graphs mean nothing, but alas, I must ask.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/axiom_m80ti/

Compared to something like this, http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/ , the axiom frequency response seems very colored and wavey. Especially when compared to Axiom's bookslehf model here, http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/axiom_m22ti_se/

Trusting graphs seems by far a crappy way to test for a good speaker, but, could anybody here tell me what that stuff means anyway? Curiousity got the best of me here.

Axiom Link

Paradigm Link

Those graphs don't mean anything; they're not in color.

Thasp, i believe Alan had stated in the past that he thought the M22s were one of the best, most neutral speakers that Axiom makes. The graph for the M22 is quite different from the M80s.
I suspect the extra tweeter and woofer may be throwing those frequency responses for a bit of a ride. One thing i forgot to ask when i was at Axiom was if they had a response graph for the M60 that i could see.

There are several other speaker brands that make fairly neutral speakers based on a review of the response graphs but of course, none are identical and some of these other brands are far more expensive than Axiom. There are droves of companies that make good speakers.

So where do I get a lesson in how to read these charts anyway... Since it is tested at 87.5, is the line supposed to be as close to that as possible? When it jumps above is that what people call a hump at a certain frequency? And below the line would be a....valley? Their probably not as hard to read as they seem, I just never took the time to try to figure them out, especially when it comes to looking at two different ones and comparing them.

Here's a strange question that I hope is not off topic - how do they actually sound? I actually enjoy my Axioms and I haven't seen a single chart. I will admit that they do taste better than Paradigms though. They also look better in spandex lingirie. But so does bigjohn.

ray- i knew you would get me back!!

i figured since you been gone for a few days, i needed to get your engines all fired up.

just for the record, i would go by the way they sound also.. not a graph. i dont really understand what all the squiggly lines mean either.. but if it sounds good, i am keeping them!

bigjohn

I tend to agree with Ray and Bigjohn on this. To me, as it is with most people, not everybody, but most, it's all about the sound. Who cares about all the technical jargon, the majority of people don't. If it sounds good, they're keepers, if they sound bad, ya get rid of em'. It's pretty cut and dry, and only becomes complicated if a person makes it that way. I'll pull out my SPL meter to calibrate everything, but other then that, that's as far as I take it. Numbers, charts, and graphs, are all irrelevant to me, and falls short in comparison to what my ears hear. As said, it's all about the sound. It's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Sutter Cane

On the other side of the spectrum, however, Absent the technical jargon and/or specs, Bose is able to foist some real audio doozies on the general population.

So even though not all people like to look at technical jargon, it says something about a company that freely provides it -- like they're not trying to hide behind pure marketing.

Pmbuko:

That's a very good point. I'm not saying that it isn't important at all. I'm just saying that when it comes to things such as this, I let my ears make the final decision, not what's jotted down on paper. But your right about Bose, they mislead a lot of people, or at least they do their best to try to.

Sutter Cane

Zarak,
You pretty much have it.
They pump a fixed level of power into the speakers (say 1W) and measure the average dB at a fixed distance in a fixed range of frequencies.
The spectrum sweep shows how the speaker reacts (more or less dB) at exact frequencies. The graphs are useful for the speaker designer to corroborate listening tests and consumer preferences with the response of a speaker.
For example, several ppl have mentioned how the M80s have more bass say than the M60s or the M22s (quite obvious). Looking at the 2 graphs shows how the M80s maintain a higher dB on average at lower frequencies. The extra little oomph in the upper bass from the M80s may also be due to that hump around 200Hz.

Graphs have to account for something. Is there a graph of the M60Ti frequency response? I assume that it is similar to the M80Ti.

As I've indicated in other posts, I have demoed Paradigm and Axiom side by side and both of us doing the test found the sound virtually indistiguishable. Paradigm, judging by the frequency response curve, should have a more "pure" sound in that it reproduces a broader range of frequencies close to the some sonic level whereas the Axioms has a lot more fluctuation overall. BUT, both speakers reproduce all frequencies at or near the same level.

Compare with the infamous Bose Acoustimass graph (this is from Intellexual.net for those who haven't seen it). Given this and either of the other two graphs, one can see that the sound reproduction from this system is not in the same ball park. Physically the speakers aren't capable of doing it.

In my search to buy a speaker I looked for the frequency response charts of systems that I was considering (those that I could find) to get a sense of what was behind the engineering of the speakers and how faithfully they could reproduce music. In the end, it was the conviction of the owners that sold me on the Axioms but I had the response graph of the M80Ti for back up. If someone had tried to sell me on the Acoustimass System with the same level of conviction, given that chart I'd have to say "Sorry No Sale".

