Questions about Axiom Audio

F

FirstReflection

AV Rant Co-Host
Well I'll be interested to see how these interviews and the main article go, 'cause I'll be honest, I really don't understand what's going on between Gene and Paul and other critics and reviewers and Axiom these days. I really wish someone would just come out and speak plainly, because I'm confused as hell by all the half-spoken arguments that are playing themselves out on forums to the detriment of both sides.

Axiom used to be a "darling" among internet reviewers and forums. They were hyped to the moon and praised all over the place for offering a "taste of high end sound" for considerably lower prices. Was I crazy, or weren't there several reviews and speaker shootouts printed here at Audioholics where Axiom products received very favorable comments and scores? And I'm positive I saw similarly positive reviews at many other review sites.

Then...something...happened. And that's where my confusion kicks in. I saw a tear-down of the M80Ti speakers that got passed around where they were called "unsalvageable" and everything from the design to the parts to the construction was ripped apart as being terrible. Never mind that it's now a model from two cycles ago, apparently, that one critique was enough to call everything that came before and since into question.

Now, all of a sudden, Axiom only received positive reviews because they advertised on the review sites. That became the "go to" line for a new batch of very vocal Axiom-haters and it continues to this day. Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity posted a couple of positive reviews of Axiom products recently and they got lambasted with comments claiming that the Axiom reviews had only shown up around the same time that Axioim started advertising on their website, so obviously the reviews were "biased".

So look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have any stake in Axiom, so maybe they sound great - particularly for the price - as pretty much every professional review both new and old has claimed, or maybe they're pure and utter crap - made from cheap parts with terrible engineering and design - like the new forum attitude seems to claim. That's not the part that matters to me.

What matters to me is knowing what the hell has changed so drastically! How did Axiom go from being the internet's sweetheart to being worse than Bose and Monster Cable? How did Gene himself go from giving positive reviews and saying that he listened to two different versions of Axiom's M80 speakers - one with low-cost iron-core inductors and one with higher-cost air-core inductors - and he couldn't reliably tell them apart - to him being one of the main critics of Axiom who is now claiming that they don't know how to make a speaker?

I just want the scoop because there's a MAJOR contradiction here and a huge change in overall attitude towards Axiom and its products and it just doesn't make any sense with everyone hiding behind thinly-veiled jabs.

I know there was a big falling out between Axiom and Audioholics over Paul's subwoofer shootout. It seems as though calling into question the measurement and evaluation techniques of a reviewer is worse than shooting his kids in front of him. Now Paul is out there badmouthing Axiom and saying that they're incapable of learning how to make a good speaker. It's a mess. Both sides have dug in their heels and believe they're in the right. I just want to bring it to the attention of both sides that they both look bad now because neither side seems to want to just come out and give the whole story!

So what gives, Gene? Was Axiom just crap all along? Are all the forum trolls right and the only reason Axiom ever got good reviews was because they were advertising on Audioholics? Was Clint just lying through his teeth when he gave a positive review of the M80 system? Or did something go on behind the scenes? Did Axiom do something that no one is saying out loud in order to deserve such an abrupt and gigantic about-face?

'Cause look, I'm willing to believe that the folks over at Axiom said or did something that pissed off all of these well-respected people who are now enemies with them. But at the same time, I'm feeling like I just don't trust Audioholics or professional reviewers in general any more. To go from saying that Axiom's speakers sounded great and were a terrific value to saying that they're terrible, poorly made and poorly engineered is just too big of a chasm.
 
F

FirstReflection

AV Rant Co-Host
No, they're similarily good :D
There ya go. See, no offence to you personally GranteedEV, but that's exactly the stuff I'm talking about. What's with that quote? The "similarly good" jab. I see it all over the place and I guess I'm supposed to know what it means, but I don't, and it just makes the whole situation worse.

I mean, apparently, using two tweeters in the M80 makes Axiom the devil. Supposedly, it just makes the M80s terrible, "unsalvageable". And yet there are the reviews right here on Audioholics, by Clint and Ray, where the high frequency performance of the M80s is praised and the speakers overall are reviewed as being well-made and a great value.

You've got those reviews on the one hand, and then you've got Gene posting over at AVS telling Ian from Axiom that the dual tweeter design is just wrought with terrible interference issues. Issues that are so bad and unavoidable that they are clearly audible. Issues that apparently RBH completely avoided somehow with their triple tweeters in the T-series speakers that Gene uses himself.

So look, if Axiom's speakers are actually bad, and have been bad all along...ok...fine. I have no stake in Axiom...whatever...I'll look elsewhere. But emotionally, I'm more annoyed with the people, such as Gene, who are now criticizing Axiom so heavily. I'm more annoyed with that side because they have made this huge about-face in their attitude and they're now directly contradicting their own "highly recommended" stance from the past!

