Someone at the AVS forum named John Ashman has posted that Axiom speakers are bright because the aluminum midrange material resonates at the high midrange frequencies (where at 3KHz to 6KHz there is a slight peak anyway).
He says this is why Axiom's are considered "bright", because the tweeter isn't crossed over low enough to cover the resonance of the midrange cones.
Is any of this true? Also, wouldn't a spectral decay waterfall plot show/disprove this? I wonder if there are any available of Axiom speakers.
I have heard this a couple of times, but I don't give it a lot of credence. Most of the Axiom speakers cross over around 2.2 KHz and would be ~12 dB down at 5 KHz, so unless the resonance is very dramatic there wouldn't be much effect at the 5-ish KHz where the Axiom speakers tend to peak up a bit.
John Ashman (Alimentall) is a audio dealer in competition with Axiom. He sells NHT speakers from a store in New Mexico, and is not fond of the internet direct sales model. Axioms are his pet peeve.
He strongly feels that Axioms are over-hyped, and he's been in numerous arguments with those of us who like and enjoy Axioms, and this has only served to fuel his anger. He has openly declared it his personal crusade to offset this perceived over-hype by appearing in any thread where Axioms are mentioned, and running them down as being ear bleeding bright. While Axioms are accurate and revealing, he claims are grossly overstated, and belie his agenda.
The Axiom sound isn't for everybody. The same could be said for the sound of any and all speaker brands, including John's beloved NHTs. Only you can decide if the Axiom sound is for you.
So is most of the brightness probably attributed to what we can see in the FR graph? (Aka the 3-6KHz peak and the tweeter peak at around 18-19KHz?)
Kobe, there are a lot of Axiom bashers on AVSforum, not sure why, that is one reason I don't hang there as much anymore. Everyone hears things differently, and I have found most on AVS, haven't even heard Axioms before, it is just hearsay.
Anyway, I find them very accurate and neutral. They will produce the music failthfully, and true to the recording. If the recording is poor, the output will suffer.
If possible, try to find someone in your area that will let you listen to Axioms. Check the Hearing Things forum...
I like what Jack said.
Such claims are practically impossible to substantiate; the denegrator certainly does NOT have access to the production and design specifications of either the drivers or the crossovers. He is speculating and using pseudo-science to steer the unsuspecting towards a plausible but utterly baseless conclusion.
Decide for yourself using music rather than hyperbole.
If it's any importance at all, I listened to NHT before buying my Axioms. Didn't care for them.
John Ashman (aka: Alimetall)
He is a B&M speaker dealer out of NM that seems very threatened by Axioms cost to sound and positive review ratio.
I would take what John Ashman says, with a very very small grain of salt.
Edit: That will teach me to go to the can in the middle of a post.
Oh that guy, I think and Craigsub and Ajax have had some heated battles.. I've even back Axiom against his biased opinions. You don't see people bashing his speakers.
Like Spiff, I preferred Axiom over NHT, as well as B&W and Paradigm.
How amusing. Did Mr. Ashman post a chart PROVING his claims? Did he disclose his status as an audio retail store owner? Ah, the internet... sometimes the bullsh!t piles up so fast you need wings to stay above it. If someone told you "never buy a Mac, they underperform and here's why" with no proof you might think one thing. And if his assistant said "Mr. Gates, the jet is fueled and we need to go if we are going to make Tahiti by midnight" you might think another.
Kobe, please don't let us scare you off
The Axiom community is great, Axiom speakers are fabulous, and Axiom customer service is second to none.
Hope you give them a chance, you won't be disapointed...
Oops... wasn't trying to put Kobe down. I can see how it might have seemed I was. I was reacting to the story about Ashman. I didn't intend to belittle Kobe. Just reiterating that you have to filter and cross-reference much of what you see on the 'net. Sorry guys.
I was talking about all of us, not you Joe
Us Axiomites like to pounce when we here people making biased remarks....
Guilty.
Sorry. I'll be nice, really.
I actually thought about just typing "bullsh*t" and hitting enter, but that didn't seem very enlightened or value-added.
Naw,
I actually have a pair of Axiom M22tis (as well as Athena As-B1s in a mismatched 4.0 setup right now).
I've been reading a lot of stuff John Ashman writes, like how the VP center speakers are trash, or his ears bleed from Axiom speakers. Rocket speakers, and even NHT is moving toward aluminum cone drivers, but he just says "he doesn't hear the same thing" in them compared to the Axioms. I'm not really sure what he's trying to say, I think he has been trying to imply the that Axiom drivers specifically have breakup modes below the 2.2KHz crossover (I think a while ago he said they were at 1.8KHz?) But I've read no literature or seen any graphs about that.
