.

Interestingly, the low end of the M22's -/+3db point is 60hz and the 340's is 55hz. I wonder where that "thud" falls.

No doubt, each speaker has its merits, but even with a sub, the bass of the speakers will sound different....because they are different.

curtis

Sushi...the guys were comparing the CMT-340 to the M22...not the CBM-170.

I also see a couple of spikes between the 15K and 20K region of the M22 on the off axis graph....maybe this can be the brightness or harshness that people feel.

Interesting seeing how close the 170 and M22 are on paper.

gem,

I'm no expert either and I can see your point on this and maybe I should have worded my response a little different. I quess it would come down to where this "thud" sound is on the spectrum. If it fell anywhere near the X-over, I could see the sub helping out, but it would help out both speakers no? If it falls well above the x-over, then I believe the sub would have no effect.

Curtis and Johnny,

All points duly noted. There's probably no right answer on this issue, and there's probably little difference one way or the other anyway between the M22's and CBM170's. By all accounts, they're both great speakers.

Alright then...who has M60's in the Philly area I can compare with then

You are right Gem.

What is interesting though from looking at the charts Sushi linked to....there is not anything that stands out that can really explain the "brightness" of the M22.

curtis

Those graphs pictured are rather small.
Blow them up and you will see just how many differences really exist.
Keep in mind that x axis appears to be a logarithmic plot. The separation from left to right is far more pronounced that it appears.

The graphs never helped me much...maybe I just need a primer on what I'm looking for and what's to be gained reading them. I had never seen one until back near the beginning of the year when I started this whole HT process.

I bet I know what Chess and Sushi are thinking...

"DAMN I hope jbz doesn't ask me to explain what this thread is about!!".