5 speakers, $2500US: Paradigm vs B&W vs Totem???

[Woochifer]

At that budget, you'll fall short of a five speaker setup if you go with B&W's 700 series. You could go with four 705s and get a center speaker later on. For a five speaker setup, that leaves you with the 600 series, which very well might work to your preferences, but you really should do the comparisons for yourself.

In general, Paradigms have a more forward sound than the B&Ws, and put more emphasis on the off-axis response and imaging. I would opt for the standmounted Paradigm Studio series models over the equivalent priced floorstanding Monitor models. The route you go depends on how much you value the bass and whether you plan to add a subwoofer. If you want a lot of bass with a punchier and more forward sound, then the Monitor series should work. If you want more balance and refinement, then the Studio series is where you should go.

In my listenings, the Paradigm Studio 20 v.3 is a wonderfully versatile speaker that's equally adept at two-channel and multichannel sources. Getting five of them (if you plan to use a wall-mounted TV and can accommodate a normal speaker in the middle, I would strongly suggest that you use three identical speakers up front rather than a setup with the horizontal center speaker in the middle) will give you a very nice multichannel setup with perfect voice matching all the way around. The wide dispersion on those speakers will create an very convincing surround effect in a properly configured 5.1 system. The only drawback to the 20s is that you need a subwoofer for the deep bass.

The Totems have changed a lot since the last time I listened to them, so I can't give you an opinion one way or another.

[enrique]

jjjanzen,if your still here why not just audition the 603's with the rotel rsx1056 if thats what you plan to get.If your getting the nad also audition the nad with the 603's or even the paradigms.Once you decide on which reciever then audition the speakers with that particular reciever if of course the dealer has both products.Of course this works visa-versa also,speakers first then receiver.

[IRG]

At that budget, you'll fall short of a five speaker setup if you go with B&W's 700 series. You could go with four 705s and get a center speaker later on. For a five speaker setup, that leaves you with the 600 series, which very well might work to your preferences, but you really should do the comparisons for yourself.

In general, Paradigms have a more forward sound than the B&Ws, and put more emphasis on the off-axis response and imaging. I would opt for the standmounted Paradigm Studio series models over the equivalent priced floorstanding Monitor models. The route you go depends on how much you value the bass and whether you plan to add a subwoofer. If you want a lot of bass with a punchier and more forward sound, then the Monitor series should work. If you want more balance and refinement, then the Studio series is where you should go.

In my listenings, the Paradigm Studio 20 v.3 is a wonderfully versatile speaker that's equally adept at two-channel and multichannel sources. Getting five of them (if you plan to use a wall-mounted TV and can accommodate a normal speaker in the middle, I would strongly suggest that you use three identical speakers up front rather than a setup with the horizontal center speaker in the middle) will give you a very nice multichannel setup with perfect voice matching all the way around. The wide dispersion on those speakers will create an very convincing surround effect in a properly configured 5.1 system. The only drawback to the 20s is that you need a subwoofer for the deep bass.

The Totems have changed a lot since the last time I listened to them, so I can't give you an opinion one way or another.

You know I meant to type Studio 20, but somehow it came out Reference 20 instead. The Studio 20s are v4 now, correct? I listed to them at a local dealer - pretty good too. I was surprised though, how good on some music the Monitor 3 stood up against it, so that's what I bought, well and $500 less too. I may upgrade next year to them. I thought the Studios had a little too much bass emphasis, almost as if a subwoofer was on. But on classical and acoustic, they really did shine. Tough to beat for the money, IMO.

[Woochifer]

You know I meant to type Studio 20, but somehow it came out Reference 20 instead. The Studio 20s are v4 now, correct? I listed to them at a local dealer - pretty good too. I was surprised though, how good on some music the Monitor 3 stood up against it, so that's what I bought, well and $500 less too. I may upgrade next year to them. I thought the Studios had a little too much bass emphasis, almost as if a subwoofer was on. But on classical and acoustic, they really did shine. Tough to beat for the money, IMO.

The Studio line is currently on the v.3 version, which came out almost two years ago. Surprised that you would note that the Studio 20s have too much bass emphasis, because in the lows they are noticeably more neutral than the v.2 versions were. If anything, the detractors for the current Studio series have noted that there's not enough bass. Personally, I think that the bass with the v.3 series is very well balanced and better differentiates the lower frequency sounds than the v.2 series and the Monitor models.

