I have read several posts suggesting that the THX Cinema Mode's re-equalization processing will not work well with Axiom speakers. Why is this? As I understand it, the purpose of re-equalization is to re-compensate for the original compensation movie soundtracks make for projecting sound through a screen. If that is so, then why should that affect Axiom speakers differently than any other speakers?
I have never heard such a thing, and wouldnt think it to be true at all.
Where did you hear that?
Sounds like a big ole load of BS.
I did a global search on "re-equalization" in the Axiom message boards and found the following:
"From what I understand, this re-equalization can at times destroy the great "axiom" sound, thereby nullifying all that work that Ian and Allen and others have put into this."
"750 - YPAO - does not include re-equalization on the mains and surrounds. Essentially, you can futz with the bass, mid and treble manually, but the YPAO won't re-EQ your speakers, except for the center. Some say that this is a good thing (like Alan - a moderator on these boards), because the equalization can make the speakers sound much different, and basically undo all that the manufacturer did to make the speaker sound the way that it does."
"The THX mode may well further decrease the clarity of dialogs, since the THX X-Curve re-equalization significantly rolls off treble frequencies. I would try the straight Dolby Digital mode."
Ahh, I think that is just the "EQ is generally a Bad Thing" sentiment, whether it's THX Re-EQ or any other kind of Eq. Nothing specific to Axioms, other than that Axiom owners are more of a chatty bunch
There is a general feeling that EQ may be the only way to deal with evil low frequency problems down in the sub-200 Hz range, but other than that most people here fall into the "friends don't let friends use EQ" school...
Bridgman is right, many speaker manufacturers do not recommend the newer AV receivers that offer Room EQ enhancement. They feel it can make great speakers sound bad. Even receivers that don't have THX certification have similar, if not better, technology. Denon's Auto Setup and Room EQ, Yamaha's YPAQ, Pioneer Elite's MCAAC (?), and now other's like Onkyo are coming out with their own version.
Many people really like this ability, as it helps take some of the guesswork out of calibrating your system. These same people will say it did not hurt the sound of their speakers, and that may be true. You really need to decide that for yourself.
Personally, at first I loved my Denon's results. However, after playing around with things for a few months, I decided to just use the Denon's Auto Setup, which sets speaker distance delays, speaker levels, polarity, etc. I decided that the Denon's Parametric EQ, made my M60's sound a little to midrangey. I have decided to adjust the various band manually.
This issue is not specific to Axiom speakers only, as these settings will affect the sound of any speaker. The Axiom's are very efficient and accurate speakers right out of the box, so they really don't need much improvement.
good luck...
I have to agree with Bridgman.
The EQ onboard those receivers certainly seems like a good idea, but in reality the number of bands they even use to attempt equalization is so small, it's laughable.
Both Bren and Alan can attest to the difficulties in trying to EQ a room i'm sure, but personally trying to do it with a $40 (if that) microphone boxed with a $600 receiver somehow doesn't fly with my sensibilities.
I would rather rearrange my furniture and add a bookshelf, but some folks prefer and easy, all-in-one solution.
My Toshiba RPTV also has an auto calibration to align the guns but everytime i've pressed that button, the convergence is so awful i have completely separate red and green people on the screen.
A good idea, helpful to the HT newbies, but in reality, it is really not that good and manual calibration is alot more effective.
I think the function of THX re-eq is to tame bright sound tracks not automatic speaker setup like the YAPO. i beleive re-eq cuts off a portion of the frequency response like the "CinemaFILTER" feature found on DENON and Onkyo receivers.
500,
That was my understanding as well. I think the idea is that the actual soundtrack (used in movie theaters) utilizes front tracks modified to make up for the fact that they must be projected through the screen to the audience. The THX Cinema mode undoes this (for the fronts only) because home theaters do not generally project through a screen.
I thought one explanation might be that the phenomenon suggested by Axiom board members is not actually true.
I thought another explanation might be that the DVDs themselves are recorded with the modification undone, so that THX is now giving a double whammy.
I thought another explanation might have something to do with the suggestion, made on non-Axiom boards, that Axiom has put their money in the upper ranges, so that when these are clipped, the limitations of the speakers are made more evident. Does that make any sense? Of course, this then would apply to all such speaker designs. (Which I think are called "bright"?)
