Axiom M80 V3 with My Bryston System - 'I cannot believe that this happened'

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 63122 times.

vegasdave

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4039
    • My online rock magazine-Crypt Magazine
I find that many neutral systems behave that way.

I agree.

DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
I've decided to buy Axiom's DSP which is scheduled to be shipped next month. It will be designed to work with the M80 V3 to make it even more neutral. Axiom says it will produce a noticeable difference, but not a dramatic one. However, I'm told that what will be most noticeable will be more bass extension. That says something because it's very good now.

Dave

Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
I've decided to buy Axiom's DSP which is scheduled to be shipped next month. It will be designed to work with the M80 V3 to make it even more neutral. Axiom says it will produce a noticeable difference, but not a dramatic one. However, I'm told that what will be most noticeable will be more bass extension. That says something because it's very good now.

Dave

What exactly is their DSP doing? Is it an active cross-over that would allow you to activate Axiom speakers?
If not, I would not expect dramatic improvement indeed. If you want one consider activating your speakers, including PMCs.

DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
What exactly is their DSP doing? Is it an active cross-over that would allow you to activate Axiom speakers?
If not, I would not expect dramatic improvement indeed. If you want one consider activating your speakers, including PMCs.

Sasha: These are really good questions. In fact, it took me a couple of days of talking to Axiom to understand it. It was not their fault, but mine because I'm almost completely clueless when it comes to the technical part of this hobby.

Anyway, this is how I understand it, in terms of my own system:

I will be receiving an analog signal into my Harman Kardon 3490 receiver, usually from the analog out of my BDA-1 DAC. The DSP will be looped to my HK; that is, I will connect the pre-out of the HK to the input of the DSP. Then the DSP, which has two converters, will convert the analog signal to digital, then process that digital signal, then with its second converter, convert the digital to an analog signal. The DSP's processed signal goes back to the HK's main amp in connections and out to the speakers via the connections I already have. I was concerned that this might in effect negate the benefit of using my BDA given that all DACs are different. However, Axiom before doing anything else has tested the AD and DA elements of the DSP, and has assured itself that these to not change the analog signal at all.

But it is the processing part of the DSP that, in fact, does change the analog signal going out. The code, which is written to be speaker specific, is crafted to produce a flatter response than can be achieved by the speakers' passive crossover units. So, for example, the frequency response graph will show variances of + or - 1.5 dB rather than the present 3 dB. But Axiom isn't creating code based on a single graph reading, but rather a number of them, taking into consideration room effects, etc, to create its listening window graph.

I'm sure you're absolutely right about being able to do this via an active model of the PMC speakers. However, this, for me would be going in the wrong direction.

First, this is about a second system, meant originally to be a low cost one in the neighbourhood of $1000. The new HK and the M80 turned that notion into a cocked hat, and now it is a modestly priced system. The DSP will take the total cost even higher. But an active version of my MB2i speakers from PMC, or somehow retrofitted, if that can be done to accept a passive crossover, would be many thousands of dollars. I am, to be sure, nutty when it comes to audio, but not that crazy. Here's a car analogy strictly in terms of price, not performance: I started out to limit myself to a stripped down model of a Ford Focus. I now am into a well-equipped Toyota Camry. Going passive with my MB2is would take me into the Porsche range. And doing that would make no improvement to my second system.

Second, while I don't argue with the merits of active crossovers, I am one of those who really doesn't want the added complexity of an active crossover system. If you're following the topic of James Tanner's new speaker being built with Axiom, I believe he's said somewhere that he's hoping to get the benefits of active passovers without their complexity in terms of ease for users.

So I see the DSP as an improvement in the performance of the M80s at a higher, but not draconian, investment. And there's no doubt about it that buying the DSP is a bet that the cost is worth the noticeable, but not dramatic, improvement. But this would not be the first time I've done that. In fact, buying stuff, not just audio gear, usually is that kind of bet.

