Auditioned Paradigm Studio 100 v3 today

[Pat D]

Sorry didn't mean to read anything in but you said measurements were a screening out tool so I assumed that meant a screening out of the audition list tool.

The faults I found I never said was logical - I actually go and listen with good equipment in pretty good to very good rooms...it's experiencial basis. Not all metal tweeters are bad -- and maybe they are not bad at all by themselves - maybe you are correct and it't the implementation that is poor. SO far with few exceptions I have not heard them Implemented correctly(or the tweeter is drawing too much attention to itself).

As for Peter you will not be the first nor the last to disagreewith what he says - had i read the web-site before I heard the product I would have passed them over. The problem is I've heard his inferior SET amps and his inferior CD technology and his old fashioned inferior speaker designs - non slim line non bevelled edges to reducestanding waves etc and it bested the more expensive B&W model Nautilus with 8 top of the line Musical FIdelity power amps. So it is very very hard for a layperson not to believe what he has to say - technically inferior but it does not sound that way to me.

Of course this may also sound like the tubes versus SS debate where both sides scream accuracy versus 2nd order harmonics blah blah blah.

The prolem with all of it is is that even when the measurer at Stereophile grumbled about the De Capo he was surprised that the reviewer didn't notice this or that about the sound - UHF listens first then measures and confirms what they heard. If you don't hear it then something wasn't measured correctly - and even then what stereophile shows as a weakness was and is viewed as a huge strength of the speaker??????

I chose not to get them simply because the depth of soundstage seemed a bit imposed on all recordings - that to me was better than all the speakers using metal tweeters that added detail = distortion or adding something not on the recordings but something that sounds cool ---- for a while anyway.

The logical fault was concluding that the problems you heard were due to the fact that the tweeters were metal, that is, you assigned a cause for what you experienced. Meanwhile, the measurements offer another explanation, something that actually has something to do with the sound emanating from the speaker. Then, you turn around and point out that there have been metal tweeters which did not bother you, although without naming the speakers, so you contradict your claim about metal tweeters.

In fact, in his review of the De Capo, Art Dudley did notice the effects of the midrange humps and said so quite clearly:

"This speaker never lost every iota of that hooty coloration, though, leaving me to think of its response as very slightly lumpier than the ideal, with here a midrange boost that made violins sound a little thicker than they are, and there a notch that robbed voices of a bit of texture—that which gives keening voices their keen. "

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...3a/index1.html

John Atkinson noted that Art Dudley found much to admire about the speaker, but he remarked:

"But oh, look at the enormous ridges of resonant energy between 600Hz and 1kHz. I am surprised that AD wasn't bothered more by this behavior."

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...3a/index4.html

I, too, am surprised. Mr. Atkinson didn't say Art didn't notice them at all, because he did. But anyway, his speaker preferences seem to be different from mine, though he does like the Quads.

[RGA]

The logical fault was concluding that the problems you heard were due to the fact that the tweeters were metal, that is, you assigned a cause for what you experienced. Meanwhile, the measurements offer another explanation, something that actually has something to do with the sound emanating from the speaker. Then, you turn around and point out that there have been metal tweeters which did not bother you, although without naming the speakers, so you contradict your claim about metal tweeters.

In fact, in his review of the De Capo, Art Dudley did notice the effects of the midrange humps and said so quite clearly:

"This speaker never lost every iota of that hooty coloration, though, leaving me to think of its response as very slightly lumpier than the ideal, with here a midrange boost that made violins sound a little thicker than they are, and there a notch that robbed voices of a bit of texture—that which gives keening voices their keen. "

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...3a/index1.html

John Atkinson noted that Art Dudley found much to admire about the speaker, but he remarked:

"But oh, look at the enormous ridges of resonant energy between 600Hz and 1kHz. I am surprised that AD wasn't bothered more by this behavior."

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...3a/index4.html

I, too, am surprised. Mr. Atkinson didn't say Art didn't notice them at all, because he did. But anyway, his speaker preferences seem to be different from mine, though he does like the Quads.

First - there is not a speaker made using a metal tweeter that I would want to own. There are many that are done better than others however. I prefer the N805 to many - but it has a midrange suckout and a clearly distinct separation between drivers - it's better thant he paradigms of the world but given the huge price increases it's not better enough to justify itself to me.

