Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater NRC data show Energy & Paradigm better than Axiom

In terms of frequency response and distortion, Energy and Paradigm are clearly superior to Axiom. In general, Energy and Paradigm frequency response curves are much flatter and the distortion figures are much lower than Axiom's.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/speakermeasurements/

Axiom needs to flatten the frequency response and lower the distortion of its speakers to be more competitive with Energy and Paradigm.

I think Energy and Paradigm need to lower the cost of their speakers to compete with Axiom.

This measurement site has already been beaten to death earlier this year do a search and see what comes up. If you are wondering what the axiomites here had to say.

Let's look again at these charts - I'll compare the M80s versus the Paradigm Studio 100s because I'm familiar with the Paradigm product.

On axis response for the Paradigm product is very flat to 700Hz (about an F5 for the musically inclined) and stays relatively flat until 12K, when on-axis response slips with a sharp -4dB SPL dip.

The Axiom M80's frequency response is "much" more erratic between say, 150Hz and 800Hz, but the highest variation from a flatline I can read is a thin sliver of a 5dB SPL dip at 625Hz or so.

Without a doubt the Paradigm product shows a flatter frequency response throughout it's effective range, but the M80 is still a very good and flat speaker, and at half of the cost of the Paradigm product, I can forgive the maybe 2-3dB SPL average difference in response (note: a 10dB difference in SPL equates to a perceived doubling of volume to the human ear) - and for the price, a pair of M80s probably sounds a lot better than a single Studio 100.

Bren R.

Moreover, jbmjr was the one who started those earlier threads.

I agree with Ken.
Ignore the bait.
Go fishing somewhere else.

Personally, I prefer to listen to speakers than to look at squiggly lines. And no amount of squiggly-line muckraking is going to diminish my enjoyment of my Axioms. I feel sorry for people whose lives are held captive by statistics.

In reply to:

---

Axiom needs to flatten the frequency response and lower the distortion of its speakers to be more competitive with Energy and Paradigm.

---

Ok thanks, ummm... but graphs arent everything and if you feel soo strongly on that then maybe you should ask for a job at axiom

It would be quite useful if Alan, Axiom's resident expert, can weigh in on this subject.

He has...here.

Hmmm... I own M60s. I've recently Paradigms in one of the local stores. I have never heard the Energys (Energies??).

I'm happy.

Do you work with, or sell one of these brands?

Now I'm questioning my purchase of the Axioms. I stupidly actually LISTENED to the speakers (including the Paradigms) when all I apparently needed to do was download some charts and look at the lines. I honestly don't know what I was thinking.

What some of the experts who hang around this forum have to say about this topic...

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=ST&Number=431&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=flatter&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=2&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=390

http://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=HT&Number=25075&Search=true&Forum=All_Forums&Words=flat%20response&Match=Entire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=24961

so who has the flatter response again?.....

I'm an expert?

Don't let it go to your head! Did you bring this weather with you? (Inside joke folks. Peter just flew into Cleveland and it's cloudy, 57 degrees and I'm freezing my a$$ off.

jbmjr,

Your statement, taken at face value, is misguided. Of course every speaker designer is always working to improve musical accuracy and fidelity of the products. But you should understand that the NRC curves must be viewed as a family of curves, and that they require careful interpretation by experts, read in context with data from double-blind listening tests of the particular speakers in question, especially if you are making comparisons between different brands and models.

Note also the date of the measurements. For example, the curves for the Axiom M80ti, measured by Soundstage in August, 2001, do not represent the performance of current production M80s. Speaker designers are always seeking to tweak the performance of models, and changes may occur in production. Part of my role at Axiom is to occasionally suggest small tweaks or refinements to the performance of a particular speaker, if it's achieveable without making other compromises.

Looking at one set of NRC curves in isolation is not very useful because the anechoic NRC curves do not tell the full story. The curves can be a reasonably good predictor of gross spectral aberrations or general trends in response. Some small irregularities can be insignificant in the upper octaves; but a nasty spike in a portion of the audio band where our ears are most sensitive (the midrange) may be quite audible. However, if the spike isn't repeated in the off-axis (45, 60, and 75-degree) measurements, it's unlikely to show up in the listening tests.

Moreover, small dips in response are inconsequential, whereas a large hump over a broad band of frequencies will almost always be heard in listening tests.

