New Official Axiom Audio Speaker Owners Thread - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 1Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 01:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

The technical measurements can seem disastrous, impossibly scrambled, and yet the sound is a splendid musical performance. He obviously believes your perception of the sounds if more important than what the technical measurements say.

That doesn't give license to make a crappy speaker though. Its also assuming that a crappy speaker will sound nice and a well designed speaker will sound no different. Which is similar to Ian's/Axiom design ideas, combfiltering was prefered in a DBT performed by us there for combfiltering should be used to create a plesant sounding speaker. And is actually perferred.

10 Axiom employees participated in a Axiom DBT and found that they couldn't tell the difference between an M80 with cheap caps vs expensive caps, there for there no difference, between cheap low end crossover components and high quality xover components. Even though it was extremely limited and use a flawed design they jump at the first thing. Our Axiom stamped drivers vs our cast drivers sound no different there for cast drivers are a waste and good sounding speaker don't need high end drivers. Even though it was performed with lower quality drivers to begin with.

Our listening panel could not tell the difference between an M80 with 2 braces and one with 5 braces. There for bracing isn't a big deal and more doesn't equal better.

Thats their kind of reasoning, which I think leads to bad choices later on.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Exactly right. You used the measurements to make the system sound better. You found a problem, changed things, and it sounded better. This is a great use for them. A bad use is to make the sound worse via the use of measurements. If your changes made the sound worse, you would have reversed the changes, yes? Basically, it is the exact reason why some people turn off Audyssey. They run the system without it, run Aussysey correction, then listen after it is engaged. If it sounds better (most people say it does), they keep it on. However, if it sounds worse, only a fool would keep it on.

I can tell you one thing, without the measurements you are flying blind. Many people, I suspect, who run Audyssey are not measuring and they may not be going back and making proper adjustments to Audyssey after it runs (such as setting speakers to small, adjusting cross-over, etc). Audyssey is great, but it is not really plug and play and you have to be willing to move speakers, seating, etc around and measure before and after results to really get the best use of EQ.

Personally, I have never not had success with Audyssey once I knew what I was doing with it smile.gif And there is also the experience of knowing what a song, track, movie scene should sound like vs what you are hearing. For example, I suspect people who run their subs hot and have some strong mid bass peaks may not be happy initially with measuring and EQ'ing the peak down to get a smoother response. At first, they may feel like their bass is missing. But, once they start hearing the other sounds that were previously being over powered by the bass and get used to a tighter and not as bloated bass response, I suspect they would come around and realize they simply need to add another subwoofer (or three) to smooth out response in their room and get more LFE.

None of this comes easy, there is no free lunch. Guys like Bill and Craig really know what they are talking about and I am just glad I took the time to listen and apply some of the things they have taught. I am still learning, but am really happy I started to peel back the onion to understand my system and room, and make the necessary measurements and adjustments to improve the sound. It has been a long road smile.gif
ack_bk is offline  
post #93 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 01:27 PM
Advanced Member
 
Socketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Did Floyd Toole provide any concrete examples to illustrate his statements?

buy his book,read it cover to cover, then read all his white papers you can find and then you can decide for yourself as to his qualifications and relevance.
Socketman is offline  
post #94 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 01:45 PM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

That doesn't give license to make a crappy speaker though.

No, it does not, and was never intended to state such. It does, however, express that graphs and charts are an simply tools and that your own ears and how you perceive the sound is what is important. If you like the sound, but the graph says it is terrible, try and see if fixes (that make the graph look better) improve the sound. If not, toss away the graph and enjoy the sound. Doing otherwise is silly.
cybrsage is offline  
post #95 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 01:46 PM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

I can tell you one thing, without the measurements you are flying blind. Many people, I suspect, who run Audyssey are not measuring and they may not be going back and making proper adjustments to Audyssey after it runs (such as setting speakers to small, adjusting cross-over, etc). Audyssey is great, but it is not really plug and play and you have to be willing to move speakers, seating, etc around and measure before and after results to really get the best use of EQ.

