Brendo, when I listen to the M3 or M50, I do not see images that are as well-defined in space as other v4. This is what I mean by lower "spatial resolution". M3 and M50 are like 480p, all other passives are like 1080p and active LFRs are like 4K. At least this is my analogy. And as I've stated, lower resolution has its place as I have discovered. At least with my ears-brain.

Certainly the M3 goes lower than the M2. In larger rooms, you need a sub with the M2 without a doubt. Some may argue that you also need it in the 10x10x8 foot room I referenced above but I don't find that with the M2. I can still enjoy music in a small room like that with M2 and no sub.

But even with the M3, when you start pushing it, a sub is a must. I can hear it distorting at around 95dBC peaks at 10 feet away.

The lack of a bass bump in the M2 is indeed very important. I can't put the M3 in my 1800 cu. ft. living room without cutting the bass by 16dB never mind an 800 cu. ft. room. Not so with the M2.

The woofer in the M5 reaches lower and is much more linear than the M3. The M5 can go to 103dBC peaks without distorting and no sub which is 8dBC better than the M3. You can use it without a sub in a 4,200 cu. ft. room like mine and still be very satisfied with the bass. But not the M3. You can push the M5 to 107dBC with a sub as measured at a 13 foot MLP without any distortion. No way you can do that with an M3 or M2.

The M2 with a sub is just as dynamic as an M5 within the above limit. If you have a sub, I'd recommend the M2 over the M5 because it is smaller, less expensive and may provide for easier room integration.

I have not had the good fortune of trying an M22v4 so I cannot compare and answer any questions about that. I would however expect that the M22v4 can go louder than the M2 because it has dual mids. Does it sound better than the M2 though? I don't know.

House of the Rising Sone
Out in the mid or far field
Dedicated mid-woofers are over-rated