Even two different speakers that have generally similar, and smooth, frequency-response curves both on- and off-axis, will never sound identical in listening tests. "Similarly good," is a phrase I often used in blind tests where it was impossible to rank one speaker over the other, or they were ranked by a group of listeners within a few tenths of a point, which would make any tiny differences more likely the result of the listener location rather than inherent differences in the speakers.

The acoustics of speaker performance in rooms are so complex that technical measurements, at best, should only be used as a general guide. As much as we would all like the curves to be an absolute predictor, so the more obsessive part of our personality could say, "clearly, this is the best speaker," the science of speaker measurement is not there yet.

Regards,

I don't think so Jack. I'm setting on the 11th floor of an office building here in downtown San Francisco and looking outside it's sunny and about 70.

jr

i am sitting on the 5th floor, looking out.. it is partly cloudy, 10mph wind blowing west to east, and its about 93F degrees.

boat is already on the water, and i am heading to the lake as soon as i leave here in about 30 minutes.

ya'll have a good memorial weekend. i will!!!

bigjohn

I am just trying to decide which speakers to purchase, which is much harder than deciding on electronics.

Alan, thank you for your explanation.

"Note also the date of the measurements. For example, the curves for the Axiom M80ti, measured by Soundstage in August, 2001, do not represent the performance of current production M80s"

Maybe you can have Soundstage measure newer versions of Axiom products to demonstrate their improved performance.

jbmjr, I've probably enjoyed my Friday evening libation too much to be objective, but this..

In reply to:

---

Maybe you can have Soundstage measure newer versions of Axiom products to demonstrate their improved performance.

---

strikes me as, at best, confrontational. I mean, why are you so much more fixated on graphs than on the listening experience? Either audition some Axioms somewhere, or with the return policy in mind, order some. Your crusade does not ring true to me.

Call me conspiracy minded, but doesn't it seem like there are folks out there with an ax to grind for Axiom?

Could it be due to the candor with which Alan and others have dismissed so many audio myths (exotic cables, high dollar amps, etc...)? Are some people afraid sales of their snake-oil products are going to slip if the truth spreads?

In reply to:

---

Could it be due to the candor with which Alan and others have dismissed so many audio myths (exotic cables, high dollar amps, etc...)

---

And lets not forget to add one of the most prolific audio myths- "break-in".

In response to:

I mean, why are you so much more fixated on graphs than on the listening experience?


NRC data are extremely important to me because they represent OBJECTIVE information, which together with subjective listening tests, will guide my buying decision. I will buy speakers which have great objective NRC data AND which sound great(in my subjective opinion)on listening tests. I do not trust my ears 100% though (Who does?), so the NRC data will confirm what my ears are hearing.

In reply to:

---

I do not trust my ears 100% though (Who does?), so the NRC data will confirm what my ears are hearing.

---

hmmm, at first I read that and thought OMG! FLAME ON!... but I guess I understand what you are saying, to a point. But ya have to realize that really the only thing that truely matters is what YOUR ears DO hear. Listening to music or movies doesn't have to be some chemistry experiment (where things are perfect), its entertainment (where things are subjective)!

You make excellent points!

It struck me that within this board we tell people to trust their own listening, deride them for doing this - especially if you feel something is better (ie. amps, cd players) tout NRC input (Axiom design), dismiss NRC data (this thread)......

I started in this hobby for one reason - MUSIC. I think we get caught up in equipment, and forget that the music, movies, etc are what we enjoy. I realize that some people are in the arena for other reasons, but the music is key to most.

Regards,

BBIBH

There is one drawback to using the NRC charts to decide on speakers. There isn't anyone in the world that can point to a chart, and say "Everyone who listens to this set of speakers will like them (or hate them)". There just flat out isn't anyone who can do interpret the charts like that. If the chart is all over the place then most people probably will not like the speaker. People's tastes vary so much, that I'm sure a lot of people prefer the speakers with the worst chart.

I can't tell anything about which of the speakers in that list that I would like the best based on the charts. If I were buying right now, the charts would not be able to help me decide.

I don't care what the M60 chart looks like, I like the sound. Maybe it's a good thing there isn't an M60 chart on that page. I might read it and see some nasty hump, then stop liking them. (I'm not being a smartypants here - If If I saw a nasty chart on them, it would bug me forever. i'de be trying to hear it, instead of listening to the source from then on. Some things are better left alone.)

