M80s to bright for prolonged music listening?

Axiom Home Page

I have read in many discussion forums that people find the M80s to be fairly bright. Considering that 80% of my home theater is used to listen to music for prolonged periods of time, could be M80S be too bright? I realize everyone's hearing is different and the whole experience is subjective. I don't want to have a headache after a short period of time. I currently have Monitor 9's which I consider to be fairly bright. I don't know if anyone has any experience with both speakers for comparison or find the M80s slightly bright for music.

Thanks

My room dimensions are 24 x 20 x 7. It is virtually identical looking to Mojo's (if you continue the back wall straight across where the ping-pong table is). Stairs are in the same place, and support beam. I don't know if this is relevant to adding or lowering brightness in a room, but my walls are just recently insulated to R30. Also I have a very thick commercial carpet (for my wheelchair) with a under pad.

Oh yes, a good reason not to become handicapped is that you'll have to dish out a fortune for carpet because companies don't warranty a residential carpet for wheelchair use. Over $2000 in carpeting just for that room.

This is amazing how often this comes up, the search tool will bring up countless threads on this topic on Axiom speakers being bright, NOT.

Back in the day, being bright was a good thing as it meant your speakers were true to the original source. If you have cd's that were recorded with crappy recording techniques, those flaws will be brought out with Axioms. This is not the fault of Axiom design, which is neutral not bright.

High quality recordings will make you cry they sound so good, your jaw will hit the floor.

For me I want to hear the music as it was intended. If you want to hide what your listening to then get a laid back or muffled speakers.

"...Axiom design, which is neutral not bright.

High quality recordings will make you cry they sound so good, your jaw will hit the floor."

I cannot agree more. I have listened to various recordings with the M80s and found them to be very neutral (can bring tears to your eyes indeed); no editorilazing whatsoever. They can be unforgiving of poor recordings, which can sound bright, but this is cosnistent with them being true to the original source.

John

Quote:

could be M80S be too bright?

Not!

I agree with the other posters. I keep reading about this "brightness" and does not experience it at all with my M80s. Music sounds just georgous on those babies for as long as you want. Some people like speakers with exagerated bass (it's their right!) and I think this brightness reputation comes from there.

You can see fairly comprehensive frequency response curves here for the M80s at various listening positions. There is no boost in high frequencies.

Also, I think when you hear someone comment about a piece of equipment, you should ask if they ever owned it and if the opinion is their own or someone else's. When you read forums, it is very common to see people pass judgement on equipment that they never heard or used themselves. It is also common to take one person's word on an equipment as the absolute truth. You may want to consider auditioning the M80s and making your own determination on how they fit in to your system, room, and tastes. If there is no audition available locally, you can buy them since you only need to ship them to Michigan within 30 days if you are not satisfied. I think the odds of you returning them will be quite small. Good luck and please let us know of your thoughts if you try them out.

John

Wheelz,

I'd say you got a great deal on carpet for that room. I'm embarassed to say how much mine cost. I had no choice as it was the only pattern my wife and I liked.

R30 won't make a bit of difference because brightness refers to high frequencies and high frequencies will reflect right off your wall surface or be absorbed or diffused by whatever you may have on your wall. Lows however will penetrate right through your wall surface and be attenuated by the insulation.

Onto brightness. You're right in that different people have different ears. Fortunately, I am one who has had my ears tested and if you've been reading my posts, you know that I have mutant-like ears. The audiologist didn't have the requisite equipment to test how high and low my ears can really go. So I can tell you, as someone with exceptionally excellent hearing, that the M80s are NOT bright. I can (and do) listen to them for hours at a time without fatiguing.

They are however extremely clear and revealing as others here have mentioned. I wouldn't have it any other way. You will definitely enjoy these speakers. Just make sure you can sit at least 8 feet away from them.

wheelz,
I have always contended that the Axioms are a bright speaker, since the first day i reviewed them until today.

