What makes the sound "bigger?" Is it the presence of the mid bass? The drivers are the same on the m2 and m22 as the m60 except for the 6.5s.

Oh, also, my room is 15x15 with a 12ft vaulted ceiling with the sitting postion at 10ft.

I'm trying to save some money by not going with full size speakers. Also, the m60's look big in my room. I can see the full depth of the left speaker from the kitchen and it spoils the room a little bit.

I am willing to give up a small amount of musical ability for this change, but I really don't want too much of a change for 5.1

Try some M3s, they might be better for your application and budget while still saving you some big $$$.

I kinda talked myself into the m60s because I had wanted full size speakers for so long. I ran them without a subwoofer for awhile and they sounded fantastic. When I added the sub it added a significant tactile feel to the low end, but the m60s still can shake the room by themselves. Now that I have a pool table in the other room, I wanted to switch the m60s to that room which is 17x35. They can still fill the room with enough bass that I don't need a sub in there.

So, I was really thinking the m2s would be my first choice but I would be willing to consider the larger m22s. Some say the m22s are brutally honest and can become fatiguing. I'm partial to the small size of the m2s but it seems not many people run them as their mains. I just wanna make sure I don't make a wrong move. I can always get some m3s and a sub for the pool table and leave the m60s as they stand if that would be a better choice.

I am in Los Altos CA if anyone wants to bring their m2s over. I suppose I could just order some m2s and send them back if they don't work out.

When you say that the M60s shake your room, what amp are you using exactly?

I'm using the amp in my Sony STR-DB840. They don't shake the room like the SVS sub, but they did an admirable job for 6 months. Enough to consider not getting a sub...until I actually got a real sub and found out what I was missing.

Well, maybe you have a very "pliable" room . There's no way I can get my Denon/M80s to shake my 4,000 cubic foot, tightly constructed room without making me deaf. For the shaking, I use the 600.

It is a spec style home built to look good but not the greatest construction. I was scared the pool table would fall through the floor. So far so good but I haven't had 6 naked girls dancing on it just yet

Play it safe.

Start with 5.

Hello autoboy

I don't think the M60s are full range speakers. I agree with the recommendation that you go with a pair of M3s and a nice subwoofer.

I agree with Chess. I had a pair of M22s and have a pair of M2s and to my ears they sound thin.

Why this is I dunno. I have a bunch of Michaura M55s which have the same 5.25" drivers as the M2/M22 but use the 3/4" titanium tweeter which was used in the Merak line and the old M2tis. The Michauras sound spectacular ... especially after a bit of surgery ... Mills resistors, fuse out, and Jensen paper/oil caps.

Anyway, I think the M3s are superb for 2.1 channel music or as front speakers in an HT system in a modest size room.

Hi Autoboy,

Your room isn't that small; in fact, it's 2700 cu. ft, quite a bit larger than the "average" living room of 2100 cu. ft. Contrary to what Chesseroo said, in that size of room I would have recommended M60s unless there were real contraints on the physical size of the main speakers.

What you'll lose if you go with M2s is the ability to play very cleanly at very loud levels like the M60s can, simply because you'd be relying on the M2's one smallish woofer (two drivers) instead of the M60's dual woofers, separate midrange and tweeter--four drivers. This applies regardless of whether or not you are using a subwoofer, however, if much of your home theater and music playback is run in 5.1 with your sub, the peak demands on the M2s would be reduced, but limitations on peak power handling remain. In that sense, the M22s are a better choice because they use three drivers and have greater power handling and will play louder and cleaner in larger rooms.

Going to the M3s is certainly an option, but there is a slight lessening in midrange detail that is audible compared to the M60s, the M22s or the M2s.

As to the "sounding thin" comments, properly set up with a good subwoofer, the M2s or the M22s do NOT sound thin. Heard on their own with no sub, they have pleasant but not powerful bass that's useful to about 40 Hz. The M3 uses a larger woofer that produces a bump in the 100 Hz region which results in slightly more bass output and is a prudent choice when no subwoofer will be used.

Regards,

Ditto what Alan said.

Thanks Alan,

I was thinking pretty much exactly what you said and I was getting a little confused. I think people got confused when I said the m60s look big. They do look big but that is just the layout of my room, making the side profile stand out as well as the height of the speaker.

I do not listen at super high volume ( I can barely get above 2.5, maybe 3 when wathing 300, on my volume knob -- no idea how loud that is ) so I don't think I would have problems with the speaker getting taxed at high load.

98% of my critical listening is HT. I do listen to music but use it as a background and do not listen critically except in those rare instances like last night when the girlfriend was gone and I wanted to really see what the m60s could do.

During that listening session I was really focusing on the smoothness of the bass and tried to find good music for bringing out the differences. I played with the crossover on the receiver and I think I have the sub dialed in really well. The bass guitar was nice and smooth and the output was consistent no matter what crossover I used. The m60 alone was tighter and did not go as low but the difference was minimal and I think I would not see the difference when I switch to m2s (I like the small size over the m22). All my real listening is to HT where you are so involved with the movie that subtle things like that do not become apparent.

I think I am more curious than anything about the real differences between a full range (full range to me) and a bookshelf for pure HT. It is nice that there is the 30 day window, though I rarely send anything back. I can find a use for them somewhere even if they don't find a permanent home in my HT.

I have one other question though. I was listening to Jack Johnson On and On last night and the high frequency sound when he slapped his guitar was harsh and fatiguing. Was this a fault with the recording, my rather average electronics, or my speakers? I've had this Sony STR DB840 receiver since college and I'm looking for excuses to buy a new one. I don't want some lame excuse like "it will sound better," I want a concrete example of something like the Jack Johnson CD that was bad before and the new electronics fixed it. Otherwise, it has served me well and will continue to serve me until I really need it.

Thanks for all your responses.

In case it's helpful, heres an article comparing M22s and M60s. Seems to me I have read this before but it says it has been 'modified' on August 1st so it may have something new. My apologies if it does not.

Only, mildly useful in any regards as it talks about the new wood finish more than it talks about the speakers.

Audioholics, M22 Vs. M60

I'd say it is the recording. Percussive sounds can easily exceed the recording level of a particular track, resulting in a clipped waveform (i.e. pegging the needle). Unless this highly dynamic "events" are planned for in the particular recording, they easily slip by many of today's pop music recording engineers.

CD: Jack Johnson On and On
Song: track 1, On and On
Time: entire recording

Actually, as I listened to the entire CD I found that all the high frequency was fatiguing and harsh. I'm not an audio expert but it didn't sound right and might have been the clipping you speak of. I could only listen to the first 4 tracks before having to stop.

Thanks for the info on the m60 vs m22

autoboy,

Like pmbuko, I'd bet it's the source recording. You don't have to be an audio expert to detect fatiguing or EQ'd or distorted high frequencies; they tend to make themselves known immediately, and we're all equipped with the same set of hearing apparatus.

One way to check out the source recording and bypass the receiver/speaker chain is to use a good pair of headphones (they don't have to be expensive, just not really crappy earbuds) and plug directly into a CD player or DVD player's headphone jack, if you have a CD/DVD player with a headphone output jack.

If the fault is in the source recording and the headphones are reasonably good, the bad high frequencies will show up immediately. If, on the other hand, the Johnson CD sounds great over headphones, then the problem lies somewhere in the Sony receiver's electronics.

Regards,

Great suggestion, Alan.

That is a great suggestion. I'll try that as soon as I get home from work.

I couldn't find a 1/4" adaptor for my cans so I just threw the CD in my computer. I have an X-fi that sounds pretty good. The CD is crap. Makes me feel better about my system.