Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo The big showdown: M40 vs M50 vs M80 (VERY LONG)

Hey, everybody. Thought I'd follow some of the other folks on the board (big props to Randyman and Alan) and relate my experience in an all-out Axiom tower showdown. This is a VERY long post, so if you only want the bottom line, feel free to skip ahead.

Until this most recent purchase, my 5.1 setup (which serves double duty as a stereo system) used a pair of M3s and a VP50 across the front, the older Axiom AX500 handling bass and LFE, and the shockingly decent Cerwin-Vega LS-5's in the rear. I have run-of-the-mill JVC and Technics DVD and CD players, respectively. The superb Arcam AVR100 is the heart of the system.

I'd been having a few problems prompting me for a speaker upgrade, not that anyone ever really needs an excuse to buy better speakers. Since we'd moved, our living room turned out to be too big for the VP50, and I was getting too much audible hiss when the volume was up to satisfying levels. Secondly, our cats had been using the M3s as launching pads for their daily prizefight, meaning I'd come home many times to find the poor speakers knocked face-first onto the floor. Finally, switching from music to movies or vice versa entailed a trip to the sub to adjust the gain and audio/video switch on the back. It was all becoming a big pain in the rear, and at the end of the day I prefer towers for stereo anyway.

I went into Replay Electronics while on vacation in Toronto to audition Axiom towers (and the VP150). Sadly, the M60 wasn't in stock, but I grabbed the chance to hear the other speakers head-to-head. To my surprise, both salespeople at Replay said their favorite and best-selling tower was the M40, and assured me that the M80 sounds very similar to the M60 for the purpose of comparison. The CD player and integrated amp were both Cambridge Audio. Incidentally, I'm really shocked at how small the Epic Micro speakers are in person...the QS2 is literally the size of a softball.

From an aesthetic point of view, I have to point out that I much prefer the Maple finish. The pics on the web site make it look a little too yellow...it really is an elegant color that fit in perfectly with our light-colored living room decor. I could easily see a Maple-finished speaker as a contrast element in a room with cherry woods or dark leathers as well. In any event, it's a far more interesting color than everyday black. I can also dispute the Soundstage claim that the M80 is "imposing". The new Paradigm Reference 100...THAT is an imposing speaker. If spouse approval was making you worry, you can rest easy that the look of a room won't be dominated by a pair of M80s.

Now, onto the listening tests.

First up was 'Popsicle Toes' from Diana Krall's "When I Look in Your Eyes", my screening song for any piece of equipment--if this song doesn't sound good, the audition is over in my mind. All three passed with flying colors of course, and to be honest I heard very little difference between them except a little more openness with the M80. All three just filled the room beautifully, and the bass added a richness that the M3 just cannot deliver without a sub.

Next up was 'Pie Jesu' on Sarah Brightman's "Classics". I am neither a fan of Sarah Brightman nor this song in particular, but it's a great piece to test a speaker for female vocals and weed out serious problems like sharp treble or a flat midrange. Again, all three speakers sounded VERY similar with nothing audibly offensive that I could pick out. Nothing so far pointed to one tower over another, so defaulting to cost, score 2 for the M40.

Stepping away from the wimpy:) music, I played 'I'm in the Mood', a duet with Bonnie Raitt on John Lee Hooker's "The Healer". The first 45 seconds sports some wild guitar jamming by both artists that has to be heard at loud volumes to be appreciated. Here the contrasts between the speakers became apparent, but it was tough to discern at first what was simply a matter of volume versus true qualtitative differences. Whether or not 98 is the actual sensitivity of the M80, it is nonetheless a LOUD speaker relative to its little brothers. I'll do my best not to rehash the Soundstage reviews, but most of the descriptions they use are bang-on.

