I've narrowed it down to these 2 speakers.They are both about the same price.What are the sonic differences between these 2 speakers. Thanks.

Jerry, I suspect not many here have heard the Ascend 170s and can't give a specific comparison.

have you looked in the hearing things section of the forum to see if someone is nearby that can let you listen to some axioms?

I think I'm gonna go with the Ascends.I've read too many things about the M3 being too bright.

Good luck with your choice. I would have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Axioms, all models, are bright. That is pure nonsense.

Did you do a forum search? Former board regular "Curtis" was a big Ascend guy. I can't believe there isn't already some historical content here.

No, no... all the Axiom speakers are too bright... the M3s have a terrible 1 KHz hump.

Ah, discounting the sound of speakers sound-unheard, what a world.

Bren R.

Edit: My response sounds more snarky than I meant it.

Wow, the M3 bright? That's a new one on me.

In addition to the M3s I now also have a pair of M2s and can see what people mean about Axiom being "too bright". On the whole I disagree, although I do find there are certain albums I find fatiguing on the M2s but still love on the M3s (Stars - Set Yourself on Fire comes to mind). In general I find the M3 is much more in line with the Paradigm Monitor series in regards to "brightness" (I also own and enjoy the Monitor 11s and have listened to them side by side. The M3 stacks up surprisingly well). I have never felt any listener fatigue from the M3 and can strongly recommend them. Alas, I have never heard the Ascends.

Sonicfox posted a nice M22 v. Ascend 170 review

Plus, those Ascends are fugly. Which IS something I can ascertain over the interwebs.

Really, the quality of your decision will be improved by auditioning.

Bright....is the last word I would use to describe M3's. I personally own M22's which I see as clear and detailed, compared to Klipsch that I auditioned that are definately bright, bordering on shrill.

We did a bit of comparison her in Calgary with M3's, M22's, M60's and M80's, oh yeah and some old Bose 601's. The M3's were the most "laid back" of all of them. I almost didnt like them because of them being so forgiving compared to my M22's, but as a stand alone bookshelf, the extra bass is great.

I have some M3's in gloss cherry on order and have not heard the Ascends, but have heard good reviews. Let your ears be the judge and if so, then buy the Ascends, but the last thing M3's are is bright, so don't take any of those reviews seriously.

Can't agree more. Linearity of the on- and off-axis frequency response is the primary design aim of the Axiom speakers in order to reproduce the source accurately and without tonal colorations. It is this neutrality and transparency that can sometimes reveal the brightness in a source. To then say that such a speaker is "bright" is indeed nonsense.

John

Okay, now you've got me rethinking my decision to go with the Ascends.It's just that I read some comments about the M3's and words like ear bleedingly bright were used and it scared me away. I'll let you know if I order them!

Don't let people at AVS scare you. Axiom makes very nice speakers. They may or may not be right for you, but you'd need to listen to them to find out. The "Axioms are bright" myth gets trotted out by alleged golden-ears pretty regularly. It's kind of a risk-reward proposition; Axiom speakers make excellent recordings sound really great, and they make crappy recordings sound, well, crappy. It's kind of like the old disclaimer on CD's when the format first appeared - "may reveal limitations of your source components".

People seem to like Ascends just fine, too. By all accounts, they are fine speakers. Just don't let somebody else's ears choose for you.

Thanks.Can anyone tell me how the M3's might differ from Polk speakers? Specifically the Polk RT series?

Jerry, in line with some of the previous replies, what you've read elsewhere is simply nonsense that has no factual basis. An overall "bright" characteristic in a speaker can't just mysteriously appear without it having a substantial frequency response inaccuracy over a broad range in the upper midrange/lower treble. Testing reports show that this simply doesn't exist in the M3s(or other Axioms). If a specific recording is poorly done with a boost in that range of frequencies to sound more impressive on mediocre equipment, it'll sound "bright" on Axioms and other accurate speakers which tell it like it is.

Even with this overwhelming number of posts stating exactly what I am about to say, the shear untruth of the statement makes me want to re-add my own voice to the "bright-M3-is-non-sense". My brother has them and I hear them often and they are as linear as any other Axiom speakers.

Aaaaaah.....the "ear bleedingly bright" post.

I saw that last year when cruising AVS for research too. Luckily Sirquack told me there to check out some of the guys in town with Axioms and get an audition.

In hindsight, its like any DLP post where somebody says " I saw rainbows all over the place on that DLP". Just somebody exaggerating because they like to listen to their CCR or Foghat on some "classic" sounding speakers.

Check out the hearing things section to audition some Axioms and then Ascends, then let your ears be the judge.

I would say go one step further and order up some Axioms, the M3's wouldn't cost that much to ship back if you in fact don't like them.

Jerry - whereabouts are you? Give them a listen.

Bren R.

I'm in New Jersey.

Jerry, I used to hang on the AVS forums a lot, I think I have about 3,000 posts. 5 years ago when I was looking at speakers, I got so sick of the Axiom bashers over there talking about how Axiom speakers are bright, this simply is not true.

They are designed to be very neutral and have a flat freq response in anechoic testing. They will bring out the true recording as it was intended to be heard. Now, if you have a poorly engineered/recorded cd, that is not the fault of the Axiom speakers, but I can guarantee top quality recordings will sound fantastic.