Art is hearing a bit of what I hear - and most owners of the speakers hear and they like that sound. I didn't like enogh to want to own it however in the end. When I fisrt listened and on several listenings the De Capo stood out because it didn''t sound conjested thin and shrill like most speakers and all speakers below that price using a metal driver. It had balls could fill a room had a smooth non fatiguing treble had decay - and a huge front to back soundstage. When what you compare it too is veritable kaka then it stands out as best and you ignore the fact that gee voices seem to come out a bit far back on a lot of recordings and there is a touch of thickness on organ and piano - and probably Bass guitar etc. Mid range bloom is far more acceptable than brittle highs to me - the former is less egregious the latter immediately drops it off my list. And Art despite the flaws he notes loved the speakers - nothing is perfect if it were then they would not make a higher end model - jeez just like Paradigm and Audio Note and B&W etc.

In the end it's which flawed speaker do I like better and can live with more - for me the De Capo more so than N805 or Veritas 2.1 etc - but I wanted a speaker that would retain a non fatiguing tweeter (or treble response however created) had serious bass and in room dynamic power to rival a lot of good floorstanders and a voice region that was crystal clear - the De Capo was pushed back a bit and made me have to strain just a touch to make out dialog - while the N805 and standmounts from Paradigm, Energy had no such trouble some voices were pushed too far out and didn't sound "of a piece" on instrumentals or vocals. Where Peter says they sound nasal he IMO is dead right - they sound small and polite and beam.

As I say if you love that sound then no need to look for Audio Note - it's when you've owned those and or heard them for numerous hours and decide that you dislike them because the measurements and JA of the world tell you how great X is when actually X sounds like a piece of shi! that you decide to go and listen - and driver integration is mentioned a lot lately because the marketing companies know their products like B&W heve been taking a beating on forums lately - I especially noticed it on the 705 review - and Stereophile writers hang out on AA - interesting coincidence.

By the way This is not to say one would not choose the N805 over the De Capo - because obviously you are the type to find the De Capo's weakness more egregious than lack of cohesiveness in the upper midrange. I believe you own the 100 no? So I know it doesn't bother you much.

[Pat D]

First - there is not a speaker made using a metal tweeter that I would want to own. There are many that are done better than others however. I prefer the N805 to many - but it has a midrange suckout and a clearly distinct separation between drivers - it's better thant he paradigms of the world but given the huge price increases it's not better enough to justify itself to me.

Art is hearing a bit of what I hear - and most owners of the speakers hear and they like that sound. I didn't like enogh to want to own it however in the end. When I fisrt listened and on several listenings the De Capo stood out because it didn''t sound conjested thin and shrill like most speakers and all speakers below that price using a metal driver. It had balls could fill a room had a smooth non fatiguing treble had decay - and a huge front to back soundstage. When what you compare it too is veritable kaka then it stands out as best and you ignore the fact that gee voices seem to come out a bit far back on a lot of recordings and there is a touch of thickness on organ and piano - and probably Bass guitar etc. Mid range bloom is far more acceptable than brittle highs to me - the former is less egregious the latter immediately drops it off my list. And Art despite the flaws he notes loved the speakers - nothing is perfect if it were then they would not make a higher end model - jeez just like Paradigm and Audio Note and B&W etc.

In the end it's which flawed speaker do I like better and can live with more - for me the De Capo more so than N805 or Veritas 2.1 etc - but I wanted a speaker that would retain a non fatiguing tweeter (or treble response however created) had serious bass and in room dynamic power to rival a lot of good floorstanders and a voice region that was crystal clear - the De Capo was pushed back a bit and made me have to strain just a touch to make out dialog - while the N805 and standmounts from Paradigm, Energy had no such trouble some voices were pushed too far out and didn't sound "of a piece" on instrumentals or vocals. Where Peter says they sound nasal he IMO is dead right - they sound small and polite and beam.

As I say if you love that sound then no need to look for Audio Note - it's when you've owned those and or heard them for numerous hours and decide that you dislike them because the measurements and JA of the world tell you how great X is when actually X sounds like a piece of shi! that you decide to go and listen - and driver integration is mentioned a lot lately because the marketing companies know their products like B&W heve been taking a beating on forums lately - I especially noticed it on the 705 review - and Stereophile writers hang out on AA - interesting coincidence.

By the way This is not to say one would not choose the N805 over the De Capo - because obviously you are the type to find the De Capo's weakness more egregious than lack of cohesiveness in the upper midrange. I believe you own the 100 no? So I know it doesn't bother you much.

I am not sure what you are attributing to what speakers. A Paradigm Reference or Energy Veritas 'beam'? Don't be silly! Or are you talking about the De Capos? If you want a directional speaker, there are always electrostatics!

