or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › New Official Axiom Audio Speaker Owners Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Official Axiom Audio Speaker Owners Thread - Page 2

post #31 of 361
I think the talk of value is what confuses me, as I could go to my closest dealer and purchase paradigm monitor 11's for less money than the axiom's.
They are roughly the same build quality and would score similarly good sound wise. So if you’re cutting out the middle man, then where is the value?
If you can purchase a svs sub for quite a bit less for the same performance, again where is the value?
I'm not saying axioms are bad, just questioning the value part of it, as I just don't see it.

I know Paradigm has a good, better, and best line, and I think some people would like to see that same sort of thing with axiom, with better pricing than they have right now.
I've had the paradigm monitor system and currently own the studio series and have tried a couple of axiom products and my personal choice is the studios over the other 2 mentioned.
I know some axiom owners like to think they are more like the studios, but since I've heard both, I think they are more in line with the monitor series.
I'm just using Paradigm as a reference, but if I purchased the monitor system and an svs sub cheaper and get the same performance, again where is the value?

If someone put together a system for 5 or 6 hundred less for a comparable product and sound, then I know what I would do.
Better in my pocket than someone else’s, or add in a second sub for the same money, why wouldn't they?
I understand brand loyalty but I think you also have to be realistic about it and understand that they are not the value they were once considered to be.
When it comes to the subject of speakers, we all have to try and be unbiased, and I know that is hard for any of us including myself.

I know there are many happy axiomites, and anything I've said here, is based on my personal opinion.
post #32 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Distance matters, and the tweeters are much closer, therefor the VP180 will not suffer as the VP150 did.

You still get cancellation, just not the extreme example like the VP150. From my experience and my friends, sitting even alittle bit off to the side made all the voices in the VP150 sound like their noses was clogged up or they had the flu. It cleared up once you sat directly in front. So I guess if your a single listener than the VP150/180 would be pretty good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustolem View Post

I went from Axiom M80's and VP180 L/C/R to the Aperions, the Axioms were nice and LOUD but no definition what so ever... when I hooked up the VGC it was night and day difference, the Axiom Center as HUGE as it was, it was just noise I had to turn it up so much higher then the fronts just to understand the voices.
Like I have said in other posts Bigger doesn't always mean better, the Axiom VP180 is a monster center channel but the layout of the individual speakers is what made it sound so soft. And this may sound crazy but after setting up my VGT's and VGC and running Yamaha room correction my surrounds actually sound better than they did with the Axioms.

That bolded part is from the cancellation of the dual tweeters. Its that "suckout" and cliff dive of the freqs which makes it seem like you have to jack up the volume to get the desired output. The M80s stacked tweeters does not exhibit the same response, unless your moving up and down. But if you move side to side each tweeter is still equal distance.

By the way this guy took a $1500 loss on his Axiom setup. Which I recommended against him getting, but he was pretty hateful toward me for "bashing" Axiom. Glad it wasn't me out $1500 bucks. He sold his M80s and VP180 4 months into owning them. He was on Blu Ray.com, Axiom.com, AVS and Audioholics asking for suggestions. He went against the majority of the recommenations like Aperion, Paradigm, Salk, Gallo, HTD ect... And went with Axiom.

Now he's starting off how I started, letting everyone know how unhappy he was about his Axiom setup. He lets everyone know in the Aperion thread how much happier he is without the Axioms.
post #33 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1400 View Post

I think the talk of value is what confuses me, as I could go to my closest dealer and purchase paradigm monitor 11's for less money than the axiom's.

It really depends on which line of Axiom you buy. I only really know about the OnWall M series. Compared to other onwalls I can find (there are so few who do it anymore), they are a great price for what you get.
Quote:
I know Paradigm has a good, better, and best line, and I think some people would like to see that same sort of thing with axiom, with better pricing than they have right now.

Agreed.
I've had the paradigm monitor system and currently own the studio series and have tried a couple of axiom products and my personal choice is the studios over the other 2 mentioned.
I know some axiom owners like to think they are more like the studios, but since I've heard both, I think they are more in line with the monitor series.
I'm just using Paradigm as a reference, but if I purchased the monitor system and an svs sub cheaper and get the same performance, again where is the value?[/quote]

I use Paradigm Millenniums for my front three speakers. I am a firm believer in spending quality money for the front three due to their importance.
Quote:
I understand brand loyalty but I think you also have to be realistic about it and understand that they are not the value they were once considered to be.
When it comes to the subject of speakers, we all have to try and be unbiased, and I know that is hard for any of us including myself.

