Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Speaker Comparison - M60Ti vs M60v4

I will list the quick setup info here. Much of this method has been used in the past and remains similar with some changes. Previous setup info on the auditioning methods can be found here:
https://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/u...nnoy-vs-axiom-vs-monitor-audio-very-long

Methods
Two setups.
The first uses a Russound 2.1 speaker selector. It has volume adjustable knobs to adjust for differences in speaker efficiencies and can connect two amps and two speaker sets with easy push button selecting between them (no more than 0.5s to switch between speakers or amps).

The second setup uses two Sonos boxes connected directly the amps with each Sonos box playing the same songs, synced, but as different 'rooms'. Two tablets running Sonos but with different rooms selected were used with the mute function as the 'switch' (pressing mute on one while unmuting the other). The switch occurred with less than 0.5s turnaround. As such, Sonos software was used as the pre-amp and the Sonos boxes were the processors. In the instance where the Axiom LFR were used for comparisons, different amps had to be used for different speakers to accommodate all the amp channels for the Axiom LFR speakers. For any listening sessions without the LFR, speaker pairs were run off the same amp, not different amps. It is a caveat for those who believe amps impart such a different sound that will somehow invalidate the listening test results with the LFR tests. However, we will be following up with amp vs. amp listening tests using the same speaker set to eliminate this factor.

The test songs were played through the following:
Source: Sony UDP bluray or Sonos (all songs ripped from original discs in FLAC)
Preamp/receiver: Denon X4400H (HT room) or Sonos (main floor)
Amps: Anthem MCA30 (HT room), two Musical Fidelity Model T (for LFRs), Parasound Halo A21 (main floor)
Cabling: standard 12ga or 14ga copper generic and mixed common brand name interconnects (like that matters). All speaker wire runs were under 15 feet.

These auditions were done in two separate locations to provide a subjective comparison of a large, uncontrolled vs. smaller, more sound-designed room. The listening auditions took place in two rooms. The first is a sound controlled home theater about 16 ft by 13 ft with heavy carpets, big lounge chairs and curtains over the doors. The second is a typical living room with hardwood floors, some seating and some curtains and a size of 18x16 ft with 10-ft ceilings and open to one side into other rooms.

Listening sessions were done using the same test songs and SPL levels were matched with pink noise from the seated position prior to listening. Songs were heard in stereo (not mono) while A/B switching, using only single speakers from each pair located 10 feet (HT room) or 12 feet (living room) away from the central listening position. Only “direct” mode was used in the preamp/receiver for these sessions

Speakers were setup staggered with one inside and one outside each pair. Although this shifted the stereo image slightly from the listener's perspective, it did not help the listener determine which speaker set was playing, nor did it change the evaluation of overall soundstage.

Primary Test music:
Holly Cole Trio- I Can See Clearly Now (vocals, bass, clarity, sibilance, live sound, piano)
Ambrosian Junior Choir- Sao Gan (vocals, pitch, echo)
Eric Clapton Unplugged – Signe (midrange guitar, brightness on whistle, live sound)
Future Sounds of London- Calcium (range of mid to low bass notes, detail in midrange knocking and low end, stereo imaging)

Secondary Test music:
Patricia Barber – Nardis (complex midrange, drums, various instruments, clarity)
Jesse Cook – Switchback (stereo imaging)
John Hiatt – Cry Love (vocals, midrange, stereo imaging)
Rainmakers – Different Rub (mid bass, low bass)
Martin Sexton – Black Sheep (vocals, live sound)
Stevie Ray Vaughn – The Sky is Cryin (guitar, live sound, fun)

The speaker brands compared were:

• Tannoy Definition D700s
• ADS 1590
• Axiom Audio LFR880
• Axiom Audio M60 v4
• Axiom Audio M60 Ti

The listening auditioners include three people, one female and two males in the 40 plus age range (and nothing more will be said about that). All three are long time stereo or audio files and are accustomed to doing critical listening having heard dozens of speakers over the years. At least two have had multiple trips to the Axiom factory and all three have undertaken blind AB audio listening sessions.

