I've found some excellent rear-ported designs in Maple for gobs of money (see Dynaudio Focus 140) and the ********** x-ls, which looks to be a steal for the price. But I'm wondering what else is out there in the middle of the spectrum in the $1000/pair range.

I'm considering going with 3 identical bookshelfs for my front 3 channels so a vertically oriented woofer and tweeter would be ideal. A front ported design would also be preferred since I may not be able to give the center speaker the clearance from the wall behind it it deserves. Oh yes, and thanks to the wife it has to be maple.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1's!

Can't imagine a better deal than the Revel Perfoma M22's (http://www.tsto.com/cgi-bin/TSTO.storefront/46be2cf7005b12a22740ac1003410617/Product/View/2692) for $995 -in MAPLE.

I have a pair and am continually amazed at their purity and ease of sound reproduction and they CRANK. Need some power though but they are a great speaker and for $995? A steal.

Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1's!
Are these available in maple?

Are these available in maple?Why should that matter? It's not like people actually read the first post before replying.

Are these available in maple?Just tell her the bamboo is maple. After all, how much real wood has she seen? :eek:

Just tell her the bamboo is maple. After all, how much real wood has she seen? :eek:

LOL!!!! (glad I didn't say it!)

Can't imagine a better deal than the Perfoma M22's[/URL] for $995 -in MAPLE.

I have a pair and am continually amazed at their purity and ease of sound reproduction and they CRANK. Need some power though but they are a great speaker and for $995? A steal.

If this price is for real, buy these yesterday.

If this price is for real, buy these yesterday.

It's for real - got mine in a week. CANNOT understand why they have any left - they are truly a remarkable speaker - for $995? Ridiculous bargain.

I've had mine for a week now also. The constant upgrading has finally reached an end. I hope. I would also recommend onix ref1.

I ... MUST ... resist ... buying ... those ... Revels!

If that deal had been around last year when i was building my maple bedroom HT ....

CM1's and Era Design 5's ...Sycamore Oak looks like maple to me ;) (both@ $900)

THE REVELS MENTIONED ARE GREAT TOO.....GO FORTH AND LISTEN!!!!!

Are words and opinions aren't worth squat compared to a real A/B session.

CM1's and Era Design 5's ...Sycamore Oak looks like maple to me ;) (both@ $900)

THE REVELS MENTIONED ARE GREAT TOO.....GO FORTH AND LISTEN!!!!!

Are words and opinions aren't worth squat compared to a real A/B session.

The A/B session is coming. This afternoon as a matter of fact!

My understanding is that if you purchase the Revel M22s through mail-order or over the internet, your manufacturer's warranty will be void.

Thats if you believe the manufacturer's warnings.

The fact is, as a consumer, you have the right to the full warranty, and most judges will agree.

Thats if you believe the manufacturer's warnings.

The fact is, as a consumer, you have the right to the full warranty, and most judges will agree.
While this may or may not be winable, and it can go either way (there are good and bad luck stories, that is), it's probably not worth the hassle unless you have time to waste on such an effort.
The bigger point is that , probably, given that they are great speakers, you'll not need service , and given that deal, it's little risk vs the good benifit.
Go for it.

Can't imagine a better deal than the Revel Perfoma M22's (http://www.tsto.com/cgi-bin/TSTO.storefront/46be2cf7005b12a22740ac1003410617/Product/View/2692) for $995 -in MAPLE.

I have a pair and am continually amazed at their purity and ease of sound reproduction and they CRANK. Need some power though but they are a great speaker and for $995? A steal.

I agree with you that they're a steal (when considered in terms of this price vs MSRP), but after my audition today I can't bring myself to buy them. The high end is very undetailed, almost dull sounding. The mid-range is it's best asset, along with boundary controls in the back for close quartered installs. I also found the imaging to be sub par. There was no phantom center with these speakers. Audience clapping and cymbals sounded boring. Normally I would associate brightness with metal tweeter but this was exactly the opposite. To me, Revel sucked all the liveness out of these titanium tweeters.

My highlights of the day were the B&W CM1's and Vienna Acoustics Hadyn's. I'm not sure how the CM1's put out so much SPL in the low range but I was left thoroughly impressed. If I closed my eyes I would of thought I was listening to much larger speakers. I wasn't even planning on auditioning them, so I was very surprised. The only downside is that they seem to be power hungry...I had to crank the volume quite a bit to get a satisfactory listening level.

