Energy Con. C-5 vs Paradigm Monitor 7...

[htfan14]

Yes I know, another newbie question. But does anyone have experience with these 2 models and their matching centres? Would be used about 70/30 ht/music use. I have the Energy xl25's and matching centre now.

[RGA]

Yes I know, another newbie question. But does anyone have experience with these 2 models and their matching centres? Would be used about 70/30 ht/music use. I have the Energy xl25's and matching centre now.

I have heard the two, If it were my dollars the Energy would make my top ten floorstanders under 1k. The Monitor V2 and V3 line would not make it. Sound is boxy and fatiguing to me.

The Energy is not the last word either but the price seems reasonable and solid bang for buck. This is a good line, and maybe a bit underrated, from Energy. Less ringing and box noise and nicer looks IMO to boot.

I'd still keep looking because in this price range there a few standmounts that offer enough bass but sound more refined in the midrange and treble.

[ryewoods]

Agreed with RGA. I think the Energys are better. I find Paradigms to be overly bright, and borderline harsh on occasion. I would check both of them out if possible. As always, different strokes for different folks.

[spacedeckman]

Better tweeter, no obvious midbass hump, no "suckout" in the midrange...which means no "boxiness".

[kexodusc]

I'd recommend testing out the two...If you listen to a lot of music with high frequencies you might find the Monitor 7's a tad too bright, they'll reveal a lot or recording flaws in music playback. I've always found the Energy's somewhat lacking in the midrange though compared to the Paradigm's. All in all 2 good speakers with very different flavours, I won't say one is better, it really depends on the music you listen to.
As far as the centers go, when I tested the C-C1 against the CC-370 from Paradigm I found it sounded very muffled for voices compared to the CC-370. Energy has a newer C-C3 or something I haven't heard personally, but a few of my friends swear by. Might be a better option for you.
For about the same price, Mirage has some great speakers very similar in sound to the Energy's you might want to try out if available.

[htfan14]

Thanks for the input guys. I will have a listen to the Mirage as well. I have auditioned both speakers, but under different sources. The Energy's are at the same retailer I bought my Denon 3802, so I have heard them on the 3803, sounded very good. The Paradigm's however are at a Yammy/ Pioneer Elite/Nad store. I have heard them on the Nad and the Yamaha RX1400. Sounded very good as well. I do like the fact the Paradigm centre has 61/2" drivers compared to the C-C1 which is 51/4"
awww choices....:-)

[meyer]

I have auditioned both speakers and can honestly say the monitor 7's don't even come close IMHO. The monitors sounded very boxy and muffled to me. If you do go with the energy's you have to listen to the
C-C3 center which is a huge improvement over the C-C1.

[RGA]

Another note on this is that beware of retailers claiming that the tweeter is more detailed and revealing as an EXCUSE for being bright. Dealer's like to lay the blame back on the recording by saying that the sound is BRIGHT because the speaker is so good it is REVEALING a bad recording.

When this tripe is hauled out treat as Used car salesman shananigans.

After listening to Audio Note and realizing the speaker exteneds further or seems to and has less grain I found that 90% of my "used to nbe bad" recordings are not only not bad recording but actually pretty decent to good. The AN's don't compensate either.

The problem is that Metal tweeters have problems audibly with break-up and ringing...they imprint this "distortion" on the music, so when a lesser recording is used that has a not so great cymbal hit the treble response of these speakers not only highlight the weakness(which a speaker should do) but it also seems to latch on and boost it to the forground(the last thing you want). SO sure a good recording will sound pretty good on these speakers but anything less is truly appaling...wehn in fact they should sound truly good or truly mediocre.

I would much rrather a mediocre disc sound listenable though mediocre than 80% of my collection sounding bright and tizzy(when they shouldn't).

Speaker makers using metal tweeters battle very very very hard to reduce tweeter ringing...B&W uses inverted horns that dissapate distortions etc and it works for the most part on the highest end models at many 1000's. Ditto for JM Labs. Budget speakers suffer badly on these scores and they also use lesser box materials, less damping, worse materials, crossovers. Budget speakers with a good design can get around some of this though and sound pretty damn good for the money like the C3 and C5.

People also love Magnepan in this price range9have not heard it)...and if the Mission still has the 780 it was a very nice sounding floorstander though a little bit safer sounding(which is not a bad idea given the budget).

Of course if Home theater is a main consideration you need to factor in the center channel and rears etc. However, if the front two get it wrong the rest of the sound, whether music or movies, is shot.

By all means there are many who like the Paradigm Monitors...My suggestion though is not to compare these two side by side but rather listen to some very high end speakers, ML Prodidgy, Audio Note, Referece 3a, Klipshhorn, Dynaudio's Evidence Series, B&W Model Nautilus and/or N802, Bigger PMC's, Gershman Acoustics etc.

Get your self a Reference of what the "Best" is and then go back and listen to what's in your range.

The Energy's and Monitor series have certain similarities actually in the midband and type of bass punch, though I agree that the Energy seems to have less of a hump in the midbass. I don't mind a midbass hump though for rock music and it does add a bit of warmth. Trouble is if you add that to a box noise it sounds off to me.

