I recently had a chance to compare the 3 heavily reviewed speakers side by side, in exactly same setting.

Testing CDs ranging from Classical music, male/femal vocal, Rap, and easy listening.


The one speaker that surprised me during initial listening, was the M22. The sound was "boxed". The sound was thin and boxy, comparing to Energy C3 and Axiom M3. I wonder why nobody has complained about M22?

Overall, M3 sounded more grainy than M22. M22's strenth is in middle and upper frequency clarity.

With respect to tone color, M3 is similar to Energy C3. Both sounded more banlanced and color nuetral than M22. The best of the three speakers, overall, is Energy C-3. Sorry guys. I don't mean to offend M22 fans here. My recommendation goes to M3 if your wallet is really tight; to Energy C3 if can afford about $CDN 200 more.

Balgon, I think that I know what you mean, but what you perceived as being "thin" in the M22 is probably the main reason I picked it instead of the M3. If you examine the NRC measurements of the M3 and M22 in the SoundStage reviews, you'll note that the M3 has a bump of several dB in the upper bass area from around 80-150hz and that the lower midrange is slightly depressed. This has the effect of making the M3 seem to have a "fuller" bass although the M22 is actually more accurate and has at least as good bass extension. This effect is well-known in the industry.

A somewhat humorous recent example of how even a very experienced listener can be misled by this can be found in the September Stereophile review of the Paradigm Atom, which can be found at ecoustics.com. Bob Reina proceeds to rave about the low bass, which John Atkinson's lab measurements immediately following show is nearly non-existant. John rather gently points out how the bumped up upper bass can create a misimpression. This is one of the audio situations in which what you hear(or think you hear) ain't what you get.

Actually I agree that M22 is superior to M3 in sound clarity. What bothers me is the tone color of M22. I can feel the sound coming out of the boxes with M22. Although over long time period of listening one may adapt to M22 sound, the wooden box sound is still a contamination to the true sound.

NRC measurements won't give you any idea about how well a speaker really sounds. That is why our ears should be the finall judge, not those measurement lines.

Energy C-3 and M22 cost about the same. Their measurements are also comparable. But, they sound differently. Both Energy and M22 are good in sound clarity and both deliver good sound stage image. Hoever,Energy is less colored and has more to the bottom end. I did not notice the wooden box with Energy C-3.

On the other hand, Axiom speakers are better looking. The Energy is simply ugly with the gril off. In the end, sound range and quality as well as the price have the final say.


M3 sounds less like M22, more like the Energy C-3. M3 is about $200 cheaper. That is why I think M3 and Energy C3 are better value.