It can be beneficial, but it doesn't fix specific symptoms such as application crashes.

It can also be very harmful, particularly for older solid state drives--possibly newer ones, too.

or if you have full drive encryption, our client team says no no to defrag on company pc's.

Without taking sides, I think any such discussion is doomed to failure and flame unless you first quantify and agree to your definition of the term "Quality Sound" as keeps getting referenced. It doesn't have to be be the "true" definition, just the definition you agree on to use for the purpose of this particular discussion.

Without that established, it remains completely subjective and the discussion is doomed.

The second challenge is how can groups ever agree on a definition?
- Graphs of frequency sweeps are measurable and thus one could agree a certain graph (flat or otherwise) is the goal. The problem is the 'otherwise' part will again be subjective unless you can form an unlikely consensus.

- Distortion levels? Yes, tube amps introduce distortion by nature but many human brains find the effect pleasurable, others remain purists. Again, taste is subjective.

- As close to 'the real thing' as possible. Perhaps this can be agreed to as a goal but again, opinions differ. Does that mean as close to a flat graph as possible? Maybe for some but not for others. What about the environment. A mid range hump might be just the thing to create realism in one room while it colors the music too much in another. Is the environment part of the agreed to definition or not? At least the speakers must be compared against the agreed to goal in the same environment.

It's all very complex to me but I'm sure another will say it's very simple, the answer is A. But unless you can get everyone to agree on the answer as to what "Quality Sound" is, then it remains an opinion and people will disagree.

Now as to what is a good business case for Axiom? That has a solid answer. You can have market surveys, study the competition, run the numbers. etc. etc. The problem is, sometimes even the best business minds don't know for certain until the results are in.

I'm certainly curious where Axiom's designs go with Andrew Welker on board. Considering his Omniguide belongs to Mirage, I wonder if he's going to try to achieve the same kind of effect in other ways with an Axiom offering. I would like to see a design that isn't a traditional box. This is where I think we might get into another "line" of speakers with Axiom. Maybe his influence will be subtle enough that any new designs will integrate well with the existing models. Your guess is as good as mine. I'm excited to see what happens.

Interesting. I haven't heard the Mirages but the Anthony Gallo speakers (not a traditional box design for sure) are incredibly good.

I'd love to see Axiom pick Gallos as one of their targets to match or beat their incredible sound quality at an even better price. Focal has some wee HT speakers which are also incredibly good.

I've heard some of Mirages smaller offerings, I think they must have been Nano's, last year. I thoroughly enjoyed them but what struck me most was their size and more-so, their weight for such a compact little speaker. I've never been able to find any of the Mirage flagships(OMD 15/28) to listen to despite living relatively close to their headquarters.

Hi Adrian,

Since Klipsch acquired Audio Products International (Energy, Mirage, etc.), my understanding is that Klipsch has essentially abandoned the Mirage brand.

Alan

Does anyone know what's going to happen to Mirage's IP?

It never really existed. You and Bugs Bunny need to get out of the desert.

Alan:

You are absolutely right when you say Klipsch has virtually destroyed the "Mirage" brand. It is now down to a few speakers and basically HTIB.

When I look in the recent past with Mirage's great innovations especially with the "bipolar" and "omnipolar" designs and now they have pretty much disappeared.

In recent years, this is so typical of a larger organization buying another to "allegedly" take advantage of its innovations and different product line and yet, in many cases, they forget why they bought it and end up virtually dismantling the whole thing!

It NEVER makes any sense to me. What was the point of spending all that money?

I guess just to eliminate a competitor.