Whose been beating up on the B & W 705? It's a very nice sounding speaker.

No, I don't own Studio 100s. I have never owned any of the Paradigm Reference speakers, although I like them. I intend to audition the Paradigm Signature S2 speakers more extensively when my dealer gets another pair. I am trying out the PSB (New) Stratus Minis right now, and they sound very good indeed on a great many recordings.

[RGA]

no one has beaten up on the 705 but previous models including the N805 were called out for their lack of driver integration. The 705 comes out and I noticed that the Stereophile review was very careful to note that the driver integration is very coherent as if to stress that B&W got it right - which when reading between the lines is an admission that either they knew previous models got it wrong - or are simply trying to combat the usual forum discussion of lack of cohesion. Indeed, to me the problem was not a huge one anyway but it was a little distracting on certain discs where the hand-off was more noticable than on others.

It may be that Stereophile is simply correct and noticed that B&W has fixed up this complaint of their speakers. Obviously, they like them giving the CDM 1NT a class B and I don't want to sound like i got on them because they were the best speakers in the price range that i had heard - now it's the Dane 52 by default since the CDM is gone. Truthfully, the brands here have turned over too much and there are really only about 4 in that price range that I can comment on - and even the Dane dealer went under so I have to go on fairly old memory.

The dealers other than Soundhounds in B.C. seem now to only carry 3-4 brands of speakers which make comparisons difficult because they won't be in the same locations - though the structure of a speaker's sound(timbral accuracy, imaging, treble smoothness, driver integration, bass response, dynamics etc) should be similar no matter what the room so long as it is positioned the same and ssame seating distance (and reflecting walls are similarly distanced). I have often found that speakers sound far better in my non treated home than professionally treated audio shops - perhaps they have over treated for one speaker type and another does't work with it. Then again furnature is a treatment.

Beaming to me is sort of attack without the decay you get the initial note with a seaming lack of consideration of the overtone. Really I cannot explain that unless I can demontstrate it. When I did my speaker shootout in October or so I didn't even have that down - only a second audition when I had the Yo Yo Ma Cello disc did it become blatantly obvious - and later with the Jesse Cook Tempest album. Before it was more the piano - a piano key is struck and all the speakers handle it fine with the metal designs seemingly crisper but the rest of the note sounded cut-off. Sort of overly punchy as if the woofer wants to come back in real fast to stat the next note when it didn't finish off the last one - hence nasal because then everything sounds conjested or straining to keep control - see I knew I could not explain it - but it is hearable.

I too will be trying out the new Paradigm line - it has a similar design to the Studio so i'm not holding my breath that it will be very good - even Woochifer was not impressed too much on his first audition so i will make it a point not to judge on first listen. I will check out the PSB mini - they had a horror story on here not long ago with customer service and truth be told I don't like the Stratus Gold - very expensive speaker for tubby bass reminding me of Cerwin Vega. Oddly the Stratus Silver in the same large room sounded way more coherent - it is odd but often times the model just below the flagship often seems the best - Alla the 602S3 versus the 604S3 (granted standmount versus floorstander).

[Pat D]

no one has beaten up on the 705 but previous models including the N805 were called out for their lack of driver integration. The 705 comes out and I noticed that the Stereophile review was very careful to note that the driver integration is very coherent as if to stress that B&W got it right - which when reading between the lines is an admission that either they knew previous models got it wrong - or are simply trying to combat the usual forum discussion of lack of cohesion. Indeed, to me the problem was not a huge one anyway but it was a little distracting on certain discs where the hand-off was more noticable than on others.

It may be that Stereophile is simply correct and noticed that B&W has fixed up this complaint of their speakers. Obviously, they like them giving the CDM 1NT a class B and I don't want to sound like i got on them because they were the best speakers in the price range that i had heard - now it's the Dane 52 by default since the CDM is gone. Truthfully, the brands here have turned over too much and there are really only about 4 in that price range that I can comment on - and even the Dane dealer went under so I have to go on fairly old memory.

The dealers other than Soundhounds in B.C. seem now to only carry 3-4 brands of speakers which make comparisons difficult because they won't be in the same locations - though the structure of a speaker's sound(timbral accuracy, imaging, treble smoothness, driver integration, bass response, dynamics etc) should be similar no matter what the room so long as it is positioned the same and ssame seating distance (and reflecting walls are similarly distanced). I have often found that speakers sound far better in my non treated home than professionally treated audio shops - perhaps they have over treated for one speaker type and another does't work with it. Then again furnature is a treatment.