You can't expect me to not be confused by that!

If saying that two things are "similarly good" is somehow the worst thing ever and deserving of all the derision and jeering that I'm sensing in that quote, then I'm going to need some sort of explanation. If Ian or someone else from Axiom is out there saying that Axiom's speakers are as good as a speaker can possibly be and that their methods are "beyond reproach" (which is something that I would not put it past them to say - the language on their website is pretty absolute), then I'm fine with them getting some derision and criticism...it's not like I think Axiom has no fault here or isn't part of the problem.

But emotionally, I'm more frustrated with the Axiom-detractors. It's a bunch of jabs without context, a HUGE 180 in attitude towards them, and a massive contradiction of the many, many very positive reviews that were given in the past and continue to be given today! If there's something wrong with Axiom's speakers, the way they do business, or the claims that they make - that's fine! I want people to bring that up and talk about it. But to just jab at them, call them terrible, and completely contradict all of the positive things that were said before without explaining why? That's just too confusing and frankly, it destroys my trust in the people who are making those jabs, but aren't willing to explain WHY they're making them.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
Well I'll be interested to see how these interviews and the main article go, 'cause I'll be honest, I really don't understand what's going on between Gene and Paul and other critics and reviewers and Axiom these days. I really wish someone would just come out and speak plainly, because I'm confused as hell by all the half-spoken arguments that are playing themselves out on forums to the detriment of both sides.

Axiom used to be a "darling" among internet reviewers and forums. They were hyped to the moon and praised all over the place for offering a "taste of high end sound" for considerably lower prices. Was I crazy, or weren't there several reviews and speaker shootouts printed here at Audioholics where Axiom products received very favorable comments and scores? And I'm positive I saw similarly positive reviews at many other review sites.

Then...something...happened. And that's where my confusion kicks in. I saw a tear-down of the M80Ti speakers that got passed around where they were called "unsalvageable" and everything from the design to the parts to the construction was ripped apart as being terrible. Never mind that it's now a model from two cycles ago, apparently, that one critique was enough to call everything that came before and since into question.

Now, all of a sudden, Axiom only received positive reviews because they advertised on the review sites. That became the "go to" line for a new batch of very vocal Axiom-haters and it continues to this day. Secrets of Home Theater and High Fidelity posted a couple of positive reviews of Axiom products recently and they got lambasted with comments claiming that the Axiom reviews had only shown up around the same time that Axioim started advertising on their website, so obviously the reviews were "biased".

So look, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't have any stake in Axiom, so maybe they sound great - particularly for the price - as pretty much every professional review both new and old has claimed, or maybe they're pure and utter crap - made from cheap parts with terrible engineering and design - like the new forum attitude seems to claim. That's not the part that matters to me.

What matters to me is knowing what the hell has changed so drastically! How did Axiom go from being the internet's sweetheart to being worse than Bose and Monster Cable? How did Gene himself go from giving positive reviews and saying that he listened to two different versions of Axiom's M80 speakers - one with low-cost iron-core inductors and one with higher-cost air-core inductors - and he couldn't reliably tell them apart - to him being one of the main critics of Axiom who is now claiming that they don't know how to make a speaker?

I just want the scoop because there's a MAJOR contradiction here and a huge change in overall attitude towards Axiom and its products and it just doesn't make any sense with everyone hiding behind thinly-veiled jabs.

I know there was a big falling out between Axiom and Audioholics over Paul's subwoofer shootout. It seems as though calling into question the measurement and evaluation techniques of a reviewer is worse than shooting his kids in front of him. Now Paul is out there badmouthing Axiom and saying that they're incapable of learning how to make a good speaker. It's a mess. Both sides have dug in their heels and believe they're in the right. I just want to bring it to the attention of both sides that they both look bad now because neither side seems to want to just come out and give the whole story!

So what gives, Gene? Was Axiom just crap all along? Are all the forum trolls right and the only reason Axiom ever got good reviews was because they were advertising on Audioholics? Was Clint just lying through his teeth when he gave a positive review of the M80 system? Or did something go on behind the scenes? Did Axiom do something that no one is saying out loud in order to deserve such an abrupt and gigantic about-face?