And I"ll refer you back to my review. I bought the M80s to get a noticeable, but not necessarily dramtic, improvement. Turns out I got a lot more. I've had that happen to me with several pieces of equipment in recent years: BDA-1, BDP-1, Torus C15, 7BSST2. I'm hoping my string of good luck holds with the DSP. And if it runs out, Axiom has a 30 day return option, which I feel I'm unlikely to use.

BTW, in deciding to pre-order the DSP is something of a testament to Axiom. The number of audio companies in 40 years to have instilled enough confidence in me to have pre-ordered a yet-to-be built product can be counted on a single digit: Bryston.

Dave

sfraser

I am going to have to read up this DSP. It sounds like the signal is still being fed through the original crossover, therefore, the DSP must be acting as a very granular set of tone controls?

Scott

DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
I am going to have to read up this DSP. It sounds like the signal is still being fed through the original crossover, therefore, the DSP must be acting as a very granular set of tone controls?

Scott

As I understand it, Scott, what the M80 crossover receives is a signal already processed by the DSP before it gets to to crossover. But that DSP processed signal, to be sure, is being fed to the M80 passive crossover. So, and I don't know how, I imagine that the code written for the DSP processor function makes alterations in the analog signal being received by the crossove in such a way as to make the output of the M80 flatter.

Axiom is working on an omnidirectional speaker that uses the DSP and they have the following expanation that may help. You will note in the following article that the DSP for the M80 and M60 is mentioned in passing:

http://www.axiomaudio.com/blog/audio-dsp/

Dave
« Last Edit: 20 May 2012, 06:30 pm by DaveNote »

vegasdave

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 4039
    • My online rock magazine-Crypt Magazine
Interesting, let us know how that works out.

Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
However, Axiom before doing anything else has tested the AD and DA elements of the DSP, and has assured itself that these to not change the analog signal at all.
Dave
I cannot believe Axiom would say something like this.
There is no AD/DA conversion in this world that will have no affect on the signal and be transparent. There will be significant loss in resolution and dynamics.
A company that makes such silly statements does not deserve to be on my list of manufacturers potentially making good products.
What you describe is simply a glorified DSP based EQ.
If there was a way to bring digital signal in to avoid additional AD conversion I would consider trying it, otherwise no. There are no fundamental benefits in what you describe, only if it was DSP based cross-over that would allow you to activate your speakers with steep and phase correct crossover points (something that DEQX allows you to do) it would make sense to check it and see if benefits outweigh losses in your application.
Finally, the talk about benefits of active crossovers without their complexity in terms of ease for users is just marketing talk, it has no bearing in real life applications, if you want fundamental improvement in performance it does not come cheap or simple.

PRELUDE

Dave,
This is a nice post you have been started and good luck to you.
I do not have the PMC or the AXIOM in my room that means you know it better then me but I know the drivers used in the PMC and they are not bad drivers at all.
I think you are going to make it more complex with no benefit but it is nice that they have the 30 days return option.
If I were you this is what I would do based on however you have in hand.
I would look for a used or a new 9BSST2 @ 4ch at minimum to use it for mid and tweeter and the 7BSST2 for woofer and a digital active crossover.I would disconnect the passive crossover on both speakers and turn them into the active and listen to both speakers for few months and see which one I like more.Lets say you would like the PMC more then put the passive crossover on AXIOM back and use it as your second system and you wont look for any improvement on your PMC for next 15 years if not more.
This is just my thought and you do not have to go this way at all. :thumb:

DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
I cannot believe Axiom would say something like this.
There is no AD/DA conversion in this world that will have no affect on the signal and be transparent. There will be significant loss in resolution and dynamics.
A company that makes such silly statements does not deserve to be on my list of manufacturers potentially making good products.
What you describe is simply a glorified DSP based EQ.
If there was a way to bring digital signal in to avoid additional AD conversion I would consider trying it, otherwise no. There are no fundamental benefits in what you describe, only if it was DSP based cross-over that would allow you to activate your speakers with steep and phase correct crossover points (something that DEQX allows you to do) it would make sense to check it and see if benefits outweigh losses in your application.
Finally, the talk about benefits of active crossovers without their complexity in terms of ease for users is just marketing talk, it has no bearing in real life applications, if you want fundamental improvement in performance it does not come cheap or simple.