There are no ‘winners’ in the audition just to be clear. I’m only reporting what I perceived as sound differences in character between these sets of speakers. I will however state what my/other auditioners' preferences were after everything was done.


Axiom M60Ti vs M60V4

Usually I save the summary for the end but for this one the summary will come up front. I was quite surprised after even a very short AB listening between these two, to hear such a distinct difference rather than a more subtle difference that I observed when hearing the v4 for the first time but NOT in an AB fashion with the earlier Ti model.
Unfortunately I do not like the new tweaks!

It is quickly at this point I will note, the second person male auditioner was in agreement with all of these same observations which he made independently and he made blind as he did not know what speaker was playing and had no idea what was the original or what was the new Axiom M60 was regardless. He had never heard Axiom speakers before.

As mentioned I was not going to drone on too much about my new details so the short version of the differences from my observation and opinion are:
• The v4 mid-range and vocals are more recessed, pulled back compared to the original Ti.
• The bass is more fat and pronounced in the v4 compared to the original Ti and it does not sound as well defined.

Both of these qualities in my opinion make the M60 v4 sound like they have a lot less clarity than the earlier Ti model. Note that I'm not using the word accurate because you can still hear small details during music playback with the v4, but you just cannot hear them as clearly. It can be described as listening to two speakers that are identical except one, the original M60Ti, has the treble setting at +2/+3 with a bass at 0 while the other speaker, the M60 v4 has its treble setting at 0 and it's bass at +1. There's no doubt that the original M60Ti is forward, more open and on some songs or in some instances can still be considered bright. Our M60Ti also still uses a resistor on the tweeter which reduces its output by a decibel to two.
In contrast, our third (female) listener actually preferred the new M60 v4 but only because of that difference in what they described as the original M60Ti having too much treble. They preferred the more toned down high end and also liked the slightly heavier bass but did note that it seemed less defined as well.
A perspective on listener preferences for treble and bass is noted here in part by a journal article written by Dr. Floyd Toole.
https://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/u...re-starting-to-oggle-new-gear#Post444000

I actually went looking online and found an audio reviewer blog (not a scientific opinion) but seems to describe what my impressions were when you compare a more forward vocal and mid-range versus a more recessed speaker and what that seems to do to the sound.
https://audioaural.com/should-treble-be-higher-than-bass-the-3-reasons-why-you-should/
The short summary of what they say, why treble should be more apparent than bass, is as follows:
To balance the low-end rumble
To reduce the mid-frequency muddiness
To project vocals better in the mix
From my evaluations, i couldn't agree with this more. If you go too far with treble, then you get an overly bright speaker like the Ti was commonly described.

On other notes The finish of the new v4 speakers is outstanding and I'm excited to test out the new surrounds especially the QS10s. However, considering that the M60s anchor the sound for music, I feel like I would be giving up that fantastic clarity for something less if I were to keep the new versions of the M60. Consequently, if I don't keep the new M60 v4 then that means the VP180 would also have to go back and maybe even all of the surrounds as well!


The Problem with Speaker Comparisons - Push and Pull Between Positive and Negatives

My conundrum now is trying to decide if I'm going to keep any of these v4s or whether everything would go back and I would hunt for some older versions of QS8s (Boston Cherry vinyl wrap) to round out the extra two surrounds that I wanted to add to the system. I would also have to keep the smaller VP150 center channel because it tonally matches with the original M60s (the VP180 has the same pulled back midrange and vocals). About the only thing I might consider keeping right now is the new EP500 sub which although would have a slight color difference from the rest of the speakers in the room this is not an uncommon thing for many subwoofers. If people were to buy any other subwoofer such as an SVS you would be stuck with black or some other color anyway. And if I get a second EP500 in the same color then the two subs would match and the rest of the speakers in the wall would be the old original Boston Cherry vinyl wrap. Following this path would save us a ton of cash!

