Paradigm 20: any good? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Paradigm 20: any good?



Jochem
07-18-2004, 09:41 AM
Hi,

Two days ago I bought a pair of Paradigm Studio 20's, after three rounds of listening at my local dealers listeningroom. Compared them with two B&W 603's and Chario Premium, and some large floorstanders.
At the store, the Paradigms seemed to excell at all fronts. I tried it with a NAD amplifier - a more expensive one than I have at home (312). I bought them for 850 euro's.

Listening for two days now, with my old Sony CD-player (CDP 950), they are detailed, but rather sharp. Winds (espc. brasss) do fine, as do drums (cymbals!). Strings (ie string quartet) seem agressive in the high registers, sometimes sort of distorted at ff passages (also depending on how loud I play of course!).

So I read a lot about 'breaking-in' the Paradigms, which seems to take some while. Others (see reviews on audioreview) have the same experience as I have.. But still I'm worried of course.

I see a few possibilities:

A. 'Breaking in' solves the problem (but does breaking in also counts for tweeters?)
B. I should buy another, more mellow amplifier
C. I have bad interconnects (they're not THAT expensive.. however not worthless I think)
D. My room is too small (I listen to them at a distance of aprox 2 meters)
E. At the store, I was only thinking I that I like the 'direct approach' of these speakers..



Can somebody say something wise about this problem?




Regards,

Jochem
Utrecht, Holland

---
Paradigm Studio 20 v3
NAD 312
Sony CDP-950
interconnects/cables: unknown

cam
07-18-2004, 10:41 AM
Hi,

Two days ago I bought a pair of Paradigm Studio 20's, after three rounds of listening at my local dealers listeningroom. Compared them with two B&W 603's and Chario Premium, and some large floorstanders.
At the store, the Paradigms seemed to excell at all fronts. I tried it with a NAD amplifier - a more expensive one than I have at home (312). I bought them for 850 euro's.

Listening for two days now, with my old Sony CD-player (CDP 950), they are detailed, but rather sharp. Winds (espc. brasss) do fine, as do drums (cymbals!). Strings (ie string quartet) seem agressive in the high registers, sometimes sort of distorted at ff passages (also depending on how loud I play of course!).

So I read a lot about 'breaking-in' the Paradigms, which seems to take some while. Others (see reviews on audioreview) have the same experience as I have.. But still I'm worried of course.

I see a few possibilities:

A. 'Breaking in' solves the problem (but does breaking in also counts for tweeters?)
B. I should buy another, more mellow amplifier
C. I have bad interconnects (they're not THAT expensive.. however not worthless I think)
D. My room is too small (I listen to them at a distance of aprox 2 meters)
E. At the store, I was only thinking I that I like the 'direct approach' of these speakers..



Can somebody say something wise about this problem?




Regards,

Jochem
Utrecht, Holland

---
Paradigm Studio 20 v3
NAD 312
Sony CDP-950
interconnects/cables: unknown
Alot of people speak very highly of the 20's. As far as break-in, some people swear by it and some say it is a myth. Me, I'm somewhere in the middle. I have had the performance line and the monitor line and I have to say that I heard absolutly no difference in the way the tweeter sounded out of the box or 50 hours later. Maybe my hearing is just noy able to pick up any sound change but definetly, wholeheartedly I was able to hear a difference, a big difference in the woofer after 10 hours. Definetely your speaker from top to bottom will sound better with an amp upgrade.

Wireworm5
07-18-2004, 10:54 AM
Just my .02 cents.
I have all Paradigm speakers cept for a pair of B&W 601. It's my experience that Paradigm speakers will reveal flaws in the other components (if they sound like crap,its not the speakers). However you may also not like metal tweeters as they may be what's giving you a harsh sound. But I find the treble in the Paradigms to be smoother than my 601's, but I like the edge the 601's add to rock guitar music. Its really a matter of taste.
Mp3's can also sound harsh and the liveliness of your room is a factor.

RGA
07-18-2004, 11:55 AM
You're going to hear a lot about break in - largely though it is a matter of YOU getting used to the sound of the speaker. If you do great if not then they're going to annoy you. I was not a fan of the 20V2 - and while some of them I can see as good value for the money - I personally overall don't like the sound of most Paradigm speakers because I don't like the treble response. And I use generally the best gear available to listen to them with. I had good luck with my Sugden because Sugden tends to have a rather smooth valve like sound - which doesn't mean rolled-off.

Listen, it doesn't matter what I think of them or anyone else including revviewers - most every speaker or product gets good reviewers - but most stuff I frankly don't like. If I were a reviewer whether it be speaker reviewing or movie reviewing - you review to what you think people will like. I may hate horror movies(I don't I love them) but let's say I hated the genre I would still be able to say well Halloween does a better job than others for what it's doing so I give it a thumbs up because it's good for the genre - even though i personally would never want to watch it again.

This is speaker reviewing - I can recognize that given the money the Studio 20 offers great build and does some technical pyrotechnics very well - like imaging - reasonable bass etc - I even gave the Studio 100 an 8/10 and said lots of good things - but in the end I would not want to own those speakers for day to listening to music. To me these products are nice home theater/rockers with good build a reasonable price good reputation nice looks and have a tight punchy sound. Not much else you can ask for.

Except if it's my money I wouldn't get them. I'm leary on blaming other gear here as well - NAD is good, most recordings are not bright or tizzy - at least not mine. For the same money why not try Quad or Dynaudio.

Jimmy C
07-18-2004, 12:24 PM
...yeah, I think they are a pretty good speaker - not sure if they would be my first choice in the price range, but they should serve you well.

Firstly, is your room overly reflective while the showroom might have had more sound-absorbing qualities? IMO, the room/speaker combo will have the most profound effect on sound. Next, are you listening to the same CDs? After room/speaker synergy, recording quality can have a huge effect.

I have a pair of Studio 60s, and there were changes in sound quality after some running in. At first, I thought I made a huge mistake... they barely sounded better than the Titans they replaced. Now there is no comparison... they are fairly warm and, as a matter of fact, on the dark, distant side. BUT - they won't put a bad disc into a favorable light.

Speaking of "break-in"... last week, a friend of mine bought a pair of Titans for his sister's new house. Well, I was somewhat excited - lemme borrow them to see if they sound any different than my 6 year-old pair (albeit not really used in 5 yrs). I A/Bd them using my Denon, and yes, there was indeed a difference... the new pair seemed constipated by comparison. Let you new 20s loosen up for a while unless there is a refund time limit - in the end, you may NOT like 'em.

Ironically, the Titans were the only speakers that I DIDN'T notice a difference during "break-in".

I wouldn't worry about wires too much, and I wouldn't buy a different amp for speakers you don't really like (IF that ends up being the case)

Good luck...

Woochifer
07-18-2004, 11:25 PM
IMO, those Studio 20 v.3 models are excellent speakers at that price point. Easily one of the most versatile performers I've heard with some of the best imaging I've ever heard for a conventional box speaker. And a clear cut improvement over the Studio 40/CC/20 v.2 speakers that I currently use in my surround setup.

All three Studio series purchases I've made for my 5.1 setup needed a little bit of playing time before the sound settled in. In all three cases, they sounded somewhat harsher right out of the box than they did after a little bit of normal playing. The Studio 40s that I have I directly compared to a pair of demo models, and after a few hours of playing I couldn't tell the difference. Personally, I think break in is an overblown topic because there's no right or wrong way to do it, it just happens. If you still think something's up, try borrowing the demo models from your dealer and do a direct comparison. If you can do a blind test and pick out the demo model over the ones you're using then you need to play the speaker for more time or they might be defective.

If you've already done a few hours of playing, I suspect that the bigger factors at work are the speaker positioning and your room acoustics. As someone else mentioned, if you have a live sounding room with lots of reflective surfaces, then it will likely sound harsh. You can tame that by adding rugs or changing the furniture around, adding sound absorbing panels, or moving a bookshelf to the sidewalls or backwall to breakup the primary reflections. Changing the toe-in angle will also affect how much high end your ears pick up.

Interconnects only matter if you're picking up interference and need better shielding. Focusing on those other factors should help a lot more.

Jochem
07-19-2004, 02:21 AM
thanks for all the advice, guys.
Jochem

I'm beginning to like them some more... expecially jazz does well
now I'm only waiting for the strings to melt

Pat D
07-19-2004, 09:23 AM
Hi,

Two days ago I bought a pair of Paradigm Studio 20's, after three rounds of listening at my local dealers listeningroom. Compared them with two B&W 603's and Chario Premium, and some large floorstanders.
At the store, the Paradigms seemed to excell at all fronts. I tried it with a NAD amplifier - a more expensive one than I have at home (312). I bought them for 850 euro's.

Listening for two days now, with my old Sony CD-player (CDP 950), they are detailed, but rather sharp. Winds (espc. brasss) do fine, as do drums (cymbals!). Strings (ie string quartet) seem agressive in the high registers, sometimes sort of distorted at ff passages (also depending on how loud I play of course!).

So I read a lot about 'breaking-in' the Paradigms, which seems to take some while. Others (see reviews on audioreview) have the same experience as I have.. But still I'm worried of course.

I see a few possibilities:

A. 'Breaking in' solves the problem (but does breaking in also counts for tweeters?)
B. I should buy another, more mellow amplifier
C. I have bad interconnects (they're not THAT expensive.. however not worthless I think)
D. My room is too small (I listen to them at a distance of aprox 2 meters)
E. At the store, I was only thinking I that I like the 'direct approach' of these speakers..



Can somebody say something wise about this problem?




Regards,

Jochem
Utrecht, Holland

---
Paradigm Studio 20 v3
NAD 312
Sony CDP-950
interconnects/cables: unknown
Well, that two meter distance would lead me to look at option D. A, B, and C are not related to the problem. E is a possibility as well, but I presume you did like the speakers in the store. However, it is always a good idea to audition speakers at home to see if you can get them to sound good there.

The high frequencies are absorbed by air, and so this is distance related. Probably more important is the ratio of direct to reflected sound. Anyway, facing the speaker straight ahead may help, although Paradigm Reference Series speakers have quite wide dispersion, but this may significantly change the amount of direct sound reaching your listening position.

Anyway, if that or other placement options don't fix the problem, we are left with option E, that the speakers aren't really what you want. My PSB Stratus Minis sound pretty good close up. They are more expensive and significantly harder to drive, although in a small room--especially with a NAD amplifier--that should be no problem.

You may also be playing the new speakers louder than normal, and that may affect the perceived balance as the ear is most sensitive in the upper midrange.

Another possibility are the recordings themselves. Maybe the agressive sound is on the recordings. Of course, what recordings you like and how much is going to vary depending on which speakers you are listening to.

Jochem
07-19-2004, 05:01 PM
Of course, what recordings you like and how much is going to vary depending on which speakers you are listening to.

yes! I'm afraid I have te re-evaluate my collection
some jazz they do wonderful
some classical cd's that I thought were good recordings, suddenly show flaws
some songs of Queensryche, which I liked on my old B&W DM110i's, sound pretty awful :)

anamorphic96
07-19-2004, 08:27 PM
It think what your noticing is how bad most music is recorded. I found this out when I purchased my Studio 40's. I used the Mini Monitors previously. What I began to notice was how much the sound just opened up. With that openess comes more detail and resolution. this. The old BW's where just not capable of this kind of detail. Dont get me wrong I love BW products but its just technology. Take the same level of BW speaker from its current line and you will notice the same thing.

On the flip side when something is recorded extremely well its a very rewarding experience. My speakers still give me goose bumps. Now if I can only get them to work better in my new apt. GRR

glenn

RGA
07-19-2004, 10:20 PM
Of course, what recordings you like and how much is going to vary depending on which speakers you are listening to.

yes! I'm afraid I have te re-evaluate my collection
some jazz they do wonderful
some classical cd's that I thought were good recordings, suddenly show flaws
some songs of Queensryche, which I liked on my old B&W DM110i's, sound pretty awful :)

Actually I find most music is recorded quite well - which doesn't mean they're anywhere near as good as excellent recordings - a lot of speakers make a lot of recordings sound bad when the recording is perfectly fine. When it sounds bad the recroding is automatically blamed and the speaker is said to be revealing fo flaws in the disc or in the upstream equipment - I used to believe this exact same thing - but a funny thing happened at the audio shop one day. For this theory to hold water then it would imply that the more "revelaling" speaker would or should also bring out the best in the best recordings - and if a speaker that doesn't make a given recording sound horrible then it must be deemed as "forgiving" or rolled off in the highs and or lows. The problem with that is that it would also ruin really well recorded albums bringing them down a few pegs making it worse than the revealing speaker.