The M40 has a rich, laid back sound that added a bit of warmth to Raitt's vocals and slide guitar, but still delivered with clarity similar to the M3. It made for a very easy listen. The M50 sounded much like the M40, but the second woofer adds a lot more presence to male vocals and lower guitar octaves. If you don't mind thinking in metaphors, the M50 adds 4 ounces of beef to the music sandwich. I could also appreciate the effect Randyman described of slightly muffled vocals, and this was relative to both the M40 and M80. I'm also confident the effect was real, and not just "expectation bias" (i.e. I only heard the difference because I was expecting to hear it). The M80 was a horse of a different color. It sounded crisp, clean and very open. I felt the M80 added some genuine RAUNCH to the music that blues fans will probably drool over, and I suspect that's the way the recording is intended to be heard.

"Hell Freezes Over" by the Eagles turned out to be the final CD in the showdown. Track 1, 'Get Over It' is my standby rock song to audition audio equipment. The M40 "rocked" a lot better than I expected for a laid-back inexpensive speaker, and again the clarity was astonishing given the price. However, the M40 was just a TOUCH shy in the mids and highs on this song, and couldn't quite "lift me to soaring heights" like I'd hoped it would. The M50 had significantly more impact on the low end, but to be honest seemed imbalanced to my ears. I thought the low end was too prominent relative to the mids and treble, and the result was bass that sounded somewhat "fat". This was nowhere near as blatant or annoying as with say, a Cerwin-Vega monster, but I did notice a little listening fatigue after a few minutes. As might be expected, the M80 played rock to an AWESOME level of fidelity...every guitar lick and crash of the drums was presented in stunning detail, squeaky clean without the slightest hint of distortion or background hiss.

Onto 'Hotel California' on the same CD (what else?), and again I was pleasantly surprised at just how good the M40 sounded. It couldn't deliver the same level of detail or sense of openness as the M80, but sounded cleaner and more balanced across the frequency range than the M50. If fault could be found with the M80, I noticed it on this song...the mids and treble sounded so clear and prominent, the volume needed to be turned up a fair bit before the bass really kicked. Think of the M80 as a means of exacting revenge on a neighbor, rather than a speaker to play alongside a candlelight dinner.

My final decision took about 30 minutes to reach, with replay after replay of my audition discs. In hindsight I should have brought in a few more classical discs, but I doubt it would have made the choice any easier. It was a REALLY tough call between the M40 and M80 on a price-for-performance scale. While I would say the M80 is the better speaker design, the M40 holds its own light years beyond the price difference would lead you to suspect. To put this into perspective, the first time I carefully auditioned speakers in a store (M3s vs. similarly-priced Energy, Cerwin-Vega and JBL), the contest was over in less than three minutes. Two months ago, I went into a local A/V shop expecting to take home the Denon 3802 (which has reached legendary status in multiple online and paper publications), but within three songs the Arcam had it beat embarrassingly, saving me hundreds of dollars. The M40 vs the M80 was a FAR closer contest, a testament to just how good both speakers are.

For the first time in the two years that I've been into the A/V thing, I took a long and hard look at our real-life listening habits in the context of the Law of Diminishing Returns. While we're very much into slamming action movies, most of the music we play is in the late evenings at a moderate volume. It's rare that we have the time to sit and listen critically for longer than a few minutes, paying attention to imaging and fine musical detail. In the end, I was offered the M40s and older-model VP150 for an absolute steal of a price, and opted to take the plunge right then and there. I can't help having a LITTLE remorse for passing on the magnificent M80, and I wonder how the M60 would have sounded standing up against its big and little brothers.

Since the M40s have been broken in at home, I've been totally satisfied with the way they play anything from Rachmaninoff to Nickelback. Rich, clean, and fantastically clear given the price, I can't believe there were actually details the M40 missed compared to the M80. Much like the M3s, the M40s also have that wonderful quality of being able to play all styles of music for hours without generating listening fatigue. I would, however, caution potential buyers to buck up and fork over the cash for decent electronics...I played the M40s on my parents' system while still in Toronto, and they had no problems revealing just how flat a cheap receiver can sound. I breathed a huge sigh of relief when they came home to the Arcam.