I know there are many happy axiomites, and anything I've said here, is based on my personal opinion.

Agreed, each portion of each manufacturer's lineup needs to be looked at independently from the others. Paradigm's subwoofers, for example, are way too expensive for what you get. Same with Axiom's. Luckily, there are more happy people with their Axioms then hateful people without Axioms. smile.gif
post #34 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

You still get cancellation, just not the extreme example like the VP150. From my experience and my friends, sitting even alittle bit off to the side made all the voices in the VP150 sound like their noses was clogged up or they had the flu. It cleared up once you sat directly in front. So I guess if your a single listener than the VP150/180 would be pretty good.

You have to take the use of the item into account and cannot just say it is bad. For example, in a thin room (which many theater rooms are), the VP180 would be fine. If you have a wide room, it would not be. Blanket statements are full of fail.

I removed the useless and irrelevant portions of your post. You have a habit of including needless tripe, please stop.
post #35 of 361
Don't get personal guys. You can challenge someone's post without insulting them.

If you find yourself unable, adjust your ignore list accordingly.
post #36 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

You have to take the use of the item into account and cannot just say it is bad. For example, in a thin room (which many theater rooms are), the VP180 would be fine. If you have a wide room, it would not be.
He's actually quite right. Dispersion issues aside, and they are major, when horizontally placed drivers are spaced more than 1 wavelength apart center to center there will be comb filtering. At 10kHz one wavelength is 1.3 inches, so for all intents and purposes it's impossible not to have comb filtering with horizontally placed tweeters. But at 10kHz you can live with it. However, the crossover to the tweeters of the VP180 is 2.7kHz. 1 wavelength at 2.7kHz is 5 inches, which means the VP180 tweeters are severely comb filtering throughout their entire pass band. It would be audible even with a six inch shift in the listening position.
post #37 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

He's actually quite right. Dispersion issues aside, and they are major, when horizontally placed drivers are spaced more than 1 wavelength apart center to center there will be comb filtering. At 10kHz one wavelength is 1.3 inches, so for all intents and purposes it's impossible not to have comb filtering with horizontally placed tweeters. But at 10kHz you can live with it. However, the crossover to the tweeters of the VP180 is 2.7kHz. 1 wavelength at 2.7kHz is 5 inches, which means the VP180 tweeters are severely comb filtering throughout their entire pass band. It would be audible even with a six inch shift in the listening position.

Does it only affect tweeters? What about the lower range drivers? It is only horizontal?
post #38 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Does it only affect tweeters? What about the lower range drivers?
The same rules apply, but since with every octave drop in frequency wavelength doubles it's a lot less problematic with midranges and woofers.
Quote:
It is only horizontal?
The same happens with vertically aligned drivers on the vertical plane. It's not as noticeable as listening positions tend to go across the room, not from the floor to the ceiling. Still, it's a very bad idea to have vertically arrayed tweeters separated any wider than their frame widths allow.
Quote:
Bill,
Before you further pursue this conversation with cybersage, (aka the "Rebel w/o Applesauce"), you should read this: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1401234/running-2-separate-speakers-off-a-single-output-center-channel/150#post_21839101
He thinks this:
...is a proper CC. It's hopeless to try to talk to him about this. I know because I tried for several pages
He's entitled to think whatever he wants, and I'll give him the courtesy of one reply. But you know that I don't come hear to debate, I come to teach. Those who don't want to learn I don't waste my time on.
post #39 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

The same rules apply, but since with every octave drop in frequency wavelength doubles it's a lot less problematic with midranges and woofers.
The same happens with vertically aligned drivers on the vertical plane. It's not as noticeable as listening positions tend to go across the room, not from the floor to the ceiling. Still, it's a very bad idea to have vertically arrayed tweeters separated any wider than their frame widths allow.
He's entitled to think whatever he wants, and I'll give him the courtesy of one reply. But you know that I don't come hear to debate, I come to teach. Those who don't want to learn I don't waste my time on.

Axiom also doesn't use filters on the midrange, no hpf or lpf. Does that cause comb problems or would the driver breakup make it a moot point anyway? So on top of the VP180/M80 tweeter issues theres also the midrange break up included in that.

Heres a few comments Ian made about those. He's never addressed the comb fitler/cancellation problems other than to show a on axis anechoic response and then says "see, no problems" Totally discarding the off axis question.


