Paradigm 20: any good?

[Woochifer]

My comment was as to the high price of the speaker - I then suggested some alternates to try out. Has nothing to do with ME - Woochifer continually brings up old B&W's as if they sound like the S3 line (which they most certainly don't) and Skeptic blasts speakers he has not heard. Your personal vendetta against me is obvious because I see no commentary when others do it. And I would not have mentioned anything on this thread except for the fact that tghis poster has a problem with a speaker from a company that has the same issue for me for around a decade - perhaps they have after 10 years got it right - but the tweeter is still metal and the design is still similar - so it likely sounds similar - and typical of the series how much better is the 20V3 to what I heard from the 100V3?

No, sometimes when I bring up the older B&Ws, I'm referring to models that they made over 10 to 20 years ago. And that's almost always in the context of my having come around to enjoying their more recent speakers, after pretty much not liking anything that they produced in the 80s and early-90s.

When have I ever equated older B&W models to the 600 S3 series? If I'm commenting based on my extensive and repeated listenings with the 600 S2 series models, then I always point that out. I doubt that the all around balance and freedom from major flaws that I've always noted with that series is radically different with the S3 models. My comments on the Nautilus series still stand because those speakers have not changed since I last heard them.

The Studio v.3 series is an incremental improvement over the v.2 series. It simply improved upon what was already good with that series, and made some significant changes to how they resolve the bass. And for me, that's a good thing.

And if it is true and the 20V3 is worse than the V2 then that is even more of a reason to avoid Paradigm since the V2 were the height of mediocrity - in my opinion of course.

Height of mediocrity? Let's not get too carried away with the gross exaggerations just because you're engaged in a hissy fit. Height of mediocrity -- so you would prefer the sound of a TV speaker, an AM radio, a Bose 901, or a tin can and string over the sound of the Studio v.2? That's seems like you're within the rhelm of plausible reality, after all it is your opinion of course, and in the past you've stated that the Studio 40 and 100 v.2 models were good speakers. Opinion changed, or just shifting with the argument?

[RGA]

If I'm commenting based on my extensive and repeated listenings with the 600 S2 series models, then I always point that out. I doubt that the all around balance and freedom from major flaws that I've always noted with that series is radically different with the S3 models.

So you are assuming the improvement isn't going to differe greatly than the S3 - I am assuming that with the V3 based off of my auditions with the original the V2 and the 100V3. I still made no comment as to the sound quality of the 20V3 in a personal way.

Height of mediocrity? Let's not get too carried away with the gross exaggerations just because you're engaged in a hissy fit. Height of mediocrity -- so you would prefer the sound of a TV speaker, an AM radio, a Bose 901, or a tin can and string over the sound of the Studio v.2? That's seems like you're within the rhelm of plausible reality, after all it is your opinion of course, and in the past you've stated that the Studio 40 and 100 v.2 models were good speakers. Opinion changed, or just shifting with the argument? [/QUOTE]

No the comparison you mnade is to sub zero garbage and garden variety garbage - mediocrity is about 3-4 levels up from that.

[Woochifer]

So you are assuming the improvement isn't going to differe greatly than the S3 - I am assuming that with the V3 based off of my auditions with the original the V2 and the 100V3. I still made no comment as to the sound quality of the 20V3 in a personal way.

My comments on the 600 S3 are always in the context that they are worth giving a listen. Again, I ask, when have I ever equated all of the older B&Ws that I listened to with the S3 versions, which I always indicate that I have not listened to? I doubt that the S3 version is going to suddenly be voiced to sound like a Klipsch RF speaker or the JBL Northridge series, so my comments are applicable.

I'm not the one who commented on your comparison between the Studio v.2 and v.3 models, so take that argument to the appropriate source.

No the comparison you mnade is to sub zero garbage and garden variety garbage - mediocrity is about 3-4 levels up from that.

So that 8/10 rating that you gave the Studio 100 v.2 (or Studio 40 v.2, one or the other) last year constitutes the "height of mediocrity"? A lot of negativity built into your rating scales.