Sasha, I'm not going to respond to your heated reply with a heated reply of my own.

I was told by an Axiom person, with an engineering degree in his field, and decades of experience in it, after consultation with the engineer in the company working on the DSP, also with years in the field, that testing had shown (before coding for processing being done) that the analog signal going into the Analog Devices (which is to be used) AD and the analog signal coming out of the Analog Devices' DA are the same. Naturally, once the processing code is added, the analog signal going out of the DA will be different from the signal going into the DA.

I admit it is entirely possible that I got all of this wrong, but that is what I recall hearing.

As to whether Axiom deserves your custom, that, of course, is your call, based on whatever you want to believe. Setting aside the good experience I have had with Axiom so far, I have a lot of confidence in Bryston. It, in turn, would seem to have a lot of confidence in Axiom. Not only have two of Bryston's top people praised its products to me, but one of its best technical guys has told me that Axiom has very good engineers. And, of course, it is working hand-in-glove with Axiom in building the Model T.

And where did I get the notion that James Tanner is concerned about the complexity of active crossovers for users?

On March 16th on this circle he wrote this in response to a question about a DSP crossover and the Model T.

"No it worked really well but we realized that most customers would be intimidated by active systems so my hope is I can design something that would come close in performance but with a lot less complexity."

That was in reply to a question from you.

But maybe that's James engaging in "just marketing talk."

Dave


DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
Dave,
This is a nice post you have been started and good luck to you.
I do not have the PMC or the AXIOM in my room that means you know it better then me but I know the drivers used in the PMC and they are not bad drivers at all.
I think you are going to make it more complex with no benefit but it is nice that they have the 30 days return option.
If I were you this is what I would do based on however you have in hand.
I would look for a used or a new 9BSST2 @ 4ch at minimum to use it for mid and tweeter and the 7BSST2 for woofer and a digital active crossover.I would disconnect the passive crossover on both speakers and turn them into the active and listen to both speakers for few months and see which one I like more.Lets say you would like the PMC more then put the passive crossover on AXIOM back and use it as your second system and you wont look for any improvement on your PMC for next 15 years if not more.
This is just my thought and you do not have to go this way at all. :thumb:

Prelude, I appreciate your suggestions, but they aren't for me, or for this second system.

No doubt I'm expressing myself badly, but I've tried to explain that the M80s are for a second system that already is way more expensive than I planned. The 9BSST2 idea, technically just might be a good idea, but in terms of price and for my application simply is out of the question.

Moreover, i've tried to explain that I'm not very technical. I'm the very opposite of a DIYer. The thought of my digging into my speakers to disconnect crossovers and then turing them into active sends the same kind of shiver up my spine as it would considering doing my own hemorrhoidectomy.

I'm one of the people James Tanner sees as intimidated by the complexity of active setups.  The DSP involves making simple connections, which with luck I get right most of the time. For me it will be much less complex than active.

You may be right that the DSP might bring no benefit. One of the things I liked about Axiom's annoucement about the DSP is that it is totally without hype. Unlike so many who manufacturer accessories, add-ons, and tweaks, Axiom right off the bat is saying the DSP will not bring about dramatic changes. The honesty is not just refreshing; it also builds confidence. That, in my eyes, together with the performnce of the M80, makes it worth placing a bet on its new product.

Dave

werd

Hi

Unfortunately Sasha has momentarily  come out of his delusional approach of this hobby and is correct. If you are trying to incorporate a dsp by using a loop on your HK receiver you are just going to end up with a far less linear signal. Resolution and dynamics will probably suffer. You will notice this too at the playback volume levels you are going to use.

The volume you are using this system at really helps in rsolution prat and everything else. You really don't even need room treatments. Your receiver will be operating at low output and it won't suffer from compression. Adding more electronics to this will not make your bass better. That dsp is probably far better suited for loud playback then in a soft volume.

