i am interested in the M22s,.. but who isn't...thing is, some reviewers noted a lack of bass in the M22s. that made me wonder, does the M3s have more bass extension than the M22s? what about bass quality and tightness?
which one has a more balanced sound?...M3s have a midbass spike according to reviews.
i will be using a subwoofer with my system, which one will blend more smoothly and seamlessly?
i will be auditioning them both tomorrow!! wish me luck!!
slack,
You've already answered your questions by yourself.
Most importantly, rely on your own ears since you are lucky enough to have a chance to audition both speakers. Since you will already cover the most relevant factor (which is your own listening tests), I just wanted to link to some NRC measurements available at
audiovideoreviews.com.
M3 frequency response (listening window, +/- 15 degrees off-axis averaged):
M22 frequency response (listening window, +/- 15 degrees off-axis averaged):
As you see in the graphs, the "real" bass extension is almost identical in these speakers. However, the M3 has a significant hump in the 80-200Hz region, which may provide a subjective impression of "more bass" for some listeners. Also, the M3 exhibits a broad dip in the 1.5-10kHz region (especially 3-8kHz), which may explain many people's impressions that these speakers are more recessed, laid-back, relaxed and mellow. In contrast, the M22 shows a definitely flatter response above 80Hz, consistent with its impression of an accurate, more detailed sound.
If it were me, I would likely go with the M22, which I know blends with a subwoofer seamlessly.
I agree...if you've already got a nice sub, the M22's are the way to go.
another concern is that the speakers will sound different at the dealer compared to at home...i will be using them with a NAD 3100 integrated amp 50wpc...got it second hand, don't even know how old it is.
50wpc is more than enough to power the m22's or m3's.
my dad is powering my m3's with 20wpc on a toshiba tuner that's from the 70's and it sounds GREAT
slack,
Don't worry too much about it. As long as you listen to the M3 and M22 side-by-side in the same dealer room, you will get a very good idea regarding their respective tonal characters.
I just came back from auditioning the M3s and M22s!!!
despite the similar freq response graphs, i found the M3s had more bass than the M22s, quite a lot more..this could be due to the midbass hump in the M3s, or the dealer said it could be because the M22s are not that broken in compared to the M3s.
on the whole, i found the M22s have a much more natural and smooth sound compared to hte M3s whose bass sounded overemphasized on some songs...on the other hand, the M22s seem to lack that bit of punch in the bass...the dealer said the more powerful the amplifier used, the tighter and punchier the bass..
the dealer was unable to hook up a subwoofer for my listening tests...i will be using the bookshelves with a subwoofer at home. therefore, i was unable to determine if the M22s would blend seamlessly enough with a sub.
i will go back again with some of my own CDs...i actually listen to heavy metal. the dealer said that the axioms are not suited for such music ( rock, heavy metal)
i really liked the midrange and treble of the M22s. if only the bass was slighly deeper.
The M22's with a sub are a match made in heaven. The sub will (should) disappear - giving you the impression that your M22's have become the clearest full range speakers you've ever heard.
Hmmmm... "The Axioms are not suited for such music...."
I always thought this was a silly way to audition speakers. Does this mean you should ideally have a different set of speakers for each genre of music you listen to? Should I have a bassy set of speakers for metal, an airy set of speakers for classical, and a well-balanced set for jazz? That's BS.
If a set of speakers is accurate -- and the M22s definitely are -- then they should reproduce EVERY genre of music well. I really don't think the guy sitting behind the mixing console thinks about what kinds of speakers "Band X's" audience has and mixes the CD appropriately for them.
I'll give the dealer the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just referring to the M22's low perceived bass output.
Yeah, (as I always say) don't listen to the dealer; listen to the speakers!
The salesperson's mention of the M22 break-in, as well as the effects of a "more powerful" amp, is essentially a BS. Ian, the Axiom founder and chief engineer, has openly stated that his speakers don't require more than 1-2 hours of "break-in," if any. No solidstate amp will make M22's bass "tighter" or "punchier" than what you heard (unless the amp you heard was grossly underpowered, which is very unlikely). As Craig said, this is a non-issue for you anyway, since you will be using it with a subwoofer.
