Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Home Theater Starting to oggle new gear

I agree that break in is needed. My LFRs are still stretching their legs and I’ve played about 20 hours of music and movies so far. I would also recommend changing the dsp through the near and far settings. Where I don’t have any walls up yet I have found the imaging to be a lot better on “far 2” setting.

I appreciate the note, but unfortunately i do not subscribe to the belief of speaker break in. Axiom tests each speaker before it goes out the door in a few ways and i recall Ian saying to me during my first factory tour that any break in would occur in the first few seconds of a driver oscillating at thousands of reps. That aside, the character i'm hearing with the new M60 (v4) is the same character i hear with the LFR880. The LFR were refurbs and as such, long broken in by anyone's standards.

Now i do believe that this character difference stems from the crossover and driver changes they've made over time. My M60s are Ti which were followed by v2, v3 and v4 (not all revisions had major hardware changes though). Axiom speakers long had a reputation for being bright to the point of harsh, edgy which people ascribed to its metal drivers and tweeter (because metal should sound harsh and tinny right? {sigh}). I observed this brightness the first time i ordered them as well and waited it out a few weeks listening to let myself adapt to the new sound (my old reference was a Panasonic built Technics system that had a 3-way driver bookshelf). I had still found the highs to be too high and at the time Axiom would provide people with a resistor you could connect inline to the tweeter to reduce its output by a couple of dB. Ultimately bright recordings were still hard on the ears at 'reference' SPL and i know they were working on taming some of this. I would say they accomplished that, but almost too much?

I came across an article online that defines my thought on recessed midrange and vocals vs. a more forward, perhaps bright, speaker.
https://audioaural.com/should-treble-be-higher-than-bass-the-3-reasons-why-you-should/
Reasons 2, 3 and 4 are exactly my thoughts. If the upper midrange and vocals get muddied because they are not prominent enough, they get lost in the music.
I remember hearing Oasis for the first time on the Axiom system and at the time, compression of songs was a big thing. The music was so loud in comparison to the vocals that the result was what one can describe as distortion. There's just some Oasis songs i cannot listen to much at all. BrenR once explained this many moons ago in a manner that was easily understandable and i don't really recall anymore (paraphrasing).

Anyway, I have a stereophile friend coming over today to give a listen. Also had the wife listen to each comparison as well. I'll post something specifically on these trials at some point once all the notes are done. They won't be pages upon pages of details on microdynamic idiosyncrasies though. I'm generally listening for
-bass (things like tightness, boomy/accuracy),
-midrange (accuracy/details, clarity/muddy),
-upper and vocals (clarity, harshness),
-soundstage (depth, wideness, rich/thin).

The hard part about comparing is that the reference sound changes each time. One can compare M60 to a Tannoy, but then compare the ADS to the LFR and you cannot relate that to the M60/Tannoy test until you pit the M60 vs the LFR, etc. Without a standardized scoring system, one could not easily go back and state "yes the M60 has the lowest bass score, the LFR has the highest midrange clarity" etc. rather than "the M60 has more bass than the ADS, but the M60 has less bass than the Tannoy" and make the assumption that the ADS therefore would have less bass than the Tannoy, but until you compare the two directly, it isn't always that cut and dried.

One thing i should add though, the new Axiom wood veneer finish looks fantastic and is our preference over the vinyl wrap. We got many compliments in the past on the vinyl wrap. People didn't know they were not wood. However, the real wood just looks authentic when put side by side. The vinyl wrap Boston Cherry almost looks a bit brown orange in comparison though the vinyl could be changing a bit over time especially with any light exposure.

IMO the semi-gloss should be the standard finish going out the door!
It just makes the finish and colours so much richer, just makes the colour absolutely pop compared to the matte/satin finish!

Agreed on the finishes. Look great! In a theater satin is the way to go for reflection control. I went with high gloss in my 2ch room. Nice looking for sure.

Here is an article you may find interesting regarding response preferences. It is on my list to read fully. I admit I cherry picked info and mean to get back to it….

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17839

I found the satin to have about the same amount of reflection as the semi gloss. I could see how a full gloss would be more reflective though as that's what we have on our main floor media cabinet. It isn't as distracting as it might be on a pair of speakers especially since we have a large picture window opposite the speaker wall. The semi gloss really is the sweet spot. The difference with the satin finish for its overall "pop" was astounding. IMO it really makes it looks even more professional a finish.