I have M60s and I'd bet that no hump exists. If anything there would probably be a lack of dbs in the low frequencies.

One of the best sounding speakers (touted by lots of audio affectionados) ...
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/595/index.html
This is its response curve...
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Mag16fig2.jpg

Another of the best sounding speakers in the world...
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/920/index.html
This is its response curve...
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/WILFIG5.jpg

Neither are flat.

Only problem with the Maggie measurements is that planars are notoriously hard to measure, particularly with regard to the integration of the backwave. In this case you are comparing apples to oranges.

In addition, the beauty of the NRC measurements is that they're done in an anechoic chamber and measured in a similar way. You can't really compare the Stereophile measurements, as they're done in a living room using MLSSA. So again it's apples to oranges.

BBIBH,

In reply to:

---

It struck me that within this board we tell people to trust their own listening, deride them for doing this - especially if you feel something is better (ie. amps, cd players) tout NRC input (Axiom design), dismiss NRC data (this thread)......

---

What exactly did you expect from a large and varying array of personalities on a public chat board?
Unanimous thoughts?

I think many here do not promote using only one or the other (ears or science data) as the sole source for information. If that is the perception by some, then they need to work on their character judgement skills.

Data can be corroborated by human listening tests and vice versa. This is what Axiom tries to do in their in-house tests and it is a philosophy that many agree with because it makes sense. They have tried to match up these NRC response graphs with what their testers have found to be a more pleasing sound. In most cases, and Alan has said this before, listeners tend to prefer a flat response curve from loudspeakers so Axiom tries to design such a speaker accordingly.
Someone looking for a speaker with bass oomph may look for NRC graphs that have an exaggerated bass hump. Good for them. They are trying to match up what they like to hear with what the science measurements as starting points. As long as they understand the material, then their approach to finding good sound is just as valid as the next guy except they have extra information the "purely by ear" person does not.

Just listening to music is NOT always the only key to most people. Many like to extend their enjoyment with the audio hobby to a deeper level by learning about the technical side of things, probably more than you think.
Some ppl like to listen to music, some ppl like to watch movies, some like to build audio components, some just like to collect vintage equipment (without intentions of even using it) or all of the above, or combinations of some of the above.
To each his own.

Oooh, Saturn, why do you insist on using information from a magazine?
They are leaving out alot of info esp. on speaker types and testing methodology (although i did find the page on how they did their measurements).

Best sounding speakers as defined by the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados"?

Take a look at some Thiels. Also a highly touted speaker and they do have a very flat response curve.
Can you detect a loss in control of the subjective vs. the objective here?

I don't think that was his point...there are plenty of speakers that sound good that are flat. I think Saturn was trying to point out that there are also speakers out there that don't have a flat chart and still sound very good to most people.

FWIW, I once talked to a speaker designer who said:

"You have to trust your measurements."

Thanks Zarak. I was about to send out a lenghty response and deleted it but you understood what I getting at. Thanks.

chess: Are the people on here more of "experts" than the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados" of Stereophile Magazine and or any other industry magazine such a Sound and Vision. Are you saying Alan is bunk?

you miseed the point....and proved it, all in one thread in responses to me and others.....


Regards,

BBIBH

In reply to:

---

some just like to collect vintage equipment (without intentions of even using it)

---

Guilty as charged. I have several beautiful pieces that I never use and I keep saying I need to put them on Audiogon but just can't bring myself to do it.

I think the point, BBIBH, is that single-factor analysis of anything almost always falls short. Buy a car based on nothing other than HP figures? A receiver based on nothing other than power specs? It seems to me that how the speakers sound to your ears would be most important and that the NRC graphs might be helpful in understanding what you're hearing.

BUT... who would buy a speaker, unheard, based on those graphs alone?

In reply to:

---

BUT... who would buy a speaker, unheard, based on those graphs alone?

---

Exactly. Thanks BigWill.


I guess we can look at it with respect to the other side of the coin where most current Axiom owners do not have a priveledge to listen to the models. People are taking our words and the NRC graphs to give a level of assurance that Axiom's are great products. It is better than just blindly purchasing.

I could go back maybe a year or so in the forum posts when someone negatively critized me because I mentioned that such and such "brand name" cost $5,000-$8,000. The frequency response curve of that speaker did not have a flat reading so they surmised that that "brand name" is inferior and most likely sounded crap without even hearing that "brand name".

