looking at paradigm studio 20

[madmax1]

I went looking at Paradigm studio 20's today, and loved the sound! Wanted to know what in the B&W line whould be comparable to them. Also wanted to know what other speaker in this size i should look at. But i did love the sound out of the studio 20's......NICE!!

[RGA]

From B&W the 602S3. Though you may be able to find a discounted CDM 1NT if you're lucky. Dynaudio Audience 42 are in here as well.

What is your budget and what do you want them for?

[Woochifer]

Try out both the B&W DM602 and the new 705. Pricewise, the Studio 20 is situated right in between them. The CM2 is roughly the same price as the Studio 20, but the Studio 20 is in a higher performance plateau than that particular model.

In my listening with the Studio 20 v.3, that speaker is up there with anything I've ever heard in that general price range, and a notable step up in sound quality from the Studio 20 v.2s that I use in my surround rig. The imaging and big soundstage are especially impressive with those speakers. Dynaudio, PSB, Energy, KEF, Mission, Boston Acoustics, Totem, Monitor Audio, Sonus Faber, and Vienna Acoustics all make similar bookshelf speakers in the same general price range.

[RGA]

Woochifer

When you auditioned the 20V3 do you remember what was running them? I have not listened but it seems every place has them hooked up to $5000.00 worth of Anthem equipment. I would want a direct comparison between that and the 20V2 before I sold your speakers short. I know you don't support ancillary equipment as making a big difference(if any) but IMO Yamaha and receivers in geenral are no where near as good as good separates (or separate like) units in the precise are of soundstage and overal control of the speakers.

I'm sure the V3 series are an improvement but have heard some mixed results of improvement in one area - the treble - and a lightening in the bass department. A store up the road is running the top of the line Pioneer Elite Receiver but only have the Monitor line in right now. I don't like auditioning with a receiver but it is $5k worth so I'm assuming it is at least half way's competant - and Paradigm obviously feels it's suited or they would not have the store sell their product.

Do the 20's have deeper response than the Monitor 5's?

[jasmit]

madmax1

I would echo what Woochifer said. When I was auditioning speakers, the ones that grabbed me were the B&W 705's. They are amazing and beautiful speakers -- but at a price that's almost twice that of the Studio 20's. When I listened to the Studio 20 v.3's, I was pleased to find speakers that sounded almost as good as the 705's for almost half the price. That makes them, to my way of thinking, even more amazing than the 705's. So, I bought them.

I also listened to the B&W 602 s3 and like them alot. But, in my opinion, they just didn't sound as nice as the Studio 20's.

FYI I heard the 705's through either Krell or Rotel (don't recall which), the Studio 20's with Sony ES (5000 I believe) and the 602 s3's with Marantz (don't recall which model).

If you haven't done so already, you should read the following review of the Studio 20:

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/p...tudio20_v3.htm.

Good luck!

[RGA]

madmax1

I would echo what Woochifer said. When I was auditioning speakers, the ones that grabbed me were the B&W 705's. They are amazing and beautiful speakers -- but at a price that's almost twice that of the Studio 20's. When I listened to the Studio 20 v.3's, I was pleased to find speakers that sounded almost as good as the 705's for almost half the price. That makes them, to my way of thinking, even more amazing than the 705's. So, I bought them.

I also listened to the B&W 602 s3 and like them alot. But, in my opinion, they just didn't sound as nice as the Studio 20's.

FYI I heard the 705's through either Krell or Rotel (don't recall which), the Studio 20's with Sony ES (5000 I believe) and the 602 s3's with Marantz (don't recall which model).

If you haven't done so already, you should read the following review of the Studio 20:

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/p...tudio20_v3.htm.

Good luck!

Was your audition in the same room? Marantz - I own and would not conduct any opinion of a speaker based off of a Marantz receiver - then again I would not use a Sony either.

[jasmit]

Was your audition in the same room? Marantz - I own and would not conduct any opinion of a speaker based off of a Marantz receiver - then again I would not use a Sony either.

