Axiom-Is the hype to be believed?

[TinHere]

I'm starting to realize I've got way more learning to do. I think you are absolutely right about online retailers figuring you will not return their product and the fact that some don't even have a listening room has me very skeptical. GB

Don't dismiss internet only companies too quick. Whatever speakers you buy you will be paying shipping one way or another. For the risk of the price to ship they give you an opportunity to hear their products in the only place that matters, your home with your gear. The successful online companies are able to deliver a better product for less money than their competition by virtue of the fact that they are not concerned with middle man mark-up. If you can get an online speaker system for $2000 that can compete with a system in a b&m retailer that costs $3500 [conservative est] and it costs $250 to ship which is the better buy? Add to that the fact that many people have reported positive experiences [ie they REALLY liked them compared to others they heard], and the gamble you take isn't as great as the rewards it can reap. This business model can only survive if they deliver better bang for the buck. Nowhere does bad news from disappointed consumers travel quicker than on the internet.

Do your research and make your choices, but don't think that the people who report positively about online companies are looking for people to share their misery. It's quite the other way around. Happy hunting.

[Geoffcin]

<>

WTF RGA!? Are you implying that Axioms are so poor as not to be worthy of inclusion into Best Buy?

Axioms direct marketing strategy is a key part of their business plan. I don't think there's any sinister plan of "duping people" into buying inferior products with the hope they won't send them back. That is patently absurd.

So far as reviews are concerned, it's obviously subjective, but speakers that suck DON'T win awards, or the reviewers would be out finding another job real fast. I can't believe that the awards I see on the Axiom site are just shills, that's another absurd statement.

[RGA]

<>

WTF RGA!? Are you implying that Axioms are so poor as not to be worthy of inclusion into Best Buy?

Axioms direct marketing strategy is a key part of their business plan. I don't think there's any sinister plan of "duping people" into buying inferior products with the hope they won't send them back. That is patently absurd.

So far as reviews are concerned, it's obviously subjective, but speakers that suck DON'T win awards, or the reviewers would be out finding another job real fast. I can't believe that the awards I see on the Axiom site are just shills, that's another absurd statement.

First of all I never said the reviews were from Shills...shill reviews d exist though but that could apply to any speaker not just Axiom...I never said it to start with however.

I also never said anything about the speaker itself. I am merely noting that ALL speakers get great reviews...whatever speaker you begin to have an interest in...let's pick one...anybody go do some research on the Energy C3, The B&W DM 303(European loudspeaker of the year), Polk LSI series, Boston Acoustics, Axiom, pretty much everyone.

Then note the reviewer's name...any idiot who can spin a few words can be a reviewer...it's interesting no-one ever seems to want to check the reviewer's credentials to determine if their opinion is worth a damn.

A movie may get 90% fresh(meaning good movie go see it) on the Rotten tomatoes site and 10% of the critics may hate it. The numbers mean zilch because maybe the 10% are people with similar tastes to you and the other 90% are hollywood nimrids - or vice versa.

I have recently listened to the $799.00CDN Paradigm Monitor 5 v3. It's not a bad sounding speaker, it sounds unnatural and doesn't make me believe for a second that Jesse Cook is playing a real acoustic guitar like it sounds on my system because it is missing the entire presentation...from a relatively flat speaker no less. The treble response is much better than the previous year. All told by track 5, I had to leave the room because it was giving me a headache. You go look up the reviews of this speaker in the north American magazines and see the glorious remarks about it, the best-buy awards, the speaker of the year.

You won't find a review from Hi-fi Choice, What Hi Fi or UHF though and you won't find a review from people who didn't buy it on sites like this one.

Well I'm giving you my quick review of it right here right now. It's 1) well built 2) it has a definite rock penchant for a standmount and 3) it probably offers good value considering the competition 4) I would rather something different and less fatiguing. None of the magazines would say number 4...except the reviewers from the magazines that won't ever get shipped this speaker. Energy I give em credit sent their excellently reviewed speakers by mgazines who always give excellent reviews and they did pretty good. 3 and 4 stars. But not the typical best speakers ever in this price range...which will be said about the next speaker that they review next month.

If you're going to go strictly by the reviews...I want to see a review by ONE of Hi FI Choice, UHF and What hi-fi if for no other reason to see another take on the speaker.

