Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Hearing Things Comparing one active speaker to another?

Flash back to 2014 and Bryston has their fully active model T that coincidentally were a co-operation venture between Bryston and our own Axiom team.

We have the added advantage of an omni-directional speaker. I know there was for a while a user here on the forum who has a pair of the Bryston spekers. I don't know if they were the active ones. But I am curious, how does the Active LFR stand up against the Brystons? Who else has active external crossovers?

Slim has the passive Model T and he tells me every day how much he loves it along with the 800 and dual 500v4 - all three of those subs equipped with the gin fizz/disco fever switch. He uses them in 2.1, along with two Anthem M1s with dedicated 5000W service, to fill his house which can easily double as a dance club.

While Bryston has a digital Model T, its sound power and listening window curves are not equal. And neither does the response attenuate at 3dB/decade. The Bryston is also less sensitive and is rated at less than half the average power. The responses are also not as linear mid-band. I am drawing these comparisons from the Bryston active brochure and the Axiom and Bryston websites.

I have not heard any Brystons so I unfortunately cannot satisfy you with any of my poetry.

There are other companies out there building digital speakers but none that I know of that are omni-directional or are focusing on the spinorama as Axiom has. I think most manufacturers continue to believe this is a niche and too risky a market to invest R&D into.

Also note the digital model T reaches 9Hz lower. The bass however, like the rest of the response, is not as linear as the digital LFR's.

It's a fact, not opinion, that the dual 500v4 fed off my DSPs add absolutely nothing to the immaculate bass I experience in my 1900 cu.ft. living room. This is bass that no Axiom passive, or Axiom passive/digital hybrid, has any hope of achieving without the aid of a sub. In again what is fact and not opinion, the digital LFRs in my living room outperform my M100/800/dual 500v4 in my 4,200 cu.ft. basement in absolutely every possible way.

Note I have no EQ in my living room and none is required with the digital LFRs whereas every other speaker except the Bose 601 needed massive bass attenuation. The Bose 601 of course has no bass.

Mojo - the LFR-1100 actives need no bass attenuation, but every other Axiom speaker does need bass attenuation, is this correct?

What other Axiom speakers require attenuation in this room?

Correct, Craig. M2 requires the least attenuation and for high(er) SPLs only. M3, M50, M5, M100, M80v2 all require a lot more with the M50 needing less than all the others in this list. The digital LFRs require none. They are perfect at all SPLs!

That is a head scratcher. In a comparable room position, physics tells us that the more extended bass response speaker will need more bass attenuation, unless the speaker with less extension has a large bump at a certain frequency range in the bass.

For example, an M100 is within a 4 dB window from 40 to 200 Hz. It then rolls off fairly quickly below 40 Hz.

The Active 1100 is in a 3 dB 2 window from 40 to 200 Hz.

Yet, in your room, the M100 needs bass attenuation while the Active doesn't.

You are presuming the curves for all the passives use the same engineering procedures as the actives. I think the derivation of the Family of Curves (FOC) at Axiom has evolved. For example, I'll posit one way that the derivation has changed since the v4 passives were engineered: the weighting factors used to derive the listening window and sound power for the actives are different than the passives. Measurement procedures and equipment may also have changed. I'll also speculate these new learnings will make it into version 5 and we will see different curves.

Mojo - got it. Glad you like your speakers.

Mojo are you using the same speaker location for your comparisons?
Two thoughts...
If you are you shouldn't (IMO) and if you aren't that would make one hell of a picture. Each series intermingled side by side (when looking towards them from the back of the room) some further forward than others maybe...but still. Would be a cool picture.
In theory there should be a sweet spot and mlp for each pair. Just trying to wrap my head around your last statement. Sorry, lol.

Blair, I am not using the same speaker locations for the comparisons. I always position the speakers and MLP for the greatest possible soundstage width and image separation while maintaining soundstage depth. I also try to move them away from the front wall as much as practical.

I have posted many photos of all the speakers within my living room and basement. I do not listen to them that way though. I just took those photos for laughs.

I am not sure what you mean by you are trying to wrap your head around my last statement. I don't know what statement you are referring to.

Looking at the sound power curves, the M100 has a visible bass bump while the LFR1100 does not... wonder if that's a factor ?

I had decided to bow out of the conversation. When a person starts with telling me I am presuming a lot of things when all I am trying to do is get honest information, it is time for the conversation to end. But, let's try to answer your question.

There is no "bass bump" in the Sound Power Curve - the bass region has pretty much the same curve in the SPC and Listening window chart. What the SPC shows is an expected roll off in the SPC with a front firing set of speakers. It's an easy thing to hear when comparing an LFR-1100, passive or active, to an M100. Go behind the M100, and it's a muffled sound. Go behind an 1100, and it's crystal clear.

The Omni speakers do a far better job at creating the live performance - again - you can try this easily. Stand behind a singer, and he/she sounds very much the same as when facing you. The Omni speakers, by design, are better than than front firing for this purpose.

