Can anyone offer am opinion as to which bookshelf speaker above is better? I know the M22's have somewhat limited bass and are not bi-wireable. I do not intend to buy a sub anytime soon. Both speakers are at similar price points but the 8.2's have deeper bass and can be bi-wired. Cones are also Kevlar v. aluminum. The 8.2's are rated at 6 ohms. My Yamaha integrated amp is rated at 70 wpc and .08 thd into 8 ohms. The listening room is fairly large at 16 x 18 x 9'. Main use is stereo, rock, blues, new age, classical and medium volume. Thanks for your advice!

First of all... (link please, Ken?) bi-wiring is unnecessary.

And if you don't intend on adding a sub... look to the M3s - they stand up very well (maybe too well when backed into a corner) in the bass department on their own.

Bren R.

Hi Dave, welcome.

Too many stats!! Really, the only way to tell is to listen.

While doing a search here on Wharfedale might turn up something useful, this is the Axiom board, so we're highly likely to tell you how wonderful the M22 and M3 (and other Axiom models) are.

I don't know upon what basis you can conclude that the Wharfedales have "deeper bass". WHile the product brochure I pulled up rated them to 45Hz, it did NOT say under what tolerances. They might be down -10db at that frequency for all I know.

It is unlikely that the impedance will be an issue with your Yammy, so don't worry about the Ohms difference.

People who have them LOVE the M22's.

Obligatory link.

Thank you, I appreciate your advice and candor. As you might guess, I live in Vermont where I cannot audition either set of speakers, therefore I'll be buying sight and sound unseen. Thanks to Axiom's great customer service dept (thanks Brent) most concerns are erased. Still I'd love to hear from someone who knows about the Wharfedales 8.2s.

In response to kcarlile's obligatory link, here's an optional link - from the same website the excellent Secrets of Home Theater reviews:

Interconnect Shoot Out!

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/audio-cable-shootout-part-1-12-2000.html

And one of MY faves:

"Tony Faulkner—engineer of about a third of the best-sounding orchestral recordings of the last twenty years—used the Black-and-Decker equivalent [14ga. outdoor extension cord] to hook up his Quad 989s at the recent Heathrow Show in England—“They are made from good, thick copper wire, look nice and sound good to me”—and that the designer of what is by provable standards one of the half dozen or so most accurate loudspeakers ever made uses and recommends it all the time."

Bren R.

He's entitled to his opinion. Why don't you try the Mapleshade Golden Double Helix speaker wires from Mapleshade on a 30 day trial and report back?

In reply to:

---

Why don't you try the Mapleshade Golden Double Helix speaker wires from Mapleshade on a 30 day trial and report back?

---

I seriously considered it... a listening day with Chesseroo, SidVicious, and any of the techs and engineers I work with to finally put an end to this, but then in work the real world variables:

- since Mapleshade is an unknown - whether or not I will get a full refund (minus return shipping) is always a concern
- regardless of our findings, someone in the designer cable camp will find a "flaw" in the experiment ("Oh, well, I'm sure if you used xxx amp with yyy CD player, like I do, you'd hear a difference")
- If someone really wants to try to make a convert of me and to prove that their cable will sound better (and not just different - I'll agree cables will sound different without a doubt, I believe that a ball of 32ga wire will sound different than a short run of 12ga. copper), let them do it on their dime

Again, I point to the fact that both in television studios (which I've been in a whole lot) and on movie sets/sound stages (which I have less experience on), there are no exotic cables used - if those mastering the sound are somehow miserably crushing the audio they're putting out, how would I somehow gain back the lost fidelity as an end-user by using $500 interconnects?

Bren R.

I think Alan Loft will vouch for Pierre Sprey, return the cables within 30 days and you'll get your money back.

I think it would be great for you and Chess and Sid to do the test. If you hear no difference, fine. I predict you will hear a difference, and one you like.

Be brave.

In reply to:

---

Be brave.

---

And in the end, I'm the one paying return shipping on a product to prove a point to someone whose opinion really doesn't matter that highly, to be honest.

Bren R.

Peace.

Bren, shipping is probably under $5.00. Be brave.

Give it your best and most honest account of your experience with these cables.