The Hadyn's were good but not without the help of a subwoofer. Imaged extremely well, fast and detailed.

My understanding is that if you purchase the Revel M22s through mail-order or over the internet, your manufacturer's warranty will be void.
These are authorized closeouts with full factory warranty.

I agree with you that they're a steal (when considered in terms of this price vs MSRP), but after my audition today I can't bring myself to buy them. The high end is very undetailed, almost dull sounding. The mid-range is it's best asset, along with boundary controls in the back for close quartered installs. I also found the imaging to be sub par. There was no phantom center with these speakers. Audience clapping and cymbals sounded boring. Normally I would associate brightness with metal tweeter but this was exactly the opposite. To me, Revel sucked all the liveness out of these titanium tweeters.


Won't pretend to know that much about speakers but for me, in my system, the high end is just the way I like it, not over done like so many others I've heard, along with the phantom center and great imaging, again in my system.

I have not heard either of the other speakers and appreciate the review of all 3 speakers and hope you find what you're looking for

They work in my room just fine. Lovely top end. Not bright at all, and very detailed.

Won't pretend to know that much about speakers but for me, in my system, the high end is just the way I like it, not over done like so many others I've heard, along with the phantom center and great imaging, again in my system.

I have not heard either of the other speakers and appreciate the review of all 3 speakers and hope you find what you're looking for

Maybe the ones I heard were duds, or the amp driving it had something to do with it. What amp are you using?

I auditioned mine with Rotel separates, which is enough to scare me off since I'll be using Rotel separates in my setup. Rotel is a neutral sounding amp, supposedley.

Is the Revel M22 a very accurate speaker? I often find myself being initially impressed by coloration.

Is the Revel M22 a very accurate speaker?
Yes.

Is the Revel M22 a very accurate speaker? I often find myself being initially impressed by coloration.

You can read my brief review a few posts up. I would urge anyone considering this speaker to audition it first, and maybe try with a variety of amps. I was not pleased with the Rotel/M22 combination.

I agree with you that they're a steal (when considered in terms of this price vs MSRP), but after my audition today I can't bring myself to buy them. The high end is very undetailed, almost dull sounding. The mid-range is it's best asset, along with boundary controls in the back for close quartered installs. I also found the imaging to be sub par. There was no phantom center with these speakers. Audience clapping and cymbals sounded boring. Normally I would associate brightness with metal tweeter but this was exactly the opposite. To me, Revel sucked all the liveness out of these titanium tweeters.

While I don't share your opinions on the Revel's, I salute your intelligence and dilligence in actually not being swayed by price or the "appeal of the deal", as you have done what was in the best interests of your ears. Bravo! You have rendered a very good example of why personal auditioning is so critical. There was no one saying that these might not be good speakers, but you took the time to listen for yourself and , no doubt, will find something more to your liking. Normally , I would encourage a second chance for the speakers but you seem to have had enough reasons to not like them, that I doubt set-up, etc could have had that much to do with it, and the dealer should have known if something was actually wrong with them, and Rotel should have been a good match (I've used them in combo before). We all hear differantly, so , good luck with whatever you decide, and don't let us sway you.

Maybe the ones I heard were duds, or the amp driving it had something to do with it. What amp are you using?

I auditioned mine with Rotel separates, which is enough to scare me off since I'll be using Rotel separates in my setup. Rotel is a neutral sounding amp, supposedley.

I've got an older ATI 1502 (150Wpc@8ohms - 250Wpc@4ohms) which I think is a very good amp but cannot attest to its sonic tendencies. And I really meant it when I said I don't know that much about speakers, but I just turned my system on a minute ago to see if I was hearing things and the highs and details were just stunning to my ear. Just goes to show how our tastes can be so different.

I had Axiom M22's before these (also a titanium tweeter I believe) and the Revels are so much more refined. Where the Axioms shouted detail the Revels whisper detail and refinement. And I think that's how I would describe them - refined and very honest.

Could also see how they might sound too clinical and TOO accurate for many ears. They add nothing that I can tell to the sound whereas the Axioms added a lot of high end (even though both speakers measure flat) that would get old over longer listens.

As a matter of fact I remember my first audition in my home and I was very unimpressed. The more I listened the more I liked the Revels especially the fact that I could listen for a very long time and not get weary.

Please let us know what you end up with.

Thanks Tony.