'Cause look, I'm willing to believe that the folks over at Axiom said or did something that pissed off all of these well-respected people who are now enemies with them. But at the same time, I'm feeling like I just don't trust Audioholics or professional reviewers in general any more. To go from saying that Axiom's speakers sounded great and were a terrific value to saying that they're terrible, poorly made and poorly engineered is just too big of a chasm.
I actually own Axiom products. M3's, QS surrounds and the vaunted VP150 that suffers acoustical interference. ;). IMO some of the anomisity comes from the fact that Axiom touts engineering, NRC, double-blind scientific testing, "objective testing" on their website but in reality when it comes to actually testing their products outside their company they mainly rely on lots of marketing and NOT objective testing. When V3 came around they gave no objective analysis on the improvements of their products despite all these claims on improvement in their crossovers, tweeters etc. On the contrary look at the information Ascend posts on the upgrades to his products. When Axiom products are subject to 3rd party testing they sometimes don't even compete with products at their own price point yet they claim speakers like the Revel Salon 2 can only be similarly good to the M80. It doesn't jive.

I can still enjoy my Axiom speakers despite their flaws, but I realize there are better products out there.
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
What's with that quote? The "similarly good" jab. I see it all over the place and I guess I'm supposed to know what it means, but I don't, and it just makes the whole situation worse.
It's all Alan Loft's fault :cool:

He said the $1400 M80s are similarily good to the $8,000 Paradigm Signature S8s.

Now I accept that there's a law of diminishing returns and there's low value products out there.

The issue is that axiom believes that the M80 is as good a speaker as a person would every need, and anything pricier is just money spent on minimal if any improvement - that means there's nothing to gain from more bracing, better drivers, better crossover parts, more amplfiier friendly crossover design, or anything else essentially.

They claim their scoring of products in "double blind tests" (which are essentially familiarity-biased single blind tests) justfies the above claim.

Now I'm sure the M80s did impress Clint et al at the time. But such reviews, not only by audioholics but I think a lot of the online review community, has over time somewhat perpetuated this notion that, by virtue of being internet direct and justified by things like an anechoic chamber and double blind testing, that axiom's designs are the "best". Regardless of price point.

That's where I think a person like Gene might take exception. But even then, the only Axiom speaker Gene seemed to really criticise was the center channel. Now the M80 surely suffers from comb filtering because it uses two tweeters, but it's one of those things that people can accept in the right room and may actually prefer. Since the tweeter placement is vertical, the comb filtering does not as far as I can tell affect the horizontal polars, and most people believe that horizontal polars are notably more important than vertical.

On the other hand the VP180 or what have you design, the TWWWT speaker, by virtue of the tweeters being so far apart, could only have questionably horizontal polars to say the least.

I mean, apparently, using two tweeters in the M80 makes Axiom the devil. Supposedly, it just makes the M80s terrible, "unsalvageable".
Let's clarify that this particular claim was made by the skiing ninja people.

And yet there are the reviews right here on Audioholics, by Clint and Ray, where the high frequency performance of the M80s is praised and the speakers overall are reviewed as being well-made and a great value.
While this claim was made by Clint and Ray. Different people, different method of analysis.

You've got those reviews on the one hand, and then you've got Gene posting over at AVS telling Ian from Axiom that the dual tweeter design is just wrought with terrible interference issues.
*in the center channel.

So look, if Axiom's speakers are actually bad, and have been bad all along...ok...fine.
I think the best way to look at it is that Axiom's speakers are not inherently "bad" *except by TLS Guy standards where nearly everything is bad.

If I had to guess, they're speakers that the average person would be happy to have in his/her home.

The issue is that they're not, despite the claims by Axiom, among the best out there, and not necessarily the best performance dollar for dollar.

The issue is moreso with the seemingly flawed blind testing methodology suggesesting Axioms to be on par with the most high end speakers out there.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
No, they're similarily good :D
This is one example of where the phrase similary good can be coined from. :D

Alan Lofft said:
What you do not realize is that the simple on-axis curve published by the reviewer in Sound&Vision is a relatively primitive measurement by comparison to the sophisticated set of measurements Axiom is able to do in a large anechoic chamber (the latter is a duplicate of the chamber at the National Research Council, where Kevin Voecks, the designer of Revel, learned much of what he knows about speaker design, along with Ian Colquhoun, and Paul Barton (PSB), Andrew Welker Mirage/Energy, Scott Bagby (Paradigm) and others). It's all about the "family of curves", not just an on-axis curve.

In your room at home, at least 50% of the sound reaching your ears is a combination of off-axis sounds reflected from room surfaces and radiated at increasing angles away from the center of the speaker. These, combined with the on-axis radiation, make up the overall spectral balance presented to listeners. So to properly gauge the output of a speaker, measurements have to be done at increasing angles to each side, above and below and even to the rear of the speaker in the anechoic chamber. When these curves are all combined, and the shape of the off-axis curves mirrors the on-axis curve, they have a very high predictability in terms of sound preference in double-blind tests. The smoother the off-axis and on-axis curves, the greater the likelihood it will be an excellent sounding speaker. In the NRC days, some 70 measurements were done at all angles to the speaker in the chamber. Similar groups of measurements are done at Axiom.