I have very well recorded albums like Leahy: Lakefield which is a busy disc of Fiddle dance music from Eastern Canada. This album has been brutal on most speakers. A recording I thought of as terrible was Amanda Marshal's first album - not so - it is a very well reocrded album. One review magazine gave Dianna Krall's latest cd an average recordiing rating - not so it is very well recorded front to back - miced a bit back. Most recordings are average to better - few are bad that I own. I am very leary on buying a speaker that would turn 80% of my music into unlistenable dregs and force me to only be able to listen to Patricia Barber's Cafe Blue - which isn't as well recorded as some think.

This has zero to do with your speakers but the notion that when music sounds lousy right away the recording is blamed. I personally would rather own a stereo system that i can listen to any disc in my collection and show off to other people ANY disc in my collection without fear that I need to only select discs or tracks that sound right. Chances are if this is what you're doing the blame is hardly all of those recording engineers incompetance and deafness. This isn't to say some sound thin or bright - but I have a number of discs that will separate the boys from the men - Leahy is a decent one - Amanda Marchal's is another where the sound is thin and brittle - Jesse Cook's Tempest or almost anything of the unamoplified acoustic instrument variety - classical music - older recordings sound honky or blaring on bad speakers/systems or thin. Then on what are considered good recordings the speakers usually perform a lot better - but then the speaker which supposedly softens up the bad recoprding seem to also wow the hell out of you on those considered good recordings.

Speaker positioning is huge in order to fix up the sound of a speaker - and amplification/source have to be at least respectable - and a good match - as is your taste - but mate DO NOT change your taste in music(how can you) to suit the speaker. This makes no sense - you're basically then buying gear for the gear's sake and not to serve the music YOU LOVE. This IMO is not the point of a stereo system - the point of a stereo system is to make the music you already love brought up a level so that you love it even more. Even if that means buying a speaker with more personality or even one with a midbass hump. A lot of the 70's rock discs I have (I don't have a lot truthfully) tend to sound a bit thin so the last speaker I would want is one that is a bit thin sounding - If this was a big part of what I played i would want a speaker that is a bit fatter or even resembling the west coast sound - I would sacrifice the currnt notion of accuracy and take a little splash of tubby so that that those recording sound more rich - like buying a Starbaucks Bold Sumatra versus Folgers breakfast Light. Or a thick Port versus a dry Red. The B&W's of old like the Matrix series had much to be desired and B&W threw some of that GOOD away when they made the Nautilus series. Yes the Nautilus has improved some technical areas - but they threw out some of the musical value they had gotten right and now the Nautilus while a technically very good speaker - sounds technical or artifical. It's tough to place as to what exactly isn't up to snuff. Still a great line mind you - but IMO not an improvement musically.

Do not feel like you have to keep them - most any dealer will take them back and let you move to a competitor they carry - To me there is a difference between a bright speaker and one that is extended. If I notice detail as detail I get nervous about it's ability to realistically get the content off the disc without adding artifacts. The fact that my ear is even drawn to the tweeter as a separate entity bothers me most of the time. Allow them no more than 10 hours to "break in" - after that 2-3days and after trying different positionings and on unamplified music if there are a lot of your discs that sound in the slightes and I mean slightest bit etchy or hard - at 90-100decibals then to me the speaker needs to go. It will only result in having them gather dust - or being run on short listening sessions because you get a headache. Life is short buy a speaker that makes what you like sound good.

Wireworm5
07-20-2004, 08:20 AM
I have Metallica ST. Anger album which I happen to like, and think its perhaps the best recorded heavy metal rock that I've encountered. On my system I can crank it, and the detail of the bass playing remains intact. However reading reviews by Metallica fans on this album on Amazon, the consesus is they sounds like a garage band, and generally disliked.
So out of curiousity I played this album on a make shift system. I wanted a more boom box sound. So I hooked up my CV- LS8's to an old JVC receiver and added some bass with its on board equalizer. There it was, the garage band sound that all these reviewers are talking about.
So I have to conclude that in this case a excellent recording for the mass public played on boom boxes is too revealing and will sound like crap.
If these metallica fans could hear this recording the way it was intended, on a good system, I think the reviews would have been more positive.

Woochifer
07-20-2004, 10:58 AM
Of course, what recordings you like and how much is going to vary depending on which speakers you are listening to.

yes! I'm afraid I have te re-evaluate my collection
some jazz they do wonderful
some classical cd's that I thought were good recordings, suddenly show flaws
some songs of Queensryche, which I liked on my old B&W DM110i's, sound pretty awful :)

Well, I wouldn't go that far! I hope that evaluation process does not entail junking your disc collection to suit your speakers. If you ever read product reviews in high end mags, notice how most of the music that they refer to in their reviews is gawdawful crap that someone would have to pay you to sit through? Doesn't matter to me how well it's recorded, stuff like Amanda McBroom to me is just lousy music that can't stand sitting through. Big difference between someone who loves audio for its own sake, and someone who loves music and will enjoy it whether it gets played through an exotic million dollar system or a transistor radio.

The thing about most pop recordings is that they are not optimized for high resolution systems. They are typically overdubbed to the tilt, compressed, processed, and designed to sound like anything but a live performance (not that there's really any "right" way for amplified instruments to sound anyway). And they are typically mixed using near field monitors, like the Yamaha NS10, that optimize a recording for car audio environments or use with smaller mini system or satellite speakers. A pop recording mixed like this can still sound good on a high res system, but that won't always be the case because the mix was not done with high res playback in mind.

You had the same situation in the 1970s, when most classic rock recordings were mixed using JBL studio monitors. "West coast" speakers like JBL played those recordings very well, while they tended to sound thin and lifeless on most "British sound" speakers like the B&Ws and KEFs of that era. The aftermarket for vintage JBLs remains strong precisely because classic rock fans still prefer how their music sounds when played back through those speakers. (the JBL L65s that my dad bought for $600 in 1976 will fetch more than that if they're in restored condition) Doesn't matter to them that those speakers don't sound very good with classical or a lot of acoustic music.

And with classical recordings, a LOT of the early digital recordings and overly multitracked recordings sound horrendous. Those recordings will be not sound right on pretty much any speaker that does not boost the midrange and/or severely roll off the high end (like a lot of older "high end" speakers did).

When I auditioned the Studio v.3 series, I ran a pretty wide range of music through those speakers, and thought that they fared very well with all of them. The versatility of the Studio series IMO is its strength.

Woochifer
07-20-2004, 11:14 AM
I have Metallica ST. Anger album which I happen to like, and think its perhaps the best recorded heavy metal rock that I've encountered. On my system I can crank it, and the detail of the bass playing remains intact. However reading reviews by Metallica fans on this album on Amazon, the consesus is they sounds like a garage band, and generally disliked.
So out of curiousity I played this album on a make shift system. I wanted a more boom box sound. So I hooked up my CV- LS8's to an old JVC receiver and added some bass with its on board equalizer. There it was, the garage band sound that all these reviewers are talking about.
So I have to conclude that in this case a excellent recording for the mass public played on boom boxes is too revealing and will sound like crap.
If these metallica fans could hear this recording the way it was intended, on a good system, I think the reviews would have been more positive.

Pretty high praise for that album. I admit I gave it few listens and then put it down, never really quite connected with it. Even on my system, the recording does remind me a lot of a garage demo, especially with how detached the vocals sound. I can see how Metallica was trying to go with more of a raw sound with St. Anger, especially considering how polished their last three albums had sounded. (Even though it's got its detractors, I use "Load" as one of my test discs when I evaluate speakers) It definitely has more of a street feel than any of the other stuff that they've done with Bob Rock, but I'm not sure if I would go as far as calling St. Anger one of the best recorded metal albums out there, or blame the boom box playback for its lukewarm reception. Musically, that album still hasn't sunk in with me. I guess I'm still in the old school RideTheLightning/MasterofPuppets/AndJusticeForAll phase!

BTW, I heard a lot of great things about the new Metallica movie. Supposed to be a very insightful documentary that traces all the stuff they went through while recording St. Anger. Heard that the movie has a lot of parallels to This Is Spinal Tap, except that it's about a real band.

Jochem
07-20-2004, 12:35 PM
Woochifer wrote:
The thing about most pop recordings is that they are not optimized for high resolution systems.


I think this is the matter in case of Queensryche, which sounds not-too-convincing on my Studio 20's


Anyway,
What I also don't like on them is dance- or dance-related electronics: elektro, techno, squarepusher, aphex twin, EBM and the like; I notice they make me tired... and not only with the things mentioned here, also violin can be a bit 'screechy'.

but what's the alternative for 800 euro p.pair?
Quad 11L?

RGA, what do you think are good loudspeakers for me, considering my living-situation ?



Jochem
---
Paradigm Studio 20
NAD 312
Sony CDP-650

Woochifer
07-20-2004, 01:25 PM
Woochifer wrote:
The thing about most pop recordings is that they are not optimized for high resolution systems.


I think this is the matter in case of Queensryche, which sounds not-too-convincing on my Studio 20's


Anyway,
What I also don't like on them is dance- or dance-related electronics: elektro, techno, squarepusher, aphex twin, EBM and the like; I notice they make me tired... and not only with the things mentioned here, also violin can be a bit 'screechy'.

but what's the alternative for 800 euro p.pair?
Quad 11L?

RGA, what do you think are good loudspeakers for me, considering my living-situation ?



Jochem
---
Paradigm Studio 20
NAD 312
Sony CDP-650

If your previous speakers were older B&Ws, the Studio 20s have a very different sound. To me, it's more immediate and engaging. Listeners who are more used to the older B&W sound might find the Studio series overly aggressive. For someone like me who does not like the older B&Ws, the Studios strike the right balance.

I listen to a lot of comparable electronica on my Studio setup, and find the sound very much attuned to my preferences. Stuff like Chemical Brothers, Crystal Method, Portishead, and Underworld, and "nujazz" like Jazzanova and St. Germain work very well on my setup, and the imaging with the Studio series is very good at conveying the various phasing tricks that the engineers use on those recordings to convey a larger soundstage. The highs on a lot of electronica recordings tend to be mixed on the high side. For one thing, a lot of that is intended for 12" vinyl and nightclub system playback. For that music, I still generally preferred the Studios to the more laid back sound that I heard from the B&W 600 S2 series speakers that I was also auditioning earlier. Obviously, your preferences might be different.

But as I stated earlier, I think in general, the biggest variable is your room acoustics. You might want to borrow some other speakers from your dealer and see if they give you the same issues. Excessive room reflections can smear the sound and make the highs seem harsh no matter what speakers you're trying out. The wide dispersion pattern of the Studio 20s helps out with the imaging, but if you have nothing but hard surfaces close by, it could also create a harsher sound. The acoustics in my room are problematic and I use acoustic panels in my room behind the front speakers, and by reducing the frontwall reflections, it significantly smoothed out the sound in my room and tightened up the imaging. If you're looking for something different from the Studio series that might work better for your preferences, you can start with B&W, Mission, KEF, and Dynaudio, and proceed from there.

RGA
07-20-2004, 07:24 PM
Woochifer wrote:
The thing about most pop recordings is that they are not optimized for high resolution systems.


I think this is the matter in case of Queensryche, which sounds not-too-convincing on my Studio 20's


Anyway,
What I also don't like on them is dance- or dance-related electronics: elektro, techno, squarepusher, aphex twin, EBM and the like; I notice they make me tired... and not only with the things mentioned here, also violin can be a bit 'screechy'.

but what's the alternative for 800 euro p.pair?
Quad 11L?

RGA, what do you think are good loudspeakers for me, considering my living-situation ?



Jochem
---
Paradigm Studio 20
NAD 312
Sony CDP-650

Firstly for 800 EU those speakers are grossly overpriced - They should be about $800.00Cdn - ~350 EU.

I would think you could get a host of sepakers over there better than the Studio 20 - note though that I have not heard the V3 Studio just the V3 of the monitor line - Yes I would certainly try out the Quad or Von Sweikert. I am not going to make any specific recommendation - what I am recommending is not to put up with a speaker that makes your music not enjoyable - even if that means selecting a speaker that is rolled off or humped up or euphonic or whatever - ideally you want a balance and I'm not saying get a totally innacurate poor measuring speaker but one that isn't annoying - I can listen to my speakers at a reasonably loud level for 8 hours - there is not muting or roll-off. I have not heard the new Quad's - heard good things about them - but really it has to please YOU.