Magnus,
I suppose I will have to try them. I did read your review and liked the Vienna Acoustic Haydn in my own auditioning, but it seemed to be a fairly colored speaker. It seemed slightly muddy, but at the same time threw a nice soundstage (dealer had them 8 feet apart). However, I also auditioned the Martin Logan Clairity right after it, and was shocked at how much better the ML was at detail retrieval. The ML also seemed more more clear and neutral.

A similar thing happened when I auditioned the MA RS6 and NHT Classic 3. The RS6 seemed a little bright, but still extremely enjoyable to listen to. In comparison, the Classic 3 sounded a little mechanical and dry, but I wonder if it wasn't simply more accurate and thus, I did not enjoy it in my limited listening. Also, the dealer's room wasn't ideal

Is the Revel M22 a very accurate speaker? I often find myself being initially impressed by coloration.

I think they are but that is SUCH a subjective character of a speaker. It has been said in reviews that Revel adds nothing to the source and that that type of sound is quite unremarkable and difficult to get used to but TRUE accuracy can probably only be discerned by those with the very best of ears or the very best imagination.

They add nothing that I can tell to the sound whereas the Axioms added a lot of high end (even though both speakers measure flat) that would get old over longer listens.

It has been said in reviews that Revel adds nothing to the source and that that type of sound is quite unremarkable and difficult to get used to but TRUE accuracy can probably only be discerned by those with the very best of ears or the very best imagination.

I think these may just be another couple of countless examples of FR not telling the whole story. Most speakers final voicing and changes are made by ear as machines just don't, as of yet, give us the whole picture with regards to what sounds "right".
I am waiting for the day I go to a live acoustical performance at my local concert hall and come away saying, "Gee that sounded too clinical.....maybe it was the fact that it was so accurate?"
When something sounds clinical or "too acurate", something is wrong but you just can't put your finger on it....the good news is, I don't have to care what it is, I can just move on to something else. Sometimes, I'll see if I can figure it out, but often some other people won't hear it that way, and sometimes there may not be an apparent reason.

Thanks Tony.

Magnus,
I suppose I will have to try them. I did read your review and liked the Vienna Acoustic Haydn in my own auditioning, but it seemed to be a fairly colored speaker. It seemed slightly muddy, but at the same time threw a nice soundstage (dealer had them 8 feet apart). However, I also auditioned the Martin Logan Clairity right after it, and was shocked at how much better the ML was at detail retrieval. The ML also seemed more more clear and neutral.

A similar thing happened when I auditioned the MA RS6 and NHT Classic 3. The RS6 seemed a little bright, but still extremely enjoyable to listen to. In comparison, the Classic 3 sounded a little mechanical and dry, but I wonder if it wasn't simply more accurate and thus, I did not enjoy it in my limited listening. Also, the dealer's room wasn't ideal

I agree with you about the soundstage of the Haydn's. They sounded great at most off-axis positions. I can't say I found them muddy, actually, I found the floorstanding Bach Grands a little on the muddy side. I did find the Haydn's very weak in heavy bass guitar sequences, and would never think of listening to them without a sub.

I'm not sure what it was about the M22's...it's almost as if the mids were drowning out the highs. The highs weren't snappy. However, for their size they are very capable in the mid and low range. At first we were using a digital coax connection and then I hade him change it to the analog connection, which made an improvement. Perhaps I just prefer a speaker with more sizzle?

I left out the fact that auditioned the Linn Katan too. This was by far the brightest of the bunch, and very weak on the low end, but my ear still preferred it (almost instantly) to the M22. It was so bright in fact that I could see myself getting easilly fatigued over extended listening periods.

I think I'm going to give the M22 another go on Tuesday since I have to go back to audition the B&W CM7. Hopefully by then I'll have my copy of Wasserman's Duets or some Diana Krall with me.

Side note: The music I used to audition was:

Phish - Slip, Stitch and Pass
Smashing Pumpkins - Siamese Dream
Eagles - Hell Freezes Over

Not the BEST recordings but representative of my music tastes.

I may have felt the Haydn's were muddy because of the direct comparison with the Martin Logans, which are super crisp. However, the MLs didn't disappear nearly as well as the Haydn's and seemed to have a narrow sweet spot.

Not sure I trust my ears after such a poor review on the Haydns as this:
http://www.stereomojo.com/REVIEWS.htm

But I suppose it's hard to compare different speakers w/o hearing them back to back.

