Axiom-Is the hype to be believed?

[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.

[RGA]

.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.

Correction...N805 not N801. ML was Aerius i.

[Pat D]

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."

Well, I am taking parts of your post here. I don't generally think that much of purely subjective reviews whether by Stereophile or UHF or TAS Soundstage or anyone else, although one can often get some idea about speakers. The mags broadly agree about speakers. Stereophile does often do a useful set of measurements, especially for speakers, as does AIG, often Soundstage, and The Audio Critic, especially now that they have Don Keele on board.

You demand that a review by one individual should correlate with a set of measurements, except that individual may have peculiar tastes. As well, correlation for you seems to be a simple bipolar love or hate thing, whereas one can have varying degrees of preference for different aspects of a speaker's performance. In fact, Art Dudley apparently did hear the hefty mid-range peak in the De Capo, but didn't much object to it, as I have said before. So I simply don't agree that the measurements did not correlate with listening experience, even Art Dudley's.

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.

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.

I simply want to know what they are. If that to you is a heavy emphasis, I can only say that is your interpretation. That I want to know the measurements seems a personal affront to you for some reason. As for listening to a lot of speakers, I have listened to very many speakers in my life and I have been reading good reviews for a long time. I have long been fairly familiar with the NRC curves because the Canadian Sound & Vison magazine used them and I have tried to understand what they mean. The late Richard C. Heyser and later Don Keele gave fairly detailed measurements in Audio magazine, and I have tried to understand something about them, too.

As Woochifer points out, most manufacturers don't show the curves and data for the speakers, far from it. So much for "adverising gimmick."

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.

So now you DO seem to know something about correlating the measurents with the sound! Will wonders never cease! LOL--make up your mind!

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

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.

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? url]http://www.stereophile.com/reference/357/index1.html[/url]

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.

As for the Audio Note speakers, it is YOU who keep telling me how accurate they are, and you even quote Peter Q about flat 30 degree off axis response--as if Paradigm Reference, PSB, Energy and others don't do that!! Are you just taking his word for it? He perhaps engages in a little smooth sounding puffery himself! But, he may well be a good speaker designer and I'm happy for you that you like your new speakers. Also, he talks about measuring power response, as if this is not done--Harman does it, and I have a number of Canadian Sound & Vision magazines showing total power response graphs--it was something they did regularly until they sopped publishing about 1996. As well, the NRC graphs at Soundstage include a listening window graph which gives an approximation for a listener. You just seem to take Peter's word, and I asked you if this was so. Apparently it is!

[RGA]

You demand that a review by one individual should correlate with a set of measurements, except that individual may have peculiar tastes. As well, correlation for you seems to be a simple bipolar love or hate thing, whereas one can have varying degrees of preference for different aspects of a speaker's performance. In fact, Art Dudley apparently did hear the hefty mid-range peak in the De Capo, but didn't much object to it, as I have said before. So I simply don't agree that the measurements did not correlate with listening experience, even Art Dudley's.

I'm not saying there is absolutely no valididty to measurements because virtually EVERYBODY that lisens to the De capo comments on the midrange and the soundstage depth...naturally to do this there would be a corresponding measurement. Most people note this, would even without measurements presume that there would be a different measurement...after all they sound different there would HAVE to be. And yet if we go by the NRC most people SHOULD NOT like this speaker...which if any of the DBT dimwits would grab a clue indicates that gee whiz what happened in the real valid world is not corresponding to what is happening in the invalid test environment. And if it doesn't what the hell was the point of the test to start with. There is no price.looks brand name bias...they lose on all counts.

I simply want to know what they are. If that to you is a heavy emphasis, I can only say that is your interpretation. That I want to know the measurements seems a personal affront to you for some reason. As for listening to a lot of speakers, I have listened to very many speakers in my life and I have been reading good reviews for a long time. I have long been fairly familiar with the NRC curves because the Canadian Sound & Vison magazine used them and I have tried to understand what they mean. The late Richard C. Heyser and later Don Keele gave fairly detailed measurements in Audio magazine, and I have tried to understand something about them, too.

Yes trying to understand them is great...judging is another. I gave up when the speakers the measurers liked often(not always) sounded like dreck to me. The fact that I say not always further complicates it because speakers like PMC and B&W's Matrix805 are flat leaning measurement follower's orgasmic speakers and they sound good. But...

As for Qvortrup I didn't but the speaker based off a graph nor did i have ANY interest in seeing it...as that would merely induce a bias about the sound. I have quoted him because i don't like screwing up paraphrases where possible.

What he has argued for a long time is to closely match the drivers...his biggest complaint and to which no spekaer using a metal tweeter can or ever will do correctly. Quite simply, not everything is measured and or read the way it suposed to be read. WHich is why the liked measured speaker does not beat out, often, the subjective musical experience.

[Pat D]

I'm not saying there is absolutely no valididty to measurements because virtually EVERYBODY that lisens to the De capo comments on the midrange and the soundstage depth...naturally to do this there would be a corresponding measurement. Most people note this, would even without measurements presume that there would be a different measurement...after all they sound different there would HAVE to be. And yet if we go by the NRC most people SHOULD NOT like this speaker...which if any of the DBT dimwits would grab a clue indicates that gee whiz what happened in the real valid world is not corresponding to what is happening in the invalid test environment. And if it doesn't what the hell was the point of the test to start with. There is no price.looks brand name bias...they lose on all counts.

You have the strange idea that the NRC and Stereophile measurements indicate most people shouldn't like the De Capos. You don't tell us how you came to that conclusion. It sounds like black and white thinking to me, that is, limiting the alternatives to two extremes without any possibility of a position in between. But the measurements simply don't show that. They do show a non-flat midrange and rather interesting dispersion characteristics. It's just that we would expect that most people would prefer speakers with a flatter response and better off axis dispersion. This is not the same as to say they wouldn't like the De Capos, only they would likely prefer something else. And from your account of your Audio Note speakers, the speakers you actually bought , we could infer that you do, too.

[RGA]

You have the strange idea that the NRC and Stereophile measurements indicate most people shouldn't like the De Capos. You don't tell us how you came to that conclusion. It sounds like black and white thinking to me, that is, limiting the alternatives to two extremes without any possibility of a position in between. But the measurements simply don't show that. They do show a non-flat midrange and rather interesting dispersion characteristics. It's just that we would expect that most people would prefer speakers with a flatter response and better off axis dispersion. This is not the same as to say they wouldn't like the De Capos, only they would likely prefer something else. And from your account of your Audio Note speakers, the speakers you actually bought , we could infer that you do, too.

LOL...now this actually is true and I can't deny it. I have thought it over and i have been defending that non flat deeper soundstaging as sounding very pleasing and yet it is ALSO the main reason I didn't BUY the speaker in the end.