Axiom M3ti vs. Paradigm MiniMonitors [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Axiom M3ti vs. Paradigm MiniMonitors



GeneticDrift
12-16-2004, 03:24 PM
I currently have the M3's but the 30 days is drawing near. I have read the Mini's are a phenomenal speaker. If you have heard both can you offer some input as to which is better and what are the strong points of the two.

Thanks in advance.

anamorphic96
12-16-2004, 07:10 PM
I would probably stick with what you have. I have heard both speakers and there does not seem to be huge diffrences. The Mini Monitor will do bass a little better. But both sound similar to me for the most part, and represent amazing baragains.

Cheers,
Glenn

Vardo
12-16-2004, 08:33 PM
I currently have the M3's but the 30 days is drawing near. I have read the Mini's are a phenomenal speaker. If you have heard both can you offer some input as to which is better and what are the strong points of the two.

Thanks in advance.

I've not heard the Paradigm Mini's but I have owned alot of speakers over the years (Mirage M5si, Mirage M90's, Mission, Klipch La Scalla,
Jamo and some others) and I am currently am running a pair
of Axiom M3ti in a second home theater and listening area. To my
ears they sound fantistic. For $300 total, they are VERY impressive.
Paradigm makes very nice speakers (I've heard higher end models at
Shelly's Audio here in Southern Ca). Like I've said, I haven't heard
the Mini's, but if you can find Paradigm dealer close by, give the
Mini's a listen.

Just because I like the M3ti's, doesn't mean you will. Speaker sound
is like art (you either like the sound, or don't). I like bipoler sound for
listening purposes only (M5si) but not for home theater. My main home
home theater speakers are Atlantic Technology 350THX,great for home
theater, but not so good on music.

The Axiom speakers, are a little bright no matter what others have said
about speaker break in (brightness going away after break in), but
what you gain is a very detailed sound in the upper octives.
Let your ears be you guide.........and good luck, Vardo

GeneticDrift
12-16-2004, 09:24 PM
sorry here is my setup:

Harmon Kardon AVR 230
Axiom M60's Mains
Axiom M3ti's Surrounds
Paradigm CC-370 Center
Infinity PS-12 sub (I am upgrading this within the next 2 weeks)

the speakers in debate are for the surrounds. the m3's seem ok but perhaps i bit hollow in the midrange. is it just me??

kexodusc
12-20-2004, 11:44 AM
I have the M3Ti's as well, and use to own the Mini Monitors. I wouldn't trade the M3Ti's for the Mini Monitors, as in my opinion, they aren't better enough to bother. They do have lower bass, and are a bit brighter (I don't hear much brightness in the M3Ti's), with maybe a bit more smoothness in the midrange but really sound quite similar IMO. I did find the Mini Monitors to be a bit more forward.
One thing I'll say is that the M3Ti's are the fussiest speaekers I've ever owned in terms of placement. They sound best to me with almost no toe-in at all, and really shouldn't be more than 15 inches from a rear wall (no less than 10).
For surrounds, I don't think either is a clear winner in terms of sound quality, but given the cheaper price, I'd stick with what you have.

newbsterv2
12-21-2004, 08:02 AM
I can tell you this much. The Paradigm Mini Monitor is designed much better that's for sure. The Axiom M3ti doesnt even have a filter on the woofer to filter out the high frequencies. The M3 has a bad midrange glare that I rarely ever hear anyone talk about here that does in fact exist. The Paradigm M-Monitor costs a little more but at least it's been designed by a more competent designer who knows it's important to make a speaker that measures relatively flat and sounds relatively smooth. The M3 is maximized for profit not sound quality.



I currently have the M3's but the 30 days is drawing near. I have read the Mini's are a phenomenal speaker. If you have heard both can you offer some input as to which is better and what are the strong points of the two.

Thanks in advance.

kexodusc
12-21-2004, 09:56 AM
I can tell you this much. The Paradigm Mini Monitor is designed much better that's for sure.
Based on what? I've owned both...There's definitely NOT a clear winner in terms of design or build quality!