If you are looking to improve low volume playback try to move towards getting your system to sound more responsive at low volumes. Power cords help here and so does speaker cabling.

But I haven't heard this dsp so ultimately you should try this and see what happens. If it's good keep it. If not hopefully you can return it.


Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
Sasha, I'm not going to respond to your heated reply with a heated reply of my own.

I was told by an Axiom person, with an engineering degree in his field, and decades of experience in it, after consultation with the engineer in the company working on the DSP, also with years in the field, that testing had shown (before coding for processing being done) that the analog signal going into the Analog Devices (which is to be used) AD and the analog signal coming out of the Analog Devices' DA are the same. Naturally, once the processing code is added, the analog signal going out of the DA will be different from the signal going into the DA.

I admit it is entirely possible that I got all of this wrong, but that is what I recall hearing.

As to whether Axiom deserves your custom, that, of course, is your call, based on whatever you want to believe. Setting aside the good experience I have had with Axiom so far, I have a lot of confidence in Bryston. It, in turn, would seem to have a lot of confidence in Axiom. Not only have two of Bryston's top people praised its products to me, but one of its best technical guys has told me that Axiom has very good engineers. And, of course, it is working hand-in-glove with Axiom in building the Model T.

And where did I get the notion that James Tanner is concerned about the complexity of active crossovers for users?

On March 16th on this circle he wrote this in response to a question about a DSP crossover and the Model T.

"No it worked really well but we realized that most customers would be intimidated by active systems so my hope is I can design something that would come close in performance but with a lot less complexity."

That was in reply to a question from you.

But maybe that's James engaging in "just marketing talk."

Dave

What is so heated in my comments if I call things by their real name?
My comments are not directed at you, I am not questioning your honesty or interpretation, but what Axiom is telling. You did not get anything wrong.
When I say “I cannot believe” I do not mean you are not telling the truth but that I cannot believe that any reputable manufacturer could make such statement which is as far from the reality as it can be.
You do not have to have an engineering degree to see right through such marketing nonsense.

Think of the following, you have two products in your hands, one is BDA-1 (DA converter), the other is this Axiom DSP device that is both AD and DA converter and on top of that a quite sophisticated DSP processor.
According to Axiom their product is so transparent that their entire AD>DA conversion process is not degrading the sound. This raises a question in my mind.
 If this is true then why is Bryston BDA (which is only a DA converter) costing so much more than Axiom’s entire AD>DSP>DA device?

Is Bryston product a rip-of or maybe a poorly designed and engineered product that in the end it costs them so much to make that they have to charge so much more?
If we go by what Axiom is saying, logic would dictate it is, because there is no need to apply all the engineering in BDA-1 and charge so much when a DA converter of such tremendous transparency such as Axiom’s could be built and had for so much less?

Or could it be that Axiom statement is nothing more but marketing nonsense and they really did not make a technological breakthrough that allowed them to create such transparent AD/DA conversion stages for so much less?

You cannot have it both ways, I hope you realize that? You cannot justify the comparative difference in the cost under the pretense of Axiom’s transparency.
You see, statements like the one from Axiom about transparency of their AD/DA process I find insulting, I am educated in the field of electronics, experienced in my work, and experienced in my hobby, and I do not swallow such nonsense so easily.
Since you like the analogy with cars, here is one for you, Axiom is essentially telling you that they developed a car that can reach top speed of 300km/h, accelerate to 100km/h in 3 seconds and consume 3 liters/100km.
I on the other hand am telling you that Axiom statement is unfounded.

You may end up ordering their DSP processor and liking it for whatever reason, as I said many times subjective assessment is not always based on the same criteria and not everyone seeks improvements in truthfulness to good recordings and their dynamic range, resolution, etc.
But the fact remains that additional AD/DA conversion will compress the dynamic range and destroy resolution, that is undeniable, we are all bound by the laws of physics.

Finally, your quote from James is taken out of context.
His sentence was his answer to my question in regard to the reasons for passive speakers considering all the effort put into active ones up to that point.
So his answer goes precisely in line with what I am saying, it confirms my argument entirely, you cannot have it both, a simplicity and fundamental improvement, is that not the obvious from James’ answer?

Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
Dave,
This is a nice post you have been started and good luck to you.
I do not have the PMC or the AXIOM in my room that means you know it better then me but I know the drivers used in the PMC and they are not bad drivers at all.
I think you are going to make it more complex with no benefit but it is nice that they have the 30 days return option.
If I were you this is what I would do based on however you have in hand.
I would look for a used or a new 9BSST2 @ 4ch at minimum to use it for mid and tweeter and the 7BSST2 for woofer and a digital active crossover.I would disconnect the passive crossover on both speakers and turn them into the active and listen to both speakers for few months and see which one I like more.Lets say you would like the PMC more then put the passive crossover on AXIOM back and use it as your second system and you wont look for any improvement on your PMC for next 15 years if not more.
This is just my thought and you do not have to go this way at all. :thumb:
Words of wisdom.

Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
Werd If I remember correctly you said you would no longer engage in discussions with me, so why don’t you stick to it?

Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559

DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
What is so heated in my comments if I call things by their real name?
My comments are not directed at you, I am not questioning your honesty or interpretation, but what Axiom is telling. You did not get anything wrong.
When I say “I cannot believe” I do not mean you are not telling the truth but that I cannot believe that any reputable manufacturer could make such statement which is as far from the reality as it can be.
You do not have to have an engineering degree to see right through such marketing nonsense.

Think of the following, you have two products in your hands, one is BDA-1 (DA converter), the other is this Axiom DSP device that is both AD and DA converter and on top of that a quite sophisticated DSP processor.
According to Axiom their product is so transparent that their entire AD>DA conversion process is not degrading the sound. This raises a question in my mind.
 If this is true then why is Bryston BDA (which is only a DA converter) costing so much more than Axiom’s entire AD>DSP>DA device?

Is Bryston product a rip-of or maybe a poorly designed and engineered product that in the end it costs them so much to make that they have to charge so much more?
If we go by what Axiom is saying, logic would dictate it is, because there is no need to apply all the engineering in BDA-1 and charge so much when a DA converter of such tremendous transparency such as Axiom’s could be built and had for so much less?

Or could it be that Axiom statement is nothing more but marketing nonsense and they really did not make a technological breakthrough that allowed them to create such transparent AD/DA conversion stages for so much less?

You cannot have it both ways, I hope you realize that? You cannot justify the comparative difference in the cost under the pretense of Axiom’s transparency.
You see, statements like the one from Axiom about transparency of their AD/DA process I find insulting, I am educated in the field of electronics, experienced in my work, and experienced in my hobby, and I do not swallow such nonsense so easily.
Since you like the analogy with cars, here is one for you, Axiom is essentially telling you that they developed a car that can reach top speed of 300km/h, accelerate to 100km/h in 3 seconds and consume 3 liters/100km.
I on the other hand am telling you that Axiom statement is unfounded.

You may end up ordering their DSP processor and liking it for whatever reason, as I said many times subjective assessment is not always based on the same criteria and not everyone seeks improvements in truthfulness to good recordings and their dynamic range, resolution, etc.
But the fact remains that additional AD/DA conversion will compress the dynamic range and destroy resolution, that is undeniable, we are all bound by the laws of physics.

Finally, your quote from James is taken out of context.
His sentence was his answer to my question in regard to the reasons for passive speakers considering all the effort put into active ones up to that point.
So his answer goes precisely in line with what I am saying, it confirms my argument entirely, you cannot have it both, a simplicity and fundamental improvement, is that not the obvious from James’ answer?

Sasha, you've written: "I cannot believe that any reputable manufacturer could make such statement which is as far from the reality as it can be. You do not have to have an engineering degree to see right through such marketing nonsense."

That's the second time you've suggested or implied that Axiom may not be a reputable company...based on what I've written. Except for saying I may have erred in even passing on what I have heard, I want no part in this kind of back-handed sullying of reputations.