The graphs do show changes and swings in the upper frequencies though many continue to say they don't exist, i'm not sure why.
Between 1.5kHz and 3kHz on the first graph, there is a difference of approx. 3dB though it is an older graph. The newer graph of the M80 that Ian posted has trimmed this difference to about 2dB. The 3kHz to the 5kHz range sits almost 2dB above most of the midrange. This could easily account for what some people hear as the 'bright' part of the Axiom speaker, even though the frequency response is still very good (at least until you hit that slight crazyness at the 200Hz mark).
I personally own the M60s which you can see in the 3rd graph. I look at that graph and think the midrange of the M60 is more flat on average compared to the M80 but it also has a slight elevation in dB in that 3-5kHz range. I run my M60s with a resistor on the tweeter and i am very happy with the results.

Anyone who says Axioms are ruler flat are blind, though they will contend they still have good ears.

I have heard other brands, good quality and bad. I own other brands and i still own Axioms. In fact, our whole media room is setup for a 7.1 system which 5.1 of it is all Axiom (2 speakers left to fill in at some point and we're thinking about swapping the EP350 for the EP500). I'm not giving up my Axioms, over my cold, dead, sweaty hands....etc.

The bottom line is this:
what sounds good to you?
what sounds good in your room?

Personally, with a hard room, i would probably go looking for a more recessed speaker because i know the room will have hard reflections (as Mojo mentioned). The sound dampening in our media room is great and the Axioms have never sounded better.

Quote:

at least until you hit that slight crazyness at the 200Hz mark

Ians quote on the subject.

Quote:

In reference to the little dip and rise at 150 Hz in the M80 compared to the M60; it is just the microphone positioning being up right under the tweeter and only 2 meters back in the anechoic chamber giving it an increased angle of attack on the very tall M80s.

And the point being?
Would a person sit higher or lower then with the M80s to remove this artifact?
What different responses would occur at those positions?

The measurements are taken at a standard position and THAT position is where the comparison would be drawn either with ears or with a mic measuring sound.
I'm sure we could see other changes in the spectrum if a person at ear level (or the mic position) were sitting near the floor or raised 1m above either speaker.
Off axis measurements left and right at the same height are proof of the concept.

The fact is that measuring the response at the same mic height as one would measure for the M60 or perhaps any other tower shows a wobble below the 200Hz mark for the M80 perceivable by a mic and expected to be perceived by human ears.

The point being I was under the impression that the mike was set at two meters away when measuring and when listening at a distance these "artifacts" would not be apparant. The way Ian wrote it I read it meaning it was all due to mike positioning.

Wheelz, I determined to my own satisfaction years ago that the "bright", "metallic", or whatever other similar characterization was applied lacked a solid factual basis. Although I listen to almost no pop CDs, I borrowed several from the library that a poster had described as "well-recorded" but sounding unacceptably harsh on M60s. On my M22s I heard some of what he'd described, but it appeared to me to be the result of the recording being somewhat over-prominent in the upper midrange/lower treble, possibly in order to sound more impressive on mediocre equipment. Tending to confirm this was the fact that when I applied a 4-5 DB cut centered at 4KHz on one of my receivers which had tone controls with variable turnover frequencies, the reproduction was significantly smoother. No such problem existed with any of my classical CDs which were in fact "well-recorded".

Although no speakers have the essentially perfect flatness in frequency response which is almost universal in players and receivers these days, the Axioms are certainly among the best in this regard and very accurately deliver what's given to them, good or bad.

Quote:

Tending to confirm this was the fact that when I applied a 4-5 DB cut centered at 4KHz on one of my receivers which had tone controls with variable turnover frequencies, the reproduction was significantly smoother.

So, let me ask a dumb question...

Aren't these "bright" issues easily settled with a little bit of EQ? If it's all just a bump of a couple of decibels here and there?

If not, could someone explain...and if so, why is there so much stress about this issue? Surely anyone who is into audio enough to identify "brightness" is the type of person who is likely to be fussing with equalization anyway?

When I first received my m60's I too was afraid that they sounded "bright" or "harsh" occasionally. I think the truth was that my expectations were so high that for the first time in my life I was listening to the music with a critical ear.

After listening for awhile, I identified a few passages on a few CD's that especially exhibited the bright characteristic, and then listened to those same passages with some other equipment like my car, a pair of headphones hooked directly to the CD player, and through my computer speakers. I found that those CD's sounded crappy no matter where I played them. I couldn't believe that I hadn't noticed it before, but once I realized that it was the source material and not the speakers, I started enjoying the m60's even more.