No. I heard the B&W 602s3's at two different dealers, both with Marantz receivers. I heard the 705's at a completely different dealer from the first two. And finally, I heard the Studio 20's at two completely different dealers from the first three; at one, I don't recall what drove them and at the other, it was the Sony. The place that had the Sony also sold Anthem products too, but they just didn't have the Studio 20's & 40's in a room with any Anthem amps. This particular dealer was a big fan of Sony ES products and encouraged me to consider them. I politely declined. If money wasn't so tight, I would've really considered the Anthem; I understand they pair well with Paradigm products. As it is, I'm going with Denon.

I'm not a Marantz fan though I've read some good things about them, e.g., good for music, etc. Why would you not render an opinion of a speaker driven by a Marantz? Just curious.

[topspeed]

Along with excellent speakers mentioned, I'd also audition JM Lab's Chorus S, DefTech PowerMonitors, Maggie MMG's, and last but certainly not least, Von Schweikert VR1's (bet you didn't see that one coming, didja guys )

[kexodusc]

I can provide my own answers to the questions you asked Wooch, based on my recent auditions of the 20v3's. I recently bought another pair of 20 v2's used, but I almost traded in my 40's and 20's to upgrade.

When you auditioned the 20V3 do you remember what was running them?

Mine were running of a modest Arcam Alpha 8 integrated. I must say, I agree with Woochifer's assesment in that the 20v3's do image quite a bit better than the V.2's (which I also use as surrounds). This was the only difference I noticed with between the V.3's and V.2's when I demoed both in store awhile back. I did find the Studio 40v3's to have a bit more control and authority in the low frequencies than my v2's but I didn't do a side by side, just a quick demo in store so that may be subjective.

I'm sure the V3 series are an improvement but have heard some mixed results of improvement in one area - the treble - and a lightening in the bass department.

With the 20's, I noticed no immediate differences in either area, just a more competent imaging, again I was fortunate to have A/B switching available.

Do the 20's have deeper response than the Monitor 5's?

I don't think they do, the Monitor 5's have fairly decent bass. But I believe the Studio's are a bit more accurate in the low end. The difference of 2 Hz isn't all that noticeable. I found the Monitor 5's tend to sound a wee bit boomy though. I really like the Monitor 5's for that price range except for at really high volumes I find they get a tad harsh. But I mean really high volumes, I doubt people can listen to movies for 2 hours at 100 dB or so. Before I bought my Studio's I actually bought a complete Monitor series setup with Mini Monitors in the rear. After a week of various DVD's I was fairly happy with them, especially the Mini Monitors. In the end I returned them and upgraded to Studio 40's and 20's in anticipation of multi-channel audio sources like DVD-A and SACD. That and I had a some signing bonus money left burning a whole in my pocket. Just wanted to be ready. A year later I still don't have a DVDA/SACD player. Go figure.

I would be curious to know if Woochifer's assessment is similar.

[RGA]

No. I heard the B&W 602s3's at two different dealers, both with Marantz receivers. I heard the 705's at a completely different dealer from the first two. And finally, I heard the Studio 20's at two completely different dealers from the first three; at one, I don't recall what drove them and at the other, it was the Sony. The place that had the Sony also sold Anthem products too, but they just didn't have the Studio 20's & 40's in a room with any Anthem amps. This particular dealer was a big fan of Sony ES products and encouraged me to consider them. I politely declined. If money wasn't so tight, I would've really considered the Anthem; I understand they pair well with Paradigm products. As it is, I'm going with Denon.

I'm not a Marantz fan though I've read some good things about them, e.g., good for music, etc. Why would you not render an opinion of a speaker driven by a Marantz? Just curious.

First, it is exremely important to review or assess speakers in the same room with the same equipment. Why? Simply that rooms impact the sound as much as a speaker does in most cases. Store sound rooms can be worse than your own home or another dealer's room. If one room has several speakers side by side it can affect the sound. For instance if speakers are side by side and one is playing the speaker sitting beside it can actually have the woofer on that other speaker MOVE - a sympathetic vibration so you're in effect hearing two or more sets of speakers going. Not to mention many speakers like to be free standing (Thus, away from walls and other speakers).