"The 5.25” mid-woofer is in its own very small enclosure inside the M60 cabinet. There is no need for a high pass crossover on this component: in fact it would be detrimental to the performance of an M60. The limiting factor to the maximum output of an M60 is not in any way related to the 5.25” mid-woofer. It is the single tweeter that will be the first component to show signs of strain as you near the maximum output of the M60. This is the case with most loudspeakers on the market: the single tweeter is the limiting factor.

The 5.25” moving in and out rapidly is fine as this component is in fact a woofer and not a conventional mid-range driver.
"
post #40 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

The same rules apply, but since with every octave drop in frequency wavelength doubles it's a lot less problematic with midranges and woofers.
The same happens with vertically aligned drivers on the vertical plane. It's not as noticeable as listening positions tend to go across the room, not from the floor to the ceiling. Still, it's a very bad idea to have vertically arrayed tweeters separated any wider than their frame widths allow.

Thanks. Do you know why it is less problematic?
Quote:
He's entitled to think whatever he wants, and I'll give him the courtesy of one reply. But you know that I don't come hear to debate, I come to teach. Those who don't want to learn I don't waste my time on.

I can only say what I hear. He is angry because what I hear is not what he demands that I hear and that bothers him at some core level, turning him into a hater. If something sounds better to me, I do not care if a graph says I must not enjoy it. What I actually experience is far more important to me than any graph. I stand by the remarks I made previously. If you require a graph to tell you whether you enjoy something or not, you are doing it wrong. Listen to the speaker instead (in your own setting) and determine for yourself if you like the way it sounds or not. If you do not, then that is what matters. If you do, then that is what matters. What does not matter is if a graph says you should enjoy it when you do not or if it says you should not enjoy it when you do. "I love the way this sounds! Oh, the graph says it is bad, I now hate the way it sounds" is very silly. That is like enjoying the hamburger you are eating until you find out it is deer meat, then suddenly think it tastes bad. Silly.
post #41 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Axiom also doesn't use filters on the midrange, no hpf or lpf. Does that cause comb problems or would the driver breakup make it a moot point anyway?
It doesn't help matters, that's for sure. And it would really wreak havoc with impedance. I find it hard to believe. Bizarre, really.
Quote:
Heres a few comments Ian made about those. He's never addressed the comb fitler/cancellation problems other than to show a on axis anechoic response and then says "see, no problems" Totally discarding the off axis question.
The off-axis response is the question.
Quote:
Do you know why it is less problematic?
When comb filtering is on the horizontal plane every listener hears something different. When it's on the vertical plane everyone hears the same thing, unless some are sitting and some are standing.
post #42 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

When comb filtering is on the horizontal plane every listener hears something different. When it's on the vertical plane everyone hears the same thing, unless some are sitting and some are standing.

How would it affect seating in a theater room, where the rear seats are higher than the front seats. For example, lets say a foot higher (to aid in seeing over the heads of the front row).
post #43 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

It doesn't help matters, that's for sure. And it would really wreak havoc with impedance. I find it hard to believe. Bizarre, really.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1337283/any-thoughts-on-axiom-audio-speakers/90#post_20525544 Post 112 is Ian's opinion on combfiltering.



Here is a freq response Danny Richie did with the VP150. Red is On Axis and Green is ONE inch off axis.



Then there is 10 degrees off axis (Orange), 20 degrees off axis (Yellow), 30 degrees off axis (Green) and 40 degrees off axis (Blue).



Theres also alittle bit about how Ian feels theres zero difference between xover components ie no difference between air cores and laminated iron cores ect....
post #44 of 361
Thread Starter 
Ah, those charts explain why many do not notice it when they are off axis - the degree off axis is only a real issue in rooms that are wide instead of long (a lot of rooms are probably wider instead of long). My room, for example, is long and thin (24 feet long, 11 feet wide), which means the 10 degree off axis has a very wide coverage area at the distance my chairs are from the speakers.

That really does explain why some people say the off axis is terrible and some do not - some simply never are off axis enough to notice it while some are.
post #45 of 361
Refer back to the Rustolem quote I posted. I had to turn it up so much higher then the fronts just to understand the voices. The M80s was probably fairly even across the front freq wise but, the VP180 was starting to stuff from "suckout" even at 1", same as the VP150, the only difference between the 2 is the tweeters on the 180 are about 5" closer compared to the VP150, 2 woofers instead of 3. But like Bill said its still enough to cause horrible response problems.