The Axiom M3ti doesnt even have a filter on the woofer to filter out the high frequencies.

It is clear to me after this statement you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Some of the best speakers in the world employ simple high-pass filters.



The M3 has a bad midrange glare that I rarely ever hear anyone talk about here that does in fact exist. The Paradigm M-Monitor costs a little more but at least it's been designed by a more competent designer who knows it's important to make a speaker that measures relatively flat and sounds relatively smooth. The M3 is maximized for profit not sound quality.
Have you even looked at the response curves for these speakers?
As I said before, the grainy harshness or brightness in the Mini Monitors is anything but smooth...tolerable, but not smooth. Quite honestly, the midrange in the M3Ti is comparable to the Mini Monitor, if not better, though is dependant on off-axis listening IMO.

newbsterv2
12-21-2004, 06:26 PM
Kexosudusc give me a break please. The Axiom M3ti utilizes a 6.5" Aluminum cone driver that has severe peakiness problems in the midrange that plagues most aluminum drivers. Any engineer with half a brain is going to take steps to make those peaks inaudible. The speaker, to my ears, also sounds a bit rolled off in the high frequencies as well. While I'll agree that many models in the Paradigm line will never see a place in my home they have several models that are well engineered and priced. In my opinion Axiom is more interested in higher profits than the fidelity of the input signal. Take the Parts Express BR-1 for example. That speaker is well engineered and a good sounding speaker. The paper 6.5" woofer in that kit also is a bit peaky around 3khz but not as bad as the 6.5" aluminum woofer found on the M3. And at least the woofer in the kit includes both a zobel filter(to smooth the impedance of the woofer through the passband) as well as a low pass filter. Say what you'll say about me but believe me solid sounding speakers usually have solid engineering behind them.



Based on what? I've owned both...There's definitely NOT a clear winner in terms of design or build quality!


It is clear to me after this statement you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Some of the best speakers in the world employ simple high-pass filters.


Have you even looked at the response curves for these speakers?
As I said before, the grainy harshness or brightness in the Mini Monitors is anything but smooth...tolerable, but not smooth. Quite honestly, the midrange in the M3Ti is comparable to the Mini Monitor, if not better, though is dependant on off-axis listening IMO.

dave123456@mail.com
12-21-2004, 06:41 PM
I can tell you this much. The Paradigm Mini Monitor is designed much better that's for sure. The Axiom M3ti doesnt even have a filter on the woofer to filter out the high frequencies. The M3 has a bad midrange glare that I rarely ever hear anyone talk about here that does in fact exist. The Paradigm M-Monitor costs a little more but at least it's been designed by a more competent designer who knows it's important to make a speaker that measures relatively flat and sounds relatively smooth. The M3 is maximized for profit not sound quality.

Ive never heard the Axioms before but ive had similiar results with the Ascend Acoustics CBM-170. This is a speaker that has outstanding reviews by both pro's and amatuers alike, has won multiple awards, has been compared to speakers costing 2x as much blah blah. But imo its a speaker that offers very little to nothing that would actually want me to sit down and enjoy some of my favorite albums. Its a speaker that makes u concentrate on the speaker itself instead of the music. After owning this speaker for over a year I cannot see how so many people hold it in such high regards and say it competes with speakers in any price range- this to me is outragous.

kexodusc
12-21-2004, 06:41 PM
"Severe peakiness that plagues most aluminum drivers"...give me a break...
They use decent MCM Electronic drivers in the Axioms, which aren't much inferior the Dayton's in the BR-1's. They're every bit as capable as what's in the Monitor line.

So what, you've built the BR-1's, learned what Zobel is and now you think you know everything about speaker designing? Zobels and low pass filters are there to compensate for drivers that need compensation. They aren't necessarily needed if the woofer and tweeter are well mated to each other.