[psonic]

this shootout shows the axiom m22ti did very well against some speakers we are very familiar with like b&w, paradigm, etc...and they are not afraid to tell a speakers faults, for example they didn't like the b&w 602 very much...

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...faceoff3_h.php

[RGA]

this shootout shows the axiom m22ti did very well against some speakers we are very familiar with like b&w, paradigm, etc...and they are not afraid to tell a speakers faults, for example they didn't like the b&w 602 very much...

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...faceoff3_h.php

Yes I have seen this site a few times presented and I always like to note the details. The B&W in question is a 10 year old speaker 3 models old. The original 601 was not a particularly great sounding speaker signidficantly improved upon in version 2 and 3.

I'm amazed that site can produce such nonsense...and once again it's an opinion.

I respect the views of the three magazines I mentioned earlier...does not mean I agree with them on every point. Do you agree with a particular film critic on every film you see?

Note this "The scoring below is based on each speaker doing the duty it is designed for. The numbers are weighed heavily with respect to the individual cost of each unit, thus giving a rating equal to Performance x Price Factor/Value = Rating"

That is ridiculously foolish.

They say that the Axiom is better value over the B&W because it is $400 and they talk about the list price of a decade old speaker at $599.00 - hmm, but you don't have to pay $599.00 for that speaker you'd pay maybe $175.00 so ???? then what is the better value?

Hogwash site. They are right about the old 602's bass response being a bit bloomy...but they required significant power to get going...something these clods likely know. The improvement in the current 602S3 may very well offer the most well balanced bass response of any standmount available in it's price range. A significant improvement...and the price for the new one is still $600US.

None of this is to say one might like the Axiom better without anywhere near the bass depth but then you have to add a quality sub. In a normal medium/apartment the 602S3 offers more than enough bass on its own down to around 50hz with a wider front baffle.

[Pat D]

Yes I have seen this site a few times presented and I always like to note the details. The B&W in question is a 10 year old speaker 3 models old. The original 601 was not a particularly great sounding speaker signidficantly improved upon in version 2 and 3.

I'm amazed that site can produce such nonsense...and once again it's an opinion.

I respect the views of the three magazines I mentioned earlier...does not mean I agree with them on every point. Do you agree with a particular film critic on every film you see?

Note this "The scoring below is based on each speaker doing the duty it is designed for. The numbers are weighed heavily with respect to the individual cost of each unit, thus giving a rating equal to Performance x Price Factor/Value = Rating"

That is ridiculously foolish.

They say that the Axiom is better value over the B&W because it is $400 and they talk about the list price of a decade old speaker at $599.00 - hmm, but you don't have to pay $599.00 for that speaker you'd pay maybe $175.00 so ???? then what is the better value?

Hogwash site. They are right about the old 602's bass response being a bit bloomy...but they required significant power to get going...something these clods likely know. The improvement in the current 602S3 may very well offer the most well balanced bass response of any standmount available in it's price range. A significant improvement...and the price for the new one is still $600US.

None of this is to say one might like the Axiom better without anywhere near the bass depth but then you have to add a quality sub. In a normal medium/apartment the 602S3 offers more than enough bass on its own down to around 50hz with a wider front baffle.

It would actually help if you read what Audioholics said about the B & W 602 S1:

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...faceoff3_c.php

They explicitly said it was an older model and the newer versions were better. Maybe it is useful sometimes to compare older speakers to newer models. Some manufacturers managed to get it right years ago, and build speakers that do stand up well today.

One thing I've learned from your posts on speakers is that my tastes in speakers are apparently quite different from yours--as is the case with some reviewers, Art Dudley being one.

You rail about Audioholics' rating system, which includes value for cost as a factor. Funny you don't complain when other site and mags do the same thing. This is one problem with reviews here at AR, too, because it certainly appears to me that most people rate on a cost/value basis. I don't know what to do about that, and separating the quality and value ratings doesn't seem to me to do it; but many of the narrative reviews seem helpful. But I agree, I would much rather have a "blind" rating, irrespective of cost, like they do at the National Research Council facilities in Ottawa, you know, those tests you so love to diss.