Beaming to me is sort of attack without the decay you get the initial note with a seaming lack of consideration of the overtone. Really I cannot explain that unless I can demontstrate it. When I did my speaker shootout in October or so I didn't even have that down - only a second audition when I had the Yo Yo Ma Cello disc did it become blatantly obvious - and later with the Jesse Cook Tempest album. Before it was more the piano - a piano key is struck and all the speakers handle it fine with the metal designs seemingly crisper but the rest of the note sounded cut-off. Sort of overly punchy as if the woofer wants to come back in real fast to stat the next note when it didn't finish off the last one - hence nasal because then everything sounds conjested or straining to keep control - see I knew I could not explain it - but it is hearable.

I too will be trying out the new Paradigm line - it has a similar design to the Studio so i'm not holding my breath that it will be very good - even Woochifer was not impressed too much on his first audition so i will make it a point not to judge on first listen. I will check out the PSB mini - they had a horror story on here not long ago with customer service and truth be told I don't like the Stratus Gold - very expensive speaker for tubby bass reminding me of Cerwin Vega. Oddly the Stratus Silver in the same large room sounded way more coherent - it is odd but often times the model just below the flagship often seems the best - Alla the 602S3 versus the 604S3 (granted standmount versus floorstander).

Beaming refers to a narrow dispersion pattern. This can sound very good in the right set up and in the right location. As the frequency rises, the wavelengths get shorter, and when they get to be smaller than the diameter of the driver, the driver starts to get more and more directional. This typically happens at the top of a woofer's range, when the crossover to the tweeter is set too high; hence, the tweeter's power response around the crossover can be greater than that of the woofer.

The PSB Stratus Gold has very deep, clean bass. If it was boomy where you heard it, this is most likely a room effect. I strongly suspect that they were not set up properly. Even ordinary tone controls could have helped the response in John Atkinson's room.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...04/index8.html

[RGA]

Beaming refers to a narrow dispersion pattern. This can sound very good in the right set up and in the right location. As the frequency rises, the wavelengths get shorter, and when they get to be smaller than the diameter of the driver, the driver starts to get more and more directional. This typically happens at the top of a woofer's range, when the crossover to the tweeter is set too high; hence, the tweeter's power response around the crossover can be greater than that of the woofer.

The PSB Stratus Gold has very deep, clean bass. If it was boomy where you heard it, this is most likely a room effect. I strongly suspect that they were not set up properly. Even ordinary tone controls could have helped the response in John Atkinson's room.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeak...04/index8.html

I know the way beaming is typically referred to and IMO they beam that way as well.

I spent a while with the Gold. Pulled them out toed them in in a good room - not a good speaker IMO. Or I should say not a good speaker for the money. JA is entitled to his opinion - pretty sad that you know more how to correct the speaker than JA in JA's room. Stereophile should have you on the payroll not JA if he doesn't know about tone controls.

[Pat D]

I know the way beaming is typically referred to and IMO they beam that way as well.

I spent a while with the Gold. Pulled them out toed them in in a good room - not a good speaker IMO. Or I should say not a good speaker for the money. JA is entitled to his opinion - pretty sad that you know more how to correct the speaker than JA in JA's room. Stereophile should have you on the payroll not JA if he doesn't know about tone controls.

Well, it might not have been a good room for the Gold-i's. They might sound better at home. Beaming--well, that is one thing that will show up in Stereophile's measurement: look at the horizontal dispersion plots. They're not beamy. As well, the vertical dispersion is uncommonly good.

As for the bass hump in JA's room, well that's obviously a room effect since it doesn't exist in the anechoic response. I suspect a smaller speaker might work better there, perhaps the Stratus Silver.

As well, it is simply stating the obvious that some bass cut would reduce the hump in the response in JA's room. Do get a grip! Reviewers don't generally add in tone controls--and JA's superaudiophile equipment may not have any!

[Woochifer]

The dealers other than Soundhounds in B.C. seem now to only carry 3-4 brands of speakers which make comparisons difficult because they won't be in the same locations - though the structure of a speaker's sound(timbral accuracy, imaging, treble smoothness, driver integration, bass response, dynamics etc) should be similar no matter what the room so long as it is positioned the same and ssame seating distance (and reflecting walls are similarly distanced). I have often found that speakers sound far better in my non treated home than professionally treated audio shops - perhaps they have over treated for one speaker type and another does't work with it. Then again furnature is a treatment.

