NH,
You seem to have taken everything in my post completely the wrong way and I’m not sure why.
The audio overzealous term applies to many,
most especially myself. I am always the passionate researcher looking to solve puzzles. However sometimes the endless variation of trying a combination of components is just that, overzealousness rather than rational thought. If I were to take my Onkyo receiver and swap the black cord for the red cord in both my speakers and receiver just for the heck of swapping them to listen for a sound difference, is that truly rational thought or am I just being overzealous?
How about those who feel plugging in the power cord in the opposite direction (and then do it for each of their components) makes audible difference?
Just overzealous? Or are they really onto something?
Secondly, during my bi-amping, I did what most consumers do (which I guess according to some theories is the 'wrong' way of bi-amping), which is to hook up 2 amps, one to the high-mid range binding posts and the second to the lows. We heard no difference in sound quality but there was an obvious increase in the SPL output at lesser preamp settings.
In reply to:
Are they all wrong or we going with the age old argument that they just wanted to hear an improvement and thus heard it?
Is the placebo effect no longer a valid scientific theory?
How have all these people tested their bi-amping trials?
Does speaker break-in exist b/c so many people report it does?
I don't think i have to defend that position any more than it does all on its own.
The article you posted states that the passive crossover be removed and an electronic crossover used in its place. The recommendation is also to keep with the same crossover point that was set by the speaker designer. So, what's the point then?
Nothing has really changed.
His explanation of why the passive crossover is not a good thing is somewhat vague and dubious.
In reply to:
A loudspeaker can be a difficult load for any amplifier, but when additional inductance and capacitance enter the equation, this only makes matters worse.
Umm, make matters worse? Any quality amp will not have a problem driving speakers as long as it was designed for the proper load regardless of what the crossover is doing.
In reply to:
Add to this the fact that all passive crossovers introduce some degree of loss (in some cases as much as 3dB - which means that they are "stealing" half the available power), and one can see that getting rid of them cannot be such a bad thing.
I would like to see proof of this and he needs to define "some" cases. What if for the Axioms such a difference really measures at 0.5dB?
Then it no longer becomes audible.
Axiom speakers may not fall into his 'some' cases category.
Again, way more information is needed here.
In reply to:
Look at the impedance graphs for almost any speaker system, and it will be seen that there is almost always a dip in impedance (sometimes severe) at the crossover frequency.
Well, I’m looking at the
impedance graphs of the M22 which has its crossover set at 2.7khz. I don't see a dip until well after the 2.7khz mark. Certainly that makes his statement rather inaccurate.
Third, I've been around the forums long enough to get an idea of just how many people come through here looking for the 'bang for the buck' stuff. There is not actually that many people on the forums who own anything more than the more common a/v receivers sold in many box stores. There are WAY more people who do not come onto the forums who also fall into this category (i can think of about 15 friends and family members alone). Audio purists are really a minority group although coming to audio forums does not make it seem that way. I have yet to come across someone who owns an amp that is more expensive (and used to drive) his or her entire Axiom HT setup. So yes, I believe the general goal of the majority that buy Axiom speakers are not those looking to put together $20,000 audio systems, let alone even a $7000 one.
How is that insulting to anyone?
There's nothing wrong with trying to find the best quality for the price and those who have found Axioms have certainly done some smart research.
Your idea on the biamping is interesting, but I’m sticking to my opinion that like many things I’ve tried, it is audio overzealousness with what I perceive to be of little benefit for the effort expended. (I could tell you about some of the things i've tried but we would be here for awhile.)
You find the subject interesting so go nuts. I don't know if anyone else will reply to the post on the idea,
but i'm still here and i'm certainly willing to read and hear more about the bi-amping idea.
I will try to read the entire article a bit later. I have several other things i need to read yet today.
. 