I can testify that the M80 is indeed everything it is advertised to be. If you're a critical music lover who plays a lot of well-mastered recordings at high volumes, don't hesitate for one second to audition or outright buy the M80. I can't fathom finding the same quality at a better price. On the other hand, if you're looking for a great full-range speaker that's easy to listen to, with remarkable clarity and performance considering the cost, put the M40 at the top of your list. It's an unreal value relative to other brands in this price range. You won't be disappointed at all.

I just wrote a lengthy post myself recently on our choice between Axiom and Angstrom speakers (the m60s vs Modulars).
Axiom M60s won and i've got them in my basement right now along with a pair of M22s which will head back in a couple of weeks.
Since you never had the M60s to listen you can chek out my post along with at least one other i saw recently posted as well (M50s vs. M60s i think).

However, if i recall correctly, not too long ago, someone asked for the difference b/w the M60 and M80 and Ian had replied that they sound virtually the same except the M80 can play significantly louder.

I wish i could find that darn post...

fhw

Awesome review! Thanks for taking the time to do it.

It is clear you are happy with the 40s. But I truly wish you could have included the 60s as well. That could have been the comparison that we all want to do!!(and know about)

What I am really curious about is this: Now that you have the 40s set up at home - and in your own particular listening environment (acoustics, electronics, etc) Can you tell (or now remember) any significant difference in the sound at home compared to the store? So often we are hurried or stressed at a store and at home we can really relax, take our time (yadda yadda). I don't doubt the essence of your experience in the store - I am just curious to know about your (now) home experience(s).

Thanks !!

Randyman

Sorry about the delay.

Now that I've had them for a couple of weeks, I can say that the M40s sound fantastic. Though I was never a believer in the concept of breakin, the M40s really took about 50-60 hours of solid play before things sounded absolutely "right". Then again, they were broken in on my parents' cheaper system, so go figure the speaker sound light years better on an Arcam receiver.

The M40s sound even cleaner at home than I remember, and again there's NO listening fatigue after having them on all day. The extra "sparkle" I heard on the M80s didn't seem to be missing at all. For fun, I did a comparison of the M3 vs. M40. I guess I haven't had "audiophile ears" long enough to appreciate the subtle differences described on Soundstage. To me, the M40's room-filling bass really adds a lot to the speaker.

If there's one piece of advice I can give a potential purchaser is make sure you have nothing less than a Denon or Yamaha-grade receiver. While a laid-back speaker, the M40 was pretty unforgiving of Technics-grade electronics (who'd ever think a speaker could give attitude?:))

What can I say? I LOVE the M40, and considering the sale in the factory outlet, a person could pick up 2 pairs of M40 blems and a VP150 for about $1000 U.S...less than the cost of a decent receiver, or a pair of snooty interconnects if you're into that sort of thing.

Incidentally, I was able to review all the Axiom speakers M40 through M80 at Replay Electronics in Toronto a few months ago. I dealt with George at this shop and he was extremely helpful. He put all their speakers side-by-side for comparison and I was able to differentiate between the sound quality of each of the speakers mentioned in this thread. All the Axiom speakers sounded good. However, when I did a side-by-side comparison between the M60 and the M80, I found that the sound from the M80 was bass(ier) and it went lower. Further, the M80 had better dynamics. I ended up buying the M80Ti's and am glad that I did. I have had them for about 3 months now and am enjoying them immensely. I have them hooked to my Onkyo TXDS 797 receiver and am amazed at the amount of bass the system throws out. I am not sure if I would need a sub-woofer now.

fhw

Thanks for the reply/update. Glad to see that you are (still) truly happy with your purchase. Man! There is nothing better than to be really satisfied with our decisions eh?

Snooty interconnects? Never heard of that brand! (HA!)

Its strange though - with my 60s, I find that some music is just "so so/OK" and other is absolutely fantastic! Do you experience anything similar?

Randyman

I've found that it's more dependent on the recording rather than the actual genre of music. Some of my older CDs, or the bargain-bin classicals, sound pretty limp and flat.

