Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Advice from Axiom Owners Newbe with an Axiom sub question

HI all, I new here so please excuse me if this is a redundant question…. It seems to me that a lot of users on this board stay away from the Axiom subs and go with Hsu’s instead. Can someone explain this to me? I am planning to purchase an Epic Grand Master System within the next month and want to make sure I’m doing the right thing going with the included sub.

i have the ep350 and like it. other subs are a little less $$$.
dan

Yep...you may like the Axiom sub just fine, but you can get a bit better for a bit less money with Hsu and a few others. Axiom knows speakers, it's their bread and butter. Hsu makes subs. There's something to be said for specialization.

For what it is worth, I ordered the Epic 50 system last month without the sub. I then went to CompUSA to buy the Hsu STF-2 because I heard so much about Hsu on the various forums, both here and elsewhere. Naturally, I got one with the woofer seal problem, and when I couldn't get a definative answer from Hsu about whether or not existing CompUSA inventory had the problem corrected, I returned it for credit and ordered an EP175 from Axiom. I can't really say I compared the tow units, but so far the Axiom sub is just fine, and has no seal problem. A plus is that Axiom seems to be really dialed into customer service, which is a key point for an Internet only company, in my opinion. Too bad not all companies are this way.

Check out my reply to "Saint" in the HT board I made earlier tonight.
Good hunting...
Bob

Thanks Bob, I’ll take this in to consideration when purchasing. I also see HSU has free shipping too!

Has no one heard of SVS?

There customer service is best of best of best. Better than Axiom IMO. HSU has been selling out there customers for something that was their fault telling them to repair it themselves. For $600 you can get a PCi which rocks the house. I'll never buy a different brand of sub ever again.

Better service than Axiom? Surely you jest!

It might be a little extra money, but don't you want it to match? I mean, please – accessorizing is so important these days! {end lisp}

Please, no gay hobbit jokes… yes, I know there was some discussion about whether Frodo and Sam were “special friends.”

Accessorizing doesn't mean making eveything look the same. Variety is the spice of life. [end lisp, with apologies]

And no, Frodo and Sam were not "special friends" -- and I'm really sick of hearing people say that. It's a shame any two men who share a close friendship are immediately labeled that way. You never hear WWII veterans from the same company being accused of that, do you? War pushes your emotions to the extremes, but that doesn't mean you're going to start "batting for the other team" (to use a crude euphemism).

well said Peter, the non-rednecks of Manitoba thank you for that (and yes it is difficult to not grow up a redneck homophobe when you grow up in a small, rural farming community).

When I read about that Sam and Frodo thing -- I just laughed. I'm too old to get bothered by the idiots of the world that would even think of something so completely ignorant.

That was an extremely moving relationship, and anyone who's read the books know the movie didn't even come close to the true characterization of their friendship.

Sheesh! there are a lot LOTR fans on this board!!! I'll be careful to keep my callus, caviler, and swagelling ways to a minimum. {smart board!}

We like the films
the films that go boom...


(omg, did I just make that reference?)

Speaking as a gay guy, I think part of the reason some people may have read their relationship as being more than friends (or at least wishing it was) is that you NEVER see two male friends that are that close, and open to showing their feelings with one another - gay or straight. Sure there's been a rash of gay content on the TV recently, but it's all comedy. Laughing at the gay guy. Har, har. Yeah, it's funny. Yeah it's entertaining. But there's no reason the only gays on TV should be for laughing at.

No, they probably weren't gay, but other than Sam getting hitched in the last 10 minutes of a 10 hour epic, there's no reason they couldn't have been gay characters. (and even that doesn't mean much) Believe it or not, not all gay men talk with a lisp, and worship Cher and Madonna. As much as many straight people may hate to believe it, Sam & Frodo's relationship honestly was the truest portrayal of a gay relationship I've probably ever seen on film.

*end rant*

I thought long and hard, but the joke reply potential quotient of your post is exactly zero. Thanks for your insightful post.

I think part of the reason many straight men are so bothered by gay men is that they envy the non-sexual aspects of their relationships.

It's been years since Ken told me my ass was hot.

Damn, I just did it.

well Peter you could always try the old standard:
"not that there's anything wrong with that"

Peter, you've just let it go. It used to be hot.

Hey, thanks for all the advice on the sub,I do however, think I'm pretty secure with my sexual orientation..... never tried swinging that way, but if its ok for Frodo.. thats cool.. what ever makes him happy

Oppinions vary… zero?... but nonetheless, I think I need work on my posting educate. I’ve been into computers for over 20 years, but have just recently used posting boards – apparently this “virtual world” is every bit as serious as the real world. *** sigh** My humblest apology to anyone that my "gay, not funny, rated Zero, Joke" who was offended.