[kexodusc]

Just curious, after reading some of the feedback yesterday on the Monitor 7's I went to my local dealer to check them out again. Is it generally known that the Paradigm Monitor 7's sound boxy? I checked out 2 pairs last night at my local dealer and found nothing to suggest boxiness. Shrill at times during some pipe-organ playback, a little to bright for my liking, but never boxy.
I'm curious now if the dealer compensated somehow. The cables were standard 14 guage from amp to speaker, no tone adjustments on the amp. Midrange sounded extremely life like to me.
We listened to O Fortuna, Allman Brothers, Pearl Jam, Sarah Brightman, Norah Jones and a scene from U-571, and I couldn't get either a midbass humb or a muffled boxy midrange. And several of the audio tracks demoed were heavy in the midrange. In fact, if anything those boxy characteristics were what I found in the C-5's right next to them. If it wasn't for the overly bright sound that the Monitors exhibited at times, they would have been a clear winner over the Energy. By the way, if you want to hear a really good example of the Monitor 7's brightness, listen to "Eden" by Sarah Brightman...harsh, indeed. Wasn't really noticeable during any of the other songs.
The C-5's really struggled to reproduce guitar to the same accuracy of the Monitor 7's as was evident when we played "Firing Line" by the Allman Brothers and "Glorified G" by Pearl Jam.
The Paradigms seemed to have slightly better imaging at the expense of slightly narrower soundstage compared to the C-5 ...but I didn't mess with speaker placement or toeing in.
Personally, I prefered the cheaper Monitor 5's to either model though, but you'd need a subwoofer and stands.
Definitely go with the C-3 over the C-1 if you decide on Energy Connoisseurs. It'll cost you but it's worth it.
All that being said, I'd still recommend either speaker. Good value in this price range all in all. Slightly different flavours.
I still think Mirage is viable substitute to either model.

[htfan14]

Checked out the Mirage's, very nice sound. But also quite a bit more expensive, $1299.00 for the 260's, $1099 for the 250's. The C-5 and Monitor 7 are around $7-750. The idea of the Monotor 5's is interesting. I have stands and a 10" velodyne that rocks!
I also spyed a pair of used Energy veritas 2.2 with the heavy duty stands and matching centre(2.0?)
They are asking $1500 for the 2.2's and $550 for the 2.0. Owner of the store was'nt there to haggle with, but hmmm could be interesting. Might be worth bumping up the budget for those. ($CDN.)

[kexodusc]

Personally, I found the Monitor 5's to have just a bit better tonal balance than the Monitor 7's . If memory serves, the only difference between those and the Monitor 7's is the cabinet. Maybe the crossover too. You will of course need a sub-woofer for proper bass extension, but you would with the C-5's or Monitor 7's too.
The Monitor 5's will exhibit the same brightness that the Monitor 7's have, some people prefer this, some don't. For timbre matching purposes, you might be better off to stick with the Energy brand, though I'm not sure if the C-5's have the same flavour as your xl's.
Are you planning on buying a complete new 5.1 setup or just add new mains and a center to your existing setup?

[ryewoods]

I also spyed a pair of used Energy veritas 2.2 with the heavy duty stands and matching centre(2.0?)
They are asking $1500 for the 2.2's and $550 for the 2.0. Owner of the store was'nt there to haggle with, but hmmm could be interesting. Might be worth bumping up the budget for those. ($CDN.)

If you want a set of Veritas go here: http://audioadvisor.com/store/produc...ers%20-%20Pair

$500/pair for 2.1's.

[RGA]

Well I'm not a fan of the Monitor 5. And to the person comparing the Energy and monitor. Speakers in a listening session should not be side by side.2 front speakers without speakers sitiing beside them. Sympathetic vibration and or poor positioning is the result.

The monitor line sounds like the entire input to the speaker is elevated a full octave above where it should be so they probably have a nice frequency measurement but are timbrally and tonally out of whack. They can't do basic voices correctly and they totally anhialate acoustic instruments, Jess Cook's guitar is reduced to pingy pluck and picks - but where did the sound of the actual guitar's BOX, go. Yo Yo Ma's Cello on the Classic Yo-Yo album first track is butchered to a fatiguing piercing rendition that reminds of steel strings. For Big explosions and dinasaur romping they're best suited because there is no reference for us and so the more exagerated the better.

The Energy is not free from problems either...but because it has a slightly smoother top end I prefer of the two...it still isn't a line I would want to own...Ditto for the Veritas.

I would rather not buy speakers that are designed from the approach of reduction of resonances, noise, and ringing - I'd rather the speaker designer account for all thoise variables and have the entire box, drivers be integrated to function as a whole to reproduce instrument in the home. Not that the former can't be done very well it can, it's just that they typically weigh a LOT and cost a LOT .

The Enrgy, Paradigm B&W floorstanders and add abou 50 more companies all have a similar design. Two or three 6-7 inch woofers stacked on top of each other with a metal tweeter on top in a slim box that is fairly deep firing in a piston manner. They all sound similar to be quite honest - some will tlt the tweeter up too much some will be stronger in the bass some will roll off a bit more etc...but they all sound alike to a fairly close degree.

Using one as a reference off the other is no help...you need to use higher end speakers as the reference and you'll be able to detect the problems more so with the Monitors. If I had Only heard JBL, Cerwin Vega and Bose the Monitors would sound tight and focussed with great high frequency extension and the ability to play pretty loud...thus they would win and the buyer would be very happy.

It's all about where you're coming from and what else you've heard and what you like and want from the speaker. Not everyone will perceive the box resonance for a start and others won't care, others will like the tweeter and want the speaker to dictate what they can listen to I guess.

[ryewoods]

Well I'm not a fan of the Monitor 5. And to the person comparing the Energy and monitor. Speakers in a listening session should not be side by side.2 front speakers without speakers sitiing beside them. Sympathetic vibration and or poor positioning is the result.

The monitor line sounds like the entire input to the speaker is elevated a full octave above where it should be so they probably have a nice frequency measurement but are timbrally and tonally out of whack. They can't do basic voices correctly and they totally anhialate acoustic instruments, Jess Cook's guitar is reduced to pingy pluck and picks - but where did the sound of the actual guitar's BOX, go. Yo Yo Ma's Cello on the Classic Yo-Yo album first track is butchered to a fatiguing piercing rendition that reminds of steel strings. For Big explosions and dinasaur romping they're best suited because there is no reference for us and so the more exagerated the better.

The Energy is not free from problems either...but because it has a slightly smoother top end I prefer of the two...it still isn't a line I would want to own...Ditto for the Veritas.

I would rather not buy speakers that are designed from the approach of reduction of resonances, noise, and ringing - I'd rather the speaker designer account for all thoise variables and have the entire box, drivers be integrated to function as a whole to reproduce instrument in the home. Not that the former can't be done very well it can, it's just that they typically weigh a LOT and cost a LOT .

