Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Here's a review which discussed the use of "SE"(which use has since been dropped).
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 94
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 94 |
Do a search on 99% percent of threads on AVS concerning Axioms. You will see Alimentall bashing Axiom. Does that tell you anything?
He bashes B&W, Thiel, Paradigm telling this works, that doesn't work like he is THE ultimate knowledge on speakers. Nobody else knows better!
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 958
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 958 |
I once had a pair of NHT Super TWOs and at first they sounded very accurate and clean and had a great wow factor but soon became very fatiguing and "clinical" (soulless) sounding and the speakers didn't dissapear. I was always aware of the sound coming from the two boxes.
I live the life I love and I love the life I live.
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 537
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 537 |
John Ashman's recent post:
"Crossovers aren't instantaneous. If my math is right, it would take a 24dB/octave to the a 10dB resonance peak at 8.8kHz to ~1% distortion. Don't know what crossovers they use, but 24dB/octave is uncommonly high and I don't know where their 5" mid or 8" woofer rings. I forget what NHT uses on their metal 6.5", but I do know they cross it over at 850Hz for this very reason, then move frequencies above that to a 2" dome. On Xd, NHT uses a 110dB/octave digital crossover at 2kHz to cut out a 5kHz breakup mode on a 5" magnesium cone. A lot more effective than a passive low slope crossover."
Axiom has a 8" woofer ???
2xM80 VP180 2xQS8 2xM3 HSU STF3 LG 60PS11 Denon 3808 ATI 1506 LCR 2xATI 1502 Oppo BDP-83
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
Well, yes, but it's in the EP125.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,379 Likes: 7
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,379 Likes: 7 |
Which crosses over around 100 Hz
M60ti, VP180, QS8, M2ti, EP500, PC-Plus 20-39 M5HP, M40ti, Sierra-1 LFR1100 active, ADA1500-4 and -8
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 353
devotee
|
devotee
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 353 |
In reply to:
I like what Jack said.
Such claims are practically impossible to substantiate; the denegrator certainly does NOT have access to the production and design specifications of either the drivers or the crossovers. He is speculating and using pseudo-science to steer the unsuspecting towards a plausible but utterly baseless conclusion.
Decide for yourself using music rather than hyperbole.
I too agree with Jack and Tom.
Part of the problem is that this is all subjective. The listener may spend thousands of hours "conditioning" themselves to appreciate a particular sound and then try to convince other people that they know what sounds best.
I have found many "high-end" speakers that I have auditioned to be quite "laid back" and lacking certain detail. Often times that detail was in the midrange. As far as cone materials, there are even advocates for paper cone or treated paper cone woofers over the polypropylene cones. Are new cone technologies fads? Some may think so. In a similar comparison, you might look at the arguments between tubes versus semiconductors.
I have Monitor Audio speakers which also use metal cones (albeit treated with a ceramic) but the point is that, to me, they sound more detailed than my previous Mirage speakers (and those speakers are no slouches!). Perhaps it would simply be more accurate to say that I preferred the different type of sound that they reproduced. I truly believe the metal cones being lighter offer a faster response resulting in a "more accurate" sound. People used to the poly cones often describe this extra midrange as "bright". It comes down to the personal preference. I try to compare the sound to live performances and I don't mean to imply that I can tell what that is, just what it sounds like to me.
If this Mr. Ashman perfers his NHT speakers, good for him. I don't agree with people pushing their opinions as gospel onto others. People need to find out what works best for them and not be concerned about what someone else likes.
It has been said many times before that every one hears differently and subsequntly must let their "own ears decide" what they like.
It is a shame that so much weight in a decision to purchase speakers is made based on reviews of experts. Rather these reviews should be used as guidelines only for speaker brands to be auditioned.
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 537
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 537 |
Wouldn't that be a subwoofer?
2xM80 VP180 2xQS8 2xM3 HSU STF3 LG 60PS11 Denon 3808 ATI 1506 LCR 2xATI 1502 Oppo BDP-83
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,488
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,488 |
Well put, Bruce.
Personally, I find listening to speakers much more enjoyable than looking at graphs. But that's just me.
bibere usque ad hilaritatem
|
|
|
Re: Aluminum cone resonance
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1
newbie
|
newbie
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 1 |
Well, my buddy Oz has the 60's and I am the first guy to complain about "ear-bleeding bright" in a speaker, metal driver or otherwise (in fact my Maggie III-a's are too bright for me without hardware correction) but the Axioms, or at least that model, are lovely!
analog + SACD & DVD-A front
Marantz, Stromberg, Onkyo amps
Magnepan, Vienna, monitors
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,946
Posts442,494
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
1,199
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|