I think it is both unwise and unfair to render judgements about either Axiom or a product yet to see the light of day based on what is indisputably a second hand account. I am an intermediary in this exchange, and a non-technical one to boot. For all you know, I just may not be that good of a reporter. Yet you have jumped on it, not to fault me, but to come to conclusions about Axiom's description made through me.

What you've written is unwise because I may have mis-stated Axiom's position, notwithstanding your belief - it can be only a belief because you cannot know what exactly what was said (and it is only my memory of what was said) - that I got it right. You write that you cannot believe any reputable manufacturer could have said what I reported. In fairness to Axiom you shouldn't believe it unless you hear it from Axiom itself.

It is no different than if I had had a conversation with you, and then reported it to Werd, who based on that reporting, stated that he could not believe a reputable person had said what I told him you said. I can't imagine you would consider that either wise or fair.

The Rules of AudioCircle start off this way:

"AudioCircle is a place for audiophiles to share experiences and knowledge with each other about their hobby in a friendly and helpful atmosphere. The name of the site invokes the well-known phrase "circle of friends." You should treat other people on the site as though they are your friends (even if you disagree with them). That is, you are expected to treat other people in a friendly manner and with some respect. We're not concerned if people disagree or get into arguments, just don't get too carried away."

Your technical points may or may not have merit, but you in effect are having an argument, through me, with Axiom, and in doing so suggesting that Axiom is doing something wrong.
 
You have made many contributions to this circle, no doubt many more than I, and as a "circle friend," I feel obliged to say that in this instance, I feel you got too carried away.

Dave



Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
Sasha, you've written: "I cannot believe that any reputable manufacturer could make such statement which is as far from the reality as it can be. You do not have to have an engineering degree to see right through such marketing nonsense."

That's the second time you've suggested or implied that Axiom may not be a reputable company...based on what I've written. Except for saying I may have erred in even passing on what I have heard, I want no part in this kind of back-handed sullying of reputations.

I think it is both unwise and unfair to render judgements about either Axiom or a product yet to see the light of day based on what is indisputably a second hand account. I am an intermediary in this exchange, and a non-technical one to boot. For all you know, I just may not be that good of a reporter. Yet you have jumped on it, not to fault me, but to come to conclusions about Axiom's description made through me.

What you've written is unwise because I may have mis-stated Axiom's position, notwithstanding your belief - it can be only a belief because you cannot know what exactly what was said (and it is only my memory of what was said) - that I got it right. You write that you cannot believe any reputable manufacturer could have said what I reported. In fairness to Axiom you shouldn't believe it unless you hear it from Axiom itself.

It is no different than if I had had a conversation with you, and then reported it to Werd, who based on that reporting, stated that he could not believe a reputable person had said what I told him you said. I can't imagine you would consider that either wise or fair.

The Rules of AudioCircle start off this way:

"AudioCircle is a place for audiophiles to share experiences and knowledge with each other about their hobby in a friendly and helpful atmosphere. The name of the site invokes the well-known phrase "circle of friends." You should treat other people on the site as though they are your friends (even if you disagree with them). That is, you are expected to treat other people in a friendly manner and with some respect. We're not concerned if people disagree or get into arguments, just don't get too carried away."

Your technical points may or may not have merit, but you in effect are having an argument, through me, with Axiom, and in doing so suggesting that Axiom is doing something wrong.
 
You have made many contributions to this circle, no doubt many more than I, and as a "circle friend," I feel obliged to say that in this instance, I feel you got too carried away.

Dave

Dave,

Once again, I am not saying Axiom may not be a reputable company based on what you have written, the contention as far as I am concerned is the claim itself.
It is very simple, a statement from any company in which they claim their AD/DA conversion is completely transparent I would consider marketing nonsense because it cannot be true, not today and probably never.

You say it is “unwise and unfair to render judgments about either Axiom or a product yet to see the light of day”, but I am not talking about the product, I am talking about nonsense in the claim.
The subject is not the product itself, I do not have to hear the product to know that additional AD/DA conversion will not be transparent.
And being on the subject of the fairness, I think it would be unfair to a much larger degree if companies used false and misleading information in the advertising of their products, and claim that someone’s implementation of AD/DA conversion is completely transparent would fall into such category easily.