Personally, I have never not had success with Audyssey once I knew what I was doing with it smile.gif And there is also the experience of knowing what a song, track, movie scene should sound like vs what you are hearing. For example, I suspect people who run their subs hot and have some strong mid bass peaks may not be happy initially with measuring and EQ'ing the peak down to get a smoother response. At first, they may feel like their bass is missing. But, once they start hearing the other sounds that were previously being over powered by the bass and get used to a tighter and not as bloated bass response, I suspect they would come around and realize they simply need to add another subwoofer (or three) to smooth out response in their room and get more LFE.

None of this comes easy, there is no free lunch. Guys like Bill and Craig really know what they are talking about and I am just glad I took the time to listen and apply some of the things they have taught. I am still learning, but am really happy I started to peel back the onion to understand my system and room, and make the necessary measurements and adjustments to improve the sound. It has been a long road smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

That doesn't give license to make a crappy speaker though.

Agreed. Audyssey really is an amazing tool.
cybrsage is offline  
post #96 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 02:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socketman View Post

buy his book,read it cover to cover, then read all his white papers you can find and then you can decide for yourself as to his qualifications and relevance.
I'm not questioning his qualifications. Simply asking did he provide any examples but if you've read the book and papers perhaps you could just summarize any examples. You see, just saying if something sounds good to a person is all that matters, leaves a whole lot of possibilities and even allows for idiotic speaker design. To me, that position sounds more like a person wearing their marketing hat.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #97 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 02:06 PM
Senior Member
 
Badouri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I'm not questioning his qualifications. Simply asking did he provide any examples but if you've read the book and papers perhaps you could just summarize any examples. You see, just saying if something sounds good to a person is all that matters, leaves a whole lot of possibilities and even allows for idiotic speaker design. To me, that position sounds more like a person wearing their marketing hat.

Floyd E. Toole article here: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf
Badouri is offline  
post #98 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 02:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badouri View Post

Floyd E. Toole article here: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf
I've read that but I don't see where he says all that matters is what sounds good to you. Rather he's saying that a lot of things matter and some products are better at it than others.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #99 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 02:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill Fitzmaurice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 9,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 1346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badouri View Post

Floyd E. Toole article here: http://www.theaudiocritic.com/back_issues/The_Audio_Critic_28_r.pdf
Nowhere in that does he say anything along the lines of "if something sounds good to a person is all that matters". Quite the opposite, in fact. He consistently says that if it measures good it will sound good, and that if it measures bad it will sound bad as well.

Bill Fitzmaurice Loudspeaker Design

The Laws of Physics aren't swayed by opinion.
Bill Fitzmaurice is offline  
post #100 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 02:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Badouri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I've read that but I don't see where he says all that matters is what sounds good to you. Rather he's saying that a lot of things matter and some products are better at it than others.

Another one: http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt2.pdf
Badouri is offline  
post #101 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 04:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ack_bk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maple Grove, MN
Posts: 8,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 104
Cybersage, I think Craig has this covered in his explanation to you, but I think it is important to point out that if you have an extreme dip or bump across the frequency response range you have issues that you should do your best to address. And when I say issues, I mean you could literally have gaps in some part of the frequency response range where you are missing sound. I don't see how that could ever sound better smile.gif With the bloated frequencies, again, I can see how some people mistake having too much bass, for instance, as sounding "good", but again, once one corrects it and starts to hear what they were missing, and what balanced sound should sound like, I think they will realize the flatter response is the preferred option.

Think of it in terms of video. Some people think increasing sharpness or contrast on their TV or projector results in a better picture, while in reality, you are now going to miss fine detail because you are over boosted the picture.
ack_bk is offline  
post #102 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 04:58 PM
Senior Member
 
ex-labdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 24
GTP: Could you please give us a link to the 'quotes' in post #148. I'd like to read it in a larger context but I couldn't find it.

