Axiom Audio LFR1100 Tower Loudspeaker Preview

[ack_bak]

Almost every center channel in that price range is flawed.

Lets at least see what these probably overpriced beasts sound like before we completely condemn them.

I don't disagree that horizontal center speakers typically have flaws, but go back and look at the measurements of the VP150 off axis. Axiom magnified the flaws x10. It was telling to me in thread that the only measurements Axiom would provide for the VP150 was in the sweet spot. They ignored the request to provide off-axis measurements multiple times and instead tried to use double blind tests as an explanation for the design.

I will give them credit though. After that whole debacle of a thread Axiom designed the VP160 which is a less flawed center and I have heard good things about that center with the M60 speakers at that price point. Their more traditional bookshelf speakers seem like a decent value too.

I hope Gene can get the new M100 in for a review.

 

[adwilk]

I don't disagree that horizontal center speakers typically have flaws, but go back and look at the measurements of the VP150 off axis. Axiom magnified the flaws x10. It was telling to me in thread that the only measurements Axiom would provide for the VP150 was in the sweet spot. They ignored the request to provide off-axis measurements multiple times and instead tried to use double blind tests as an explanation for the design.

I will give them credit though. After that whole debacle of a thread Axiom designed the VP160 which is a less flawed center and I have heard good things about that center with the M60 speakers at that price point. Their more traditional bookshelf speakers seem like a decent value too.

I hope Gene can get the new M100 in for a review.

Fair enough.. but the fact that measurements exist at all should rank them WELL beyond WV status, yes?

 

[billy p]

Thats a ridiculous statement from a credible AH member.

Seriously... Have you ever even heard anything they make?

I'm in the process of moving halfway back across the country and have most of my gear already packed up...

I have a pair of the Axiom M3 V2's hooked up just to keep the audio guy in me happy for a few days and I find them really enjoyable to listen to and I keep turning them up looking for something wrong with them. They're one of the best bookshelves under a grand that I've owned. The White Van analogy couldn't be more off base.

So, where exactly are you moving to or returning from....next time a little more warning would suffice prior to returning back into a family oriented neighorhood...jk....

 

[adwilk]

So, were exactly are you moving to or returning from....next time a little more warning would suffice prior to returning back into a family oriented neighorhood...jk....

Canadian revenge is the harshest kind...

From Charleston, SC back to Missouri.

 

[ack_bak]

I never said they weren't. But there's other flawed designs out there that people happily gulp up and then proceed ridicule Axiom. Yes Axiom's center speakers are a mess but I was specifically referring to their bookshelves and towers (and their recent WTMW center speaker). Even their sub-par subs, a poor value, could possibly outperform a lot of "speaker company" commercial subs out there that people end up buying. There's a LOT of crap out there, and on that scale axiom's not really too far down. They're decidedly mediocre.



I meant they are cheap with regards to engineering choices.



So? I'm not dying for a pair of M80s either. There's way better speakers out there for the money for anyone willing to do their research. That doesn't mean that there aren't significantly worse speakers out there.



Of course there are. There are tons of speakers out there. I'd wager a large majority of them are worse than axiom. No that doesn't make axiom great, but it does have its implications.



So having unusual amounts of drivers is an instant qualifier for white van? In that case I am sure speakers like the Dynaudio Temptation, RBH T3/R, Legacy Whisper must qualify.

Honestly, I don't think I am saying anything different than you are when it comes to the higher priced offerings from Axiom or with a few of their flawed offerings (like the VP150). I agree, Axiom is certainly not the worst speaker company out there, but they are certainly not on my short list based on my experience with them.

The difference between the RBH/Dynaudio's of the world is that they don't use cheap components and cut corners to the degree Axiom does and then try to sell it as that there is no sonic difference between the cheap components and more expensive components. As you step into the higher tiered RBH speakers, for instance, you get more quality components vs the lower tiered. And there is clearly a sonic difference. As there should be since you are paying for that quality. If cheap components sounded the same as more expensive components, most of these speaker companies would be out of business, and we would all be listening much cheaper speakers.

 

[ack_bak]

Fair enough.. but the fact that measurements exist at all should rank them WELL beyond WV status, yes?