I still love how great they sound, regardless of how hard I push them.

Chess,

I believe when people say "ruler flat", they mean to say "ruler flat in comparison to the vast majority of other speakers". On that point I would definitely agree.

Those that perceive brightness in the M80s may have mid-range hearing loss. It would be interesting to correlate the audiogram results with listeners' impressions of brightness.

Quote:

If not, could someone explain...and if so, why is there so much stress about this issue?

Because people are too proud to think their audio equipment has flaws (i.e., not perfect). It must be the recording is becoming used way too often. Speakers and especially room interactions are often a distant third.

Quote:

I believe when people say "ruler flat", they mean to say "ruler flat in comparison to the vast majority of other speakers". On that point I would definitely agree.

Mojo, that is a pretty broad and a rather exaggerated conclusion to make considering the number of speaker brands out there and the lack of graphs or other data as proof either way.
If you look at the online graphs of speakers other than Axiom, there are other very good speakers; Thiel and Energy being two off the top of my head.
I guarantee they sound different from Axioms and i've never heard/read anyone state they found Thiels to be a bright speaker. Yes i'm sure someone can find a post out there but Axioms have gained a description of being bright, Thiels have not.
Coincidence? Or not?
Again, no proof either way.

Once a person starts to listen to alot of other brands, and hopefuly could try some in an a/b home test, the description of bright that i use for my Axioms still stands.
But they sound great in our media room, so i'm happy, especially for the price paid.

Quote:

Mojo, that is a pretty broad and a rather exaggerated conclusion to make considering the number of speaker brands out there and the lack of graphs or other data as proof either way./
Quote:

Alright. You've thrown down the gauntlet now. I guess I'll have to do an exhaustive analysis of every speaker out there so that I can prove my claim .

Quote:

...i've never heard/read anyone state they found Thiels to be a bright speaker. Yes i'm sure someone can find a post out there...

Three quarters down this page.

7th line in the 5th review right here.

Halfway down this page under "sound".

Page 3, 2nd column, 3rd line right here.

I could go on and on but there are more posts I need to read before I go to bed. Sorry Chess. I couldn't resist .

Quote:

Quote:

If not, could someone explain...and if so, why is there so much stress about this issue?

Because people are too proud to think their audio equipment has flaws (i.e., not perfect).

Ah I see, if you perceive them to be bright, then they must, in fact, be bright. But, if someone perceives them to not be bright, it can only be because they feel they have to defend their purchase. It couldn't possibly be that they actually don't perceive them to be bright. No we can't accept that, because that would mean your contention that Axioms are bright would be false. For if they are objectively bright, then everybody would find them bright. So in order to ensure that your statement is correct, we must dismiss anyone finding them to not be bright as simply not willing to face the "truth." Sheesh!

Quote:

Alright. You've thrown down the gauntlet now. I guess I'll have to do an exhaustive analysis of every speaker out there so that I can prove my claim

Well at least more than the miniscule number of graphs on the Soundstage site. Even the M80s look brutal in their graphs from their files. I can only imagine how many of the speakers up there also had tweaks since.

In regards to your Googling effort, the first two of your finds the reviewers are saying the Thiels are not bright and the third review was fooling around with placement, mentioning (and rightly so) changes from room/boundary reflections.

Geez Mojo, i expected a better effort here. Come on now.

Or maybe it is all true and the world really is going to hell in a hand basket.
My mother has been saying it for years and here i just thought she was being superstitious.
So what is false is true, what is blue should really be black.
The philosophy of why what is, is.
Took a course on that years back, the philosophy of science. Why do people believe a centimetre really is a centimetre?
Why couldn't it be an inch instead?
Why should one believe the guy who decided to make up a centimetre?

Oh the chaos Ajax, the chaos you spread.

. Good one. My we're sharp tonight, eh?

Interesting, but not much of an argument.

Geez Chess, I expected a better effort here. Come on now.

Quote:

Oh yes, a good reason not to become handicapped is that you'll have to dish out a fortune for carpet because companies don't warranty a residential carpet for wheelchair use. Over $2000 in carpeting just for that room.

