Against everyone's advice, I decided to order the M2is over the M22s, figuring I could always trade up if the smaller speakers weren't sufficient. I ordered them Monday and they arrived yesterday and I set them up last night. So far, with only 10 minutes of listening time before I had to put the kids to bed, I am VERY impressed with both the quality and quantity of sound output from these little speakers, and this using a NAD C 370 that only has about 10 hours on it. So, I'm anticipating the sound can only improve with time. I still have more and varied listening to do, but for now, the M2is are more than enough! As another poster said, I think people underestimate this little speaker. My only regret is I didn't do this a couple of years ago when I first stumbled on this site. Can't wait to listen to the rest of my CD/SACD collection.

So i figure you ordered the NAD before the speakers... cos i was gonna say..

Its probbly a quite a bit overkill for them lil speakers. at least you wont be short on power. better to have too much than too little.

You are right that I got the NAD first, but then decided it was a little ridiculous to play such a good integrated through my crappy Infinitys, so went in search of speakers and figured the M2is were a no-brainer based on what I had read and they supposedly are rated up to 150 watts. Plus, since my system is in my living room, the M2is rate high on the "wife acceptance factor" because of their small size, not an inconsequential factor in my decision. We will see if the M2is stand the test of time, or at least until my next case of upgrade-itis!

Also, keep in mind that when Doug Schneider reviewed the M2i so favorably in 2002, he used two different integrateds, a 100 wpc Arcam and a 200 wpc Perreaux. So, as you said, you can never have too much power!

Let's not forget that, in general, the smaller the speakers, the more power you need to attain a given level of listening volume. This is certainly true for the Axiom lines -- the smaller models are usually less sensitive/efficient. For example, to attain a given volume level at the same listening position, the M2s (92db/W/m in-room) actually need twice as much power as the M22s (95dB/W/m in-room) do.

But then again, those are posted specifications...

Measurements by SoundStage! at the NRC give them 1 dB difference between their sensetivities.

M22ti
M2i

And for comparison, here is the M3Ti which is actually LOWER than the M2i.

In comparison, Axiom rates the M2i as 87, the M3ti as 88, and the M22ti as 89 (all anechoicly of course, unlike other manufacturers which ONLY say the in-room spl).

Sushi: Did you know the DJ is a budding Neuro Scientist like yourself. His presentation of facts almost mimics and possibly challenges your critiques .... he is just rough around the edges due to his age.

...coming from someone who knows nothing.

In reply to:

---

Sushi: Did you know the DJ is a budding Neuro Scientist like yourself. His presentation of facts almost mimics and possibly challenges your critiques .... he is just rough around the edges due to his age.

...coming from someone who knows nothing.

---

That I consider to be a great honor .

Anyways about our respective fields, sushi, if I am not mistaken, seems to be more focused on integrating systems neuroscience with molecular and cellular level knowledge (ie. his discovery which was later linked to narcalepsy). Right now since I'm still just in school, I haven't had much focus (so just a few papers and limited research), but I am definately leading towards a more broad view (ie. circuits) to do less cell/molec and more of just systems, and not mix as much. But as sushi said in another post, the combination of those two fields IS more powerful than just one alone.

Ahh I just figured out why the advertised specs are different from SoundStage!'s measurements. Most manufacturers rate their speakers' sensetivities at 1 kHz instead of 300 to 3000 Hz. Anyways, the 300-3000 should be a better indicator of true speaker performance .

In reply to:

---

Anyways about our respective fields, sushi, if I am not mistaken, seems to be more focused on integrating systems neuroscience with molecular and cellular level knowledge (ie. his discovery which was later linked to narcalepsy). Right now since I'm still just in school, I haven't had much focus (so just a few papers and limited research), but I am definately leading towards a more broad view (ie. circuits) to do less cell/molec and more of just systems, and not mix as much. But as sushi said in another post, the combination of those two fields IS more powerful than just one alone.

---

Is this English? It might as well not be...

-Nick

In reply to:

---

Sushi: Did you know the DJ is a budding Neuro Scientist like yourself. His presentation of facts almost mimics and possibly challenges your critiques .... he is just rough around the edges due to his age.

---

Saturn, Haven't you realized that I am trying to recruit DJ to my lab as a prospective Ph.D. student?

Back to the topic, DJ's point is well taken. In the above post, I just wanted to debunk the general notion that "larger speakers need higher power" -- in fact, everything else being equal, the opposite is usually true. Of course, in practice, larger speakers are often placed in a larger room and expected to perform at higher sound levels at longer listening distance. So, "everything else" is usually unequal.

isolate those variables!

Me, I want some equations. Of course, there's still no better way to get them on a computer than writing them down and scanning them in, IMHO. Just easier to follow than a bunch of ASCII.