I'm not saying the M3Ti is the end all be all...I think the BR-1's are better, I like the PeeCreeks better still for about the same money. But for you to imply they are weakly designed compared to Paradigm is a joke.

I've owned my fair share of Paradigm's, still have the Studio 40's and 20's, and like them as much as the next guy as far as commercial offerings go...but the Axiom's certainly aren't inferior to the Mini Monitors. If anyone is guilty of cutting corners, Paradigm is, ever look inside on of their speakers? You make a claim that Axiom is profit oriented while Paradigm is not...think about it for a minute. Is Paradigm building speakers to solve world hunger?

I would be very curious to know where you've obtained the schematics to Axiom's crossovers, as well.

newbsterv2
12-21-2004, 07:00 PM
kexodusc says.......
"Severe peakiness that plagues most aluminum drivers"...give me a break...
They use decent MCM Electronic drivers in the Axioms, which aren't much inferior the Dayton's in the BR-1's. They're every bit as capable as what's in the Monitor line.

"So what, you've built the BR-1's, learned what Zobel is and now you think you know everything about speaker designing? Zobels and low pass filters are there to compensate for drivers that need compensation. They aren't necessarily needed if the woofer and tweeter are well mated to each other."

newbsterv2 says........
I actually happen to have a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering as well as 5 years experience at a fortune 500 TCOM company called Tellabs. I've been working on a new DWDM Fiber Optic system that is in beta testing. I also can read a speakers frequency response graph and see a problem as anyone can. What kind of experience do you have?

kexodusc says...
I'm not saying the M3Ti is the end all be all...I think the BR-1's are better, I like the PeeCreeks better still for about the same money. But for you to imply they are weakly designed compared to Paradigm is a joke.

I've owned my fair share of Paradigm's, still have the Studio 40's and 20's, and like them as much as the next guy as far as commercial offerings go...but the Axiom's certainly aren't inferior to the Mini Monitors. If anyone is guilty of cutting corners, Paradigm is, ever look inside on of their speakers? You make a claim that Axiom is profit oriented while Paradigm is not...think about it for a minute. Is Paradigm building speakers to solve world hunger?

newbsterv2 says.......
Paradigm is not solving world hunger no but at least they have a clear objective. To build speakers that are as smooth as possible throughout the midrange as well as being competitevely priced.

I would be very curious to know where you've obtained the schematics to Axiom's crossovers, as well.[/QUOTE]

I actually opened up the pair I owned and looked at the crossover. I used my DMM to check the continuity between the pins to see what went to where and loaded the values as well as the schematic into my electronics simulation software to see what the crossover exactly did. The tweeter employs a steep 4th order crossover at 2.2khz and the woofer is just connected to the amplifer straight up with no components in it's path. You can call it "minimalistic" or "clever" engineering or whatever but any engineer who can call himself an enginner would never make a product like this and sell it. I'll admit that the speaker has good bass and you could say it's competitevely priced but it's actually cheaply built and sold the same way.

newbsterv2
12-21-2004, 07:06 PM
.....if you look at these two graphs it can be seen why one speaker is much more well engineered than the other. One graph is extremely peaky and sloppy looking. The CBM-170- on the other hand.........




Ive never heard the Axioms before but ive had similiar results with the Ascend Acoustics CBM-170. This is a speaker that has outstanding reviews by both pro's and amatuers alike, has won multiple awards, has been compared to speakers costing 2x as much blah blah. But imo its a speaker that offers very little to nothing that would actually want me to sit down and enjoy some of my favorite albums. Its a speaker that makes u concentrate on the speaker itself instead of the music. After owning this speaker for over a year I cannot see how so many people hold it in such high regards and say it competes with speakers in any price range- this to me is outragous.

dave123456@mail.com
12-21-2004, 07:20 PM
.....if you look at these two graphs it can be seen why one speaker is much more well engineered than the other. One graph is extremely peaky and sloppy looking. The CBM-170- on the other hand.........

