Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Out with the new and in with the newer

If you like low resolution sound, the M3 or M50 is the way to go. Otherwise, the M2 is the clear winner.

The M3 and M50 present fuzzier images relative to all other Axioms because they're missing the mid-woofer. Some may prefer this kind of sound.

BTW, I made a typo in the last paragraph of the post just before yours. It was the M2 that was on when my buddy was listening; not the M5.

With all due respect to Mojo, the m3 and m50 do not deliver a "low resolution" sound. Their respective response curves resemble the response curves of the LS3/5A speakers from Rogers and other British companies, but with a deeper bass.

This sound is slightly warmer from neutral, and is designed to allow one to listen into the performance. A fairly accurate description (and this is based on blind listening tests to M2's, M3's, M50's and M100's) is the 5.25 inch driver will seem "bright" to some listeners, and neutral to others. The M3/M50 will seem warm to some listeners and neutral to others.

The overall response curves are within 2 dB of each other, and under blind conditions, difficult to tell a difference for most people.

Hope this helps.

Hmmm...no doubt for me or anyone else from my circles who has listened to the M3 and M50 vs. other Axioms that the M3 and M50 are warmer. Of course they also reach lower than the M2s.

However, the images from the M3 and M50 are also "fuzzier". They are simply not as well-defined. Another way of putting this is lower spatial resolution. So perhaps I should be using the term "spatial resolution" rather than just "resolution".

Craig's comment "...designed to allow one to listen into the performance" is an interesting one. I've made the comment before that when listening to the M3 or M50, I listen to the music and not the equipment. When I listen to any other Axiom, I tend to analyze where all the instruments and voices are located. Not so with the M3 or M50. This may of course be just my problem although I am also noticing the same behavior now from a few of my friends.

I just want to suggest here where you would choose an M3 or M50 vs. other Axioms.

If you want low spatial resolution, you would choose an M3 or an M50; an M50 if you don't want to use a sub and an M3 with a sub.

A good question is "When might you want low spatial resolution?" I've tried to answer that question. I've listened to vinyl on Spotify, tape and bad recordings on the various speakers. I've also listened in the background while cooking, reading etc. I've found that low spatial resolution is actually more satisfying to me for background listening and very bad recordings.

I don't know if what applies to me applies in general to other listeners. If it does apply generally, it may be something Axiom wants to consider as a feature in the form of a soft switch in the LFRs and a hard switch in the passives.

In addition to the above suggestion regarding M3s and M50s, I have a few more thoughts about speaker selection now that I've had a chance to listen to almost the entire Axiom line. These recommendations are to hit up to 104dBC "audibly cleanly" at MLP with minimal spend. None of this is scientific; it's my observations/notes:

A. Passives

1. For rooms less than 800 cu. ft., the M2s can be used without a sub.

2. For MLP <= 10 feet: M5 or M60 without a sub; M2 with a sub

3. For 10 feet < MLP <= 12 feet: M5 or M60HP without a sub; M2 with a sub

4. For 12 feet < MLP <= 15 feet: M80HP without a sub; M80 with a sub

5. For 15 feet < MLP <= 18 feet: M100 without a sub; M80HP with a sub

B. Active LFR1100

Use in any size room, when you want the highest possible spatial resolution. Use at MLPs greater than 18 feet.

Waaaaahoooooo!!! I think my M2s are gonna ignite with this workout at +6! The 1500 is gonna let out its smoke.

https://youtu.be/Srd6TwU6UoI

Interesting thoughts I've never considered my M3s as lower resolution or muddy. Compared to my M22 {a little more M2 compared to most other Axioms with double 5.5s} I guess that could be, in a total audiophile sense more accurate{sweeter highs}. Without a bass bump.

I was under the impression that the 6.5 in the M5 would add more dynamics or clarity over M22, with greater capability than a 5.5 inch driver.

Brendo, when I listen to the M3 or M50, I do not see images that are as well-defined in space as other v4. This is what I mean by lower "spatial resolution". M3 and M50 are like 480p, all other passives are like 1080p and active LFRs are like 4K. At least this is my analogy. And as I've stated, lower resolution has its place as I have discovered. At least with my ears-brain.

Certainly the M3 goes lower than the M2. In larger rooms, you need a sub with the M2 without a doubt. Some may argue that you also need it in the 10x10x8 foot room I referenced above but I don't find that with the M2. I can still enjoy music in a small room like that with M2 and no sub.

But even with the M3, when you start pushing it, a sub is a must. I can hear it distorting at around 95dBC peaks at 10 feet away.

The lack of a bass bump in the M2 is indeed very important. I can't put the M3 in my 1800 cu. ft. living room without cutting the bass by 16dB never mind an 800 cu. ft. room. Not so with the M2.

The woofer in the M5 reaches lower and is much more linear than the M3. The M5 can go to 103dBC peaks without distorting and no sub which is 8dBC better than the M3. You can use it without a sub in a 4,200 cu. ft. room like mine and still be very satisfied with the bass. But not the M3. You can push the M5 to 107dBC with a sub as measured at a 13 foot MLP without any distortion. No way you can do that with an M3 or M2.

The M2 with a sub is just as dynamic as an M5 within the above limit. If you have a sub, I'd recommend the M2 over the M5 because it is smaller, less expensive and may provide for easier room integration.

I have not had the good fortune of trying an M22v4 so I cannot compare and answer any questions about that. I would however expect that the M22v4 can go louder than the M2 because it has dual mids. Does it sound better than the M2 though? I don't know.

I've now placed the M2s in the livingroom as shown in the photo. They sound so good! No sub and bass integration is much better than M3, M5, M50 and M100 in this room. No sub needed to enjoy music in this 1800 cu. ft. space that is open to the rest of the house. In almost every way they are completely out-classed by the actives. A big surprise though, is that they cast a much wider soundstage and in this regard, they outperform the actives at least in this room! When I had the M2s in my 4200 cu. ft. room, they were equally as impressive but of course with subs on.

They are 10 feet apart, 2.5 feet from the front wall and MLP is 10 feet away. I am powering them with my 50W/channel Pioneer A9 (the dual mono one) and there is no need for any more power than that.

I read a couple of reviews on the M2 product page from a lady. She said no sub required and she's right. Of course if you want to feel the 15Hz sub-harmonic in Hotel California like Craig does, you'll have to pair them up with a 600 or 800.

My M5 friend is over and she's been listening to the M2s in my living room. She is again wondering why she bought M5s particularly given the bass response and wide presentation of the M2s in my room. It will be very interesting to see how the M2s respond in her room relative to the M5s. They are easy enough to carry.