I dropped almost $1000 (after price searching dozens of stores which all had the same pattern) in carpet for my room and it is about half the size of yours... I think that the better reason to not become handicapped, is just that you wouldn't be handicapped...

Seriously though. Some people here are a bit serious about their data. It is all good, and you will see that they are getting to a point, yet taking a somewhat competative and fun approach to it.

My 2 cents are the same as many others. You were at AVS when you heard the "bright" comment. I am about 99% sure of that. I mean, we've all been there at some point. It was the comments on that site that almost steered me away from Axioms, but then I would send a PM to some of the more vocal people, and they either wouldn't respond, or would say something like "well, everyone know that they are bright" or "my friend has/had a set and he said that they were bright compared to..." Of all of the responses back, I think that I got 1, and only 1 that actually had listened to Axioms in person. This guy owned them, and said that they were bright in a post over there, but in a PM said that he was finding that he really was liking the Axioms (M60's) the more he listened to them. I don't think that he ever went back and rebuttled his own post, but he helped to convince me that first impressions can be wrong. Plus source material has a big impact. There are some CDs I own, from some lesser known (lower budget) groups that I refuse to even play over my Axioms because I hear how bad of a recording they are. Instead, they are in my car, which has upgraded speakers and head unit, but still isn't anywhere near the quality of my Axioms. In that small, imperfect little environment, those "crap recorded" CDs sound just fine.

Any more back patting between you two and one of you might cough on your danish.

You create
your own reality.
And leave mine to me!
Leave mine to me!
Leave mine to me!

Those graphs are flat. They won't be if you redid them with the speakers in an everyday run of the mill room. But I think it is good to start out with a flat frequency response. Talking about how speakers sound is fun. But everyones rooms can have different dimensions, building materials, furnishings and be driving those speakers with different amplifiers and feeding those amplifiers from different sources. Maybe some of you have cds that were well recorded and some aren't. The list of variables is large. If the people on this forum all say that Axioms are good, then it is reasonable to believe that they are good. But they can only really describe the sound that they are getting. If someone were to slam the speakers, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Maybe they put minimal effort in the setup, in a bad room, etc. Axiom is a cool company. Just buy them and listen to them in your house with your gear and see if you like them. Besides, it is just one pair of speakers right? You can always get more.

I really do believe that some, like Chess, do find the Axioms bright. However, I believe that mid-range hearing loss may have something to do with that. Another factor could be the speakers that a listenener was used to in the past. I was perfectly satisfied with my Bose 601s for example until I got my Axioms. The Axioms revealed highs (amongst other things) in music that were completely cloaked by my 601s. Now some may call the Axioms bright in relation to the Boses. And they would be right. So when we say that a speaker is bright, we need to qualify the statement in a relative sense.

I don't like danishes by the way. Give me a grilled cinnamon bun anyday.

One could quantify the statement of bright in more ways as well. I've never found the Axioms to be raspy sounding, but a pair of crap Sony speakers was both bright and raspy, simply harsh, on the ears. A pair of horn Klipsch speakers actually made my ears ring.
Our Axioms always have a clean sound and so far have taken a ton of power bringing that clean sound to high SPL. Only at the point of clipping with a receiver did they start to lose that sound cohesion and only then did they sound more like the crappy Sony speakers, for obvious reasons.

I should also point out, i've never been bothered by any brightness quality with movies, only with music. The added resistor on the tweeter also helped in this regard. The clarity of dialogue and great dispersion of the QS8s is one reason why no one will pry them from me.

Klipsches really are like surgical instruments on the ears for those that have decent hearing. And they're like medical instruments for those that have extreme high frequency hearing loss.

Oh yes, I forgot to mention that the cost for my carpet is a direct warehouse price from Mohawk. You can surmise as to what the actual price is

. Also, think of the advantages of being handicapped-someone else has to grab your beer (usually a hot chick), cougars try to pick you up at the bar

, and last but certainly not least; I had my accident when I was 18. Prior to that I had to walk around etc. and even that is a laborious task.

PS. I can also drink and drive, not legally mind you.