Even if you had a narrow room its still no excuse for anyone to recommend such a flawed design (especially from a company that takes pride in engineering and research). Especially from centers costing $450 and $770. Thats why 99.99999% of center channels are MTM or TM or WTMW. I say anyone that just has to have a Axiom setup stick with the VP100 or VP160.
post #46 of 361
GT, I am interested in how and where these measurements were done, ie in room,anechoic, in his driveway ?. Why do they seem to contradict the NRC measurements . I realize Danny Richie and the Skiing ninja are the defacto experts on all things loudspeaker related , but I think the even the NRC trumps their expertise.



Top On Axis
Middle 15deg off axis
bottom 30deg off axis



Top 45deg of axis
Middle 60deg off axis
Bottom 75deg off axis

The complete test can be found Here

Far too many people spend incredible amount of money buying different speakers without ever considering how much the room affects the final sound.

Here is quote from Bill Fitzmaurice site which contradicts your opinion that using the cheap drivers that axiom uses could not possibly provide decent sound and Bill is an expert and here he says his David can sound as good as a 1k speaker with$62 worth of repurposed drivers.

Quote " The original was loaded with a $35 MCM 55-2421 woofer, two $11 Pioneer midbasses and a $16 MCM dome tweeter. Does using inexpensive drivers result in an inexpensive sound? No way If you've got a store bought speaker that cost less than $1k it probably can't touch this 1m/1w SPL:
post #47 of 361
I would like to see John Atkinson measurements for Axiom speakers, i think few would argue with that. Reviews with the manufacturer's banner ad next to them have little or no credibility. Same for every manufacturer or brand. Advertising dollars are a magazine and website's paycheck so...
Edited by Badouri - 3/31/13 at 8:10am
post #48 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socketman View Post

GT, I am interested in how and where these measurements were done, ie in room,anechoic, in his driveway ?. Why do they seem to contradict the NRC measurements . I realize Danny Richie and the Skiing ninja are the defacto experts on all things loudspeaker related , but I think the even the NRC trumps their expertise.



Top On Axis
Middle 15deg off axis
bottom 30deg off axis



Top 45deg of axis
Middle 60deg off axis
Bottom 75deg off axis

The complete test can be found Here

Thats the typical bait and switch Axiom guys like to do. Now show me the off axis for the VP180 and VP150. I haven't said any thing about the M80 which is what the graphs are, that you posted. Like I said if you jump up and down the M80 will have tweeter issues. The VP150 off axis is what I posted not M80. No one so far has taken any issue with the M80 measurement wise/comb filter. Discussion is about VP150/180.

So when you get the chance please post a Soundstage off axis response of the VP150 10,20,30,40.
post #49 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

So when you get the chance please post a Soundstage off axis response of the VP150 10,20,30,40.
Off axis charts won't be pretty, but even they only scratch the surface of the issue. What really shows the problem is polar charts. This chart overlays a number of polar charts at different frequencies. Each line shows the region where SPL is equal across the sound field.



In this case the two tweeters are about a foot apart center to center. That's close enough for them to act as a single source at 1kHz, and there the green line shows a nice single lobe, with uniform response across the sound field. But at each successively higher measuring point the number of lobes increases, and the uniformity of response across the sound field progressively deteriorates. And this is with the tweeters spaced a foot apart CTC. The wider the spacing, the worse the result.
Also note that on-axis there's an on-axis lobe at every frequency. If viewing an on-axis chart only one would never suspect how bad the full picture really is.
post #50 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

Refer back to the Rustolem quote I posted. I had to turn it up so much higher then the fronts just to understand the voices. The M80s was probably fairly even across the front freq wise but, the VP180 was starting to stuff from "suckout" even at 1", same as the VP150, the only difference between the 2 is the tweeters on the 180 are about 5" closer compared to the VP150, 2 woofers instead of 3. But like Bill said its still enough to cause horrible response problems.

Then the angles you states are completely wrong. An angle forms a triangle when you draw a line across the two other lines of the one angle. This third line gets wider and wider the further away from the starting point of the initial angle. Even a 0.000000001 degree angle ends up with a HUGE third side line if the distance is large enough from the initial angle. NASA deals with this issue all the time.

