Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo M22's vs. CBM-170's (a book...beware!)

Here it is. I told you it was long! I hope you get through it all!

I go back and forth between calling the speakers Axiom's, Ascend's, M22's & 170's, but I think you'll all get it! Also, please don't rip it apart too bad. I'm not a qualified audiophile, so forgive me if there's no talk of molocules or electrons. In all honesty, I really couldn't care less about *why* I heard what I did. I only wrote what my ears told me to!

This comparison of the Axiom M22's and the Ascend Acoustics CBM-170's is based on my own personal experiences and I will describe them to the best of my knowledge. I'm definitely not an audio expert, but hopefully can provide you with an idea of each speakers' characteristics. Obviously, I won't tell you that one is better than the other as I'm fully aware that sound is a matter of personal preference. In my opinion, a speaker is only as good as it's listener!

While I was trying to gather my thoughts so I could write this review, I was going nuts trying to remember every detail and sound of every single song that I listened to. Therefore to avoid confusion, I will not pick apart how each speaker reacted to specific songs, but rather provide you with basic generalizations. I apologize in advance if this review comes off as sounding lazy and vague, but after listening to these speakers back and forth, over and over again, I'm still finding it difficult to describe their sounds with words. I listened to a lot of material ranging from Dido, Medeski Martin & Wood, Nine Inch Nails, Porcupine Tree, and various electronica discs. These are not "reference" recordings but they are a decent mix as well as examples of what I like to listen to. I wanted to make sure that the speakers were satisfactory with my own music collection, not just the best quality recordings out there.

First of all, I personally don't care for certain audio terms because they can mean different things to different people, good or bad, depending on one's own interpretations. So when I use these tems, I'll try my best to describe what I mean by them. I think the one that confuses me the most is the term "accurate" because it seems like all speaker manufacturers like to use this description. Sure, a linear frequency response on paper may prove a speaker to be "scientifically" accurate, but then how can two different speakers with similar responses have such different tonal characteistics? Is it due to cabinet design and/or driver materials? These are probably stupid questions for those of you who are knowledgeable about the science of sound (which I am not). The fact is, these speakers are often compared to one another due to their similar frequency response. However, I'm pretty sure that I can tell these speakers apart with my eyes closed. I'll explain what I mean by providing statements made by both speaker manufacturers in regards to their accuracy:

Ascend Acoustics: "Our mission is to manufacture high quality loudspeakers that reproduce the source material as *accurately* as possible, whether music or a soundtrack. This demands the use of low distortion, custom designed components combined with advanced crossover technologies that provide a linear frequency response on-and off-axis".

Axiom Audio: "The goal of every loudspeaker we produce is *accurate*, transparent musical reproduction that allows you to experience the cleanest, clearest, most realistic music and movies, from two-channel stereo to 7.1-channel home theater surround sound. Instruments sound so real that your room disappears and you are front row center, shivering as the shimmer of cymbals and the momentum of deep bass pulses envelop you in the drama of the sound."

I find both of the above statements to be *accurate*. (no pun intended!). I'll start with the Ascend 170's. First of all, some of Ascend's technical jargon to explain their speakers is of no use to me, but it's obviously important for competent audiophiles. But when they state that their speakers "reproduce the source material as accurately as possible", I tend to agree. To me, these speakers have similar tonal characteristics of studio monitors and sort of look like them too. I've been in a recording studio twice (not that it means anything!) and I also have a friend who records music in his home using a pair of Roland monitors. In my own listening experience of studio monitors, I find that they tend to have somewhat of a "dry" characteristic. The 170's aren't at all dry in the way of being boring or recessed, but rather that the sounds coming from them seem "raw" and unprocessed. Basically, when I hear vocals and instruments from these speakers, I picture the engineers hearing the exact same thing when in the studio. Specifically, vocals out of the 170's are so smooth in a way that I always find myself visualising the vocalist at the recording studio and actually "hearing" the acoustics of the recording booth as well. So if this is Ascend's way of reproducing the "source material as accurately as possible", then I find this to be true.

On to Axiom. They state, "The cleanest, clearest, most realistic music...". There's no better way that I could describe them. However, as with Ascend, Axiom also claims to be accurate. Then why don't they sound exactly like the Ascend's? The difference for me is that the Axiom's give me the illusion of live musicians in my room, not in a studio. Acoustic recordings especially have this effect, the best example being guitar. There is so much presence and detail heard with every pluck, strum, and finger slide. In fact, my roommate plays guitar and the M22's come pretty close to sounding like her playing right in the room. So to me, "accuracy" as defined by Axiom, might mean how realistic the instruments sound as if played live right in front of you and not so much a recording.

It's really difficult for me to describe this, but with the Ascend's, there seems to be a slight reverberation characteristic in the sound of these speakers. I actually like this effect although I don't know how realistic it is. As I mentioned above, it's almost like hearing the acoustics of the actual recording room coming through. Because of this, any added reverb that's already in the mix is emphasized. Sometimes, I think it's what makes the Acsend's sound a bit fuller and deeper with certain sounds, especially ones that sustain, like a grand piano or a string ensemble for example. But the Axiom M22's also do an excellent job at reproducing strings, piano, and vocals, and are definitely capable of delivering any "intended" reverb. It's just that the M22's can come across as a bit "thinner" sounding in this regard. As I mentioned before, I'm sure that the cabinet/speaker design and driver materials account for some of these differences.

