So as consumers, how do we determine how much more a speaker is worth compared to another? By the number of images each renders? The resolution of the rendered images? The three-dimensionality of the soundscape? The vastness of that soundscape? The number of microdynamics? The emotions elicited from the macrodynamics? How high the volume has to be before one is satisfied with the music rendition? What risk they carry with regard to room integration? Whether they truly need a sub for music?

With regard to the above, the actives are superlatively superior to the M100v4 Axiom flagship direct radiator. So much so, that a 2.7-fold difference in price for the speaker and amplification relative to the M100 is an incredible bargain. Throw in a very likely need for a sub for music when using the M100s, and the actives are only about a 2-fold increase relative to the M100s.

BTW Craig, I think with the first paragraph above, I've invented some attributes you might want to consider in your score sheet for DBLT.

I also say the 3-fold jump from the M5s to the M100s is not as great a value proposition as the jump from M100s to the actives. I say that because I got the M5s first, listened to them for some time, then got the M100s and was not emotionally swept away. With the actives, I'm an emotional wreck! smile

Last edited by Mojo; 11/26/19 04:13 AM.
House of the Rising Sone
Out in the mid or far field
Dedicated mid-woofers are over-rated