I think that measurements are just part of the story. While the Ascends measure very well and play without audible resonances, they are an extremely boring speaker that has an overly analytical presentation that seems to favor measurement rather than musical enjoyement. Now, im not saying Ascends are crappy speakers its jsut that people need to look at them for more than jsut measurements when writing a review. They may measure as good as 1k speakers but they wont be as musical.

GeneticDrift
12-21-2004, 08:13 PM
You guys have really pointed out some very important issues about these speakers. In having the m3's I really find myself unhappy with the midrange they have.

Also, for lack of any other way to explain it, I find them inconsistent when listening to soundtracks or music. Sometimes I hear things that make me take notice that something I just heard shouldn’t have been there. I know im not the best at explaining this but that’s as best as I can put it into words. Could this be because of a raw feed to the woofer?

I really think, in my novice opinion, that axiom is missing the boat by using the same aluminum drivers in all their applications. I had their vp150 and found it completely unacceptable. It had horrible off axis issues and even on axis to my ears it never sounded the least bit natural for a center.

Again im using these for my rears in a 5.1 setup but im really having a hard time with my purchase when im not totally happy with them, I think I may be better off with the mini monitors.

newbsterv2
12-21-2004, 09:08 PM
Here's the thing GeneticDrift. It all comes down to what we as listeners have as references. If all we listen to is one speaker for 20 minutes at a hifi dealer and buy it then some of us might have a misconception that that speaker is "perfect" to our ears. I bought the M3's as well as a few other set of speakers and have listened to countless other speakers until I realised what the speakers that sound good to me have in common. The first thing is the engineering that is involved. When you take a woofer that has a 5db peak at 3Khz and just stick it in a cabinet that peak is going to still be there. An engineer can simply use a low pass filter well below that peak and make it relatively benign but hey that costs money!! The driver materials as well as the type of material used has a big impact as well. I own a pair of Magnepan MMG's that I really enjoyed listening to but got on my nerves after a whike. You know why? Because of the way they radiate different frequencies. They always sounded so confined. As good as the ribbon driver is on that speaker is still is very directional and when magnepan states that box speakers sound "boxy" well then panel speakers sound "panel-ly". The Axiom M3 can sound good(I'm currently designing a custom crossover for my pair) to prove that even though the materials used aren't the best that they have a lot of potential to sound better than they currently do. I like simple 2 way bookshelf speakers with decent tight bass and a smooth midrange because they, to my ears, really seem to dissapear better than many higher priced models/designs. They are also relatively simple to build because of their size. If you feel comfortable with soldering and aren't scared to use a drill, Parts Express sells a speaker kit that cost's $140 ddollars shippped to your door that while it's not exactly perfect does a fantastic all around job of playing music. The kit is called the BR-1. Happy listening :)


You guys have really pointed out some very important issues about these speakers. In having the m3's I really find myself unhappy with the midrange they have.

Also, for lack of any other way to explain it, I find them inconsistent when listening to soundtracks or music. Sometimes I hear things that make me take notice that something I just heard shouldn’t have been there. I know im not the best at explaining this but that’s as best as I can put it into words. Could this be because of a raw feed to the woofer?

I really think, in my novice opinion, that axiom is missing the boat by using the same aluminum drivers in all their applications. I had their vp150 and found it completely unacceptable. It had horrible off axis issues and even on axis to my ears it never sounded the least bit natural for a center.

Again im using these for my rears in a 5.1 setup but im really having a hard time with my purchase when im not totally happy with them, I think I may be better off with the mini monitors.

dave123456@mail.com
12-21-2004, 09:57 PM
I got distracted in this thread and never got a chance to asnwer your original question , sorry. As far as those two speakers I have heard neither, but I do know that the PSB speakers in this price range are pretty good and the PSB Image 2b , which i have owned, is about $240 new and is very good at that price. From what others have said the Image series is at least as good as the two you have mentioned, and probabaly better. One thing about the psb's though is that I noticed some slight lower midrange resonances that turned me off somewhat, but who knows u might not notice it.

kexodusc
12-22-2004, 04:41 AM
Newbsterv2:
I'm not one to be condescending or insulting, but reading my posts it appears I've certainly come across that way...for this I apologize.