In reply to:
I thought another explanation might be that the DVDs themselves are recorded with the modification undone, so that THX is now giving a double whammy.
Yes, the audio tracks are remastered for home use. More likely, the filter is there to remove buzz from HTIB-type dome tweeters.
In reply to:
Axiom has put their money in the upper ranges(snip...)Which I think are called "bright"?
I call mine "Charlie."
It's a personal listening choice. I've related this before, but it deserves mention again. My brother and I are both in the same field (broadcast video), and our tastes in audio mixing couldn't be further apart. For instance, I own M3s/QS4s/VP150 for the HT, he swears by his 2 channel 1980s era paper cone towers ("Bro, that's not a frequency response, that's a bell curve!") We both use Edirol (Roland) MA series powered nearfield monitors for work. MA-10Ds at the edit suite and CG stations and MA-20Ds at the audio desk. I prefer the Bass knob set at about 1 o'clock (60% of sweep) and the Treble knob at about 3 o'clock (80% of sweep) positions... maybe a bit bright, but I slouch and sit back in the chair, puts me off-axis for the tweeters. I walked in one day and he'd been at my desk, and set both knobs to nearly zero. I asked if he was mixing for AM radio.
Needless to say, whoever the producer is on the project handles the audio.
I also like to remind him that he's been diagnosed with tinnitus from years of being onstage and since I've always worn either cans or earplugs, I can still hear a pin drop and tell you the metallic makeup of it.
Bren R.
BrenR,
Given the personal listening choice issue, would it follow then that one who does not like bright-type speakers would have trouble with Axioms? Say especially for music?
Sally, not sure where you live, but I would try to audition Axiom's in your area if possible. You can check the audition link in the Questions and Answers forum. I used to be a regular at the AVSforum board, and was told by many to stay away from Axioms because they are to bright and harsh. In addition, I was told Denon's being mechanical sounding, when paired with Axiom's would increase that brightness. Personally, those people couldn't be further from the truth. I auditioned Axiom's against B&W, NHT, Paradigm, and a few others. What your hearing is accuracy and efficiency. Don't get me wrong, the other brands are fine speakers, but I preferred Axiom in the end. Combined with my Denon, it is a match made in Heavan, thanks Axiom for recommending the Denon. The more I listen the better they sound to my brain, and NO, they don't break themselves in....
Your brain breaks itself in.... good luck on your choices...
Sally, welcome. I don't like "bright-type" speakers and that's one of the reasons that I chose Axiom M22s for most of my classical music listening. The neutrality of their frequency response appealed to me and I've been completely satisfied in the three years that I've had them. If on rare occasions I'd be listening to some poorly-recorded pop item which was intentionally mastered "hot" or "bright" so as to sound more impressive on mediocre speakers, the solution was to use the tone controls to partially correct the problem , rather than to listen on a less accurate speaker.
JohnK,
Then is "brightness" something that does have an objective type component in terms of some sort of frequency curve or something?
Yes, it appears that the "brightness" is an overemphasis in the upper-midrange/lower treble roughly in the 2-6KHz area. Using the treble tone control can help on some recordings that have this characteristic, but can't do a perfect job. Some receivers that have equalizers which can be set to affect various frequencies can do a better job. In my view the better solution is to avoid such lousy recordings whenever possible.
Axiom has two major sub-groups, one clear and accurate the other ever so slightly warmer and "Pleasant" sounding. I am extreemly familiar with 66% of the warmer variety, and never have I heard a Bright sound from either of them, even on movies that are alledged to be mixed Bright! So I would,-in my humble opinion-have a rough time justifying using re-EQ. I do, however use a bit of EQ in the 100hz and below range only, just to tame an evil room.(It Works, at least until such time that I can get around to upholstering the fireplace)
Bright? Nope, don't think so!!
Just my .04 devalued US$ worth.
Rich.
I'm starting to suspect that one reason Axioms (among others) get branded as "bright" without having any apparent response peaks is that a number of nearfield monitor speakers (eg. the Rogers LS3/5a "BBC monitors" and in fact a whole generation of speakers) have a dip in that region. If you EQ to sound right on one of those speakers then your recording is going to be a bit peaky in that region... and on Axioms the recording is going to sound bright.