Wasserman's Duets

Say, has that Cowgirl's horse come back yet? :)

Say, has that Cowgirl's horse come back yet? :)

Yep, wearing a famous blue raincoat. ;)

I love Jenny's covers.

Now, for ten bonus points, do you know what that song has in common with Vienna Acoustics (just to bring it around circularly to your earlier auditioning endevour)?

I love Jenny's covers.

Now, for ten bonus points, do you know what that song has in common with Vienna Acoustics (just to bring it around circularly to your earlier auditioning endevour)?

Is it on the Sumiko Audio demo CD? If so, what do I win?

No, but they use it to teach speaker placement in their Master's Audio Course.

No, but they use it to teach speaker placement in their Master's Audio Course.

I know they use it in the Masters training course along with the Sneakers material for Rel subs. I was told they provided a demo CD with both the Ballad and the Sneakers track. Is that what you were alluding to earlier?

We all hear differantly
Do we? If we were both at the same concert, and then heard a speaker that accurately reproduced that concert, would we not hear the same thing we heard at the concert with our own ears? I think rather than hearing differently, we each have different expectatios of what sounds good, and for some, the closest approach to the original sound is not the goal.

[EDIT] Just read the subsequent posts re music used for audition. Kill my comments re a concert, as it clearly does not apply in this situation.

I'd say, rather than we all hear differently, we all listen to different music, some of which should be reproduced accurately and some of which, well who knows.

and then heard a speaker that accurately reproduced that concert,

I'd say if you played three differant speakers, that were all very FR accurate, for us, we may not agree which best produced that concert. As all speakers make comprimises in differant areas to achieve certain other design goals, we'd be then searching for the reasons we disagreed.

I'd say if you played three differant speakers, that were all very FR accurate, for us, we may not agree which best produced that concert. As all speakers make comprimises in differant areas to achieve certain other design goals, we'd be then searching for the reasons we disagreed.
Actually, I find that "accurate" speakers sound more similar than dissimilar. I have done careful comparisons of speakers that measure well and they sound quite the same. In fact, in a quick switch you'd be hard pressed to pick which was playing. Certainly, things like bass extension, dispersion, etc will affect ultimate sound quality, but most designers know how to make an accurate loudspeaker, some just choose not to (B&W with their CM-1 for instance).

Magnus, did you have a chance to listen to the ERA Design Sat5? I know you like the Dynaudio Focus 140, but it's a budget stretch for you. The ERA would be an excellent alternative for you. The success of the ERA's is not surprising to me. The Sat5 sounds almost as good as the Aerial Acoustics 5b, which is a $2k speaker. The Sycamore finish is basically Maple.

Magnus, did you have a chance to listen to the ERA Design Sat5? I know you like the Dynaudio Focus 140, but it's a budget stretch for you. The ERA would be an excellent alternative for you. The success of the ERA's is not surprising to me. The Sat5 sounds almost as good as the Aerial Acoustics 5b, which is a $2k speaker. The Sycamore finish is basically Maple.

I've found a place to demo the Sat5's but it's a bit of a drive.

I'll find a way to get up there and advise my findings.

The Sat5 is the D5...correct?

If the D4 is any indication, I bet the D5 is a great value.

The Sat5 is the D5...correct?


Yes.

Magnus, what are your impressions of the M22 the second time around? If I'm not mistaken, there is a tweeter level switch on the back of these, and perhaps you would prefer them if you turned the level up a few dB?

Magnus, what are your impressions of the M22 the second time around? If I'm not mistaken, there is a tweeter level switch on the back of these, and perhaps you would prefer them if you turned the level up a few dB?

I plan to listen to them on Saturday, back to back with the Design 5's. I'll let you know what I find.

Actually, I find that "accurate" speakers sound more similar than dissimilar. I have done careful comparisons of speakers that measure well and they sound quite the same

That's fine , but that has not been my experiance. I don't pay nearly as much attention to FR graphs like I used to because of the lack of correlation. I used to look at graphs first and look at the speakers and then listen, now I want to know as little about them as possible before I audition them. To each his own.

That's fine , but that has not been my experiance. I don't pay nearly as much attention to FR graphs like I used to because of the lack of correlation. I used to look at graphs first and look at the speakers and then listen, now I want to know as little about them as possible before I audition them. To each his own.

