Anything else I should audition?

[Florian]

Yeah, and why did we call you out? Because you were making blanket statements a helluva lot more reckless and broad than the one that I made. If this is your little petty way of saying gotcha. Consider me caught this time. I should have phrased it differently, and readily admit to that. There, does that make you feel better?

Not really, but its nice to now that you get it.

Simplistic, but factual considering that these are my opinions that you're questioning.

]Thats right i do question your opinions and experiences. And why do i do this? Simply because your comments on the exagurrated highs on the innersound and the integration leads me to believe even more know that you are not looking for accuare reproduction! You are looking for a sound that YOU like ane not what is real which therefore dissregards all your comments and "quality opinions" in my book.

In Florian's opinion, and at a totally different price point.

Well, but WOOCH when i comment on BOX speakers i always consider the price range. I would never put a so called planar for 550$ against the 12000$ Avalon

BTW, which Paradigms have you actually heard? Kinda presumptuous unless you've actually heard EVERYTHING that Paradigm makes. (from the Stylus and Cinema models all the way up to the Signature S8)

I have heard and lived with the Paradigm Atoms and the PDR10 and i have heard the old Reference series and like i said they are good for the money. But this is to be taken literry, GOOD FOR THE MONEY!

The 1.6 and the 3.6, along with previous models from 20 years ago

Well this certainly is a amazing! Models from 20 years ago, like the MGII? Its neat that you fail to mention the huge differences between the models. I have personally owned the 1.6 and 3.6 and thats why i comment on it and tell you that the 3.6 has no problem incl. the 1.6 to reproduce your POP music.

Had a calibrated demo of the Eros (along with the integrated amps and crossover units) with Innersound's designer. Very impressive demo of an acoustic performance with the best bass integration that I've heard from a hybrid design, but audible flaws and exaggerations in the highs that I picked up on.

I asume you are calling them flaws while comparing them to your little Paradigms? If this is the case then this whole discussion is pointless since you are not looking for REAL music and the ACCURATE reproduction of it but a mere "sound" that you like!

We've gone over my listenings with the Apogees repeatedly. Look it up yourself if you need a refresher.

I know and they are all pointless, but thats ok i dont need to since i personally OWN them and know what they can do. Same as on the Maggies

If I've never heard a planar speaker that I would want to own, why would I have already owned one?

Because i only consider your opinion valid if you have had one in your home and played with them. All other experiences are pretty meaningless since they all react to placment by the inches and definetly will not work on your electronics. I think that with your equipment as a reference point you have no buisiness commenting on these "planars" and if they do something right or wrong since it is impossible for your system to reproduce music acuratly in the first place.

And those reports are meaningless to me because I form my opinions based on my own listenings and preferences, not on second-hand protestations to the contrary.

No protesting here, i am simply enjoying it. You take your Paradigms as a reference point and comment on Innersounds, 3.'6 and the like and call them all "planars" and throw them in one bowl. Its funny to hear that from a man who is very far away from having a characterless system. But maybe thats not your goal, but if it isnt then you shouldn comment on something being exagurrated.

The only one embarassing himself is you with your self-obsessed proclamations, out-of-context argumentativeness, and holier-than-thou attitude. Like I said, I'm commenting on the ones that I've heard for myself, and opining based on my listening preferences. If you can't accept that or if you're interpreting my statements as a putdown (I've praised how planars sound with acoustic instruments repeatedly over the years, so I don't know why you're throwing a temper tantrum over one sentence out of context), then you got nothing to blame but your own closed-mindedness.

I am not hollier then you, infact i am not holy at and definetly am not religious. I know your commenting on what you heard but i question the value of it, especially to a newcomer when it is obvious that you are not looking for a accurate reproduction but to a simple sound that you like.

Cheers

Florian

[Woochifer]

Thats right i do question your opinions and experiences. And why do i do this? Simply because your comments on the exagurrated highs on the innersound and the integration leads me to believe even more know that you are not looking for accuare reproduction! You are looking for a sound that YOU like ane not what is real which therefore dissregards all your comments and "quality opinions" in my book.

Quite the contrary, I am looking for accurate reproduction. It just so happens that my interpretation of what sounds real is obviously different than yours. If you want to tell me that my sensory perception of reality is wrong, then you're more than welcome to, but that doesn't make your presumptions any less false than they are.