The Enrgy, Paradigm B&W floorstanders and add abou 50 more companies all have a similar design. Two or three 6-7 inch woofers stacked on top of each other with a metal tweeter on top in a slim box that is fairly deep firing in a piston manner. They all sound similar to be quite honest - some will tlt the tweeter up too much some will be stronger in the bass some will roll off a bit more etc...but they all sound alike to a fairly close degree.

Using one as a reference off the other is no help...you need to use higher end speakers as the reference and you'll be able to detect the problems more so with the Monitors. If I had Only heard JBL, Cerwin Vega and Bose the Monitors would sound tight and focussed with great high frequency extension and the ability to play pretty loud...thus they would win and the buyer would be very happy.

It's all about where you're coming from and what else you've heard and what you like and want from the speaker. Not everyone will perceive the box resonance for a start and others won't care, others will like the tweeter and want the speaker to dictate what they can listen to I guess.

I've been turned off to mass market companies like Paradigm, Energy, etc., since I read an article by either Dave Ellis, Geoffrey Dillon, or Dennis Murphy (can't remember which). Anyway, whichever one of them it was, took apart a Monitor 5 to see what type of components a $500 speaker from a mass merchandised company used. What did he find? An $8 tweeter, $13 woofer, and crossover's using capacitors that cost 5 cents, and inductors that cost $1. All told, he estimated it cost $40-50 to make. I'm not going to try and convert the original poster to a DIY'er, because I know it's not for everyone. But, for $500 in the DIY world, you could buy a damn good set of components that would most likely trounce commercially made speakers costing 3 times as much.

[Woochifer]

I've been turned off to mass market companies like Paradigm, Energy, etc., since I read an article by either Dave Ellis, Geoffrey Dillon, or Dennis Murphy (can't remember which). Anyway, whichever one of them it was, took apart a Monitor 5 to see what type of components a $500 speaker from a mass merchandised company used. What did he find? An $8 tweeter, $13 woofer, and crossover's using capacitors that cost 5 cents, and inductors that cost $1. All told, he estimated it cost $40-50 to make. I'm not going to try and convert the original poster to a DIY'er, because I know it's not for everyone. But, for $500 in the DIY world, you could buy a damn good set of components that would most likely trounce commercially made speakers costing 3 times as much.

Kinda hard to put a price tag on Paradigm's tweeters and woofers given that they manufacture their own drivers, and don't do any OEM outsourcing for other companies or for the DIY market. (I'd like to see how they came up with the $8 tweeter or $13 woofer value, since only Paradigm makes and sells the drivers that go into their Monitor series speakers) Even if the internal components indeed cost $50, you got the cost of the cabinetry, plus labor for assembly, and other overhead costs like testing, R&D, marketing, etc. Oh, and speaker manufacturers also function as businesses, so they need to make a profit too.

DIY's fine, and you do save money by going that avenue. But, for most people, they'd rather let someone else figure out all the various project parameters (driver size and type, enclosure size and type, assembly approach, etc.), and take the time, effort, and learning curve needed to make the decent speaker.

You can make this unjustified markup argument for any kind of manufactured product when you compare the price of raw materials with the finished product. I mean, silicon cost pennies a pound, so does that mean that all those integrated circuit manufacturers are giving their customers a raw deal?

[ryewoods]

DIY's fine, and you do save money by going that avenue. But, for most people, they'd rather let someone else figure out all the various project parameters (driver size and type, enclosure size and type, assembly approach, etc.), and take the time, effort, and learning curve needed to make the decent speaker.

I completely understand that, which is why I wrote in my original post that I know DIY is not for everyone. My only point was that you are definitely going to get better quality if you were to purchase drivers from Hiquphon, Scan Speak, Usher, Seas, or Vifa, and crossover components like Crescendo capacitors and 12 AWG Inductors, rather than buy a Paradigm who's component are outsourced to TangBand or other OEM.

[Woochifer]

Another note on this is that beware of retailers claiming that the tweeter is more detailed and revealing as an EXCUSE for being bright. Dealer's like to lay the blame back on the recording by saying that the sound is BRIGHT because the speaker is so good it is REVEALING a bad recording.

The fact is there are plenty of bad CDs out there. All you have to do is compare different iterations of some CDs to hear how variable even the same album can sound when transferred by a different mastering engineer. Given that none of us have access to studio masters, it's ludicrous to definitively say whether a particular recording is good or bad if we don't know what the reference truly is. All we got are CD transfers, which can be very variable in quality.

The flip side to your brightness argument is that there are also plenty of so called high end speakers that obscure the high frequency details, and as a result artificially highlight the midrange. This may sound all warm and cuddly with acoustic music, but it's hardly what I would call an accurate representation of reality, or anything close to engaging or involving.

After listening to Audio Note and realizing the speaker exteneds further or seems to and has less grain I found that 90% of my "used to nbe bad" recordings are not only not bad recording but actually pretty decent to good. The AN's don't compensate either.

You're also talking about a completely different price point. One of these days I'll have to seek out those ANs and see if all that hype is justified.

The problem is that Metal tweeters have problems audibly with break-up and ringing...they imprint this "distortion" on the music, so when a lesser recording is used that has a not so great cymbal hit the treble response of these speakers not only highlight the weakness(which a speaker should do) but it also seems to latch on and boost it to the forground(the last thing you want). SO sure a good recording will sound pretty good on these speakers but anything less is truly appaling...wehn in fact they should sound truly good or truly mediocre.

I would much rrather a mediocre disc sound listenable though mediocre than 80% of my collection sounding bright and tizzy(when they shouldn't).

That's a pretty broad generalization, and not one that I agree with. I've heard good and bad from all driver types. To me, it comes down to execution. There are good and bad speakers with paper drivers, planar panels, metal tweeters, soft domes, etc. At the entry level, metal tweeters have largely supplanted the large paper tweeters that formerly dominated that market segment. And for that market segment in general, I will take the greater detail and extension from the metal tweeters of today over those obscured 2.5" paper tweeters from before anyday.