This research over 25 years conducted by Dr. Floyd Toole, forms the design background of Ian Colquhoun, Kevin Voecks--he was with Mirage then Snell when he did much of the work--Paul Barton and others. That scientific approach was taken to Harman by Floyd Toole when he moved to Harman as vice-president, and is carried on by Dr. Sean Olive. When Harman acquired Revel, it was a natural fit for Kevin Voecks, who was already very familiar with the NRC scientific guidelines on speaker measurement and testing. Harman has a large anechoic chamber much like Axiom's. Very few others exist in North America.

Having done over 20 years of double-blind tests of speakers in my role as editor of Canadian audio-video magazines, often in the company of Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Ian G. Masters and others, I can attest that there is often no correlation between price and sound quality. I have data and rating sheets in my files that regularly show speakers from Axiom, PSB, and Paradigm that sold for roughly $1,000 per pair or so besting speakers from B&W, Kef and others that sold from $5000 to $7500 per pair in the late '80s and early '90s.

I have heard various excellent Revel and Snell speakers over the years, and I'd quite happily put a pair of M80 v3s in a double-blind test up against some of the exotically priced Revels. I expect there'd be frequent use of the phrase "similarly good", with at times a preference for one or the other speaker depending on the source material and minor spectral differences. But the ranking scores would be very close.

This was nicely illustrated by the double-blind tests conducted at the Axiom 30th anniversary, in which many forum members participated. The $330 pair Axiom M3s were preferrred by a majority of listeners over a pair of B&W Nautilus bookshelf models that sold for $2,500/pair. The Nautilus were very pretty, with the teardrop tweeter perched on top, and they sounded quite good, but they were not as linear and neutral as the Axiom M3s.

Over the years, I've found that once you reach a price point of about $1000 to $2000 per pair in loudspeakers from a talented designer, more money will not buy you "better" sound reproduction. It may be similarly good, but the more expensive speakers won't necessarily rank higher in double-blind tests.

The NRC testing protocol is largely bullet-proof, and the evidence is out there to be heard from Axiom, Revel, PSB, Snell, Paradigm and, in past years, from Energy and Mirage.
I'm surprised Axiom overlooked the off-axis on the VP150. It certainly does not mirror the on-axis response. The off-axis is anything but uniform/smooth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I really wish someone would just come out and speak plainly, because I'm confused as hell by all the half-spoken arguments that are playing themselves out on forums to the detriment of both sides.

Axiom used to be a "darling" among internet reviewers and forums. They were hyped to the moon and praised all over the place for offering a "taste of high end sound" for considerably lower prices. Was I crazy, or weren't there several reviews and speaker shootouts printed here at Audioholics where Axiom products received very favorable comments and scores? And I'm positive I saw similarly positive reviews at many other review sites.
Let me be clear and state I feel Axiom is a very solid company that offers incredibly good customer support and service. I feel most of their products are good though IMO they've lately fallen behind the competition in some areas. The position they've conveyed to me on my numerous visits to their facility is no speaker can beat their M80's in a blind test and at best case can only score "similarly good" is, IMO, a bit overly presumptuous. The fact that they have Alan Loft participating in their own blind tests (someone quite familiar with the sonics of their speakers) and declaring their own speakers winners in their editorials compared to other brands costing multiples more under the guise of a DBT again indicates to me they could benefit from fleshing out their blind testing protocol.

They renounce 3rd party measurements unless they are done anechoic which again makes it difficult for any 3rd party to criticize their products without an argument. Alan Lofft has publicly declared a sub can't be measured accurately by any other method than sticking it on a 90ft pole or anechoic chamber for example. Most designers know groundplane as a reliable and accurate method for measuring subs and gating a measurement is as accurate for measuring loudspeakers as an anechoic chamber above 200Hz.

Over the years I've had disagreements with Ian and crew about design and parts choices which they've again maintained didn't matter. It's certainly their prerogative to feel that way but I've seen a bit of too much misinformation in their editorials that I felt needed to be addressed when I saw that AVS thread. Even Dr. Floyd Toole had to correct them on Comb Filtering which I found a bit troubling since they were misapplying his research. Hey everyone, including us makes mistakes. I am quite happy to correct our editorials when a knowledgeable peer points out any potential errors. This is why we allow ALL manufacturers to peer our product reviews prior to publishing the results good or bad.

