Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo So how are the m40's?

uh-oh! shoulda taken that "mini van of speakers" outta there. That'sa oops.

Rich.

>>This has me scared. Should i REALLY be spending more money here?

Don't be worrying. You're looking for music speakers, right ?

The problem is that Home Theater now accounts for something like 90% of all speaker sales (from a couple of audio shops I frequent) and the M40s are one of the few models in the Axiom line which don't make a lot of sense for a pure HT (with a sub) system. M40s are like M3s except they also give nice extended bass without a sub -- but if you already HAVE a sub and are listening primarily to movies then M40s don't give you much more than M3s. M50s and up have a place because they will play louder and fill larger rooms than M3s/M22s/M40s.

This board is a pretty good mix of music people and HT people so the M40 is better understood here. It's a great music speaker in a world that mostly buys HT systems.

>>What I "think" I need in my house, right now, is a bigger M3! Not as warm as an M40, not as cool as an M60. As best as I can tell right now, it seems to be the M50. I do know one thing, no more "Serious" M50 Posse stuff, the M60 guys got something going too good to make fun of. (Well, maybe a little "Good Natured" kiddin', but not more than that)

I think your logic is correct. I really wish I had the $$ to pick up some 40s or 50s or had someone around here with a pair I could hear to be 100% sure but everything seems to indicate that 50s are the speakers for you.

Alan was responding to my concerns in his remarks. I was of the impression that there had been some changes to cross-over networks, or whatever, to make the M60s better than they had been, say, a year or so ago. He basically stated that none of the speakers had been changed in some time, and that no changes were planned. Alans' comments and those of numerous M60 owners have convinced me that the M60 are fine speakers and are perfect for those who prefer a more high performance speaker design.

The fact also stands that there are a lot of folks who appreciate a more "Pleasant" type of presentation-and so it appears, myself included,I really like my M3s, and have for a goodly number of years.

That leads one to the M40/M50 style. And they have a lot of happy followers, too. The M40s appear warm, the 50s kinda neutral, and the 60s cool, cool!?


Anyway, that's what Alans' statement was all about-No Changes Made.

Rich.

could the 40's be considered slow or even... boomy :O :O :O neutrality is always good... but sometimes the search for neutral stuff takes away from how they sound musically... i guess... anyway im being random. but is the jump to the 50's worth the extra money? it wouldn't be easy (at all) but i could swing it... i plan on building a low priced 5/6.1 system around these things, but the what im lookinf for real quality in is music.

Yup, I'm beginning to think I agree with me too. (HUH?)

Wow, but it's been a long haul getting here. I'd been strongly leaning towards the M50 for quite a while(leaning tower?) Maybe even Pisa'd off a few folks along the way. But I believe I'll be making the right purchase Monday morn.

I know what you mean about listening to a pair first, I'd have loved to do that, but my listening area is so weird that I don't know if someone elses room would have been comparable. However, if the 50s sound at least close to the 3s, they should be OK.
The 3s are, after all, a part of the family; speakers for life I believe they'd be called.

Now, if the 50s can command such a position...

Rich.

I haven't seen any good "40 vs. 50" comparisons so it's hard to be sure, but based on what I have seen I would *not* expect the 40s to be at all boomy or slow. If you look at the frequency response curve from Soundstage the 40 kind of rolls off a bit in the bass, definitely doesn't have that "big peak at the cabinet/port resonance frequency" kind of curve. I think the biggest difference between 40 and 50 is that the 50s can play louder... sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

There's actually a 40 vs 50 vs 80 comparison running around somewhere out there. I've lost track of it, but it's a good read.

Gads, I'm responding to lots of stuff at once-what a trip!!

Well, mr.T Muffinman, may I introduce you to the M50: it just might be the "One speaker for Everyman"(Everyperson?)

While I haven't heard of anyone not liking the M40, pretty much the same has been said about the M50. Not too warm, not too cool, maybe "just right?"

Might just be a consideration? (I'm relying only on my association with the M3 as a real family member and the hope that the M50 will sound close enough the same, to fit in just as well)

I'll find out in a few days, as I'm pretty sure that I'll be ordering my M50s come Monday morning.

Anyway, maybe the M50s should recieve some consideration. Just a thought.

This ain't easy, is it?
Rich.

Hi there, a response to the difference between the 40 and 50; Alan had made a comment about a year ago on that, and he stated that "The M50ti has quite a bit more clarity and detail than the M40, but not quite as much as the M60ti." At some point after that the advertising comments that I believe you are refering to, had been changed to reflect a differing company philosophy.

Just an observation. May be flawed. Maybe not.
Rich.