So your experience is that speakers that measure well sound very different from each other? What would cause this difference? If you look at JA's measurements in Stereophile, there is usually a pretty good correlation between how it measures and how it sounds provided the listener knows what he's doing.

I would think that 2 speakers that measure the same may sound differently depending on the materials and construction of the entire package. A decent example may be the differences one can hear in a silk dome tweeter versus a titanium or aluminum tweeter.

They may measure the same but they won't sound the same. Are they VERY different? I could not tell you but I would imagine to some ears those identical measurements can sound quite different.

So your experience is that speakers that measure well sound very different from each other?
They CAN, and more often do, sound differant....the word "very" is difficult to ascertain, what I hear as significant differances others may only seem to think are slight, and vise-versa.

What would cause this difference?
Speaker designers have been pondering this for years, but most still voice by ear. If they thought a universally recognized, superior, speaker could be designed from measurements, then we likely wouldn't be having this conversation now. Ian Paisley used to talk about a speaker he had designed that was flat (even well off axis as I recall) +/- .25db, 20-20khz, with other decent specs as well, but by his own admission and from what others told him, the speaker just sounded bad. This from a man who was very familiar with the NRC studies.
The ear is a very sophisticated device and it can still do and resolve things that we don't fully understand. Many designers have come to this conclusion. Many of the ones here are reluctant to step into the objectivist/subjectivist debate, as am I, and it seems that this discussion (which is never resolved) is heading there so I will try to extractmyself from it, as some people have an ugly side that comes out in such debates.
If you look at JA's measurements in Stereophile, there is usually a pretty good correlation between how it measures and how it sounds provided the listener knows what he's doing.

The question remains as to how much is written after the measurements are known or if some reviewers don't temper their remarks a bit and modify their review as they begin to imagine that they then "see" what they really heard...sorta....

Again, I took the advice of others some time ago and started to write down what I was hearing in terms of how I felt the subjective characteristics would appear on paper (before I knew ANYTHING about the speaker (blind)..where in the FR spectrum the mids were elevated and over how wide an area, and how much distortion I was hearing, where the crossover(s) was/were between drivers, the size, type, and number of the drivers etc....
It's an eye-opening experiance and I encourage others to do this as well.

Read some of Jon Lane's recent posts here :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11239184#post11239184

They CAN, and more often do, sound differant....the word "very" is difficult to ascertain, what I hear as significant differances others may only seem to think are slight, and vise-versa.


Speaker designers have been pondering this for years, but most still voice by ear. If they thought a universally recognized, superior, speaker could be designed from measurements, then we likely wouldn't be having this conversation now. Ian Paisley used to talk about a speaker he had designed that was flat (even well off axis as I recall) +/- .25db, 20-20khz, with other decent specs as well, but by his own admission and from what others told him, the speaker just sounded bad. This from a man who was very familiar with the NRC studies.
The ear is a very sophisticated device and it can still do and resolve things that we don't fully understand. Many designers have come to this conclusion. Many of the ones here are reluctant to step into the objectivist/subjectivist debate, as am I, and it seems that this discussion (which is never resolved) is heading there so I will try to extractmyself from it, as some people have an ugly side that comes out in such debates.


The question remains as to how much is written after the measurements are known or if some reviewers don't temper their remarks a bit and modify their review as they begin to imagine that they then "see" what they really heard...sorta....

Again, I took the advice of others some time ago and started to write down what I was hearing in terms of how I felt the subjective characteristics would appear on paper (before I knew ANYTHING about the speaker (blind)..where in the FR spectrum the mids were elevated and over how wide an area, and how much distortion I was hearing, where the crossover(s) was/were between drivers, the size, type, and number of the drivers etc....
It's an eye-opening experiance and I encourage others to do this as well.

Read some of Jon Lane's recent posts here :

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11239184#post11239184

Well, one thing's for certain. A speaker that goes out of its way to design dips and the like in the response will most certainly sound very different than a speaker aiming for a more accurate response. Now whether someone likes that sound on their music is another story, but it sure isn't what I'm looking for. YMMV.

But getting back to the measurements vs what you hear question, Stereophile measures after the review and JA (TJN in Ultimate AV) try to figure out what in the measurements explains what the reviewer heard. Oftentimes, there is no correlation which leads me to one of two conclusions: 1) measurements don't tell us everything or 2) the reviewer doesn't know what accurate sounds like.