It is totally unimportant that you listen to a speaker at home before you buy - people say this and it's just not true because in two years you might move. What is important is that wherever you listen - at home is convenient if the brands you're interested in are all at different place - is in the same room with the exact same equipmetnt. This way all speakers are at the same advantage/disadvantage. Some small speakers hate being in larger rooms.

I heard the PMC TB1 in a small room and it would absolutely blow you away with Bryston amplification - I wanted to compare it to another speaker in another room that had Nakamichi's top of the line receiver (receivers have worse power amplification - higher noise and generally a muddy sound) so we moved it there and it sounded horrible - I was like what the hell happened? Turns out the speaker is a nearfield transmission line design requiring a fair bit or clean power. If you went into listen in the first room you'd buy em in the second room with the Receiver you would would wonder why the store was carrying it.

This is why I often defend Polk - they do sound pretty good but because they are sold at Futureshop in bad rooms with bad gear they don't sound too good.

[RGA]

I don't think they do, the Monitor 5's have fairly decent bass. But I believe the Studio's are a bit more accurate in the low end. The difference of 2 Hz isn't all that noticeable. I found the Monitor 5's tend to sound a wee bit boomy though. I really like the Monitor 5's for that price range except for at really high volumes I find they get a tad harsh. But I mean really high volumes, I doubt people can listen to movies for 2 hours at 100 dB or so. Before I bought my Studio's I actually bought a complete Monitor series setup with Mini Monitors in the rear. After a week of various DVD's I was fairly happy with them, especially the Mini Monitors. In the end I returned them and upgraded to Studio 40's and 20's in anticipation of multi-channel audio sources like DVD-A and SACD. That and I had a some signing bonus money left burning a whole in my pocket. Just wanted to be ready. A year later I still don't have a DVDA/SACD player. Go figure.

I would be curious to know if Woochifer's assessment is similar.

I can listen to them here but I would rather listen in August at soundhounds becuase i can use better equipment. The place here has the flagship Pioneer Elite at ~$6k with an Elite DVD/CD player. They actually have a listening room that seems pretty good. Still I can't compare it against anything other than Mordaunt Short I believe. I have not been impressed with the Monitor V3 for acoustic music. The 20V3 apparently has been said to be a bit laid back even polite - so it may be a more well balanced design than previous incarnations.

[Woochifer]

Woochifer

When you auditioned the 20V3 do you remember what was running them? I have not listened but it seems every place has them hooked up to $5000.00 worth of Anthem equipment. I would want a direct comparison between that and the 20V2 before I sold your speakers short. I know you don't support ancillary equipment as making a big difference(if any) but IMO Yamaha and receivers in geenral are no where near as good as good separates (or separate like) units in the precise are of soundstage and overal control of the speakers.

I'm sure the V3 series are an improvement but have heard some mixed results of improvement in one area - the treble - and a lightening in the bass department. A store up the road is running the top of the line Pioneer Elite Receiver but only have the Monitor line in right now. I don't like auditioning with a receiver but it is $5k worth so I'm assuming it is at least half way's competant - and Paradigm obviously feels it's suited or they would not have the store sell their product.

Do the 20's have deeper response than the Monitor 5's?

I'm not selling my own speakers short, I was just noting the differences that the new v.3s made. Just based on my own listenings, they made nice improvements in all areas (except the bass extension, but even there it was a trade off with other improvements in the lows). My most recent auditions with the Studio v.3 speakers have been with Arcam and Parasound amps. All my prior Studio v.2 listenings in that same room were with Parasound amps. The separates do make an improvement, but what I heard from both the Studio 20 and 40 v.3s are very clear improvements in the imaging. The locational ability of the v.2 models in that same room using those high end separates was very good, but not striking like the v.3 models. And that dealer has marks on the floor indicating the proper placement alignments, so they set up the auditions identically.