With regard to the "suitability" of the Axioms for the rock and heavy metal genres, what the dealer said is again a BS. But it is true that the Axiom speakers are honest about "hot" recordings often found in the rock/pop CDs. Those recordings, intentionally EQ'ed to sound nice on FM radios, boomboxes and car audios, may present themselves as overly aggressive on the Axioms, simply because of Axiom's highly neutral and accurate nature. At any rate, it is VERY important for you to listen to the speakers with the music you like and are familiar with. You are the only judge here!
Good luck!!!
I would summarily dismiss everything the dealer said as BS, except that bit about Axioms not being good for heavy metal. It seems like many of the new rock/pop CDs are indeed engineered for play on car stereos and come out hard and brittle through the Axioms. Crystal clear, but hard.
'70's metal sounds awesome though. The Axioms open up those quiet recordings beautifully. Anybody listen to Robin Trower's Bridge of Sighs CD? Freakin' great!
I know this has been through the wringer over and over again, and some how I was able to steer clear of most of the shouting, but I've got to chime in.
To "No solidstate amp will make M22's bass "tighter" or "punchier"..." I just have to disagree. When I switched from my Onkyo receiver to my Rotel gear, the only clear difference was the bass becoming exactly "tighter". No, not a HUGE difference, but it was noticable. Curtis (Mr. Ascend) brought his 340's to my place and the first words out of his mouth were the fact that his Ascends bass was "tighter" through the Rotel gear than through his HK525. (And YES we were of course listening to the speakers sans sub)
Slack - As a newbie here, I must warn you that the majority of "regulars" here don't believe in ANYTHING having an audible effect on your system other than the speakers. They'll tell you that ALL receivers sound the same, all amps sound the same, all dvd/cd players perform equally, and don't even DARE mention cables to them - yikes...that'll get them REALLY going!
I'm certainly not going to tell you that any of these things make a huge difference, but most people around here will gladly post a three page diatribe on the issue.
Sushi - forgive me...I still consider you the King of Information around here, I just have to disagree with you on this one.
The difference between the M3s and M22s is more than just the bass hump. I like to listen to the Getz/Jobim CD, there's a Getz sax solo somewhere in there that with the M3s you can hear the plosive breathiness of the sax in the lower registers which is just astonishingly realistic. The M22s I had never captured this nuance like the M3s did. Although the Michaura M55s outsparkle both the M22s and M3s in the upper registers, these beautiful speakers don't capture that piece of sax magic as well as the M3s either. I'm thinking that I should try stacking the M55s ontop of a pair of M3s or Michaura M66s (2 of the same 6.5" drivers as the M3) and using the Yamaha M80 amplifier which puts out a stable [u]+[/u]330 watts at 4 ohms. Might combine the best of both.
Craig,
I don't think we are necessarily in a fundamental disagreement. I do NOT claim that all amps sound the same (although, at least for me, detecting a convincing sonic difference between good SS amps has been fairly difficult). I have no intention, expertise, experience, or guts to make such a sweeping generalization.
Incidentally, as you may know, I used to design and build more than a few serious tube amps from scratch, and I knew each one of those sounded noticeably different. If I had started with an a priori assumption: all-amps-sound-the-same, I would not have been interested in designing and building DYI amps in the first place.
Just that in the specific context of slack's auditioning, I have to say that NO AMP will change the bass sound character nearly in the magnitude of differences he was hearing between the M22 and M3 (unless we are talking about a tube amp with a very low damping factor). In that sense, the salesperson was still BS'ing a big time. That's all I meant.
Don't you agree?
2x6,
Would you be willing to concede that the "explosive breathiness of the sax in the lower registers" is just an artifact of the M3ti's unique characteristics, namely the bass hump? It's difficult to say what is realistic or not when almost everything we hear is through speakers -- even at live events.
"plosive," not explosive. I dunno whether or not the bass hump helped, but it sounded shockingly real, more like a saxophone than a stereo. I liked it a lot!
It's the breathy, plosive sound you make when you puff out a "P" sound. Not like "Pee," but "Puh."
Well, at the very least, it seems that Ian crafted that mid-bass "hump" very, very skillfully with respect to music reproduction.