If you look at the measured response of enough speakers one thing you notice is that quite a few of them have a small dip in the 3 KHz region, including the Axiom M3/M40/M50 family. 3 KHz is, of course, right around the normal crossover freq for a small 2-way speaker. Alan pointed out that the M3/M40/M50s have that small dip because they use the 6.5" driver for midrange and its off-axis response drops off faster than the 5.25" mid used for M2/M22/M60/M80. The result is that on-axis response on the 3/40/50 is real good but in a typical room the off-axis response blends in and gives you that dip.
The result IMO is that M3/M40/M50 actually sound best on anything recorded to be extra bright (and sound just a tiny bit recessed on really good recordings) while the M2/M22/M60/M80 can sound a bit harsh if the recording is peaked up in the 3KHz region but sound exceptional on good, flat recordings.
I guess it would be better if the M2/M22/M60/M80 had a "flat" / "crappy recording" switch on the back
EDIT -- I should add that these comments are fresh from comparing M2, M3 and M60 together in the same room. I owned the M2s and M60s but at the end of the testing I decided that for casual music listening (eg. listening to whatever happens to be on the tuner or the CD changer rather than picking the good recordings) the M3s did have an edge. If you are picking and choosing what you listen to (ie no crappy recordings unless the song is really good) then the M2/M22/M60/M80 family will get the very most out of the music.
Again, all these differences everyone talks about are pretty minor (a few dB), we're not talking ski slopes in the frequency response curve. If you get a chance, poke around the Soundstage site and compare the response curves for M2, M3, M22 and M40, then compare them to other well-regarded speakers. The M3/M40 have a bit of the same midrange dip you see in the Paradigm monitor speakers, for example (although less of a dip), while the M2/M22 are pretty flat. The M2, in particular, is just scary flat until the bass disappears around 80 Hz
Bottom line -- yeah, the Axiom M2/M22/M60/M80 are going to seem bright on some recordings but as far as we can see it's the recordings not the speakers. The M3/M40/M50 aren't likely to sound bright on anything.
Bridgman, JohnK
Thank you. Can you give me an example of a crappy, but fairly well known, recording that exhibits the behavior you describe so that I can test it on some speakers?
In reply to:
Given the personal listening choice issue, would it follow then that one who does not like bright-type speakers would have trouble with Axioms? Say especially for music?
Well, again, I wouldn't consider them bright, but neutral and most other speakers just not being able to handle highs well.
Give them a listen if you can find an auditioner in your area, and if you're that concerned, as a soother to those that are worried, Axiom will send out a resistor kit to "tame" the tweeters. Think everyone here I've read that used them took them back out though. It's hard to get used to hearing part of the frequency range you don't normally, and those that find the treble "fatiguing" often find they're concentrating and actively listening too much (this just came up on the forum recently again)... I did the same thing with my QS4s...
tried to listen for them, and it gave me a headache. So after the ear-break-in period, seems most people miss hearing that top-end and take the resistors back out. (Does anyone here have a resistor kit still in their speakers?)
Of course, if you like the sound of Cerwin-Vegas... god help your immortal soul, you'd have to "tweak" a set of Axioms by chewing out the tweeter, gluing modelling clay to the woofer and slipping a canvas bag over the speaker.
Bren R.
In reply to:
that's not a frequency response, that's a bell curve!"
A new signature line if i've ever read one.
In reply to:
Does anyone here have a resistor kit still in their speakers?
Indeed i do.
The resistor took the tweeter output down maybe 2dB or so. With the relative inaccuracy of the Radio Shack meter (+/-1dB), i can't be sure exactly. Now the M60 can be turned a bit higher before listening fatigue sets in.
It just took the edge off the output, softening the volume on the ears ever so slightly.
This was critical mostly for the part of our music collection which is more mainstream but is rather unnoticeable for dialogue in movies. The change is subtle but easier on my wife's ears.
It was a better solution than replacing old discs with remastered mixes or never listening to them again.
In reply to:
The change is subtle but easier on my wife's ears.
See, the only one that uses the resistors is Chesseroo, and it's because of his wife... and by the very nature of her marrying him, that puts her sanity up for question.
J/K, Chess, you know that.
Bren R.