Paul doesn't speak for Audioholics so what he writes on AVS Forum I have no control over. He is a resourceful engineer that really knows his stuff despite his often admittedly brash attitude he conveys on public forums.

I like working with all A/V companies though unfortunately I like to take stuff apart and analyze it which doesn't sit well with some. Our reviews are more critical than most if NOT all of the A/V press. Most manufacturers want nothing but positive reviews regurgitating manufacturer talking points. Most don't want their products put in a shootout. Ironically, we have found this to be especially true of some companies that allegedly declare victory in their own blind tests.

All that being said, Axiom takes care of their customers and they produce consistent and reliable products (with the exception to their discontinued A-1400 Class D amp). It is my hope that they continue to evolve their products and even offer some truly design no compromise products in the near future.

Whatever negative feelings Axiom may harbor towards me personally or Audioholics.com I hope to one day mend as I did and still do consider them friends. We always prefer friends over foes and I don't hold grudges especially over such mundane stuff as this.
 
F

FirstReflection

AV Rant Co-Host
Awesome :)

I'm really happy to see some honest-to-goodness clarification! I also feel that I did the right thing by asking, because I'm pretty sure I couldn't have been the only person who has been confused by the recent turn of events and negative backlash against Axiom.

Personally, I still think the level of backlash that I've seen is larger and more harsh than what is deserved. Let me be clear, I'm not talking about Gene with that statement. From all the posts that Gene has made himself, he has at least tried to stick to actual technical and engineering arguments and pointed out disagreements that he has with the designers and engineers over at Axiom. I'm very ok with that sort of discussion.

But there are forum members at various forums who have really become nasty with the anti-Axiom sentiment. That is the stuff I have a problem with because it completely flies in the face of a great many, very reputable sources that state opinions that are quite to the contrary.

I've said this in other posts, but I get a strong sense of there being a "hipster" attitude amongst AV forum regulars. As soon as a product or brand becomes "mainstream" it seems to lose favor, while smaller, unknown brands get hyped up as the "next big thing". I don't subscribe or agree with that attitude and I think it is damaging to the AV industry in general, but especially to people who are new to the AV hobby and are trying to find their bearings and get an idea of what brands and products they should be considering for purchase.

Axiom was easily one of the "go to" recommendations on forums for a long, long time. And I think I can safely say that Audioholics' own reviews were often cited as a means of supporting the case for that recommendation. It just seems so incredibly odd to me, even still after Gene's explanation, that what used to be considered very good speakers at very good prices are now considered to have "fallen behind". I still can't quite wrap my head around that when, in all fairness, human hearing has NOT changed and a good speaker from 7 years ago can still be very much a good speaker today. I don't think the fact that other companies have improved over the years and are now offering a higher level of performance for similar, or perhaps even lower prices than Axiom should lead to the conclusion that Axiom speakers are no longer good. Perhaps they no longer hold the same position of value in that there is greater competition now than there was several years ago. But the actual level of performance has not fallen, so I still feel that the level of backlash is undeserved.

There seems to be a certain amount of glee expressed at the notion of "taking down" a company. I'm as guilty as anyone of this when it comes to brands like Bose and Monster Cable. I just honestly found it startling with Axiom though because Bose and Monster have never been praised for performance or value by professional reviewers. For Axiom to get lumped in with them, that really does not seem right to me at all!

Perhaps one of the best examples though is SVSound. SVS was another internet-direct brand that got incredible hype when they hit the scene. There were people of forums making outlandish claims about how good SVS subwoofers were. Then SVS started to grow and started to move manufacturing to China and the shine came off.

Today, in my own personal experience, SVSound is making the best subwoofers they have EVER made. And yet, they get nowhere near the same level of love that they had when they were new on the scene. Now, it's all about Seaton and JTR, and I really get a sense that it's because those brands are still "underground" and really not well-known by the larger, mainstream market. It's that "hipster" attitude that I mentioned, where despite SVSound making some truly excellent subwoofers, the fact that they are no longer the cheapest and the fact that they manufacture in China now seems to get them lumped in with the "you're not hip if you like 'em" brands, and I think that is a disservice to the industry and to new AV hobbyists who are looking for recommendations.

Similar things could be said about HSU. In no small part due to Paul's review of the VTF-15H, HSU's reputation on the forums went from sterling to junk. I think that's a total overreaction - similar to what's happened to Axiom. And HSU also gets some of the blame due to how one of their representatives responded on those same forums. So it's just bad overreactions all around!

