Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Gene DeSalla's latest video with a stab at...

.... Axiom.

At 6:10 link.

Gene is livid because he wants to listen to active LFRs but Ian won't let him.

Which sin is greater? Axiom's older cross-over on the $500 Algonquins or Revel's $15000 speakers with no listening window and sound power curves let alone those same curves that align like the active LFR's?

I'd put the $4200 M5s and a 500 against the $16K Revel Ultima Studio2 any day.

All the tubers are on crossovers at the moment. Thanx to New Record Days content.

Dellahollerstoomuch is a self promoting tool with an axe to grind.

He also likes to touch himself while looking in the mirror.

Admittedly I do not pay much attention to this guy and I do not know his/Axiom's history, but I did not take that as a shot at Axiom. He was just stating what we all know and have discussed on this board, speakers designed to price points have certain compromises. He indicates that early on.

One thing I did note, he did not seem a fan of crossovers that were minimalist, as in a single component. Yet perhaps the finest speaker lineup I have ever heard (Reference 3a, and the incredible Suprema) were built to that standard.

Mike ... a red circle around Axiom with the line through it and the word "no" isn't taking a shot?

It's impossible to get the refined performance of a passive speaker like the M5 without a brilliantly-designed analog cross-over. Nirvana of course is a single driver that covers the entire audible range. No cross-over, digital or analog, would be needed.

I know the whole history and this is why I love Ian. After listening to so many of the v4 (with more coming), I love Ian even more and Andrew too. They are Canadian heroes! I can say, without any doubt, anyone who chooses to buy non-Axiom speakers is making mistakes on many fronts.

No, I don't think it is. I think perhaps he could have simply shown the crossover without mentioning the brand, but this does not phase me. He could have held up the Reference 3a lineup and that would have been fine as well.

I have been an Axiom owner since 1989, met Ian and toured the factory in 1990, owned many brands over the years - liking some of them better than Axiom and have said that on this board - but my current speakers are all Axiom. If someone does not like them, my view is you are entitled to your opinion. I get there is a general dislike for this gentleman, but I have no basis to judge him, as I don't pay attention to him.

As I taught my adult sons "It is ok to have an opinion, but not to be opinionated"

We have enough of those people on this board.....LOL

Mike, he took a shot. Trust Craig's opinion and mine.

Mike, I understand. You don't care that "Gene" has ripped into Axiom for over a decade. You are entitled to not pay attention.

Those of us who have paid attention know better.

If someone deliberately went after YOUR livelihood for over a decade, you would not mind, correct?

A lot of us know the agenda on Audioholics. This is why this thread was created.

Sorry Mojo, I make my own decisions. I have met and chatted with Craig and think he has sound opinions, but will make my own judgement.

Hi Craig, as I said, I don't know the history, and perhaps there is more to this. But on this one item in isolation, I did not think it was a shot. As mentioned, I have respect for Ian and his work, and have for a long time. I have many acquaintances in my life that have chosen their own audio path, and I believe that they have that right.

As for my livelihood, well, being an engineer and in higher education, I am under constant scrutiny and inspection, I guess my 3 decades have taught me to work within political structures and agendas.

I consider it an insulation method that keeps me sane...well, depending upon the measuring stick used!

The first thing you learn in Decision Science is the quality of a decision (judgment) should be evaluated by the resources (data, people, time, etc) you had at the time of making that decision and the process you used to make the decision - not the results. Choosing to make a decision by considering an item in isolation, without preponderance of the available historical data, may lead to poor decision quality. Just sayin'...I run into this all the time at work BTW.

I'll posit here one doesn't even need the historical data for this particular matter. In fact, you said it Mike - Gene could very well have simply shown the cross-over without mentioning the brand but he didn't. That's a hint right there that all is not well and one is well-justified in deciding he took a shot. It doesn't mean that Gene may not be right, but he's definitely taking a shot.

Well, as my father always says....opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

You didn't offend me because I can vouch that I do indeed have an asshole.