On the other hand, the new v4s are a beautiful speaker. The wife is happy with the sound and prefers the tonal difference. The new surrounds (QS10s) i expect will be an awesome fit and the much larger VP180 centre channel now finally provides a more expansive centre sound for the big tv that doesn't anchor the sound only right in the centre. But, who listens to the speaker more in the media room? (not the wife). Do you buy a speaker set for its looks or sound quality? Which is more important? For our main floor i would say aesthetics plays more of a role but for the home theatre, i'm less concerned. Where is most music played? On the main floor, not as much in the HT room but recessed vocals for movies?

There is a constant back and forth on the decision making process and i never thought i'd be in this position with the V4s.

This whole experience hearing the new Axiom v4 versions was very surprising and very unexpected. I had expected to hear changes that would have made the speaker very similar to the original version but perhaps with a bit more tamed high end. I could probably consider being satisfied with the fatter warmer bass, but the loss in clarity of the high end vocals and mid-range is exactly the opposite of what I was seeking. Unless I can somehow adjust the treble a bit on the Denon AVR to see what that could do, I’m very much leaning towards returning the v4s.

Newer is not always better. Perhaps they’ve made the v4 speaker flatter in response, but small peaks before that gave it a forwardness and clarity in the midrange and vocals, or a heavier low end bass taking over, have now reduced what I find to be the best sound for clarity.

When I put a pair of Angstrom Legatos (bookshelves) on the main floor, and more recently these ADS-1590s, when our Tannoy speakers we're being repaired, both of us were shocked at how much clarity there was in the sound without even having sat down and done any critical listening. It was so noticeable I said out loud “geez that’s clear and sounds so detailed”. It is what sent me on the hunt to consider moving on the Tannoy speakers to something else (the Angstroms are too small for the room, the ADS belong to a friend and will go back, plus are older vintage speakers and I fear turning them up too much for my liking).

Today I will be testing out the LFR 880 against the Tannoy just to see how the new Axiom v4 sound pits for clarity against the Tannoy. I already tested the original M60 versus the Tannoys many years ago and you can see the results in this thread
https://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/u...nnoy-vs-axiom-vs-monitor-audio-very-long

Along these lines of treble adjustment, has anyone used the Audyssey curves and tried some adjustments like this?
Perhaps i can run Audyssey and manually adjust the curves for the M60v4 mains and VP180 to enhance the high end a bit. This of course means i would always need some AVR with such a capability if i were to ever switch the Denon for anything else in the future.

You may be able to just use the tone setting in the avr.

Unfortunately not that i can find. There are tone settings when the HEOS Music function is engaged but aside from that, nothing else. There's also a note that tone settings cannot be used in Pure Direct mode and as such, even Audyssey likely would be shut off in this mode.
Of course that is the typical mode i would be using for music playback and hence, i don't think using Audyssey is an option.

The LARSA sweeps:

In the past i have used Mono mode to compare speakers including the side by side test. I've read about the benefits and drawback of using mono vs. stereo and i can see why both can be important. The side by side placement thing is already part of these listening tests so that aspect is somewhat moot (one speaker of each was placed inside then outside of the other so the pairs are staggered).
Putting them side by side, using one speaker each, and at distance, helps to eliminate reviewer preference by knowing which speaker is playing if the reviewer is too close and can tell L and R apart. That wasn't the case here either as our pre-tests observations showed although the stereo image shifted slightly, the reviewers still could not tell which set of speakers were playing at any time.
Using the side by side, one speaker only, mono method also reduces the assessment of soundstage IMO.
It has also been argued in the past that listening in mono is not something a person would normally do with the speakers, so maybe it has uses for testing purposes but it isn't a realistic listening situation then either. This is the sticking point about presenting observations of any kind. Someone will always try to poke holes in the method that leads to the observations, but there's always holes in the methods. Nothing has 100% certainty (it is why science has the concept of 95% confidence intervals). So you present your methods and know any common shortfalls of the method but also the reasons why the method was chosen.
In our case, given the number of speakers to test, we went with the "realistic scenario listening" method:

• Here are the two rooms in which we hear these speakers.
• Here is where they are (relatively) typically placed. We listen in direct mode (main floor) or direct and DD surround (media room).
• We have three listeners/users/reviewers. One female, two male. All are experienced in having done A/B listening tests before and know how to listen critically for certain details. Two are very familiar with the test songs, one is not.
• The measurements taken with LARSA are from an older iPad. There are likely limitations with the accuracy of the graphs produced.
• All nearby house appliances (furnace, fridge) were turned off during sound sweeps and listening sessions.
• Other parts of the method and songs list were provided in previous threads, etc. etc.