Back in the day, "bright", was used to define a speaker that was detailed and true to the original source. For some reason the AVS trolls have a changed this definition to be a bad thing.

You may want to check the audition threads in our "Hearing Things" section to see if you can find someone up in your neck of the woods that will let you listen to Axioms.

To answer your question, I think the Axiom speakers are much better than any retail type brand, like Polk.

I think the M3s are Axiom's best speaker. I own three pair!

They do put out some killer bass for their size.

"Can anyone tell me how the M3's might differ from Polk speakers? Specifically the Polk RT series?"

I own Polk RTi8s (floorstanders) and M22s. I know this is not the exact comparison you are looking for but I think there are a couple general principles that apply. Both sets of speakers are excellent. Neither speaker is "bright" like Klipsch (my previous favorite speaker) - they are revealing. The M22s sound like slightly smaller versions of the RTi8s - which they should as they are bookshelf speakers. Both speakers have allowed me to hear instruments I didn't previously appreciate on CDs that I have had for many years - and heard on some relatively good speakers (Mirage and Klipsch) many times. I think both Axiom and Polk (at least at the top of the Polk line) make excellent speakers that sound very similar, but with Axiom you probably get at least 25% more for your money in terms of quality when you compare them to the Polk's retail prices.

If you think the Ascends offer more than that, go with them. But I can assure you, you won't be disappointed if you choose Axiom.

The only person that I know that's heard my M3s and refers to them as bright (in a negative way) is my brother.

But we both have Edirol MA-20D Digital Stereo Micro Monitors on our desktops - identical speakers, and I have my bass and treble controls set to just a pinch over flat (two pinches for treble) - he has his set a bit higher on the bass side and cuts the treble hard.

I've always just attributed it to his hearing damage from playing in bands for 20 years... but he also swears by his set of early 80s floorstanders with paper cones and a big treble attenuating dial on the front as being "the best sounding speakers he's ever heard"... I'm sure the response graph for them looks something like a bell curve.

Either way, I wouldn't give too much weight to either side of the argument... take advantage of Axiom's return policy and give them a listen for yourself.

Bren R.

My memory of the old shoot-out comparing the M22s and the Ascend cbm 170s was that it was very very close. Curtis Chang, the guy who runs the Ascend forum, was part of it, if I remember correctly. (I was not there - but I read the comparisons with interest since I own both speakers).

Some people thought the M22s had more detail and some people thought the M22s were slightly too bright. All seemed to agree they were very close.

I think everyone agrees that the M22s are "brighter" or more detailed than the M3s. So, calling the M3s brighter than the Ascends seems way off.

The Ascend 170 charts show it has a very flat frequency response for the money, slightly better than the Axiom M22s. The newer version 170s have more bass than the old ones did, I hear. But the M22s and the M3s have also been tweaked over the years to sound better.

I think the result was it was a matter of personal taste which speaker someone would prefer. I can't say I like the M22s or the 170s better.

As to the "ugly" charge - Ascends now can be gotten with custom finish, but that adds to the price. I think it is still neck and neck for great $400-500-600 speakers.

Hmmm - the above post almost sounds like I work for the Ascend company and am advertising on the Axiom site. Sorry.

I did buy 5 new Axiom speakers and only 2 used Ascends. The Axiom surrounds are definitely superior, IMHO, and that might/should sway one's choice. Also, the Axioms look better for about the same price (last time I priced them)

The graph on the Ascend site notes they are quasi-anechoic frequency response. What the heck is that?

When you click the link on the left for more response graphs it takes you to a graph from Soundstage from 2003 which was done at the NRC(like Axioms graphs) and that graph shows the M22 to be slightly better - less peaks and valleys, but like you said some will like the M22 others will like the 170.

I guess I stand corrected. The graphs I compared were close but the 170s looked flatter. They may have been different graphs - comparing apples to applesauce.

The one on the main page is flatter, you weren't wrong, it is just a little deception on their part as that graph is not from the same source as Axioms.

Like you said, apples to applesauce, close but not the same.

Let's not forget the real issue is how they sound to each one of us and we will all have slightly different views on what we like.

agreed

Although, graphs do tell a story that needs to be confirmed with one's ear. If you look at B*SE graphs it will clue you in. Also, I had some Paradigm Titans that sounded good at first - but then I realized they had too much bass bloat for me - as the graphs bore out.

Seems like one would do well to look at graphs and then go listen, or the other way around - but check out both.

For sure. Also, read the graphs very carefully.

There is another internet-direct speaker company that publishes response graphs liberally, but they only go down to 200Hz. I'm not sure that a reasonably flat line to 200Hz really tells me very much.

And where did the readings take place and under what conditions ie. anehoic chamber? Although lots of people seem to really like them, even a few on this board.

My take on the M22s and 170s graphs is still that they are very close - ascend being slightly flatter - but not by much.

I know I don't totally understand the graphs, but the fact that they are both pretty flat makes me feel good about my investment in Axioms.

It's not just the graphs, it's what you hear as well. Glad you feel good about the purchase, just like the rest of us.