HERE ARE THE DETAILS OF MY M22 IMPRESSIONS:
Still here? Now for the M22s. These were entirely different beasts. I was really surprised at their performance. Ahead of time I figured the main advantage/difference would be that they would simply play louder than the M2s and provide a bit more mid-range. They do so much, MUCH more...
I played with the M22s a little bit during my testing of the M2s. I could tell they presented a bigger sound in some instances, but overall they were sonically similar. Initially I had some of the same problems with the M22s imaging that I did with the M2s but unlike the M2s, after some experimentation in placement the M22 imaging *did* improve. They still do not image as precise as my old CSWs, but the single-point sweet spot of the M2s became a sweet area about 4 ft. wide on my couch with the M22s. The center image is also a bit broader and less forward. I liken it to the following: instead of Diana Krall herself standing in between my CSW speakers, she and her twin are standing shoulder-to-shoulder about 5-10 feet behind them.
As with the M2's, at "sharing" levels (>85 dB) they don't distort at all. They maintained their smoothness and sonic integrity out to 100 dB (at least for the few seconds I could stand that level of loudness)! Simply...jaw...dropping...amazing.
In the "normal person range" of 65-70 dB, these were the smoothest of the three speaker systems. In searching for the adequate adjectives to describe them, _smooth_ (or is that smoooooth?) and _full_ are the best. I would almost say the M22s are warm-ish, but I hate that term in describing speakers. They simply present a full, rich sound from top to bottom rather than "coloring" the sound (as the term warm implies). The midrange that they provide give a complete body to the music that the sub-sat system misses and that the M2s simply couldn't. Orchestral music has a new life as the cellos and violas are more balanced with the violins and double-bass. Charles Dallenbach's tuba (from the Canadian Brass) is more full and balanced. Congas and bongos in latin music are now longer uneven.
In the background range, the tweeters of these didn't give up like the M2s. While the sound does close up a little bit with the M22s, it is not nearly as bad as the M2s. The subtle sounds like performers' breaths that the M2s lost at these quiet levels were maintained by the M22s. They outmatched the CSWs in mid-range production. Acoustic guitar and a-capella vocals maintain a richness and depth at low levels that the CSWs begin to lose.
I would like to elaborate on the adjective smooth, as it is more than a subjective term. This was one of the more astounding measurements I made. Two albums that really emphasized this were "Tras La Tormenta" by Ruben Blades & Willie Colon (latin salsa) and "Cookin' with the Miles Davis Quintet". With the M22s I could set the volume to read about 65 dB and it would set there, maybe oscillating between 63 & 65 when the horns played or didn't. With the CSW sub-sats, the dB level ranged from 60-67 dB! This was largely correlated with the bongo and conga rhythms or the bass guitar. I believe the tuning on the drums put one on each side of the crossover so that the low drum went primarily to the sub but the upper drum went to the sat. In any case, the same AVERAGE sound level was dramatically different in quality. Here the M22's not only sounded smoother, they could be measured to be so!
One by-product of the fuller midrange is that several albums have more "reverb" to them. It's really hard to describe; the first adjective that came to mind was boxy, but that's not correct or fair. They do NOT sound like boxes, it's more like the center stage provides sonic reinforcement like a real stage would.
One more comment on the M22 overall presentation. It again comes to the whole stage of presentation. In my 2nd paragraph I described the center imaging as being slightly broader than that of the CSWs. However, the WHOLE sound stage is wider! With the Ensemble system, you listen to very nice, well-defined music---that exists in the 8' between the satellite locations. With the M22s, you are faced with a sonic stage that is _dramatically_ wider than the speakers. This is one test that in blind A/B switching at ANY sound level, both my wife and I could easily distinguish. As she eloquently put it when switching to the old speakers, "That sounds like it's coming from a small (localized) box [of area]". As I like to put it, the M22s give me a wall of sound. Crank up some Rush, and it's like being on the concert floor in front of the amps!
My penultimate comment is on how well they match to the HSU VTF2-2. It is seamless! It's almost like the HSU and the Axioms were destined to be together. They make an under-$1000 2-channel system that can't be touched.
Finally, these speakers are absolutely dynamically astounding. I've only listened to a couple of DVDs to sample them, but the punch that they deliver to a soundtrack is simply amaaazzing. I'll discuss home theater in another thread. I believe that this is where the Axioms will absolutely blow away my present system. Overall, the M22s are an exceptional speaker at under $500 a pair. They outshine some of the $1000/pair speakers I listened to at the local shops. I'm looking forward to years of enjoyment before the next upgrade...
I thank you for your patience of reading through these thoughts if you made it this far. I have thoroughly enjoyed the last couple of weeks as I've rediscovered CDs in my collection that have sat on my shelf for years. It has been a lot of fun.
