What are the main differences between the British and Canadian objective schools and what are the advantages/disadvantages of both. I probably know the answer from this forum because this is run by Axiom a Canadian school co.

I know the Canadians are flat on-axis, and the British are flat off-axis. What are the consequences of both biases.

I would have described British and Canadian schools the other way -- British school looking at on-axis response (maybe because it pre-dated the Canadian studies ??) and Canadian school arguing that what mattered most was flat on *and* off-axis response :

Click me, click me !!

There is some interesting history on Axiom's site as well :

http://www.axiomaudio.com/research.html

"And what was even more intriguing: If a speaker’s on-axis (in front) and off-axis frequency-response measurements could be kept as similar as possible, especially within a 15-degree "listening window" and especially over the midrange, the speaker would score highly in blind listening tests. While this is an oversimplification of decades of research at the NRC and by individual designers at Axiom and at other firms, it has proven to be extraordinarily predictive. Although no two speakers designed according to the NRC mantra ever sound exactly alike, there is nevertheless a remarkable congruence in what might be called "the Canadian sound," and that is one of openness, transparency, "linearity" (smoothness), and fidelity. -- Alan Lofft "


The other factor which seemed to influence British speaker design was the "BBC dip", from studies which indicated that relatively more people preferred listening to music on systems with a slight reponse dip in the 3-5 khz area.

I'm sure there are a number of other differences (eg. British speaker designers always seemed more concerned about totally eliminating cabinet resonances) but I don't know much about the details there.

I felt strangely compelled to click your link. Thanks!

One interesting point is that the M3 and M50 speakers are, arguably, a bit closer to the "British" school in the sense that the slightly larger woofer/midrange results in a bit less off-axis response than the M2/M22/M60/M80 (which cover the midrange with a smaller driver).

The result of this is a slight dip when frequency response is averaged over on- and off-axis measurements, and the real-world implication seems to be that the M3 and M50 are a bit more tolerant of poor quality recordings but also a bit less "crystal clear" with the finest recordings.

My main music speakers are actually M40s (discontinued, but a tower version of the M3) which, like the M3s and M50s seem to offer a really nice compromise between sounding great with the best recordings and still sounding good with some of the poorer recordings mixed for car radios and the like.

One interesting point is that the home theater world seems to have fewer compromises -- the most accurate speakers always seem to sound the best.

Also keep in mind that the Canadian crossover wire in the speakers are insulated with wool.

Eh!

I wasn't going to mention the hockey pucks under the subwoofers.

Normally we make it to at least the second page before the thread goes off the rails.

Canadian sheep are bred in much colder climates and their wool is therefore thicker and has greater insulating value than that of other wool from sheep in the U.K., New Zealand or Baltic regions.

But to combat this I have seen people put toques on their speakers....coincidentally they were also fryin' up some backbacon from the heat off their old amp and poundin back a two-four of Elsinore beer. Ah...never mind.

Did someone mention hockey pucks under subwoofers?

Now that is awesome.

Boy, I hate getting old. I meant to type flannel. FLANNEL dammitt!!

I guess its too late to enjoy the humor.

Wool??????? WHAT was I thinking?????

Australian speakers? Scottish speakers?

>>Boy, I hate getting old. I meant to type flannel. FLANNEL dammitt!!

Ahh, now I get it. That *was* good after all