I've rationalized it this way: I'm getting far more enjoyment out of quality recordings on my current setup...hearing new details in the mix, etc. That never happened with my old boom-box or HTIAB setup. Logically, I can conclude that the "stuff" that's packed into my good recordings (Deutche Grammophone, etc.) is being brought to life for the first time, leaving the other discs behind in the dust.

I suppose it's all part and parcel of the never-ending "upgrade curse"...you can't just own the decent hardware, you're now FORCED to get the better software to prevent disappointment.

Since i've been playing ridiculous amounts of music lately i can attest to a bit of this however, i would also agree that garbage in= garbage out.
SOME of my cds are truly horrible recordings and it shows but MOST of what i've played so far is really fantastic (the buzzing thing aside).
I was quite shocked at just how much these speakers and the new receiver show 'flaws' in the sound.
I guess it can be both a good and bad thing.

However, if i want mushy, everything-sounds-the-same quality , i would go back to what i had and that is a far worse choice than sticking with what i just got.
Are you not 100% satisfied Randyman? I'm honestly curious for your opinion on your m60s.

fhw, chesseroo

I totally agree with your comments about the music source being a determining factor for the quality of sound. That is what I was really referring to when I said some music sounds so so. I suppose I wasn't expressing myself well enough about that. Indirectly, I think that was what I was trying to get at - the m60s are so accurate that they easily reveal the limitations (or poor quality) of many recordings. I guess I was just trying to know if others were having similar experiences.

I don't recall having that experience with my old speakers - so in some (weird) way the accuracy of the M60s create an emotional (mental/acoustical) response to some music (i.e. recordings) that is not as pleasent as it was with the old speakers. (ignorance is bliss?) Can you wrap your mind around that concept?

In answer to your question - I am truly satsified with my 60s. In both sound AND looks! And dispite what I just said previously, I am glad I took the chance to upgrade my speakers. And (again) kudos to Axiom for their return policy that allowed me the oppourtunity to compare the 50s and 60s in my home at the same time. I chose the 60s and I don't regret it at all.

Thanks again to all - for your comments, questions etc.
I love this forum for exchanging thoughts ideas and for getting and giving assistance.

Randyman

I would definitely concur. When I first plugged in my M60s, I began pulling out all of my classical discs that had been gathering dust for months if not years, and feeding them in one after the other just to experience the sound. I had a quite a surprise when I put in some discs, though. Some of my old favorites were digital remasterings of old performances, and some of them sounded AWFUL. But all of these had lots of brass or strings, and were recorded pre-1980, and remastered to digital in the early 80s. Bad recordings.

In fact, I kept a set of Bose acoustimass front speakers hooked to the B speaker out and could switch back and forth between the M60s and the Bose. I kept it that way for weeks, because I never tired of switching back and forth and marvelling at the incredible difference! These recordings that I used to listen to, and that sounded bad on the M60s, sounded EVEN WORSE on the Bose. But, I hadn't noticed it that much before, and had listened anyway. I think it was just more noticeable compared to good recordings heard on the M60s.

So now I know, I have to upgrade my CD collection! (Looking for good recent recordings from Telarc and other good quality studios.) More things to buy....

ChrisR

Yes, the accuracy.
It's incredible how some of my best music, perhaps a first independant cd recording of an early band, now sounds so 'sloppy' because the speakers reproduce such an accurate sound. I love the music still but i will have to get used to a bit more hiss and a whole new 'version' of the songs.

Oh well, time for new music i guess

Bumping a long ago, super review.
Don't know where fhw ever got to, but he's one of the few to have heard the often forgotten M40s.

New child + new house + new job = no time for forum-surfing.

'Nuff said.

In reply to:

---

These recordings that I used to listen to, and that sounded bad on the M60s, sounded EVEN WORSE on the Bose.

---

I really have to agree with this comment.

I'm one of those people who do, occasionally find my M60s a tad bright. The funny thing is, I've become aware that some recordings really are bright! I had always found a couple of Heart recordings from the 80s bright, but never really thought of other CDs as the same. Now, I can be listening to a CD on a totally different, non-Axiom system, and it hits me: This recording is bright and sibilant! I just never really noticed before.