The treble in the v.3 is different, but to me not as big as a difference as others have noted. It's subtlely smoother, but not to the point that it would be unrecognizable from prior Studio series models. The bass is really where the biggest change was made. It doesn't go nearly as deep as before and it's a bit less punchy, but the articulation in the bass with the v.3 is clearly improved. The bass is now more nuanced and clearly layered. I would doubt that it's all due to the amplification because when I auditioned the v.2 models, the bass characteristics were comparable whether I was using a receiver or separates.

Compared to the Monitor 5, the Studio 20 has always had less bass extension. The Monitor 5 is a good speaker, but the Studio 20 represents much higher performance. I remember the Studio 40 also less pronounced in the bass than the Monitor 5, but it sounded tighter and the overall refinement with the Studio series was a clear step up.

[RGA]

Well when I get the chance I will check them out. I need something to be able to recommend in this price range now that the CDM 1NT is gone. The only thing I really had left was the Dynaudio 52 and and even they have an SE version I need to hear. Still have not heard the 700 series and I'm hearing mixed opionions on them as well.

Gotta stay on top of this. Need to hear the Quads as well. Man when you move to a smaller city good gear is tougher to find. Seems like all the dreck is pushed out to the sticks.

[Pat D]

No. I heard the B&W 602s3's at two different dealers, both with Marantz receivers. I heard the 705's at a completely different dealer from the first two. And finally, I heard the Studio 20's at two completely different dealers from the first three; at one, I don't recall what drove them and at the other, it was the Sony. The place that had the Sony also sold Anthem products too, but they just didn't have the Studio 20's & 40's in a room with any Anthem amps. This particular dealer was a big fan of Sony ES products and encouraged me to consider them. I politely declined. If money wasn't so tight, I would've really considered the Anthem; I understand they pair well with Paradigm products. As it is, I'm going with Denon.

I'm not a Marantz fan though I've read some good things about them, e.g., good for music, etc. Why would you not render an opinion of a speaker driven by a Marantz? Just curious.

RGA has a prejudice against receivers. But really, if a speaker sounds good when driven by a receiver, why would one complain? I can't figure out where RGA is coming from on this one! Particularly, if you find the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, driven by a Marantz or Sony ES receiver sounds almost as good as the B & W 705 driven by Krell electronics, that indicates something. Actually, neither speaker is particularly hard to drive.

The B & W 705 is a really nice speaker, no doubt about it.

Another nice speaker for less money is the PSB Stratus Mini (I bought a pair of them), but it is harder to drive. A Denon receiver should have no trouble, though.

[RGA]

RGA has a prejudice against receivers. But really, if a speaker sounds good when driven by a receiver, why would one complain? I can't figure out where RGA is coming from on this one! Particularly, if you find the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, driven by a Marantz or Sony ES receiver sounds almost as good as the B & W 705 driven by Krell electronics, that indicates something. Actually, neither speaker is particularly hard to drive.

The B & W 705 is a really nice speaker, no doubt about it.

Another nice speaker for less money is the PSB Stratus Mini (I bought a pair of them), but it is harder to drive. A Denon receiver should have no trouble, though.

Guess you're not at all choosy about room acoustics and speaker placement either eh PatD? The fact they were in different stores different rooms different placements different equipment matters not I suppose.

If after that you like the Paradigm go for it and be happy.

[Pat D]

Guess you're not at all choosy about room acoustics and speaker placement either eh PatD? The fact they were in different stores different rooms different placements different equipment matters not I suppose.

If after that you like the Paradigm go for it and be happy.

You wrote the following, RGA.

"but IMO Yamaha and receivers in geenral are no where near as good as good separates (or separate like) units in the precise are of soundstage and overal control of the speakers."

"Marantz - I own and would not conduct any opinion of a speaker based off of a Marantz receiver - then again I would not use a Sony either."

Neither of them has anything to do with room acoustics and speaker placement. They do reflect your oft-expressed attitude towards receivers. The question jasmit asked was why you would not audition speakers with Marantz electronics.

But, if the equipment sounds good--even in different rooms--obviously the different equipment didn't get in the way of that. For the most part, I audition speakers in the stores with whatever electronics is hooked up to them. It seldom makes a significant difference except with tubes. One store blew the fuse on a solid state amp by shorting the speaker cables and the next handy electronics was an expensive C-J tube amplifier--which made the sound much more colored than with the solid state product--I was not impressed. They had to find another SS amp for me.

