Audioholics Floorstander Shootout

No black hats here?

I saw this and hoped for some answers. No luck. Seems to me like same old same old but even worse in that the audition was flawed from the get go and admitted to. Sounds like all had fun but the results said all tested models (and even one not tested) would be fine in the ear of the beholder. Pick your poison and all will be fine no matter what. Just advertising with a twist.

It is definitely a good read. I enjoyed it. While I agree with implementing most of the tweaks mentioned on future shootouts it still brings across the importance of human bias and how it influences perception - blind results vs sighted results, most notably the results amongst the Klipsch speakers which actually scored the highest blind. I have always found Klipsch to get an unfair bad rep across their prodocut line that is based mostly on hersay about horn tweeters.

What would have been great was to have the exact number of trained vs untrained listeners. It would be interesting how that would influence the scores (if at all). I'm sure the untrained listeners loved the "energetic" sound of the Klipsch.

The author did mention in his own listening tests (that were not apart of the blind listening tests) that the JBL's were the most neutral speaker of the bunch and the Klipsch speakers were most different sounding.

The higher ratings of the Klipsch may have been for two additional reasons:

1. The Speaker cloth they used had a noticeable affect on sound, perhaps giving an advantage to a brighter speaker.

2. There was a noticeable difference in ratings between 'trained' and 'untrained' listeners. This is something that Dr. Toole felt very strongly about.

The most interesting thing to me is that Audioholics has gone to blind testing. In the past they have resisted this.

Unclebob. If you want the definitive answer its, as always, 42 (which makes no sense if you are not a scifi fan).

Put another way, sometimes there are no definitive answers. Axiom and RBH (Emptech) are both known to make excellent speakers and both have had speakers in Audioholics reference rooms.

Klipsch, if you look past the stereotyping, also makes some good speakers, though they tend to be in a higher price category than the ones reviewed here.

To me, the most interesting part is Audioholics discussing the shortcomings of their methodology. I have never seen anything similar in any print mag.

For what its worth, I have seen Audioholics criticize speakers, even in more recent reviews.

As always, the best way to get the definitive answer is to listen for yourself. Admittedly that is not always easy.

I liked the shootout. It was very informative and highlights some of the difficulties with comparing speakers--blind or not. I like how the article points out that "bright" speakers usually fair well in comparisons. That's generally speaking, of course. I always remember my days of going to the local audio store to the listening rooms. Inevitably, there was the sales guy talking to a potential customer cranking up a pair of speakers to painful levels saying, "Check it out, you can feel the bass!"

Of course! but I can't hear anything else!!

I started out with a pair of Klipsch speakers. They were dynamic and fun. I can see why the brand appeals to a lot of people.

I guess my point is--sometimes when things jump out at you when listening you have to ask yourself is the highlight a good or bad thing? While at first it may stand there pointing and saying, "Look at me!" is it because it is a good quality or a potentially annoying one? Some faults are easier to spot, as well as some good things. My best bet was to spend some real time with a speaker and listen to it over time. Sometimes it is the balanced speaker that is good for the long haul, the one that doesn't beat you over the head with one particular thing.

But!!! Speaker comparisons are still fun! It's a great way to tell differences and similarities between speakers--especially with an A/B switch. I had a blast listening to speakers with Dean. Looking forward to a future session with multiple bookshelf speakers. Great way to try different flavors of sound.

Tom, was it you who suggested this?

Also, they referred to the M60 as being v2 throughout the article, but the scorecard graph said v3. They're messing with us.

Unfortunately that is what it all boils down to, the ear of the beholder, as it has to sound good to you. For example I know of a few people that love the sound of the new Monitor Audio RX silver series, they are lifeless to me. Many love the sound of the M3, I am not a huge fan of them. I wouldn't be looking to reviews for answers. The answer resides in you.

One thing I wish they would have included are the speaker preferences of the evaluators. The test is interesting and I especially appreciate them trying to identify the biases. However, any test/review where I’m not told the usual speaker preferences of the evaluator has little external validity for me since I have no frame of reference to compare how the reviewers evaluation/preferences might compare to mine.

I noticed that the amp used for the test was the Axiom A1400-8.

CV, this is quite a mystery. This quote does not appear in this thread.

Were the original words removed as they were referring to a future upgrade?

Or did you simply get it from another thread?

Years ago I posted an image of all silver Axioms, they looked great and I hope that this new "rumour" will be coming true.

If nothing else it was an interesting read.

It’s a quote from the Audioholics article.

I'm curious as to how the reviewers might feel about some of these speakers given a longer listening period. When I auditioned some Klipsch speakers, my initial impressions were positive, yet 15-20 min of listening left me fatigued so I moved on to the Energy speakers at the same store. I would have preferred the review to have more trained ears than casual listeners as was the case here.

Thank you for setting up the test and all the time and organizing it must have taken Gene.

When I first read about the completely aluminized cones in the article the first thing that came to mind was AV123 and the Rocket speakers. I don't know if Axiom would want that brand association, first impression or reaction from individuals if that implementation would take place. Something to definitely consider.

I have always liked the black dust caps on the white drivers - the traditional look that immediately separates them from the majority of speakers/competition. There is a lot of brand recognition in the classic look of the drivers.

As for the magnetic grills, on all my Axiom speakers that I own the grill mounting is very solid. There is no way that the grills would fall off EVER. Not sure why they would want to change what is perfect already regarding the grills.

I would doubt that people would associate Axiom speakers with AV123 just due to a switch to all aluminum woofers. HiVi(maker of AV and Swan woofers) makes many of their drivers sans dustcaps, as does Goldwood and some of Peerless's latest HD line. I would only consider a change in this regard if it improved the sound, otherwise it would be pointless.