BTW, I'm interested not only in Axioms - I browse & lurk many threads of many brands for my own edification. Maybe it would be appropriate to ask why you are still so hugely interested in all things Axiom when you moved on to another brand some time ago?

I think that Socket wrote 'gt's link to arx speakers'.

Concerning ribbons, it appears that their placement seems at bit finicky to get the best out of them. While this is fine for only one small sweet spot, it might be quite challenging for a HT setup with a wide seating area...

TAM
ex-labdriver is offline  
post #103 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 05:23 PM
Advanced Member
 
Socketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 65
The links are in post 140 tam
Socketman is offline  
post #104 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 05:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
Socketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 65
This disagreement between what is measured and what is heard has been
the motivation for much scientific investigation of the acoustics of rooms, both
large and small. In some ways, our problems with rooms, especially small
rooms, began when we started to make measurements. Our eyes were offended
by things seen in the measurements, but our ears and brain heard nothing wrong
with the audible reality. As we will see, some of the resolution of the dilemma
is in the ability of humans to adapt to, and make considerable sense of, a wide
variety of acoustical circumstances. Separating sound sources from the spaces
they are in is something humans do routinely.
Socketman is offline  
post #105 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 05:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Badouri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

... in fact. He consistently says that if it measures good it will sound good, and that if it measures bad it will sound bad as well.

Not exactly the same as:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Basically, he is saying that how it sounds to you personally is the most important thing. The technical measurements can seem disastrous, impossibly scrambled, and yet the sound is a splendid musical performance.
Badouri is offline  
post #106 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 07:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badouri View Post

Not exactly the same as:

Sure, when you ignore much of what Mr. Toole says, as Bill just did, you will come to his perverted conclusion. Reality is quite different from Bill's perverted conclusion, though. Socketman just posted this from him:
Quote:
This disagreement between what is measured and what is heard has been the motivation for much scientific investigation of the acoustics of rooms, both large and small. In some ways, our problems with rooms, especially small rooms, began when we started to make measurements. Our eyes were offended by things seen in the measurements, but our ears and brain heard nothing wrong with the audible reality

His measurements said the sound should be horrible, but his ears were pleased with what they heard. According to Craig, Mr. Toole is to be mocked for not tossing aside what his ears heard and believing only the graphs. I, for one, would not even begin to say I am more of an expert than Mr. Toole, but some here show they believe just that.


EDIT: I have to say, he is quite poetic in his writing. I like his style.
cybrsage is offline  
post #107 of 416 Old 04-02-2013, 07:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by ack_bk View Post

Cybersage, I think Craig has this covered in his explanation to you, but I think it is important to point out that if you have an extreme dip or bump across the frequency response range you have issues that you should do your best to address. And when I say issues, I mean you could literally have gaps in some part of the frequency response range where you are missing sound. I don't see how that could ever sound better smile.gif With the bloated frequencies, again, I can see how some people mistake having too much bass, for instance, as sounding "good", but again, once one corrects it and starts to hear what they were missing, and what balanced sound should sound like, I think they will realize the flatter response is the preferred option.

I understand what you are saying. The issue is that he mocks people who do not reduce their listening pleasure if a graph says what they like better is something they should not like better. Using the sub example, if someone like a boomier bass sound, then they should make their bass boomier even if it is not correct per a graph or chart. Personal enjoyment is more important than being "graphically correct". Most people who turn up their bass know they are putting in too much bass (at least I assume so), but they get more enjoyment out of it and that is what matters the most. Purposefully enjoying their audio less because someone says the graph is more important than their personal likes is a silly thing to do.