I have always maintained that room acoustics and speaker placement can make a big difference with speakers. That is a separate question. It surely is a problem to compare speakers in different stores, but one must try to get the staff to place the speakers reasonably. If they won't, go elsewhere. Most of the room effects are below 300-500 Hz, which is below the midrange.

As well, the speakers in different stores cannot be A-B'd (I just think Peter is silly on this), and one must depend on long term memory. Sech is life.

The ultimate audition of speakers should be at home, so you can see if you can get them to sound good there. This will also enable you to determine whether your amplifier can drive them properly.

[jasmit]

During my search for audio gear, I spent alot of time reading audio publications as well as lurking these forums. Spent a fair amount of time in audio stores listening to equipment. I noted that many of the folks on these forums strongly encouraged newbies like me to audition certain speakers with certain receivers/amps and to "A/B" them so I could hear the differences. Well, in my experience it was not that easy. Audio dealers, as you must know, carry only certain product lines. For example, where I live in Baton Rouge, one dealer carries Marantz, Denon, M&K and B&W. Another carries Denon, Parasound and KEF. Another carries Denon, Onkyo, JBL and Def Tech. Etc, etc. I didn't limit my listening to this area; I also traveled to New Orleans and Houston and found similar situations there. My 57 year old, damaged ears weren't discriminating enough and my tonal memory wasn't good enough to discern much of the differences from one store to the next. I just know that I was impressed with Paradigm Studio speakers and some of the B&W speakers -- regardless of what drove them.

During my search, when I had a question, I asked not only folks like yourselves, but professional audio reviewers too. Some wrote back. I wrote to one (at Sound and Vision) with a question which relates to some of the comments on this thread. Within my e-mail to this reviewer I wrote: "I've been trying to read all I can about matching these two items, but there are so many varying opinions on the AV forums, some of which say that the pairing of what many term a "warm" receiver with what many term "warm" speakers is not a good thing." He wrote back, in part, "In general, talk of modern electronics being "warm" or "bright" in terms of tonal balance---frequency response---is great nonsense: virtually all of today's better components are flat in response well beyond our ability to discriminate. It is in the loudspeakers that clearly audible differences in tonality arise;" This comes from a professional reviewer who, I believe, is an audio engineer as well. I read his comments several times very carefully and noted that the reviewer included several qualifiers, e.g., "In general," "virtually all," "better components." So, there's definitely some wiggle room there. Whether or not he would insist that no one can hear a difference between a mid-fi $600 receiver and a $3,000 two channel amplifier driving the same speakers in the same listening environment, I don't know. But, I found his comments thought provoking nonetheless.

I know that there are many who will disagree vehemently with the reviewer's statement. My intention in citing it here is not to start a debate, so please don't fire back at me. I don't have sufficient audio experience yet to adopt his view; my mind is still open. Moreover, I'm sure that madmax1 didn't contemplate that when he started this thread. I just thought some folks might find it interesting.

[RGA]

[

As well, the speakers in different stores cannot be A-B'd (I just think Peter is silly on this), and one must depend on long term memory. Sech is life.

Well think what you will - it isn't really hard to tell the difference with speakers nor is memory - I mean the singer is left of center or right of center or dead center depending on the recording where as on another speaker they're always dead center - if your memory is THAT bad oh well - I a/bed them as well - no law says you can't do both is there? Either method you choose is fine because on sound it will work in favour of Silly ol' Peter -err it did for me.

The ultimate audition of speakers should be at home, so you can see if you can get them to sound good there. This will also enable you to determine whether your amplifier can drive them properly.