I seriously wonder if my Axioms have taught me to be a better/more critical listener?

It was this post that made me decide to go with the M40's (over the M2 or M3's). And I've never looked back...still a great little speaker.

In reply to:

---

New child + new house + new job = no time for forum-surfing.

---

I think many understand completely.
I've only recently had some time to peruse the threads again but i suspect that soon enough it will be short lived.

That doesn't mean the great effort in posting the 3 speaker comparison shouldn't be highlighted from time to time. Next up, blind testing of the youngin!

It is great to hear this from others. I have had the exact same experience. I keep looking for just my newer cd's and musical dvd's when I really want to enjoy my 60's. I was a bit disappointed at first with the flat sound that was coming out when I would put in some older live recordings and some of the classical music. But you guys hit it on the head, if the speakers are telling the truth, which seems quite apparent that they are, then the recording is just not that good.

I also agree that having axiom's and really listening to things does make you a more trained listener and of course that leads to a more critical listener. (Note: Don't bag on your buddies inferior systems, just brag about your own!)

Once again this forum gives me relief that others experience the same things as I.

Again, if you haven't tried it yet, the best live album I have tried is "Dave Matthews Band and Tim Reynolds Live at Luther College". The acoustic guitar sounds so good it is ridiculous.

M60's, VP150, M22ti's, Hsu sub

Hey guys! The Epic 40 is back!! (Embarassed to say I haden't looked at the Products page for a while)

See that!! Give the M40s a bit of respect, and we get the M40 HT package back again!!

Because of fhw's original post, I decided to audition the m40's, because 95% of my listening is stereo music, with the other 5% watching DVD's. The m40's seemed like the perfect size, and I thought they sounded good, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing out on anything. I ordered a set of m22's and m60's, and A/B'd them with the m40's (no sub).

I must be one of the few people who has auditioned m22's, m40's and m60's at the same time. I'll spare the excruciating details, and just give the highlights:

1. I found the m40 to be a great speaker for playing DVD movies. I can't imagine needing more than this for the two mains of a 5.1 home theatre system. Several of my friends have a "home-theatre-in-a-box" 5.1 system, so I'm quite familiar with their performance. Watching movies with the pair of m40's alone puts these HTIAB systems to shame. I can only imagine how much better they sound as part of the Epic 40 system. For me, these speakers have more than enough bass output - especially for stereo listening. The m40's have the added benefit of not requiring stands.

What do they lack? Clarity in the midrange and vocals. At first I thought the m40's to be pretty decent, and was ready to keep them. Unfortunately, I complicated my life by doing an A/B comparison against the m22's, and in comparison to the m22's, I found the midrange of the m40's to be noticeably recessed, and the vocals sound a bit off compared to the m22's. If Axiom would put the drivers of the m60 on the cabinet of the m40 and still arrive at a decent tonal balance, I think that would be the ideal speaker for me (more on that later).

2. The m22 is a good bookshelf speaker, with wonderful clarity. I recently listened to a pair of Energy Connoisseur C-3's, and I thought the m22's to be more clear in the midrange. With a smaller living space, I might have been satisfied with the m22's - especially if I could have placed them on top of a shelf. I could have even lived without a subwoofer. Unfortunately, my living space is large, and the layout necessitates stands and a sub. With the cost of stands and a decent sub bringing the total for the m22's higher than a pair of m60's, there was only one thing I could do...

3. The m60's are huge, by my standards. I auditioned some Energy Connoisseur C-7's a few months ago, which are of similar size, and thought them to be too large. I think the same of the m60's, and would be happy to take a hit on bass output in exchange for a smaller cabinet. I much prefer the size of the m40's. Despite my misgivings, the improved clarity of the m60's when compared to the m40's was undeniable, and of course they crank out just as much or more bass. Advantage: m60's.