This is why advice of specific brands isn't helpful because I don't necessarily listen to the same music or have the same preferances. I only chimed in because you are hearing what I have always heard with the particular brand - after break in - and with good equipment over the last 8 years from these guys. If it's a sound yu like go for it but it sounded to me that you had reservations - there are lots of other brands - Quad seems to have a similarity in their views as the speaker I bought so perhaps I would like the Quads too - and in Europe there is the classic Spendors - there is Harbeth there is ATC(I'm not familiar with). I would try and listen to speakers with a different approach - silk/soft dome tweeters perhaps. Quad has reasons for their choice as dooes the company making my speakers - Von sweikert's VR 1 is another - and PMC recently switched from a metal tweeter to a silk dome in their PMC TB2 - their upscale speakers all had soft domes reserving the cheap titanium for the lower line - now that hey have switched might be worth a try. But lots available. http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/lseriesworks.htm

I had my K's for 6 months and they gave me 100% trade-up on them so maybe you're dealer has such a program.

Jochem
07-28-2004, 07:15 AM
Hi all,

Today I brought them back... shop had no problems with it.

Thanks for all the advice - you really were thinking along with me - RGA especially.

And: I don't know what speakers I'm gonna buy next. I keep listening around and will take it easy.


Regards,


Jochem

RGA
07-28-2004, 09:16 AM
The thing is not to rush. I have been very impressed with lots of speakers in stores over short listening sessions - and after a longer while much much less impressed. The speaker not busy impressing you in any one particular area may be the best you'll find - the speaker you listen to and DON'T think "wow what great detail" may in fact be the one that is getting the treble right. (ie; not drawing attention to itself).

But hey it's just one opinion among many - sounds like you have a pretty good dealer allowing you to take things back - as it should be.

Good luck and be patient - took me 4 years to move to new speakers and I am satisfied I won't change brands for a good 20 years. Now you need to find one you really love.

Pat D
07-28-2004, 01:25 PM
I would think you could get a host of sepakers over there better than the Studio 20 - note though that I have not heard the V3 Studio just the V3 of the monitor line -

If it's a sound yu like go for it but it sounded to me that you had reservations - there are lots of other brands - Quad seems to have a similarity in their views as the speaker I bought so perhaps I would like the Quads too - and in Europe there is the classic Spendors - there is Harbeth there is ATC(I'm not familiar with).
I thought you would have learned from the last time to not comment on the sound of speakers you haven't heard! So you haven't heard the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, but you opine that there would be better values.

Your remarks about the Quads are a little strange, based on the philosophy of the makers rather than the performance of the speakers. From all reports, the Quad box speakers seem to be pretty good, however. I heard the little Quad 11L b and it imaged well, but sounded a bit off on female vocals, but not bad at all.

Woochifer
07-28-2004, 01:52 PM
Hi all,

Today I brought them back... shop had no problems with it.

Thanks for all the advice - you really were thinking along with me - RGA especially.

And: I don't know what speakers I'm gonna buy next. I keep listening around and will take it easy.


Regards,


Jochem

I think the key here is next time you make a decision, you need to try them out at home before you buy. What you hear in a dealer's demo room can sound very different at home. Like I said, you need to double check how the room acoustics affect the sound quality. Bad acoustics will equal bad audio quality, no matter how good the speakers sound elsewhere.

RGA
07-28-2004, 06:00 PM
I thought you would have learned from the last time to not comment on the sound of speakers you haven't heard! So you haven't heard the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, but you opine that there would be better values.

Your remarks about the Quads are a little strange, based on the philosophy of the makers rather than the performance of the speakers. From all reports, the Quad box speakers seem to be pretty good, however. I heard the little Quad 11L b and it imaged well, but sounded a bit off on female vocals, but not bad at all.

Paradigm has a sound - I have not been overly enthused by any of them over the last decade - yet another tweak job - occuring when it's time to sell more - isn't likely to make me a believer. Besides the poster is the only person that matters in this thread in this regard and has noticed a trait in the product that I heard hevily in the V2 edition - even if the V3 is vastly superior to the V2 in every conceivable way (which it better be for this much money) the point is moot since he found them to sound the way I have heard the V2 sound.

I am not recommending him BUY any speaker but PatD likes to insinuate that I am. Per usual inventing statements. Quad is simply far more available in Europe - has had good commentary by people who like speakers I have liked. I also mentioned several other brands not available here like Spender - I mention them because a person on another forum loves them and loves speakers I have liked.

But of course we can only blame everything other than the mighty Pardigm speakers. Sorry, but I am not going to tell someone to keep a speaker they don't like because I think they should.

Jochem

Just for fun mate - go listen to the Audio Note AX-Two standmount - it retails for $549.00US or $450EU. This $400EU less than the Studio 20V3. I would be interested in your comments. Next time I'm at my dealer I am going to put it up against them myself and the N805. I have already read from a few that they felt the AX-two was better than the N805. Again I'm not saying go and BUY them. But hey give it a try - $400EU you save may or may not get you a better speaker - if it is better and it wouldn't surprise me at all - then you will have $400.00EU to get more albums - isn't that the point - music - a speaker should let you get on with it and not irritate you - simple as that.


Room acoustics is relatively important - I have found good speakers sound good in most every room(room friendly) so long as you position the speakers properly. In a typical apartment with carpets and average furnishings you should be fine.

Pat D
07-28-2004, 06:28 PM
Paradigm has a sound - I have not been overly enthused by any of them over the last decade - yet another tweak job - occuring when it's time to sell more - isn't likely to make me a believer. Besides the poster is the only person that matters in this thread in this regard and has noticed a trait in the product that I heard hevily in the V2 edition - even if the V3 is vastly superior to the V2 in every conceivable way (which it better be for this much money) the point is moot since he found them to sound the way I have heard the V2 sound.

I am not recommending him BUY any speaker but PatD likes to insinuate that I am. Per usual inventing statements. Quad is simply far more available in Europe - has had good commentary by people who like speakers I have liked. I also mentioned several other brands not available here like Spender - I mention them because a person on another forum loves them and loves speakers I have liked.

But of course we can only blame everything other than the mighty Pardigm speakers. Sorry, but I am not going to tell someone to keep a speaker they don't like because I think they should.

Jochem

Just for fun mate - go listen to the Audio Note AX-Two standmount - it retails for $549.00US or $450EU. This $400EU less than the Studio 20V3. I would be interested in your comments. Next time I'm at my dealer I am going to put it up against them myself and the N805. I have already read from a few that they felt the AX-two was better than the N805. Again I'm not saying go and BUY them. But hey give it a try - $400EU you save may or may not get you a better speaker - if it is better and it wouldn't surprise me at all - then you will have $400.00EU to get more albums - isn't that the point - music - a speaker should let you get on with it and not irritate you - simple as that.


Room acoustics is relatively important - I have found good speakers sound good in most every room(room friendly) so long as you position the speakers properly. In a typical apartment with carpets and average furnishings you should be fine.
It is simply not true that every Paradigm speaker in the last decades sounds about the same. In any case, you shouldn't comment on the sound of a speaker model unless you have some real information about the performance. You haven't heard the v. 3, so you shouldn't comment on the sound. It is perfectly all right to suggest speakers for audition because others like them, but that is not to give your own comment on the sound quality.

Well, if you go to the post above where I mentioned the two-meter distance from the speakers, you will find that I suggested maybe the Paradigm Studio 20 was not really suitable for him, and even proposed a reason for it. I even suggested a speaker model that might work better up close. So where do you get the idea that I suggested he keep the Paradigms?

I also have felt that the v. 3 of the Paradigm Reference Series is more colored than the v. 2. Others like it a lot. I at least have heard the v. 3.

Pat D
07-28-2004, 06:34 PM
I think the key here is next time you make a decision, you need to try them out at home before you buy. What you hear in a dealer's demo room can sound very different at home. Like I said, you need to double check how the room acoustics affect the sound quality. Bad acoustics will equal bad audio quality, no matter how good the speakers sound elsewhere.
Very sensible advice, no matter what RGA says. Speakers can sound better or worse at home, certainly different. The main thing I would add is that to get the best out of a speaker, it is almost always necessary to experiment with the placement, especially the distances from the listener, the side and back walls and floor, and the amount of toe-in.

RGA
07-28-2004, 06:55 PM
It is simply not true that every Paradigm speaker in the last decades sounds about the same. In any case, you shouldn't comment on the sound of a speaker model unless you have some real information about the performance. You haven't heard the v. 3, so you shouldn't comment on the sound. It is perfectly all right to suggest speakers for audition because others like them, but that is not to give your own comment on the sound quality.

Well, if you go to the post above where I mentioned the two-meter distance from the speakers, you will find that I suggested maybe the Paradigm Studio 20 was not really suitable for him, and even proposed a reason for it. I even suggested a speaker model that might work better up close. So where do you get the idea that I suggested he keep the Paradigms?

I also have felt that the v. 3 of the Paradigm Reference Series is more colored than the v. 2. Others like it a lot. I at least have heard the v. 3.

Umm firstly this is what you quoted from me

" would think you could get a host of sepakers over there better than the Studio 20 - note though that I have not heard the V3 Studio just the V3 of the monitor line -

If it's a sound yu like go for it but it sounded to me that you had reservations - there are lots of other brands - Quad seems to have a similarity in their views as the speaker I bought so perhaps I would like the Quads too - and in Europe there is the classic Spendors - there is Harbeth there is ATC(I'm not familiar with). "

Please point out where I am commenting on the sound of the Paradigm speakers - I went out of my way to note that I have not heard the V3 of the Studio 20 - I have heard the V3 of the monitor line and in fact I have heard the V3 of the Studio 100(but not in a music only set-up). My comment was as to the high price of the speaker - I then suggested some alternates to try out. Has nothing to do with ME - Woochifer continually brings up old B&W's as if they sound like the S3 line (which they most certainly don't) and Skeptic blasts speakers he has not heard. Your personal vendetta against me is obvious because I see no commentary when others do it. And I would not have mentioned anything on this thread except for the fact that tghis poster has a problem with a speaker from a company that has the same issue for me for around a decade - perhaps they have after 10 years got it right - but the tweeter is still metal and the design is still similar - so it likely sounds similar - and typical of the series how much better is the 20V3 to what I heard from the 100V3?

Either way the poster is at issue here - your attacks are simply to side-track the issue.

And if it is true and the 20V3 is worse than the V2 then that is even more of a reason to avoid Paradigm since the V2 were the height of mediocrity - in my opinion of course.

Pat D
07-28-2004, 08:18 PM
Umm firstly this is what you quoted from me

" would think you could get a host of sepakers over there better than the Studio 20 - note though that I have not heard the V3 Studio just the V3 of the monitor line -

If it's a sound yu like go for it but it sounded to me that you had reservations - there are lots of other brands - Quad seems to have a similarity in their views as the speaker I bought so perhaps I would like the Quads too - and in Europe there is the classic Spendors - there is Harbeth there is ATC(I'm not familiar with). "

Please point out where I am commenting on the sound of the Paradigm speakers - I went out of my way to note that I have not heard the V3 of the Studio 20 - I have heard the V3 of the monitor line and in fact I have heard the V3 of the Studio 100(but not in a music only set-up). My comment was as to the high price of the speaker - I then suggested some alternates to try out. Has nothing to do with ME - Woochifer continually brings up old B&W's as if they sound like the S3 line (which they most certainly don't) and Skeptic blasts speakers he has not heard. Your personal vendetta against me is obvious because I see no commentary when others do it. And I would not have mentioned anything on this thread except for the fact that tghis poster has a problem with a speaker from a company that has the same issue for me for around a decade - perhaps they have after 10 years got it right - but the tweeter is still metal and the design is still similar - so it likely sounds similar - and typical of the series how much better is the 20V3 to what I heard from the 100V3?

Either way the poster is at issue here - your attacks are simply to side-track the issue.

And if it is true and the 20V3 is worse than the V2 then that is even more of a reason to avoid Paradigm since the V2 were the height of mediocrity - in my opinion of course.
Exactly. You evaluated a speaker you had not heard and the quoted passage shows it. If that is not a comment on the quality, then I don't know what is! You even suggest other speakers you haven't heard are likely to be better . . You based your comment not on the speaker's performance but because you don't particularly like the manufacturer.

Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters.:)

Woochifer
07-28-2004, 08:56 PM
My comment was as to the high price of the speaker - I then suggested some alternates to try out. Has nothing to do with ME - Woochifer continually brings up old B&W's as if they sound like the S3 line (which they most certainly don't) and Skeptic blasts speakers he has not heard. Your personal vendetta against me is obvious because I see no commentary when others do it. And I would not have mentioned anything on this thread except for the fact that tghis poster has a problem with a speaker from a company that has the same issue for me for around a decade - perhaps they have after 10 years got it right - but the tweeter is still metal and the design is still similar - so it likely sounds similar - and typical of the series how much better is the 20V3 to what I heard from the 100V3?

