I didn't notice his name until now. Any relation to Stephen?

Hi Chris,

I don't know. Who is Stephen?

Regards,
Alan

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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?