However, let me make my point clear, because we aren't discussing the same thing here.

You claim Axiom makes cheaply designed speakers, and implied Paradigm's are better "engineered". With this I have a few issues. First, I may not be an electrical engineer, but I know a fair bit about electronics, and speakers, and after opening both the Paradigm Titans and the Paradigm Monitor 5's, I can assure you that the level of quality components in Paradigm Performance and Monitor series (the two lines below and above the Axiom price range respectiveley) is equally as low as that which is in the Axioms. (Hello, toilet paper rolls for port tubes?)

2nd, as for measurements, most competent engineers and speaker designers will admit that they only tell part of the story anyway. I question why you would compare the CBM-170's which sell for about 40% more than I paid for my M3Ti's to the Axioms...Why not take the Paradigm Titans, or PSB Alpha's, which sell about the same? They've got peakiness problems as well. There's a lot of speakers that measure well but don't sound the greatest, and vice-versa. I submit that the Axiom M3Ti's (I haven't heard other models), sound wise, are or on par with the offerings in the Paradigm catalogue and arguably as good or a better value. I can easily make this determination as I simultaneously owned the Mini Monitors and Paradigm Titans in secondary and tertiary systems of mine (granted, it took me a YEAR to warm up to the M3Ti's). Judging by the response curve between 1 and 5 kHz, I suspect (but can't prove) that Axiom might have intentionally left response as such to present a laid back soundstage, particularly for vocals. This is quite common in alot of speakers, some like it some don't.

I have no interest in dissecting the M3Ti's, I've got too many other speaker projects on the go right now, but even IF the crossover is a simple high pass filter design, that in no way makes it "inferior engineering". If the product does what it's designed to do at a fair price, I would respectfully submit it is EXCEPTIONAL engineering. The amount of praise those speakers get, as well as the fantastic reviews from people who compare the M3Ti's to similar offerings means something. It might not be the best these could sound, (and I would be very interested in hearing your crossover mod ideas) but I'm guessing Axiom had their reasons...if it was profit so be it, the resonance inducing particle board cabinetry of the Paradigm's is just as bad a shortcut. The speakers are competitive, and do the job they were engineered to do at a reasonable price. For that, they can't be slandered as poorly engineered.

kexodusc
12-22-2004, 04:43 AM
I think that measurements are just part of the story. While the Ascends measure very well and play without audible resonances, they are an extremely boring speaker that has an overly analytical presentation that seems to favor measurement rather than musical enjoyement. Now, im not saying Ascends are crappy speakers its jsut that people need to look at them for more than jsut measurements when writing a review. They may measure as good as 1k speakers but they wont be as musical.

This brings up a good point engineers don't like to admit...Frequency response curves only tell part of the story. As I said earlier, for whatever reasons, there are many speakers that measure very well, but don't sound great, and vice-versa.

newbsterv2
12-22-2004, 11:19 AM
kexodusc I accept your apology. I have opened the pair of Paradigm Monitor 7's that I own and found their crossover components as well as their drivers to be a level higher than that of the Axiom M3ti. Is the M3ti so much better because it has a "corrugated" port tube and assymetrical walls to reduce standing waves? The speaker has a peak in the midrange. Period. I'll agree that the frequency response curve is not everything either BUT you have got to start somewhere. You also said yourself that it took a year to get used to the sound of the Axioms. It took me about that same time to figure out why they sounded so wrong to me. As far as a price range is concerned I don't think the Axiom M3ti should get away with the way it sounds just because it's $275. The Mini Monitors might cost $75 dollars more but a) they have an actual crossover network, and b) sound much more natural to me. I will be the first to agree that there are many bad recordings out there and if we try to find a speaker that makes those recordings sound better than they are then the speaker is colored and in my opinion not a hifi speaker. The Axiom M3 has a projected midrange and rolled off top end. Notice how I didn't say smooth. The tweeter has a bad resonance at about 10khz that can be easily heard. I don't want to argue with you anymore because I'm stuck on my idea of what's right or wrong and you have your own opinions. Let's let future buyers of the two mentioned products decide. :)



Newbsterv2:
I'm not one to be condescending or insulting, but reading my posts it appears I've certainly come across that way...for this I apologize.