Actually that is interesting. I looked through the relevant sections as well. Cherry picking the relevant sections is really all you need unless there is other info that is a must to understand the whole document, but in this case, pieces of various info are pooled together more as a discussion on the whole topic as listed by the title. I don't need to read the section on sound fields in a specific room to understand the section on listener preferences in a home theatre.

As written by Dr. Toole in the reference you provided (J. Audio Eng. Soc., Vol. 63, No. 7/8, 2015 July/August); highlights/underlines added for emphasis:

Some Evidence of Listener Preferences in Home Theaters
Over the years a few investigators have attempted to identify advantageous room curve targets for small rooms. However the studies that the author is aware of have been compromised by a lack of adequate loudspeaker measurements and/or information about the room acoustics. No double blind listening tests appear to have been done so there are no trustworthy subjective evaluations. Consequently, the resulting targets can be challenged.

Research by Olive et al. [48] was distinctive in that the loudspeaker used was anechoically characterized, the room described [49], and high-resolution room curves measured. In the double-blind tests, listeners made bass and treble balance adjustments to a loudspeaker that had been equalized to a flat smooth steady-state room curve. The loudspeaker had previously received high ratings in independent double blind comparison tests, without equalization. Three tests were done, with the bass or treble adjusted separately with the other parameter randomly fixed, and a test in which both controls were available, starting from random settings. It
was a classic method-of-adjustment experiment. For each program selection, listeners made adjustments to yield the most preferred result.

In Fig. 14 the author has modified the original data to
separately show the result of evaluations by trained and untrained listeners. This is compared to the small room prediction from Fig. 13(a). The “all listeners” average curve is close to the predicted target, except at low frequencies where it is apparent that the strongly expressed preferences of inexperienced listeners significantly elevated the average curve. In fact, the target variations at both ends of the spectrum are substantial, with untrained listeners simply choosing “more of everything.” An unanswered question is whether this was related to overall loudness—more research is needed. However, most of us have seen evidence of such more-bass, more-treble listener preferences in the “as found” tone control settings in numerous rental and loaner cars.

More data would be enlightening, but this amount is sufficient to indicate that a single target curve is not likely to satisfy all listeners. Add to this the program variations created by the “circle of confusion” and there is a strong argument for incorporating easily accessible bass and treble tone controls in playback equipment. The first task for such controls would be to allow users to optimize the spectral balance of their loudspeakers in their rooms, and, on an ongoing basis, to compensate for spectral imbalances as they appear in movies and music.

The attenuated high frequencies preferred by the trained listeners stands in contrast to the preferences exhibited by those same listeners in numerous double-blind multiple-comparison loudspeaker evaluations. In those tests, it is the flat on-axis loudspeakers that are most highly rated... Is this a consequence of the different experimental methods: the different listener tasks?...Is a subtle but important difference awaiting an explanation.

A significant observation is that the results indicate a general preference for a steady-state spectrum that rises toward the low frequencies.

=====================================
All the highlighted points indicate that there is user preference in two primary ways; more bass and more treble. Most untrained listeners prefer more bass or "more of everything" yet trained listeners preferred an attenuated high end which was opposite the results of the blind tests of speaker evaluations where the flat curve came out as preferred.

I don't like heavy bass, but i do like the clarity of a bit of treble. As far as i know, i don't have any hearing damage and at least when i was younger, i could hear tones of 15kHz+ during my hearing tests. I don't like the harsh brightness of some speakers, sounds, song mixes, but i suspect i would be a person to want the tone controls to turn up the treble with some speakers a touch.

I’ve always had a preference for highs over lows. Bass needs to be balanced and not overwhelming. I love the sharp crisp sound of a hi-hat.

Still working on some sound testing.
All the frequency sweeps for the main floor and media room are done (see speaker comparison threads). Now moving to the media room for the remainder of sound comparisons. Will be bringing the LFR880 down there just to see what it sounds like but with the new surrounds and larger centre channel, the middle and backside sound are so filled in, i don't think the LFR would add much.

Still trying to determine if we'll keep the Ti versions over the V4. Was playing around with the Denon EQ settings for the V4s to see if i could boost the vocal clarity a bit. Had to wait though until a new driver came in to replace a faulty one on the VP180. Been 9 days without a working driver so i've lost time. Might need a small extension on the 30 day trial because of it.