Therefor, if a listener is close to the speaker (the start point of the angle), the side to side distance to cross the 10 degree line (from the centerpoint) is small. If the listener is far away from the speaker the side to side distance to cross the 10 degree line is large. Here is a picture to show what I am saying. S is the changing side to side distance of which I am referring:



Quote:
Even if you had a narrow room its still no excuse for anyone to recommend such a flawed design (especially from a company that takes pride in engineering and research). Especially from centers costing $450 and $770. Thats why 99.99999% of center channels are MTM or TM or WTMW. I say anyone that just has to have a Axiom setup stick with the VP100 or VP160.

Agreed, but it does explain why some people hear the problem and some do not. If you never go past the 10 degree off axis, you never hear the 10 degree off axis problems.
post #51 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

In this case the two tweeters are about a foot apart center to center. That's close enough for them to act as a single source at 1kHz, and there the green line shows a nice single lobe, with uniform response across the sound field. But at each successively higher measuring point the number of lobes increases, and the uniformity of response across the sound field progressively deteriorates. And this is with the tweeters spaced a foot apart CTC. The wider the spacing, the worse the result.
Also note that on-axis there's an on-axis lobe at every frequency. If viewing an on-axis chart only one would never suspect how bad the full picture really is.

What does this mean, in laymen's terms, and what is the significance of each of those selected frequencies?
post #52 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

What does this mean, in laymen's terms, and what is the significance of each of those selected frequencies?
It means as you go across the sound field the level of each frequency changes, going up and down and up and down. There's no particular significance in those selected frequencies, they just show that the lobing becomes more serious as the frequency is increased.
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 3/31/13 at 9:39am
post #53 of 361
GT this was no bait and switch, simply a mistake made. I missed the fact it was the vp150 since both the vp150 and m80 were analyzed by Danny. And no need to call me one of those axiom guys, you know nothing about me.
post #54 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

It means as you go across the sound field the level of each frequency changes, going up and down and up and down. There's no particular significance in those selected frequencies, they just show that the lobing becomes more serious as the frequency is increased.

What does that change do in the real world?
post #55 of 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

What does that change do in the real world?
If you examine the chart closely you see that as one frequency goes up another goes down, so the overall output level is reasonably steady as you go across the sound field. That masks the effect of the lobing; if all the lobes were the same they'd be much more obvious.
Like all audio artifacts if you can't hear it then you probably shouldn't worry about it. But if you were to hear a source with minimal lobing side by side with a source with a lot of lobing you'd have to be tone deaf not to hear the difference.
post #56 of 361
The way that I use my M3s is a little unconventional. They are on Axiom 24" Stands in opposite corners of the my large living/dining room about 25' apart - basically facing each other. This is not ideal for normal listening but it does provide for some cool effects such as panning that would normally go across the front stage now seems to cross over the ceiling.

Set up this way, they are normally used for ambiance sound when people are over for a gathering when I don't want my M2s & EP400 blasting the couches in my normal listening area where people are sitting. With their great bass response without the need for a sub, the M3s can play loud & produce fine sound in that setting. In fact they will be used at our Easter Supper gathering tonight.

Happily that review bears that out. It is definitely a cost effective speaker (in a wood finish) for me in this role by being able to produce fairly big, quality sound in a large area...

TAM
post #57 of 361
craig:

It's nice to see that Audyssey does in fact work to some degree as I see so much stuff on how it doesn't for many people.

I for one like it for what it does to my Axiom/Velodyne HT...

TAM
post #58 of 361
At least Sound+Vision did measurements.

post #59 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

If you examine the chart closely you see that as one frequency goes up another goes down, so the overall output level is reasonably steady as you go across the sound field. That masks the effect of the lobing; if all the lobes were the same they'd be much more obvious.
Like all audio artifacts if you can't hear it then you probably shouldn't worry about it. But if you were to hear a source with minimal lobing side by side with a source with a lot of lobing you'd have to be tone deaf not to hear the difference.

Dumb it down a little more for me - what is lobing? Feel free to use a real world example of what it is like even if that example is not actually lobing (like using the compression of sound waves to explain Doppler shift of light).
post #60 of 361
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1400 View Post

Maybe axiom should have thought about introducing a higher end line instead of focusing on the Omni directional speakers.
Why not a budget line like the m series and new line of higher end products. In 5 years where will these Omni directional speakers be? discontinued?
It just seems that they could have taken all that time and money and r&d and focused on a new higher end product as opposed to Omni directional.

I agree. The M series onwalls (the ones I am familiar with) are excellent little speakers. They do need a high end speaker and should develop one from scratch.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › New Official Axiom Audio Speaker Owners Thread