However, let me make my point clear, because we aren't discussing the same thing here.

You claim Axiom makes cheaply designed speakers, and implied Paradigm's are better "engineered". With this I have a few issues. First, I may not be an electrical engineer, but I know a fair bit about electronics, and speakers, and after opening both the Paradigm Titans and the Paradigm Monitor 5's, I can assure you that the level of quality components in Paradigm Performance and Monitor series (the two lines below and above the Axiom price range respectiveley) is equally as low as that which is in the Axioms. (Hello, toilet paper rolls for port tubes?)

2nd, as for measurements, most competent engineers and speaker designers will admit that they only tell part of the story anyway. I question why you would compare the CBM-170's which sell for about 40% more than I paid for my M3Ti's to the Axioms...Why not take the Paradigm Titans, or PSB Alpha's, which sell about the same? They've got peakiness problems as well. There's a lot of speakers that measure well but don't sound the greatest, and vice-versa. I submit that the Axiom M3Ti's (I haven't heard other models), sound wise, are or on par with the offerings in the Paradigm catalogue and arguably as good or a better value. I can easily make this determination as I simultaneously owned the Mini Monitors and Paradigm Titans in secondary and tertiary systems of mine (granted, it took me a YEAR to warm up to the M3Ti's). Judging by the response curve between 1 and 5 kHz, I suspect (but can't prove) that Axiom might have intentionally left response as such to present a laid back soundstage, particularly for vocals. This is quite common in alot of speakers, some like it some don't.

I have no interest in dissecting the M3Ti's, I've got too many other speaker projects on the go right now, but even IF the crossover is a simple high pass filter design, that in no way makes it "inferior engineering". If the product does what it's designed to do at a fair price, I would respectfully submit it is EXCEPTIONAL engineering. The amount of praise those speakers get, as well as the fantastic reviews from people who compare the M3Ti's to similar offerings means something. It might not be the best these could sound, (and I would be very interested in hearing your crossover mod ideas) but I'm guessing Axiom had their reasons...if it was profit so be it, the resonance inducing particle board cabinetry of the Paradigm's is just as bad a shortcut. The speakers are competitive, and do the job they were engineered to do at a reasonable price. For that, they can't be slandered as poorly engineered.

kexodusc
12-22-2004, 11:46 AM
I can live with this, except I see the Mini Monitors selling for $400-$450, not not $350...I would feel better comparing the Axiom's to the Paradigm Titan at $269...here there's not really much comparison.

As for the weird shaped cabinet the Axiom's have and the goofy port tube, I'm not sold that those contribute much to the sound, standing waves can be reduced with damping material. I do know the larger Paradigms suffer from horrible resonance problems, I suspect the Axioms share the same flaws.

The Axiom's have the peak in the midrange, the Paradigms have the dreaded BBC dip, to each their own.

My problem with the M3Ti's wasn't so much that it took me a year to learn to like them, but that I found they sound rather mediocre when I placed them like I would most bookshelf speakers. If you search my review on them from last fall, you'll see I was largely disappointed, but I bought these from a friend whose store carried Axiom (not the Internet) to place in my dining room.

I honestly found them at their best when placed firing straight ahead, no toe-in. I didn't try this until a month ago or so. Maybe the off axis response eliminates the peak? Who knows. As it stands now, they're back on top of the cabinet in the dining room, hardly optimally placed. No speaker is going to sound right there. But they're small and pretty, and until I get around to finishing my next project, I'll keep them.

