Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Stereo Amps for M50's

...But you see, I do believe components do bring their own sound to the party. I Purchased Athena AS-F2s and used them with a Yamaha RX-595 ($550 when new) receiver which produced shrill highs and thin overall sound. I then replaced it with a NAD 370 and the sound was immediately warm, balanced and full. I've heard the difference and I believe it.

No argument with that... I believe in "thin" sounding amps but don't really believe in "bright" sounding amps. I have heard "thin" before but I normally associate that with an underpowered (ie not enough power supply, not necessarily low power rating) amplifier.

In other words I agree that components can bring a "bad" sound to the party but I don't ever remember hearing different kinds of "good" sounds from amplifiers (tube amps notwithstanding -- they DO have their own sound).

Here's the thing -- the M50s "lack of brightess" (whatever we want to call it) is a slight drop in off-axis response around the crossover region (2-5 KHz). That's not the kind of thing a "bright" or "not bright" amp is going to compensate for. A thin amp with weak bass is just going to give you dips in bass AND midrange, not correct for a slight midrange dip.

Hey, while I'm here maybe I can answer the AV receiver question.

Simple-In my case it was a no-brainer!

I had an Onkyo before and it worked quite well with no problems for quite a few years....so....Just got a bigger one to go with the bigger speakers in a larger room...simple answer!

Why did I get the first Onkyo? It was a no-brainer. I had an Onkyo stereo receiver before and it worked quite well....

Why did I get the very first Onkyo? I dunno, just got up one day, put on my Leisure Suit and went shopping...The rest, as they say,...is long forgotten.

Do I like my Onkyos'? Yeah! My 602 is doing a good job and has most if not all of the features I need-is it bright or warm-I dunno, how can you tell? (I think I used to have a "Matching" set of parameters once, but that was back in the "Tube" days}

And because of that off axis drop at the crossover the difference is such that the M60 is actually the smoother (better?) speaker here. (I am very much struggling between the two more so than choosing an amp.) The midrange driver smooths it all out. But, Because the midrange driver is covering a relatively large and critical area of the sound spectrum, can it by it's size pack a punch for rock music. In the M50s, two sixes push that air. Of course, a 6" can't accelerate as fast as a 5" (all things being equal) that's why there is a loss of detail too.

In reply to:

---

No argument with that... I believe in "thin" sounding amps but don't really believe in "bright" sounding amps. I have heard "thin" before but I normally associate that with an underpowered (ie not enough power supply, not necessarily low power rating) amplifier.

In other words I agree that components can bring a "bad" sound to the party but I don't ever remember hearing different kinds of "good" sounds from amplifiers (tube amps notwithstanding -- they DO have their own sound).

---

I agree with that Bridgman, 100%.
(A rare occasion i say such a thing no?).
Of all the amps i've heard so far (or receivers), power seems to be the only real difference maker and to second that, many low budget, crappy made HTIB receivers just don't have any mustard.
No wonder so many go from smallish, all in one systems to something more dedicated and are so amazed (referring to several friends who bit the bullet and put a bit more money into their home systems). You just can't make a good amp with plastic parts. Something about electrical conductivity i think, but i could be in error.

MERKABA...So you like your NAD & M60ti combination...

Yes. I have no complaints at all, especially for the price of the 320. Now, having more power would not hurt, but I guess that's just the testosterone speaking as I've never had the thing past half throttle.

NAD amps have a tendency to sound a lot bigger than the ratings suggest, as I'm sure many of you know. Yay NAD, haha.

Hi Twebbz;

You're the first one to hear a new update on M50s.

I finally got the chance, today, to actually listen to MUSIC on my new M50s, in my accoustically challenged listening room. No wife, OR kids around!!! I could even reposition my favorite chair!

I was able to pull my speakers out from their cabinets to give them some breathing room, and with a bit of positioning, and scattering of pillows and throw rugs in places you don't normally see them, they delivered an outstanding soundstage plus excellent imaging(really!)Maybe still not as good as in my previous house, but for this room, Wow!! But that's not the best part!

Now for midrange: I did some things in my Onkyo receiver (that some folks would frown at) but which makes breaking glass sound more like breaking glass, gives horns more of an edge, and like that. And, something I've never heard anyone say before: And this is significant.

On a couple of pieces on a couple of CDs, (This IS exciting!) They sounded possitively "Bright"!!! Almost to the point of "Ear Fatigue"!! Gads! It was almost painfull!!

You heard it here first.
Rich.

>>But, Because the midrange driver is covering a relatively large and critical area of the sound spectrum, can it by it's size pack a punch for rock music. In the M50s, two sixes push that air. Of course, a 6" can't accelerate as fast as a 5" (all things being equal) that's why there is a loss of detail too.

This is one of those simple questions with complicated answers. Yes the 5" midrange on a 60 covers a fairly wide range (~200 to ~3000 hz IIRC) but it doesn't have to cover the bass where most of the air moving has to happen.

Strictly speaking the M60 is "better" in the sense that it is more accurate in the midrange and (probably) can sound a bit cleaner at high volumes because the midrange driver isn't waggling around playing bass notes at the same time, but on the other hand most rock albums seem to be mixed for speakers with a similar midrange dip so you could make a valid argument that 50s are more accurate for many modern rock recordings BECAUSE those recordings are mixed a little "hot" in the midrange.

In other words, technically speaking the 60 *is* a better rock speaker than the 50 but because it is also better than the speakers modern music is often mixed for you might find some recordings to be too bright on the 60s and better on the 50s. It's never simple.

The jazz and classical worlds seem to be a bit more refined and generally mix for good speakers all the time so the 50 vs. 60 comparison is easier -- the 60 is slightly better (flatter, more accurate, more clear, all of the above) in the midrange than the 50.

My understanding is that the difference from 50 to 60 is fairly small. I compared M2 to M3 and was really surprised how subtle the midrange differences were -- and the M50 to M60 difference is supposed to be even less.

Yea, considering everything (Brent @ Axiom sent me a M50 freq response curve.) and the $200 jump to the M60ti, I think I'll still go with the 50s. I have a NAD 370 with Athena AS-F2s in the living room. They have a one inch dome and two eight inch poly woofers. There is great punch and surprising detail with the two eights delivering all that is south of 2kHz. So, I'm hoping that the M50s will be in the same genre. I'll team them up with a Rotel RX-1052.

Thank you for your very informative responses!