You put far too much importance to what we do here, it is just an exchange of opinions and experiences, do not be so concerned about what conclusions I or anyone else may draw from what is written on the forum.
The way this whole discussion is developing is quite strange, it sounds to me as if you are facing some legal threat from Axiom and you are retracting from this exchange?
Manufacturers should be open to criticism of their products, and should demonstrate a degree of honesty in their marketing, that is my opinion at least.

So can we put it to the rest, can I simply say that if the information on the transparency of AD/DA conversion in Axiom’s product is indeed Axiom’s position and approach in their marketing, then I believe Axiom is very dishonest in their marketing campaign?

DaveNote

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 615
  • Without music, life would be a mistake. Nietzsche
Dave,

Once again, I am not saying Axiom may not be a reputable company based on what you have written, the contention as far as I am concerned is the claim itself.
It is very simple, a statement from any company in which they claim their AD/DA conversion is completely transparent I would consider marketing nonsense because it cannot be true, not today and probably never.

You say it is “unwise and unfair to render judgments about either Axiom or a product yet to see the light of day”, but I am not talking about the product, I am talking about nonsense in the claim.
The subject is not the product itself, I do not have to hear the product to know that additional AD/DA conversion will not be transparent.
And being on the subject of the fairness, I think it would be unfair to a much larger degree if companies used false and misleading information in the advertising of their products, and claim that someone’s implementation of AD/DA conversion is completely transparent would fall into such category easily.

You put far too much importance to what we do here, it is just an exchange of opinions and experiences, do not be so concerned about what conclusions I or anyone else may draw from what is written on the forum.
The way this whole discussion is developing is quite strange, it sounds to me as if you are facing some legal threat from Axiom and you are retracting from this exchange?
Manufacturers should be open to criticism of their products, and should demonstrate a degree of honesty in their marketing, that is my opinion at least.

So can we put it to the rest, can I simply say that if the information on the transparency of AD/DA conversion in Axiom’s product is indeed Axiom’s position and approach in their marketing, then I believe Axiom is very dishonest in their marketing campaign?

Sasha, I believe you have claimed to have credentials in matters electronic. My only credentials are that for 30 years I worked as an analyst and writer, which means that I read and write with the same care you must use in reading technical measurements.

This is strange exchange, I grant you. It is strange since you seem to be missing my points and you insist that I am missing yours.

You seem intent on reading into my report of a conversation with an Axiom person (which may or may not be an accurate report) a claim and marketing strategy that is dishonest. The only claim (if it can be called that, as opposed to a generalized report made to me of testing results) which I may or may not have muddled. It is nonsensical to raise my report to the level of an Axiom claim until Axiom makes it a public claim. It was not and is not a marketing claim. The only "marketing" claim made by Axiom to date about the DSP that I know of is that the product will produce a noticebale but not dramatic change. No reference to transparency. No reference to AD/DA conversions.

There is a very consistent theme in your posts where marketing claims seem to raise your hackles. I think it's sensible to take any and every marketing claim with a grain of salt. But you are supposing that Axiom has made claims it hasn't or will make claims that it has not expressed. This is carrying skepticism of marketing claims to an extreme: it is an accusation made against claims that aren't there. If Axiom ever makes marketing claims that you believe can be refuted, then, fine; fire away. But until then, you only have the slender thread of my report on which to make unfounded assumptions that Axiom "might" make claims, which you have deemed to be dishonest.

If you read what I have written with the same care you read technical material you will find that I am "retracting from" (sic) nothing. This would appear to be reading into what I have written what you want to read.

I am under no legal threat from Axiom. I take the comment as impugning my integrity, which should come as no surprise since you are intent upon impugning Axiom's honesty. You would have readers believe that I would not defend a company unless it is threatening me. What next? Are you going to accuse me of being on the Axiom payroll?