Then there is the issue that an M2 also needs attenuation. Look at the response, and it is down 40 dB at 50 Hz. That's pretty much inaudible.

It's hard to imagine a room which would elevate the bass of the M2 to the point that it needs attenuation, while the LFR-1100 active does not.

This does not mean the listener didn't have a PREFERENCE for the sound quality of the LFR-1100 active. It may well be that, since the bass amps in the active speakers are not producing any mids/highs (as they are in the passives) that the higher level of bass isn't objectionable - in fact - it may sound GREAT, because all the mids and highs are still being created with such clarity.

Hope this helps. With 40 years in this hobby, 100's of blind listening tests and thousands of measurements to try to measure what we heard, I have learned there are few "facts" in the world of audio, and lots of preferences.

One of those preferences is just how many people don't like bass below 40 Hz. When you are in a GREAT movie theater - state of the art sound - with rare exceptions, all the bass spectaculars are 40 Hz and above. Most pro audio subs are flat to 40 Hz.

It's a very long discussion, one better over a drink or 2.

Thanks for staying subjective Craig.

Those of us without Omni. could use the 411.

I have heard of people whom also don't like Omni style because they can't wrap their heads around such a sound stage.{to great or expansive for them}Ohm Walsh in particular.

Depending on room, placement etc. attenuation may or may not be of value for any speaker

Thanks Craig. Interestingly enough I *did* see a bump in the sound power curve - going up at least 3dB between 150 Hz and 80 Hz - and didn't see a comparable bump in the Listening Window curve. I had figured that was coming mostly from the rear ports but that's just a guess.

BTW I'm looking at the frequency graph for non-powered M100's in case we're looking at different graphs.

Agree this is a long topic to discuss, but it's fun

Go take another look - you will see the two lines converge at 100 Hz - then the SP curve starts slowly dropping, as one would expect, as the frequency rises. Both curves have almost identical "bumps and shallow valleys" out to 15,000 Hz.

What may look like a "bass bump" is actually the slow decline as frequencies rise, as we expect, above 100 Hz. The shape of the LW and SP curve are the same, outside that slow decline.

At and below 100 hz, the 6.5 inch drivers would be almost spherical in response. Think about subwoofers - most are not "locateable" in a room below 100 Hz. The 6.5's act as a "point source" below 100 Hz, which is why the LW and SP curves are so close in the 30-100 Hz range.

An interesting graph would be a 6 colour chart showing the M100's, the passive LFR-1100's and the active LFR-1100's.

The M100's were Axiom's first "super speaker." In today's speaker market, one could take a pair of M100's and a pair of EP800's and have a speaker which is competitive with anything I can think of below $30,000. This is especially true when one thinks about the 12 Hz bass floor this system gives.

The LFR-1100 with the DSP takes the M100 and refines the experience with a much flatter response curve (LW) and a FAR better SP curve.

The LFR-1100 active goes even further, with a linearity unmatched in the SP curve by anything on the market.

Seeing all 6 curves on one graph would be a nice visual of the evolution of these 3 terrific speakers.

Is there a Millenial in the house that can do this and post the result?

The published frequency response graph for the LFR1100As looks to roll off at about 40 Hz. Seems like they would like an assist from a pair of Axiom subs, no?

A good subwoofer - especially a pair of subs - will absolutely extend the bass. The question is will the listener find it to be an assist.

During listening tests here over the years, we have had a lot of fun playing sine waves and asking questions of the people listening to the sine waves, under blind conditions.

The first was playing a 40 Hz sine wave and asking what frequency most thought the sine wave was. We gave 16, 20, 25, 32, 40, 50 and 63 Hz as possible answers. Over 90 percent guessed 20 or 25 Hz. Not ONE guessed 40 Hz or higher.

40 Hz is pretty deep.

The next was finding people's sensitivity to bass under 30 Hz. Some people find that, even at levels below the mains, that the addition of a 20 Hz program material ability into the capability of the system made for "slower bass."

Others loved the tactile bass, and identified it as palpable, not slow. This is where preference comes into play.

Some people also loved adding a house curve to the bass - essentially an elevated response from typically 30 Hz and below.

Speaking objectively, a pair of LFR-1100's - or any full range loudspeaker, can get a much more linear response with a properly dialed in subwoofer. A pair of $40,000 Magico S-5's also roll off below 40 Hz, and are down 20 dB at 20 Hz as a sealed system.

Many people would find that the most expensive subwoofer available is detrimental to the bass delivered by the Magico, while others prefer it.

Objectively, you are correct, in terms of extension. But we still have that preference thing.

Hi Craig, don't let that person jade your view of the board, as you have a wonderful, deep, broad experience and I find your posts to be very informative and without the hyperbole.

Mike - Thanks for the invite to stay active. You are correct, this is a great forum, and one of the few left in which audio conversation can be had without hype.

I even stopped at Audiogon, as the marketing BS in threads there is exponentially higher than here, and this is a manufacturer's forum.