Well...let's see. The M3s can take 200W average and 800W peak. The M100s can take 600W average and 2400W peak. Not 4 times better but certainly 3 times...if your application calls for it.
The quality of the lows, mids and highs of the M3 cannot be compared with the M100. Once you hear the two beside one another, it's like night and day. A novice would very quickly pick the M100 over the M3. In fact, many novices have at my place. The 100s are more than 4 times better in this department.
You need twice the amplifier power with the M3 to get the same SPL as the M100.
The soundstage and imaging of the M100 though is definitely not 4 times better than the M3 but it is wider and taller. This is an amazing feat of engineering on Axiom's part. You will get very similar imaging and soundstage from the least to most expensive speaker. That soundstage and imaging is holographic! As you move up, you will get improved width, improved fidelity across the entire audible range, improved micro and macro dynamics and improved dynamic range. But the character of the entire family is the same. Bravo!
As for the LFRs, I don't know because I've never heard them.
If I had LFRs, I'd trade them in for the actives and if the actives weren't better in my space, back they'd go. I am willing to wager though, the active LFRs will image significantly better!
P.S. The 1000 can drive the M100s very loud and clean but it gives up long before the 1500. The 1500 also does a better job with the lows if playing the M100s full band. Of course this is all academic if your application doesn't need that kind of power. This is probably quite the same with the LFRs as you've found.