Well, but WOOCH when i comment on BOX speakers i always consider the price range. I would never put a so called planar for 550$ against the 12000$ Avalon

So, is that why you're comparing a $70,000 Martin Logan model against the entire Paradigm lineup, even though you haven't actually heard the entire Paradigm line?

I have heard and lived with the Paradigm Atoms and the PDR10 and i have heard the old Reference series and like i said they are good for the money. But this is to be taken literry, GOOD FOR THE MONEY!

But, you still haven't heard every Paradigm model, so you're making yet another unsubstantiated blanket statement of your own to add to many others that you've already contributed to this forum. Like I said, people throwing stones shouldn't live in glass houses.

Well this certainly is a amazing! Models from 20 years ago, like the MGII? Its neat that you fail to mention the huge differences between the models. I have personally owned the 1.6 and 3.6 and thats why i comment on it and tell you that the 3.6 has no problem incl. the 1.6 to reproduce your POP music.

In Florian's opinion the 1.6 has no problem. In Wooch's opinion, the 1.6 had plenty of problems with MY pop music (which I doubt you listen to anyway), which is why I eliminated them from consideration fairly early.

I asume you are calling them flaws while comparing them to your little Paradigms? If this is the case then this whole discussion is pointless since you are not looking for REAL music and the ACCURATE reproduction of it but a mere "sound" that you like!

EVERYBODY looks for the sound that they like in a speaker, and that seems to be the point that you miss. There is no universally agreed upon standard about what sounds more real, since every speaker has imperfections of some kind. That's why everybody has different preferences on speakers.

If you think that ringing with female voices is a better representation of reality, then you're more than welcome to invest in the Innersounds. Like I said, they were very impressive in many areas, but flawed. The demo was setup and calibrated by Innersound's designer. The much lower priced Dunlavy SC-IVs that were formerly setup in that same room sounded far more impressive and "real" to my ears.

Because i only consider your opinion valid if you have had one in your home and played with them. All other experiences are pretty meaningless since they all react to placment by the inches and definetly will not work on your electronics. I think that with your equipment as a reference point you have no buisiness commenting on these "planars" and if they do something right or wrong since it is impossible for your system to reproduce music acuratly in the first place.

My equipment is what I listen to at home and what I purchased within the budget that I set for myself, not what I consider a reference point. I have heard better systems, and use those listenings as my points of reference. If having a reference level system at home was my priority, I would have bought one a long time ago. I could care less if you consider my opinions valid. I mean, you haven't actually heard my system at your home and played around with it, so your opinion of my system and your presumptions about how I perceive sound, by YOUR OWN STANDARD, is also therefore invalid.

My point on this thread is to encourage people to listen to as many different speakers as possible. You've obviously missed the thrust of that in your pointless effort to discredit my opinions (which are what they are ... OPINIONS).

No protesting here, i am simply enjoying it. You take your Paradigms as a reference point and comment on Innersounds, 3.'6 and the like and call them all "planars" and throw them in one bowl. Its funny to hear that from a man who is very far away from having a characterless system. But maybe thats not your goal, but if it isnt then you shouldn comment on something being exagurrated.

Ah yes, the real Florian comes out with the little smarmy insults of someone else's system whenever he can't handle a disagreement. It never fails.

Keep in mind that you weren't in the room with me when I heard those Innersounds. If you consider ringing in the highs a sign of realism, then knock yourself out.

I am not hollier then you, infact i am not holy at and definetly am not religious. I know your commenting on what you heard but i question the value of it, especially to a newcomer when it is obvious that you are not looking for a accurate reproduction but to a simple sound that you like.

Just because you're not religious doesn't mean that you're incapable of deifying yourself, or at the very least, your ears and your purported reference system, since you obviously worship them and expect others to do the same. Perceptions of accurate reproduction are ultimately in the ears of the listener, since no speaker is perfect.

Well you can make this a lot easier. Go to a concert hall and record the performance. Then play it back on your system and check if the natural color of the instrument is correct. If the the notes have a endless decay, how the downward dynamic range is, are the instruments reproduces with enough air and space around them, are they in their original size? How is the front to back layering? How good are they in the transiants responsce? Is the radiation pattern like the instruments?

And I presume that you've actually done this nonsensical exercise yourself? I would LOVE to hear the quality of the recording that you made for yourself, if you think you're capable of producing a reference level recording from the audience that can reveal all of those aforementioned qualities. Feel free to send your recording to me in a lossless format, and I'll compare it to the SF Symphony's DSD-Surround recording of Mahler's 5th, for which I was a member of the audience, when it comes out on CD/SACD next spring.