It seems like the m60's lose just a touch of midrange clarity when compared to the m22's, but that is possibly because with the m60's the added low frequencies are superimposed. A proper comparison using a sub would have helped. I have a basic understanding of the frequency response plots, but I'm no audio engineer. However, I still wonder why the m60's don't have two 5 1/4" drivers, and one 6 1/2" driver, so that the mids are boosted. Maybe that would make them too forward sounding?

For the record, I kept the m60's and shipped back the m22's and m40's. They do everything I want, albeit in a larger package than I'd like. Still, it's a more compact arrangement than stands and a sub.

I listen to a bit of classical and jazz, but mostly folk, alt-country, alternative pop, and electronica. I guess with classic 70's and 80's rock the m60's may sound bright to some. I can't say, as I don't listen to that kind of music. I find them anything but bright, and at the risk of being crucified on these boards, I would actually love to find a speaker that reveals even more midrange detail. Unfortunately, nothing I listened to in the price range of the m60's could beat them for clarity, so I'm keeping them. I'm sure that a $2000+ pair of speakers could best the m60's, but I can buy a pile of CD's with the money I saved!

I'd also like to compliment the level of discussion on this board. It's (mostly) technical, polite and people seem well-informed and avoid delving into hocus-pocus arguments. I've learned a great deal from reading everyone's posts!

krs, thanks for the added notes.
I'll pass this along to my brother.

Really enjoyed that, krs. And yes, being one of, I'm sure, a very few who has compared those 3 speakers, your contribution, though subjective, is a valuable one. Thanks.

great little review there krs. i do belive you might be the first person to do an actual A/B test with 22's, 40's and 60's. thanks for sharing your findings.

i hope the 60's continue to be as satisfying for you as they are now.

bigjohn

Thanks! I really did like the m40's, and I think if you spend most of your time watching movies, the m40's more than meet the task. And when I listened to some rock, electronica, and trip-hop music, I could hardly notice any difference between the m40 and m60. However, I found the two speakers to be significantly different when it comes to folk, jazz and pop where the vocals are prominent. With a stronger midrange, the m40 would be an amazing bargain - I would have chosen them over the m60's for sure, and never looked back.

On the one hand I don't want to criticize Axiom speakers because they're the best I've heard in their price range, but why must their smallest 3-way speaker be 47 lbs? A friend of mine has an old pair of Axiom towers from the late 80's (not sure of the model #). They're midway between the m22 and m40 in size, but they're true 3-way speakers. In all fairness, they colour the sound a lot more than the current Axioms, but they have a strong midrange, and sound great for speakers pushing 20 years old. Would it not be possible to accomplish something similar by adding a 5 1/4" driver to the m40? Or, what about adding a 6 1/2" driver to the m22, and stretching it a bit to make a tower, in the same way the m40 is essentially a stretched m3? Maybe I'm the only person who would buy them, but I see the lack of a smaller 3-way design as a gap in the Axiom line-up.

Again, at the risk of sounding hypercritical, I love my m60's, but I feel like I made a compromise in buying them. I am assuming there must be a flaw in my reasoning, because it seems that most modern tower speakers are BIG - either by necessity of design, or by consumer demand. Am I missing something here?

Well, I don't pretend to be real knowledgeable about this, bit I think the size of the cabinet has a direct effect on a speaker's performance (frequency response?). So, if you put the M60's drivers into an M40 cabinet, it wouldn't sound the same as an M60, or an M40. And, I assume that if it would sound better, Axiom would've done it that way. Hope I've got that correct.

Yup. Cabinet size and design is just as important as driver size and design to the overall sound and frequency response of a speaker.

krs, you can check out this thread on a similar idea that someone else queried about.

Thanks for the link, it was a useful discussion. If people think this diversion - and it is a real diversion - is annoying or too off-topic, please let me know and I'll end this thread...

I don't want to beat a dead horse too much, especially when I'm not an acoustics engineer. I guess the point I made about smaller towers comes from a more fundamental question, looking for the basic reasons why modern tower speakers seem to me to be taller and thinner (and heavier) on average than they were even 10 years ago. I guess I'm looking for some insight into how and why speaker cabinet design philosophy has changed over the last 20 years.