Or it's a speaker design whose flaws just happen to work well in your specific room. Your assertion about the "structure of the speaker's sound" being similar so long as the positioning and distance from the walls are the same is only partly right. The overall size and shape of the room, along with the wall reflectivity, will dramatically influence how it sounds no matter how the speakers are positioned within the room. Bass response especially is highly dependent on the demo room's size and your listening position. Some speakers sound more similar from room to room than others.

Beaming to me is sort of attack without the decay you get the initial note with a seaming lack of consideration of the overtone. Really I cannot explain that unless I can demontstrate it.

In other words, you're just mangling terminology to fit your particular way of listening to things. Attack and decay aren't the same thing as beaming.

I too will be trying out the new Paradigm line - it has a similar design to the Studio so i'm not holding my breath that it will be very good - even Woochifer was not impressed too much on his first audition so i will make it a point not to judge on first listen.

Now, THAT sounds like an unbiased way to go into an audition! "it has a similar design to the Studio so I'm not holding my breath that it will be very good" I thought that you gave the Studio 100s 8/10, so does that mean that 8/10 is not very good?

If you read my audition notes of the S2, indeed I had my reservations about it based on that particular listening. But, at the same time, I knew that those demo units were relatively new, and based on my own break-in experience with the Studio series (in which I had a pair of demo units available for comparison with my new speakers and noted audible differences between the two sets), I was willing to reserve judgment until I go back and give them another listen after they've had more playing time. That same listening, I was absolutely floored by the Studio 20 v.3. Amazingly good speaker for the money with some of the most seamless imaging that I've ever heard and no sign of beaming whatsoever (y'know, where speakers have narrow dispersion and sound like point sources).

[RGA]

I stand by my 8/10 rating - very much to be liked about the speaker. For $2300.00Cdn if I were shopping I would try and buy a speaker I give 10/10 is all.

As for bias it is very difficult and NO ONE here is free from bias. The studio series has a similar design to the monitor and I like the Studio series a lot more - probably because the cabinet quality is better and suffers less from resonance. Presumably that improvement is improved some more.

As for my definition - okay I'll just go to attack and decay and dynamics instead of trying to almagamate.

But just so you know - terminology is created by mankind not some God. So if I wish to create a term different from another what's the problem? I expressed what my term meant - Shakespeare invented 2000 words in the dictionary and Homer Simpson created one too - so? Homer's word was expressed already with several other words which were already in the dictionary. But I forgot if anyone doesn't like a speaker that JA likes then JA must be correct - no special interests in his magazine at all right?

[Pat D]

I stand by my 8/10 rating - very much to be liked about the speaker. For $2300.00Cdn if I were shopping I would try and buy a speaker I give 10/10 is all.

As for bias it is very difficult and NO ONE here is free from bias. The studio series has a similar design to the monitor and I like the Studio series a lot more - probably because the cabinet quality is better and suffers less from resonance. Presumably that improvement is improved some more.

As for my definition - okay I'll just go to attack and decay and dynamics instead of trying to almagamate.

But just so you know - terminology is created by mankind not some God. So if I wish to create a term different from another what's the problem? I expressed what my term meant - Shakespeare invented 2000 words in the dictionary and Homer Simpson created one too - so? Homer's word was expressed already with several other words which were already in the dictionary. But I forgot if anyone doesn't like a speaker that JA likes then JA must be correct - no special interests in his magazine at all right?

Shakespeare you ain't, RGA! So about 17% of the Bard from Avon's vocabulary of 29,000 or so words is first attested in his works. How do you conclude Shakespeare invented them? What'syour logic?

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...lfaqsvocab.htm

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...2FSDB2040.html

[RGA]

I use the Norton Anthology of English Literature.

"Despite this, Shakespeare is credited by the Oxford English Dictionary with the introduction of nearly 3,000 words into the language. His vocabulary, as culled from his works, numbers upward of 17,000 words (quadruple that of an average, well-educated conversationalist in the language). In the words of Louis Marder, "Shakespeare was so facile in employing words that he was able to use over 7,000 of them—more than occur in the whole King James version of the Bible—only once and never again."

Sorry Will I short-changed you. However there is some confusion because there is no conclusive evidence just what is widely considered to be as the following notes: Others project him as around 1700 words so what the hell split the difference and err on the side of caution and say 2000.

"In Shakespeare's case, many of the words and phrases attributed to him merely debuted in their modern permutations in his writings and can actually be traced back to older forms. Other words and turns of phrase are indeed "original," insomuch as they are documented in the written record only as far back as Shakespeare.