No, sometimes when I bring up the older B&Ws, I'm referring to models that they made over 10 to 20 years ago. And that's almost always in the context of my having come around to enjoying their more recent speakers, after pretty much not liking anything that they produced in the 80s and early-90s.

When have I ever equated older B&W models to the 600 S3 series? If I'm commenting based on my extensive and repeated listenings with the 600 S2 series models, then I always point that out. I doubt that the all around balance and freedom from major flaws that I've always noted with that series is radically different with the S3 models. My comments on the Nautilus series still stand because those speakers have not changed since I last heard them.

The Studio v.3 series is an incremental improvement over the v.2 series. It simply improved upon what was already good with that series, and made some significant changes to how they resolve the bass. And for me, that's a good thing.


And if it is true and the 20V3 is worse than the V2 then that is even more of a reason to avoid Paradigm since the V2 were the height of mediocrity - in my opinion of course.

Height of mediocrity? Let's not get too carried away with the gross exaggerations just because you're engaged in a hissy fit. Height of mediocrity -- so you would prefer the sound of a TV speaker, an AM radio, a Bose 901, or a tin can and string over the sound of the Studio v.2? That's seems like you're within the rhelm of plausible reality, after all it is your opinion of course, and in the past you've stated that the Studio 40 and 100 v.2 models were good speakers. Opinion changed, or just shifting with the argument?

RGA
07-28-2004, 09:12 PM
If I'm commenting based on my extensive and repeated listenings with the 600 S2 series models, then I always point that out. I doubt that the all around balance and freedom from major flaws that I've always noted with that series is radically different with the S3 models.

So you are assuming the improvement isn't going to differe greatly than the S3 - I am assuming that with the V3 based off of my auditions with the original the V2 and the 100V3. I still made no comment as to the sound quality of the 20V3 in a personal way.

Height of mediocrity? Let's not get too carried away with the gross exaggerations just because you're engaged in a hissy fit. Height of mediocrity -- so you would prefer the sound of a TV speaker, an AM radio, a Bose 901, or a tin can and string over the sound of the Studio v.2? That's seems like you're within the rhelm of plausible reality, after all it is your opinion of course, and in the past you've stated that the Studio 40 and 100 v.2 models were good speakers. Opinion changed, or just shifting with the argument? [/QUOTE]

No the comparison you mnade is to sub zero garbage and garden variety garbage - mediocrity is about 3-4 levels up from that.

Woochifer
07-28-2004, 10:05 PM
So you are assuming the improvement isn't going to differe greatly than the S3 - I am assuming that with the V3 based off of my auditions with the original the V2 and the 100V3. I still made no comment as to the sound quality of the 20V3 in a personal way.

My comments on the 600 S3 are always in the context that they are worth giving a listen. Again, I ask, when have I ever equated all of the older B&Ws that I listened to with the S3 versions, which I always indicate that I have not listened to? I doubt that the S3 version is going to suddenly be voiced to sound like a Klipsch RF speaker or the JBL Northridge series, so my comments are applicable.

I'm not the one who commented on your comparison between the Studio v.2 and v.3 models, so take that argument to the appropriate source.


No the comparison you mnade is to sub zero garbage and garden variety garbage - mediocrity is about 3-4 levels up from that.

So that 8/10 rating that you gave the Studio 100 v.2 (or Studio 40 v.2, one or the other) last year constitutes the "height of mediocrity"? A lot of negativity built into your rating scales.

I guess 9/10 is the average of mediocrity, and 10/10 is just mediocre. A perfectly rated speaker then would be something merely does not make you totally unhappy. No wonder you're just about ready to slit your wrists anytime a speaker emits the slightest trifle of elevated highs.

Subzero garbage and garden variety garbage then would rate 7/10 and 6/10? I guess that something that rates a 3/10 would constitute rotting subzero garbage? And something that rates -4/10 would be subatomic decayed subsubzero garbage?

Like I said, changing opinion or just shifting with the argument?

RGA
07-28-2004, 10:13 PM
Exactly. You evaluated a speaker you had not heard and the quoted passage shows it. If that is not a comment on the quality, then I don't know what is! You even suggest other speakers you haven't heard are likely to be better . . You based your comment not on the speaker's performance but because you don't particularly like the manufacturer.

First no i have not evaluated the speaker at all - I said I bet it wouldn't be hard to beat it - since I have always found that to be the case with this brand the track record is sound(or statistically predictable to the .05 level that I would find a better speaker for the same or less money). :p And since the poster disliked the speaker in question and obviously hated them so much that he returned them then the odds are favoruable that yes indeed, he will likely be able to find a speaker which he will deem better. I made recommendations to LISTEN to speakers which would be available widely in Europe and that will have a different design approach - rather than him listening to other similar designs from Energy. I have zero against the manufacturer (when and if they make a good sounding speaker I will sing their praise louder than anyone here - especially since they're Canadian). As yet that has yet to happen.

[/QUOTE]
Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters.:) [/QUOTE]

Umm he doesn't like standmounts because he basicaally says all small speakers are total garbage that can't recreate realism - and you support him by buying such a speaker? - Then you claim he is technically suitable - This is contradictory. Yes I'm sure direct firing speakers standmounts can't do what he wants them to do - neither can the Paradigm do for this person what he wants them to do - which is not sound irritating. That has been my experience with all but about 2 speakers in 10 years from this company. And those two are not earth-shatterringly great speakers - and neither are made anymore.

I don't spread myths at all - metal tweeters sound like sh!t most of the time to me. How can a personal opinion be a myth. I bother to listen to them. I make no technical comment about metal tweeters other than their break-up tendancies. Which of course get's beaten down as "well only at high volumes" or some such drivel. I am generalizing too widely because I have not heard ALL speakers using metal tweeters - but I do believe that the material has a sonic signature. Some companies I feel are better at not reminding me of it all of the time - most do unfortunately. I make comments about what I hear from them - usually with their grilles on and I have no idea whether they use metal tweeters or soft domes until AFTER I listen to them first. I have merely found that since 1990 in most cases speakers fairing rather poorly use metal - those scoring highly use something else. My one compliant of the PMC TB1 and 2 was the treble these cheapest speakers in the PMC line-up used a metal driver - they have now shifted to silk domes like their mega buck products - if the rest of the TB2 sounds the same and they fix the etchy fatiguing treble(which was still way better than any of the Paradigms I've heard over the years) then this would be something terrific for nearfield monoitoring.

I am uninterested in measurements that do not corelate to real world sound(or can't detect crappy treble from such speakers). I am uninterested in corporations trying to sell me documents to prove their speakers sound good - Bose is good at this - Harman is learning well and making dreck as well. When I set speaker A against speaker B it will become very apparent which sounds better. Tom Nousaine may not approve but then it ain't his money he's spending.

But this person didn't like the speaker 20V3 it gets an F - failed to meet expectations of sounding good. There are probably 1000 alternatives - I am sure he will be able to find one better even if only a D-. You are now saying that he won't be able to find a speaker more to his liking than the 20V3 by saying that I am wrong in saying that I bet he can find a speaker he will like more eh?

Why not just suggest PSB and be done with it.

Get speakers that sound like instruments in any room - what if a person moves to a new home? Means they should dump their speakers if the room isn't agreeable? A great speaker will always sound great relative to others. Even if the room is lousy the better speaker will sound better than the rest in that room (assuming the size of the room is appropriate). And yes I have heard the same Paradigm speakers in several rooms over the years - maybe 15 different ones and B&W in a number of rooms and Audio Note - etc etc.

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

The person is hearing the same thing I hear with speakers from this brand and chances are likely, if he hears it the way I do, that he will hear similarities from other speakers using metal tweeters. Then again he might love a JM Labs or B&W.

RGA
07-28-2004, 10:36 PM
My comments on the 600 S3 are always in the context that they are worth giving a listen. Again, I ask, when have I ever equated all of the older B&Ws that I listened to with the S3 versions, which I always indicate that I have not listened to? I doubt that the S3 version is going to suddenly be voiced to sound like a Klipsch RF speaker or the JBL Northridge series, so my comments are applicable.

You do it all the time especially on home theater. Someone asking about the Series 3 and you bring up the series 2 center channel - who the hell cares about the series 2 center channel since it's no longer made - the new one is better the people are not asking about the series 2 - the implication is they have not improved.



So that 8/10 rating that you gave the Studio 100 v.2 (or Studio 40 v.2, one or the other) last year constitutes the "height of mediocrity"? A lot of negativity built into your rating scales.

I guess 9/10 is the average of mediocrity, and 10/10 is just mediocre. A perfectly rated speaker then would be something merely does not make you totally unhappy. No wonder you're just about ready to slit your wrists anytime a speaker emits the slightest trifle of elevated highs.

Subzero garbage and garden variety garbage then would rate 7/10 and 6/10? I guess that something that rates a 3/10 would constitute rotting subzero garbage? And something that rates -4/10 would be subatomic decayed subsubzero garbage?

Like I said, changing opinion or just shifting with the argument?

Ahh the trials of using a rating system. I can give two films four stars out of four - one will be my number one film of all time the other will spot 297th.

In the case of speakers I reviewed based off their price points In absolute speaker terms the Studio 100 I would give em maybe a 3/10 - for the price range they're in I give them an 8/10 (and that was an overall rating not a sound quality alone rating) - reserving that there are speakers in the general price range I would score a 9 and other(s) a 10. The CDM 9NT I rated higher on sound lower on value. The speaker is no longer made on both counts and I have not kept up as much with speakers in this price range.

Also like film reviews your number one best film of all time can be unseated when you watch something you deem better. And if you rate on the curve - then that former 100/100 might now be 99/100. The fact that after that review I heard more standmounts like the Energy C9 which I felt was better for $500.00 less money would have dropped my high value rating componant on the 100V2 which would possibly bring the 100V2 to 6.5 - 7 overall. But since the V2 is no longer made - that point is moot.

metalaaron
07-29-2004, 05:18 AM
just because someone doesn't like it doesn't me the speaker gets an F. it means the person's listening experience failed. it's not the speaker's fault. it's not the person's fault. what would we do if all speakers sounded the same? what would we do if everyone drove a blue honda? speakers and cars are quite personal.


jochem,
i recommend you check out the Ascend cbm-170. i had it side-by-side with a pair of studio 20 v.3s and it was quite amazing. check it out and see what you think.

Pat D
07-29-2004, 07:08 AM
First no i have not evaluated the speaker at all - I said I bet it wouldn't be hard to beat it - since I have always found that to be the case with this brand the track record is sound(or statistically predictable to the .05 level that I would find a better speaker for the same or less money). :p And since the poster disliked the speaker in question and obviously hated them so much that he returned them then the odds are favoruable that yes indeed, he will likely be able to find a speaker which he will deem better. I made recommendations to LISTEN to speakers which would be available widely in Europe and that will have a different design approach - rather than him listening to other similar designs from Energy. I have zero against the manufacturer (when and if they make a good sounding speaker I will sing their praise louder than anyone here - especially since they're Canadian). As yet that has yet to happen.

Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters.:) [/QUOTE]
Umm he doesn't like standmounts because he basicaally says all small speakers are total garbage that can't recreate realism - and you support him by buying such a speaker? - Then you claim he is technically suitable - This is contradictory. Yes I'm sure direct firing speakers standmounts can't do what he wants them to do - neither can the Paradigm do for this person what he wants them to do - which is not sound irritating. That has been my experience with all but about 2 speakers in 10 years from this company. And those two are not earth-shatterringly great speakers - and neither are made anymore.

I don't spread myths at all - metal tweeters sound like sh!t most of the time to me. How can a personal opinion be a myth. I bother to listen to them. I make no technical comment about metal tweeters other than their break-up tendancies. Which of course get's beaten down as "well only at high volumes" or some such drivel. I am generalizing too widely because I have not heard ALL speakers using metal tweeters - but I do believe that the material has a sonic signature. Some companies I feel are better at not reminding me of it all of the time - most do unfortunately. I make comments about what I hear from them - usually with their grilles on and I have no idea whether they use metal tweeters or soft domes until AFTER I listen to them first. I have merely found that since 1990 in most cases speakers fairing rather poorly use metal - those scoring highly use something else. My one compliant of the PMC TB1 and 2 was the treble these cheapest speakers in the PMC line-up used a metal driver - they have now shifted to silk domes like their mega buck products - if the rest of the TB2 sounds the same and they fix the etchy fatiguing treble(which was still way better than any of the Paradigms I've heard over the years) then this would be something terrific for nearfield monoitoring.