BTW, what the hell is tizzy, aside from an adjective that describes someone who's overly excitable and prone to distraction. Is this a commonly used phraseology or is it just something you just made up? Or is there some kind of cult out there that's obsessed with eradicating tizziness?

The Energy's and Monitor series have certain similarities actually in the midband and type of bass punch, though I agree that the Energy seems to have less of a hump in the midbass. I don't mind a midbass hump though for rock music and it does add a bit of warmth. Trouble is if you add that to a box noise it sounds off to me.

I agree with your conclusions on those two models. The Monitor 7 in particular has problems with box resonance that really detract from that speaker's strengths, which is its midrange linearity and wide dispersion. I much prefer the Monitor 5, which uses the same drivers in a standmounted body -- much better imaging with much less audible resonnce. The Energy e-XL and C-series floorstanders in general are very well done, and among the few sub-$1,000 floorstanders I've heard that don't resonate.

The monitor line sounds like the entire input to the speaker is elevated a full octave above where it should be so they probably have a nice frequency measurement but are timbrally and tonally out of whack. They can't do basic voices correctly and they totally anhialate acoustic instruments, Jess Cook's guitar is reduced to pingy pluck and picks - but where did the sound of the actual guitar's BOX, go. Yo Yo Ma's Cello on the Classic Yo-Yo album first track is butchered to a fatiguing piercing rendition that reminds of steel strings. For Big explosions and dinasaur romping they're best suited because there is no reference for us and so the more exagerated the better.

Speakers cannot raise octaves, only instruments or source sounds can change that. I think your description of the Monitor sounding timbraly and tonally out of whack is way over the top, especially if you're saying that this can only be accomplished with a "nice frequency measurement" which is implying that greater frequency response accuracy sounds more "out of whack". The floorstanding Monitors have got problems, but they don't butcher the music the way that you describe it. "pingy pluck and picks" -- WTF are you talking about?!

BTW, in case you've never actually seen or heard a cello up close, they DO use steel strings (wrapped around either a synthetic or "natural" core [i.e. guts]), as do most other orchestral string instruments.

Using one as a reference off the other is no help...you need to use higher end speakers as the reference and you'll be able to detect the problems more so with the Monitors. If I had Only heard JBL, Cerwin Vega and Bose the Monitors would sound tight and focussed with great high frequency extension and the ability to play pretty loud...thus they would win and the buyer would be very happy.

And what's wrong with a very happy buyer? You talk about the need for references as if everybody has to start off with the same standards, and work down from there. I don't think I need to have sampled a $5,000 bottle of wine to identify the $10 bottle that I want to serve with dinner. I've heard plenty of high end systems over the years, but I don't see it as a necessity to do a simple comparison between entry and midlevel speakers. Knowing what's out there doesn't help me one whiff in identifying what's best among the models that I can afford. If all that someone can afford is in the sub-$1,000 range, it doesn't make any sense to me to spend scads of time scouring out all the five-figure speakers of the world. It's fine to give them a listen, but the time should be focused on what's affordable and to find what's best in that price range.

It's all about where you're coming from and what else you've heard and what you like and want from the speaker. Not everyone will perceive the box resonance for a start and others won't care, others will like the tweeter and want the speaker to dictate what they can listen to I guess.

How does a speaker dictate what anybody can listen to? If they can't perceive or care about what you regard as a problem, then it's their choice and what they value. What you regard as irritating, someone else will enjoy. Doesn't matter to me. If it's good music, and I got something to play it back on, I'll play it ... even if it's on a pair of speakers that I dislike.

[Woochifer]

I completely understand that, which is why I wrote in my original post that I know DIY is not for everyone. My only point was that you are definitely going to get better quality if you were to purchase drivers from Hiquphon, Scan Speak, Usher, Seas, or Vifa, and crossover components like Crescendo capacitors and 12 AWG Inductors, rather than buy a Paradigm who's component are outsourced to TangBand or other OEM.

Did you read the rest of my post? Paradigm does NOT outsource their drivers (except for the tweeters on their entry level models), nor do they make OEM drivers for anyone else. They make ALL of their own drivers for the Monitor series model that got pulled apart in that article you cited. You cannot place a dollar value or do a qualitative assessment of components that are unavailable to the general public except as part of a finished product. It just seems curious and unsubstantiated to me how those arbitrary dollar values got assigned to those particular drivers.

[RGA]

Did you read the rest of my post? Paradigm does NOT outsource their drivers (except for the tweeters on their entry level models), nor do they make OEM drivers for anyone else. They make ALL of their own drivers for the Monitor series model that got pulled apart in that article you cited. You cannot place a dollar value or do a qualitative assessment of components that are unavailable to the general public except as part of a finished product. It just seems curious and unsubstantiated to me how those arbitrary dollar values got assigned to those particular drivers.

Well IMO maybe they should buy good drivers rather than make their own. The previous owner implied that once taken apart the materials in the drivers are cheap. Of course none of the costs necessarily mean much since you can buy Vifa and Scanspeak drivers for well under $100.00. The Alnico drivers on the top of the line AN E is supposedly the best ddriver available from anyone on the planet and even they are ~$500.00 a driver(which is still the retail proice to the DIYer. The speakers are $20k. There is more to a speaker than the woofer/tweeter and crossover.

most speakers at $500.00 have no more than $50.00 worth of materials including the cabinet. This SNB surprising to anyone and it applies to mostly every product sold on the market. It's a matter of what the market will pay which drives the price.

[RGA]

I've been turned off to mass market companies like Paradigm, Energy, etc., since I read an article by either Dave Ellis, Geoffrey Dillon, or Dennis Murphy (can't remember which). Anyway, whichever one of them it was, took apart a Monitor 5 to see what type of components a $500 speaker from a mass merchandised company used. What did he find? An $8 tweeter, $13 woofer, and crossover's using capacitors that cost 5 cents, and inductors that cost $1. All told, he estimated it cost $40-50 to make. I'm not going to try and convert the original poster to a DIY'er, because I know it's not for everyone. But, for $500 in the DIY world, you could buy a damn good set of components that would most likely trounce commercially made speakers costing 3 times as much.