Keep in mind once the particular site in question shows you the "ultimate crossover" they'll go and say the ultimate is none.

I mostly keep up on their content to see who is willing to sponsor them. They bash Onkyo all the time yet still have a link to the "greatest product" the newest Onkyo.

Not sure why they bash Onkyo. Onkyo has had manufacturing quality issues but their folks and products are very good. I trust onkyo over Denon and yamaha.

Gene provides a useful service but he ought to put the past behind him and see who one of the real heroes is in the audio world.

BBIH

I agree. The de Capo Reference 3A is a fantastic speaker which does not use a cross-over but rather the driver mechanically rolls off to the tweeter.

The Axiom M3 has a similar set up (1 cap and a resistor to protect the tweeter) and this minimalist cross-over is responsible for the M3s purity, IMHO.

The fewer 'things' in the signal path, the better.

The M3v4 has a more sophisticated cross-over than the M3v3 and earlier which makes it sound better than an M80v2.



I would say put as many things as necessary in the signal path to meet the design objectives. For the active LFR1100, those design objectives included aligning the sound power and listening window responses and that took a bajillion components in the form of dual DSP boxes.

Well stated - yet if the average audiophile happens to stumble into that bastion of ignorance known as Audioholics, one would think a minimalist crossover is detrimental to sound quality.

Gene is not an engineer, nor a speaker designer. He does not perform scientific tests. Yet he can tell from a picture, and because competitors of Axiom tell him so, that this speaker (the $330 per pair Outdoor M3 that was sold back then) was a "bad design."

The world of the Audio Forum was a wonderful place from 2000-2007. Then it started to decline as the forums started down the path as marketing arms to manufacturers willing to pay them.

AVS Forum and Audioholics are two primary examples of money driven forums.

Audio Circle is a great example of what a forum SHOULD be.

Imagine the active LFR with a minimalist crossover. Actually, it may very well be minimalist. Will consumers soon be comparing how many DSP resources are being consumed to realize an active speaker?

Gene has a BSEE, was a practicing engineer, may still be for all we know, is knowledgeable and has access to test equipment and knowledgeable people. None of this however justifies this stab.

Axiom's product line-up is incredible and is continually growing. There is a speaker for every budget, taste and application. Each v4 speaker is imbued with the Axiom acoustic formula and as one climbs the price ladder, all the variables of the formula stay the same but the coefficients change to give greater image resolution, stage size, fidelity and micro and macro dynamic capability. This harmonious price and benefit scaling is non-trivial. Anyone who educates others about audio gear ought to take the time to understand what Axiom has accomplished. The best way to do that is through listening.

Ok, Mojo ... let me elaborate. Gene is not an audio engineer. He is not a designer. And he is not anything close to being competent at audio, let alone an expert. For the record, neither am I. I just have enough self awareness to not think that my reviews are anything special. Gene thinks his word is the end of the discussion, and a few people buy into it.

He acts like he can look at a product and tell you what the performance is. In the meantime, he cannot even perform a listening test with proper protocols.

His "access to people in the know" is nothing more than access to people who sell audio products.

He goes far beyond a "stab" at Axiom. He is a paid hack who shills for products from companies who pay him.

I have first hand knowledge on this, Mojo. I was banned from his forum in 2011 for supposedly "marketing." The marketing was my refusing to pay his site for positive posting.

He not only banned me, but when doing so, he made sure I lost access to the messages between us.

To be blunt - and I am beyond giving a phukk what anyone thinks about me in this industry - the audio industry is filled with more sleaze than prostitution is. This is also why the industry is in the state it is in today.

In 1980, Stereo companies ran ads on national TV, including Monday Night Football. It was a huge, growing industry. This industry killed itself with its approach to the consumer. Snake oil took over, and never let go.

If you think Gene is competent, fine. You are entitled to your opinion. I have read enough of his drivel to know better.

There will be evidence posted in the next week or so to back this up.

There are still a few good guys in the business, but they require work to find.

Actually, your reviews are very special to me. Truly.

I just want folks like Gene to recognize Axiom's value proposition.