I am uninterested in measurements that do not corelate to real world sound(or can't detect crappy treble from such speakers). I am uninterested in corporations trying to sell me documents to prove their speakers sound good - Bose is good at this - Harman is learning well and making dreck as well. When I set speaker A against speaker B it will become very apparent which sounds better. Tom Nousaine may not approve but then it ain't his money he's spending.

But this person didn't like the speaker 20V3 it gets an F - failed to meet expectations of sounding good. There are probably 1000 alternatives - I am sure he will be able to find one better even if only a D-. You are now saying that he won't be able to find a speaker more to his liking than the 20V3 by saying that I am wrong in saying that I bet he can find a speaker he will like more eh?

Why not just suggest PSB and be done with it.

Get speakers that sound like instruments in any room - what if a person moves to a new home? Means they should dump their speakers if the room isn't agreeable? A great speaker will always sound great relative to others. Even if the room is lousy the better speaker will sound better than the rest in that room (assuming the size of the room is appropriate). And yes I have heard the same Paradigm speakers in several rooms over the years - maybe 15 different ones and B&W in a number of rooms and Audio Note - etc etc.

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

The person is hearing the same thing I hear with speakers from this brand and chances are likely, if he hears it the way I do, that he will hear similarities from other speakers using metal tweeters. Then again he might love a JM Labs or B&W.[/QUOTE]
No, the original poster rather liked the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, IN The STORE, but found they didn't meet his needs AT HOME. What has your silly generalization about metal tweeters to do with that? Nothing. Indeed, you deny that is likely to happen since you maintain good speakers sound good in virtually every room. But he didn't seem to find them irritating in the store. Even at home, the poster even mentions they sound very good with some recordings but not others, hardly a hate message. I suggested the placement could be a reason (in this case, listening distance, as a possible reason, but with a small room, there's not much he can do about that I gather). But we do agree that a good option was to get more suitable speakers for his purposes and he has taken the Studio 20s back and is no doubt looking for something else.

I don't agree with Skeptic as to everything he says, but he is sure that mini-monitors are not suitable for him and gives good reasons for it. You once told me that the NRC curves for a Paradigm Titan and a Revel Performa M20 looked the same--which is totally laughable, but of course you think Revel makes "dreck" anyway. Anyone can see the differences, though understanding their significance is another matter. Hence, I concluded you don't understand speaker measurements. I find such measurements as done in the NRC and by Stereophile and even Sound & Vision to be useful, and they don't have to tell me everything to be useful.

Why don't I just recoment PSB and be done with it? . . . well, why don't you just recommend Audio Note and be done with it?:) I don't just do that because the other people may well prefer something else.

Woochifer
07-29-2004, 10:36 AM
You do it all the time especially on home theater. Someone asking about the Series 3 and you bring up the series 2 center channel - who the hell cares about the series 2 center channel since it's no longer made - the new one is better the people are not asking about the series 2 - the implication is they have not improved.

No, the point that I'm making is that the listener needs to evaluate the center speaker before they decide. The fact that B&W made a substandard center speaker (and surround speakers) for the previous series simply means the listener should not take it on faith that B&W will always make ancillary speakers that are up to the quality of their mains. Are you suggesting that people purchase center speakers on faith without listening for timbre matching? Fine advice considering that you don't even own a surround setup.

Like I said, when have I ever EQUATED the sound of older B&Ws with the S3s? Find a quote from me if you're so convinced of this. Otherwise, you're just going off the top of your head, and judging by your latest comments on the Studio v.2 series that's not the most reliable thing to work with.


Ahh the trials of using a rating system. I can give two films four stars out of four - one will be my number one film of all time the other will spot 297th.

In the case of speakers I reviewed based off their price points In absolute speaker terms the Studio 100 I would give em maybe a 3/10 - for the price range they're in I give them an 8/10 (and that was an overall rating not a sound quality alone rating) - reserving that there are speakers in the general price range I would score a 9 and other(s) a 10. The CDM 9NT I rated higher on sound lower on value. The speaker is no longer made on both counts and I have not kept up as much with speakers in this price range.

Also like film reviews your number one best film of all time can be unseated when you watch something you deem better. And if you rate on the curve - then that former 100/100 might now be 99/100. The fact that after that review I heard more standmounts like the Energy C9 which I felt was better for $500.00 less money would have dropped my high value rating componant on the 100V2 which would possibly bring the 100V2 to 6.5 - 7 overall. But since the V2 is no longer made - that point is moot.

The Studio 100 a 3/10 in ABSOLUTE terms? Now I know your "opinions" are just shifting to suit whatever argument you're in. Just inject the value argument as a bailout. Very interesting approach considering that you rated the Studio 40 v.2 4/5 in sound quality and gave it a 4/5 for value. Are you now saying that the value and sound quality ratings are not what they say they are? Are you saying that if price were no object that too would warrant a 3/10? Pretty extreme change of opinion when the dollar signs are attached, or your memory's just fading.

For your reference, here's the review Studio 40 v.2 that you originally posted last year. It sure reads like the description of a "height of mediocrity" speaker to me! Whatever amendments and disclaimers you now have to tag on to make it consistent your tirade on this thread should be interesting.

Paradigm Studio 40 Version 2
Well, wanting to hear the version 3 was sadly not to be as the dealer had none coming. The listen to products on a year to year basis and make determinations whether or not they will standby the product or not. The luxury of being one of the biggest high end dealers around, I suppose. Nevertheless the V2 is still widely available and I have yet to get around to doing a review of them. I also think that Audio Refinement gear may very well be the finest match with the Studios I've come across, though I purchased my Sugden integrated based off of what I heard with the Studio 100. Once again I started the session with the Surfacing album and what struck me off the bat was how different it presented the music. The sound was tight and defined from deeper bass through the mid-band. This is a very clear articulate speaker, certainly no articulation problems here. Estefan's Conga was well defined with very tight bass lines snare drums were very fast, crisp clear and with impressive bass weight. Pink had this in Mind when she wanted to get the party started! On Madonna's Ray of Light imaging was impeccable and agin superbly fast, detailed and well wide of the speaker's boxes. The imaging would impress again on Deana Carter's "Danced Anyway" keeping her front and center while instruments were well separated. Norah Jones' Nightingale once again placed the singer with that in room feel. There seemed to be a slight thinness with Nora and Sarah compared to the B&W and the other high end models. A kind of trade off has been made for muscle and imaging at the expense of that big full sounding presentation. Hardness was identifiable on the Barber track with a slight audible ring to the violins. However, the Refinement gear seemed to make it far more plausible than my past experience with the line. Coherency was the speakerís best attribute, and technically well proportioned throughout the midrange, punchy, colourful and an exceptional rocker. The sound can become thin and overly dry at higher volume with Vivaldi disc and with Sarah's Vocals. I would take issue with it being ľ more money than the 602S3 or virtually the same money as the PMC TB2. But beyond these grumbles the speaker is an impressive bag of soundstaging, imaging, power, coherency and a solid presence in the mid bass region. The 602S3 is more of a broad music appeal product in this range, while the 40 offers a more punchy, speedy in your face knock down and drag out oomph.

Ratings: Paradigm Studio 40 V2
Build: ****1/2
Overall Sound Quality ****
Value for the money: ****
http://www.paradigm.ca/

RGA
07-29-2004, 10:40 AM
just because someone doesn't like it doesn't me the speaker gets an F. it means the person's listening experience failed. it's not the speaker's fault. it's not the person's fault. what would we do if all speakers sounded the same? what would we do if everyone drove a blue honda? speakers and cars are quite personal.


jochem,
i recommend you check out the Ascend cbm-170. i had it side-by-side with a pair of studio 20 v.3s and it was quite amazing. check it out and see what you think.

Your quite right in a sense - I may give Pulp Fiction an A someone else might give it an F. RThese are personal judgments about our perception of the given product.

RGA
07-29-2004, 10:50 AM
Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters.:)
Umm he doesn't like standmounts because he basicaally says all small speakers are total garbage that can't recreate realism - and you support him by buying such a speaker? - Then you claim he is technically suitable - This is contradictory. Yes I'm sure direct firing speakers standmounts can't do what he wants them to do - neither can the Paradigm do for this person what he wants them to do - which is not sound irritating. That has been my experience with all but about 2 speakers in 10 years from this company. And those two are not earth-shatterringly great speakers - and neither are made anymore.

I don't spread myths at all - metal tweeters sound like sh!t most of the time to me. How can a personal opinion be a myth. I bother to listen to them. I make no technical comment about metal tweeters other than their break-up tendancies. Which of course get's beaten down as "well only at high volumes" or some such drivel. I am generalizing too widely because I have not heard ALL speakers using metal tweeters - but I do believe that the material has a sonic signature. Some companies I feel are better at not reminding me of it all of the time - most do unfortunately. I make comments about what I hear from them - usually with their grilles on and I have no idea whether they use metal tweeters or soft domes until AFTER I listen to them first. I have merely found that since 1990 in most cases speakers fairing rather poorly use metal - those scoring highly use something else. My one compliant of the PMC TB1 and 2 was the treble these cheapest speakers in the PMC line-up used a metal driver - they have now shifted to silk domes like their mega buck products - if the rest of the TB2 sounds the same and they fix the etchy fatiguing treble(which was still way better than any of the Paradigms I've heard over the years) then this would be something terrific for nearfield monoitoring.

I am uninterested in measurements that do not corelate to real world sound(or can't detect crappy treble from such speakers). I am uninterested in corporations trying to sell me documents to prove their speakers sound good - Bose is good at this - Harman is learning well and making dreck as well. When I set speaker A against speaker B it will become very apparent which sounds better. Tom Nousaine may not approve but then it ain't his money he's spending.

But this person didn't like the speaker 20V3 it gets an F - failed to meet expectations of sounding good. There are probably 1000 alternatives - I am sure he will be able to find one better even if only a D-. You are now saying that he won't be able to find a speaker more to his liking than the 20V3 by saying that I am wrong in saying that I bet he can find a speaker he will like more eh?

Why not just suggest PSB and be done with it.

Get speakers that sound like instruments in any room - what if a person moves to a new home? Means they should dump their speakers if the room isn't agreeable? A great speaker will always sound great relative to others. Even if the room is lousy the better speaker will sound better than the rest in that room (assuming the size of the room is appropriate). And yes I have heard the same Paradigm speakers in several rooms over the years - maybe 15 different ones and B&W in a number of rooms and Audio Note - etc etc.

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

The person is hearing the same thing I hear with speakers from this brand and chances are likely, if he hears it the way I do, that he will hear similarities from other speakers using metal tweeters. Then again he might love a JM Labs or B&W.[/QUOTE]
No, the original poster rather liked the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, IN The STORE, but found they didn't meet his needs AT HOME. What has your silly generalization about metal tweeters to do with that? Nothing. Indeed, you deny that is likely to happen since you maintain good speakers sound good in virtually every room. But he didn't seem to find them irritating in the store. Even at home, the poster even mentions they sound very good with some recordings but not others, hardly a hate message. I suggested the placement could be a reason (in this case, listening distance, as a possible reason, but with a small room, there's not much he can do about that I gather). But we do agree that a good option was to get more suitable speakers for his purposes and he has taken the Studio 20s back and is no doubt looking for something else.

I don't agree with Skeptic as to everything he says, but he is sure that mini-monitors are not suitable for him and gives good reasons for it. You once told me that the NRC curves for a Paradigm Titan and a Revel Performa M20 looked the same--which is totally laughable, but of course you think Revel makes "dreck" anyway. Anyone can see the differences, though understanding their significance is another matter. Hence, I concluded you don't understand speaker measurements. I find such measurements as done in the NRC and by Stereophile and even Sound & Vision to be useful, and they don't have to tell me everything to be useful.

Why don't I just recoment PSB and be done with it? . . . well, why don't you just recommend Audio Note and be done with it?:) I don't just do that because the other people may well prefer something else.[/QUOTE]

I was not looking closely at the measurements of the titan and revel - I have looked over every single speaker they have reviewed at Soundstage since that time. And your statement is bogus as a 3 dollar bill about the room - sounded good on good recordings - how do you know they were good recordings - how can the recording fix the bad room of all a sudden - maybe he didn't sopend enough time at the store auditioning and was at first impressed by the crappy spitty tweeters and then after several hours realized that in fact the tweeter creates its own detail (detail = distortion if you notice it.) Live music I don't sit there thinjking wow check out the detail - unless it's the paint on a guitar.