If you know what you're doing and you can duplicate or buy a proven design then this is one of the best wys to go. You do not pay for advertising huge overhead, so called R&D which you won't know the costs anyway and then for some labour of a 12 year old girl in China fitting them together for 16 hours a day at $2.00 a day maybe. Boxing and shipping them probably incur the most costs for many of these companies. Oh and advertising and hyping probably the most cost.

This is not to say that R&D is not important because many of these companies(who use off the shelf drivers) spend a LOT of time trying out drivers moddifying them etc. Audio Note incidentally sells their stuff in Kits but now only in select areas and certain products. Obviously this saves people money as you can order the VIfa driver or the Alnico drivers and upgrade the speakers yourself rather than pay them to do it all. And their box design is based off of staple "original" Snell boxes so if you're handy you can choose the material YOU want and construct the box yourself and get the parts yourself. This applies to their tube amps.

Audio Note is basically a gigantic tweaker outfit. Take a proven design and make it better. Their turntables are based off of the Systemdek II and they contract with Rega to make a much better version of the Rega tone arms, re-wire it add in some other innovations and voila they get the best rating of turntables under 1kGBP and have the dealer here shelving the current Linn LP12 as being totally outclassed for less money. Trick you have to know the other guys design, know what they're cost cutting measures were(after all Rega KNOWS how to do it too) but they need to sell in the price point they need to sell at so they make compromises. B&W and Paradigm do too of course - and when you have to factor in marketing then you have to factor in visual appeal and a lot of stuff that has nothing to with sound quality and has everything to do with salability. B&W and Paradigm both make good speakers as they go up the line.

But Audio Note replaced the N801 and N802 as the show piece speakers, not because B&W found another dealer, not because of looks, not because of price but because the AN's trounced them The N801 and N802 are world class speakers, but they have a definite visual appeal factor built on big marketing shipping weight and all that jazz.

All of this said we do have to keep in mind that DIY is not for everyone. For instance I don't have the time or the equipment involded in making the box. The AN box construction is quite an involved process of heat/glue etc that if done wrong could screw you up. You can buy the drivers but you need to know the modification they did the tweeter. For instance they remove the ferro-fluid cooling from the Vifa Drivers...this may be easy if you know what you're doing, then again it may not be and they don't tell you everything they do of course(no company would give all their secrets away).

But I'm certain that if you choose a great design and you have all the info and it's all OEM parts you could probably build your speaker at 1/10 the price of a big company. I say go for it.

[RGA]

The fact is there are plenty of bad CDs out there. All you have to do is compare different iterations of some CDs to hear how variable even the same album can sound when transferred by a different mastering engineer. Given that none of us have access to studio masters, it's ludicrous to definitively say whether a particular recording is good or bad if we don't know what the reference truly is. All we got are CD transfers, which can be very variable in quality.

The flip side to your brightness argument is that there are also plenty of so called high end speakers that obscure the high frequency details, and as a result artificially highlight the midrange. This may sound all warm and cuddly with acoustic music, but it's hardly what I would call an accurate representation of reality, or anything close to engaging or involving.

Yes there are plenty of bad cds but plenty are thought to be bad when they are in fact not nearly as bad as some would believe. Amanda Marshal's first cd I have heard in very expensive set-ups sound horrendous(Cabasse), and have sounded very bad on other set-ups...it's not a bad cd. It's not great but it's certainly not bad. I have a Beattles LP which is truly dismal on all set-ups so yes there are bad albums. My issue is with making average or good cds sound terrible...and that was the point i was trying to make. It is a point I agree with Peter Qvortrup (Audio Notes designer), that a lot of perfectly reasonable recordings are made out to be much worse than, in fact, they are. Hearing is believing, even if their is a subtle trick to the accomplishment - well it's a damn good trick.

You're also talking about a completely different price point. One of these days I'll have to seek out those ANs and see if all that hype is justified.

Well they're getting bigger, apparently 2nd to B&W in size in Britain. Size of what however I don't know...Sales?, Distribution? don't know. And of course no speaker is perfect. Positioning is and isn't picky. They will sound good in a number of positions which makes them positioning friendly, on the other hand to get them bang on requires some serious work, in a corner you get more bass but lose a bit of image, you toe them out you get side wall interaction requiring money for treatments, position them in the usual place and you lose those problems but lose some bass response etc. Far more picky than my Wharfedales and for that matter any other boxed speaker I've tried. Luckilty they're relatively light...and they don't look thrilling.

That's a pretty broad generalization, and not one that I agree with. I've heard good and bad from all driver types. To me, it comes down to execution. There are good and bad speakers with paper drivers, planar panels, metal tweeters, soft domes, etc. At the entry level, metal tweeters have largely supplanted the large paper tweeters that formerly dominated that market segment. And for that market segment in general, I will take the greater detail and extension from the metal tweeters of today over those obscured 2.5" paper tweeters from before anyday.

I have heard no speaker incorporating a metal tweeter under $2000.00US that I would want to own. That does not mean I don't have nice things to say about them or that I wouln't recommend them, it just happens to be the case. Paper is not the only alternative. SIlk and other soft domes properly implemented are out there. I blame the tweeter which may be unfair - it may be the crossover or the box or the QUALITY of the driver and the overall design that's leaves the treble response lacking. It may also be deliberate because without problems there would be no desire for people to be on this board anxiously awaiting the release of the B&W 705 and the new V3 version of Paradigm or the new improved X of enter speaker here________.

BTW, what the hell is tizzy, aside from an adjective that describes someone who's overly excitable and prone to distraction. Is this a commonly used phraseology or is it just something you just made up? Or is there some kind of cult out there that's obsessed with eradicating tizziness?