Hopefully, things will eventually settle down and people will find their heads. Right now, things are heated, people are picking sides, and once they dig in their heels, it becomes a "black and white" argument and that just doesn't get anybody anywhere. But what I REALLY want to get across - to Gene in particular - is that the thinly-veiled jabs (such as some of the questions in these interviews and the proposed title of the upcoming article) are possibly more damaging than just outright, easy-to-understand statements. And damaging to BOTH sides at that. Putting these sorts of doubts out there, as opposed to just a plainly spoken stance and argument, only serves to create feelings of negativity. The anit-Axiom people who are already overreacting take those questions and wordings that are purposefully crafted to create doubt and amplify them into truly negative and unfair aspersions about Axiom as a whole. I see that happening already. New members who ask about Axiom are told things like "you shouldn't trust a company that uses 'terrible' engineering such as dual tweeters, and doesn't put enough bracing in their cabinets". They take one little nugget about iron-core inductors and turn it into a reason to avoid Axiom entirely. That's an overreaction, but when experts such as Gene do not come right out and say exactly what they mean, it makes it far too easy for these sorts of exaggerations to take place because the people who attempt to counter those exaggerated arguments aren't able to point to a clearly-worded article by Gene to say, "here's the REAL information."

I just don't like to see people or companies get undermined when they do not deserve it. The veiled jabs and subtle condescension also serves to undermine Gene and Audioholics - and that's something I really want Gene to be aware of. The positive reviews of Axiom products that can be found on Audioholics - they are not subtle. They do not, in ANY way, make it sound as though Audioholics holds reservations about the performance, build quality or value of Axiom's products. To now come out and say that people ought to doubt the quality of Axiom's products, that's a contradiction. But an outright, plainly-spoken contradiction could at least be explained as a change in attitude that has occurred over time. That new information and advancements by other companies has changed the landscape. I can understand that sort of reasoning. It's the veiled jabs that hurt Audioholics. Saying things without saying them plainly - that undermines Audioholics. It simply casts doubt. And that doubt will extend to backlash towards Audioholics. You'll wind up with increased talk about how Audioholics only gave those positive reviews because of advertising. And if all that is accomplished is the casting of doubt, how is that going to help build any sort of trust in the Audioholics system of evaluation and recommendation.

Basically, don't cut off your nose to spite your face! Disagreements are normal. Changing opinions over time is normal. If you just come right out and say it, without hype or emotion, and without condescension or derision, people will get it, and you won't have to undermine your opponent OR yourself. In other words, just be fair! Keep it all above board; keep it all professional. There is more than enough juvenile behavior and overreaction on the forums. We NEED for people like Gene to always be the "better man", and to simply keep things honest, clear, and free from half-truths and exaggeration that don't help either side.

:)
 
BoredSysAdmin

BoredSysAdmin

Audioholic Slumlord
I don't think there is anything wrong with SVS or it's products and I still see forums member recommend their product, however It seems (IMO) that SVS like many other brands,which were "hip" went mainstream - is they prices lost a bit of the competitiveness edge. Back then SVS was fighting old B&M brands, but nowday there are plenty of ID brands and some of them offering better bang (pun intended) for your buck than SVS today..
 
The positive reviews of Axiom products that can be found on Audioholics - they are not subtle. They do not, in ANY way, make it sound as though Audioholics holds reservations about the performance, build quality or value of Axiom's products. To now come out and say that people ought to doubt the quality of Axiom's products, that's a contradiction. But an outright, plainly-spoken contradiction could at least be explained as a change in attitude that has occurred over time. That new information and advancements by other companies has changed the landscape. I can understand that sort of reasoning.
This is, I feel the most significant thing with respect to any company that would want to do well. My first Audioholics review was with an Axiom Audio Epic 80 Speaker system. That was back in December of 2002. Those speakers have not changed in over 8-1/2 years except to substitute crossover parts and drivers, which even Axiom maintains didn't change the sound noticeably. Meanwhile, the landscape has indeed changed. We do not feel that those speakers, as it were, achieved the status of "classics". I'm not going to try and find an analogy, but you get the drift.
 