Axiom is adding this feature because it has been requested many times by people who prefer to have their grilles off. Hidden magnets result in a cleaner look than the exposed black rubber grommets. Ian discussed this with the customer council during one of our conference calls and he assures us they're using strong magnets that really hold the grill in place.

Thanks for clearing up the "mystery" Grunt, I'm quite hopless if I don't get my morning coffee.

AV123 actually sold Swan speakers at one point. They share similar 'technology' as well in their designs. I would consider there to be association between the two.

The point I am making is that change might not give the greatest first impression to some and dilutes the brand recognition that has been built over the years in their advertising - changing the "look" of the speaker to the direction that is associated with their competition.

I agree about liking the look of the dust caps but by getting rid of them it eliminates one source (however small) of problems, loose dust caps. I had one vibrating on a brand new M22 though only on one song at a certain passage. Tapping it clearly showed it was loose along part of the edge. Axiom quickly shipped me a replacement but still I imagine if you can eliminate even a small source of problems it pays dividends in the long run.




I’ve broken all the tabs off one QS8 grill after droping it from about 5 feet. Also broken individual tabs from a couple other QS8s during “drop tests.” I’ve also broken individual tabs off the grills of one M80 and my EP500 by kicking them with my foot when walking buy. So while the plastic tabs generally work ok they don’t stand up to caveman treatment.

Not sure if my types of experiences have factored into their thinking but based on them I can understand the desire to change.

I barely caught it myself because I was suffering from the opposite problem of being just about to go to bed.

Not to mention what little hands and lots of curiosty does to them.

But isn't there something of a boobie-look that is appealing?

One other point to consider is that it's possible that Axiom will keep the dust caps, but 'aluminize' them along with the transducer, much like these mid-woofers from Peerless/Tymphany.

Although I've never given much thought to the dust caps, I'd still have to agree here; they are very distinctive looking. I found that the Axiom driver really stood out (to me anyways) in their banner ads. They caught my eye both before and after I became an Axiom follower. Not sure a silver capless driver would've had the same effect. Driver appearance would never be a deciding factor for me in terms of speaker purchases, but it can get one's attention if it is distinctive enough.

I wonder if the silver capless drivers will sound any better or different? Perhaps this is purely a cosmetic change?

I don't believe they (dust cap) have a noticeable, if any effect at all on the sound.

Interesting article. I'm a big fan of blind tests for anything that is influenced by unrelated perceptions.

My biggest quibble with this test has to do with using music unfamiliar to the users to evaluate the speakers. I'd suggest something along the lines of creating a compilation CD of all the tracks you're using for evaluation, sending it to participants and having them listen to all the tracks multiple times on their own sound system. That way they'd be familiar with the music and how it sounds on their reference system, which would free them to pay attention to how the speakers reproduce the music.

Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy of course, 42 works for me, i understand completely, and i know exactly which speaker is best now...

Or at least which forum

Fredk,

The science behind the double blind listening test is a very interesting one. I was at the NRC in the early days when we spent much time developing the double blind listen test and analyzing the results. It was at this time that the consistency of the results started to become apparent. We were getting very similar rankings of products, even across a broad spectrum of listeners with very different musical tastes and levels of exposure to high fidelity. It was this consistency of result that allowed us to begin developing a set of laboratory measurements that could be directly correlated to the listening test results. It was also shown that this correlation would be lost if the tests were done sighted; especially amongst those with high levels of exposure to high fidelity who knew what was under test and had a predetermined favorite. As time went by the double blind listening test became more refined along with our knowledge of what we could do in the laboratory to positively affect the result. In the beginning we were essentially “knocking off the big measurements” which meant the performance differences were large and the listening test results incredibly consistent; but as time went by, and we wanted to work on more subtle differences, both the double blind listening test and the laboratory measurements became more refined. We can now get very consistent listening test results on some very minor adjustments to the performance. If I had to boil it down to a few key components needed for a proper test, and this is leaving out a lot of important detail, I think I would go with 1) the dB levels of all the speakers under test must be the same, 2) the screen must be acoustically transparent, and 3) the listener must own the switch and the music. All of our listen testing is done one participant at a time and they have full control over the music they wish to play and when they wish to push the instantaneous switcher.

Obviously doing it this way is one laborious process. It can take all day, or longer, for just one listen test session. I am sure Steven Roode is painfully aware of this. When we were developing the VP180 he would check in on the progress from time to time and no doubt it must have appeared to be taking us forever to get through the listen testing of the various options we were working on. If we wanted to try just one more thing then another week would go by.

The advantage however is we do get consistent results from our listen testing to very minor adjustments made in the laboratory. We can also get consistent results between both experienced listeners and relative newbies. The experienced listeners tend to be able to get to their decisions much quicker than the newbies but the results are quite consistent. We never put any sort of time limit on how long you spend in the test session.

Ian. Thanks for the reply. Those early days at the NRC must have been quite exciting, as you guys were breaking new ground.

Now that I have more time listening to quality speakers, it would be interesting to go back and do some double blind listening to different Axiom offerings to see how those results compare to my original listening session. I know I came away with a few strong impressions of the differences between the M22, M60 and M80.

I compare what I found in my listening session at Axiom to what two people who's opinions I rally respect, Alan and Jay, found in the same A/B comparisons and find that all three of us describe sonic differences between speakers differently.

I wonder if I would hear different things, or if I would realize that it was just how I was describing things that was off.

Ignorance is bliss Fred . Pretty soon the speaker line up will have changed enough over the years that I won't be able to comment on their sound any longer unless I order up some new ones and that isn't going to happen any time soon.