Uesd to be described in mags for bright cd players when cymbals and voices would have a shhhh or sizzle on the highs. Prone to distraction is good wording on your behalf because such speakers with "tizz" do indeed lead the listener prone to distraction with a great desire to down and eventually 'off' whatever music they were playing, such was my desire by track 4 of the very well recorded Jesse Cook Tempest album with the Monitor 5. Though to be fair tizz was not necessarilly the issue the midrange was.

I agree with your conclusions on those two models. The Monitor 7 in particular has problems with box resonance that really detract from that speaker's strengths, which is its midrange linearity and wide dispersion. I much prefer the Monitor 5, which uses the same drivers in a standmounted body -- much better imaging with much less audible resonnce. The Energy e-XL and C-series floorstanders in general are very well done, and among the few sub-$1,000 floorstanders I've heard that don't resonate.

Well we agree, I prefer the Monitor 5 over the 7 as well, but while it does have the advantages you note I am also not thrilled because the attention moves to the treble region rather than on the midbass...so while it's faster and more detailed sounding it also sounds brighter and thinner. I do like it better than the 7 though, and in fact a lot of companies have the identical issue. The 602S2 and 602S3 are IMO superior to their floorstanding versions. It basically comes down to adding cheap cabinetry as "stands" rather than the individula purchasing a good set of stands. Bass is sacrificed, if you can really call the floorstanders in this range wonderful in the bass. The 603S3 is much better than the prior 603S2 which was a disaster area of a floorstander IMO.

Speakers cannot raise octaves, only instruments or source sounds can change that. I think your description of the Monitor sounding timbraly and tonally out of whack is way over the top, especially if you're saying that this can only be accomplished with a "nice frequency measurement" which is implying that greater frequency response accuracy sounds more "out of whack". The floorstanding Monitors have got problems, but they don't butcher the music the way that you describe it. "pingy pluck and picks" -- WTF are you talking about?!

I did not say it did do this I said it sounds as though it did this...that is a very different thing. It's really very simple, Comparing the violin or guitar players up at my university to the considered well recorded Yo Yo Ma disc the Audio Note sounds like the real deal the Monitor 5 sounds like something else...it misses the tonal structure of the entire instrument. I can't perhaps explain it as well as I would like in words...If you heard it you would just say "ahhh now I get it." So I have to describe it in indescribable terms. When a guitarist picks a guitar string you can hear the pick of the string and the reverberation of the guitar box. Well the same kind of issue happens with a cello or any boxed instrument. The Yo Yo and Cook discs with the Monitor give th initial pluck, sometimes hints at the box but but largely misses out on the instrument as a cohesive sound. Especially on the cello from low to high there is just a wanting for the real thing. Sarah McLachlan's Remixed album and Leahy Lakefield(especially this one) help me dwindle down a lot of speakers as well.

And what's wrong with a very happy buyer? You talk about the need for references as if everybody has to start off with the same standards, and work down from there. I don't think I need to have sampled a $5,000 bottle of wine to identify the $10 bottle that I want to serve with dinner. I've heard plenty of high end systems over the years, but I don't see it as a necessity to do a simple comparison between entry and midlevel speakers. Knowing what's out there doesn't help me one whiff in identifying what's best among the models that I can afford. If all that someone can afford is in the sub-$1,000 range, it doesn't make any sense to me to spend scads of time scouring out all the five-figure speakers of the world. It's fine to give them a listen, but the time should be focused on what's affordable and to find what's best in that price range.

Of course you need to compare the speakers in your price range where did I say one should not do that? I am saying is that if you want to construct a reasonable reference point then listening to the best available is not a bad idea. If you don't have time or the inclination then don't I could care less. Just offering another angle at this. For instance I like the N802 and Model Nautilus and the JM labs Mezza Utopia among many others in this price range all of which use metal tweeters. When I go to their entry models some speakers keep a sense of that greatness in tact and some don't come even remotely close. It is difficult to have a reference point in audio because we don't have the master recording, we don't have his/her equipment/room etc. We could use the live event which can help if you know the recording and this reference issue can go on and on. Take the best of the best and it's another way to find, perhaps, how the recording is handled and see if the cheapie can get close. This is not vital, Lots of $10.00 wines are preferred to $20.00 bottles. But then again that's not always the case and if your favorite all time bottle is $20.00 but you can only afford $10.00 then maybe you want to know which $10.00 bottle tastes as close as humanly possible to the $20.00 you love most but can't afford.

How does a speaker dictate what anybody can listen to? If they can't perceive or care about what you regard as a problem, then it's their choice and what they value. What you regard as irritating, someone else will enjoy. Doesn't matter to me. If it's good music, and I got something to play it back on, I'll play it ... even if it's on a pair of speakers that I dislike.

Then why did you pay all that money for the 40's?

Many audiophiles will choose to listen to cds that sound very good in their system rather than cds that sound poor. Most audiophiles if they are showing off their systems to friends may pull out the ol Patricia Barber disc(or some other "reference" disc to show how good their system sounds while those may be the only times they ever listen to those cd.

Audiophile and music lover are not the same(Audio phile means Audio lover not music lover). I am happy to listen to cds on my portable discman, but I'm more happy on a great system. None of this is NEEDED in our lives - Audio is a hobby and a tool to get the music more alive. It's anal and a "WANT" but it does impact on what people will buy. If I'm out looking at Vivaldi works I'd rather buy a great recorded version of the piece than a not so good one. Though I don't do this much anymore.

[Woochifer]

Well IMO maybe they should buy good drivers rather than make their own. The previous owner implied that once taken apart the materials in the drivers are cheap. Of course none of the costs necessarily mean much since you can buy Vifa and Scanspeak drivers for well under $100.00. The Alnico drivers on the top of the line AN E is supposedly the best ddriver available from anyone on the planet and even they are ~$500.00 a driver(which is still the retail proice to the DIYer. The speakers are $20k. There is more to a speaker than the woofer/tweeter and crossover.

most speakers at $500.00 have no more than $50.00 worth of materials including the cabinet. This SNB surprising to anyone and it applies to mostly every product sold on the market. It's a matter of what the market will pay which drives the price.