I guess 9/10 is the average of mediocrity, and 10/10 is just mediocre. A perfectly rated speaker then would be something merely does not make you totally unhappy. No wonder you're just about ready to slit your wrists anytime a speaker emits the slightest trifle of elevated highs.

Subzero garbage and garden variety garbage then would rate 7/10 and 6/10? I guess that something that rates a 3/10 would constitute rotting subzero garbage? And something that rates -4/10 would be subatomic decayed subsubzero garbage?

Like I said, changing opinion or just shifting with the argument?

[RGA]

My comments on the 600 S3 are always in the context that they are worth giving a listen. Again, I ask, when have I ever equated all of the older B&Ws that I listened to with the S3 versions, which I always indicate that I have not listened to? I doubt that the S3 version is going to suddenly be voiced to sound like a Klipsch RF speaker or the JBL Northridge series, so my comments are applicable.

You do it all the time especially on home theater. Someone asking about the Series 3 and you bring up the series 2 center channel - who the hell cares about the series 2 center channel since it's no longer made - the new one is better the people are not asking about the series 2 - the implication is they have not improved.

So that 8/10 rating that you gave the Studio 100 v.2 (or Studio 40 v.2, one or the other) last year constitutes the "height of mediocrity"? A lot of negativity built into your rating scales.

I guess 9/10 is the average of mediocrity, and 10/10 is just mediocre. A perfectly rated speaker then would be something merely does not make you totally unhappy. No wonder you're just about ready to slit your wrists anytime a speaker emits the slightest trifle of elevated highs.

Subzero garbage and garden variety garbage then would rate 7/10 and 6/10? I guess that something that rates a 3/10 would constitute rotting subzero garbage? And something that rates -4/10 would be subatomic decayed subsubzero garbage?

Like I said, changing opinion or just shifting with the argument?

Ahh the trials of using a rating system. I can give two films four stars out of four - one will be my number one film of all time the other will spot 297th.

In the case of speakers I reviewed based off their price points In absolute speaker terms the Studio 100 I would give em maybe a 3/10 - for the price range they're in I give them an 8/10 (and that was an overall rating not a sound quality alone rating) - reserving that there are speakers in the general price range I would score a 9 and other(s) a 10. The CDM 9NT I rated higher on sound lower on value. The speaker is no longer made on both counts and I have not kept up as much with speakers in this price range.

Also like film reviews your number one best film of all time can be unseated when you watch something you deem better. And if you rate on the curve - then that former 100/100 might now be 99/100. The fact that after that review I heard more standmounts like the Energy C9 which I felt was better for $500.00 less money would have dropped my high value rating componant on the 100V2 which would possibly bring the 100V2 to 6.5 - 7 overall. But since the V2 is no longer made - that point is moot.

[metalaaron]

just because someone doesn't like it doesn't me the speaker gets an F. it means the person's listening experience failed. it's not the speaker's fault. it's not the person's fault. what would we do if all speakers sounded the same? what would we do if everyone drove a blue honda? speakers and cars are quite personal.


jochem,
i recommend you check out the Ascend cbm-170. i had it side-by-side with a pair of studio 20 v.3s and it was quite amazing. check it out and see what you think.

[RGA]

just because someone doesn't like it doesn't me the speaker gets an F. it means the person's listening experience failed. it's not the speaker's fault. it's not the person's fault. what would we do if all speakers sounded the same? what would we do if everyone drove a blue honda? speakers and cars are quite personal.


jochem,
i recommend you check out the Ascend cbm-170. i had it side-by-side with a pair of studio 20 v.3s and it was quite amazing. check it out and see what you think.

Your quite right in a sense - I may give Pulp Fiction an A someone else might give it an F. RThese are personal judgments about our perception of the given product.

[Woochifer]

You do it all the time especially on home theater. Someone asking about the Series 3 and you bring up the series 2 center channel - who the hell cares about the series 2 center channel since it's no longer made - the new one is better the people are not asking about the series 2 - the implication is they have not improved.