Looking at this within the Axiom line-up, it is interesting to compare the m2/m22/m60/m80 series. By most accounts they all have similar tonal balance in the midrange and higher frequencies, all using different cabinet sizes and driver combinations, though they all share the same "anti-standing wave" tapered cabinet design. Ignoring the issue of low-frequency output, the larger ones simply play louder than the smaller ones. This no doubt was accomplished by simultaneous manipulation of the interior cabinet design, driver configuration, crossover frequency, etc.

Is it then possible to scale down the m60 (or scale up the m22) to the size of the m40 or a bit smaller, and maintain a similar tonal balance? Put another way, by manipulating various things (internal cabinet geometry, driver configuration, crossovers), can you arrive at a similar tonal balance with an arbitrary cabinet size, or do only certain discrete sizes work?

A totally inappropriate analogy is the behaviour of electrons in an atom, where they can only occupy certain defined orbitals, and nothing in between...yeah, this really rambled off-topic.

>>looking for the basic reasons why modern tower speakers seem to me to be taller and thinner (and heavier)

A couple of things :

Back in the "paper cone and rubber surround" days, you needed a big driver to handle the low notes because only a big driver had the cone mass required for a low natural resonant frequency, ie the ability to plumb the low notes.

Now woofer cones are made from all kinds of exotic materials (heck, someone's probably gonna make them out of metal one day ) so the mass (and resonant frequency) is no longer connected to the driver size. Smaller drivers can still handle the deep bass as long as you have the surface area and the cabinet size... ie the only thing different is that 4 small woofers are now pretty much equivalent to one large woofer in terms of deep bass ability, which did not used to be the case.

So... you can now have little speakers but you still need big cabinets, right ? Why tall & skinny instead of short and boxy ? First, obviously, is that smaller drivers make this possible. A vertical array of drivers gives the best imaging, so there's a lot of empty space on both sides of the driver column with a traditional cabinet now. A tall skinny cabinet is going to be stiffer than a cube-ish cabinet because you have smaller unsupported area. Also, I don't know the details but diffraction effects off the edge of the cabinet also help a skinny cabinet to provide crisper imaging than a boxy cabinet.

So... you still need "big", you don't need "wide" any more, and "skinny" sounds better than "wide". If you take away the "wide" but still need the "big" you only have two choices -- taller and deeper.

Also, in my opinion, and a much less technical viewpoint, is that home theater set ups have taken over. Many new speakers are designed with decor in mind--having to fit next to the TV or entertainment center. The average family doesn't have the space or finances to dedicate to viewing room. Speakers must fit into overcrowded living spaces, and try to be unobtrusive. Especially with the subwoofer explosion to handle the lower frequencies, speakers are designed to work with subs and not as stand alones. WAF is often snickered at, but often is a very powerful force in determining what size, shape, and color is allowed in the decorating scheme of the living room. Whether we like it or not, small satellite systems and HTIBs are big sellers, and that's what will continue to be offered. We must keep up the good fight! Personally, I like looking at my big boxes that produce sound. I want to see what I spent my money on and not make it seem like the flowerpot on the mantle is the source of music.

I want my drivers to be made from transparent aluminum.


/holds up mouse
"Hello, computer!"

Blind test of the youngin?

Don't know about that, but I can certainly post a Q n' D review of the M3s through the eyes of my son (the M3s augment our family room TV, whose internal amps were smoked years ago):

The M3s are remarkably resilient. Many times have they been knocked off their stands with only minimal damage to the finish, however the grill has seen better days. It can stay in place with only two pins if you happen to break two of them, but the grill doesn't taste very good covered in cat hair. The sharp edges on the sides of the speaker haven't damaged the hardwood floor a heck of a lot either. I'd also like to note that you can make all kinds of dents in both the tweeter and dust cap, without any apparent loss in sound quality.