Using my sound bar as an example, it sounds better to me (and brings me more happiness) to use the outer two speakers in the sound bar as one 4 ohm center speaker instead of using just one small speaker as an 8 ohm center (it is a Paradigm trio I had left over from before I built the theater room). Is it perfect? Definitely not. Will I eventually replace it with a single, much better, center? Yes. Is the way I am running it now the better way to run it? Yes, for it provides a more enjoyable experience. Craig is unhappy with my happiness and refuses to accept that what I hear is more important to me than a graph or chart. The chart says using only the one speaker is the better choice, my ears tell me using the two outer speakers is the better choice. Due to having only these two as my choices, I chose the my ears. Craig is unhappy with my choice and bashes me for not purposefully reducing my enjoyment to satisfy his demands that I kowtow to a chart or graph. I find his unhappiness perplexing, since it does not affect him in any way. I wonder why he wants me to reduce my enjoyment with my system.

Quote:
Think of it in terms of video. Some people think increasing sharpness or contrast on their TV or projector results in a better picture, while in reality, you are now going to miss fine detail because you are over boosted the picture.

Agreed, but I suspect you are not surprised that a great many people prefer the "torch mode". It does not accurately reflect reality (and I personally dislike it), but it makes them happy. Why should they not be happy? Of course, setting things properly is important as a starting point. If you like it best there, stay there. If not, adjust until it is what makes you the happiest. Having your audio and video give you the most happiness possible is the ultimate goal, yes?

He assumes my video is not calibrated simply because I said I would go with whatever settings brought me the most happiness regardless of what a calibration graph said I should enjoy the most. In the case of the video, my likes and the calibration match. In the case of the audio, my likes override what a graph says, which maximizes my enjoyment.
cybrsage is offline  
post #108 of 416 Old 04-03-2013, 12:01 AM
Member
 
2x6spds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 43
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
My Thiels are American made, so are my Dahlquist DQM 9s. I think my Dahlquist PDQ1500 sub is US made. My Anthem amps are made in Canada, I'm pretty sure. My Integra M504 and Yamaha M80s are made in Japan, but I intend to have the Yammies modified by Legendary Amps, so they'll be part American made once done..

The Antique Sound Labs MG S1 15DT SET tube amp is made in PRC, maybe Hong Kong if there's a difference, so, I figure, are all my Integra gear. I thought the Axioms were made in Canada, same with the Michauras. I didn't know their drivers are made in China. Do you think that will effect their sound quality?

I think all my video gear and computers are from China, maybe some are assembled here in the USA from Chinese parts. My golf clubs are made in the USA, I think ... Titleist Tour Blades, I know the Powerbilt Persimmon woods are US made and the Persimmon was US grown. I think pretty much everything else is from China.

I don't judge sound quality by the country of origin. GTP's opinion may differ.

Here's a serious question for the quantum physicists out there who seem to know everything about speaker design and objective measurements of sound quality:

1. If you have 2 speakers each from a different manufacturer, and each produces a flat frequency distribution wave form, and same off axis and all the other measurements, will they necessarily sound the same?

2. Do the audio metrics which objectivists rely upon measure all the variables which contribute to sound quality?

3.I understand that the Reference 3a de Capo speakers' graph results are not as pleasing as their sound quality. How can that be?

4. Can an SET tube amp which produces a less than flat frequency response curve and distortion many times that of a solid state amp still reproduce music more pleasing than the solid state amp with better stats.

5. If your ears tell you a speaker sounds great but its stats do not, which do you believe? Your ears, or the stats?

Just thinking.
2x6spds is offline  
post #109 of 416 Old 04-03-2013, 12:03 AM
Senior Member
 
ex-labdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Some of Post #148 is presented as being quotes from Axiom's Ian.

The links in #140 do not refer to what I was requesting, that is, a link to Ian's actual quotes so that I can read it in context of the bigger story. Where are those quotes taken from as I can't find them?

Thanks

TAM
ex-labdriver is offline  
post #110 of 416 Old 04-03-2013, 03:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Badouri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 357
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Sure, when you ignore much of what Mr. Toole says, as Bill just did, you will come to his perverted conclusion. Reality is quite different from Bill's perverted conclusion, though. Socketman just posted this from him:
His measurements said the sound should be horrible, but his ears were pleased with what they heard. According to Craig, Mr. Toole is to be mocked for not tossing aside what his ears heard and believing only the graphs. I, for one, would not even begin to say I am more of an expert than Mr. Toole, but some here show they believe just that.


