Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions M60 midrange driver is run as full-range?

Its a valid criticism by Gene and you have to take into consideration the conditions the possible impedance and break-up/distortion issues would occur. The M60's ran full range, low/heavy bass content and loud volumes. Those were the conditions from what I read. He also noted he shut down a 200wpc Marantz with the M60's under similar conditions. Probably more in the realm of a torture test than that of real-world listening conditions.

Personally, I don't think this would be a problem in most scenarios. The majority of people use a subwoofer with the M60's set to small and use a 60hz or 80hz crossover and let the sub do the rest. I don't think I have ever read complaints of the M60 breaking up either.

This is obviously purposely done by Axiom. Since it changes the upper bass output, it was probably desired in their listening tests they conduct. As we all know Axiom does a lot of unconventional things most speaker designers would not do. There is no wrong or right. Its all about the trade-offs and what they seek in the design.

One has to wonder how loud he cranked up the amp. Prior to changing to M80s and the VP180, I had M60s that I ran in a LARGE "PLUS" configuration through my AVR and a VP150 also run in LARGE configuration ALL powered by 200w/ch Outlaw multi-channel amps. Along with the midrange in the M60 the VP150,except for the tweeters, as we all know, is all midrange of the driver in question.

I run mine almost primarily in an HT application sometimes at pretty high volumes and I NEVER experienced the so-called break-up discussed in the review and here again, that is with the VP150 run FULL RANGE!

I dunno. I wonder was it an issue with less than perfect mid-range drivers OR perhaps an amp issue and how that particular model worked in configuration with the speaker models he was testing?

The electronics that have been used to power the M60's which you can read from the articles has been a 200wpc Marantz integrated amplifier and Axioms own A1400-8. The A1400-8 is used a lot in their speaker reviews.

Maybe its just me but I find certain things in that review somewhat puzzling bordering on disingenous. Firstly what were the conditions that caused the compression on the M60? What tunes and how loud? I have heard compression on every speaker and sub I have owned, in fact its a favourite torture test of mine to know what conditions cause the speaker or sub to say uncle. And where does compression occur on the other speakers?

Secondly I've always preferred speakers with minimal crossover networks and filters since they are more coherent sounding and less phasey, a well known problem with adding filters of any kind. Clearly there is a tradeoff with employing mechanical rolloff: greater fidelity and coherency vs. compression at very high volume. I prefer the choice Axiom made in that design tradeoff.

Thirdly, why didn't they do this comparison on a more scientific blind test basis especially in light of their obvious economic conflict?

Finally and most seriously I note that the article did not disclose that Audioholics sells the Klipsch and EMP line at their website and therefore has a direct economic interest which biases their conclusions. I'd like to believe that this biased comparison is not representative of a new direction for Audioholics.

They did do a blind test of the three speakers albeit the EMP was V1 in that blind listening test and not the V2 in their most previous review stated above.

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/floorstanding/2010-1k-faceoff/1k-faceoff-comparisons

Ok that's good to know. I thought the test was sighted based on the photographs. In sighted, "blind" comparisons you can sometime sense which speaker is producing the sound.

Still disappointed that the comparison was written without full disclosure of Gene's obvious conflict of interest in the results.

Also remember Axiom Audio has been one of Audioholics BIGGEST advertisers since their inception as an online publication. They make money off them as they do their online store. I'd wager they have made more income of them as an advertiser over the years (and continue to do so) than what they bring in with the EMP brand. Its a value brand that wouldn't carry big margins for the store.

I doubt it. More margin in direct online sales than internet advertising by a long shot. All the more reason why disclosure would have helped the credibility of that article. I'm not sure whether Axiom advertises there anymore?

Your correct, but EMP is rather new to Audioholics and the online store is a separate entity from the online review publication. Axiom has been a loyal advertiser with them close to a decade. You also have to factor in a lot of overhead costs, paying employees (customer service) etc which is present with the online store that doesn't exist with advertisements. I would be surprised if there are significant profits with the EMP brand since they are value based products that are priced very competitive within the market.

From the comparison of the EMP, Axiom and Klipsch, Gene seemed to like the EMP and Axiom equally depending on the type of music. I am not sure if they sell the Klipsch but it was not reviewed as well as the Axiom and EMP in the listening tests.

Those were the reasons that Axioms won the battle over the other similar sounding speakers I demoed. And as another reviewer one said of the M2s when comparing them some Paradigms and Aperions:



IMO that equals accurate.