I don't agree at all that Axiom speakers are the equivalent to white van. I think folks took that reference by TLS too literal.

 

[adwilk]

I don't agree at all that Axiom speakers are the equivalent to white van. I think folks took that reference by TLS too literal.

Touche.. but I've yet to read anything close to resembling allegory or metaphor from the guy...

 

[adwilk]

If cheap components sounded the same as more expensive components, most of these speaker companies would be out of business, and we would all be listening much cheaper speakers.

Aren't the price points of RBH/Dynaudio much different than Axiom?

 

[GranteedEV]

The difference between the RBH/Dynaudio's of the world is that they don't use cheap components and cut corners to the degree

Huh? The AH review for $9700 RBH 8300 showed electrolytic caps and iron core inductors. "Oh but it's a 100hz crossover and an air core would be huge to have decently low DCR" is the excuse, for an almost $10,000 speaker.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'm not criticising it either, though, before anyone gets all defensive.

Axiom does and then try to sell it as that there is no sonic difference between the cheap components and more expensive components.

Maybe there... isn't? Maybe those differences are

A) Something that doesn't show up in typical listening SPLS
B) Something isn't audible has more to do with longetivity
C) Something people only think they hear when they know what they're listening to.
D) One that might be audible, with significantly superior drivers, in a significantly more expensive loudspeaker altogether

As you step into the higher tiered RBH speakers, for instance, you get more quality components vs the lower tiered. And there is clearly a sonic difference.

Is there? One you can identify with a blindfold on? The difference between an electrolytic cap and a poly cap can be heard instantly "clearly"?

As there should be since you are paying for that quality. If cheap components sounded the same as more expensive components, most of these speaker companies would be out of business, and we would all be listening much cheaper speakers.

So costing more is now directly correlated to sounding better? I'm not saying that high end speakers shouldn't have high end parts, but that doesn't mean those parts are audibly superior. Gene himself admitted he couldn't hear the difference between air cores and iron cores when subjected to the comparision, by axiom. Yet you say "there is clearly a sonic difference".

Clearly a sonic difference, implies "clearly a sonic difference".

Not "maybe a sonic difference" or "there is merit to it for normally inaudible reasons" or "They have to show people influenced by bias that they use better parts like Mundorf caps (B&W)".

 

[DS-21]

I meant they are cheap with regards to engineering choices. Though in all fairness, you might see most of the same cost cutting maneuvres at these price points from reputable companies like KEF.

In fact it's funny. Recently one of the most raved about speakers has been the KEF Q900.

Here's a list of bad things it does

- Giant 8" aluminum cone breaks up measurably in frequency response 4khz - 8khz - no notch filter in sight
- Sub-par box construction
- 2.5 way design despite coaxial driver which would prefer a high pass filter
- Iron core inductors, electrolytic caps, etc

Yet this board's conclusion is that KEF is awesome and Axiom sucks. I'm not saying the speakers are equal, but they're not on different tiers either

You can't seriously think this:

Is reasonably on the same "tier" as something with two dome tweeters spaced 4" apart.

As for your other comments, I suggest you listen before you condemn the KEF for measured cone-breakup. (Though I would also be interested in hearing them in the same room as two or three of my Tannoy System 8 NFM II's, which have a poly cone 8" Dual Concentric drivers that roll off smoothly even without the crossover.)

Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong with going 2.5-way as opposed to 3-way. And the way they do it, with the midrange loaded with a PR, markedly reduces cone motion for the coax.

As for the cabinet...can't say it necessarily is sonically deleterious, but speaking charitably, fit-and-finish and general perceived quality is definitely on the low side. IMO, that's a fair compromise when one's basically getting $5k of drivers and crossover engineering for $2k MSRP.

Lots of top-tier speakers have used iron-core inductors and electrolytic caps, including the NHT 3.3 and Dunlavy SC-VI.

 

[GranteedEV]

You can't seriously think this: Is reasonably on the same "tier" as something with two dome tweeters spaced 4" apart.

No, but my point is that both companies have engineering that cuts corners but focuses on their design goals.