[calegrant]

Enough of this foolish pissing match, Smith and Wesson six shooters at 10 paces.

[Duds]

Florian screws up a lot of threads. I find myself having to weed threw his crap just to read somethign that has to do with the actual post.

Enough of this foolish pissing match, Smith and Wesson six shooters at 10 paces.

[Florian]

Quite the contrary, I am looking for accurate reproduction. It just so happens that my interpretation of what sounds real is obviously different than yours. If you want to tell me that my sensory perception of reality is wrong, then you're more than welcome to, but that doesn't make your presumptions any less false than they are.

How can you say that a 100cm tall wooden box with unmatched drivers, small radiation pattern and lack of speed, lack of coloration etc etc... reproduces the music you hear life in a concert?

So, is that why you're comparing a $70,000 Martin Logan model against the entire Paradigm lineup, even though you haven't actually heard the entire Paradigm line?

I am not comparing them, you said that heard the speaker from Martin Logan but did not specify what model. This is the same reason i started this, you call it the "planar" technology without knowing that they are no alike at all and therefore i piced a planar of much choice since they all seem to have the same weakness in your opinion and the way you make your statments!

But, you still haven't heard every Paradigm model, so you're making yet another unsubstantiated blanket statement of your own to add to many others that you've already contributed to this forum. Like I said, people throwing stones shouldn't live in glass houses.

My opinion of box speakers in general stand exept for a few exeptions which are a totally different concept then anything that Pardigm makes. If you would like reasurence we can ask the people at audiogon whoch run 50K plus systems as to why they chose their speakers and not the Paradigm. Should we do that?

In Florian's opinion the 1.6 has no problem. In Wooch's opinion, the 1.6 had plenty of problems with MY pop music (which I doubt you listen to anyway), which is why I eliminated them from consideration fairly early.

Please list the problems you have and why you feel ALL planars employ the same problems.

EVERYBODY looks for the sound that they like in a speaker, and that seems to be the point that you miss. There is no universally agreed upon standard about what sounds more real, since every speaker has imperfections of some kind. That's why everybody has different preferences on speakers.

This is why its impossible to argue with someone who likes colored speakers. Yes we all do hear differently, but we can all hear the instruments their tonal color and know what size they are etc.. I disagree with all people who tune their system to THEIR needs in sound since i belive the goal is to reproduce music just like it is when someone is playing a life instrument. Since you like the sound the way you want it and not the way it really sounds in real life disqualifys your opinions in my book and those who seek the most honest reproduction.

If you think that ringing with female voices is a better representation of reality, then you're more than welcome to invest in the Innersounds. Like I said, they were very impressive in many areas, but flawed. The demo was setup and calibrated by Innersound's designer. The much lower priced Dunlavy SC-IVs that were formerly setup in that same room sounded far more impressive and "real" to my ears.

Well at least you dont mention your Paradigms in the same sentence as the Innersounds and Dunlavys. You should point out that you either recommend speakers based on their VALUE or their absolut characteristics to reproduce a record as close to reality as possible. What flaws does your Paradigm have. I can listen you at least 10 right out of the back of my hand. There are great speakers out there and i have made a list but these surely dont incl. a 100cm box that is the same exept for the brand name as 1000 others. I state which box i like and which i dont like, you on the other hand blame it on the planar technology which is in itself not even a technology but a description.

My equipment is what I listen to at home and what I purchased within the budget that I set for myself, not what I consider a reference point. I have heard better systems, and use those listenings as my points of reference. If having a reference level system at home was my priority, I would have bought one a long time ago. I could care less if you consider my opinions valid. I mean, you haven't actually heard my system at your home and played around with it, so your opinion of my system and your presumptions about how I perceive sound, by YOUR OWN STANDARD, is also therefore invalid.

True, but you should not speak in absolut terms of a given technology. If you would have said that you didnt like the 1.6 for example because of the lack of bass or some other reason i wouldnt have jumped at ya ;-) But the problem lies in the general description.

My point on this thread is to encourage people to listen to as many different speakers as possible. You've obviously missed the thrust of that in your pointless effort to discredit my opinions (which are what they are ... OPINIONS).

No that is not the reason, the reason is like i said above the generalisation of a given design.