The biggest accomplishment I have in audio actually happened at Axiom. I did a few double blind tests and got the same results that Andrew did. It was hard work, and the crew up in Dwight do this every day. Gene? He does You Tube videos of himself blathering.

Gene will never put himself into the position of being positive about Axiom. Never. He decided to go after Ian, and will not stop.

AVS and AH are strictly about getting money from manufacturers for positive press.

I do remember your results at Axiom.

I like to think if Gene listened to the actives, his brain would re-wire about Axiom.

BTW, it's good to have you back.

I would sponsor this to happen:

Gene agrees to come to Dwight. We agree ahead of time which Axiom speakers will be auditioned. We also agree to a pair of competing speakers to bring to the test. I will buy the speakers and bring them.

Both speakers will be auditioned live while Gene is being recorded on a video machine. Listening will be done blind. Then he has to turn in his results before he sees the speakers.

The Actives would be almost impossible for this test - but something against, say, the M5 HP would be good.

Once we settle on the speakers, I will purchase the speakers from the competitor for the comparison and bring them to Dwight.

As all listening will be blind, Gene won't even consider it. If asked, he would make some snarky comment about why it's a waste of his time.

Why would the actives be impossible?

Heh heh...I like how you throw down the gauntlet.

When doing this type of test, one needs to be able to swap the speakers in an instant AB fashion. Doing this with the Actives would be close to impossible.

The source would feed a preamp. The preamp would be connected to the LFR DSPs/amps and the amp for speaker B. Switching would take place at the preamp level or at the source level.

How does one go about agreeing on speaker B?

The M5 is about $1000. If we decided on it, Gene could pick any $1000 bookshelf speaker.

If M100's, he could pick any $3000 speakers.

I see. Based on price.

For a few reasons, I really like this idea. Everyone would have to agree with the speaker choices and the details of the test methodology. I also think the results should remain private so that no one has anything to lose or gain from this.

It would still be a very tough set up to try. I actually have a non remote version of the switching passive pre amp that Axiom uses - Debbie built it for me in 2015.

To be fair in the test, the speakers are set ABAB then switched to BABA. Doing this with the actives would take too long. Then you have the argument about amps ...

Axiom usually uses Bryston amps for the blind tests, along with a Bryston pre amp. It keeps the amp interface "neutral."

My personal preference for a test would be the M5's vs Martin Logan 35XTi ($1300 per pair).

There are so many details to agree upon in a test like this. How do you ensure that the environment and test equipment don't favor one speaker over the other?

This is why you pick passive speakers and use Bryston amps and preamps. If Gene doesn't like Brystons, he can pick something else. All that is needed is a neutral amp - and if anyone says Bryston isn't neutral, he's a moron.

How do you choose a "neutral" room? Or will any room do?

Axiom's room is quite neutral. Keep in mind both speakers are in the same room.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to learn. "Quite neutral" isn't neutral. Certain rooms favor certain speakers. That's why we have anechoic chambers.

Craig, I have a lot of difficulty with this kind of testing. Don't get me wrong; it's fun. But I just can't see how it's scientifically valid because speaker positioning comes into play, the room comes into play and how your head is tilted and whether or not you need to fart comes into play.

This is why we have anechoic chambers, spinoramas and calibrated test equipment. Of course all of those results require interpretation by a human and no two humans that are diametrically opposed will come to an agreement about interpretation.

Now I know Harman, Axiom and others do this type of testing and Toole says it must be so but I damned well know the devil is in the details.

The final arbiter is me, in my rooms and the actives rock!

Mojo - sometimes you swerve into absurd (but you are still likeable). Can you show a listening test done in an anechoic chamber? Of course not.

Can you show a room that is completely neutral? No.

There will always be a room involved. This is why we do ABAB then BABA testing. It makes sure each speaker is treated fairly.

You stated that Gene is "knowledgeable." Yet, every test his hack site does is while staring at the speaker in question, and for which his company is paid to laud .. er .. review .. and you think this is what constitutes "knowledge."

