TheGreenButton - Windows Media Center Forums

I think it's clear by now Ceton is done (for now) in the consumer space (at the very least). What's funny, a couple of the Ceton guys started a new company (axiim) whose first product seems to be exactly inspired by/came from the product this lawsuit with Gibson seems to be about. I wonder if their decision to spin off into this new company is because of the lawsuit (wouldn't surprise me). It's also called the Q (lol).

http://axiim.com/

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receiv ... s-avr.html

First impressions seem like it works

RyC wrote:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receiv ... s-avr.html

First impressions seem like it works

1 user isn't a substantial data set in all fairness

Ed  wrote:

RyC wrote:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receiv ... s-avr.html

First impressions seem like it works

1 user isn't a substantial data set

So far better review than the Echo

lol

Ed  wrote:

RyC wrote:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receiv ... s-avr.html

First impressions seem like it works

1 user isn't a substantial data set in all fairness

My setup comes next week Also, a couple more people ordered them and joined that thread. When I read the review on MissingRemote, I had no clue it was from ex Ceton guys. Then I found the AVS thread and saw some familiar names, then realized the name (Q) was too ironic, for them not to be related. I always wanted a Ceton Q heh

Diverge wrote:

Ed  wrote:

RyC wrote:http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receiv ... s-avr.html

First impressions seem like it works

1 user isn't a substantial data set in all fairness

My setup comes next week Also, a couple more people ordered them and joined that thread. When I read the review on MissingRemote, I had no clue it was from ex Ceton guys. Then I found the AVS thread and saw some familiar names, then realized the name (Q) was too ironic, for them not to be related. I always wanted a Ceton Q heh

I'd love to hear a veteran TGB member's review. The product does fascinate me but I have to admit, I would find it easier to run speaker wire to each location rather than A/C. Nevertheless, I'm intrigued.

The AVS member review seems awfully like a plant to me but then again I'm always over cautious.

STC wrote:The AVS member review seems awfully like a plant to me but then again I'm always over cautious.

I got the same impression. That's why I wanted to hear from a TGBr.

mcewinter wrote:
I'd love to hear a veteran TGB member's review. The product does fascinate me but I have to admit, I would find it easier to run speaker wire to each location rather than A/C. Nevertheless, I'm intrigued.

I'll let you guys know how it goes. I don't really write elaborate reviews, but if there are issues I'll be sure to voice my opinion.. I think I've mastered the art of buying and complaining about gadgets on the internet I'll have 30 days do decide if the setup is a keeper.

Looks very cool, one concern is the speakers that won't have much r&d into the design of cans, amp and enclosure and getting them working together optimally.

I would personally prefer to route speaker cable in walls and ceiling as opposed to wiring AC up to every speaker position too.

Ed  wrote:

volfan6415 wrote:I have a pacer login through my work and can get the pleadings if anyone is really interested.

I think it's clear by now Ceton is done (for now) in the consumer space (at the very least). What's funny, a couple of the Ceton guys started a new company (axiim) whose first product seems to be exactly inspired by/came from the product this lawsuit with Gibson seems to be about. I wonder if their decision to spin off into this new company is because of the lawsuit (wouldn't surprise me). It's also called the Q (lol).

http://axiim.com/

Whatever, but any company that calls that a "subwoofer" AND dares to think their system is worth thousands of dollars doesn't get my business.

It's a bass module, nothing more. Marketing to ignorance.

adam1991 wrote:

Ed  wrote:

volfan6415 wrote:I have a pacer login through my work and can get the pleadings if anyone is really interested.

I think it's clear by now Ceton is done (for now) in the consumer space (at the very least). What's funny, a couple of the Ceton guys started a new company (axiim) whose first product seems to be exactly inspired by/came from the product this lawsuit with Gibson seems to be about. I wonder if their decision to spin off into this new company is because of the lawsuit (wouldn't surprise me). It's also called the Q (lol).

http://axiim.com/

Whatever, but any company that calls that a "subwoofer" AND dares to think their system is worth thousands of dollars doesn't get my business.

It's a bass module, nothing more. Marketing to ignorance.

A 10 inch subwoofer is fine for me, and what I would call a subwoofer.... not sure what your post is about.

Diverge, enjoy the product, don't mind the snipes. I'm still jealous, wouldn't mind a play myself

"Bass Module" is a term that Bose came up with to seperate their product from the rest. A bass module is a subwoofer.

A bass module is not a subwoofer. It provides bass, not sub-bass. There's a difference.

"Bass module" may or may not have come from Bose, but it's accurate. Don't dismiss it just because of its source if it's accurate.

adam1991 wrote:A bass module is not a subwoofer. It provides bass, not sub-bass. There's a difference.

"Bass module" may or may not have come from Bose, but it's accurate. Don't dismiss it just because of its source if it's accurate.

Okay, it's a bass module. Explain.

I did. It provides bass, not sub-bass.

End of story.

The ignorati of the world are easily convinced that because they see a separate module with a woofer in it, it must be JUST like the other stuff they've been seeing--which were, at the time, subwoofers.

The ignorati of the world came to equate "separate box that provides low frequencies" with "must be a subwoofer".

Any company that follows that line, is marketing to the ignorant--the low-hanging fruit of the audio market.

You laugh at Bose (no doubt because you think it makes you fit in with the "cool crowd"), but at least they didn't fall down the ignorance hole and declare their module to be a "subwoofer". They were honest: "our small speakers can't produce bass, therefore we need a separate bass module. It's OK that bass isn't produced in the separate speakers, because bass isn't directional." In other words, Bose was being honest. Everyone else who calls it a "subwoofer" when it isn't? Not honest.

The q "XM101.SW" provides 20-100Hz. It's not a subwoofer.

And that means it really isn't a "5.1" or "7.1" system. The .1 refers to sub-bass, not just "we had to make the bass outside the main speaker".

Axiim's whole business model seems to be aimed at audio-ignorant smartphone fiddlers who love to hear the word "wireless".

Well I'm sure the non bass woofer non sub will put out enough non sub bass to work okay

adam1991 wrote:I did. It provides bass, not sub-bass.

The q "XM101.SW" provides 20-100Hz. It's not a subwoofer.

Isn't sub-bass defined as 20-60Hz?