Hi all,
I am looking at a upgrade to B&W Matrix 805 paired with a threshold s/150 and a passive DIY pre amp. My source is digital music from my computer feeding a modded DacMagic MK2.

I am considering M3's. Since I dont have the option or time to audition them in India, I need to make a decision based on owners reviews.

Need inputs from you all on my predicament.

cheers!

Welcome, madbullram. Recently at the Axiom 30th Anniversary gathering, approx 30 of us had the opportunity to blind test the M3 against it's B&W counterpart which unless I am mistaken, was the latest 805. The results showed a preference for the M3's over the B&W....if I recall....12 votes M3, 9 votes B&W and 5 ties. The M3's were about 1/7 to 1/8th the price of the B&W's for comparison. My own take on the two speakers were that they were "similarily good" with subtle, but audible differences.

Adrian,

Do you recall that thread after the 30th party and the listening tests, where everyone weighed in with their impressions of the double-blind tests and their reactions when the identity of the speakers was revealed?

I can't seem to find it.

Thanks,
Alan

If they are similar but the M3s are 1/7th of the price, is this really an upgrade?

The M3s would have been a better initial purchase, but since he has the 805s already, might as well stay with them.

@Club: ARe you saying I wouldn't really benefit from M3 over Matrix 805? Upgrading from 805 seems to be a tough choice !!!

Also, in that case I am also thinking of secondary system for my office area at home. Was planning on moving the Matrix 805 there, so instead I can get the M3s and use at the office space which would be equal to my Matrix 805?

Adrian: What were the speakers connected to?

Ram,

The speakers in the Axiom listening room are always driven by an Axiom A1400 power amplifier and a Sherwood Newcastle AV preamp.

Alan

My understanding from past threads is that each speaker was powered by an Axiom A1400 amplifier. Other components I am aware Axioms uses are a Sherwood Newcastle pre-processor and Panasonic Blu-ray player as one of its sources.

In the blind test the Axiom conducted the listeners were pretty evenly split between the M3s and 805s. Which says a lot about the value of the M3. But yeah, the M3 isn't really an upgrade over the 805. They were found to be very equal to each other.

But if you were wanting something that is similar to your 805 in another location, but not wanting to spend the same amount of money the M3s would be a good choice.

Dr: The source was a Pana Bluray and not a CDP? Was it that good for a blind test?

Thanks Alan

I don't know if the Panny was used in the blind test, but it is a component that is used in one of their listening rooms. Blu-ray players btw make exceptional CD players and Panasonic are makers of some of the best performing models in today's marketplace.

You'll find around here that a majority of us don't subscribe to the more esoteric beliefs in audio. WHile some certainly do, a greater number of us on the boards (and at Axiom itself) would tell you tat there's no differerence between how a BD player plays CDs and how a high priced CD player (not a tubed one) plays CDs.

madbull, your B&W speakers are several years old aren't they? so perhaps there may be a noticeable difference....hard to say how much difference there is between your "Matrix" and the latest 805's(Diamond?) without actually hearing them side by side.

Alan....looking for thread now...

Adrian: I listened to the latest Nautilus and Diamond. I felt the N was not an upgrade as nothing significant but the Diamond speakers were really an upgrade when it came to vocals...the diamond tweeter were really excellent.

.... Blind Listening Experience ....

Thanks Adrian. Any idea on the Pana bluray model? Have decided to order the M3 now I cant audition them till I get back to india. Carrying them back to India with me this month end.

I more curious to hear the M3 pairing up with a T-Amp

I have a picture of the listening room setup clearly showing a Samsung BluRay player was used for the listening tests that day.

No model number is visible, but it looks very basic

Adrian:

Thanks for finding the thread on the listening tests.

Incidentally, while in some double-blind comparisons I have sometimes used the phrase "similarly good" in tests of speakers with dramatically different prices, in the session on the 30th anniversary, I did NOT apply that phrase to the B&W Nautilus 805 and the Axiom M3 v3 because they were not "similarly good." I scored the M3 v3 significantly higher overall than the B&W (8.5 vs. 7.5), noting the B&W's shallow and narrower soundstage and its somewhat forward and aggressive midrange that made female vocals sibilant and edgy at times. My scores were almost identical to those of Ian Colquhoun and Andrew Welker when they did the tests separately; the consistency was remarkable.