Like I said, "A very very small grain of salt"
He also includes Thiel, B&W, Paradigm as well as Axiom to his list of " bright " speakers.Not bad company in my humble opinion.
However, I think he loves BOSE....
ok I don't want to start false rumors...
In reply to:
However, I think he loves BOSE.... ok I don't want to start false rumors...
No highs, no lows, must be Bose!
Sutter
>>So is most of the brightness probably attributed to what we can see in the FR graph? (Aka the 3-6KHz peak and the tweeter peak at around 18-19KHz?)
I think it's just the 3-6 KHz peak. AFAIK the tweeter peak would be countered by the off-axis rolloff at high frequencies. I expect the tweeter peak would only be noticeable if you were sitting directly on axis AND very close to the speakers, which is geometrically difficult unless you put them close together and toe them in sharply.
I really don't feel like digging through all of that nonsense over there right now, but isn't this the same guy who finally buckled and admitted he'd never listened to a pair of Axioms?
I think he said that in one post then retracted it in another. Probably a nice guy, but from his internet posts I have to admit I imagine him with shifty eyes
"but isn't this the same guy who finally buckled and admitted he'd never listened to a pair of Axioms?"
I believe you are right. I think he said he could tell the way the Axioms sounded by how they looked.
I think he is also the guy who passed himself off as a Dr. until someone (maybe Craig) busted him.
In reply to:
isn't this the same guy who finally buckled and admitted he'd never listened to a pair of Axioms?
Actually no. That was a notorious troll who has been banned so many times, and had so many screen names, even HE can't remember them all. He was last posting as n8lyIeat, but got banned and is now posting under something close to abfan or abfam.
John has heard Axioms. Someone apparently traded in a pair of M2s for some NHTs at his store, and he revels in claiming this as proof that NHT's are superior speakers. OY! I don't believe he's heard any other Axioms, but I'm not certain about that.
John Ashman's recent post:
"Crossovers aren't instantaneous. If my math is right, it would take a 24dB/octave to the a 10dB resonance peak at 8.8kHz to ~1% distortion. Don't know what crossovers they use, but 24dB/octave is uncommonly high and I don't know where their 5" mid or 8" woofer rings. I forget what NHT uses on their metal 6.5", but I do know they cross it over at 850Hz for this very reason, then move frequencies above that to a 2" dome. On Xd, NHT uses a 110dB/octave digital crossover at 2kHz to cut out a 5kHz breakup mode on a 5" magnesium cone. A lot more effective than a passive low slope crossover."
Here's the thing, wouldn't this apply to all speakers then? If Axioms are brighter than other companies designs (aka, Rocket) if such a hard crossover is isn't implemented then the Rocket's would be "bright" too which is what I don't get.
Also Edster922 of the board talks about how Ascend posts all kinds of measurements (FR response, decay graphs) on their website. Do you think other companies, like Axiom, should do so as well? If decay graphs of Axioms would be made publically available, this would certainly dispell any "cone resonance" theories.
kobe
If you look under product information for any given Axiom speaker you'll see there is a (blue)graph button that when hit will show you a FR graph but no decay graph.
I have another question. I've seen the designation "SE" quite often. What's the difference between the M22ti and M22tiSE? I have the regular one and I'm unsure of it's difference (if any).
Just a change in the shape of the bevel on the front edges, made about four years ago to simplify manufacturing.
I ask this because the old soundstage graph of the M22TISe
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/axiom_m22ti_se/frequency_on1530.gif
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/axiom_m22ti_se/frequency_listeningwindow.gif
Looks different from the M22TI graph on this website
http://www.axiomaudio.com/global/images/diagrams/m22ti_graph.gif
In the SE it looks like the highs are even to 20KHz
However, there other measurements such as Ascends, Athena, Energy, on Soundstage look a lot like the NRC measurements made.
That's why I thought there was a change in the models, specifically the highs look more tamed.
Here's a review which discussed the use of "SE"(which use has since been dropped).
Do a search on 99% percent of threads on AVS concerning Axioms. You will see Alimentall bashing Axiom. Does that tell you anything?
He bashes B&W, Thiel, Paradigm telling this works, that doesn't work like he is THE ultimate knowledge on speakers. Nobody else knows better!
