Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions soundstage

Ever since the first time I walked into a hi-fi shop and did my first speaker audition I noticed that there were some speakers which sounded more 3 dimensional or imaged better than others. I've heard salesman refer to this quality as a disappearing act, and furthermore the sign of an audiophile quality speaker was one where you couldn't tell where the sound was coming from. I'm sure someone here has an idea and probably knows what causes certain speakers to excel in this way. What is the scientific fact, and how does it differ from salesman fiction?

Pure guesswork: I'd say midrange clarity.

Speakers with a clearer midrange do this better than others, IMO.

Size does matter!

Smaller is better!!

Well, baffles, anyway.
When it comes to imaging, monitors and mini-monitors are King!!

Easier to hide a small box than a big box.(sonically) Fewer pesky x-overs to contend with. Put 'em on a stand and they breath real well.

I could go on...

Ya know, I could almost have offered an A/B on M3s VS M50s.

But we moved to this acoustically challenged house Before I got my M50s.

My M3s imaged beautifully in the old house; I could almost tell the color of the dresses worn by accompaning singers on a favorite CD!!(The M2s and M22s may be even better, but I'm not sure if the x-over is in, or out of the vocal range on them, as it is on the M3s)-not that voices are the only criteria, of course!

I don't know if it's fair to say that the floor standers fall flat, but I believe that it's generally recognized that mini-monitors with their reduced baffle area and relative ease of optimal placement give them an advantage in imaging. That, and the reduction of room-induced bass mucking due to not having a lot of bass to have to account for in the room layout that may be virtually uncontrolable, but that can be corrected with the use of a good musical sub.

Unfortunately, in a large room....

I did, however do a test with lots of pillows and throw rugs and furniature repositioning that allowed my current listening room to, at least temporarily, give a pretty good accounting of itself accoustically-if only for one evening, and was able to assertain that my M50s do actually do an admirably reasonable job of producing a fairly accurate soundstage with more than acceptable imaging!

Unfortunately my listening room in that configuration was "Unlivable" by WAF(or any other reasonable)standards!!

This soundstage phenomenon is enhanced by the quality of the performance inside the listening window (loosely defined as 0 – 30 degrees off axis). It is not really related to size at all because the added frequencies of a floorstanding speaker are in the non-directional frequency range. It can be baffle related, which no doubt draws the misguided connection to size, because smaller baffles tend to be somewhat less likely to deteriorate the frequency response inside the window if no design effort is put into the issue. This being said there are lots of little speakers with horrible listening window responses and lots of larger speakers with very good ones. It comes down to whether the designer worked through this one in the beginning.

Hi Ian,

Thanks for the clarification on the soundstage question!

I do have one simple question, one that I was unable to answer on my own.

I had great soundstage and imaging with my M3s in my old house, but not quite as good in the new home.(I had mentioned this in my post just prior to your response) With some effort I was able to obtain more than adequate imaging and soundstage with my M50s, but still not as good as with the M3s "in the old house."

My question is:(A quick "Yes or No" answer will more than suffice!)

From all the double-blind testing in the good ol' "Standard North American Living Room" If tests were performed that happened to have both M3s and M50s in the same test cycle, how did the M50s compare to the M3s? I understand the basic intrinsic differences, say, between the M22 and M3 for example, and don't wish to get a discussion going concerning these differences within this forum. My concern is entirely within the relationship between the M3 and the M50. The question then being:

Do the M50s "effectively" equal the M3s in imaging and soundstage presentation in that "Standard North American Livingroom" environment?

Thank you in advance for your answer, and "thanks again!" for publishing the curve for the M50 back over the Holidays!
Rich.

These two models have very similar listening window responses and thus similar soundstage presentations in the same environment. The other big factor in the listening window response is the room, with its varying surfaces and their proximity to the speaker. You may have found that moving the speakers even small distances of a few inches affected the soundstage and this would be typical.

Wow! Thanks, Ian, for the quick responce, talk about your legendary Axiom customer support!!

And thanks also for the words I was hoping to hear! Yes, I did try moving the speakers around a bit while trying to get better performance in my accoustically challenged new listening room, and it did help a lot(But then I had to put them back in their less than ideal location) My only real concern was that the M50s may be inherently less accurate in the imaging arena than my M3s(which, I failed to mention, are of the early SE configuration-I've had them for quite a while and couldn't be happier with them!) Although from looking at the "New" plot of the M50 and comparing it to the "Old" plot of the M3(less than Apples and Oranges, perhaps)it almost "Looks" as though the M50 has a significantly "Flatter" responce than the M3, although in a few respects the M50s actually do seem to sound "better" than my M3s. Understanding, however, that one dosen't listen to paper.....especially only one of a series of plots!

Anyway, you guys are doing a great job! I know I've found My speaker, no; Home Theater Company!!

I understand that you can't visit this forum as much as you did in the good ol' days, but it sure is nice when you can drop by!

Thanks again for the good words!!
Rich.

>>Unfortunately my listening room in that configuration was "Unlivable" by WAF(or any other reasonable)standards!!

Just start wearing one of these in the living room (to avoid reflections off the back wall) and suddenly the WAF will go up on the pillows & rugs. You are right though -- getting the wall reflections under control does wonders for imaging and soundstage.



On a vaguely related note, Phil Collins crashed a Musical Box concert in Switzerland a couple of months ago :

http://www.themusicalbox.net/