Both speakers are similar in a way that they both emphasize the midrage. If you are not "midrange happy" like myself, I don't think you will like either of these speakers. I'm not sure if these are the right terms to use, but I feel that the 170's lean more toward the lower midrange to upper-midbass, whereas the M22's lean more toward the upper midrange to treble. Both speakers produce tight and smooth lower bass almost identically. Generally speaking, the M22's produce more detailed and crisper highs than the 170's, which tends to round them out a bit. However, I wouldn't consider the 170's at all "warm". They are still very detailed in the highs. The 170's also deliver a bit more bass "punch". But for the most part, I feel the M22's are a bit more balanced across the musical spectrum probably due in part to the extra driver.

As for imaging, these speakers differ quite a bit in my observation. I had them set up about seven feet apart on 24" stands in an 11x14 bedroom. The M22's seemed to disperse sounds pretty evenly across the soundstage. Sounds coming from the left, right, and everywhere inbetween the speakers all sounded balanced, separated, and about at the same level. As for the 170's, sounds were a bit heavy and congested in the center of the speakers. Maybe this is why the 170's are sometimes said to be a good "vocal" speaker since vocals are normally up front and center. I decided that perhaps the 170's required more breathing room so I set them out in the living room on the main system about nine feet part and everything opened up. It was fantastic! In fact, the Ascend's produced a sense of "depth" in the soundstage that I couldn't quite get with the M22's, even with the M22's on the main system as well.

In conclusion, both speakers are forward speakers, and if you like midrange, you will enjoy either of them. Overall, I prefer the Axiom M22's. I really love the way that the M22's give me that realistic "in the room" feeling. I also feel they provided slightly more detail, and were the more balanced. However, there is a sense of "smoothness" and "fullness" which I enjoyed about the 170's. At times, they even made the M22's sound a bit thin.

Very good, Mary, but c'mon, what did you really think of the "molecules and electrons"?

Now Sonic, i mean really, when that first electron hit your ears....

You give 'em hell!!
The first two paragraphs alone had me on edge.
What do they say about making a scorned woman more angry?
No no, waitaminute, there's no fury like a woman scorned?
No, no, that's not right.
I have to brush up on my cliches.

A lovely review. I like your notes about room placement.
Sometimes what might be a good speaker is just in a less than stellar location or arrangement.
I've done that same thing before, had a set of speakers in room A where they sounded great, moved homes and in new Room B, the great sound just isn't there.
Time for new speakers i guess.

Is that the moral of this story?

A well thought out speaker review is always good for me

Excellent review, Mary. Don't worry about all the technical mumbo-jumbo, just tell me how they sound! Chess had a good point about room and placement issues. Sometimes that can make or break a speaker. More reason why people should audition speakers in the home for a period of time.

And by the way, shame on you for keeping that review to yourself for all this time.

That is a great write up!

One question though...."classic" CBM-170's or CBM-170SE's?

Good report. I'm contemplating of getting a stereo setup and M22 plus yet to be determined small sub is on my list.
Thanks,
Gena

Very nice thoughts put down and not really too long. We've had longer posts.

This was for the classic 170's...didn't know they had SE's! What's different about them, Curtis?

The drivers are changed/upgraded in the SE's. The tweeter being made by Seas, not sure who makes the woofer. The benefits seem to be more bass extension, a bit more open/cleaner, and the highs a bit more refined(especially at louder volumes).

Curtis, I just visited the Ascend forum. It looks as if they have an upgrade program to the SE's. Oh, how I'm tempted! When I initially bought both speakers, the M22's and the 170's, my plan was to keep my favorites and sell the others. From this review, you will know that I preferred the M22's. However, it's been probably a year since I wrote the review, and I haven't had the courage yet to part from the 170's. Now, you've got me really curious about the SE's! I've got a dilemma on my hands now!

If you have found what you like, I wouldn't worry about it. From reading your review, I think at least some of the issues you had with 170's may have been addressed, but I am not sure all the changes in the 170SE would suit your tastes. Not night and day differences...but differences nonetheless.

Save the cash or spend it on something else.

Hold on....a year ago!!?? You have been holding out on us that long?

Your opinion means a lot, Curtis, because I've always known you to be a big fan of Ascend's and trust your judgement when it comes to them. You've got the 340's, right? So anyway, thanks for making my mind up for me and saving me money. As it stands, I DO really still like my 170's as they are, so I've still got the best of both worlds.

Very nicely written review; I thought it was helpful, even-handed and intelligible. Your impressions will surely be useful to those people in the future that are considering both speaker lines. Thank you sincerely for this significant addition to the collective wisdom.

Bravo!

I agree, well reviewed. Oftentimes it is difficult to express what it is your brain is interpreting from the information provided by your ears. It brings up an interesting questinon in my mind. How is "neutral sounding" interpreted. Would this be by the average listener in an average room (what ever that is)? Would it be by a recording engineer? Would it be by the artist recording on stage, or if a studio recording then that would be by the recorder?

I have a friend with a reeeeally nice Taylor guitar that, unplugged, sounds a little thin but when amplified via the built-in pickups produces a full rich sound that is very pleasing.

The review brings up an important factor. The room acoustics. In sounding "congested", I would have to think that the 170 was exciting specific room nodes that the M22 was not. In the larger room, the M22 sounded "thin" but I tend to think that it is really meant for either a small room or a large room with a quality sub. I interpret from that review that the M22 is more neutral. The 170 seems as though it has been tweaked to sound good in a moderately sized room.

The said Taylor guitar may sound better in a small room (it sounded thin in a 4000 sq ft space) but too congested when amplified in that same small room (depending on the amount of amplification). I like this review for the simple fact that, unlike a lot of "professional" reviews, it really gives an idication of performance in different environments which is often overlooked.

Thanks very much for the review!

Not a problem Mary. This hobby/obsession of ours can drive us broke! Enjoying is what it is all about.

I have "classic" 340s and 170s, and I have heard the SE versions. I will be upgrading when the budget allows.