If you're intertested here are the inferior horizontal polars of the M80 - 0 / 15 / 30 / 45 / 60 / 75

So it's really no comparision. Not even close that the KEF is a better loudspeaker in the two most meaningful parameters (frequency response and wide angle off-axis response). But in terms of build quality they :are: mostly in the same tier, except for the drivers.

Actually, even KEF's Reference 201/2 was shown to use cheapo crossover components.

As for your other comments, I suggest you listen before you condemn the KEF for measured cone-breakup.

I didn't condemn it. I said it was a design decision they made to hit a price point, not unlike Axiom which is criticized for this exact thing.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong with going 2.5-way as opposed to 3-way. And the way they do it, with the midrange loaded with a PR, markedly reduces cone motion for the coax.

And repeat

As for the cabinet...can't say it necessarily is sonically deleterious, but speaking charitably, fit-and-finish and general perceived quality is definitely on the low side.

and repeat

IMO, that's a fair compromise when one's basically getting $5k of drivers and crossover engineering for $2k MSRP.

Like I said, the KEF uses better drivers, has better polars, I definitely think so. the Q900 mid probably has a shorting ring or two as well.

But the other design decisions that Axiom is made extreme fun of, are not really as "unusual" as they're made out to be.

Lots of top-tier speakers have used iron-core inductors and electrolytic caps, including the NHT 3.3 and Dunlavy SC-VI.

But that's the knock on Axiom.

 

[ack_bak]

Aren't the price points of RBH/Dynaudio much different than Axiom?

Not once you step into the $2K+ price range. Some great offerings from Dynaudio and RBH in the $3K + range.

As an example of an RBH speaker with multiple drivers:
RBH Sound SX-6300/R Tower Speaker Build Quality — Reviews and News from Audioholics

 

[GranteedEV]

Not once you step into the $2K+ price range. Some great offerings from Dynaudio and RBH in the $3K + range.

As an example of an RBH speaker with multiple drivers:
RBH Sound SX-6300/R Tower Speaker Build Quality — Reviews and News from Audioholics

...You mean the speaker with a 5-7db midbass hump?

Sounds pretty white van to me.

 

[adwilk]

Not once you step into the $2K+ price range. Some great offerings from Dynaudio and RBH in the $3K + range.

As an example of an RBH speaker with multiple drivers:
RBH Sound SX-6300/R Tower Speaker Build Quality — Reviews and News from Audioholics

Well.. wait a minute..

You're comparing a $1450 a pair speaker to a 3k plus a pair speaker... Thats DOUBLE the money!!!

Thats like comparing a Ford Focus* to a 5 series... What do you expect?

*Sorry Again, Alex

 

[ack_bak]

Well.. wait a minute..

You're comparing a $1450 a pair speaker to a 3k plus a pair speaker... Thats DOUBLE the money!!!

Thats like comparing a Ford Focus* to a 5 series... What do you expect?

*Sorry Again, Alex

I am comparing those speakers to the Axiom M80. Which will cost just under $4k in base configuration.

 

[adwilk]

The M80's are 1440 bucks...

 

[ack_bak]

Huh? The AH review for $9700 RBH 8300 showed electrolytic caps and iron core inductors. "Oh but it's a 100hz crossover and an air core would be huge to have decently low DCR" is the excuse, for an almost $10,000 speaker.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'm not criticising it either, though, before anyone gets all defensive.



Maybe there... isn't? Maybe those differences are

A) Something that doesn't show up in typical listening SPLS
B) Something isn't audible has more to do with longetivity
C) Something people only think they hear when they know what they're listening to.
D) One that might be audible, with significantly superior drivers, in a significantly more expensive loudspeaker altogether



Is there? One you can identify with a blindfold on? The difference between an electrolytic cap and a poly cap can be heard instantly "clearly"?





So costing more is now directly correlated to sounding better? I'm not saying that high end speakers shouldn't have high end parts, but that doesn't mean those parts are audibly superior. Gene himself admitted he couldn't hear the difference between air cores and iron cores when subjected to the comparision, by axiom. Yet you say "there is clearly a sonic difference".