But, if they can make their own drivers that meet their specs and do it for less money than an OEM vendor would charge, then I see no reason for them to go with an OEM vendor. Based on what I've heard, their drivers are generally very good. My misgivings on the Monitor 7 likely have more to do with the cabinet, given that it's otherwise identical to the better sounding Monitor 5.

Also, the previous poster did not imply anything about the parts being cheap, they assigned an actual dollar value to the drivers, which IMO is ludicrous given how Paradigm operates as a company. All those Scanspeak and Vifa drivers that you mention have retail prices because they are sold by parts vendors, the Paradigm drivers do not. The difference between a retail price and the cost of the materials is a completely different argument. It's like saying that computers should cost no more than a few dollars because they're fabricated from a few cents worth of silicon, copper, aluminum, steel, glass, and plastic.

Just so you know, before JBL went mass market, they used alnico magnets on many of the woofers of their midlevel models. At least with the L65s that I grew up with, that didn't help their accuracy too much. They still had voicing that worked great with classic rock and LPs, but sounded lousy with acoustic instruments and a lot of digital sources. An alnico woofer for the L100 will run you about $200 nowadays. Aside from their expense, alnico drivers are supposedly more susceptible to losing their magnetism as they age.

[Woochifer]

Yes there are plenty of bad cds but plenty are thought to be bad when they are in fact not nearly as bad as some would believe. Amanda Marshal's first cd I have heard in very expensive set-ups sound horrendous(Cabasse), and have sounded very bad on other set-ups...it's not a bad cd. It's not great but it's certainly not bad. I have a Beattles LP which is truly dismal on all set-ups so yes there are bad albums. My issue is with making average or good cds sound terrible...and that was the point i was trying to make. It is a point I agree with Peter Qvortrup (Audio Notes designer), that a lot of perfectly reasonable recordings are made out to be much worse than, in fact, they are. Hearing is believing, even if their is a subtle trick to the accomplishment - well it's a damn good trick.

Well, with LPs it's much trickier. There are only so many records that a stamper can press before it wears out. And the quality of the stampers generally goes down as more of them are pressed from the master disks. (if you want to see which stamper was used to press a particular LP, the stamper ID number is usually marked after the catalog number if you look at the blank space at the end of the side) Plus, the master disks used in different countries might not be identical, so what you hear with a UK pressing might sound different than the Canadian version. With Beatles LPs, Capitol records did a pretty poor job on the American pressings. (Aside from them shortening the early Beatles albums and doing all kinds of bizarre stereo processing with some releases, Capitol's records of that era were noisy and dusty out of the sleeve, only MCA was worse.) Collectors I knew gravitated to the Japanese pressings or the Mobile Fidelity versions. I read that Japanese record companies pressed fewer LPs per stamper than American companies did (with a worn out stamper, you'll hear audible distortion especially as you get closer to the end of a side), plus they took much greater care with the quality control and packaging.

I have heard no speaker incorporating a metal tweeter under $2000.00US that I would want to own. That does not mean I don't have nice things to say about them or that I wouln't recommend them, it just happens to be the case. Paper is not the only alternative. SIlk and other soft domes properly implemented are out there. I blame the tweeter which may be unfair - it may be the crossover or the box or the QUALITY of the driver and the overall design that's leaves the treble response lacking. It may also be deliberate because without problems there would be no desire for people to be on this board anxiously awaiting the release of the B&W 705 and the new V3 version of Paradigm or the new improved X of enter speaker here________.

But, in that price range, every speaker makes compromises and thus leaves room for improvement. As much as I like the Paradigm Studio v.2 series, my impressions of the v.3s is that they are a noticeable step up in sound quality. I wouldn't call the v.2 series problematic, the v.3 series just make some of the good traits better, and some of the great traits (the imaging in particular) up to a level competitive with just about anything I've ever heard at any price. I don't think they purposely withheld anything four years ago when they introduced the v.2 series, just that they could have it reserve for the v.3 series.

No one was anxiously awaiting the v.3 series because Paradigm did not introduce the Studio v.3 series until they had already discontinued the v.2 models. No advance warning, no show demos, no rumors, nothing. All we heard about was the Signatures. Even my local dealer did not know that this was coming until their rep told them that the v.2 orders were limited to whatever remained in inventory at the warehouse, and that they would take v.3 orders immediately. The dealer wasn't too thrilled at the timing because they got stuck with quite a few v.2s in their stock room (fortunate for me because I got to pick up a pair of Studio 20s for a good closeout price), and customers asking about the v.3s.

Uesd to be described in mags for bright cd players when cymbals and voices would have a shhhh or sizzle on the highs. Prone to distraction is good wording on your behalf because such speakers with "tizz" do indeed lead the listener prone to distraction with a great desire to down and eventually 'off' whatever music they were playing, such was my desire by track 4 of the very well recorded Jesse Cook Tempest album with the Monitor 5. Though to be fair tizz was not necessarilly the issue the midrange was.

Okay, I didn't realize that my definition was that close to home, so I'll grant you that one.

Of course you need to compare the speakers in your price range where did I say one should not do that? I am saying is that if you want to construct a reasonable reference point then listening to the best available is not a bad idea. If you don't have time or the inclination then don't I could care less. Just offering another angle at this. For instance I like the N802 and Model Nautilus and the JM labs Mezza Utopia among many others in this price range all of which use metal tweeters. When I go to their entry models some speakers keep a sense of that greatness in tact and some don't come even remotely close. It is difficult to have a reference point in audio because we don't have the master recording, we don't have his/her equipment/room etc. We could use the live event which can help if you know the recording and this reference issue can go on and on. Take the best of the best and it's another way to find, perhaps, how the recording is handled and see if the cheapie can get close. This is not vital, Lots of $10.00 wines are preferred to $20.00 bottles. But then again that's not always the case and if your favorite all time bottle is $20.00 but you can only afford $10.00 then maybe you want to know which $10.00 bottle tastes as close as humanly possible to the $20.00 you love most but can't afford.