EDIT: I have to say, he is quite poetic in his writing. I like his style.

Did you miss that part?
Quote:
When we combine the subjective with the objective data, it is clear
that the loudspeakers that yielded the best set of technical data, also
were preferred by the listeners.
Quote:
The results are monotonously the same. Loudspeakers that look good
in the spin-o-rama measurements are the ones that are subjectively
preferred.

You are better at reading "poisoning the well" stories.
Badouri is offline  
post #111 of 416 Old 04-03-2013, 05:31 AM
Administrator
 
Mike Lang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 11,717
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked: 320
You were all warned not to get personal, yet the bickering continues. You're ruining the thread for everyone else. Now you'll all take a couple days to cool off. After that, anyone who makes a derogatory post directed at another member will be removed from AVS.
Billy p likes this.

Mike Lang
Administrator
Please use the report post button to alert staff to problematic posts. Never quote or respond to them yourself.
Join the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and help support the site. Help Support
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Mike Lang is offline  
post #112 of 416 Old 04-04-2013, 08:50 PM
Administrator
 
Mike Lang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 11,717
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 354 Post(s)
Liked: 320
Triple check what you post here to be sure it doesn't end your privileges. If you think there's any chance someone might report it, don't click submit.

Mike Lang
Administrator
Please use the report post button to alert staff to problematic posts. Never quote or respond to them yourself.
Join the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
and help support the site. Help Support
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Mike Lang is offline  
post #113 of 416 Old 04-04-2013, 10:55 PM
Senior Member
 
ex-labdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I was directed to it by another poster - I withdraw my request in post #109...

TAM
ex-labdriver is offline  
post #114 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 06:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badouri View Post

Did you miss that part?

You are better at reading "poisoning the well" stories.

That part does not address his previous quote. His quote is reposted here:
Quote:
Two ears and a brain comprise a powerful acoustical analysis tool, able to extract enormous resolution, detail, and pleasure from circumstances that, when subject to mere technical measurements, seem to be disastrous. Something that in technical terms appears to be impossibly scrambled is perceived as a splendid musical performance.

He says the graphs and charts said what he was hearing was a disaster yet his ears said it was splendid. This is saying that the ears are what is important, not a chart or graph (else what is the purpose of the quote at all?). If the chart of graph says you must dislike what your ears say you like you should follow what your ears tell you. You are free to follow the graph instead of your ears and make the sound worse to your ears but I am not going to do such a thing. I will continue to enjoy the splendid musical performance.

EDIT: Charts and graphs are there to help you make the sound better. I have always said that. The issue is better for what? If the goal is to make the sound better for the chart or graph (so it looks proper on the paper or screen) then you are doing it wrong. The goal is to make the sound better for your ears. If the changes look better on paper but sound worse to your ears, undo the changes. The chart or graph is not as important as your ears.
cybrsage is offline  
post #115 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 07:18 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Chu Gai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: NYC area
Posts: 14,773
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 465
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

That doesn't give license to make a crappy speaker though. Its also assuming that a crappy speaker will sound nice and a well designed speaker will sound no different. Which is similar to Ian's/Axiom design ideas, combfiltering was prefered in a DBT performed by us there for combfiltering should be used to create a plesant sounding speaker. And is actually perferred.
Well, that seems to be a bit too oversimplified, at least the first sentence. Now, I too am a bit troubled by that specific blind test but that's mostly because the full details have not been forthcoming AFAIK. If it's only done with one person, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to make the case that all that person was able to accomplish was to reliably identify a particular speaker. As to whether their particular arrangement of tweeters actually results in audible cancellations as one moves horizontally, I have no idea. Comb filtering can do that but it can also have the effect of a 'smearing' of the sound, which as Toole has noted that when it comes to wall reflections gives an enhanced perception of spaciousness. As to which it is, well that's for people who've actually heard the speaker to decide.
Quote:
10 Axiom employees participated in a Axiom DBT and found that they couldn't tell the difference between an M80 with cheap caps vs expensive caps, there for there no difference, between cheap low end crossover components and high quality xover components. Even though it was extremely limited and use a flawed design they jump at the first thing.
IMO that is a bit of an oversimplification. There are cheap capacitors whose values tend to fall at the bottom of their tolerances and are unreliable for long term use and then there are inexpensive capacitors that don't exhibit these issues.

