Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Good receiver for M3's?

I was wondering what would be a good sound combination A/V receiver for the M3's. I'm interested primarily in 2 channel sound with CD's and the odd time playing a Blu-ray concert vid from a PS3. I know to take full advantage of Blu-ray hi-def capabilities you need at least 5.1 channel, but I may just stick with the two bookshelves and add maybe a sub.

About fifteen years ago I had a Yamaha receiver with the Paradigm Titan bookshelves and a sub and the sound was remarkable. I tried the M3's recently with a Sony STRDG720, but was unimpressed so I sent it back. I blamed it on the receiver. My budget is about $300-$500, and I lean towards Yamaha. Any ideas?

I would highly doubt the receiver has anything to do with your disliking the M3's unless you had some DSP's or other settings involved.

If you were unimpressed by the M3's(Do you have them? Can you send them back?) then try the M22's, much more detail than then the M3's and a tad better bass extension. The M22s with a good sub makes for a great combination.

Otherwise, if you are stuck with the M3s you could go ahead and get any Yamaha of your choice or Denon or Onkyo or H/K or.... Pick one with the features and price you like.

Yeah, I'm not into the idea of shipping them back having to pay the shipping cost. I mean the speakers sound fairly decent to begin with, it's just I'm used to a little "brighter" sound and these little guys push out a lot of bass. I've heard some receivers are "warmer" sounding while others are "brighter" with a Denon being the former and a Yamaha being the latter.

I was thinking of skipping buying one of the big box A/V receivers and going with a 2 channel amp from Rotel or NAD but they can be a bit pricey. Do you think the price difference would be realized in a discernible sound improvement?

Here is a nice 2 channel reciever that won't break the bank.

The M3s do have a slight bass hump at aroung 100Hz giving them a bigger 'bass sound'.

From your description above, you would be much happier with the M22. Changing out the speakers is going to have a much bigger impact than changing out the receiver.

In the bigger picture, is it worth an additional $50 (return shipping cost) to get the sound you want.

Is there anybody in your area with a pair of M22s that you could audition?

Amazon and 6th ave electronics are selling the Yamaha RX-V2700 reciever for $800 at the moment. It's a generation old I guess but used to retail at $1700. I just picked one up and used 6th ave's 12 months no interest credit plan.

I have M22's and a 10" yamaha sub. The reciever sounds great.
I replaced a Yamaha RX-V461 that cost me $350 a while back. That one sounded great as well, for its price it was fantastic. The rx-v2700 is worth the extra money though.

If he were to trade up within the trial period then the shipping back is paid by Axiom.

AVR's don't "sound" different, they amplify the sound, they are not bright or warm.

I'm not one prone to sending things back. When I buy something I usually put my stamp on it and that's it. I've read somewhere that they NEED to be broken in for a length period of time before some of the mids become more pronounced. This sounds promising as I only listened to them for about an hour. Also, I was playing them in a much larger area than where I plan to enjoy them.

I think I'll probably get some low-mid range Yamaha for them. Also, I was wondering, what difference does a "high current" receiver provide over a "low current" receiver? Would a high current receiver make a difference? Most of the low-mid range Yamaha's are low current, as was the Sony receiver I tried initially.

Yeah. I was going to include that sentiment in my post. Some people claim one receiver promotes more of a treble sound over a bass sound or vice versa compared to another receiver, but I read my people discounting these claims. So, essentially would you say there is no difference in sound quality between a Yamaha or Denon at the same price point?

John,

Speakers don't break in, your brain breaks in and becomes accustomed to them over time. Any break in only takes seconds or less and happens at the factory.

The Axiom m3's are very efficient (92dB at 1watt and 1meter distance) and can easily be driven by any decent receiver.

It is my understanding that all solid state receivers are designed to have a flat frequency from 20hz to 20khz. So sonically they should be neutral and not color the sound. If you adjust tone controls like bass/treble, or some of the built in DSP modes that affect the frequency or EQ, then you may introduce brightness or a laid back sound.

I think the only difference would be in the quality of the guts inside the receivers, but in the same price point they should be pretty comparable.