Ah yes, the real Florian comes out with the little smarmy insults of someone else's system whenever he can't handle a disagreement. It never fails.

Interesting come back, i am not sad or dissapointet but simply try to tell you that you should not speak of a given design in absolut terms like you do when you recommend people to listen to equimpment. Thats all.

Keep in mind that you weren't in the room with me when I heard those Innersounds. If you consider ringing in the highs a sign of realism, then knock yourself out.

I havent heard them in the house, but it would be interesting if you asume that the highs in the Innersound room where not as acurate as those from any Paradigm model.

Just because you're not religious doesn't mean that you're incapable of deifying yourself, or at the very least, your ears and your purported reference system, since you obviously worship them and expect others to do the same. Perceptions of accurate reproduction are ultimately in the ears of the listener, since no speaker is perfect.

You are right and i have not said that there is ONE reference system but quite a few, but they are nowhere to be found at a 2K pricelevel ;-)



And I presume that you've actually done this nonsensical exercise yourself? I would LOVE to hear the quality of the recording that you made for yourself, if you think you're capable of producing a reference level recording from the audience that can reveal all of those aforementioned qualities. Feel free to send your recording to me in a lossless format, and I'll compare it to the SF Symphony's DSD-Surround recording of Mahler's 5th, for which I was a member of the audience, when it comes out on CD/SACD next spring.[/QUOTE]

[Florian]

Dear Duds, you seem to think that i screw up threads but i simply have a different opinion then most of the rest. I am glad that you like your speakers, and have no problem with that all.

Enjoy!

PS: Just as a note, i talke with many members on here and recommend speakers too them. I have made many posts in the gallers and definetly encourage everyone no matter what they buy.

[Woochifer]

How can you say that a 100cm tall wooden box with unmatched drivers, small radiation pattern and lack of speed, lack of coloration etc etc... reproduces the music you hear life in a concert?

Within the limitations of your obviously biased and rhetorical question, the only answer would be no.

Then again, no speaker out there can completely reproduce the music from a concert anyway, so your example is just as nonsensical as your telling me to record a concert and play it back at home for evaluation. (You still haven't told me if you've done it yourself, and if you have, where anyone can hear this wonderful recording that you made from inside a concert hall)

I am not comparing them, you said that heard the speaker from Martin Logan but did not specify what model. This is the same reason i started this, you call it the "planar" technology without knowing that they are no alike at all and therefore i piced a planar of much choice since they all seem to have the same weakness in your opinion and the way you make your statments!

Not comparing them?

Considering that the Martin Logan Statment E2 and the Prodigy will easily outperform anything Paradigm makes in the speed, bass, tonal acuracy area.

In English, we call that kind of statement a comparison.

And in case your reading comprehension is lacking, I have already corrected myself in my first response. My comments on planar speakers pertain the ones that I've heard. Time to move on.

My opinion of box speakers in general stand exept for a few exeptions which are a totally different concept then anything that Pardigm makes. If you would like reasurence we can ask the people at audiogon whoch run 50K plus systems as to why they chose their speakers and not the Paradigm. Should we do that?

Once again, your statements are hypocritical because you're justifying yourself in making blanket indictments against box speakers, while calling me out for making one about planar speakers (and one that I have already corrected myself on and retracted). You're the one saying that opinions are invalid unless someone has the components in their home for evaluation, and that you cannot make blanket statements about a speaker technology without having heard all of them. By your own standards, you own opinions are invalid.

Please list the problems you have and why you feel ALL planars employ the same problems.

The 1.6 was the only planar speaker readily available for demo within my price range, and it simply did not provide the appropriate amount of impact and forwardness with trip hop, electronica, rock music, and hip hop. Plus, at moderately high volume levels with all sources, it started to strain audibly. Whether it was an issue with the amp or the speaker itself didn't matter, that was not going to work with my setup.

Again, I already corrected myself about the more general statements about planars. Time to move on

This is why its impossible to argue with someone who likes colored speakers. Yes we all do hear differently, but we can all hear the instruments their tonal color and know what size they are etc.. I disagree with all people who tune their system to THEIR needs in sound since i belive the goal is to reproduce music just like it is when someone is playing a life instrument. Since you like the sound the way you want it and not the way it really sounds in real life disqualifys your opinions in my book and those who seek the most honest reproduction.

