Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Who reviews the reviewers in the Audio Industry?

The sub title could be: Why doesn't Axiom get more press?

The audio review world is its own industry. Getting a class "A" rating from Stereophile requires a LOT of money being spent in advertising. Let's look at two speaker reviews in the last few years: The Bryston Middle T - currently $6870 per pair vs. the Vandersteen Quatro Wood CT which currently sells for $15,500 per pair.

Stereophile's phrasing for the Middle T's was a very reluctant admiration.

Excerpts ... "My initial impression of the Middle T's sound was of such integrity that it might have been generated by a single driver, even though that was belied by its dynamics and wide frequency range.... the Middle Ts seemed to entirely "disappear" into a wide, deep soundstage....The midrange was equally satisfying. The Sara K. disc demonstrated how the Middle Ts could render a well-recorded voice with a most thrilling, somewhat eerie presence."

The Brystons measured within +/- 3 dB from 28 to 17,000 Hz - where this is a small spike - then flat out passed 20,000 Hz.

By comparison, the Quatros were also +/- 3 dB from 30 to 17,000 Hz, with a small downward spike at 17K with extension also passed 20,000 Hz.

The review process on both speakers takes on a different tone in subtle ways. For example - here is an analysis of the measured sensitivity of the Middle T's ...

""My estimate of the Middle T's voltage sensitivity was 85dB(B)/2.83V/m, significantly lower than the specified 88dB/W/m.""

And the Vandersteen Quatros:

""Vandersteen specifies the Quatro Wood CT's sensitivity as 87dB/2.83V/m. My estimate was 83dB(B)/2.83V/m, which is lower than average but within experimental error of the 83.5dB/2.83V/m I measured for the earlier version of the Wood. ""

Note that a 3 dB difference in the Bryston is "significant", but the 4 dB difference in the Vandersteen is just fine because the older version was also lower in sensitivity.

The moral of the story is Bryston's Middle T, if one reads the wording of the reviewer BEFORE he was reminded that Bryston is not a major advertiser, is that the reviewers need reviewed.

The Middle T performed as well as ANY class "A" speaker did, in both listening tests AND measurements. And that is for Bryston's label - which carries more weight than does Axiom in the "high end world."

The middle T did finally get a "B" rating - for only 2 years, then it was removed for not being auditioned in too long a time period, despite other speakers being on the list for 5 years or longer with no auditions needed.

It is subtle, but one REALLY has to watch for these issues with reviews.

As for Axiom - it is hard to get an honest review of them outside Soundstage Magazine.

What you are hearing with your Axioms - especially V.4 - is a very, VERY well designed speaker. If a lack of review is putting you off, don't let it.

Trust your years.

And if this offended anyone, I apologize.

Very good, Craig. Very analytical of you. I wish someone from the inside would do a reveal of how things really work in these publications.

Words are imprecise. Axiom's publication of the listening window and sound power curves should make any prospect think more critically about how they will spend their hard-earned money. I was sold on the active LFRs the moment Ian showed us the curves. Then I decided I gotta have them when he said "We think you'll like the result."

Well, I give all Axioms an honest review but I know I'm just a Mojo.

Great thoughts

The first year of the Bryston release I read nothing but rave reviews, every time. Then they just disappeared.

Most publications\reviewers seem to favour more "the companies that send demo pieces as a write off, or keepers" While sadly smaller companies typically cannot afford such luxuries or extreme write-offs. Which in some cases seems to become a major disadvantage to the smaller guys.

Who is a respected reviewer in audio that we can trust? How do we know?

Phillip Beaudette did a great job on the M5HP review. I agreed with everything he said.

Here is a textbook example of what happens in reviews. A few years ago, Sound and Vision did measurements on the EP125 subwoofer. When they did the measurement, they did it with the microphone nearfield to the woofer, giving it a -3 dB response at 46 Hz.

If one looks at Axiom's curve - which is a combined output of ports and woofer, the -3 dB in the traditional +/- curve is about 30 Hz.

When one does a close mic of just the driver in a ported system, one will get a much higher rolloff.