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
Axiom in the past has surrounded themselves with electronics people (development of A1400 amp). They wasted a lot of time and resources on that silly amp that they do not even sell at this point. They are a speaker company first and foremost. Now they have a real speaker designer in Andrew Welker. This is the period for them to build a no compromise speaker. I'd bet money on Welker could come up with something cool. I would like to see a WTMW or WMTMW center channel with the single tweeter elevated above the midrange as well. That would be one speaker I would consider getting and ditch the VP150.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
I just don't like to see people or companies get undermined when they do not deserve it. The veiled jabs and subtle condescension also serves to undermine Gene and Audioholics - and that's something I really want Gene to be aware of. The positive reviews of Axiom products that can be found on Audioholics - they are not subtle. They do not, in ANY way, make it sound as though Audioholics holds reservations about the performance, build quality or value of Axiom's products. To now come out and say that people ought to doubt the quality of Axiom's products, that's a contradiction. But an outright, plainly-spoken contradiction could at least be explained as a change in attitude that has occurred over time. That new information and advancements by other companies has changed the landscape. I can understand that sort of reasoning. It's the veiled jabs that hurt Audioholics. Saying things without saying them plainly - that undermines Audioholics. It simply casts doubt. And that doubt will extend to backlash towards Audioholics. You'll wind up with increased talk about how Audioholics only gave those positive reviews because of advertising. And if all that is accomplished is the casting of doubt, how is that going to help build any sort of trust in the Audioholics system of evaluation and recommendation.
Good points and thanks for raising them. It's interesting to hear people's concerns about positive reviews vs advertising. Part of the struggle we've always faced with Axiom and a few other brands is that they felt our reviewers were NEVER positive enough.

This is why they never linked up our A-1400-8 review or our Algonquin speaker reviews on their site as example. Note in my A-1400 review where I discuss the safety issues I found with the amp which have now come to fruition based on the numerous returns and product being discontinued. Note in my Algonquin review where I point out concerns with the crossover topology and parts usage as well as the thin plastic cabinet material and ported design for an outdoor speaker. Despite these criticisms, I still liked the products. Our $1k floorstanding faceoff that we conducted blind featuring their M60v3s did NOT sit well with them at all either.

I hope our readers can appreciate the struggles we and the rest of the press face with manufacturers when conducting product reviews. To the manufacturers defense, I can understand them wanting to defend their products at any cost but there comes a point where people tend to take comments to heart too literally. No matter how much objective data a review has, in the end its still a product opinion of the person writing it. It's not a biblical source nor should it ever be interpreted as such.
 
Last edited:
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
regarding svs - I want to say that i think svs makes perhaps the most well engineered dollar for dollar speakers. but they limit themselves by economics. As great as a top notch 13 inch driver fed a good 1000 watts may be, I think the (perceived) ease of a pair of sealed 15s (Seaton) or a high excursion low tun vented 18 (JTR) Re seen as more along the lines of what some people are in fact willing to accept in dedicated HTs. SVS' quality has never been questioned, but rather their economics. They are engineering driven but they factor box size into the equation and thus perception is that you're paying for more performance out of less box. Some people just want more permance; period.

now. the svs 12s may be competitive with other brands' 15s. but without direct comparision the less 'economical' option will be perceived as better dollar for dollar. The JTRs are even available in a passive version, allowing people to use their own pro-amps. In some ways that may be weak engineering with the lack of protection filters yet dollar for dollar the output or extension is tough to beat... the tradeoffs are obvious yet perhaps acceptable?
 
Last edited:
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
regarding svs - I want to say that i think svs makes perhaps the most well engineered dollar for dollar speakers. but they limit themselves by economics. As great as a top notch 13 inch driver fed a good 1000 watts may be, I think the (perceived) ease of a pair of sealed 15s (Seaton) or a high excursion low tun vented 18 (JTR) Re seen as more along the lines of what some people are in fact willing to accept in dedicated HTs. SVS' quality has never been questioned, but rather their economics. They are engineering driven but they factor box size into the equation and thus perception is that you're paying for more performance out of less box. Some people just want more permance; period.
I don't think they limit themselves much at all. Perhaps a handful of people would go for a larger JTR or ED or Seaton over the slightly smaller PB13, but the PB13 has to be one of the most commercially successful high performance subwoofers ever made. At AVSforum there is a 9,000 post thread about the PB13 alone. There is another huge 10,000 post thread talking about SVS, mostly the PB13, at blu ray forums. Perhaps that amount of discussion doesn't correlate with PB13 sales exactly, but has there ever been a $2k sub that has received as much attention? There are a lot of people who can swing the large but tasteful looking PB13 who wouldn't have the huge JTR Captivator in their living room or a monstrous Danley DTS-10.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
I think the best way to look at it is that Axiom's speakers are not inherently "bad" *except by TLS Guy standards where nearly everything is bad.

If I had to guess, they're speakers that the average person would be happy to have in his/her home.

The issue is that they're not, despite the claims by Axiom, among the best out there, and not necessarily the best performance dollar for dollar.

The issue is moreso with the seemingly flawed blind testing methodology suggesesting Axioms to be on par with the most high end speakers out there.
You mean I don't like or tolerate this sort of thing?



Or this?

The dual mids were separated from the lower woofers with cardboard tubes located behind each mid.

The woofers had no venting of the voice coil through the frame or through the pole piece. We find this curious to be sure…
Now that is an Axiom speaker.

