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

A reviewer accused Axiom of running the mids without a high-pass filter. Can that be true? He also said the mids "broke up" because of this.

Not the M60, but on the M50 and M3 it is part of the design, so no accusations are needed.

And yes, any larger cone will "break up" when tasked with playing too high a frequency. Break up is a form of non-linear distortion that is caused by flex in the cone.

If those speakers only had mid-range drivers and no tweeters the distortion may be more obvious. But with the tweeters playing, and the already diminished output of the large cone rolling off because of it's inability to play those high frequencies, very little of the distortion is audible.

The rest of Axiom's line uses band- or low-pass filters on their mids.

I'm going to quote the reviewer from Audioholics. He said of the M60v3:

The Axioms at high volume simply broke up in the midrange. Unfortunately Axiom runs their little 5-1/4" midrange full-range with no high pass filter which in my opinion is too much to ask for this driver.

Some forums get nervous when referencing another website. I wasn't sure about Axiom's forums.

Since the reviewer is wrong, perhaps someone from Axiom should correct him. Also, I suggest checking for a defective driver.

Gene usually knows what he's talking about, so I'll leave it to someone who's actually seen the guts of an M60 to refute his statement.

One thing is, in the photo of the three speakers tested, the M60 has black dust caps, and holes for the speaker grill. Those are features of the v2. The v3 has white dust caps, and magnetic speaker grill (no holes).

Other than that little statement about the break up at high volume, the M60s reviewed very well. No speaker is perfect.

Here's a link to the review: http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/floorstanding/emptek-e55ti/e55ti-listening-tests

Axiom uses the mechanical roll-off of the 6.5" in the M3 which is widely known. It wouldn't surprise me if the M80 took the same approach as well with the 2 midranges. Like any choices in speaker design there are trade-offs.

That was noted in the 1K loudspeaker blind listening test.

The M60v2 employs 4 drivers with a 1" titanium tweeter, 5.25" midrange and two 6.5" woofers. They are triple vortex ported (2 rear / 1 front) with a claimed extension down to 37 Hz (-3dB). The tweeter has a 2kHz 12dB/octave HP filter while the midrange has no crossover at all relying on the natural acoustical rolloff of the driver (12dB/octave) and small sealed enclosure to provide more bass output above the tuning frequency of the ports.

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

Well, certain people will abet this hobbyhorse to death, but while they're not technically v3s, the internalsat that point should have been the same as a v3.

A high pass filter for the midrange driver wouldn't effect bass output at all. If there were a low pass filter it probably would effect it, but I would prefer a little less bass output compared to driver breakup. Do the M80's have the same crossover as the M60's, where they may be driver breakup at a high volume setting as well?

They do not have the same crossover, obviously, but they may have a similar design. But the M80s are specifically designed to handle more power and be louder than M60s, so maybe that alleged problem is resolved.

I think "alleged" is the key point here.

No one has been reporting problems in their sound.... who cares what crossover philosophy Axiom employed?

Someone correct me... but the M3s are beloved and I don't believe they have any crossover at all...just the natural roll-off of each driver.

I also wonder what "high volume" means.

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.

Jakeman, here is Gene's explanation on the online store. I hope this helps.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=19333794&postcount=53

Nice explanation.

Not really. Its pretty self-serving if you ask me despite the philanthropic tone of his remarks. I remember reading stuff like that when people accused Stereophile of being preferential to their advertisers in the late 80's and 90's. Not much has changed except for the added revenue stream from on-line stores. Nevertheless I recognize that Audioholics is also a business. His comparisons would have more credibility if he discloses where he has an economic interest when writing those reviews.

Sure, but the facts being they are as critical and praising of their store products and advertisers as they are of brands that do not advertise with their online publication. I find that a bit refreshing in today's media which is mainly there to stroke manufacturers. I also have a great deal of respect for Audioholics since they were the only media outlet that allowed transparency to Schifter and AV123. The rest of the media within the industry stuck their tail between their legs.

I guess I read that article's inferences differently than you. What they say or don't say about other brands or AV123 is irrelevant. What matters to me is that they disclose their direct economic interests when making comparisons. I just don't see how they can be unbiased in their commentary when they are selling the speakers under discussion. Call me silly but in my world if you have a direct economic interest in selling something to someone that requires disclosure to the reader. His self serving rational sugar coats that simple truth.

Also on his critism of not using filters, its clear to me he has not listened carefully to how much more coherent a natural rolloff can sound compared to adding another filter to the speaker crossover network. I always preferred the sound of the M60 in the lineup for that reason. Pushing a speaker with a natural rolloff until compression then citing that as a criticism indicates to me he does not understand speaker design very well. If high output is desired the speaker with natural acoustical rolloff on a wide bandwidth driver will lose every time to compression even though its sound quality at normal listening levels is enhanced by the absense of the additional crossover.

I'm with John on this one. I will also add, having spent 15 years hanging with sales and marketing types that the best at spinning come off as very genuine, even when out and out lying.

I am not suggesting that Gene is lying, but bias always creeps in, particularly when profit is involved.

The point about economic interests and biases is valid and I understand why many would think so. Audioholics has economic and vested interests with both their advertisers and online store. It would be in their best interest to give glowing reviews for every product they receive. However, I respectfully disagree with this idea.

It is interesting that he looks down on that type of connection.
As Jakeman says, crossovers introduce their own challenges to the design - and sound - of speakers.

The Reference 3a lineup is designed with a simple highpass filter for the tweeter - to limit lower freq. from destroying it. I will also say that that lineup contains one of the finest sounding speakers I have ever heard.