 Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,102
connoisseur
|
connoisseur
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,102 |
Quote:
Maybe the m22 is the answer
IMHO, you really should opt for the M22 mains, if for nothing else, future proofing. And you will have the best bookshelf Axiom has to offer.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 325
devotee
|
|
devotee
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 325 |
M22's will handle the extremes in movie soundtracks very well. I have them mated with the EP500 and they work well with movies and music. They can get pretty loud without distortion - my room is 15x25
Epic Grande Master 500 w/ on wall VP180
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
Quote:
Here we go again. Yes, of course, study the charts showing the measurements of frequency response, off axis response, yadayada ... I've owned M2s (the newest ones) M3Tis and M22s. My personal favorite for music - the M3s. I actually relied on JohnK's advice and picked up my M2s to use as back surround speakers. I don't think they worked that well in that position. I much prefer the QS8s in either (and both) the side and back surround positions.
So, I tried the M2s for 2 channel music (with a sub) and have to say I much preferred the M3s. I'm not going to say anything bad about the M2s because I'm sure they are better than anything in their price range and because of my affection for Axiom loudspeakers in general ... and in all fairness, I think the M2s would shine in comparison to just about any other speaker in its range other than the wonderful Axiom M3Tis.
Just so you get a sense of my taste, so you can better evaluate (or discount) my opinion, I've had M50s, spent some time listeing to M60s and all in all my favorite Axiom loudspeaker is the M3Ti which I think is their best all around big-bang for the buck outstanding loudspeaker.
See thats what I don't understand. WHY do you like the m3s better, crossed at 80 hz the extra bass of the m3 shouldnt matter. Is the sound fuller above that? Warmer? Grr, its only 30 bucks so I don't care about the price difference but I want to get the right speaker. Maybe the m22 is the answer
To me the M2s sound 'thinner' than the M3s. Some here may say that is because the M2s are more 'accurate.' Maybe looking at a chart may lead someone to believe that the M2s are more accurate or neutral, but to me the M3s sound more like live music. It's not just the bass abilities of the M3s, it's the mids ... they sound ... richer, fuller, more true to music.
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 18,044 |
In short, it's a very personal preference. The M2s and M22s are more linear than the M3s. Some people prefer less linear. I've heard M3s, M22s, M50s (own), M60s, and M80s (own). I prefer the M80s and M3s. Of course, I never heard the M3s directly compared to the M22s, and I've never heard the M2s at all. Generally, the Axiom line is said to be split into two: M3s and M50s and M2s, M22s, M60s, and M80s. The M80s and M3s (and M50s) certainly had different characteristics, but the M3s are really fantastic speakers.
That said, when I first heard M22s, it was (a tad hyperbolic here) a revelation. Amazing speakers.
I am the Doctor, and THIS... is my SPOON!
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37 |
Quote:
In short, it's a very personal preference. The M2s and M22s are more linear than the M3s. Some people prefer less linear. I've heard M3s, M22s, M50s (own), M60s, and M80s (own). I prefer the M80s and M3s. Of course, I never heard the M3s directly compared to the M22s, and I've never heard the M2s at all. Generally, the Axiom line is said to be split into two: M3s and M50s and M2s, M22s, M60s, and M80s. The M80s and M3s (and M50s) certainly had different characteristics, but the M3s are really fantastic speakers.
That said, when I first heard M22s, it was (a tad hyperbolic here) a revelation. Amazing speakers.
Yes, clearly personal preferences as between speakers is a matter of well ... personal preference.
As to whether the M2s are more 'linear' than the M3s, that I don't know about, and am not certain that it has anything whatsoever to do with sound quality. The M3s sound 'richer,' 'fuller,' more like live music - the M2s sound thinner. Does that make the M2s more linear? If so, then linearity is not a positive value. Clearly, a flat frequency response curve in an anachoic chamber is a good thing ... especially for those who live in anachoic chambers. In the real world setting of the rooms in which I have placed both M3s and M2s, the M3s sound more like live music, to me. Clearly, this is a subjective call and your opinions may differ.
Dunno about linearity.
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
Quote:
but to me the M3s sound more like live music.
That's one of the vaguest statements you can make since practically all forms of live music (except classical) are amplified in some form or another these days. Every venue sounds different. Indeed, each venue can sound different depending on who's sitting at the sound board that day. Sometimes it can be a touch harsh, sometimes liquidly warm, sometimes "perfect." In the worst cases it can give you listening fatigue after 10 minutes but you paid $40 and you like the music so dammit you're staying.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37 |
Uh huh. Well, if you can't tell the difference you should be perfectly satisfied with your clock radio as a music reproduction system.
Enjoy.
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
As usual when I make a valid critique of your choice of descriptive terms, you distort the entire point of my post. I didn't say I couldn't tell the difference between two fine Axiom speakers. I merely stated -- and I'm summing up my argument here -- that the sound of live music is too varied to use as a yard stick.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,749 Likes: 37 |
pmbuko, you're like a stalker.
If you don't know what I mean when I say that the M3s reproduction of music is more like a live performance why are you posting on an audio site?
I think most people understand what that means. If you enjoy being obtuse, that's your business.
I don't listen to head banging grunge. I judge speakers' ability to reproduce the kind of music I like ... female vocals, jazz, choral, classical, latin ...
Enjoy the Music. Trust your ears. Laugh at Folks Who Claim to Know it All.
|
|
|
Re: M2s better than M3s for 5.1 theater?
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 586
aficionado
|
|
aficionado
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 586 |
Everybody likes M3s. Can't go wrong there.
Rip, as your system changes, upgradeitis etc..., which speaker is more versatile? M3s hands down.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,946
Posts442,494
Members15,617
| |
Most Online2,082
Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
|
0 members (),
832
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
