Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Just Ordered LFR660s!

This generally echoes a few opinions of the LFRs including my own.
The quality isn't better, but the soundstage is changed, very wide off axis, and almost a surround effect but not less precise for instruments up front. It helps the speakers disappear more though i could see how some people might also perceive this sound as too diverse and consequently loss of detail/accuracy. I've heard dipoles upfront before and they fit that description, but i didn't find that when i heard the LFRs.

Just a general thought ... on listening and the time it takes to get LFRs setup right (I can only speak for the actives)

It took a bit of time getting my active LFR's setup. Had to play around quite a bit to get the stage right while maximizing the width of the sweet spot. With the actives it's even more work as the 7 position boundary compensation adds an extra variable. To zero that in you end up trying to get the best setup for a few of compensation positions and then trying to remember which was better (I have to take notes and mark the positions). BTW, I found it harder on the long wall then the short in my room.

It's fairly easy, especially if the compensation is not set right, to get sound every where without a great image or an image with fuzzy detail or a good image with a small sweet spot. So one needs to wonder if someone tells you that the sound was "too diverse" or " loss of detail/accuracy" did they take the time?

Oh, one more thing ...
I can't speak for the passive LFRs ... but the quality of sound on the actives was a noticeable step up.

Like Rich said, you have to invest the time to set them up properly. That's the case with the vast majority of speakers. I don't know about the passive LFRs either but I can vouch for the transparency, imaging and soundstage of the actives. The sound with the actives isn't "coloured" either like it is with the M100, M5, etc. Those are wonderful-sounding speakers but sorry - compared to the actives - they are colored.

The room matters too. Cork tried but Jritz got better results. Maybe jritz's room is bigger, more evenly balanced across the reflecting surfaces, etc. Also maybe jritz just values soundstage and imaging more than other aspects.

I can also vouch for not using a centre. I've done a lot of testing and there is no doubt - zero - that actives with no centre for movie watching is far more accurate than with centre at the MLP. Dialogue to the left and right of centre collapses to the center with a center speaker. Not so with the actives and it is quite uncanny frankly. Also the imaging is far more natural-sounding - like you're listening to a real person rather than a more localized voice. Once you hear both of these qualities, you can't go back. I couldn't achieve this with any other speaker.

BTW, I look at how the passive LFRs were set up in Axiom's demo room and I know they weren't set up properly. So Chess, what you heard was likely crap. I think you just need to do yourself a solid and stop torturing yourself and try them in your space. If you don't like them, punt them back to Axiom.

On the center:

If your seating in the theater is inside the LFR's wider sweet spot then I'll 2nd Mojo's recommendation,

Unfortunately, most of our home theaters are designed for more than two or three seats.

In my case the virtual center was good for 3 max. When I tried 4 seats the image was marginal at best. Some material seemed center, when sitting at the far seats, and other material sounded fuzzy .., or even flipping from centered ok to fuzzy/center to fuzzy/side depending. It was a bit tiring as it took a mental toll as you were trying to keep the sound centered.

A real center would anchor the sound at the center for all seats ... even those far out of the sweat-spot. Because of this ...I will have a center.

To take it a bit further:
The same applies for the surround speakers. It's the reason we want move up .. 7.1, 9.1, 11.1 ... 22.1?
So, everyone in the room will hear a sound coming from the same place ... in other words we are relying less on imaging and more on point sources.

Yup. I am so done with worrying about anything else than MLP. And that's why 4.9 is good enough for me.

Is that the "Mojo first" campaign?

I'm going to run for the hills if you start passing out "Make Mojo Great Again" buttons

Hmmm...well...let's see now. Like most of you males out there, I was the one who worked to pay for my system. I slaved to tune it. If you have kids, they're likely audio troglodytes who think ear buds are God's gift to their entertainment. As for spouses, yoga, hair and finger nails are all more important than pornosonics. Friends may appreciate good sound, so you may want to share the MLP when they're over. I posit therefore, the MLP and those who slaved to optimize it - that's us - is all that matters. Therefore, we all need "me first" buttons.

Thanks for your thoughts on the differences Jritz. The discussions make sense and helps explain why I like the M80s more: I'm definitely plopped at MLP for the duration of listening, am not using a a sub, and did not spend much time mucking with placement (because I didn't have a lot of options anyway; although I did futz with wall separation and the DSP wall boundary button a bit).
I have M5s in two other rooms, both with a sub and I think the M80s are more precise; but that may be due to the M80s being in a more open room (both subs are Hsu, so at least not bad).

All-in-all, it's good to have options!

Just read thru this. This is a good thread. Anymore reviews jritz having had them a while longer now?