No, the point that I'm making is that the listener needs to evaluate the center speaker before they decide. The fact that B&W made a substandard center speaker (and surround speakers) for the previous series simply means the listener should not take it on faith that B&W will always make ancillary speakers that are up to the quality of their mains. Are you suggesting that people purchase center speakers on faith without listening for timbre matching? Fine advice considering that you don't even own a surround setup.

Like I said, when have I ever EQUATED the sound of older B&Ws with the S3s? Find a quote from me if you're so convinced of this. Otherwise, you're just going off the top of your head, and judging by your latest comments on the Studio v.2 series that's not the most reliable thing to work with.

Ahh the trials of using a rating system. I can give two films four stars out of four - one will be my number one film of all time the other will spot 297th.

In the case of speakers I reviewed based off their price points In absolute speaker terms the Studio 100 I would give em maybe a 3/10 - for the price range they're in I give them an 8/10 (and that was an overall rating not a sound quality alone rating) - reserving that there are speakers in the general price range I would score a 9 and other(s) a 10. The CDM 9NT I rated higher on sound lower on value. The speaker is no longer made on both counts and I have not kept up as much with speakers in this price range.

Also like film reviews your number one best film of all time can be unseated when you watch something you deem better. And if you rate on the curve - then that former 100/100 might now be 99/100. The fact that after that review I heard more standmounts like the Energy C9 which I felt was better for $500.00 less money would have dropped my high value rating componant on the 100V2 which would possibly bring the 100V2 to 6.5 - 7 overall. But since the V2 is no longer made - that point is moot.

The Studio 100 a 3/10 in ABSOLUTE terms? Now I know your "opinions" are just shifting to suit whatever argument you're in. Just inject the value argument as a bailout. Very interesting approach considering that you rated the Studio 40 v.2 4/5 in sound quality and gave it a 4/5 for value. Are you now saying that the value and sound quality ratings are not what they say they are? Are you saying that if price were no object that too would warrant a 3/10? Pretty extreme change of opinion when the dollar signs are attached, or your memory's just fading.

For your reference, here's the review Studio 40 v.2 that you originally posted last year. It sure reads like the description of a "height of mediocrity" speaker to me! Whatever amendments and disclaimers you now have to tag on to make it consistent your tirade on this thread should be interesting.

Paradigm Studio 40 Version 2
Well, wanting to hear the version 3 was sadly not to be as the dealer had none coming. The listen to products on a year to year basis and make determinations whether or not they will standby the product or not. The luxury of being one of the biggest high end dealers around, I suppose. Nevertheless the V2 is still widely available and I have yet to get around to doing a review of them. I also think that Audio Refinement gear may very well be the finest match with the Studios I've come across, though I purchased my Sugden integrated based off of what I heard with the Studio 100. Once again I started the session with the Surfacing album and what struck me off the bat was how different it presented the music. The sound was tight and defined from deeper bass through the mid-band. This is a very clear articulate speaker, certainly no articulation problems here. Estefan's Conga was well defined with very tight bass lines snare drums were very fast, crisp clear and with impressive bass weight. Pink had this in Mind when she wanted to get the party started! On Madonna's Ray of Light imaging was impeccable and agin superbly fast, detailed and well wide of the speaker's boxes. The imaging would impress again on Deana Carter's "Danced Anyway" keeping her front and center while instruments were well separated. Norah Jones' Nightingale once again placed the singer with that in room feel. There seemed to be a slight thinness with Nora and Sarah compared to the B&W and the other high end models. A kind of trade off has been made for muscle and imaging at the expense of that big full sounding presentation. Hardness was identifiable on the Barber track with a slight audible ring to the violins. However, the Refinement gear seemed to make it far more plausible than my past experience with the line. Coherency was the speaker’s best attribute, and technically well proportioned throughout the midrange, punchy, colourful and an exceptional rocker. The sound can become thin and overly dry at higher volume with Vivaldi disc and with Sarah's Vocals. I would take issue with it being ¼ more money than the 602S3 or virtually the same money as the PMC TB2. But beyond these grumbles the speaker is an impressive bag of soundstaging, imaging, power, coherency and a solid presence in the mid bass region. The 602S3 is more of a broad music appeal product in this range, while the 40 offers a more punchy, speedy in your face knock down and drag out oomph.