Further compounding the confusion, some experts argue that a prime source that attributes many such words and phrases to Shakespeare—the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)—perhaps is itself biased toward the Bard.

Jonathan Hope of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, writes in his essay, "Shakespeare's 'Native English,'" that "the Victorian scholars who read texts for the first edition of the OED paid special attention to Shakespeare: [H]is texts were read more thoroughly, and cited more often, so he is often credited with the first use of words, or senses of words, which can, in fact, be found in other writers."

Be that as it may, Shakespeare certainly popularized the use of certain words through his plays and poems in a way that has been unparalleled. Perhaps the true brilliance of Shakespeare's wordplay lies in his alternate uses of existing words, such as using a noun as verb. Hope points, for example, to Shakespeare's transformation of "lace," a noun borrowed from French, into the verb "lac'd" (laced). [Using a word to mean something else is in effect a new word because it means something else - jeez just like Beaming]

The Bard also invented "new" words through the creative use of prefixes or suffixes (as in "reword"), and by joining two familiar words to create an unfamiliar phrase, like "fier [fire] new," notes Hope.

"Shakespeare probably doesn't borrow words any more or less frequently than his contemporaries," Hope writes, "but he does seem to be fascinated by … the way meanings can be refreshed and recombined by placing a familiar word in an unfamiliar role."

According to Macrone in Brush Up Your Shakespeare, the Oxford English Dictionary credits Shakespeare as the first to use these words, among others: "arch-villain," "bedazzle," "cheap" (as in vulgar or flimsy), "dauntless," "embrace" (as a noun), "fashionable," "go-between," "honey-tongued," "inauspicious," "lustrous," "nimble-footed," "outbreak," "pander," "sanctimonious," "time-honored," "unearthly," "vulnerable," and "well-bred."

"Faux Shakespeare"

Of course, with such a wide linguistic influence attributed to Shakespeare, it is not all that surprising that the playwright has some notable phrases incorrectly assigned to him as well.

"Just because the Bard was a regular phrase-coining machine doesn't mean he should hog the credit when the facts are against him," writes Macrone in Brush Up Your Shakespeare.

To help prevent embarrassment, Macrone kindly provides a list of "faux Shakespeare" for his readers, including the following familiar sayings:

• All that glisters (glistens) is not gold
• To knit one's brow
• Cold comfort
• (To) give the devil his due
• To play fast and loose
• Till the last gasp
• Laughing stock
• Fool's paradise
• In a pickle
• Out of the question
• The long and the short of it
• It's Greek to me
• It's high time
• The naked truth


While Shakespeare probably made these phrases better known, writes Macrone, they all have earlier documented references.

Regardless of such technicalities, Shakespeare's influence on everyday speech survived the subsequent shifts in language that resulted in the English spoken today. So, to use a familiar Shakespeare phrase, it seems that all's well that ends well."

Then there is another way he gets credit for created words - simply be using them as varuiations -

"The English language owes a great debt to Shakespeare. He invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original"

And then there are phrases which is the invention of the use of a few words: "Shakespeare also invented many of the most-used expressions in our language. Bernard Levin skillfully summarizes Shakespeare's impact in the following passage from The Story of English:

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare "It's Greek to me", you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise - why, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I were dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut, tut! for goodness' sake! what the dickens! but me no buts - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare. (Bernard Levin. From The Story of English. Robert McCrum, William Cran and Robert MacNeil. Viking: 1986)."

Intersetingly, one source give Shakespeare credit for a phrase where another says it may be in a prior source. But of course to be a popular phrase it must be made "popular" so even if a saying such as "It's Greek to me" was used prior to Shakespeare it was not popularized until Shakespeare used it, therefore, it is a gray area. A popularized phrase is similar to a cliche - a cliche is only a cliche when it is used and over-overused. So the saying "It's Greek to me" without Shakespeare would never have become a phrase and would never be known - so Shakespeare invented the term as a popular phrase if not the actual phrase...or Shakespeare provided the microphone in the forest when the tree fell and nobody was there to hear it.

[Pat D]

I use the Norton Anthology of English Literature.

"Despite this, Shakespeare is credited by the Oxford English Dictionary with the introduction of nearly 3,000 words into the language. His vocabulary, as culled from his works, numbers upward of 17,000 words (quadruple that of an average, well-educated conversationalist in the language). In the words of Louis Marder, "Shakespeare was so facile in employing words that he was able to use over 7,000 of them—more than occur in the whole King James version of the Bible—only once and never again."