Thanks for clarifying that. You're right about references. A lot of the problem is also that we have no idea how a particular recording was done. Was it closemiked? Multitracked? Live-to-two-track? Compressed? I read all the time about how we need to use live music as our reference. But, is that in the seventh row? Above the orchestra? On the stage?
Every time I go to an orchestral performance, I make note of how different it sounds from different sections.

But, in terms of speaker comparisons, running a couple of my test discs through a pair of Dynaudio Evidence Masters gave me a very good snapshot of how they should sound. (This sound was about as close to zero compromises as I've ever heard) I'm just not sure if that helped in deciding between speakers that cost 1/100th of what those Danes cost!

Then why did you pay all that money for the 40's?

Many audiophiles will choose to listen to cds that sound very good in their system rather than cds that sound poor. Most audiophiles if they are showing off their systems to friends may pull out the ol Patricia Barber disc(or some other "reference" disc to show how good their system sounds while those may be the only times they ever listen to those cd.

Audiophile and music lover are not the same(Audio phile means Audio lover not music lover). I am happy to listen to cds on my portable discman, but I'm more happy on a great system. None of this is NEEDED in our lives - Audio is a hobby and a tool to get the music more alive. It's anal and a "WANT" but it does impact on what people will buy. If I'm out looking at Vivaldi works I'd rather buy a great recorded version of the piece than a not so good one. Though I don't do this much anymore.

I purposely include a couple of muddy sounding multitracked pop recordings in my audition set, because those are bands that I listen to and am familiar with. Also, I include them because it's not so much that a speaker will make them suddenly sound good, but because they push the speaker into differentiating between multiple layers of not-so-clear sounds that are jammed into two tracks. I also have a couple of pristine recordings that sound great on almost all systems, but very demanding and revealing of particular flaws.

My point is that I'll listen to what I like with whatever system is available to me. The speaker on that system does not determine what music I feel like listening to. If Metallica strikes my fancy, and all I got available is a Bose Lifestyle system, I'll play it even on that POS!

[RGA]

But, if they can make their own drivers that meet their specs and do it for less money than an OEM vendor would charge, then I see no reason for them to go with an OEM vendor. Based on what I've heard, their drivers are generally very good. My misgivings on the Monitor 7 likely have more to do with the cabinet, given that it's otherwise identical to the better sounding Monitor 5.

Also, the previous poster did not imply anything about the parts being cheap, they assigned an actual dollar value to the drivers, which IMO is ludicrous given how Paradigm operates as a company. All those Scanspeak and Vifa drivers that you mention have retail prices because they are sold by parts vendors, the Paradigm drivers do not. The difference between a retail price and the cost of the materials is a completely different argument. It's like saying that computers should cost no more than a few dollars because they're fabricated from a few cents worth of silicon, copper, aluminum, steel, glass, and plastic.

Just so you know, before JBL went mass market, they used alnico magnets on many of the woofers of their midlevel models. At least with the L65s that I grew up with, that didn't help their accuracy too much. They still had voicing that worked great with classic rock and LPs, but sounded lousy with acoustic instruments and a lot of digital sources. An alnico woofer for the L100 will run you about $200 nowadays. Aside from their expense, alnico drivers are supposedly more susceptible to losing their magnetism as they age.

First, A big company can buy OEM speakers for far less than you or I can. Societies operate on a global scale by buying from other coountries things that they can not make as efficiently or simply can't make period due to cost. Making an In hous driver or buying off the shelf has no inherant advantage unless whichever way you go you are making a superior product - or more than likely can increase profit margin.

2) Only the top end models of the AN E has the Alnico magnet and rest assured it is not the one that was in some 20 year old JBL. Audio note is a proponant of a lot of materials that some dislike, foam surrounds and paper woofers(Vifa or not it's not Kevlar). Then again musically Kevlar has issues with breakup frequencies as does Polypropolyne though Scanspeak has ONE Kevlar driver that is supposed to be excellent...B&W does not have that driver however. the trad-off with foam is that it deteriotes faster but it's a trade-off Peter has made - then again it costs next to nothing to re-foam them anyway. And assuming you're hous is not 100 degrees all the time or -20 you should be fine between 10-40 years. Kevlar may last 100 but I doubt I'd care by then. Hell since there are so many happy original Snell owners around I think they're a pretty safe bet to last since all the materials are much better than the original Snells. Some of their preamp tubes are gauranteed for 11 years 24 hour a day duration or something like a 100,000hours

The result is the sound at the end of the day, I would expect a speaker to last a good ten years before I had to look at ISSUES. If I'm buying a Ferrari I expect it to have more ISSUES than a Honda Civic due to the performance i'm getting in return. So if speaker A sounds significantly better but it needs 3 check-ups in 30 years rather than 1-2 oh well I choose the former...it's still better than the cars where the Ferrari will need 10 check-ups for every Honda Civic check-up. And of course you could always pay the same as the Civic and get musch worse too. Like the focus. Ohh and the sales for GM in Canada while I'm at it from the 4rth quarter of last year to the fourth quarter this year is down 37%. Canada is a pittance market for GM admittedly but that is a number I could not remember on an older thread. Worst loss here ever. Truck sales I believe took the biggest nose dive.

[RGA]

Finding the reference for our evaluations is very difficult and after reading and considering several times Peter Qvortrup's essay on "Comparison By Contrast" that ran in some magazines over several issues(Listener I believe), it actually makes the most sense for those of us who were not in the RE's lap.

I can attest that his speaker's do what he claims. Most of my cds sound largely the same on many speakers in that the singer is dead center etc but not so in reality, sometimes the stereo image seems bang on and other times it is not. The Monitor 5 had several of my disc create a similar if not identical stage which might be considered precision unless it's forced to the center unnaturally. Again hard to expalin needs to be heard and that's what one needs to do...whatever the budget - the more you listen to, fairly, the better informed you'll be...no one right answer.