BBIBH if you re-read my post you are the one missing my point.
I did not disagree with you as audio is entertainment and i also believe it should be the general goal. However, i also pointed out that for some, the technical and historical side of things, NOT just what they hear, IS the fun part about audio and there are alot of those ppl out there.
The thread started by those who sneered at someone interested in the NRC speaker graphs but maybe that is his cup of tea.

Saturn,

In reply to:

---

Are the people on here more of "experts" than the ever so trustworthy "audio afficionados" of Stereophile Magazine Are you saying Alan is bunk?

---

I would take the opinions of everyday users (as a whole) that are not bent on audio jargon or marketing over a person who writes for an audio magazine.
I would also take the opinion of someone who does or has been involved in controlled science over someone who is only providing their personal, subjective opinion.
Some ppl like Alan fall into several of these categories but even then, each opinion provided must be weighted on its own merit. Why trust an individual's opinion implicitly and without waiver? That would only make a person a blind fool.
Information from any source must be scrutinized for accuracy and if you think the material that contract writers put into audio magazines is always thorough, factual and accurate....

We could almost start a poll on this.
Which media source is perceived as having the most accurate information?
CNN?
Stereophile magazine?
Newspapers?
Internet webzines?
Scientific journals?
None of the above (for the cynics)

if I may jump in, I think BB's point was that the advice varies even on the same topic with the trust this, then don't trust the very same thing. We tell people to listen, then tell then they can't possibly hear differences!!

so in reading your post (which seem to have taken very serious tones lately)you state:

"I would also take the opinion of someone who does or has been involved in controlled science over someone who is only providing their personal, subjective opinion."

well, that would include you, and even then scientific data provides one measure, but as we all have different tastes and hearing abilitiies, should we trust what they hear and like? Our opinions are all subjective.

how do you "scrutinize" personal taste "for accuracy"

I doubt anyone other than speaker manufacturers can tell you the relative significance of the figures you are looking at. I also doubt it is easy to quantify in dollars what it costs to achieve a flatter response curve. You haven't said if cost is a factor, you just seem to have picked out 3 speaker lines and thought if fair to compare them on statistics. I agree it's a way to separate the wheat from the chaff but without listening under EXACTLY THE SAME conditions all the statistics become less meaningfull. Many people consider speakers1/2 the price of SLIGHTLY superior speakers a bargain. That's a question you have to answer for yourself.

abcd,
It has been a long time since you last posted. Welcome back.

In reply to:

---

the advice varies even on the same topic with the trust this, then don't trust the very same thing.

---

One has to personally decide whether the source of that information is credible and then rule out the 'advice' that is conflicting as untrue or invalid. At some point a person has to believe at least something someone tells them if they trust the teacher as credible in their knowledge.
No one doubts that fish can swim. It is proven fact. Open up enough biology textbooks and you will see that fish can swim, information based on simple research. Now if a fish forum had some poster that refuted that without proof (a subjective opinion) who would you believe? You might even have 10 ppl on the fish forum that tell you one thing and 10 that tell you another. Sorting out the correct information has to come from a variety of credible sources, period.
Certainly there are opposing opinions especially on forums where you have industry experts, affliated experts, enthusiasts and newbies. So who do you believe?
I think the Axiom forum members do an excellent job at not only posting their advice or experience, but also links to other information and ppl to contact regarding technical audio or HT questions for the enthusiasts search for knowledge.

A perfect example from some recent threads on a common topic:
Question:
What gauge speaker wire should i use for a 35 foot run to my surround speakers?

Typical forum responses
{subjective} You should use 14 ga Monster cable b/c it is what i use and it works better than generic.
{subjective #2} You should use 10 ga b/c otherwise you will have signal degradation and your mids will get muddy.
{subjective and objective} This depends on your speaker impedance. You should use 16ga wire for 6 or 8 ohm loads but should consider a 14ga wire if you have 4ohm surround speakers. See this link here where this industry expert did the math for wire loads and run lengths. You can also check out...or email the speaker company...etc.etc.

Note how all 3 responses have valid (objective) and invalid (subjective) information but ultimately with more than one source of information, the most correct information can be determined. Of those three responses, which one provides the most confidence for answering the question properly?