On that note, it can be stated that as the speakers were swapped in an out, they WERE put in the positions of the other test speakers as a quick test to see if such a small change in the placement in the room made a difference. It did not make a significant different in judging the overall character of each speaker but i didn't have time to take new LARSA measures for every single location (i have one LARSA left to take which is the LFR in the media room).
Additionally, the placement of these speakers in each room was based on where they would normally be located during everyday use (the realistic scenario method). Although there is some room to move the speakers left and right and to a lesser extent some distance away from the wall (on the main floor), the positions in the media room are much more restricted to two distances from the L and R walls and the same distance from the back wall. Even IF this limitation caused a change in speaker response, there's nothing we can do about it. I can't move the LFR two feet into the living room because now they are sticking out so far into the room they look ridiculous and are somewhat in the way of the walking path toward a chair. I can't move the Tannoys two feet more to the right or they would be in front of a doorway, etc.

Keep in mind though that we have two very different rooms in undertaking the listening sessions so it becomes hard to argue that both these rooms are solely responsible for adding some sound character that makes the Axioms (or Tannoys, ADS) sound like they were observed rather than what someone else has reported. The M60 V4 had the same tonal recessed character as the LFR880s. This was independently reported from all three reviewers so it is easy to conclude that this sound character belongs to the Axiom v4 speakers and is not an artifact of the room.

As mentioned in the other thread, the three reviewers have done A/B tests several, if not many, times before. Having three people report the same observation gives greater credibility to the results than coming from a single person doing listening tests without a measuring parameter (such as LARSA) and preferably coupled with an A/B test.

In the example you provided on the M5 new locations, you had a difference in LARSA, but did you setup an A/B listening test with one speaker in location A and the second identical speaker in location B and undertake a listening test blind, and before you looked at any LARSA data? (looking at the data in advance would skew your perception that there must be a sound difference and then match it to what you saw in LARSA). We did our listening tests first, and i did the LARSA sweeps last.

There is no argument that moving a speaker to a different location in the room will provide something of a different frequency response, but validating the perceived changes to audible observations is harder to prove without the closest you can get to an objective listening test. I remember back when Totem was selling little cones to put on top of their speakers stating it focused the sound and the high end became smooth, clear, or whatever (https://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/beak-tweak.21904/). People actually bought these things. It is so easy to have done an A/B test to know it was a pile of nonsense, but how about an A/B test using three people, with two speakers, one with and one without the cone and in two different rooms? Follow that up with a LARSA sweep and you have several major points with multiple observations to prove the observations are likely real. I suspect some people will read this review of the Ti vs V4 and think it's bunk, but think about the effort put into these listening tests compared to what the average Joe does at home and then reports on the forums.

Unless you have specifically done an A/B instant switching listening test with the Ti vs. V4, the human audio memory is just way too short to recall the differences. During our surround sound testing, i had to stop the sound, change the cables for the VP150 to the VP180, then quick switch the M60 Ti for the V4. This took less than 30 seconds yet it was hard to hear that more recessed character on the V4 in this method vs. just using the A/B switch and M60s alone during the stereo pair tests. If i never had a speaker switcher, i would have thought the V4 sounded just as good if not better than the Ti (i do believe the tweeter does sound smoother).
Hands down, you NEED an A/B switch to REALLY hear these differences with any accuracy and confidence in observations.

I dont have any 60s yet. Have two with 80s. Should be able to post graphs up in the coming bit.

That was interesting, thanks for posting all the details.