Finally got the new replacement driver Friday. Have been testing sound mostly today.
Tried some movie clips, listening for dialogue, background noises. Used the V4 with and without some EQ settings for L/R and C via the Denon. I upped 4 frequency categories by 1-2dB or 0.5 dB and then turned the EQ on and off while listening to movies or music (in DD sound). I definitely like the enhanced EQ for most things. Some songs and movie passages it seemed to have little effect/difference unless i really cranked up the EQ.
So, knowing that either with the EQ or with the Audyssey curve, i can adjust the 'treble' a bit to tweak the V4 sound, i think i'll keep the V4s. The bigger centre channel makes a real difference and i need to have that blend with the mains.

The only drawback with all this is no longer listening to music in pure direct mode which turns off all EQ and plays only through the mains. I would have to settle with the more recessed sound in using that mode. However, this system is primarily HT and i rarely sit down there to listen to music anymore. That typically happens on the main floor or in my office. All that being said, i have enough space in the media room to get a second set of mains that i do prefer for music and i could just leave the speaker switcher hooked up to switch between the Axioms and whatever else i get.
It's a thought, possible option.

As for the new EP500 sub though, just wow. Massive improvement over the EP350. Some people might say the EP350 sounds like it has tighter bass but really, it is anemic compared to the EP500 which FINALLY makes the media room rumble! It presently is taking up everything below 50Hz and i can hear low notes that i definitely never heard before. I'm tempted to put the EP350 in the opposite corner to test out a two sub setup, but they are so different, i'm not sure it's worth even bothering.

Aside from the V4 tonal sound difference, the new VP180 is a huge improvement over the VP150. It just literally sounds bigger; more bass, more vocal output, wider soundstage. It only makes sense that the centre channel be just as big as the mains when it carries so much of the sound in Dolby Digital surround modes.

The new QS10s are big. Did i need them?
Probably not.
I think QS8s would have been just fine for the room size but they don't overpower the two QS8s and provides slightly more cued sounds to the sides. It was definitely a good idea though to keep QS8s for the back surrounds considering the limited space behind the lounges and proximity to the seated position. They needed to be smaller and subtle. In testing out the best locations, so far the DD suggested setup of 130-150 degrees from behind the seated position to the outside walls (https://www.dolby.com/about/support/guide/speaker-setup-guides/7.1-virtual-speakers-setup-guide/) sounds the most seamless with the QS10s positioned (above ear level about 1 foot) 90 degrees to the sides of the seated positions. I did try moving them inward as far as i could go with the limited cable lengths which brought the QS8s to just about above the listener head (didn't have enough cable to put them more to the centre but this would have also brought them within 2-3 feet of each other). They became more localized in these positions and rather pulled the surround sound away from the sides and rears to too much strongly just in the rear. It just didn't mesh as smoothly with the side surrounds. Thankfully the multi directional design helps to alleviate any strong directional sound.

I have yet to finish the setup to get all speakers dialed in for final level matching and Audyssey sweeps. After the sweeps are done i will test out the on and off preference here and as well, tweak the EQ setup or Audyssey curve to preference.

Last step is to test out the LFR880 against the M60 V4 in the media room just to hear the LFR effect in that room. Will happen sometime this week.
Listened to the LFR880 again this morning on the main floor vs. the ADS and the Tannoys. Interestingly, the Tannoys have the best balance of the three and if pushed to keep only one speaker, that would be the choice. The LFR effect is very tempting though. We like what it does.

So in reply to my own post, i had that second listen to the LFR880s in the media room and compared to the old M60 Ti or the newer M60 V4, it's just better. Thoughts on the comparison can be found here:
https://www.axiomaudio.com/boards/u...arison-m60ti-vs-m60v4-lfr880s#Post444160

Finally the gear oggling is coming to an end.
New 4k TV? Check
New 4k compatible AVR? Check
Added rear surrounds? Check
New bigger centre? Check
Match new speaker additions or keep some old versions? Matching will be possible.

The one surprise is choosing to add the LFR880s to the media room (if anything we figured maybe getting the 660s because of the room size, but i suspect the tonal character of the M80/880s is more equivalent than the M60/660s which is a better sound IMO so room size be damned, the 880s sound better). Consequently, i now need to sell the Anthem MCA30 and find a used 5-channel amp to drive the 4 channels needed for the LFR and the centre VP180 (the AVR will power the 4 surrounds).

The only remaining future addition might be a second sub but right now, the EP500 energizes the room way better than the old EP350 so aside from smoothing out that sound, i'm very pleased with the new sub performance. It can definitely rock that room.

Aside from a short update on a final amp swap, this thread is finally nearing a close.