Clearly a sonic difference, implies "clearly a sonic difference".

Not "maybe a sonic difference" or "there is merit to it for normally inaudible reasons" or "They have to show people influenced by bias that they use better parts like Mundorf caps (B&W)".

I am referring to Axiom putting the same drivers, tweeters, etc in their cheaper speakers vs the one that cost 2x3 times more. You telling me RBH uses the same drivers and tweeters in their lower tiered spearkers as they do vs their higher end speakers? This was the point that was made earlier in the thread. And then on one hand we have Axiom stating there is no sonic difference between their cast baskets and their die cast baskets, but they will go ahead and sell them to customers anyway? You don't find that odd?

I have had the pleasure of touring the RBH headquarters in Layton Utah and spending time talking to some of their engineers and listening to a wide variety of their spearkers. And yes, as you step up from the lower tier of their speakers to their higher tier of spearkers there were sonic differences between them. You don't need a blindfold to hear the difference. I am under no illusion that if RBH replaced the more expensive components with their cheaper components from the lower tiered line that they would sound the same. The same goes for companies like Triad, Dynaudio, etc. I don't believe that the Triad Bronze speakers would sound as good or better than the Triad Gold or Platinum series if you just doubled the number of drivers and tweeters.

Per Skiing Ninja, he was approached by Axiom owners to see if he could customize some of their speakers to improve their sound. Specifically the M22, M80, and VP150. Danny Ritchie measured the speakers and it was determined there was nothing that could be done to resolve the issues with the flawed designs of the M80 and VP150, as it would not make sense.

We are talking about flawed designs. I can't speak to the current version of the M80 speaekers, but the VP150 is still a flawed design for off axis listening. We have the measurements, but feel free to actually listen to it for yourself and judge firsthand. I have listened to the M80 and the VP150. I did not find the M80 to sound "bad" per say, but it would not be on my short list. In fact the PSB Image T6 speaker I listened to and the KEF speaker I listened to that were at similar price points sounded noticeably better to me. The VP150 was a mess off axis, and frankly, was not very good even in the sweet spot. Cannot speak to the VP180 but the design is closer to the flawed VP150 design than it is the VP160, which is a more proven traditional design. Another finding in that thread was that the M80 (and I assume all Axiom cabinets) was that Axiom did not use enough bracing in the M80 cabinet to which Axiom stated that was by design and a less braced/stiff cabinet was preferred vs a more braced/stiff cabinet. I am sure a double blind test will verify this to be correct, no?

Which flies in the face of this:
"I would hope its clear to the reader that the stiffer the cabinet is, the better and that using the least amount of bracing to lower cabinet resonance is pure hogwash based on poor understanding of the subject matter and/or a deliberate attempt to justify cost reducing a product. The end result of a poorly braced cabinet, especially a subwoofer, is a boomy, hollow and colored sound in the bass."

Which came from a recent article here at AVS regarding myths about cabinet bracing. I tend to agree with the article (the math is a little over my head) as it just seems to make sense.



But hey, you seem like a perfect candidate for these new Axiom spearkers. Buy them and run some double blind tests and tell us how they compare to speakers that cost three times the price

 

[ack_bak]

The M80's are 1440 bucks...

Sorry, meant these new M100's. It is late and I am typing on an iPad

 

[ack_bak]

...You mean the speaker with a 5-7db midbass hump?

Sounds pretty white van to me.

Wow. Very mature..

 

[3db]

Expensive speakers doesn't necessarily equate to quality. If you take a look at the garbage coming out of Wilson Audio or Vienna Acoustic.. their frequency response is analogous to a ski hill filled with moguls. Combine that with their absurd asking price ...

I'd rather the Axioms knowing where they cut corners than buy anything from Wilson or Vienna Acoustics. The funny thing, even with their short cuts, tehe Axioms will out perform the Wilson and the Vienna Acoustics in frequency response uniformity an linearity.

Is Axiom the last word in speakers? Hell no. Can you buy better in their price range? I think so. Do they deserve the bashing thats going on in this thread? I don't think so. They are much better than the Wilsons and the Vienna Acoustics of this world by a country mile.