Some time ago, Clarity introduced a rather expensive line of capacitors. They said that their testing showed there were audible differences between their premium line and others that were attributed to vibrations within the speaker. A paper was even published. I was curious about this and contacted one of the authors by email asking for a courtesy copy of the paper as well as his off the cuff remarks. What I found was that in their testing, they designed a capacitor that actually was susceptible to vibration. Now, what would have happened had they used a Solen or some other brands? Don't know but I've got a feeling. Even with their test, the author who wrote back to me stated that the differences that were heard were extremely subtle and were only manifested using specific program material with trained listeners. Well, that's enough for the marketing department!

WRT to inductors, folks love copper air core inductors. Some love copper foil inductors even more. Iron core inductors, not so much. Cited as disadvantages to the typically less expensive iron core inductors are higher DCR and that they can exhibit hysteresis. Well, a higher DCR is a problem only if the overall design actually calls or mandates something lower. As to hysteresis effects, this can be a moot point if the inductor never sees the kind of power that can cause this effect. On another website, the designer of the Philharmonic line wrote that he could make a less expensive speaker by not using copper air core inductors with no audible consequences but did not do so because the buying public would publicly rail against it and this would cost him sales.
Quote:
Our Axiom stamped drivers vs our cast drivers sound no different there for cast drivers are a waste and good sounding speaker don't need high end drivers. Even though it was performed with lower quality drivers to begin with.
Both you and they are likely right there, IMO. A higher quality, more expensive driver may simply not be feasible with their pricing structure. Certainly there doesn't appear to be much problem in finding alternatives at the same price points.
Quote:
Our listening panel could not tell the difference between an M80 with 2 braces and one with 5 braces. There for bracing isn't a big deal and more doesn't equal better.
I admit I just might be mistaken here but I seem to recall reading that Toole wrote there comes a point where more bracing doesn't result in audible improvements. So the question then becomes just how much or what type is enough to ensure structural integrity and result in largely inaudible coloration? Consider the following. Typically, Atkinson in Stereophile uses an accelerometer to measure cabinet vibrations. It's not unusual for him to comment that despite finding some which appear on the face to be sufficiently strong, he notes that the reviewer never made any mention of an audible anomaly. This would appear to be somewhat consistent with my recollection of Floyd's writings and Axiom's approach.
Quote:
Thats their kind of reasoning, which I think leads to bad choices later on.
Maybe yes, maybe no.

I'm sure it seems to you, GT, that I'm siding with Axiom and ragging on you. I'm going to try and straddle both sides here.

If you buy an expensive car, you don't expect to see cheesy looking plastic, which even if fitted perfectly, still is cheesy because then it makes you wonder where else they cut corners. Same as if you go to one of Mario Battali's or Morimoto' restaurants. You don't expect to be served on melamine dinnerware with light, cheap silverware. Now, if I were blind this might not matter so much and even then if I were told about it, it would diminish my enjoyment.