However, I will state categorically you can not build a speaker like that, that is any good or worth buying.

So if that is what passes for "similarly good," then I would prefer "similarly awful!"

And by the way, that was just a couple of items I could site. The chamber of horrors is pretty full.

Yes, that's bad, and quite honestly there is no excuse for it.
 
C

Chu Gai

Audioholic Samurai
To me, it would be of interest to hear in greater detail matters concerning their DBT processes. Things like who and how many are involved, number of trials, type of room(s), as well as whether they've embraced the use of trained listeners. Something along the lines maybe of the training software that Sean Olive has provided on his blog.
 
billy p

billy p

Audioholic Ninja
Yada yada...different forum same Axiom bashing it never seems to end. Being a recently NEW owner of Axiom speakers, I have noticed they do have a distinctive sound but I've never found them to be harsh or fatiguing. In fact, at some point today I'll receiving my new Sierra's NrT's to compare them too.... I don't think the 2 will be close and I don't expect them to be(considering their price points) but if they are I'll let you all know....;).

But for those who base their comments stricily on graphs .....please?
 
Last edited:
MinusTheBear

MinusTheBear

Audioholic Ninja
To me, it would be of interest to hear in greater detail matters concerning their DBT processes. Things like who and how many are involved, number of trials, type of room(s), as well as whether they've embraced the use of trained listeners. Something along the lines maybe of the training software that Sean Olive has provided on his blog.
You might want to email them about the number of trials, number of listeners, types of statistical analysis undertaken etc as I don't think they disclose or publish their research findings like Dr. Sean Olive/Harman. But its my understanding their setup is a speaker selector switch (A/B), transparent curtain, A1400-8 amp, Sherwood New Castle Pre-pro, Blu-ray player as source. They have a few employees who set up the experiments, employees and others outside who know them also take part in the listening tests. The listener controls the switching with a selector box and can take all the time they want in the listening room with their own music material. I thought Gene posted the score sheet at one point as well. Understandably, its not up to the same standard as Harman as they can't control positional bias with audio memory on the fly (read Harman's speaker shuffler technology) and the room is not controlled. I guess this could be a good or bad thing depending on the tradeoffs your looking at. Higher threshold of detectability to run changes vs better application to real listening rooms (rooms are not anechoic chambers).

You can see some pics of their procedure here.

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/axiom-blind-listening-test
 
Last edited:
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
Yada yada...different forum same Axiom bashing it never seems to end. Being a recently NEW owner of Axiom speakers, I have noticed they do have a distinctive sound but I've never found them to be harsh or fatiguing. In fact, at some point today I'll receiving my new Sierra's NrT's to compare them too.... I don't think the 2 will be close and I don't expect them to be(considering their price points) but if they are I'll let you all know.....

As Alan Lofft claims, price doesn't matter so feel free to directly compare regardless of how expensive the competitor speakers are... just as long as you do it blind so you don't prefer the "prettier" speaker :D

from Alan Lofft: Over the years, I've found that once you reach a price point of about $1000 to $2000 per pair in loudspeakers from a talented designer, more money will not buy you "better" sound reproduction. It may be similarly good, but the more expensive speakers won't necessarily rank higher in double-blind tests.
If we are talking esoteric off the wall designs, I'd agree with Alan but if we are talking about legitimately good designs based on proven engineering practices, it seems a bit of a stretch and certainly makes a convincing case to never purchase anything but a modestly priced speaker. I wonder if he feels the same about cars, boats and beds?

Let's assume for the moment that the following 3 companies (Axiom, Paradigm, Harman) design speakers based on NRC research and protocol. Alan claims once you reach $1k/pair from a "talented" designer, than all speakers will score "similarly good" results in a blind test.

If that is true, then why would Paradigm or Harman ever make a flagship speaker when their $1k towers can't be beat? A Revel Salon2 for example is "similarly good" to a pair of Studio 190s from JBL. Just like a Paradigm S8 is "similarly good" to a pair of their Monitor 7s.

Over the years, I've actually done numerous sighted and blind comparisons first hand between different series of speakers from the likes of RBH, Paradigm, JBL, Infinity, Monitor Audio and others and I can tell you from experience I have NOT found this to be the case. The better series from each company typically do offer clearly better audio performance and there are reasons why: better drive units, better crossovers, better cabinets, etc even between series with similar driver and design topologies.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
But for those who base their comments stricily on graphs .....please?
I dunno, some people can read a sheet of music and start to put it together in their heads...

I don't see how looking at some measurements of speakers can't begin to give you a foundation for what you can expect out of them. I guess it's a skill you have acquired or you haven't.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top