In my case, I did not have much opportunity to demo speakers prior to buying them, but the response charts did give me an indication of where and where not to look.

Sean

In reply to:
Is there a graph of the M60Ti frequency response? I assume that it is similar to the M80Ti.

Again Sean, i forgot to ask when i was at the Factory, but i'm making an assumption that i think the M60 will not have the big upper bass hump that the M80 does and the midrange might not be as humpy. I think the extra drivers in the M80 probably create some interactions there. More drivers is not always better.
Perhaps Alan or Ian can give us some more insight on the M60 response.

Paradigm makes some good speakers i absolutely agree. This graph of their Monitor 5 is impressive, even against the Axiom M22s. Two small midrange humps up about 2dB and a slightly depressing upper end, down about 2dB (3500Hz to 10kHz) whereas the M22s have a steady climb up to the 6kHz point. It would explain the extra brightness for the Axiom speaker, yet both can be claimed as detailed.

Humpy Midrange? Who's s/he?

Okay, I'm going to preface this by saying I think the graphs CAN tell you something, and that the obviously skewed (Bose) graphs are clearly meaningful. I'm just talking about the relatively smaller squiggles and humps in the middle of the response curves.

I think the missing point here is that the graphed data is captured by a machine, not by a human ear. While the machine can discern and display minute differences in frequency response, that does not mean that a person can actually perceive those differences. And even if you could perceive them, you might not find them objectionable.

I'm spending too much time here lately.

In reply to:
I'm just talking about the relatively smaller squiggles and humps in the middle of the response curves.

I think the missing point here is that the graphed data is captured by a machine, not by a human ear. While the machine can discern and display minute differences in frequency response, that does not mean that a person can actually perceive those differences.

Indeed Tom.
Those wee humps and valleys are often below the threshold of human hearing (about 1dB) But if a hump were sitting at say 0.98dB higher than the average, and a song was mixed 'hot' by 0.5dB at that same frequency, you now have a frequency point at which the human ear can detect a difference (theoretically).
Those small humps and valleys could mean more on a larger scale once all other parameters are put into place, recording quality being one major item of course.
I think the charts are more useful for looking at obvious humps and valleys, at least that is about all i glance for when i look at the frequency response graphs. I am still a bit surprised at the M80 graph. The M22 is pretty impressive. There were some NRC measures for some Thiels that looked downright amazing.

I wonder if there are places where you can get your "ear response" measured? Kinda like a more involved hearing test that they give you in grade school?

It would be interesting to see just how much my upper-range hearing has dropped off. Do you think it recedes in step with the hairline?

In reply to:
I wonder if there are places where you can get your "ear response" measured? Kinda like a more involved hearing test that they give you in grade school?

Unfortunately Peter, you live in a land of wacky health protocols (according to my brother in DC). I imagine your family doctor (assuming you can afford health care) could direct you to a place that does it.
Here in Canada, anyone who dives can have hearing tested by a provincial or regional health nurse. I had this done 2 years ago. The graph was interesting but of course, they do not give you a frequency sweep but rather a set of tones in various ranges while sitting in a mini anechoic chamber that looks like a half sized phone booth submarine or something.
My hearing dropped off above the 18kHz mark or so which was apparently typical for males of my age. They do not usually test your lower limits.

graphs DO mean something.

but look at the graph for the M80's real close. It only varies between 1 and 3dB. 3dB is the point when we start to hear a noticeable difference, and it's rare that it;s 3dB higher or lower from one spot to another.

Something graph's can;t show you is soundstage. Imaging, making the speakers disappear in the room and present the band in front of you.

But they can show you something. Frequency response, and that's it. the graph for the M3Ti's shows the midrange lull. The graph for the Bose Acoustimass shows they are pieces of $#!@%^.

Don't base your decision on a graph. base it on what they sound like. But don't dismiss the info graphs offer, they do show the speakers' frequency response.

"Don't base your decision on a graph. base it on what they sound like. But don't dismiss the info graphs offer, they do show the speakers' frequency response."

Ravi Singh:
Good advise bud, that's pretty much what I was trying to suggest, although it didn't quite come out that way.

Sutter Cane

An interesting article from Soundstate RE Acoustic Measurements at NRC.
http://www.soundstage.com/traveler/traveler200211.htm

Sean