The same I think holds true for speakers. There comes a point, and maybe it's a price point, where even if things don't actually matter, that you've got to do them because maybe your competition is doing them and it's costing you sales. I think there's a reasonable expectation by consumers to expect certain amenities at various price points. This might be brand name capacitors and resistors which have audiophile cred. Or more sophisticated bracing. Or thicker MDF. Or having the inside holes in the cabinet rounded over. Or a lot of things. I'm not privy to Axiom's books and what their goals are for gross and net profit margins. I'm trust they have accountants and people who project sales and what not advising upper management what cost to build amounts have to be in order to be financially healthy. While everyone can rail against the bean counters it helps to keep in mind that if one were to chronically dismiss their advice, they might well find themselves eating rice and beans.

"I've found that when you want to know the truth about someone that someone is probably the last person you should ask." - Gregory House
Chu Gai is offline  
post #116 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 07:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

I'm sure it seems to you, GT, that I'm siding with Axiom and ragging on you. I'm going to try and straddle both sides here.


If you buy an expensive car, you don't expect to see cheesy looking plastic, which even if fitted perfectly, still is cheesy because then it makes you wonder where else they cut corners. Same as if you go to one of Mario Battali's or Morimoto' restaurants. You don't expect to be served on melamine dinnerware with light, cheap silverware. Now, if I were blind this might not matter so much and even then if I were told about it, it would diminish my enjoyment.


Well I wasn't going to post any more in this thread, but since something was directed at me all go ahead and respond.

Thats my entire point right there. If i'm going to spend $518 on a Axiom M22 for example I expect it to be made like a $518 bookshelf (regardless of sound). It should not be built using less quality crossovers and drivers than a $200 bookshelf. The Axiom LFR at almost $4,000 is should not come with cheap stamped drivers, basic crossovers and cheap low end vinyl. Not when I could go and buy a tower half that price loaded with everything Axiom omits. To me it smells of profits only first and foremost. I remember about a year ago someone made the comment on Blu Ray about the Axiom QS8s $596pr and said they don't care about build quality and if Axiom can make them sound as great as they do right now using toilet paper tubes and toothpicks they would still buy them, I guess some will probably never care about price to quality and care only about the sound and nothing else.

This isn't just me running my mouth I've had Axioms sitting side by side with numerous other speakers in the same/similar price range. And In My opinion they were almost last or dead last out of everything as far as total quality. And the sad thing is they were $100 or more than similar competition.

I say Axiom needs to keep the prices the same, get rid of the cheap stamped drivers and offer the current cast drivers (extra $ option, currently) offer better crossovers (ie add midrange filters instead of running mid ranges without) and maybe a better quality vinyl finish. The competition is offering piano glosses (expensive) cast drivers, bi-wire/bi-amp terminals, "audiophile" crossover components, spike feet, free shipping there and back, just as good customer service, just as good sounding speakers, all while offering it for the same price Axiom does for a in comparison "stripped" down speaker.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #117 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 08:13 AM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
What LCR do they sell at $4000? The entire Epic 80 complete 5.1 surround set costs about $5000 and the M80s (most expensive floor standing LR speaker) are only $1500 a pair (which is $750 each).
cybrsage is offline  
post #118 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 08:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 90
That new Omni M80/M22 hybrid thing. http://www.axiomaudio.com/omnidirectional-speaker

It uses the same stamped drivers (just alot more) and the same basic vinyl as the standard Axiom models do. IMO at that price of $3700+ it should be much more premium type components. But its not, which is probably why you never see anyone talking about it ANY where. Just no value in it, especially when compared to alot of the competition.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #119 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 09:28 AM - Thread Starter
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Good, you removed your claim about a "$4000 LCR speaker". That is what I challenged, since it was not correct. Even the Omnis you just linked are only $1850 each, a far cry from $4000.
cybrsage is offline  
post #120 of 416 Old 04-05-2013, 09:32 AM
Senior Member
 
ex-labdriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 326
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 24
It's called Axiom LFR 1100. Those who shelled out the bucks for them seem to really like them:

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/speaker-subwoofer-reviews/62881-axiom-lfr1100-omni-directional-speaker.html

As I've noted before - value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Too much of a speaker for me though...

TAM
ex-labdriver is offline  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off