The reviewer HAD to know this, as they did other subs properly - even noting that the response was a combination of the ports and the driver in these other systems.

Mojo - it can be difficult to find a reliable reviewer. The smaller publications tend to be more honest. To be blunt, everything Stereophile and Sound and Vision is ad driven.

It's a business model, and they make lots of money. They are not going to jeopardize this.

I don't know enough about these kinds of measurements but 1. he did say it was close-mic'd and 2. it is supposed to be quasi-anechoic after all; maybe he could have gated the measurement. I suppose he could have clarified but that goes for all the speakers he reviewed in that particular article. There are a lot of caveats in these kinds of measurements.

What's really needed for audio is the equivalent of a TUV lab and very stringent and transparent test protocols, equipment methods, checklists and reports. This has to be something the entire industry buys into.

Unfortunately, I've had a lot of trouble with the professionalism of TUV so there's that. Ultimately who can you really trust but your own experience?

Mojo - if one close mics a driver in ANY ported system, one will see a sharp rolloff from about 1/3 octave above the tuning point. At the tuning point, the woofer is barely moving, and most of the output is from the port. If one has the mic 0.5 inch from the driver, it is several inches from the port, and the resulting measurement will be what S&V got in that test.

From a look at the response curve, I would guess the tuning point of the EP125 is about 38 Hz.

What does ad-driven mean? Does that mean someone from within ensures reviews aren't too hard on those who advertise with the publication? I'd never sign my name to something I didn't say or believe.

Mojo - Again, it is subtle. You won't find blatant bias. You will find an astonishing consistency between positive product reviews and advertising from the companies with the positive reviews.

I take "professional" reviews and advice with a lot of skepticism ... this is especially true in the audio and financial industries. Not sure which Industry I'd rank higher on my "dubious and doubtful" scale ... I found that I needed to know as much (if not more) as the people I'm dealing with to know if the information I'm being feed is right.

Here is an example of why I personally have a problem with the reviewing industry - it's dismissal of blind listening tests. Their reasoning is the A/B test does not allow enough time to notice subtle differences.

Fine - then set it up where you have a 1 month, 3 month or 6 month blind test. All one needs to do is have the will to do it. But, again, it doesn't fit the narrative.

Rich - I have some funny stories about financial industry guys. Maybe sometime over drinks.

Like Rich, I am always skeptical - about everything!

I always read the written word and compare with vendor and reviewer measurements. Many times that puts the reviewer's description into context. Other times I get confused because the two don't mesh.

Bottom line is I always need data I can trust or I just procrastinate and it doesn't bother me. I learned how to do that in a Decision Science course. I also learned you can't judge a decision by the outcome but rather on the data you had when you made the decision and the process, tools and people you leveraged.

So even though I am a teen living in an adult body, I am wise beyond my teen years. And humble also.

procrastination ... I've perfected that one ...

Congrats. You are like Merkel, Eisenhower and Franklin.

This is an interesting topic, thanks to Craig for bringing it up. Back in the beginning days of Axiom, Sound Canada (which later became Sound&Vision Canada) did their speaker testing at the NRC and it included a full set of anechoic measurements and double-blind listen testing. As it turned out this was the peak for reviews based in science.

The reality is that speaker testing involves a lot of expensive gear and a lot of time. To do a full set of amplitude response curves requires an anechoic chamber and enough sweeps to get a total radiated sound power curve, that is expensive and time consuming and you are really just getting started. To do proper double-blind listen tests you will either need a shuffler, like Harmon has, or you need to repeat all the tests with each product in each position to weed-out the position error from the results. Then there is the testing to find out where the upper limits of the output exist and what happens when you reach them. Since this sort of testing involves destroying a few speakers along the way it is quite impractical to do as part of a review. Given all this it is not surprising that most “professional reviews” are really just “professional opinions”, and in many cases just “opinions” .

Of course the double blind, ABX test is the purest form of a test. But - let's explore options that would make current testing much better. We should have a standard as follows:

1. The reviewer has a reference system. This reference system doesn't need to include $500,000 worth of gear, but it should be high quality.