And the speakers are auditioned in .. are you ready .. a ROOM.

When you are given a proper protocol for a blind test between two level matched speakers, you suddenly have an issue with the room being there.

I don't accept any testing Audioholics does. I like reading stuff by experts on his site like the recent room acoustics article Toole published. I don't even look at ads.

Even with ABAB and BABA, it could be biased. After doing ABAB I may be too tired and bored when doing BABA or hungry or horny. Harman is arguing with themselves daily about their methods and they're supposedly the best. LOL!

So any ABAB and BABA is all in fun. I still think it's worth trying to do this so that people can be brought together to talk. You see Craig, the true value of ABAB and BABA testing is to bring folks together so they can talk. The value is in the discussions and not the test results.

I say we put Gene in Axiom's anechoic chamber with whatever speakers he wants, lock him in, and never let him out. hehehe

I've run into him at Cedia before. He struts around and thrives on the attention he gets.

There are so many opinion-only based videos that he has put out there. Heck, keep in mind that he has his own published video saying that Atmos is a joke, and later that DTS:X is amazing. His reasons for bashing Atmos as a gimmicky fad are the same reasons he says that DTS:X is so great.

This is an indicator of his entire career. His videos with Hugo were laughable at best. Scripted (poorly), and Hugo would have pre-planned questions that were one-sided that Gene would answer. The two were quite silly to watch. Now Hugo is gone, and that is good. He was almost harder to listen to than Gene, even though Gene was the puppet-master in the videos.

Note that I haven't even gotten into the history of Gene and Axiom, but specifically wanted to give an example of his nonsense that has nothing to do with Axiom at all. That video that I mention was from a while back. I stumbled across it by accident and swore that I wouldn't (intentionally) watch any of his biased videos ever again... Until recently when YouTube just auto-played one of his videos that it thought was related to something else that I had finished watching (which is where I heard that Hugo "left the company").

I think that if he focused on giving his opinion, but stating that they are his opinion, vs stating his opinion but stating it as fact, then he would be someone that I could possibly tolerate. I just greatly dislike people that are deceitful like that. I used to feel like I was on a crusade to "save the world from the lies and deceit" even when not intentional, but that just wears me out. That is why I haven't really posted much in this topic.

I used to really jump in to share my knowledge (based off of research, not opinion) for a few key home theater topics... Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (mainly back when they both first came to home theaters and people struggled to get information), room soundproofing, and room acoustics (for beginners or people that don't want to get to the step of measuring their rooms, but general acoustical treatments). I used to jump in to try to share factual information when people were going down a wrong path and offer insights and ideas, but again, it gets tiring trying to save the world from themselves.

That being said, it would require a full time effort to correct Gene's mis-guidance and false information. I don't have that energy any more.

Nick, Craig left us. I hope he comes back steaming mad. When he's mad, he tells us things he otherwise wouldn't.

There are some interesting aspects of this video that I always find fascinating. From a purely factual viewpoint, the crossover he is picturing is from 2007 and it was discontinued in 2008. At the end of this post is an excerpt from the review by Gene in early 2008 where it shows that these speakers sold for $330 pair. So, to put the price of $598 beside a picture of a component from a speaker that sold for $330 is simply being dishonest in order to over emphasize the negative. On top of the crossover upgrade we have also upgraded the woofer, tweeter, input, and cabinet on these speakers since 2007. But what I find so curious is what drives someone to the point of dishonesty just to bash someone? And this is really quite minor for Gene antics. Some of you may remember when Gene was posing on our forum as an owner and bashing us. Even more egregious was Gene’s promoting of people to go on other forums and bash us whenever anyone made a comment about Axiom. I know this was happening because Gene pissed one of them off once and he sent me the mail trail between him and Gene.