Personally i like to converse with those who have a good mix of credible sources for their information. Industry experts are one source but can be biased so beware (e.g all cables sound the same and here's why... EXCEPT for ours because...). Audio magazines can have some good subjective descriptions for equipment and usually give factual information on technology (e.g. how does dolby digital work?) but also may be biased in their advice (e.g. Paradigm xx brand is way better than B&W brand yy). Individuals on forums have their own preferences so also carry a bias in SOME advice like on what speakers sound better than others but this again is referring to the subjective opinion and not mathematical, phyisical or other scientific facts which can be provided by individuals and are NOT a subjective opinion. These facts can be reviewed from other credible sources.
At the present time the closest thing humans have to objective information is science so i prefer that as a basis for deciding what sources i deem as credible. Has this source backed up any of their statements with a carefully thought out and peer reviewed evaluation?
Sound and audio is not magic. It can be explained by physical and human behavioural concepts.

As for scrutinizing accuracy, the audio world generally accepts a flat response curve as 'accurate' sound. IF accuracy in sound is the goal to achieve, then a flat response curve should be the holy grail.

Excellent post chesseroo.

Well done, Chess... and a lot more focused and less ranting than your posts of late... maybe the break in the rain did you some good?

Bren R.

Minor lamentations over the dreary downpour and contents therein often termed 'particulate matter of consequence" and how they severely deter the normal functioning of biological processes.

Is this a Winnipegan only evening?
Certainly a first. At this exact moment, only BrenR, sidvicious and myself are online.
Coincidence or no?

Ok, coincidence it is.

Well thank goodness for the break in the rain. The crops were starting to suffer badly....that and it was keeping me off the golf course.

In reply to:

---

Another of the best sounding speakers in the world...
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/920/index.html
This is its response curve...
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/WILFIG5.jpg

---

funny, during my speaker search a local shop in town had those 'WATT's', the guy wanted me to hear "the best speaker on earth" to compare to what I was checking out... well we only put in my Rob Zombie CD for a few minutes... but they just were bottoming out and sounding like ass really, hehe

In reply to:

---

funny, during my speaker search a local shop in town had those 'WATT's', the guy wanted me to hear "the best speaker on earth" to compare to what I was checking out... well we only put in my Rob Zombie CD for a few minutes... but they just were bottoming out and sounding like ass really, hehe

---

It's amazing they've sold some many over the their, what, 20 year life-span. Must be a lot of deaf or stupid people out there.

Nah, those people aren't deaf or stupid. They just tend to buy into other people's opinions on how good (or bad) a speaker is without trying to determine it for themselves.

In reply to:

---

Nah, those people aren't deaf or stupid. They just tend to buy into other people's opinions on how good (or bad) a speaker is without trying to determine it for themselves.

---

I guess you can make that statement about any speaker, Axiom's included, no? Unless you're saying that Wilson's really are bad, and folks are just believing others that say they're good...

Sorry, I read your previous comment too quickly to catch the sarcasm.

In reply to:

---

Sorry, I read your previous comment too quickly to catch the sarcasm.

---

I'm not sure if it was sarcasm. I just don't know why INANE needed to denigrate the Wilsons. According to him, they bottomed out and sounded like ass... Hmmm, really. And you know, my friend took me for a ride in his 545i. What a crap ride. My wife's Sonata was way better for 1/4 the price. Kind of ludicrous, no? Now to say one doesn't care for the Wilsons or that they're overpriced is one thing, but to suggest that they suck...well, come on now.

Yeah, it's kinda like saying the VP150 sounds crappy, no?

In reply to:

---

Yeah, it's kinda like saying the VP150 sounds crappy, no?

---

If you say so.

In reply to:

---

Now to say one doesn't care for the Wilsons or that they're overpriced is one thing, but to suggest that they suck...well, come on now.

---

I was not trying to make it sound like they *sucked*

I only listened to ONE song on them and at an extremely loud volume.

I was just note'ng that I had heard them and found it amusing that they were told to me (by the sale rep) that they were the best on earth while I clearly didn't hear anything above average out of them.

Sorry, I guess I just misinterpreted this: "but they just were bottoming out and sounding like ass really, hehe"

...but thats what they were doing...

I'm not going to give some final stamp of un-aproval for listening to a pair of speakers at an extrodunary volume level, and heavy metal to boot. It was only my 2 cents worth of input, far cry from what I could give ya for 5 bucks!

That's cool...