2. All components should be hidden behind a speaker cloth style barrier to prevent being able to see the component.

3. When a new component is introduced into the system, someone else sets it up. The reviewer has NO idea which component was swapped out, and what was swapped in. All he/she knows is a change was made.

Listening is done, and results posted, before the person is allowed to know the component. This method is very easy with speakers and amps.

Pre-amps and sources are more challenging, but still possible.

The issue is - none of the magazines is even willing to TRY. They tell us that one HAS to have the visual cues in order to do a proper test.

As Ian said - now it's just an opinion, and it's based on price, company name, personal bias and MAYBE some sound quality.

. .. "As Ian said - now it's just an opinion, and it's based on price, company name, personal bias and MAYBE some sound quality." . . .

AMEN !!!

How do you judge soundstage amongst multiple sets of speakers?

I've dropped non-Axiom speakers right where my M100s are located. Imaging/soundstage was terrible. I moved them further back and closer together and although they were no M100s, the imaging vastly improved. So did bass.

How do you reconcile that in double-blind testing? You'd need to know where to place the equipment under test before-hand I suppose.

Guys ... let's forget the ABX model, as it is not a realistic way to test a speaker or other component in one's home, which is where reviewers do the test.

Let's say we want a blind test on speakers. All that needs to be done is to have someone spend some time to get the best location for speakers in the listening room.

This isn't that hard to do. We audiophiles do it every time we buy speakers.

Then, without the reviewer having any contact with the person who set it up, he spends as much time as he wants listening to the speakers.

Let's call them ACME speakers during the review.

He does a complete write up, having NO idea what the speakers are. The review is published.

The next month issue will then have the reveal.

This would allow the reviewer all the time he wants, and an honest, unbiased review posted.

Everyone wants to complicate this, and it's really simple.

The audio magazine industry has been weeded out by natural selection ... the survivors are the ones who support their advertisers ...

This will slowly change as the cost of getting information out to the public has come down significantly. There are a lot of audio people who value honesty and reputation over money.

Rich ... this is all true. The on line web sources are getting a lot of play.

Agreed. I used to read a magazine from Quebec called UHF. They had the reference system for comparison, but always seemed to be too flowery in their descriptions of listening tests. They did publish spec's - and did not pull punches about the product, REGARDLESS of if the gear was a gift or the manufacturer advertised with them.

I am also reminded of a UK mag that measured an amplifier and published their review, praising the spec's and sound, but overall dismissing the amp because "it did not weigh enough". The manufacturer took the unit back, mounted a brick inside, changed the name to V2.0, resubmitted it and received a fabulous review of the "new model"

I think most reviews are ADVERTORIALS, rather than straight up reviews.

There's a lot of ... ahhhh weight put on how things feel in the hand. Now to diss a piece of audio equipment for it is a bit harsh ... but traditionally one was able to get a feel for quality by heft ... did they spend the bucks to put in a big transformer etc. This has changed a bit with technology but there is still a lot of the old school thinking out there.

In other cases like the handset on a corded phone you need to weight it otherwise every time you picked it up it's lightness would surprise you as feeling cheap (it may also not stay in it's cradle). Even poker chips are weighted to give you a satisfying feel that your holding something of value ... many things which exude quality are weighted.

What's a corded phone?

If an audio amp isn't heavy, its power supply is junk. I love SMPS but know they are absolute garbage for audio.

It's a leash to keep you from wandering too far


I'm not 100% convinced about that ...

If your speakers consist of tweeters only, an SMPS is similarly good.

I bought my Axiom speakers as a friend told me about this company out in Canada that makes speakers and direct sell them and he heard they were pretty good. I said what the heck and so I went and took a look. I was thinking of buying a pair of Paradyme speakers and had actually gone to several stores to listen. They sounded OK but I questioned what sounded ok in a store might not sound OK at home. The idea of trying them out intreaged me. so instead of paying money for a Paradyme I spent actually a little bit less for Axiom and got far more speaker. I liked them a whole lot more.