I once had a pair of NHT Super TWOs and at first they sounded very accurate and clean and had a great wow factor but soon became very fatiguing and "clinical" (soulless) sounding and the speakers didn't dissapear. I was always aware of the sound coming from the two boxes.
John Ashman's recent post:
"Crossovers aren't instantaneous. If my math is right, it would take a 24dB/octave to the a 10dB resonance peak at 8.8kHz to ~1% distortion. Don't know what crossovers they use, but 24dB/octave is uncommonly high and I don't know where their 5" mid or 8" woofer rings. I forget what NHT uses on their metal 6.5", but I do know they cross it over at 850Hz for this very reason, then move frequencies above that to a 2" dome. On Xd, NHT uses a 110dB/octave digital crossover at 2kHz to cut out a 5kHz breakup mode on a 5" magnesium cone. A lot more effective than a passive low slope crossover."
Axiom has a 8" woofer ???
Well, yes, but it's in the EP125.
Which crosses over around 100 Hz
In reply to:
I like what Jack said.
Such claims are practically impossible to substantiate; the denegrator certainly does NOT have access to the production and design specifications of either the drivers or the crossovers. He is speculating and using pseudo-science to steer the unsuspecting towards a plausible but utterly baseless conclusion.
Decide for yourself using music rather than hyperbole.
I too agree with Jack and Tom.
Part of the problem is that this is all subjective. The listener may spend thousands of hours "conditioning" themselves to appreciate a particular sound and then try to convince other people that they know what sounds best.
I have found many "high-end" speakers that I have auditioned to be quite "laid back" and lacking certain detail. Often times that detail was in the midrange. As far as cone materials, there are even advocates for paper cone or treated paper cone woofers over the polypropylene cones. Are new cone technologies fads? Some may think so. In a similar comparison, you might look at the arguments between tubes versus semiconductors.
I have Monitor Audio speakers which also use metal cones (albeit treated with a ceramic) but the point is that, to me, they sound more detailed than my previous Mirage speakers (and those speakers are no slouches!). Perhaps it would simply be more accurate to say that I preferred the different type of sound that they reproduced. I truly believe the metal cones being lighter offer a faster response resulting in a "more accurate" sound. People used to the poly cones often describe this extra midrange as "bright". It comes down to the personal preference. I try to compare the sound to live performances and I don't mean to imply that I can tell what that is, just what it sounds like to me.
If this Mr. Ashman perfers his NHT speakers, good for him. I don't agree with people pushing their opinions as gospel onto others. People need to find out what works best for them and not be concerned about what someone else likes.
It has been said many times before that every one hears differently and subsequntly must let their "own ears decide" what
they like.
It is a shame that so much weight in a decision to purchase speakers is made based on reviews of experts. Rather these reviews should be used as guidelines only for speaker brands to be auditioned.
Wouldn't that be a subwoofer?
Well put, Bruce.
Personally, I find listening to speakers much more enjoyable than looking at graphs. But that's just me.
Well, my buddy Oz has the 60's and I am the first guy to complain about "ear-bleeding bright" in a speaker, metal driver or otherwise (in fact my Maggie III-a's are too bright for me without hardware correction) but the Axioms, or at least that model, are lovely!
Nicely said Thom
For the money, Axiom makes great sounding speakers that compare to many much higher priced brands...
Look...another thread on AVS, someone asks Ascends or Axioms. Guess who's there again - Alimentall(case)!
What did Axiom ever do to him lol...
My question is, is Alimentall making a fair statement on speaker design? Axiom themselves state the woofer has no crossover and the woofer is allowed to roll over on its own.
Onix Rockets also use aluminum cone drivers but they use the crossovers that Allimentall state are the bare necessity--24db/octave. Energy Veritas also use a very steep crossover. A lot of stuff I've perused online since he made these statements talk about the need to crossover before these cone resonances come into play.
I'm wondering, why has Axiom not chosen to do this? It's obvious a lot of people like Axiom sound; now the question is has Axiom decided to engineer this type of sound to people who prefer this type of sound over conventional speaker design?
As far as I know only the M3 (and maybe the M50) run without a crossover on the woofer. I vaguely remember a comment that the larger woofer happened to roll off at about the right frequency for that combination of drivers, and that the sound was better with a "no crossover" design than any of the other configurations that were tried. Couldn't find a reference though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Perversely enough, from the dozens of reviews on the M3 it probably comes across as the smoothest sounding of any of the Axiom speakers. If there was any hint of midrange resonance I have to think SOMEONE would have commented on it.
The rest of the Axiom line seems to run conventional crossover designs, presumably 12dB/8va but not sure.