Yeah, I think that is how it works. I would call them and ask how much you would have to pay for the m22's if you sent the m3's back.

John, in other places you've apparently been reading a lot of old audiophiles' tales that have no factual support. As Randy has pointed out, amplifiers, including those in receivers, don't come in various sonic inaccuracies("warm", "bright", etc.); if competently designed they amplify within their power limits without adding an audible sonic coloration. There's no significant "break-in" period involved with speakers; in some cases the ears(actually the mind)are breaking-in and becoming accustomed to the new sound of the speakers.

The amount of current necessary for a given amount of power into a specific load impedance is determined by Dr. Ohm's law, not by manufacturer hype. If the required amount of power can be supplied into the load being driven, as is typical of modern receivers, that's all that can be done. There's no need to take typical "high current" claims seriously.

I beg to differ. A lot of amps have their own sound - I've heard it with my own ears.

Why hang on to them if you are unhappy with the way they sound? I have heard the M3s and I know they are not for me, I have the M22s and a set of M80s, if you like the more forward sound then send back the M3's while you can as the return shipping is free for the upgrade to the M22's, you will not regret it.

I never liked the sound I had from a low end Sony receiver I had briefly with the M22s it just seemed to lack power, I really had to crank up the volume knob to get it to work. That was when I spent a few more bucks and bought my first Denon, an 1804, and the SQ difference was night and day, well more the power available more than the SQ, as the Sony sounded ok as long as I had the gain turned up to about 2/3.

Send back the M3s and get the M22s, I think they have the sound your looking for.

Shane, in most blind A/B listening tests the users have a hard time distinguishing from a $300 AVR and $2,000 tube amps, especially at normal listening levels.

This topic gets beat to dealth and has people on both sides of the issues. I will tell you that my Denon 2805 sounds no different than when I use my Monoblocks at normal levels.

Hi John1972,

Despite Sony's excellent TV and video displays over the years, I've always found Sony's audio gear and AV receiver electronics (CD players excepted) to have glitches or annoying performance lapses. I say this as a former editor and equipment reviewer for audio and AV magazines both in Canada and the USA. Based on that experience there are certain brands of stereo and AV receivers that are generally very good or excellent. These include: Denon, Harman-Kardon, Yamaha, Sherwood Newcastle (Axiom sells the Newcastles on-line) and NAD.

At Axiom, we've found that some of these also seem to have more robust amplifier sections that are able to drive even our 4-ohm M80 tower speakers without overheating, shutting down or current-limiting. Those brands include Denon, H/K, Sherwood Newcastle, and NAD plus some more costly brands like Rotel and B&K. In times past, I would have included Onkyo, but in recent years some of their models have been problematic driving 4-ohm loads. For higher impedances of 6 to 8 ohms, Onkyo, Yamaha and Pioneer are fine.

Regards,

You're right, it does get done to death. I'll just tape my mouth shut and move on

no need, the more input the better around here. I will also say at louder levels my monoblocks do much better than the Denon alone with no clipping.

Jason is right. I have M22's as my main 2CH and HT speakers(Pioneer 1015) and love the clarity. My sub makes up for what the 22's lack in bass.

I also have a set of M3's (with Denon 297)in the family room/kitchen area for casual listening and background music while cooking/entertaining. They do sound more laid back, but when I use them to watch movies in 2ch, they are amazingly clear and fit the bill for what I wanted in speakers with no sub.

At the listening session we had at Mojo's place I found I liked in order, the M80's, 22's, 60's and finally M3's the best. Audition some 22's, or just send them back and get the 22's. If you like "brighter" and detailed without being shrill like Klipsh.....you will love M22's.

I too have always thought that speaker break in was a myth. But I'm starting to wonder based on tests performed for Audioholics:

"After about ½ hour, the tonal characteristics of the speakers began to change. There was no smell of burnt VC, so I assumed this was a result of a large change in the DCR of the voice coils with its subsequent changes to the speakers frequency response. What was also clear from watching the speakers is how much more the white noise speaker was moving just a ½ hour after the beginning of the test compared to the beginning of the test. (Compliance increase due to break-in I theorize.)"