I'm glad I went with the M80s for my living room instead of the M60s. The M60s would have sufficed for my room, but I wanted the flatter high-end (based on the Axiom graphs).
I wonder if this is the same thing I experienced when I got a new pair of M22v4's. My wife and I found that we liked the M22v2 much better, so much so that I sent them back and got the M5s.

Do you have any of these comparisons using the M80? I followed some of your links but they seems to be all LFR or M60.

Would love to see those.
I"m bringing the LFR down to the media room today and will run LARSA again. For kicks, i know they are heavy, but i'll switch locations of the speakers with the M60 v4 and see if the LARSA sweeps show any significant changes. The locations would differ primarily by just the width of the speaker.

That certainly is interesting and partly corroborates the general concept that 'newer is not always better' (i.e. there are people that will prefer the earlier Axiom sound versions over the new versions). I know Axiom works towards a flat response end goal, but did it get so flat that the midrange clarity was pulled out too much for some preferences?
The first time i paired the M60 Ti against a few other speakers, i was shocked to hear the vocals sound a bit more muted in comparison. Up until then the running reputation for Axiom speakers was that they were bright. I suppose some upper end tweeter smoothing could have helped this phenomenon, reducing that harshness, but of course they've changed more than just that aspect over the years. Obviously it's a bit more complicated than that, but just some thoughts.
In our house we all agree that that Ti has the greater clarity over V4s. If i could get Axiom to build me their Ti in the new wood veneer and a VP180 version, i would order them!


I don't have any M80s but the LFR are the 880s versions.

In our house we all agree that that Ti has the greater clarity over V4s. If i could get Axiom to build me their Ti in the new wood veneer and a VP180 version, i would order them!


They probably would build you those or even ship you the ti tweeters

Well, over the weekend i had the chance to pit the LFR 880s against the M60 V4 and the M60 Ti.
Not sure i should do another complete write up though i suppose it might be worth its own thread on the topic.
The results have sent us down a path we had not anticipated.

Oh man, you're a tease chessero! Come on do it, do it!

Since i already compared the M60 V4 and Ti in our media/HT room (in this thread), i thought i would just add the LFR880s comparison vs. these two here as well.
I did not take detailed notes on this comparison. The most recent session was undertaken later last Saturday evening before i was breaking down the whole A/B setup (amps, cables) for the next morning, so the listening session was maybe an hour at most and a bit off the cuff. I just wanted to sit down and try out some other music for kicks while the LFR were still down in the media room.

A bit of background first.
About four years ago during our last Axiom factory tour, the main reason i wanted to travel there was to hear the new LFR speaker. We were evaluating whether we wanted to use the effect in the media room in part to adjust for a L/R speaker pull because of the distance-placement limitations. However, since that time we were looking for a large speaker with a big soundstage for the main floor to possibly replace our Tannoys and now that we finally have a pair of LFR here to test, we tried them out in the living room. We were considering the bigger LFR1100 for this area and for now picked up a pair of refurb 880s. In short, for a few reasons as noted in the other speaker comparison posts, we passed on this idea for the main floor, and because the 880s are a big speaker, it hadn't occurred to me to consider them for the media room. If we were to get LFR for that room, it would make more sense to get the smaller LFR660s.

Anyway, I had decided to take the 880s down to the media room as we had originally planned to test out the LFR soundstage which we did last week. It was good, wider for sure, but the M60 V4 or Ti still provide a very good, albeit a more collapsed soundstage with a very good stereo image across the front. The L/R pull is mild really so going with the LFR would be such a small difference that we didn't feel it would be worth the change considering the cost. The interesting part about that first LFR vs V4 session was we were focused on the soundstage and imaging and i actually didn't take the time to listen to the other tonal characteristics of the speakers. Now we come back to where i started this story; last Saturday just sitting down to listen to the LFR for kicks.