I'll take a look through the CDs I never listen to any more and see if anything jumps out. Probably Rod Stewart or somebody like that
Seriously, the problems seem to be with popular music recorded very hot. Not sure if the problem is that the mids are bumped up a bit (previous post) or if they are clipping the CD media (which sounds horrible and the Axioms will reproduce that horrible sound very accurately).
Truth is that I have never felt the Axioms were bright myself but have spent some time trying to understand why some people feel that way. My personal "can't stand it" is boomy bass.
I agree. I had the resistors sent out just in case and till this date have never had one inclination to use them. I've never felt they were bright myself, but there has been the rare occasion on a passage where I could see someone else calling them bright.
In reply to:
Of course, if you like the sound of Cerwin-Vegas... god help your immortal soul, you'd have to "tweak" a set of Axioms by chewing out the tweeter, gluing modelling clay to the woofer and slipping a canvas bag over the speaker
come on now bren.... Vega's aint that bad...
i will admit, the huge MX-400 towers i had before my axioms were a little flat on the mids and highs sounded like they were being tunneled thru a PVC pipe.. but, the LW-12 sub i have now is pretty decent. i in no way think it can compare with the SVS or HSU models, but for $200 bucks, it packs a hell of a good punch for a budget system.
i think when you make 'blanket' statements like that, you may unknowingly turn someone away from a company, when in fact that company may have some equipment worth having. i aint trying to say Vega is the best, but there sure are a lot worse out there..
bigjohn
i'm with you john. i have some older vega 3 way floor standers i dont use any more, i'm not ashamed to say i like them and don't plan on throwing them out. plus the orange rubber around the 10 inch woofer is cool looking.
I had a non-powered CV sub for a long time... not even sure what happened to it. Might have been the same model...
John, got any photos?
500- hey, i got some too. in fact, these were the first set of 'expensive' speakers i ever bought. it was 92-93, and i was newly stationed at FT Bragg, in N.C. these vega MX400's cost me $800 bucks for the pair. thats a lot considering the army was only paying me about $1100 a month back then. these suckas could play sooo loud, they would literally make you lose your balance. but, at the time i bought them i was 21 years old, and thats EXACTLY what i wanted them to do!!!
these are what the axioms replaced. i am hanging on to them to put in my bar/gameroom, whenever that gets finished. you can even see my old POS kenwood system on top.
mark- i took these real quick of my Vega LW-12 sub. and i got one of the back. its a 150watts.
it certainly isnt the 'best' in the world. but at the time, its all i could afford, and bigger and better are not too far around the corner.
bigjohn
Alanis Morrisette's first album "Jagged Little Pill" (?) is absolutely painful. Jane's Addiction "Ritual de lo Habitual" equally lousy. Hope that helps! hahahaha
John, the thing between me and Cerwin Vega is that they were the first speaker I knew by name... to me, CV was a top name in speakers, I'd throw it around in the schoolyard when I was 12 or so... "yeah, man... someday, I'm gonna have a kick-ass pair of Vega's, man..."
Then I heard a pair.
Then I knew why bro's friends used to laugh at me.
One of the local engineers and I used to have an inside joke - the rock bar he worked at was CV top to bottom, from the wedges to the bass bins - used to say "well, at least they sound the same out of the box as they do after they've had beer and puke dumped in them!"
Just an off-handed comment, John.. sorry if I offended.
Bren R.
In reply to:
sorry if I offended
naw, naw.. i wasnt offended.
i just think when you make such an aggressivly negative statement toward a particular manufacturer, it may cause someone on the fence of a purchase, to decide against that particular product. and like i was saying, i KNOW my sub cant compete against the bigger and more expensive SVS and HSU's. but, i have a fair amount of confidence, that if you lined up every $200-$250 sub, the LW-12 would blow them ALL out of the water. its good overall, but GREAT in its price range. and for someone that only has $200 to spend, it would be an excellent purchase. thats all i was trying to say.
you expressed your opinion, and i expressed mine. i aint angry, or offended. its all good.
bigjohn
CV's were the first speakers I owned. Had some U-15's. 15" woofer 2 way speakers. I loved those things. I liked to have things fall off my walls. Got those about 25 years ago. My ex now has them. And I saw the light. I have come to like Canadian products. My wife is a Newfie and my speakers are Axiom