See the complete tests results here:
http://www.audioholics.com/education/lou...he-test-results

BTW: These test were done on an Axiom M3 speaker.

Slo, welcome. This is the Audioholics article that actually discusses speaker break-in in detail, rather than making a passing comment. Also, in Dr. Toole's new book(p.353)he points out that slight measurable changes resulted in no audible differences in careful blind listening tests, and that it's reassuring that the performance of speakers remains stable over time.

I wonder if the significance of "burn-in" (or perhaps "break-in"), depends on the design of the speaker, especially the material used in the cone surrounds. Some materials may become more flexible with use.

What really makes me laugh is the idea of burning in a solid state amp Valves maybe but ???

Shane

As I have said before, the theory of break-in also suggests the speaker makes a measureable amount of wear. If my speakers have a measureable amount of wear after, say 100hrs of use, how bad are they going to be after 200 hours of use, twice the amount of breakin/wear, the tonal changes should be just as much after 200hrs as they were in 100hrs and imagine the amount of breakin after 500 or 1000hrs of wear. I would hope most speakers built these days are able to withstand the test of time better than that.

I believe if there is any actual speaker break-in it would happen from a few milliseconds to a minute or so, just to unseat a stuck voice coil or something, possibly due to shipping or poor parts; and that would indeed be a noticeable change.

Hi Slopoke, welcome to the forms.

I'm guessing you read the whole article you linked, but just to be sure, that article discussed how hard the tester had to push the speakers (using a free-air pink noise test, not real-world audio material) before he destroyed them due to pushing them well past their intended limits with source material that is designed to stress speakers.

Given the goal of the test, I'm not sure it is a good source to quote when comparing it to the topic of normal speaker break in and the resulting changes in audio characteristics under normal listening conditions.

Either way, the article you linked was an interesting read, but I'm not sure it directly applies to speaker break-in.

Jason

I agree that me speakers sound different after a few moments after turning them on but I don't believe it to be break in. Simply because it happens every evening.

I am an almost constant music listener. I listen to the radio or my Zune plugged into the CD deck of my Jeep on the way home then I get inside and I turn on the Squeezebox and M60s. The first few songs I play always have a certain 'feel' to them. Very quickly though, it seems to magically improve a little bit, things get more detailed and instruments sound more pronounced.

Because this is consistent, every night, it can not be the gradual break in of my speakers so I write it off to my ear and brain getting re-accustomed to the sound of the M60s.

That is just a viewpoint on how consumers can easily be convinced of the 'break in' story to assist in getting them past their return policy time period or just get used to them enough they won't bother returning them.

just my opinion. I am relying on more scientific articles like the ones quoted above to assist my opinion.

I'm with Jason on this one. That test was about breaking speakers by driving them well beyond their capabilities. The author expected them to die much sooner than they did.

"That is just a viewpoint on how consumers can easily be convinced of the 'break in' story to assist in getting them past their return policy time period or just get used to them enough they won't bother returning them."


I'd totally agree with that. Back in the day, I used to work on dedicated word processing systems. We always got complaints when a keyboard died. We'd tell the customer that there was a "break in" period on the new keyboard and to call us back in a couple of weeks if they still had a problem. We never got that call.

I also agree with the continious break in theory. i.e. if it's different after 100 hours what's it like after 200 or 1000?

I just found it interesting and something to look into further that after 1/2 hour of destruction testing the speaker had an audible difference in tone. If this had happened just before it died then so what. But it was well before that point and possibly something that could be encountered in real world usage. Why? Enquiring minds want to know.

I will also point out the the M3 woofer got a rave design review from this guy and operated well beyond the point that Axiom specs it for.

Thanks for welcoming me to the forum. I may be new here but have been a happy Axiom owner for quite a few years.

HT - M22ti, VP150, QS8 surround sides, M2ti surround backs.
LR - M3v2s

I believe the way he was driving the speaker caused the voice coil to start to overheat and possibly slowdown it's responsivness, but due to an excellent design it did not cause a failure at that point but instead a noticeable tonal change.