Axiom M60Ti and M60V4 vs. LFR880s

So, since I had everything still setup for A/B testing, I sat there staring at all the cables and amps mess and figured I would procrastinate before having to pack it all up. I thought I would trial the LFR880s against the V4 one last time. Put on a few songs from east coast artists such as the Barra MacNeils, Rankin Family, Irish Descendants and then some Barenaked Ladies (Gordon album).

On the very first Barra MacNeil song (Darling Be Home Soon) I flipped back and forth between the M60 V4 and the LFR880 and I was quite surprised. The LFR880 sounded so much more clear, more open than the M60 V4. The vocals were not lost in the midrange and frankly I thought to myself, this sounds more like the vocals do on the M60 Ti (and that sparked the idea to haul the M60 Ti back into the room to test them vs. the LFR880s once I was done with the M60 V4 test).

The midrange was fairly similar between the M60 V4 and LFR880s although there was more a muddiness to the M60 that seemed to lose the detail amongst the scrum of sounds a bit. This is something we noted in our earlier observations but in part may attribute this to the reduced upper midrange and tweeter energy (see the LARSA sweeps of the LFR880s and V4s) making the vocals especially sound less forward, more recessed and blending almost too much with the midrange getting lost somewhat in the midrange and instrument sounds. Conversely, the midrange on the LFR880s sounded nice and full but without sounding muddy. Perhaps that greater clarity mentioned earlier is part of the reason. Just looking at the LARSA sweeps after, when comparing the LFR880s to the M60 V4 in the same room, the 880s have a good hump in the 800Hz -2kHz point up 5dB from the lowest midrange point while conversely the M60 V4 have 5dB decline from1.5kHz to 3kHz. Additionally, the M60 V4 have a 10dB difference between the 200Hz to 600Hz range while the 880s only have a 5-7dB difference across this same frequency range. I always knew, long knew, that that M80 had a slightly different character than the M60. Way back in the early forum days, the easiest answers for newbs asking about the differences was to say “the M80 will mostly just play louder and is for bigger rooms” but it’s tweeter output always had a bigger hump/rise over the M60s. I probably should have been a bit less surprised as we were comparing essentially a M60 to a M80 version of the LFRs. I had not expected the tonal character to be THAT different.

The weight of the M60 V4 bass was far heavier than the older Ti so I used a few port plugs to tame the bass but I took them out for this comparison vs. the LFR880s. Well the bass of the LFR880 definitely overpowered the space. It wasn't as bloated sounding as the M60 V4 but there was just too much and it sounded undefined. We had also noted this on the main floor with the LFR880s as well but it was more pronounced in the smaller room. Looking at the LARSA sweeps after, it is notable how the M60 V4 has more energy through the 40Hz to 175Hz range compared to the LFR880 with multiple humps. There is also a distinct difference in the decline to its eventually lowest bottom end valley around 95Hz for the 880s but at 190Hz for the M60 V4.
I put the two port plugs into the LFR880s and it really improved the bass response (I will post the LARSA sweeps of the difference). It really tightened up the bass on the LFR880s yet on the M60 V4, there was less bass but still sounded undefined. It is interesting since the longstanding reputation of Axiom speakers was certainly not ‘warm’, ‘fat’ or ‘bloated’ in the bottom end or midrange but they have had some serious changes in the last 20 years.

Lastly, the soundstage again of M60 V4 (or Ti) vs. LFR880s. Here is where I give the LFR an edge about 70-30. The soundstage was much better on some songs. It gave them an airier and full presence in the room. Other songs, especially more bright recordings, it was far less obvious and neither speaker was a winner. Then we listened to some Barenaked Ladies (Gordon album – Hello City) and Page’s voice was pin point with the M60 V4 and while still sounding good and accurate, it was more diffuse and less pinpoint with the LFR. It was like hearing Page right in front of you (M60 V4) vs. hearing him up on stage with more of an echo around (LFR880). This is an example where that extra reflection effect takes the soundstage back vs. the M60 which present the vocals right up front. The LFR effects really do vary depending from recording to recording but as mentioned, overall 70% (general relative guesstimate from the # of our songs tested), the LFR effect adds a really good sound and greatly benefits the overall experience.