Oh but all working SS sound identical no - well no one can tell so that does mean they all sound the same - err but that's not what can be proven with those tests err but they must sound identical if people can't tell the difference err but you can't prove A=B but err...? -

50 watts should be able to drive 98.9% of loudspeakers. So why would YOU of all people need to know whether the amp is capable of driving the speakers. Most receivers today are rated at 80-100 watts. And at home - why should that matter? A speaker either makes music sound like music or it does not. A room has four walls and a ceiling - mostly. A good speaker will make a violin sound like a violin anywhwere including GASP the stereo store(general room size is all you need to know - big room needs some consideration. You need to listen and let yourself adjust to the room and then listen to all the speakers in that room - you can do that at home too but why? - You could move one day and oh no it only sounds good in your specific room in your house? Bullocks.

Actually you are not quoting my second post to him:

"First, it is exremely important to review or assess speakers in the same room with the same equipment. Why? Simply that rooms impact the sound as much as a speaker does in most cases. Store sound rooms can be worse than your own home or another dealer's room. If one room has several speakers side by side it can affect the sound. For instance if speakers are side by side and one is playing the speaker sitting beside it can actually have the woofer on that other speaker MOVE - a sympathetic vibration so you're in effect hearing two or more sets of speakers going. Not to mention many speakers like to be free standing (Thus, away from walls and other speakers).

It is totally unimportant that you listen to a speaker at home before you buy - people say this and it's just not true because in two years you might move. What is important is that wherever you listen - at home is convenient if the brands you're interested in are all at different place - is in the same room with the exact same equipmetnt. This way all speakers are at the same advantage/disadvantage. Some small speakers hate being in larger rooms.

I heard the PMC TB1 in a small room and it would absolutely blow you away with Bryston amplification - I wanted to compare it to another speaker in another room that had Nakamichi's top of the line receiver (receivers have worse power amplification - higher noise and generally a muddy sound) so we moved it there and it sounded horrible - I was like what the hell happened? Turns out the speaker is a nearfield transmission line design requiring a fair bit or clean power. If you went into listen in the first room you'd buy em in the second room with the Receiver you would would wonder why the store was carrying it.

This is why I often defend Polk - they do sound pretty good but because they are sold at Futureshop in bad rooms with bad gear they don't sound too good."

Naturally since Marantz and Bryston to you may sound identical in all systems and all people everywhere in the world it may not matter to you that it was not the same ancillary gear or that he was listeningat the same volume level and was not A/Bed and had to rely on memory.

It's interesting - acoustic memory - It's really funny how I can remember what a Piano and Violin sounds like - even after years of not hearing an Oboe I could probably pick it out of a lin-up blind against a clarinet. Even not hearing Rod Stewart for years I could pick him out on the radio. Even on a Bose wave radio. Funny that I could compare Rod Stewart on a Bose Wave radio and then 6 months later I could hear him sing through Paradigm Studio 100s or PSBs and I betcha I could tell ya that he sounds better on the PSB or Paradigm....err duuhh no I need to A/B them to be sure cause sound is like a Box of Choooocolaates - you neeever know what yeeer gonna get.

Please.

[Woochifer]

During my search, when I had a question, I asked not only folks like yourselves, but professional audio reviewers too. Some wrote back. I wrote to one (at Sound and Vision) with a question which relates to some of the comments on this thread. Within my e-mail to this reviewer I wrote: "I've been trying to read all I can about matching these two items, but there are so many varying opinions on the AV forums, some of which say that the pairing of what many term a "warm" receiver with what many term "warm" speakers is not a good thing." He wrote back, in part, "In general, talk of modern electronics being "warm" or "bright" in terms of tonal balance---frequency response---is great nonsense: virtually all of today's better components are flat in response well beyond our ability to discriminate. It is in the loudspeakers that clearly audible differences in tonality arise;" This comes from a professional reviewer who, I believe, is an audio engineer as well. I read his comments several times very carefully and noted that the reviewer included several qualifiers, e.g., "In general," "virtually all," "better components." So, there's definitely some wiggle room there. Whether or not he would insist that no one can hear a difference between a mid-fi $600 receiver and a $3,000 two channel amplifier driving the same speakers in the same listening environment, I don't know. But, I found his comments thought provoking nonetheless.