If one is using compressed pop music, recorded in a studio to make decisions re what sounds good, personal preference is really all one has. If one is using recordings made in a real venue of acoustic instruments, then one has a reference, the real thing. All this probably has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but when listening to the type of music I site above, speakers that measure similarly tend to sound similarly: the same, no, but more alike than not.

I will say that when listening to compressed pop music, frequency response variations are much more easy to hear: kind of like listening to pink noise. :)

But getting back to the measurements vs what you hear question, Stereophile measures after the review and JA (TJN in Ultimate AV) try to figure out what in the measurements explains what the reviewer heard. Oftentimes, there is no correlation which leads me to one of two conclusions: 1) measurements don't tell us everything and 2) the reviewer doesn not know what accurate sounds like.


My concern is whether the article/review is ever modified after the reviewer looks at the specs. I have read reviews where it has been admitted in the article, when you read it closely, that this had happened, while most try to side-step this obvious problem with methodoligy of review, they didn't always try to completely deny it. I can't recall ever seeing obvious indications of this in Stereophile and don't know if they have an editorial policy on this as well. But if you believe, as many people here seem to, that magazine reviewers have so little integrity as to allow advertising to influence reviews, I can't imagine that it would be a big leap for many people here to believe that they sometimes modify their article based on what their eyes tell them.
It would be wonderful if Truely Blind reviews were done and published before the reviewer knew ANYTHING about the speaker....he can't see the brand name, can't know the drivers used or design, and can't see graphs. I suspect many don't do this for fear of giving a good review to something that by all accounts and conventional wisdom SHOULD sound nasty.

Good wine reviewers will gladly drink an unknown wine and tell you all about it, sometimes with a stunning degree of accuracy, ones that get tripped up to often don't get much respect.

TJN told me that they do NOT change the copy to reflect the measurments. Also, JA goes out of his way to try and understand why what he's measuring does not reflect what the reviewer heard, and certainly does not change his descriptors (re good or bad measurements) based on what was reported in the review.

TJN told me that they do NOT change the copy to reflect the measurments. Also, JA goes out of his way to try and understand why what he's measuring does not reflect what the reviewer heard, and certainly does not change his descriptors (re good or bad measurements) based on what was reported in the review.

And , based on so many reviews that don't show much correlation, I would be inclined to agree. Many who feel that mag reviews are malevolent and malipulative may believe differantly. I would like to see mags state this as an editorial policy to add some credabilty. I would also like to see them review totally "blind', knowing NOTHING about the speakers they are listening to, like some wine tasters do. I would imagine they read the specs provided , know the brand, number of drivers, crossover points, and may have even seen other reviews (including, perhaps, measurements) . Hearing a set at a show, discussing it's attributes with the manufacturer and other listeners there, getting feedback over time, asking for review samples (that may be hand selected), reading all available info and opinions in the waiting interval, having a rep come out with them (who gives backround while setting them up), knowing all this before the music starts changes things, I'm inclined to believe.

I'm not sure what it was about the M22's...it's almost as if the mids were drowning out the highs. The highs weren't snappy. However, for their size they are very capable in the mid and low range. At first we were using a digital coax connection and then I hade him change it to the analog connection, which made an improvement. Perhaps I just prefer a speaker with more sizzle?

If you look at the measurements of the M20s over at Soundstage, you can see the downward tilted frequency response. If this trend was continued in the M22s, perhaps you prefer the upward tilted frequency response?

Can't imagine a better deal than the Revel Perfoma M22's (http://www.tsto.com/cgi-bin/TSTO.storefront/46be2cf7005b12a22740ac1003410617/Product/View/2692) for $995 -in MAPLE.

I have a pair and am continually amazed at their purity and ease of sound reproduction and they CRANK. Need some power though but they are a great speaker and for $995? A steal.

Those were a deal, and now they're gone.

I know I dissed the M22's before but my second audition was 100 times better than the first. I found them to be everything you guys were saying they were...well balanced, uncolored, with good imaging to boot. Not sure what happened the first time I heard them.

Now comes the sad part. I'm trying to purchase a matching center channel, and was actually able to find a maple C32. However, once I finally got in touch with the seller it was already sold. Now that the M22's for $995 are gone I'm back to square one.

Now I have find speakers that will help me forget the sweet sounds that came from the M22's! :(

You might be in luck:

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1190661715

You might be in luck:

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1190661715

Saw that, but no matching C32. :(

The C32 that's available on Audiogon is sold.