RGA
07-29-2004, 11:16 AM
No, the point that I'm making is that the listener needs to evaluate the center speaker before they decide. The fact that B&W made a substandard center speaker (and surround speakers) for the previous series simply means the listener should not take it on faith that B&W will always make ancillary speakers that are up to the quality of their mains. Are you suggesting that people purchase center speakers on faith without listening for timbre matching? Fine advice considering that you don't even own a surround setup.

Yuo are trying to shift from the FACT that when people are asking about buying Series 3 B&W 600 speakers that you always mention the series 2 and that ONE of their center channels was not an appropriate match - that BTW is just your opinion - the BLIND reviews at hi-fi Choice say otherwise - and while I agree about that cheap center channel not being as good as the bigger one - well it was cheap - people are in a budget - and that is moot since the Series 3 is what people are concerned with and all of them match.



Like I said, when have I ever EQUATED the sound of older B&Ws with the S3s? Find a quote from me if you're so convinced of this. Otherwise, you're just going off the top of your head, and judging by your latest comments on the Studio v.2 series that's not the most reliable thing to work with.

You mention to people who are inquiring about the Series 3 speakers about the fact that your auditions with the series 2 blah blah something about being polite. Why are you even talking about your experience with the Series 2? Why tell people to audition the Series 3 when you have not heard it - you are then presuming that the Series 3 will be as good as the series 2 at the very least - it may not be it could be a total disaster to you. I am not bothered that you do this because you are making a REASONABLE assumption that the differences between the series 2 and series 3 will be in the ballpark - which is exactly the same thing I have done with the V2 and V3(and I have at least heard the 100V3) - the reliability of my comments in your opinion - just because this is a paradigm love forum - I have news for you a lot of audiophiles think Paradigm is some of the worst garbage on the market - to which on the Titam and Atom I might concur but I have defended several of their speakers.



The Studio 100 a 3/10 in ABSOLUTE terms? Now I know your "opinions" are just shifting to suit whatever argument you're in. Just inject the value argument as a bailout. Very interesting approach considering that you rated the Studio 40 v.2 4/5 in sound quality and gave it a 4/5 for value. Are you now saying that the value and sound quality ratings are not what they say they are? Are you saying that if price were no object that too would warrant a 3/10? Pretty extreme change of opinion when the dollar signs are attached, or your memory's just fading.

For your reference, here's the review Studio 40 v.2 that you originally posted last year. It sure reads like the description of a "height of mediocrity" speaker to me! Whatever amendments and disclaimers you now have to tag on to make it consistent your tirade on this thread should be interesting.


I am plenty aware of my positive review of the 40V2 and on the 100V2. For the $1100.00 or so of the V2 for both speakers I would give them an 8/10. I also say they are worth an audition - I sure would not want to own them and that is the difference when reviewing a product for other people's benefit on what I think they might like and what I personally would like. 8/10 is solid compared to other speakers round the ball-park. If i gave it a 1/5 in absolute terms then I would have had 46min audio breathing down my neck for an opinion - so comparing it to what I have heard from Polk, Bose B&W, JM Labs, PMC(The no longer made TB1) Totem etc the 40 is a bit above middle of the pack(The top of the middle of the pack) and far from the best I've heard in the $800-$1400.00Cdn range.

Ohh and like manufacturers is a person not permitted to change their view? The Reference 3a MM De Capo over the last year will have fallen a few pegs - which takes everything else below it down a few pegs. Or when something else comes along like the AN - it shifts my view down on the Paradigm. What Hi-fi Magazine does the exact same thing - you made a comment that you doidn't like numerical reviews and now I see why. What Hi fi gives a prooduct 5 stars and best buy and three years later they review it and drop it to 2 stars as they did with the Arcam AV 200. - they have dropped speaker ratings as well. My review of the K would go down a bit after the J. There is a problem when I only have 5 stars to deal with - If the K drops one spot then the N805 has to drop one and the 40 has to drop 4 and then I'm into the negative for the Wharfedale 8.2. Unless i review to the price.

Woochifer
07-29-2004, 11:20 AM
Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

Yeah, that's an objective and open minded approach if I ever heard one! And if you come back in August and report exact what you were expecting, what did you accomplish? Basically, that you heard what you expected to hear based on a sighted listening. That's quite a valid approach to me.

And all this stuff that you have "come to expect from the previous model" is quite interesting considering that I own those speakers and find them quite dynamic with very good bass quality. And I don't observe anything resembling fatigue or constipation whenever I listen to them either. Maybe you should try a healthier diet with more fiber, and not load up on junk food before you go in for your oh-so-objective listenings. Maybe we won't have to hear you always coming up with these rectal analogies to everything that you hear -- crap this, constipated that. Please, not while we're eating.

Woochifer
07-29-2004, 12:25 PM
Yuo are trying to shift from the FACT that when people are asking about buying Series 3 B&W 600 speakers that you always mention the series 2 and that ONE of their center channels was not an appropriate match - that BTW is just your opinion - the BLIND reviews at hi-fi Choice say otherwise - and while I agree about that cheap center channel not being as good as the bigger one - well it was cheap - people are in a budget - and that is moot since the Series 3 is what people are concerned with and all of them match.

Yeah, I mention them because I've heard them, and as a result, tell people to listen to newer versions for themselves and see if they like them. Where's the fault in that? When have I EVER commented on the sound quality of the S3 or made any direct references to their sound quality or EQUATED them to the older B&Ws? I'm basing my opinion of B&W based on my auditions of the 600 S2, 303, CM, and Nautilus series models, and since the latter three series that I listened to are still in production in the same form as when I auditioned them, I don't think my observations about B&W are based on stone age information.

My observation of that particular center speaker model (the CC6) was one of the key reasons why I decided against the 600 series when I was purchasing. I've ALWAYS said that people should do their own listening on the center speakers, and suggest that with the S3 models. Again, are you objecting to that suggestion?


You mention to people who are inquiring about the Series 3 speakers about the fact that your auditions with the series 2 blah blah something about being polite. Why are you even talking about your experience with the Series 2? Why tell people to audition the Series 3 when you have not heard it - you are then presuming that the Series 3 will be as good as the series 2 at the very least - it may not be it could be a total disaster to you. I am not bothered that you do this because you are making a REASONABLE assumption that the differences between the series 2 and series 3 will be in the ballpark - which is exactly the same thing I have done with the V2 and V3(and I have at least heard the 100V3) - the reliability of my comments in your opinion - just because this is a paradigm love forum - I have news for you a lot of audiophiles think Paradigm is some of the worst garbage on the market - to which on the Titam and Atom I might concur but I have defended several of their speakers.

And I see that your memory is just as selective as ever when it comes to paraphrasing and characterizing other peoples' opinions. In comparson with the Paradigm Monitor series, yes the 600 series is a polite speaker. In comparison with the Klipsch RF series, JBL Studio/Northridge series, the DefTech floorstanders, and a host of other forward sounding speakers that people inquire about, yes the 600 series is a polite speaker. I don't use adjectives in blatantly derogatory terms most of the time like you enjoy doing, so to me a polite speaker is not something that's a negative, it just is what it is and it's always qualifed in relative terms. And it would take a drastic change in how that speaker series is voiced in order to change that assessment. Nothing that anybody has told me, including notes from your listenings, about the S3 series indicates to me that a drastic change has occurred, certainly not to the point that I would stop telling people to give them a listen for themselves. When someone notes that the 600 series is more forward sounding than a JBL and has unbalanced peaks and dips throughout the frequency range, then I'll take notice and qualify my comments.


just because this is a paradigm love forum - I have news for you a lot of audiophiles think Paradigm is some of the worst garbage on the market - to which on the Titam and Atom I might concur but I have defended several of their speakers.

Yeah, and I have news for you. I don't buy speakers to appease the biases of so-called and self-described audiophiles. (And judging from a lot of the so-called "high end" speakers that I've heard over the years, I'm actually flattered that some of them would hate my speakers, because I sure as hell can't stand a lot of their stroking material either) I buy speakers that best fit MY preferences and MY listening habits. If you or anybody else wants to describe them as the "worst garbage on the market" then I take no issue with it, so long as it's for well thought out reasons, and not just because it's advertised or following a specific design principle or some other irrelevant tangental reason other than the sound quality.


I am plenty aware of my positive review of the 40V2 and on the 100V2. For the $1100.00 or so of the V2 for both speakers I would give them an 8/10. I also say they are worth an audition - I sure would not want to own them and that is the difference when reviewing a product for other people's benefit on what I think they might like and what I personally would like. 8/10 is solid compared to other speakers round the ball-park. If i gave it a 1/5 in absolute terms then I would have had 46min audio breathing down my neck for an opinion - so comparing it to what I have heard from Polk, Bose B&W, JM Labs, PMC(The no longer made TB1) Totem etc the 40 is a bit above middle of the pack(The top of the middle of the pack) and far from the best I've heard in the $800-$1400.00Cdn range.

Ohh and like manufacturers is a person not permitted to change their view? The Reference 3a MM De Capo over the last year will have fallen a few pegs - which takes everything else below it down a few pegs. Or when something else comes along like the AN - it shifts my view down on the Paradigm. What Hi-fi Magazine does the exact same thing - you made a comment that you doidn't like numerical reviews and now I see why. What Hi fi gives a prooduct 5 stars and best buy and three years later they review it and drop it to 2 stars as they did with the Arcam AV 200. - they have dropped speaker ratings as well. My review of the K would go down a bit after the J. There is a problem when I only have 5 stars to deal with - If the K drops one spot then the N805 has to drop one and the 40 has to drop 4 and then I'm into the negative for the Wharfedale 8.2. Unless i review to the price.

"Into the negative" on a 0-5 scale? This is no longer creative spinning and just empty desparation to keep an argument going. And through all this, all you're left with is "Uh, I changed my mind." Nice copout.

If your opinion of a speaker that you haven't even listened to since last year has changed that much in the meantime, what are you basing the change on? Direct comparisons or auditory memory? How do you know how the previous series would fare in comparison to newer speakers that you've heard, if you don't even do direct comparisons? This obsession you have with rank ordering and assigning ratings to everything is really doing you in this time, because you're no longer even consistent with yourself.

I think it's ridiculous that just because you now like something better that suddenly everything else now drops down and becomes mediocre. Those other speakers did not suddenly become something else, they're the exact same speaker that you listened to in the first place. You observed of the Studio 40 v.2 that "Coherency was the speakerís best attribute, and technically well proportioned throughout the midrange, punchy, colourful and an exceptional rocker." But, now that you're in this Audio Note swoon, they're suddenly the "height of mediocrity"? Sorry, but shifts that drastic just don't fly, especially since you've always portrayed yourself as an experienced listener. I don't like numerical scales and rankings because they don't say squat about anything except for what a person arbitrarily assigns at a particular moment. A ranking or rating does not take into account the usage, listener preferences (except the reviewer's biases), or say anything qualitative about what the speaker actually sounds like. And unless you're doing follow up comparisons, they're always subject to the fallibility of selective memory, "changing minds," and faint recollections. How would I rank the Nautilus 805 against the Studio 20 v.3? I remember that I liked both speakers and they each have their strongsuits, but unless I get to listen to them both in the same room, I'm not going to rank them based on memory alone. That would just be wasted effort.

RGA
07-29-2004, 01:52 PM
Firstly the 603s3 is not a polite speaker - no review mentions this anywhere - yet you imply they are because of the previous series - sorry that is what you always do.

Now you make no sense - the Review of the Paradigm was agaisnt several speakers - it was cheaper by half to some of them and was reviewed largely in the context of money. The N805 IMO is a better speaker than the Studio 40. I compared the B&W one of my favorites - and on my shortlist to buy - to the AN K then to the AN J later. Very simply the N805 to me now is an utterly unlistenable loudspeaker. No the N805 didn't change - it didn't get any worse - my reference point however got a helluva lot better. So I can leave the 4/5 rating for Paradigm but then I'd have to give the J a 62 out of 5. Which is why I rate according to general price ranges. Just as the magazines do. The 5 star Dm 302 is 5 stars because it was under $200 GBP - if that speaker was selling at $9,000.00 it would get laughed at and probably a Zero.

Woochifer
07-29-2004, 04:39 PM
Firstly the 603s3 is not a polite speaker - no review mentions this anywhere - yet you imply they are because of the previous series - sorry that is what you always do.

But, again you're making that kind of pejorative assessment absent of any context or comparative basis. Whenever I use the term "polite" to describe the B&W 600 series, it's typically RELATIVE to the more forward sounding alternatives in that same price range. I've never used "polite" to describe the DM603 (including the S2 series model) and you keep periodically accusing me of that for whatever reason. At some point, I might have said that it's "more polite sounding than" something like the Klipsch RF series, and I seriously doubt that B&W has revoiced the 600 series to sound more forward and aggressive than those speakers. So, unless that has actually happened, my comments are still valid.