The superior depth and breadth of the Axiom M3's soundstage was obvious on most orchestral, choral and opera selections and other listeners also noted that difference. It's also a trait I noted of the new M22 v3 vs the old M22ti in comparisons I made with my home switching system (not double-blind) when I received the new M22 v3.

Regards,
Alan

The width of soundtage stood out on all the material I listened to. I don't know that I picked up on the depth so much.

The two things I think could improve on the M3 are the mid bass hump and a bit of a lack of clarity on the upper end. Oh, wait, you did that already and called it the M22.

I was also back and forth on the female vocals. I found the B&W more natural on some passages and the M3s on others.

As a first time buy its a no brainer for the M3. As an upgrade from the B&W its a latteral move.

Edit: its funny, when I first filled out the blind listening form I wasn't so sure I ageed with my conclusion that what turned out to be the the M3 was better, but now I remember the better soundstage much more than any other difference.

You're welcome, Alan.

In reg's to the listening test, I know I(and several others) had a problem expressing what differences we were hearing into words, despite clearly noticing them. Also, when you know there are 20+ more people waiting to do the test, I found myself rushing through it a little and the only cd available that I was partly familiar with was the Holly Cole one(forgot to bring my own). Regardless, conveying the audible differences I could hear into audio terminology/jargon proved difficult for me on the test paper.

That was one area where Dr. Toole did training prior to doing blind listening tests. It didn't make sense when I first read that paper and I wondered if there was inherant bias introduced by doing that. Having gone through a session, I can understand the need.

FWIW, I did the session a day earlier without any time pressure and I still had the same problem expressing the differences.

Adrian and Fredk,

Yes, there is a learning curve about expressing those differences, and certainly a training session for newcomers to the double-blind experience makes pinpointing obvious differences and even nuances easier. Anyway, I'm writing a sidebar for the next AudioFile Axiom newsletter using my own rating sheet based on the M3 vs B&W Nautilus session. Working title is "Critical Listening" or something like that.

It wasn't an easy double-blind test by any means. We could have picked a real stinker of a speaker to put in with the M3 but early on in the planning when we decided to schedule a double-blind comparison we wanted it to require honing of one's listening skills.

Alan

I found I liked the B&W better (but only by a hair). The M3 had better bass and a better sound stage, that was noticed on all tracks and right away. However the the B&W seemed to have more detail in the upper frequiences and sounded more natural on male and female vocals when hitting higher notes.

Having said that, the value of the M3 (and this is the 1st time I have ever heard the M3) is far superior over the B&W.

If money was no object, I would go with the B&W. For me and most people, money is a huge concern, the M3's win!

Hey Alan. Have you guys compared the M22 and the B&W bookshelf? That would actually be another interesting comparison.

hey all, an update, I had the opportunity to audition B&W Nautilus and B&W DIamond. I felt the Ns were sad when compared to my Matrix 805 ( i really dont understand though how a new age speaker from B&W can sound inferior to their old speakers!) and the diamond was definitely much better than my Matrix, the highs were smoother compared to my Matrix.

But the price of Diamond doesn't justify a purchase as an upgrade!

New only means new, not necessarily better, as you have found out. Design changes in components, crossovers etc. year to year can make an other wise good speaker line sound bad to some people and good to others, such is our hobby.

Sometimes design changes really mean...cheaper to produce...more profits....re-invent a product to sell the "newest" version...it doesn't necessarily mean better.That would go for just about any manufactured product.

Quoted for truth. You would amazed at the running changes that occur over a products life span - not just with speakers. Cost cutting measures are usually the driving factor. The build quality of today's John Deere riding lawn mowers are nowhere near that of 20+ years ago which also included a Kohler cast iron engine. On the other hand with some products like electronics running changes are filled with incomplete information for consumers because they are not usually disclosed nor seen. Such changes may or may not affect performance, if not there is usually a trade-off with build quality. When companies seek to make improvements with a product in one area, there can also be cost-cutting measures in another area. Got to maintain your margins.

Again, thanks all.

So it basically takes me back to Sqaure one...though it was a tie between M3's and B&W N805, the fact might be, B&W Matrix 805 might be better than the M3 so no where an upgrade!

Plus taking it back to India rules out the option of returning it...choices choices and decisions!!!!!!