I know that there are many who will disagree vehemently with the reviewer's statement. My intention in citing it here is not to start a debate, so please don't fire back at me. I don't have sufficient audio experience yet to adopt his view; my mind is still open. Moreover, I'm sure that madmax1 didn't contemplate that when he started this thread. I just thought some folks might find it interesting.

The thing to understand with comments about solid state and digital source electronics is that we're really talking about subtle differences here. To some people, these minute differences are worth every penny of the tens of thousands of dollars that it can often require to achieve these differences, while others cannot discern any audible differences whatsoever. In the audio hobby, there's a tendency to magnify and exaggerate even the most minimal perceived differences into "night and day" improvements. That's really the only way to justify something like a $7,500 battery-powered interconnect. My approach has always been to focus on the things that matter the most and make the most tangible improvement for the money.

In past auditions I have picked up on audible differences between multichannel receivers and high end separates. Were they an improvement? Yes. Were these differences more of an improvement than speaker upgrades or room treatments of the same cost? Not by a long shot.

To me, the exception with amps is when you have speakers that are very demanding to drive, like low impedance monitors and panel speakers. Most receivers are not designed to handle a 7.1 speaker setup with low impedance speakers all the way around. That's when an outboard amp is important to have, simply because some receivers will shut down at moderate levels when hooked up to low impedance speakers. Otherwise, IMO you do the amp upgrade only after you take care of setting up the system correctly, getting the room acoustics under control, and getting the set of speakers that you want to stick with.

The audio hobby is loaded with high cost products that claim to make huge differences in the overall sound quality. The trick is learning where to prioritize your investments, since plenty of these products are basically a waste of money. IMO, the two top priorities are the speakers and the room acoustics. Differences between speakers are clear cut, measurable, and audible under controlled conditions.

The room acoustics are a trickier issue because they can vary a lot and the solutions to room-related problems are not as easy to understand as swapping out a component (nor as profitable for dealers, which is why they're not pushed as hard). But, the thing about room acoustics is that they affect all systems. It doesn't matter if you've invested a six-figure sum on a top of the line system, if the room acoustics are problematic, they will make ANY system sound bad. Reading up on the literature and experimenting with room treatments (which include parametric equalizers for subwoofers) is a much more effective and inexpensive exercise than sitting in demo room after demo room trying to pick out a "warm" or "neutral" sounding amp. Room treatments can be as simple as hanging a rug on the wall or using inexpensive building materials for sound absorption, or as sophisticated as creating an acoustic map of your room and using acoustic panels with different sound absorption characteristics in different locations throughout the room to create as neutral a listening environment as possible.

Other things like cables, isolation devices (except for analog sources and speakers), and digital source equipment make a much smaller difference, and as such, way too much hot air gets vented over their merits. If you feel that the differences are worth the cost, then feel free to spend all you want. But, if budget and value are concerns, then you should focus on common sense approaches that make the most clearly audible improvements possible.

[jasmit]

Thanks, Woochifer, for a well thought-out explanation which seems to make alot of sense.

[Pat D]

[


Well think what you will - it isn't really hard to tell the difference with speakers nor is memory - I mean the singer is left of center or right of center or dead center depending on the recording where as on another speaker they're always dead center - if your memory is THAT bad oh well - I a/bed them as well - no law says you can't do both is there? Either method you choose is fine because on sound it will work in favour of Silly ol' Peter -err it did for me.



Oh but all working SS sound identical no - well no one can tell so that does mean they all sound the same - err but that's not what can be proven with those tests err but they must sound identical if people can't tell the difference err but you can't prove A=B but err...? -

50 watts should be able to drive 98.9% of loudspeakers. So why would YOU of all people need to know whether the amp is capable of driving the speakers. Most receivers today are rated at 80-100 watts. And at home - why should that matter? A speaker either makes music sound like music or it does not. A room has four walls and a ceiling - mostly. A good speaker will make a violin sound like a violin anywhwere including GASP the stereo store(general room size is all you need to know - big room needs some consideration. You need to listen and let yourself adjust to the room and then listen to all the speakers in that room - you can do that at home too but why? - You could move one day and oh no it only sounds good in your specific room in your house? Bullocks.