There's a huge difference between using adjectives in an absolute context and in a relative context. That's why I'm not prone to making exaggerations that cannot be backed up, and you more typically use terms like "always do" to describe things. If I "always" use the term "polite" to describe the 600 series, then go ahead and prove it. All I have to do is find one exception and there goes another discredited RGA exaggeration, meanwhile you have to dig up every comment I've ever made on this board about the 600 series. Should I scroll to a post that I made yesterday to prove my point, or do you finally understand where I'm coming from?


Now you make no sense - the Review of the Paradigm was agaisnt several speakers - it was cheaper by half to some of them and was reviewed largely in the context of money. The N805 IMO is a better speaker than the Studio 40. I compared the B&W one of my favorites - and on my shortlist to buy - to the AN K then to the AN J later. Very simply the N805 to me now is an utterly unlistenable loudspeaker. No the N805 didn't change - it didn't get any worse - my reference point however got a helluva lot better. So I can leave the 4/5 rating for Paradigm but then I'd have to give the J a 62 out of 5. Which is why I rate according to general price ranges. Just as the magazines do. The 5 star Dm 302 is 5 stars because it was under $200 GBP - if that speaker was selling at $9,000.00 it would get laughed at and probably a Zero.

I guess that's copout #2 -- now I'm the one making no sense. Nice try, but I'm not the one who's twisting around and amending my own ratings and rankings to suddenly account for price (when the original ratings posted included a separate rating for value) and arbitrarily assigning negative numbers or absurdly large numbers to my own 0-5 star ranking scales. I'll leave it up to the others to see if anyone else can decipher all this random mangling around of numbers that you've conjured up.

RGA
07-30-2004, 01:43 PM
Ahh but you are the one who has brought up the Studio 40 - look back and note that my initial height oif medicrity comment was not about the 40 or the 100 but the 20V2.

You OFTEN do so scratch Always - Are you trying to say that you have NEVER commented EVER on these boards about the sound of ANY 600 series speaker when the poster was asking a question on the 600Series 3 models? Are you saying that when a poster has EVER asked about the B&W Series 3 surround packages you do not go off on a tangent about the poor CC6 center speaker designed for the series 2. A simple yes or no is sufficient. I have been in numerous threads with you when you have done this - how quickly you forget. - And your comments about the Series 3 being polite relative to anything - is spurious because gee - you have not heard them. Of course you just buy into the myth that British brands are polite I suppose.

My reviews previously on the Studio 20 V2 - if you recall - was not favourable - Perhaps a reson why I only consider the 40, 60 and 100 to have redeeming qualities. The 20 and 80 were dreadful to me. I shall see if Paradigm has fixed the 20 - they fixed the 80 by eliintating it - thank heaven for small mercys.

I hadn't noticed that you tried to twist my height of medicrity comment to the 40V2 - I should know by now that you "often" do such things to create starw men.

Woochifer
07-30-2004, 03:15 PM
Ahh but you are the one who has brought up the Studio 40 - look back and note that my initial height oif medicrity comment was not about the 40 or the 100 but the 20V2.

Okay, you're right about that one. But you're then presuming that the 20 and 40 sound significantly different. I own both, and have done side by side comparisons. If they're as different as you say they are, then I would not have a timbre matched surround setup, right? Well, turns out that I have a timbre matched surround setup, so read into that however you want.


You OFTEN do so scratch Always - Are you trying to say that you have NEVER commented EVER on these boards about the sound of ANY 600 series speaker when the poster was asking a question on the 600Series 3 models? Are you saying that when a poster has EVER asked about the B&W Series 3 surround packages you do not go off on a tangent about the poor CC6 center speaker designed for the series 2. A simple yes or no is sufficient. I have been in numerous threads with you when you have done this - how quickly you forget. - And your comments about the Series 3 being polite relative to anything - is spurious because gee - you have not heard them. Of course you just buy into the myth that British brands are polite I suppose.

Like I said, when I have I ever said in absolute terms that they are polite? Good gawd, you treat this like it's some kind of insult; it's a description that might be useful for people looking for a different type of sound than the more forward sounding alternatives out there. Are you telling me that the S3 is on par with Klipsch, Paradigm, JBL, DefTech, or some of the other speakers that I've described as having a forward sound, in terms of how forward and aggressive sounding they are? I've never heard of that from anybody, and even your notes don't indicate anything close to that end.

Are you saying that you've NEVER commented on speakers that you did not hear before, or cite third party sources to support a point? So, I guess that anytime you bring up the Von Schweikerts or Axioms or third party product reviews, then it too is a spurious point? At least in my case, I'm commenting based on listenings from the same brand, the same model group, and current speakers in other series.

In case you forgot, the center and surround speaker comments are a reiteration of the importance of listening for timbre matching when evaluating ancillary home theater speakers. (Check the threads, I will bring up the B&W center speaker example in many other timbre matching discussions, including those that don't even mention B&W) And in case you forgot, you have defended B&W center and surround speakers that you haven't heard before and cited British magazine reviews to support your point (including the CC6, which I have heard and you have not), even though you've repeatedly denounced audio magazines, product reviews, and reviewers. The simple fact that B&W made such a poorly matched center and surround set with the S2 series in my view is an example of why people can't take the timbre matching for granted. Calling it a tangental point I guess is easy if you don't own a surround setup, have never done a 5.1 system calibration before, and don't know what a properly calibratated timbre matched surround system sounds like.

British, polite, myth? I've repeatedly said that it was mostly true 20 or so years ago, but not as prevalant now. I've repeatedly said that I dislike "polite" sounding speakers, and I like the current B&Ws even though they are "more polite than" other more forward sounding alternatives. (Again, relative versus absolute, remember?) And I presume that your past comments about American speakers being "tizzy" or "crapola" is absolute fact and not myth, right?


I hadn't noticed that you tried to twist my height of medicrity comment to the 40V2 - I should know by now that you "often" do such things to create starw men.

Nah, don't need to create straw men. Your ready-fire-aim exaggerations and inconsistencies do more than enough to knock your own arguments down.

RGA
07-30-2004, 08:09 PM
Are you saying that you've NEVER commented on speakers that you did not hear before, or cite third party sources to support a point? So, I guess that anytime you bring up the Von Schweikerts or Axioms or third party product reviews, then it too is a spurious point? At least in my case, I'm commenting based on listenings from the same brand, the same model group, and current speakers in other series.

Look I don't have a problem with you mentioning a previous model as plausibly being similar t the new model - i did the same thing with the V2 and V3 and I get duped on but it is ok for you to do it with the 600 series - Patd dumps on me and not you for the simple reason that he likes one speaker and not the other. I comment on third party speakers to give them a try - giving them a try doesn't cost any money and is the best free advice to buying loudspeakers - it is also merely obvious. The poster returned the series 3 of the 20 - I heard the previous 20 the model before that and the V3 100 - so I'm right around the speaker - my comment was that it should not be hard for him to find a better speaker (implying a speaker better to him since he returned them). I made no actual comment about the speaker's sound.

BTW if the 40 and the 20 sound exactly the same you're pretty silly for paying extra for the same sounding speaker. Since you have a sub and they perfectly integrate according to you then the 20 was all you needed. I realize it sounds thin and weak willed compared to the 40 - apparently your Yamaha or your hearing isn't good enough for you to tell them apart. Just like a different look and throwing money away? Sorry but the 40 is a considerably better loudspeaker because the bass draws the ear from the treble better than than the 20 - I heard them side by side as well.




In case you forgot, the center and surround speaker comments are a reiteration of the importance of listening for timbre matching when evaluating ancillary home theater speakers. (Check the threads, I will bring up the B&W center speaker example in many other timbre matching discussions, including those that don't even mention B&W) And in case you forgot, you have defended B&W center and surround speakers that you haven't heard before and cited British magazine reviews to support your point (including the CC6, which I have heard and you have not), even though you've repeatedly denounced audio magazines, product reviews, and reviewers. The simple fact that B&W made such a poorly matched center and surround set with the S2 series in my view is an example of why people can't take the timbre matching for granted. Calling it a tangental point I guess is easy if you don't own a surround setup, have never done a 5.1 system calibration before, and don't know what a properly calibratated timbre matched surround system sounds like.

I have heard the studio 100V3 in a surround set-up the center channel was discordant and rather poor with it's matching center channel - not a good surround system at all from what I heard. So what - it was set-up typical of most set-ups with big screen TV. You bring up the CC6 only to slag B&W and it's only YOUR OPINION that it wasn't a satsifactory match - do you have any independant factual research for this conclusion that B&W didn't match the center channel - or did you just look at the woofer material and draw your conclusion. The match for that series was the LCR 60 and LCR 600 - I don't particularly think the LCR 60 series 2 was particularly good. Others may like it including reviewers.



British, polite, myth? I've repeatedly said that it was mostly true 20 or so years ago, but not as prevalant now. I've repeatedly said that I dislike "polite" sounding speakers, and I like the current B&Ws even though they are "more polite than" other more forward sounding alternatives. (Again, relative versus absolute, remember?) And I presume that your past comments about American speakers being "tizzy" or "crapola" is absolute fact and not myth, right?

Well what to you is polite is accurate and correct to me - so the relation is a preference - you admit to liking forward sounding speakers. I found nothing forward about the 100V2 compared to the 603S3 which sounded more in your face - with the 100V2 being laid back - bright but laid back. The 603S3 is more agressive than the 602 - especially in the bass clearly going for the humped up sound to suit home theater shoppers.
But this is going in circles - the point is this poster didn't like the speaker - I said roughly I bet he can find something better. .

Pat D
07-31-2004, 03:10 AM
Look I don't have a problem with you mentioning a previous model as plausibly being similar t the new model - i did the same thing with the V2 and V3 and I get duped on but it is ok for you to do it with the 600 series - Patd dumps on me and not you for the simple reason that he likes one speaker and not the other. I comment on third party speakers to give them a try - giving them a try doesn't cost any money and is the best free advice to buying loudspeakers - it is also merely obvious. The poster returned the series 3 of the 20 - I heard the previous 20 the model before that and the V3 100 - so I'm right around the speaker - my comment was that it should not be hard for him to find a better speaker (implying a speaker better to him since he returned them). I made no actual comment about the speaker's sound.

I have heard the studio 100V3 in a surround set-up the center channel was discordant and rather poor with it's matching center channel - not a good surround system at all from what I heard. So what - it was set-up typical of most set-ups with big screen TV.

But this is going in circles - the point is this poster didn't like the speaker - I said roughly I bet he can find something better. .
But RGA, I have stated several times that I haven't been as impressed with the Paradigm Reference V. 3 speakers as I was with the v. 2 speakers! I disagree with Wooch on that one, but he is perfectly entitled to give his opinion and he has listened to them both extensively.

I have nothing against third party recommendations for auditions, per se, but I don't offer my own evaluations for speakers where I have no knowledge about their performance.

The fact is, RGA, that half the time you don't seem to realize what you are actually saying. :D For a long time, you have spent a great deal of prose dissing the Paradigm References Series. You even spent sometime bad mouthing the v. 2's, even though you hadn't yet heard them! Now we find you are doing the same with the V. 3's. Sometimes you turn around and say well, the Paradigm Reference Series aren't bad but you diss them because you think they are overhyped by--whom? Apparently the people who do like them! Then you say there are lots better speakers out there in their price range and lower, although you haven't heard the speakers (and you admit you have only heard the Studio 100, v. 3, in a poor HT set up). Sorry, that implies an evaluation of the speaker. Now you put in all sorts of qualifications about that you really only meant that since the original poster didn't like them he should be able to find ones he likes better. But that's not what you said originally.

You say the poster didn't like the speakers. Your formulation misses the fact that he did like them in the store, and thought they were better than a lot of other speakers. It was when he got them home he found he didn't like them nearly as well there.

You and I both agreed that he should look at other speakers. However, I think my advice that he be sure to try out any speakers he likes at home is more likely to give satisfaction. In store auditions can be very helpful, but they are not the same thing as trying them out at home.

RGA
07-31-2004, 04:41 PM
Okay I can accept that Patd. I do not agree that it is at all necessary to listen at home before you buy however. I believe you need to compare the speakers against each other in the SAME room. The best speaker will sound the best in any room - now I grant you that when a person gets home the speaker may not sound as good there - no question - it may also sound a lot better at home than in the store if you're lucky. But if speaker A was miles better than speaker B (especially standmounts) in the store - all things like positioning and appropriate room size accounted for then speaker A should win in any room. After all it isn't the speaker's fault if the room sucks.