Sorry Will I short-changed you. However there is some confusion because there is no conclusive evidence just what is widely considered to be as the following notes: Others project him as around 1700 words so what the hell split the difference and err on the side of caution and say 2000.

"In Shakespeare's case, many of the words and phrases attributed to him merely debuted in their modern permutations in his writings and can actually be traced back to older forms. Other words and turns of phrase are indeed "original," insomuch as they are documented in the written record only as far back as Shakespeare.

Further compounding the confusion, some experts argue that a prime source that attributes many such words and phrases to Shakespeare—the Oxford English Dictionary (OED)—perhaps is itself biased toward the Bard.

Jonathan Hope of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, writes in his essay, "Shakespeare's 'Native English,'" that "the Victorian scholars who read texts for the first edition of the OED paid special attention to Shakespeare: [H]is texts were read more thoroughly, and cited more often, so he is often credited with the first use of words, or senses of words, which can, in fact, be found in other writers."

Be that as it may, Shakespeare certainly popularized the use of certain words through his plays and poems in a way that has been unparalleled. Perhaps the true brilliance of Shakespeare's wordplay lies in his alternate uses of existing words, such as using a noun as verb. Hope points, for example, to Shakespeare's transformation of "lace," a noun borrowed from French, into the verb "lac'd" (laced). [Using a word to mean something else is in effect a new word because it means something else - jeez just like Beaming]

The Bard also invented "new" words through the creative use of prefixes or suffixes (as in "reword"), and by joining two familiar words to create an unfamiliar phrase, like "fier [fire] new," notes Hope.

"Shakespeare probably doesn't borrow words any more or less frequently than his contemporaries," Hope writes, "but he does seem to be fascinated by … the way meanings can be refreshed and recombined by placing a familiar word in an unfamiliar role."

According to Macrone in Brush Up Your Shakespeare, the Oxford English Dictionary credits Shakespeare as the first to use these words, among others: "arch-villain," "bedazzle," "cheap" (as in vulgar or flimsy), "dauntless," "embrace" (as a noun), "fashionable," "go-between," "honey-tongued," "inauspicious," "lustrous," "nimble-footed," "outbreak," "pander," "sanctimonious," "time-honored," "unearthly," "vulnerable," and "well-bred."

"Faux Shakespeare"

Of course, with such a wide linguistic influence attributed to Shakespeare, it is not all that surprising that the playwright has some notable phrases incorrectly assigned to him as well.

"Just because the Bard was a regular phrase-coining machine doesn't mean he should hog the credit when the facts are against him," writes Macrone in Brush Up Your Shakespeare.

To help prevent embarrassment, Macrone kindly provides a list of "faux Shakespeare" for his readers, including the following familiar sayings:

• All that glisters (glistens) is not gold
• To knit one's brow
• Cold comfort
• (To) give the devil his due
• To play fast and loose
• Till the last gasp
• Laughing stock
• Fool's paradise
• In a pickle
• Out of the question
• The long and the short of it
• It's Greek to me
• It's high time
• The naked truth


While Shakespeare probably made these phrases better known, writes Macrone, they all have earlier documented references.

Regardless of such technicalities, Shakespeare's influence on everyday speech survived the subsequent shifts in language that resulted in the English spoken today. So, to use a familiar Shakespeare phrase, it seems that all's well that ends well."

Then there is another way he gets credit for created words - simply be using them as varuiations -

"The English language owes a great debt to Shakespeare. He invented over 1700 of our common words by changing nouns into verbs, changing verbs into adjectives, connecting words never before used together, adding prefixes and suffixes, and devising words wholly original"

And then there are phrases which is the invention of the use of a few words: "Shakespeare also invented many of the most-used expressions in our language. Bernard Levin skillfully summarizes Shakespeare's impact in the following passage from The Story of English:

If you cannot understand my argument, and declare "It's Greek to me", you are quoting Shakespeare; if you claim to be more sinned against than sinning, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you recall your salad days, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you act more in sorrow than in anger, if your wish is father to the thought, if your lost property has vanished into thin air, you are quoting Shakespeare; if you have ever refused to budge an inch or suffered from green-eyed jealousy, if you have played fast and loose, if you have been tongue-tied, a tower of strength, hoodwinked or in a pickle, if you have knitted your brows, made a virtue of necessity, insisted on fair play, slept not one wink, stood on ceremony, danced attendance (on your lord and master), laughed yourself into stitches, had short shrift, cold comfort or too much of a good thing, if you have seen better days or lived in a fool's paradise - why, be that as it may, the more fool you, for it is a foregone conclusion that you are (as good luck would have it) quoting Shakespeare; if you think it is early days and clear out bag and baggage, if you think it is high time and that that is the long and short of it, if you believe that the game is up and that truth will out even if it involves your own flesh and blood, if you lie low till the crack of doom because you suspect foul play, if you have your teeth set on edge (at one fell swoop) without rhyme or reason, then - to give the devil his due - if the truth were known (for surely you have a tongue in your head) you are quoting Shakespeare; even if you bid me good riddance and send me packing, if you wish I were dead as a door-nail, if you think I am an eyesore, a laughing stock, the devil incarnate, a stony-hearted villain, bloody-minded or a blinking idiot, then - by Jove! O Lord! Tut, tut! for goodness' sake! what the dickens! but me no buts - it is all one to me, for you are quoting Shakespeare. (Bernard Levin. From The Story of English. Robert McCrum, William Cran and Robert MacNeil. Viking: 1986)."

Intersetingly, one source give Shakespeare credit for a phrase where another says it may be in a prior source. But of course to be a popular phrase it must be made "popular" so even if a saying such as "It's Greek to me" was used prior to Shakespeare it was not popularized until Shakespeare used it, therefore, it is a gray area. A popularized phrase is similar to a cliche - a cliche is only a cliche when it is used and over-overused. So the saying "It's Greek to me" without Shakespeare would never have become a phrase and would never be known - so Shakespeare invented the term as a popular phrase if not the actual phrase...or Shakespeare provided the microphone in the forest when the tree fell and nobody was there to hear it.

This is indeed fascinating. However, the specific proposition was how you know that Shakespeare invented that many words, and you now admit you don't know it. Some people's standards for new words do not seem to be very high, for example, the mere addition of a hyphen between two existing words, such as "eagle-winged" (a word combination going back to the Bible, of course), or the addition of the prefix re-.

At least with "eagle-winged" one has some idea what the word means, but your use of the verb, "to beam," is not at all evident from prior usage. Are you developing a private language, RGA?

[RGA]

This is indeed fascinating. However, the specific proposition was how you know that Shakespeare invented that many words, and you now admit you don't know it. Some people's standards for new words do not seem to be very high, for example, the mere addition of a hyphen between two existing words, such as "eagle-winged" (a word combination going back to the Bible, of course), or the addition of the prefix re-.

At least with "eagle-winged" one has some idea what the word means, but your use of the verb, "to beam," is not at all evident from prior usage. Are you developing a private language, RGA?

Firstly to the Shakespeare point. I was taking a drama class for teachers and the professor held up a book to help get kids more interested in Shakespeare. That book was about the 2000 words and phrase created by Will Shakespeare. SO that is what I said. Then you brought it up so i had to go and look it up - the Oxford dictionary credits him with 1700 words.

You can grumble about the semantics of suffixes and prefixes or whether he really created the words. We don't know for SURE that he did - then again we don't know for sure that he didn't much of the time. As I said with the phrasing - were it not for Shakespeare the phrase "It's Greek to me" would be unknown - It appeared somewhere else prior to Shakespeare so what? it's four words strung together ONLY popularized because of Will. And for all we know Will never read it.

As for beaming - you're picking nits because I explained how I was using the term. Woochifer correctly noted that I was talking about attack and decay and should have not stuffed it into beaming. Attack is the initial strike which to me is beamed at you - decay is the overtone (the rest of the note) that follows. Attack comes AT you that sparkle on the note the initial strum of a guitar string the decay is the guitar box resonating. But I said all this.

Beaming on speakers I always attributed to a narrow sweetspot - move your head an inch and it crumbles. Presumably that is on axis opposed to off axis dispersion.

I also have to make a correction because I'm not sure if PSB has more than a few versions of the Gold. I listened to the speaker circa 1996-97 I believe and now there is a Gold i some sort of suped up version - if this is the case I opologise to PSB and to JA of Stereophile if I am talking about an original that they may have since greatly corrected. I made this mistake with an original Paradigm versus a V2 a long while ago and the latter was much superior IMO.

And BTW i am somewhere in between Homer Simpson and Shakespeare - closer to Homer perhaps - but hey he has a nice wife, has a great job to IQ ratio, and a star for what 13 years? And hey he's a cartoon - bonus.

Sounds like art immitates life with the Nuclear power plant articles recently released. (Ihave not read them myself but someone was telling me that they didn't have degrees orsomething - :-) D'oh!