Cork, that's very interesting feedback. And yes, it was you I was thinking of but I didn't want to call you out. Some folks are shy.
I've been wondering why Axiom discontinued the M22. Given your feedback, it could be Axiom couldn't make it better, acknowledged it and moved on. Or maybe they just didn't want to invest any more in it. Thanks for sharing, BTW. The important thing is you've been enjoying them in the last decade.
The cross-over and the tweeters are of course very related but if you start off with a compromised tweeter design, you have to make compromises elsewhere too.
As for the M3, I had heard the Ti and did not like it. However, the M3v4 sound-staged and imaged better than my M80v2. The highs were also very nice. My guests and I preferred the M3v4 over the M80v2. Later, when I added the M2v4 into the mix, the M2 were preferred also over the M3v4 and M80v2. Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I would take the M2v4 without a sub over the M80v2 with a sub. Understand however that imaging and soundstage are more important to me than full bass and dynamics. I actually find the dynamics nicer on the M2v4 but of course it can't go as loud as the M80v2.
Now here's the thing: as I have reported a few times, the M3v4 has a "real" cross-over. It's not like the v2 or Ti. Perhaps that cross-over and the new tweeter, tweaked using an improved Family of Curves, makes the M3v4 so much better than the previous versions. That new cross-over BTW was introduced in v3. I don't doubt that improvements were made to it in v4.
With regard to M3v4 vs. M2v4, they are completely different animals. The lack of a mid-woofer on the M3 makes the M3, M40, M50 the "odd" speakers out of the entire Axiom line. I do prefer the M2v4 over the M3v4 but then again, I have said the M3v4 sound is very relaxing and it would be cool to try and bring that sound, via a switch, to the other speakers. I find the M2v4 a nice balance between higher resolution speakers in the Axiom line-up and lower ones like the M3 and M50.
As for the M5s, those suckers were a complete re-design from the ground up with the constraints that the engineers had to use existing drivers and enclosure manufacturing methods and parts, and had to meet cost and size targets. Using those constraints, the engineers were free to do whatever they wanted including a lot of characterization and tweaking in the chamber which costs a lot of money and beers. The result was an impeccable speaker that easily competes with speakers twice the price. The one thing the engineers couldn't overcome was physics - the HP driver needs a ton of power.
The M5 does bring a conundrum to the table. Do you go with M5s and no sub or M2s and a sub or M5s with a sub. If you're going to add a sub to the system, and imaging and soundstage are important to you, the M2 may give more impressive results if you are not playing loud enough to distort the M2's mid-woofer (the M5's mid-woofer is crossed to the HP driver at 250Hz and therefore remains more linear on the low end). I say "may" because it depends on room integration. The M5 has a hump at around 100Hz and it does have an extra driver and more drivers make for more challenging imaging. The other factor to be considered is for some, imaging and soundstage is not important because they don't listen that way or they can't due to placement in the room. That's OK. But once they hear imaging and soundstage, they likely cannot go back. I know that from experience with my friends and family. And me.
Anyway, I think it's terrific that you answered the M22v2 vs. M22v4 question for yourself and that you enjoy them.