Do we have any objective measurements of those Audio Note speakers, by the way, or have you just been taking Peter Qvortrup's word for it?

[RGA]

It would actually help if you read what Audioholics said about the B & W 602 S1:

http://www.audioholics.com/productre...faceoff3_c.php

They explicitly said it was an older model and the newer versions were better. Maybe it is useful sometimes to compare older speakers to newer models. Some manufacturers managed to get it right years ago, and build speakers that do stand up well today.

One thing I've learned from your posts on speakers is that my tastes in speakers are apparently quite different from yours--as is the case with some reviewers, Art Dudley being one.

You rail about Audioholics' rating system, which includes value for cost as a factor. Funny you don't complain when other mags do the same thing. This is one problem with reviews here at AR, too, because it certainly appears to me that most people rate on a cost/value basis. I don't know what to do about that, and separating the quality and value ratings doesn't seem to me to do it; but many of the narrative reviews seem helpful. But I agree, I would much rather have a "blind" rating, irrespective of cost, like they do at the National Research Council facilities in Ottawa, you know, those tests you so love to diss.

Do we have any objective measurements of those Audio Note speakers, by the way, or have you just been taking Peter Qvortrup's word for it?

Well first you know I don't value the measurements that don't tell you anything about sound...or gee the subjective review would correlate with the measurements...none of the subjective reviews of the De Capo correlate - consensus is generally a great lifelike high end speaker. Can't be said about some of the flatter responses? Measurement therefore are not accurate to what is "liked."

Audioholics would make more sense if they were comparing similarly priced speakers...like What hi-fi. No problems with giving a speaker 5 stars or a 10/10 in a given price range. But they have a "perceived" performance/value rating that only a buyer can determine. The B&W bass response is a warmer presentation and is not nearly as punchy. Well if you like the less punchy then it's a better speaker for your needs. No matter what it's measurements are. You're an odd fellow since you rely SO heavily on graphs then tell people not to rely on them totally.

The FACT of the matter is the ONLY way you can rely on a graph is if you sample about a 100 speakers find the ones you like "subjectively" and then get access to ALL of the graphs. If you chose ten from that 100 and they all measure roughly the same then you have an idea of what is best. The NRC tests posted at Harman are incomplete small and not useful for regular buyers. Tests are too small A/B and not the way a normal person sets up their speakers...it's all done by someone else...which is not the normal listening environment which makes it invalid...look up validity...it's not never will be period. Another advertising gimmick - it works people buy a lot of irritating dreck in the name of accuracy. At the listening position in your room is the ONLY thing that would count. And that graph would change in every room.

A slight lilt in the treble is to me and many people FAR worse than almost any other anomolie. Mid Bass Hump for example is not overly irritating to me...especially if amplified rock is your bag.

As for the Audio Note's why do you care? You can e-mail Hi Fi Choice for the measurements perhaps...of the An E/D - all their speakers have a similar sound http://www.hifichoice.co.uk/review_read.asp?ID=475 I'd be more interested in the fact that in a blind level matched room they sounded worthy of recommendation. That speaker can be bought new for $2000.00CDN. So that Value rating would rise no doubt. Though they do reference their measurements a little at least.

I would suggest looking up the measurements of the very original Snell designs but the changes AN has made are fairly large in that the AN's are corner near wall placements where the Snells were not.

Also all Audio Note amplifiers, DACS, etc are measured or tested through Audio Note speakers...so presumably you might get information about the speaker indirectly through the ancillary gear. Can't build a good amp with hopeless speakers - if you build part of that sound by ear.

You can also ask about the AN E with your good buddoies at Stereophile since it was the speaker they used to test tube amplifiers with - presumably they would want a relatively accurate speaker or good speaker to do that no? http://www.stereophile.com/reference/357/index1.html

And buyers are telling. Despite the looks they're doing pretty well. Despite no reviews of the AN K and the fact that I never heard of them...compared to the De Capo, N801, Studio series, ML and a host of others I have already mentioned on the old forum thread, side by side with some of them...it beat them all...the De Capo was closestdo it's smoother presentation but the soundstage had a character in depth that was always there on a all recording which while I like it - in the end i wanted a more straight shooter. (plus I preferred the treble response of the original version ... rolled off but not as hot.