RGA
12-22-2004, 12:33 PM
The thing with Specs and Measurements which i used to pay way more attention to 10 years ago than I do now is that the industry as a whole self-sustains itself to make itself look good. When CD players first came out - and some still do - post wow and flutter on cd players. This was done for the soul purpose of converting vinylphiles to cd by showing impressive numbers - despite the fact that it's something tha should not have been posted as truthful of cd player performance(err relevant) since most modest turntable's W&F is inaudable. CD player's were quick to ignore certain dynamic characteristics and jitter though.

Then we come to the meausrements of other products but there are many measurements and only a few are used - some will say they get the important ones of relevance - but I'm not convinced. Too many very similar measuring speakers in the same rooms sound considerably different some are just outright overrated and poor. The recent case of the great measuring B&W 705 in Stereophile - but looking at measurements conducted outside the rags revels majorly bad results of the midbass driver at the top of its passband - many of these companies are utilising some nifty technology to get the best readings from the measurements standrds - Feedback in SS amplifiers yield phenomanly great looking graphs and specs - but easily and handedly get beat upside the head on the only test that matters a damn - listening.

I like some SS amps for example - BRYSTON is one i havce recommended and continue to recommend --- the 3B and preamp from them cost about the same as a 9 watt Audio Note OTO Single Ended tube amp. In nearly every measurable way(the ones that are currently in fashion) the Brystons MURDER the OTO. Side by side in actual Listening however and the reverse holds true. It's ok because when we sell somthing we always want to put our stuff in the best light - but that's marketing - not the truth.

This doesn't mean you chuck out the measurements - but they are probably measuring about 1/10 if that of what you are hearing. For example frequency response is deemed most important and the speaker should be flat - well that's never going to happen and being flatter sure doesn;t mean it's going to sound better - a slight anomoly at a certain frequency can be FAR more annoying than a speaker which is pretty good at that frequency but wildly all over the place somewhere else. And which frequency YOU are more annoyed by is a factor as well. The problem is of course that many would rather rely soley on the 10% of the measurements we have than realy on the listening experience. For if you rely on what you hear there is a chance you will buy a speaker that has 5db dip somewhere in the graph where you could have bought a speaker that some reviewer thinks is better because it has a 1db spike(but it's closer to flat so it's deemed better). Never mind that you might enjoy the 5d dip speaker and listen more and enjoy it more than the spekaer that gathers dust because it sounds aweful but the review magazine touted it as neutral.

Rap music generally annoys me but some people love it - there is no explanation for that other than that your BRAIN not your ear is reconstructing what it is that it's being sent. Your background and values and preferences influences your reaction to what your hearing - as it should be.

I basically began to ignore the measurements when it was obvious that so many bad sounding or banal and not reproducing music properly were being deemed as showing exellent measured response. My firends here are in bands - i listen to live music amplified and unamplified a fair bit - just the other day at a Christmas party we had a girl who is putting out her second album in April - she plays acoustic guitar and sings blues/country and is quite a talented vocalist but the name escapes me Melanie something. Anyway this is not exactly the most taxing thing to reproduce a guitar and a female vocal - you soon realise how most of those great measring class A or B speakers simply don't do it - not remotely close.

Basic instrument textures are not there - missing completely. So it's a good way to measure well if you avoid the hard part of the recording (decay) or just limit the bass you attempt. I think there is a real fear that if you have a full bodied big sound will also have some colouration - I think that people who listen to a lot of live music will know better. You need the tonal body of the instruments being played - i hear most of that completely gone with most speakers especially most standmount speakers - it's not a bass issue either so adding a sub doesn't help. It's a very slick industry - and don;t think for one second that most of the magazines are not in cahoots with the people building the products. I don;t blame either group for that mind you - because the makers need the advertising of a good review and the magazines need to give good reviews in order to sell magazines and giving bad reviews can hurt their magazine.

The trick is wading through it and figuring out what is going on behind the scenes - or yeah you could just listen and not really give a rat's bottom.