 Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 556
aficionado
|
aficionado
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 556 |
Dr. Toole's research showed that overall all people, trained or otherwise, consistantly preferred the speakers with the flattest overall response. This is something that Alan has confirmed.
I completely agree with your statement . However , what this has anything to do w/ the 'better components, better sound' claim?
The sailor does not pray for wind, he learns to sail. --Lindborg
|
|
|
Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,116 |
It seems many here are very loyal to Axiom's objective philosphy of establishing the connection between technical measurements and real listeners’ impressions of the products in double blind testing. For the most part this message board is very objective.
I think the majority of us would be singing a different tune (maybe even a few of us would have purchased them), if Ninja would have established any sort of connection with Axiom. Either getting the "o.k" with Axiom during R&D phase of the crossover, creating some sort of partnership (being able to advertise M22 crossover) on their website, or even sending the crossover for measurements and DB testing.
Considering the fact Ninja is profiting off using the design/r&d of the M22 loudspeaker, I thought it was strange about the whole patent thing. Anyways, I think one of the above would have helped market his product better.
Last edited by Dr.House; 11/14/08 07:31 PM.
I’m armed and I’m drinking. You don’t want to listen to advice from me, amigo.
-Max Payne
|
|
|
Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441
shareholder in the making
|
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 16,441 |
Shaka, when the walls fell... 
|
|
|
Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,420
shareholder in the making
|
|
OP
shareholder in the making
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,420 |
...However , what this has anything to do w/ the 'better components, better sound' claim?
That is the only part I do agree with, which is why I am still looking into producing a XO with Soniccaps etc., with the same XO point as the stock M22. It has me very intrigued.
Jason
M80 v2
VP160 v3
QS8 v2
PB13 Ultra
Denon 3808
Samsung 85" Q70
|
|
|
Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569
connoisseur
|
|
connoisseur
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,569 |
Shaka, when the walls fell... Sokath, his eyes opened... 
3M80 2M22 6QS8 2M2 1EP500 Sony BDP-S590 Panny-7000 Onkyo-3007 Carada-134 Xbox Buttkicker AS-EQ1
|
|
|
Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786
axiomite
|
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786 |
[quote=JaimeG] However , what this has anything to do w/ the 'better components, better sound' claim? Absolutely nothing. I was referring to the two posts above that one. I should have quoted the relevant lines.
Fred
-------
Blujays1: Spending Fred's money one bottle at a time, no two... Oh crap!
|
|
|
Re: M22 Ninja Master Crossover review.
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 374
devotee
|
|
devotee
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 374 |
Let Ian borrow your 22's with the added XO, and let's fire up the science.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics25,015
Posts442,893
Members15,663
| |
Most Online6,108
Dec 21st, 2024
|
|
|
0 members (),
1,209
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