I'll agree that no amp is going to make the M22's sound like the M3's. The difference will never be that big.
thanks for all the help guys, i really appreciate it!!
if it makes things clearer, i first heard the M22s on a tube anp. the dealer later switched it to an old (70's) Creek audio integrated amp 40wpc when i told him i will be using the speakers with a SS amp. the creek had more bass compared to the tube amp ( didn't find out the output of the tube).
all the later comparisons between the M3 and M22 was done on the Creek.
regarding the subwoofer, i was wondering how should i connect it to the system. should i
i) use a line level connection for the subwoofer, and leave the main speakers on full range
ii) use a line level connection for the sub, but put a high pass filter on the signal for the main speakers ( i was thinking 60-80Hz, but since the speakers roll off naturally around 60 Hz, this seems a bit redundant)
iii) use the speaker level connections for the sub, and take the high passed signal from the sub to the main speakers
what are the relative merits of using line level and speaker level connections?
Besides the Axioms, i am also looking at a couple other speakers; Kef Cresta 10,cresta 30, Tannoy Mercury MX1, MX3
Any opinions on the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2s? they get quite good reviews from some reviewers, others say they suck ( not so directly, but you get the idea)
I am quite undecided as to what i want to get. the Axioms are definately good, in fact they may be too good for me. i thought the other speakers that i listed would do the job for me as well.
Regarding the heavy metal, i listen to Metallica and some Manowar. Are their music EQ'ed to sound nice on FM radio?
i know this post is quite long and covers a lot of areas. i have been looking for speakers for quite some time and i just can't make up my mind. i am currently making do with a pair of JVC mini hifi speakers connected to my NAD.
I really appreciate the help from you guys!!
slack
Regarding the sub hook-up, your NAD 3100 has a line output for the sub??? -- that's a clever feature for the stereo integrated amp. Anyway, in that case, I would try ALL of the three configurations you listed. Experiment with each one of them (each with proper subwoofer calibrations), and pick the one that sounds best to you. It's a very small investment of your time for a potentially big difference in sound quality. And you are right -- I would not choose a crossover frequency much lower (or much higher) than 80Hz.
With regard to those "hot" recordings, I am no expert on Metallica, but judging from CDs my daughter owns, yes some of the tracks sound a bit "bright" on my Hales/Axiom system (which I think is quite "accurate"). In most case, though, all you need is to lower the treble tone control a notch or two. Personally, I would never be willing to sacrifice truly "good" recordings for the "hot" ones.
The middle to late Metallica CDs are pretty well mastered, with the height of it being the S&M set. Load and Reload are pretty good. I would grab the gold Master of Puppets remaster if I could, but the Ride the Lightning remaster isn't worth it. Basically, Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning, Justice, and St. Anger don't sound so good (hi-fi speaking), but the rest are pretty good.
I actually don't think the middle to late albums are all that well mastered. Sure they're not pop, but I think they suffered from the same mastering mentality of "louder is better" as the rest of the mainstream music scene has.
For comparison's sake, I think the newest Coldplay album "A Rush of Blood to the Head" sounds waaaay better from a mastering point of view than those Metallica CDs, but it has definitely received the radio treatment.
You don't think S&M is well mastered? I think it does a better job of bringing out the nuances than any of their other CDs. I'll have to borrow the Coldplay album.
In reply to:
To "No solidstate amp will make M22's bass "tighter" or "punchier"..." I just have to disagree. When I switched from my Onkyo receiver to my Rotel gear, the only clear difference was the bass becoming exactly "tighter". No, not a HUGE difference, but it was noticable. Curtis (Mr. Ascend) brought his 340's to my place and the first words out of his mouth were the fact that his Ascends bass was "tighter" through the Rotel gear than through his HK525. (And YES we were of course listening to the speakers sans sub)
I agree with spliffnme here because there's the whole concept of damping factor. The higher the damping factor, the more control that the amplifier will have over the driver, and that can help for tightness.
No Will, sushi is correct. This is yet another example of what is essentially an audio myth. As
this analysis by Dick Pierce shows, there's no significant "tightness" factor and until the damping factor gets down into the low single digits(i.e. some tube amps)there're no significant response fluctuations.
JohnK,
I read the research paper -- the whole thing. Looks like an open-and-shut case: damping factor is a pointless statistic. One BIG strike against amp manufacturer marketing departments.
To the habitual science-shunners among us, this paper is not saying that different amps don't make a speaker sound different. It just completely rules out damping factor as a possible source of any perceived difference.
BAH! I've been fed too many marketing lies by Yamaha!