This is my last post in this thread until Axiom has made improvements to the active LFRs and then that might trigger more changes.

--- History ---

I started the upgrade to v4 in 2017, 10 years after buying v2. I kicked it off with the 800 replacing my 600, then the 160 replacing my 150. Both were a revelation and I decided to give the M5s a try and they proved to be vastly superior to my M80v2. Two QS10s were next and they totally trumped the QS8v2 in my 4200 cu. ft. space. In the process, I also tried M3, M50, M100 and M2 bookshelves and on-walls. Not sure how the heck that happened...it was all a blur. What I discovered however is all these v4 speakers came from the same secret sauce rendering the same soundstage and imaging. The "only" differences between them were the spatial resolution and clarity (accuracy), frequency extension and dynamic range and SPL.

Ian tried over this period to move me to LFRs and I resisted because I heard the passive LFRs and didn't hear any difference over M100s. Then the actives came out and I saw, from what Axiom published, they were clearly different. So I went with them and two 500s to boot.

--- Living room ---

I've tried all of the above speakers in almost all rooms in my house except for the on-walls. In my 4200 cu.ft. room, they all work very well. In my 1900 cu.ft. living room, the M2OW are the stand-out winner with the M2 bookshelves a close second. All the other passives sound too boomy in every room. The actives sound immaculate throughout the entire spectrum (no sub needed) but they get in the way of themselves and affect the width of the soundstage. The M2OW offer a deep and wide soundstage and are clear without being fatiguing. Anyone considering M3s, think twice. The M2s are one of Axiom's closely-guarded secrets.

--- Main room ---

In the 4200 cu.ft. space, for music only, I could actually be very happy with M2 bookshelves and my subs. Using M5s or M100s makes absolutely no significant difference and that includes movies also. I've also discovered my coveted 160 isn't needed and off-axis listeners actually preferred a bit of a shift in the center image because they say it sounds more natural. At MLP, I like movies and music (even in PLII or Neo) without the 160. I never expected that to be the case but I am glad I kept my mind open and tried it.

Until I got the actives, I didn't think the fronts matter for movies. I've discovered this is where the actives matter the most for me. Their center image is more diffuse and more natural-sounding and the accuracy and dynamics add a new dimension to movies. The dual subs fed off the DSPs instead of the .1 channel make a big difference for both music and movies and complement the 800 very well. The 800 is now relegated to the LFE and handling below 40Hz for the QS10s.

So I've moved from a v2 7.2 system to a v4 4.1 active system. I've gotten rid of my ugly cabinet up front and arranged my equipment on and underneath a 6 foot wide, 2" high, 20" deep rough pine shelf. It sits on industrial-looking, steel legs. I'm very happy with how it turned out.

As a final note, the actives truly are incredible and prove to me that everything Toole et al researched is indeed accurate. In every room I tried the actives in, I had no need for EQ of any kind. I never thought I wouldn't need EQ in my main space. There is absolutely no difference in 2.1 with or without Audyssey XT32. 4.1 is a bit of a different story but it's not like one couldn't live without it.



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