Now, since we heard this much greater clarity in the vocals and midrange with the 880s vs. the M60 V4, and knowing we reported the same observation with the M60 Ti vs. the M60 V4s, the next natural comparison was to listen for these specific characteristics (midrange, upper and tweeter, clarity, harshness, recessed, etc.) in the M60 Ti with the LFR880s.

Breaking this one down in a shorter summary:
M60 Ti compared to LFR880 – the Ti sounded thin, vocals and high midrange were tinny, actually caused some ringing in the ears on some sounds (banjo in Barra MacNeil songs), bass was anemic in comparison though tight and well defined.

Final Conclusions
M60 Ti
Sounds like the old school Axiom character; precise, bright high end with some harshness but nice tight bass and generally clear midrange. A fantastic value at $1200 a pair at the time.

M60 V4
The new M60 V4 has more recessed vocals and midrange than its predecessor and although it still presents great detail, just seems like it is harder to hear. The bass is much heavier than the Ti to the point where port plugs were needed which reduced the output but the bass still seemed undefined. The real disappointment thought was the lost clarity in vocals and midrange as that is definitely something I feel sounds best for a speaker. If the music drowns out the small sounds, if the singer is overridden by the music, it doesn’t sound like a high resolution presentation, not very clear reproduction of sound even though overall it is still a good speaker and sounds pleasant on the ears. I can see why some people will really like this sound.

LFR880
The LFR880s had a much greater clarity than the M60 V4 but without the harshness of the older M60 Ti in the midrange and upper end. Its bass presence may be a bit much for our HT room (and maybe even a bit fat to start) but putting in two port plugs really improved this sound character. Add in the LFR effect and the pleasant airyness, broad soundstage brought to most musical tracks, as well as the reduction if not complete elimination in our L/R pull makes the 880s a very appealing option to replace the M60s. If these are coming from the refurb section, the cost is very manageable aside from having to find a replacement amp for our Anthem MCA30 as I would be looking for a 5 channel amp to drive both a pair of LFR and the new VP180 centre without consuming too much media console space.

Overall I still think the Axioms sound more recessed compared to all the other speakers that we auditioned this past month (see all my other comparison posts), but for this HT room, comparing Axiom vs. Axioms and deciding which to keep, the LFR880s would be our best choice for replacement for the old M60 Ti.

LARSA sweeps of the M60s and LFR in the HT room

Since some people will ask, i'm posting the LARSA sweeps of the LFR880s with port plugs. The bass hump reduction is very evident.

Additionally, i'm posting the LARSA sweeps when the DSP is set to a room boundary setting of Far 2 and then Near 2 (without the port plugs).
We could not hear any distinct differences in a limited listening test of these settings. That involved playing back a song and one person slowly switching from the DSP 'normal' setting to Far 1, Far 2, then back to normal and then over to Near 1, then Near 2.
The LARSA sweeps also seems to indicate such small differences, it likely explains the difficulty in hearing any thing significant.

Does thedip at 125hz go away if you pull the speakers outfurther?

Just guessing, but SBIR at 125hz is roughly 26” . No corners to obscure comb filter in this setup. I see it repeating at 125hz intervals. Curious. Is your baffle 26” off front wall?

I did not try that with the LFR again in part because there is a limited distance from that wall to the seated position and reducing that distance makes the stereo imaging worse, BUT, it is notable that the M60 V4 has a hump at that same frequency and is the same distance from the back wall to the baffle. Same goes for the M60 Ti (has a significant valley around 95 Hz, not 125). If this was specific to the LFR880 then, well, we're all at a loss to adjust specific speaker distance for an exact room. Move a few inches in one direction, you get a valley at X frequency, a few inches another direction, you get a valley at Y frequency.

It is close to that for the M60 (about 26-27" with the toe in) but the 880s were out by another inch because of their size (was trying to balance front baffle without them being too close to the back wall as they are deeper than the M60s). As mentioned though, if the 880s suffer this, why did it not show at that frequency for the other two M60s?
Seems odd no?