Getting to music, on the "Yummy Yummy" album by the Wiggles, the M3s sounded great. There's a fairly deep baseline on the big hit "Fruit Salad", and even in the big room the M3s had good impact. The M3s also really showed off their clarity and detail on "Where is Thumbkin?", and listening you can hear the plucking of every string.

As far as movies go, the M3s are terrific. We watched Barney's "Now I Know my ABC's", and dialogue was always clear and never fatiguing. In my house, everybody gets choked up hearing "I love you, you love me" through the M3s.

Thanks for the reply Bridgman,

I suspected the cabinet height had something to do with imaging. That's one thing the older speakers I've heard didn't do very well. I assume that smaller diameter drivers are more desirable than larger ones because of faster response?

St_PatGuy made a good comment about the HTIB. I think they're decent enough for watching TV and movies, relatively compact, and they're light years better than those crumby little speakers that come with TV's. For people that just want surround sound without worrying about the details, HTIB is probably the best solution. In fact, they probably shake their head at people who spend ridiculous amounts of money and time on their audio equipment : )

And the Axioms are *great* for children's music. We listened to the Cookie Monster's rendition of 'C' is for Cookie, and it never sounded so good.

Question? How come you didn't try the M50's. They are smaller then M60's and have more drivers than the M40.

A good question about the m50's. I loved many things about the m40's but found them too laid back for my taste, was pleased with the midrange detail of the m22's but didn't want to deal with stands and a sub, so the m60's seemed logical and I decided to skip the m50's. I figured that if I had to go above the m40 in size, I wanted as much midrange detail as possible, and the m50 has often been said to be a bit laid back compared to the m60.

I do like the way the m60's are a bit forward. It would have been nice to compare all of the towers though, especially since I've heard a few people say that the m50 is a nice compromise between the laid-back m40 and the forward m60. I'd like to give the m50's a listen some day and find out what I've been missing.

Very funny, fhw. Sounds almost like my house. BTW, Elmo's Favorite Songs DVD is very poorly mastered and sounds like crap on the Axioms - particularly Rosita.

And many modern speakers are so heavy, I'm guessing, due to the use of big fat slabs of MDF. That stuff is VERY heavy in quantity.

well, since we are on the subject..

the whole 'Baby Einstein' series sounds fantastic on DVD. they are all in DD, and are extremely clear and robust, im not kidding. they have several DVD's in the series, but my favorite are the music ones. they have 'baby bach', 'baby mozart', and 'baby beethoven'. the tracks are well recorded, and are as entertaining for me as they are for my 7 month old.

bigjohn

bigjohn,
I was thinking the same thing. My son was watching the 'Baby Bach' DVD the other day and I had it running through the stereo. The M60's and VP100 sounded awesome! I wished that I had thought of those first few Baby Einstein episodes. What a cash grab those are!!!!!

Shaun

Those Baby Einstein discs are great.
We also have the Baby Genius ones but the songs are done in about a 4 key synthesizer kiddy fashion. I much prefer having our daughter hear the real deal.

Jeez, you guys make me wanna get Joyce pregnant so I have an excuse for new listening material!

just babysit your nieces and nephews... its MUCH cheaper..

bigjohn

Just thought I would bump this 'cause it's a good and informative thread...

Yes this was a good thread.
I agree. It actually explains my own general absenteeism over the past year. I forgot i posted it.

Too bad about the M40s. Got some for a friend of mine as a wedding gift during the sell off though. Pooled together 4 people and we also managed a decent receiver for him plus cables.
He was beaming.

I can sure echo everyone's points on their ear being retrained to be more critical of music quality. I too fell into the trap of pulling out old favorites right off the bat to try out my new M60ti and was disapppointed.

Then eventually I put in a cd with a great recording and thought ... holy cow, SO THIS IS WHAT EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT!!!

It's been good news bad news for me. Some of my old favorites just don't give me that same old feeling, but OTOH I've opened up a whole new world of good recorded music that I might of otherwise passed on.

I've personally been disappointed with the recording quality of most of our U2 collection.