So back to the question; what causes someone to react this way? A viable answer would be they are religious and you are talking heresy to them. In that scenario the heretic (me) needs to be severely punished for not agreeing with their dogma. I think I should add that I see the blame for things falling apart between Gene and myself as lying entirely with me. I know better than talk about the results of our scientific investigation with someone who holds strong beliefs about what they can hear. But in Gene’s case I missed his change from being interested in the results of double-blind listen testing to being dogmatic about what he can hear. In our last visit together, I set up a double-bind listen test to demonstrate that one of the beliefs he was promoting was not actually audible. He did the test and could not hear any difference. His reaction was not what I was expecting. I was expecting he would find the result interesting and revealing of one of those myths in audio, which previously Gene liked to expose. Boy was I wrong; the reaction was anger and comments like “well I can’t hear it on your speakers” and “we should incorporate his suggested changes in our design just for the sake of being able to claim they are over engineered” (over engineering is now a good thing in Gene’s belief system).

So here we are a decade later and my punishment continues. The fact is that Gene really liked our V1 and V2 products back in the day but now he claims that speakers in general have gotten better since then, and I am sure that is true for many brands, I know it is for ours.

Audioholics Review from February 2008:

Despite the few shortcomings I found with the Axiom Algonquins, they certainly proved to be among the best sounding speakers I've heard in this price class, and especially in their genre of outdoor speaker systems. Their ability to give you a full spectrum of sound, solid bass extension, and plenty of efficiency and power handling makes them ideal for those looking for quality bookshelf type speaker systems for their gaming room or covered barbeque area. Seeing how most outdoor speakers underperform sonically, I'd venture to say the Algonquins would really draw attention to themselves to visiting friends and family members whom aren’t accustomed to having high fidelity sound outdoors.

The fact that Axiom offers color matching to further blend into your room décor is an added bonus that virtually no other manufacturer offers. Their prompt and unparalleled customer service and very generous return policy makes them a safe buy for anyone not sure if these speakers are right for them. My only caution is to be mindful of placement as I don't recommend fully exposing these speakers to all of the weather elements outdoors since they are a ported design.

After spending a few weeks listening to these speakers in my workout room, they have earned a permanent position and have dethroned my Klipsch AW-525’s. I can't think of a higher recommendation than that and only hope one day Axiom decides to offer a no compromise line of speakers to go after the ultra high end of the market and show off what they could do when budgets are freed up. In the meantime, I will be making good use of my Algonquins.

Axiom Audio Algonquin
MSRP: 330/pair (including delivery anywhere in North America)

For clarity ... the post that Ian just put up has a reprint of the AH review.

It was Gene who did the review.

Somehow, it went from one of the best speakers in its price range to a red circle with a line through it saying no.

This is called an agenda. And it isn't an honest one.

Craig, I fully agree he continues to have an agenda and it is not honest.

Yay! We are in agreement.

I lived through the initial freak-out and backlash from Gene era. It was tough. As an Axiom owner for 15 years now, I felt unable to name what brand speakers I owned for fear of unjustified criticism from people that had no experience with Axiom, and only the minions that Gene sent forth to bad-mouth the entire Axiom line.

Gene is a tool... Like a worn down screwdriver that can't do anything helpful any more and is only good for stabbing at things.

Nick - It's nice to see you getting your Mojo back.

Yes, Nick. You are now ready for that very scientific YABBA DABBA DOO test with Craig and Gene.

Hey, we can't help it that you get too tired to listen after 5 minutes.

You need aural Viagra.

Hee hee...good one, Craig.

Thought I would comment on the suggestion of offering Gene to participate in a double-blind listen test. The problem I see is that it would likely be futile and even, in an odd way, harmful to the pursuit of science in sound quality. I can remember the first time I ran into speaker design dogma. It was in the 80s at the NRC. A guy came in with a speaker design that included a little chamber behind the tweeter dome. His line of thought was that this chamber could lower the resonance point of the tweeter and therefore would make his speakers superior in sound quality. I should note that the lowering of the tweeter resonance with the chamber is sound, it works. The problem is simply that it is unnecessary depending on your crossover point. In the double-blind listen tests that ensued his speaker lost against the ones that had the superior family of curves. To me I thought this would be an awesome revelation for him; it demonstrated the importance of the family of curves and that his invention would not matter unless it had a positive affect on the family of curves. But that is not what happened. He just got angry with Floyd and was going on about how the testing at the NRC must be flawed. Afterall, everyone he had told about his invention before demoing it for them thought it sounded amazing. We did not have audio forums back then but if we did, no doubt he would have been out there bashing the work being done at the NRC, perhaps for decades on end. This presents an interesting question; are we better off ignoring these dogmatic fanatics and just getting on with making better sounding audio products utilizing science? They will never change their mind, instead they will just get angry and blame the testing in some way, and this anger will result in public bashing of the science.