However I'm also willing to be this person spent more time listening to the speaker at home than he did at the store. My friend once bought a Panasonic TV that was absolutely incredibly when it came to deep blacks and vibrrant whites - at the store it was way more impressive than the Sony Toshibas so he bought it. But when you watch Schindler's List there was little definition between blacks on Oscar's lapel - watching Hockley games hurt our eyes it was too bright and the puck was black againt it. 12 days later he had to return it. Yes it was great for the 1/2 hour in the store A/Bing them but later it was far too annying when the things he thought were superior aspects in fact were the things bringing the TV's picture down. Panasonic changed the tv the next year.

People seem to refuse to accept that this could even REMOTELY be a plausible reason that someone would like the sound of a speaker for 15 minutes to 1/2 an hour and 3 weeks later really be irritated by it. It's happened to me - though I didn't buy.

I mean I like scary rollercoster rides for a short while but I don't know if I want to be on one for 8 hours. What at first was a thrill may later be highly nautious.

Woochifer
07-31-2004, 05:28 PM
Look I don't have a problem with you mentioning a previous model as plausibly being similar t the new model - i did the same thing with the V2 and V3 and I get duped on but it is ok for you to do it with the 600 series - Patd dumps on me and not you for the simple reason that he likes one speaker and not the other. I comment on third party speakers to give them a try - giving them a try doesn't cost any money and is the best free advice to buying loudspeakers - it is also merely obvious. The poster returned the series 3 of the 20 - I heard the previous 20 the model before that and the V3 100 - so I'm right around the speaker - my comment was that it should not be hard for him to find a better speaker (implying a speaker better to him since he returned them). I made no actual comment about the speaker's sound.

The only reason I'm even arguing this point is because you decided to involve me in this spat that you got yourself into. You said that I was EQUATING the S3 with every other B&W, and that's simply not the case.


BTW if the 40 and the 20 sound exactly the same you're pretty silly for paying extra for the same sounding speaker. Since you have a sub and they perfectly integrate according to you then the 20 was all you needed. I realize it sounds thin and weak willed compared to the 40 - apparently your Yamaha or your hearing isn't good enough for you to tell them apart. Just like a different look and throwing money away? Sorry but the 40 is a considerably better loudspeaker because the bass draws the ear from the treble better than than the 20 - I heard them side by side as well.

The basic timbre characteristics of the two speakers are very similar, except for the better bass extension and midrange coherency with the 40s and the better imaging with the 20s. The basic tonal characteristics are otherwise identical, especially in the highs. Those differences are very similar to what I observed between the DM602 S2, DM601 S2, and DM303. And I don't think you would have judged it silly if I had opted for the 602 over the 303.

It's not a "silly" waste of money to go with the 40s, considering that I purchased the 40s nearly two years before I acquired the 20s and a year and a half before I bought a sub. When I started putting my system together, I wasn't even sure if I wanted a sub, so I knew that whatever main speakers I had would need to have enough low end extension to handle the LFE track from a 5.1 soundtrack (which incidentally does NOT get passed into the default two-channel mixdown analog output, like what you use with your DVD playback; need a HT receiver or a DVD player with built in bass management to direct the LFE into the mains or the subwoofer output). The 40 is capable of that, the 20 less so.

Pretty presumptuous of you to resort to taking shots at my hearing and my receiver for not agreeing with your assessment of "thin and weak willed" sound from the 20s. I originally auditioned the 20s and 40s in side by side listenings using both Classe and Bryston amps. In those listenings, the tonal characteristics were well matched except in those areas that I noted. In none of my listenings with either the 20 or the 40 have I ever detected anything like the "lack of dynamics" of "constipated" sound that you attribute to the 20s, but not the 40s. Whether listening thru separates or receivers, I've never noted the kinds of broad differences that you've convinced yourself of.

The bass drawing the ear away from the treble better? Are you kidding me? Where do you get this idea? As far as I'm concerned, the highs with both speakers are pretty much identical, whether I'm listening to those speakers with the bass management active or not. The only substantive difference between the speakers when the crossover is on is in the lower midrange, which is still slightly more coherent with the 40s. If I felt that the voice characteristics of the two speakers was drastically different, I would have gone with another pair of 40s for the surrounds. And if the timbre was as night and day different as you claim it is, the imaging cues with 5.1 music sources would not hold together at all. In my system, they do.


I have heard the studio 100V3 in a surround set-up the center channel was discordant and rather poor with it's matching center channel - not a good surround system at all from what I heard. So what - it was set-up typical of most set-ups with big screen TV. You bring up the CC6 only to slag B&W and it's only YOUR OPINION that it wasn't a satsifactory match - do you have any independant factual research for this conclusion that B&W didn't match the center channel - or did you just look at the woofer material and draw your conclusion. The match for that series was the LCR 60 and LCR 600 - I don't particularly think the LCR 60 series 2 was particularly good. Others may like it including reviewers.

And if I remember from your description of that listening, the center speaker was placed high on top of a big screen TV, and you had no information about the calibration levels (and you didn't describe the speaker alignment either). That's more an indictment of the setup than the center speaker itself. You could drop a B&W Nautilus center speaker (which incidentally I think is an excellent match for the other Nautilus series speakers) in that same room with timbre matched speakers and it too could sound "discordant" if the calibration and placement aren't done right. Out of all the stores in my area that I've visited, only two of them specifically arranged the surround speakers according the ITU reference standard (which is the alignment that's most commonly used to mix the 5.1 soundtracks in the first place) and Dolby's guidelines, so it's not like properly aligned and calibrated demos are that common to begin with, even among high end stores. Unless you're visiting a dealer that knows how all the pieces fit together, and how much more critical the alignment and calibration are with a 5.1 setup than a two-channel setup, you're not getting anywhere near an optimal demostration of a surround soundtrack. (Those dealers in my area that use the ITU alignment in their demo rooms also use center speaker stands that put those units at a more proper height)

Yeah, my opinion on the CC6 IS MY opinion! And I voice my displeasure about that speaker not to diss on B&W in general (because I have otherwise given B&W many a recommendation on this board), but to tell posters that they need to double check the center speaker match for themselves before they finalize their decision. That would be my opinion for ANY center speaker, but especially so if I know that a company has cranked out center and surround speakers that were not up to the standard of their mains. And you can look up the info if you want, but the CC6 WAS one of the two "matching" center speakers for the 600 S2 series.

Pretty funny that you're now asking for some independent verification of my assessment when so many of your posts go on deriding measurements, reviews, and third party assessments. I drew my conclusion based on what I HEARD. Yes, it was a sighted listening, but the calibration and placement for that evaluation were done correctly.


Well what to you is polite is accurate and correct to me - so the relation is a preference - you admit to liking forward sounding speakers. I found nothing forward about the 100V2 compared to the 603S3 which sounded more in your face - with the 100V2 being laid back - bright but laid back. The 603S3 is more agressive than the 602 - especially in the bass clearly going for the humped up sound to suit home theater shoppers.
But this is going in circles - the point is this poster didn't like the speaker - I said roughly I bet he can find something better. .

Again, you're presuming that you know what my definitions for all those terms are relative to yours.

The point is the poster did not like the speaker AT HOME, which only reiterates the importance of room acoustics when evaluating speakers. What sounds good in one room might sound terrible in another.

Pat D
07-31-2004, 07:02 PM
Okay I can accept that Patd. I do not agree that it is at all necessary to listen at home before you buy however. I believe you need to compare the speakers against each other in the SAME room. The best speaker will sound the best in any room - now I grant you that when a person gets home the speaker may not sound as good there - no question - it may also sound a lot better at home than in the store if you're lucky. But if speaker A was miles better than speaker B (especially standmounts) in the store - all things like positioning and appropriate room size accounted for then speaker A should win in any room. After all it isn't the speaker's fault if the room sucks.

However I'm also willing to be this person spent more time listening to the speaker at home than he did at the store. My friend once bought a Panasonic TV that was absolutely incredibly when it came to deep blacks and vibrrant whites - at the store it was way more impressive than the Sony Toshibas so he bought it. But when you watch Schindler's List there was little definition between blacks on Oscar's lapel - watching Hockley games hurt our eyes it was too bright and the puck was black againt it. 12 days later he had to return it. Yes it was great for the 1/2 hour in the store A/Bing them but later it was far too annying when the things he thought were superior aspects in fact were the things bringing the TV's picture down. Panasonic changed the tv the next year.

People seem to refuse to accept that this could even REMOTELY be a plausible reason that someone would like the sound of a speaker for 15 minutes to 1/2 an hour and 3 weeks later really be irritated by it. It's happened to me - though I didn't buy.

I mean I like scary rollercoster rides for a short while but I don't know if I want to be on one for 8 hours. What at first was a thrill may later be highly nautious. It is impossible to cover every contingent. Yes, it is possible that someone does not listen sufficiently in the store--but Jochem's post suggests otherwise. He mentions drums, winds and strings, so it seems he tried a variety of music. He didn't mention vocals but then it is reproduction of the upper strings that seems to be a problem. I am not sure what you would expect him to do he did not do.

Guess what? In the store, he thought the Paradigms a) sounded pretty good, and b) beat the competition, which included those B & W 603s you think beat the Paradigm Studio 20--even though you haven't heard it in the v. 3, nor apparently any of the v. 3 Reference Series speakers in a decent set up. I think there are a lot of things one can find out in a store, notably the midrange and and highs, which are above the largest room effects, especially if you make sure the store places the speakers reasonably well. Very likely, many of the faults and virtues exhibited by a speaker in the store will show themselves at home, too, but probably not all of them. A store audition will not tell you how they are going to fare at home where the acoustics are probably quite different. I've been at this a good deal longer than you have. I have been through this in recent months, having brought home both the Mirage M7 and the Paradigm Studio 40, v. 2 for home audition, and they just didn't work very well in our home.

However, if we follow your reasoning, the Studio 20 should beat all those other speakers in Jochem's home, too. This does not necessarily follow, far from it. Maybe he would prefer the B & W 603 at home, you really don't know. It is quite possible that the speaker which sounds best to you in the store may not sound so good at home whereas another speaker will sound better at home. Happens all the time and there can be good reasons for it. Your advice here not only goes against my own experience and against the advice of just about every audio expert I have ever known or read.

RGA
07-31-2004, 10:20 PM
"Your advice here not only goes against my own experience and against the advice of just about every audio expert I have ever known or read."

A violin should sound like a violin in any room - I will agree to disagree and go with Peter Q on this one - his speakers have shown a nice ability to win out in all the rooms(of different sizes) and with the very different variety of gear attached - in or out of their ideal postiton.

But to each their own - It's not like this is a fight for world peace so Jochem good luck with whatever speaker you get and to the dynamic duo I'm happy you enjoy my country's loudspeakers.

Pat D
08-01-2004, 05:16 AM
"Your advice here not only goes against my own experience and against the advice of just about every audio expert I have ever known or read."

A violin should sound like a violin in any room - I will agree to disagree and go with Peter Q on this one - his speakers have shown a nice ability to win out in all the rooms(of different sizes) and with the very different variety of gear attached - in or out of their ideal postiton.

But to each their own - It's not like this is a fight for world peace so Jochem good luck with whatever speaker you get and to the dynamic duo I'm happy you enjoy my country's loudspeakers.
I don't think you've thought this one out. This is what British comedian Michael Flanders said in Flanders and Swann's number, "A Song of Reproduction," as close as I can remember it off hand:

"They want the sound of an orchestra actually playing in their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more than having an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room! But they seem to like it . . ."

What happened to the idea of creating the illusion of hearing a performance in a much larger hall or whatever ambience the recording was made in?

RGA
08-01-2004, 09:36 AM
I don't think you've thought this one out. This is what British comedian Michael Flanders said in Flanders and Swann's number, "A Song of Reproduction," as close as I can remember it off hand:

"They want the sound of an orchestra actually playing in their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more than having an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room! But they seem to like it . . ."

What happened to the idea of creating the illusion of hearing a performance in a much larger hall or whatever ambience the recording was made in?

Uninterested in what a comic thinks - and you should believe that you're not listening to speakers but immersed in the event.

And the thrid paragraph - well push the Church button on whatever receiver and hey any speaker good or bad can make a neato little shift to make it sound like you're listening in a church - in every room I've lived in over the years. Some receivers offer more selections like Hall, Rock concert???, etc. Maybe they have one for bathroom, kitchen etc.

hertz
08-02-2004, 03:40 AM
Try and audition a Dynaudio audience 52se before you decide.All your problems with aggressiveness and distortion in the highs will dissapear...:)
You need good amplification though...good luck.