I am defending Axiom for a very simple reason. By taking some long and unsupported jumps to a conclusion about the honesty of Axiom's marketing practices in which it has not engaged and intentions that you cannot know, you are engaging in a slur under the cover of forum anonymity. It is unfair and unseemly behaviour, and I don't want to stand by while you engage in it. I won't sanction it by my silence.

Since you have yet to understand what I have written earlier, I have little hope that you will understand, let alone accept, that it is unfair and unseemly to use loaded words like "dishonesty" (even with the qualifier "if") when writing on a public forum about third parties.

I'm willing to give this strange exchange a rest. But if you persist in implying or suggesting a third party might be, or at some mythical point in the future, will be dishonest, this exchange will continue. If you want to use the cloak of anonymity to engage is not-so-subtle slurs, I will use that same cloak to call you on them.

Dave

Sasha

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 559
Sasha, I believe you have claimed to have credentials in matters electronic. My only credentials are that for 30 years I worked as an analyst and writer, which means that I read and write with the same care you must use in reading technical measurements.

This is strange exchange, I grant you. It is strange since you seem to be missing my points and you insist that I am missing yours.

You seem intent on reading into my report of a conversation with an Axiom person (which may or may not be an accurate report) a claim and marketing strategy that is dishonest. The only claim (if it can be called that, as opposed to a generalized report made to me of testing results) which I may or may not have muddled. It is nonsensical to raise my report to the level of an Axiom claim until Axiom makes it a public claim. It was not and is not a marketing claim. The only "marketing" claim made by Axiom to date about the DSP that I know of is that the product will produce a noticebale but not dramatic change. No reference to transparency. No reference to AD/DA conversions.

There is a very consistent theme in your posts where marketing claims seem to raise your hackles. I think it's sensible to take any and every marketing claim with a grain of salt. But you are supposing that Axiom has made claims it hasn't or will make claims that it has not expressed. This is carrying skepticism of marketing claims to an extreme: it is an accusation made against claims that aren't there. If Axiom ever makes marketing claims that you believe can be refuted, then, fine; fire away. But until then, you only have the slender thread of my report on which to make unfounded assumptions that Axiom "might" make claims, which you have deemed to be dishonest.

If you read what I have written with the same care you read technical material you will find that I am "retracting from" (sic) nothing. This would appear to be reading into what I have written what you want to read.

I am under no legal threat from Axiom. I take the comment as impugning my integrity, which should come as no surprise since you are intent upon impugning Axiom's honesty. You would have readers believe that I would not defend a company unless it is threatening me. What next? Are you going to accuse me of being on the Axiom payroll?

I am defending Axiom for a very simple reason. By taking some long and unsupported jumps to a conclusion about the honesty of Axiom's marketing practices in which it has not engaged and intentions that you cannot know, you are engaging in a slur under the cover of forum anonymity. It is unfair and unseemly behaviour, and I don't want to stand by while you engage in it. I won't sanction it by my silence.

Since you have yet to understand what I have written earlier, I have little hope that you will understand, let alone accept, that it is unfair and unseemly to use loaded words like "dishonesty" (even with the qualifier "if") when writing on a public forum about third parties.

I'm willing to give this strange exchange a rest. But if you persist in implying or suggesting a third party might be, or at some mythical point in the future, will be dishonest, this exchange will continue. If you want to use the cloak of anonymity to engage is not-so-subtle slurs, I will use that same cloak to call you on them.

Dave

Dave,

I understand perfectly well the point you are making, it would seem I am just much less doubtful of your ability to convey technical type of information than you are.
In your post you did not come across as someone who did not command any knowledge in the matter, on the contrary, the information was very well conveyed and your description of the product was very clear.
I had no reason to think about possibility that you may not have understood correctly what was communicated to you, and I still think that such possibility is very remote.
That is where our seeming disconnect is coming from.
Anyway, you are clearly irritated and you are blowing this out of proportions, even implying that I am accusing you of something and I got engaged in slurs?! Up till now this was an exchange of opinions, but now your comments have become indecent and insulting. I will no longer reply to any of your posts as it does not seem civilized exchange is possible.