The Studio 20s have deeper bass extension than the Monitor 3s because their box dimensions and port diameter are designed to deliver deeper bass extension, and the Studio series woofers are better equipped to handle a wider range than the Monitor drivers.

If the Studio 20 sounded like a subwoofer was on, then you're likely hearing a room-induced effect. Starting around 200 Hz, the room effect starts to have a progressively bigger effect on the bass -- it can cancel out the bass or boost them at specific frequencies; and the boundary reinforcement is very pronounced in small rooms. A subwoofer will typically take the overall sound down to at least 25 Hz, and I know for a fact that the Studio 20 doesn't come anywhere near that depth.

Acoustical effects with the room though can boost certain frequencies enough to make it seem that a lot of bass is emanating from a speaker (this type of midbass boost is the parlor trick that Bose employs to make their Acoustimess and Lifestyle systems sound that like they deliver a lot of bass when in fact they have poor lower extension), or cancel them out at other frequencies and make even a full range speaker sound anemic.

[IRG]

The Studio line is currently on the v.3 version, which came out almost two years ago. Surprised that you would note that the Studio 20s have too much bass emphasis, because in the lows they are noticeably more neutral than the v.2 versions were. If anything, the detractors for the current Studio series have noted that there's not enough bass. Personally, I think that the bass with the v.3 series is very well balanced and better differentiates the lower frequency sounds than the v.2 series and the Monitor models.

The Studio 20s have deeper bass extension than the Monitor 3s because their box dimensions and port diameter are designed to deliver deeper bass extension, and the Studio series woofers are better equipped to handle a wider range than the Monitor drivers.

If the Studio 20 sounded like a subwoofer was on, then you're likely hearing a room-induced effect. Starting around 200 Hz, the room effect starts to have a progressively bigger effect on the bass -- it can cancel out the bass or boost them at specific frequencies; and the boundary reinforcement is very pronounced in small rooms. A subwoofer will typically take the overall sound down to at least 25 Hz, and I know for a fact that the Studio 20 doesn't come anywhere near that depth.

Acoustical effects with the room though can boost certain frequencies enough to make it seem that a lot of bass is emanating from a speaker (this type of midbass boost is the parlor trick that Bose employs to make their Acoustimess and Lifestyle systems sound that like they deliver a lot of bass when in fact they have poor lower extension), or cancel them out at other frequencies and make even a full range speaker sound anemic.

Well the listening room I was in was less than idea. I had 3 pairs to listen to at the time, the Energy C-3, which I also happened to own, the Monitor 3 and then the Studio 20s. The C-3s had the least bass and the Studios the most. If I had had the money at the time, I would have preferred the Studio 20s, but the Monitor 3 did pretty well. On rock music, I thought they sounded better, but this wasn't an ideal listening test as I mentioned. On classical music I brought with me, the Studios were superior. Both beat the C-3. I wasn't wild about the rubber top on the Studios, but apparently it has a purpose. The Energy Veritas also had the same "purpose."

[jjjanzen]

Thanks for all the replies!

I live in Calgary. I've only been to two dealers so far. One carries Rotel&NAD receivers, and Paradigm, B&W and Thiel ($$$$$$$). The other carries NAD, Marantz, Krell receivers and JM Labs, Totem, KEF, and Definitive Tech speakers.

I've narrowed it down to the NAD 763 and the Rotel 1056, based on reviews, features, and the fact that more of an emphasis is put on music ability than useless features by both. I pretty much always have music on, so that will be my main use. I figure that whatever system can pump out decent music, will handle home theatre just fine. There may be some argument to that, but most people would agree that it doesn't go the other way around. A good HT setup may not lend well to music.

I have yet to do a full listening test, which is paramount to any sounds system. Having said that, I did do a brief (2hour!) session comparing the def tech mythos line and the Totems Sttafs, using only a Marantz receiver. The Totems won.

I'm looking for feedback on the B&W and Paradigm lines because they have speakers in the same price range, so like any good consumer, I have to shop around.

I don't know where to get Dynaudio's or Energy speakers around here, so those are out. But thanks for the info on the Paradigm's and B&W's. I will definitely give them a listen to complete my research.