Personally, I think many of us straight men (straight on the spectrum, that is, because it is a spectrum) are secretly jealous of the varied and ongoing romantic lives that gay men have the opportunity to lead and that we wish we could safely emulate in the straight scene. Many gay men enter monogamous relationships, but even in gay monogamy, from what I've observed, there's a more open and playful attitude toward the variety of life, in the sex and romance department, than there is among heteros. I'm talking about opportunities for genuine intimacy here, not what can be found in strip clubs or commercial sex, which is of course widely available to anyone, at a variety of costs. For reasons one can only ascribe to ancient taboos and the societal push for nuclear families, many of the varying levels of intimacy that gay men and women seem open to feel off-limits to us heteros. And our culture depicts the worlds that were sexually more liberated -- like 18th-century France or the 1970s of The Ice Storm and Boogie Nights -- as roads to ruin. It's not the fault of the "culture," of course, so much as our own for being uptight .... however, raising children does tend to change the equation radically between the two lifestyles (though it's fascinating to see society wrestle with changes here, as more and more gay men and women assume roles as loving parents).

Final thought on my own rant -- the latency period (see Freud) also makes many a man a rabid homophobe in later life. Security, and familiarity, can overcome this, so to an extent all those TV shows are, ever so slowly, making a dent. While some gay men may object to the gay comedies on TV, real progress is often only attained when the popular culture can also laugh at -- and not just sanctify -- the other. (Now, if we ONLY laugh at a class of characters, that's a problem, but I think homosexual characters are now gaining a wide range of reactions in arts and the media, not a narrow range, and that's good.)

Birdman

But if Frodo and Sam were "special friends", then ROTK would be a lock for the Best Picture Oscar!

Mark

LIke I've said to many people. If Peter Jackson doesn not get best director, and Sam does not get at least nominated for best supporting actor -- I will never again even think of watching the Oscars.
(Why do I feel like Alec Baldwin, threatening to move out of US, if Bush is elected?)

ah, a refreshing cynic.

I think ROTK should get Ben-Hur-like Oscar consideration. It deserves nominations for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Actor (Sean Astin), Supporting Actor (Ian McKelan, Bernard Hill), Supporting Actress (Miranda Otto), Cinematography, Sound, Sound Editing, Editing, Costumes, Art Direction, Score, Visual Effects, and Makeup. ROTK is in every way a better picture than Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, Gladiator, The Pianist, and just about every epic motion picture which has won major awards in the last several years.

The problem is that the Academy has never given props to Fantasy or Science Fiction movies. Also, Peter Jackson is not a Hollywood insider.

Epecially disappointing is that nobody is talking about nominations for any of the actors. Sean Astin (Sam), Miranda Otto (Eowyn), Bernard Hill (Theoden), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Ian McKellen (Gandalf), and John Noble (Denethor) were all superbly cast, and their performances wonderful. It is disappointing that there is no category for Serkis to be nominated in. His performance as Gollum has literally redefined the way that CG characters are created.

I still have hope that the academy will see the light, but I'm not holding my breath.

Mark

I agree with you on all points except comparing ROTK to The Pianist. Where'd that come from?? It's not even apples and oranges here. That's like apples and turnips.

I wasn't really comparing "The Pianist" to ROTK, it is kind of an "epic" picture with it's war scenes. I think it was terribly overrated, and didn't deserve a lot of the attention it got.

I wanted a third movie to put on my list, and it was the first one that came to mind.

Mark

I suppose it helps having a Polish heritage, as I thought the film was great.

I just kept thinking I had seen it all before in "Schindler's List" and countless other movies dealing with the Nazi occupation of Europe in WWII. I also never could warm up to the main character, despite the excellent performance by Adrian Brody. I by no means thought it was a bad movie, I just didn't love it like so many others did.

Mark

Slight change of topic, but have either of you seen The Shop on Main Street? It's set in Slovakia, not Poland -- came out in 1965. Like Schindler's List (I haven't seen The Pianist) it deals with collusion. One of the best movies I've seen about WWII. The best Eastern European films on this subject are really provocative because they deal with complicity and collusion, topics we tend to distance ourselves from. Schindler's List was unique for an American film in taking on the collusion angle, though it did so with a Hollywood-heroic plot line -- not to knock the film, which was great, but it's just different than the East European tradition. If you're into these two films, recommend Shop on Main Street.

And has anyone seen The Grey Zone, a recent release? I'm curious to know what it's like.

Birdman