I have concluded that reading speaker and stereo magazines is little more than a fun passing of time and a lesson on creative writing. I think more and more people are learning that.

You will get those who think with their eyes rather than the brain. Image is everything. But in the end, the Axiomn model is more word of mouth and referrals, that hold far more weight in many peoples minds.

This conversation has me cranking up Queen's "Fat Bottom Girls."

Craig, your active LFRs make the rockin' world go 'round.

Rich, regarding SMPS vs. LPS, I have a 1000-8 coming that will be used with my actives. That amp is spec'd to give me 375 dynamic Watts on all eight channels simultaneously into 4 Ohm loads from a 120VAC/15A outlet. Show me an amplifier with an SMPS that can do that. Heck, show me an amp that can do that!

Mojo, are you telling me it is impossible to design a switching supply to be as good as the supply in a ada1000?

It is impossible to design a switching power supply that will result in 3000 dynamic Watts from a 120VAC/15A outlet.

Not if you add a flux capacitor, it isn't.

1.21 jiggawatts with that puppy!

Craig, normal caps would probably do the trick ... no time travel needs to be invoked

Nope. Compared to LPSs, SMPSs give you high continuous power with high efficiency in a small package but no dynamic headroom.

Rich - What is this "need" stuff? We aren't commies. We do want stuff!

Dynamic power comes from a combination of higher rails and a bit of storage

To measure continuous power, you apply a continuous voltage and increase its level until clipping is observed into a known load. Say you apply 2Vrms into a 4 Ohm resistive load and observe clipping. That's a total of 1W continuous power (2*2/4).

To measure dynamic power, you apply a transient voltage into the same load. Say you apply 4Vrms for 10 cycles and observe clipping in the last 3 cycles. You could then say the dynamic power is 4W (4*4/4) for 7 cycles. If those cycles you applied was a 60Hz mid-bass, you could say the dynamic power is 4W for 117msec (16.7 msec/cycle * 7 cycles). More accurately, I would say I can support 4W into a 4 Ohm resistive load for seven, 60Hz cycles.

1W of this dynamic power comes from the wall socket and the remainder from charge in the storage capacitors.

In this example, the dynamic headroom is 10log(4/1)=6dB. That's a damned impressive LPS!

I would also keep the power supply voltage fixed at say 120VAC for all tests.

BTW, I have no idea what Axiom's test protocols are for measuring continuous and dynamic power. Out of professional curiosity, I'd love to know. I can tell you, as I've reported on these boards, I've confirmed as best as I can with my very humble equipment that continuous and dynamic specs are being achieved with the 1500-3 and 1000-3 I have here.

I'd have to check my notes to confirm but I think the 1000 has 35V rails and the 1500 has 55V rails. Those of course are +/- rails so that's 110V across both rails for the 1500.

I'll also point out Anthem spent a bazillion dollars and drove many engineers with master's degrees insane to bring the M1 to market. That 1U monoblock with an SMPS and class D amp costs 5 grand and can dump 1000W into a 4 Ohm load and double that into a 2 Ohm load with vanishingly low noise and almost unity power factor.

What it can't do is provide the 4500W of dynamic power out of a standard North American outlet that the 1500 can. The 1500 does that with a power supply I could have designed in Grade 11 and can be easily repaired.

I'm not done. LOL! Ian's brilliance is blinding because he saw through all the BS and said I'm not gonna play the continuous (RMS) power game. The money shot is dynamic power. And he knew the best way to utilize the standard wall plug was a combination of LPS and class D amp. He cut his teeth on the subwoofer amps, nearly blew himself up with the 1400 but kept going not because it was easy but because he saw the future and it was the right thing to do. Now he has these massive, multi-channel beasts with gobs of headroom to feed actives. And the actives are gonna sing like platoons of angels from heaven. Hallelujah!

Ok, back to higher rails and a storage cap ... switcher supplies continuous power, cap supply’s dynamic and all is good.

Nope. That's not how a switcher works. The most it can give you is what's in the plug less the amount it wastes.

So just buy eight 1500-8s to go with you eight 800s.