Ian - pardon me for going into humour mode:

1. I have a better chance of winning Canada's Got Talent than we have of Gene agreeing to the double blind test. My posting this was tongue in cheek.

2. Over the years, I would say 95% of audiophiles claim they "don't need a blind test" to hear a difference between amps, preamps, speakers, speaker wire ... etc ...

It's funny, even if one ASKS the person this question: "If you are so sure you can hear the difference, why not take the blind test?", one is greeted with profanity. I have even been called a cultist in this regard.

3. Rational conversations are impossible with 95 percent of audio buffs. Allow an example: I Was told the M100's could not POSSIBLY match the Legacy Signature SE's because the Legacy's quasi ribbon tweeter is far superior to the "cheap Axiom dome tweeter."

When I pointed out that Harbeth uses a similar dome tweeter in their Stereophile Class A speakers, the person replied with "The Harbeth is a super expensive tweeter with solid engineering behind it."

SOOOOOOOOOOO ... I had to ask ... Who makes the tweeter? What are the parts cost? Have you directly compared the Harbeths to the Axioms?

The answer was "no, and I don't need to."

THAT is the state of this industry, and it is fueled by Stereophile, The Absolute Sound and other magazines.

The simple truth is most people would rather be TOLD what to buy instead of buying what their EARS tell them is the best sounding.

Craig,
Putting company marketing aside (which i think DeSalla is a part of ...and blowing his own horn as an expert is an important part of keeping him in that loop ... boosting an ego is probably also a primary part but it’s the latter which can pull in the money) ....

I believe, for most buyers, in the high end category, it’s a pride of ownership thing, being able to put a “great” system in their living room without putting a lot of time and energy into it ... brand recognition and looks are paramount ... sound is the 3rd or 4 fourth thing on the list (if on the list at all). I believe a lot of these buyers would not be interested in doing anything close to critical listening (it’s s actually scary to them). They just want something that another buyer like themselves would not look down upon and they can talk up.

To be hit with the idea that their system is less then “great” requires Them to hit back with justification. Marketers and sudo experts give plenty of a ammo for for that.

What Craig and Rich describe feels right to me.

I have to tell you, from what I have witnessed amongst my peeps, speaker size or looks did not influence their decision around what speaker sounds best. You have to know though that my peeps are not audiophiles although they are becoming far more discerning as they listen to their systems, mine and others'. I'll also qualify all this by saying, as you all know, I am no expert who conducts formal audio tests all day. I do have a ton of experience with formal testing and characterization (not in audio) though and know the biases and pitfalls and worked very hard, and still do, with large teams of people to minimize them. So I am always skeptical about these things but not closed-minded.

I also like to think I am not influenced by size or looks either. I mean, just look at my experience and history of my posts on these boards. I like the M3v4 better than the M80v2 and so do others. And I prefer the M5s over the M100s. Now Ian and Craig may think I'm nuts but hey...that's what works in my rooms. And Ian, may you live long and prosper for bringing the active LFRs to market.

My ears starting ringing when i heard "double blind test".
(Yes, still occasionally trolling the boards when time allows.)

Interesting conversation. Not much new here (except for a few more details of behind the scenes stories that developed situations).
Those who seek objective truth are confronted by those with idealistic belief. It is the argument of ages (religion, audio, climate change...).