And the point that you keep missing is that your definition of a "colored" sounding speaker is not the universal truth. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker, and the preferences that people make are which compromises are in line with their own definition of realism. And like I said earlier, with pop music, you don't have consistent references to go by. The majority of my listening does not involve acoustic music, so I am not going to saddle myself with a less than stellar sound with amplified music just to meet some arbitrary standard for "honest reproduction."

Well at least you dont mention your Paradigms in the same sentence as the Innersounds and Dunlavys. You should point out that you either recommend speakers based on their VALUE or their absolut characteristics to reproduce a record as close to reality as possible.

Well, let's see, my Paradigms cost $900 a pair, while the Innersounds went for $15k+ and the Dunlavys cost $8k. It would be ridiculous for me to compare them since a pair of the Innersounds cost more than quadruple what my entire 5.1 setup cost.

Given that the topic of this thread inquired into speakers in the price range of the Paradigm Studio 40 or B&W 603, why should I have to point out that I'm discussing speakers in that price range? If anyone should have a disclaimer, it's you since you're routinely bringing up speakers that cost $70,000 to make your case.

What flaws does your Paradigm have. I can listen you at least 10 right out of the back of my hand.

Go ahead and name 10 flaws, that is, if you've actually listened to the speakers that I own (the Studio 40 v.2), and brought them home and played around with them. If you haven't done so, then any evaluation of yours is invalid by your own standards.

I've never said that my speakers were flawless, only that they meet my preferences and my budget. And in totality, I found them much preferable to the 1.6, and more realistic sounding even with a lot of my acoustic sources.

There are great speakers out there and i have made a list but these surely dont incl. a 100cm box that is the same exept for the brand name as 1000 others.

Prove to me that my speakers are no different (except for the brand name) as "1000 others." And you don't even have to name all 1000 ... 500 will suffice. I went through much fewer than "1000" speakers in my price range when I was auditioning speakers, and none of them sounded "no different" from one another.

I state which box i like and which i dont like, you on the other hand blame it on the planar technology which is in itself not even a technology but a description.

You have made so many blanket statements about box speakers on this board that it would be all to easy to point out the hypocrisy in this statement.

I havent heard them in the house, but it would be interesting if you asume that the highs in the Innersound room where not as acurate as those from any Paradigm model.

Since you haven't heard my system in your home and played around with it yourself, then any comments and presumptions about my system, my preferences, my assessments, and my opinions are thereby invalid.

[RICKY009]

the martinlogan statements cannot compare with ANYTHING THAT PARADIGM PRODUCES. PERIOD. they (m/l) are superior. they have twin towers-an electrostat panel, a tower of cones, then a pair of eight subwoofers, per side. obviously, they are for large rooms. but, paradigm doesn't come close with all their speakers, combined, to the m/l's statements which retail in excess of $70,000 and, I believe, require bi-amping for each side????????????

[Mike Anderson]

The 1.6 was the only planar speaker readily available for demo within my price range, and it simply did not provide the appropriate amount of impact and forwardness with trip hop, electronica, rock music, and hip hop.

Just one nitpick here, but an important one:

"Electronica" covers a lot of ground. If you want head-pounding tecnho, that's one thing, and I see what you're saying.

But 70% of the stuff I listen to these days is "electronica", and almost all of it (e.g. ambient) does not require head pounding, chest-thumping dynamics.

For this stuff, the Maggies absolutely excel. It's just gorgeous, lush sound - full of beautiful, multi-layered details and a magnificent, complex timbre like I've never heard from another speaker.

[E-Stat]

Just one nitpick here, but an important one:

"Electronica" covers a lot of ground. If you want head-pounding tecnho, that's one thing, and I see what you're saying.

But 70% of the stuff I listen to these days is "electronica", and almost all of it (e.g. ambient) does not require head pounding, chest-thumping dynamics.

For this stuff, the Maggies absolutely excel. It's just gorgeous, lush sound - full of beautiful, multi-layered details and a magnificent, complex timbre like I've never heard from another speaker.

I agree. While I favor acoustical music, I rather enjoy the coherency, sound field, and delineation of my full range 'stats on pop and electronic music as well. I played Madonna and Radiohead on my (now sold) Acoustats for a couple of friends and they were amazed at the presentation. "This is better than live".

Different strokes for different folks. My long term friend and ex-TAS reviewer JWC likes his Avalons (it was his Dayton-Wrights that turned me onto full range electrostats thirty years ago).

rw