Disregard supply type. If we can source 100 watts of power continuously and store another 100 watts-seconds of power for instantaneous use how much power can one draw instantaneously?

200 Watt-seconds. Now show me an SMPS that does that.

Excellent!!
The SMPS is the continuous 100W supply ... it feeds the 100Watt-sec storage ...
when it's fully charge you have 200 Watt-seconds of instantaneous power ...
the rest is just circuitry ...

Oh ho ho ho! You will go broke.

Maybe ... but I’d get greater efficiency
And which is more the switcher or that big transformer?

The switcher of course because you'd be responsible for the suicides and mutilations of many engineers as they gave up trying to make that thing work.

I like my 1000.
Would like a matching one someday.

The 1000 does what it says it does. The value of that thing is unreal given 125W continuous and 375W dynamic ALL EIGHT CHANNELS DRIVEN. No switcher can do that!

It's gonna totally trick out my actives as I juice them and me into oblivion. Wahahahaha!

Good for you, Blair. Let's raise a toast to Ian and Andrew and even Tom Cumberland. While other companies which we won't mention look to cut cost and rob their customers of rich experience, we've got gear that ignites our synapses.

54V rails for the 1000 and 84V rails for the 1500. These numbers may be slightly off because I'm not measuring them directly but rather inferring them from dynamic measurements across my speakers.

Ok then ... I’ll put you right on it ...

So .... When can you start?

I've been around a few times and know when to walk away and know when to run. I'm running from this one!

... didn't mean to post both of those ...

In any case ... I may try it (if and when I start to look at amps again) just to find out why it's so hard ...

I really miss the days when these threads went off topic to talk about strippers.

I am looking at getting a new one.

This has really gotten off topic, so a few comments about power supplies, strippers, and audio reviewers:

On power supplies, the question is what happens when they reach their limits? With a linear supply you will eventually get voltage sag and no more power can be supplied. This is a nice way to reach the limits, not something you can say for a switching supply. With this in mind there is nothing wrong with a switching supply as long as it is big enough to never hit its limits no matter the demand from the dynamics of the source. That will be one very large switching power supply.

Mojo, if you are going to get new strippers at least get a good looking pair.

On audio reviews, I think Craig has hit the nail on the head. Whatever test you do sighted you can do blind, it just involves a lot more effort. I would venture to say the effort is not the problem though, it is more likely the self-destruction of connoisseur status.

Right ... the problem is that most off the shelf switchers protect them selfs by going into short circuit protection when their limit is reached ... but really for audio they should current limit ... with this change and some very large caps and you'd have the best of both worlds.

It's like a cordless phone but keeps working when the power is out.

I was reminded of this today when Hydro One cut the power off in our area for 6 hours to perform some kind of upgrade.

That would have been a good excuse to fire up them gennies you've been hoarding.

The problem with music is it's more than just the sound, but an emotional connection. So I don't know if you can totally rule out any of your senses into the finished product.

I could go to an acoustically perfect hall and listen to a well-played orchestra but be stuck on an uncomfortable wooden bench sitting in front of a woman who doused herself in perfume, and even with my eyes closed I will give the sound I heard a far worse mark than pretty good speakers in an OK room but sitting in a comfortable chair. You won't be able to help yourself.

Likewise, how do you measure enjoyment if your speakers look like something your dog coughed up regardless of how they sound. You are going to be influenced by your eyes.

Where I see an issue is when you cross over from describing your feelings into implying qualities that are not directly associated. I would agree with a review that said the sound was exceptional, crisp with a clear placement on instruments on the sound stage, but when you open your eyes and are assaulted by the sight of the speaker it all falls apart.

I don't know where the correct balance actually is?

Between an ugly, good-sounding speaker and a beautiful, bad-sounding speaker, I'll take the ugly one. I am a function over form kind-a-guy. I do appreciate form though and if I can have both, so much the better.

I do have minimum standards on aesthetics though. No matter how good these sound, they'd never find a place in my abode.

https://www.canuckaudiomart.com/details/649464708-ugly-speakers-dahlquist-dq10/