The double blind tests are fun if not anything else. Tried some of these in my own home and it wasn't any different an experience from the one at the Axiom factory though i found the remote control to be a slower switch than our manual one. If i recall, i ended up picking the B&W speaker over the Axiom but both had close scores.
I've found that i like the sound of Monitor Audio over Axiom (this one tested at home) except for the heavier MA bass. Now that MA has moved to a 3-way design, i would love to try this test again.
Lately i've found myself not enjoying my Angstrom Legatto office speakers so much. The low end sounds thin unless i really turn up the volume and the clarity at the midrange and high end is almost too sharp on the ears. It is better at a distance but that doesn't work well while sitting at the desk. In contrast, the Tannoy Revolutions that sit on top of the Angstroms have a muted vocal component but nicer bass for lower volumes. I might switch them both out for something else.

And back to on topic, yes that was a dig at Axiom. There was no need to include a brand name as part of that youtube video discussion let alone a very specific brand in which there's been known public animosity in the past between the two entities.
Audioholics, move on already!
Sheesh.

Mike, no doubt in your line of work, the whole DBT and ABX testing gets a lot of attention. You can go down a very dark, deep path trying to control all the variables until you lose sight of what you were trying to accomplish in the first place. LOL!

This is off-topic but I have to say it. This whole discussion around bass sounding thin and wanting to turn up the volume to get emotional involvement is very interesting. Folks think they need a bigger amp or a better subwoofer. Now I am discovering this is not the case. With the active LFRs, I am getting emotionally involved in the music at much lower levels. In fact, the lower levels allow me to enjoy a bigger 3D soundstage (compared to passive v4) even though my actives are only eight inches away from the front wall.

I'm not done yet. LOL!

I remember 15 years ago, I was in a session with a bunch of big wigs from GE. These guys always asked the tough questions. They asked me how I knew that all of "their money" I was spending on "Ensuring Robust Execution" (ERE) was working. ERE is a set of training, tools, people and methods that strive to ensure products are safe, functional, performant and secure. I could have shown them a bunch of fancy engineering metrics my team used to continually monitor ERE performance but these guys have a 10 second attention span. Instead, I pointed them to our VP of Marketing who was responsible for surveying Net Promoter Score (NPS). He illustrated how our NPS was steadily increasing over a 4-year period and he said it was directly correlated to our product quality improvements.

Now I don't know Axiom's NPS. However, I have a 12 year history with Axiom. There is no question, absolutely no question in my mind, acoustical performance over this 12-year period has improved by leaps and bounds. Beyond just me, I have folks, who aren't into audio like I am at all, coming over to listen to my gear and they are learning that living with their gear ain't a good way to live. I have to admit this is a slow, grinding process on their end; it's not instant. But nonetheless, it is indicative of the brain comparing between multiple experiences and coming to a conclusion.

A practical person like myself would look at all this and say "Hey, whatever they are doing appears to be working." This includes Family of Curves and listening tests and who knows what else. How much of this can be attributed to listening tests vs. other efforts I don't know. But if Axiom stands by their listening tests, then they must be keeping score. Why else would a company spend money on something that doesn't work?

Mojo, when you got the actives, you did get a bigger amp and a better subwoofer. Those 6.5's are tuned to about 38 Hz and hit hard. 98 percent of your bass is at or above 38 Hz.

They are also linear in the upper regions, and give killer performance.

If you want to make the EP500's sing with them, put the low pass at 40 Hz and bump them about 3 dB above the mains.

Yes sir, I understand what you are saying and thank you for the 40Hz tip. I shall try that when I move them into the cave. As for the living room, absolutely no need even at -33.

I was trying to point out that with the LFRs, you may not need a bigger amp or a better sub but I suppose it may not read that way to some folks - like you.

I went back & brought up the many controversies in various audio forums that surfaced in the spring of 2012 in which I reluctantly participated. It does not stir fond memories for me of that period.

While much of this nonsense finally went away over time, it is amazing what long memories some people harbor. Unfortunately they continue to regurgitate their nastiness every once in a while...

TAM

Yup, I remember clearly.