As for the Wharfedale comparison - I have a pair of the Atlantic 200s. They are a step (maybe 2 or 3) down from the Diamond series, which has recieved much praise, especially considering its easy pricing. Anyway, I love my Wharfs. Placement is very important with these. They are rated at 6 ohms, and play fairly high volumes, but do show their 'limitations' fairly abruptly. The two are fairly similar in size, and technology is similar too, I believe. I think you'd be happy with them given the right placement. They are fairly warm, well-made (crappy grilles), and has fairly strong bass output (mine are rated down 45Hz, yes minus the +/- range, but i'd say it's gotta be right around there). One problem with the Diamonds is that you can't replace a woofer. Mine are rear-ported, and are on stands roughly 15" from back wall, and 8" from the side with a 15 degree toe in a 8'x12' room. That's all I'm running right now, and they are decent enough to wow all my friends. Best of luck. Hope I didn't bore you all to death.

Thanks for everyone's input (except that stuff about wires - get your own post). I bought the M3's and the Wharfedales, will keep one and report findings later.

Excellent Dave! Please do add to our collective knowledge by reporting your findings!

In reply to:

---

Thanks for everyone's input (except that stuff about wires - get your own post).

---

Ouch... is everyone rude in Vermont?

Bren R.

NA, most of them moved to canada!!

i am following you bren

bigjohn

Good one Big John!

Turns out I did not buy the Wharfedales after all. When I called Wild West Electronics to place the order the saleman suggested I buy Pinnacle BD500's. I read the reviews and they didn;t do it for me. Seemed like the money was being spent on the enclosures rather than the components. Also the free in home trial meant you had to pay shipping both ways for a return. This led me back to the drawing board (mostly audioreview.com and epinions.com) but nothing rose to the forefront. So I went to the local elitist stereo store which carries B&W DM601 s3 and Pradigm Mini Monitors. I thought the Paradigms were a little bright and the B&W warmer. No surprise they recommended them both but do not allow in-home auditions, only a trade-up policy. Sicne I am really just trying to get a comparison to the M3's currently in the mail, can anyone suggest a more appropriate comparison speaker than those above. I am comfortable spending around 400 for a pair. Which is true of all of these but is it fair to put the 275. Axioms up against these +/- 400. rivals?

Have you considered the Ascend CBMs? These are the other speakers I considered in place of my M22s. I chose the Axioms (without hearing the ascends) because after auditioning the Axioms I was hooked and the CBMs are kinda butt ugly. However, their reviews are always good or great.

jr

I haven't heard the Ascends either, but the frequency response charts looked pretty good.
I went with Monitor Audio Bronze 2s over M3s for a gameroom system, but I'm not always sure I did the right thing. Part of the problem was I ordered the M3s in Beech and they didn't look right with the paint and furniture. Both the MAs and M3s blew away a pair of JBL E30s I demoed them with.
I think part of the problem with many small speakers is that the makers try to make them do too much. They do to audio what impressionists did to painting - not about accuracy but an impression of reality. The M3s are very accurate, lacking all those cabinet resonances which initially sound full and pleasing, but can annoy over time. The MAs I have do display a little chestiness that is apparent on some CDs.
I think that you're not going to be able to find perfection in bookshelves at that price (or any price?).

Looks like two very excellent suggestions. Since the MA's are not available through the local retailers and don't sell direct, I went ahead and ordered the Ascends for comparison purposes. They're due in next week. This is going to be fun!

Cool! I'd love to hear your impression of them.

jr

BigWill,

I have a very good friend that lives out your way. If I ever know far enough in advance that I am heading out there, I will let you know and bring a pair of my CBM-170's with me for you to hear. Also...if you are out my way...you are more than welcome to stop by.

I have heard the MA's many times...so I wish you kept the M3's for me to hear.

I have heard Wharfedale bookshelves...not sure of the model, but they sounded good. Eventhough the seemed to play deeper than M22 or 170's. I thought the bass was a little loose.

Judging by the NRC tests, the M3 will have more pecieved bass over the 170 because of the hump in the 100hz region. Probably more important if you are not going to use a sub. The M22 and CBM-170 have been compared many times and are very similar.

Absolutely, Curtis. I'll be off all summer!!!!!!!! 3.5 weeks and counting!!!!!!!

Then heck...you can drive my way!!

Here is a great thread where the M3Ti was one of the speakers compared...along with the CBM-170. The person actually ended up with PSB's.

http://www.ascendforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=193&whichpage=1