Actually you are not quoting my second post to him:

"First, it is exremely important to review or assess speakers in the same room with the same equipment. Why? Simply that rooms impact the sound as much as a speaker does in most cases. Store sound rooms can be worse than your own home or another dealer's room. If one room has several speakers side by side it can affect the sound. For instance if speakers are side by side and one is playing the speaker sitting beside it can actually have the woofer on that other speaker MOVE - a sympathetic vibration so you're in effect hearing two or more sets of speakers going. Not to mention many speakers like to be free standing (Thus, away from walls and other speakers).

It is totally unimportant that you listen to a speaker at home before you buy - people say this and it's just not true because in two years you might move. What is important is that wherever you listen - at home is convenient if the brands you're interested in are all at different place - is in the same room with the exact same equipmetnt. This way all speakers are at the same advantage/disadvantage. Some small speakers hate being in larger rooms.

I heard the PMC TB1 in a small room and it would absolutely blow you away with Bryston amplification - I wanted to compare it to another speaker in another room that had Nakamichi's top of the line receiver (receivers have worse power amplification - higher noise and generally a muddy sound) so we moved it there and it sounded horrible - I was like what the hell happened? Turns out the speaker is a nearfield transmission line design requiring a fair bit or clean power. If you went into listen in the first room you'd buy em in the second room with the Receiver you would would wonder why the store was carrying it.

This is why I often defend Polk - they do sound pretty good but because they are sold at Futureshop in bad rooms with bad gear they don't sound too good."

Naturally since Marantz and Bryston to you may sound identical in all systems and all people everywhere in the world it may not matter to you that it was not the same ancillary gear or that he was listeningat the same volume level and was not A/Bed and had to rely on memory.

It's interesting - acoustic memory - It's really funny how I can remember what a Piano and Violin sounds like - even after years of not hearing an Oboe I could probably pick it out of a lin-up blind against a clarinet. Even not hearing Rod Stewart for years I could pick him out on the radio. Even on a Bose wave radio. Funny that I could compare Rod Stewart on a Bose Wave radio and then 6 months later I could hear him sing through Paradigm Studio 100s or PSBs and I betcha I could tell ya that he sounds better on the PSB or Paradigm....err duuhh no I need to A/B them to be sure cause sound is like a Box of Choooocolaates - you neeever know what yeeer gonna get.

Please.

You put out so much misinformation it would take too long to comment on it all.

I never said I took both quotes from the same post, did I? But they both came from further up the thread, and they easily illustrate your prejudice against receivers.

In the situation you envisage, different rooms and different set ups, with decent speakers the center image could be adjusted using the balance control or changing the speaker position. As describe, it's very likely not a speaker problem. Of course, there are bad speakers, but why spend time auditioning them?

As well, it is quite possible that if one moves to a new home, the speakers may not sound so good in the new location. Happens all the time. Sech is life. Face reality. On the other hand, choosing speakers that are room friendly can help--and that is something that the NRC researched. Properly designed speakers can sound good in a variety of listening rooms and positions and with different furnishings.

I have never said that every amplifier can adequately drive every speaker, and you know it. Some speakers are more difficult to drive than others, and some are extremely difficult to drive. It's always good to check.

Now lets see. You went to a bigger room to listen a PMC speaker in a different system and it didn't sound good there. You give two causes: the Nakamichi receiver's alleged deficiencies and the fact that the PMC was a near field monitor. GMAB!

I would just be fascinated to see how well you (and Peter, too!) could do picking out lots of different speakers in different stores in a blind test. Not the same thing as voice recognition. GMAB

[RGA]

I'm not sure what you want here. You want people to be able to pick out different speakers in different rooms blind? Assuming they'e well set up and it's a room size appropriate room - I would pick out the best sounding speaker to my ear and you would too no? Or are you asking me if I can pick out an AN J/Spe versus an N805 in any room blind?- assuming both are set up properly to their designer's intent.

Yes I could do that. Of course I could - that would be silly because this would imply that the N805 is close.