Ratings: Paradigm Studio 40 V2
Build: ****1/2
Overall Sound Quality ****
Value for the money: ****
http://www.paradigm.ca/

[RGA]

No, the point that I'm making is that the listener needs to evaluate the center speaker before they decide. The fact that B&W made a substandard center speaker (and surround speakers) for the previous series simply means the listener should not take it on faith that B&W will always make ancillary speakers that are up to the quality of their mains. Are you suggesting that people purchase center speakers on faith without listening for timbre matching? Fine advice considering that you don't even own a surround setup.

Yuo are trying to shift from the FACT that when people are asking about buying Series 3 B&W 600 speakers that you always mention the series 2 and that ONE of their center channels was not an appropriate match - that BTW is just your opinion - the BLIND reviews at hi-fi Choice say otherwise - and while I agree about that cheap center channel not being as good as the bigger one - well it was cheap - people are in a budget - and that is moot since the Series 3 is what people are concerned with and all of them match.

Like I said, when have I ever EQUATED the sound of older B&Ws with the S3s? Find a quote from me if you're so convinced of this. Otherwise, you're just going off the top of your head, and judging by your latest comments on the Studio v.2 series that's not the most reliable thing to work with.

You mention to people who are inquiring about the Series 3 speakers about the fact that your auditions with the series 2 blah blah something about being polite. Why are you even talking about your experience with the Series 2? Why tell people to audition the Series 3 when you have not heard it - you are then presuming that the Series 3 will be as good as the series 2 at the very least - it may not be it could be a total disaster to you. I am not bothered that you do this because you are making a REASONABLE assumption that the differences between the series 2 and series 3 will be in the ballpark - which is exactly the same thing I have done with the V2 and V3(and I have at least heard the 100V3) - the reliability of my comments in your opinion - just because this is a paradigm love forum - I have news for you a lot of audiophiles think Paradigm is some of the worst garbage on the market - to which on the Titam and Atom I might concur but I have defended several of their speakers.

The Studio 100 a 3/10 in ABSOLUTE terms? Now I know your "opinions" are just shifting to suit whatever argument you're in. Just inject the value argument as a bailout. Very interesting approach considering that you rated the Studio 40 v.2 4/5 in sound quality and gave it a 4/5 for value. Are you now saying that the value and sound quality ratings are not what they say they are? Are you saying that if price were no object that too would warrant a 3/10? Pretty extreme change of opinion when the dollar signs are attached, or your memory's just fading.

For your reference, here's the review Studio 40 v.2 that you originally posted last year. It sure reads like the description of a "height of mediocrity" speaker to me! Whatever amendments and disclaimers you now have to tag on to make it consistent your tirade on this thread should be interesting.

I am plenty aware of my positive review of the 40V2 and on the 100V2. For the $1100.00 or so of the V2 for both speakers I would give them an 8/10. I also say they are worth an audition - I sure would not want to own them and that is the difference when reviewing a product for other people's benefit on what I think they might like and what I personally would like. 8/10 is solid compared to other speakers round the ball-park. If i gave it a 1/5 in absolute terms then I would have had 46min audio breathing down my neck for an opinion - so comparing it to what I have heard from Polk, Bose B&W, JM Labs, PMC(The no longer made TB1) Totem etc the 40 is a bit above middle of the pack(The top of the middle of the pack) and far from the best I've heard in the $800-$1400.00Cdn range.

Ohh and like manufacturers is a person not permitted to change their view? The Reference 3a MM De Capo over the last year will have fallen a few pegs - which takes everything else below it down a few pegs. Or when something else comes along like the AN - it shifts my view down on the Paradigm. What Hi-fi Magazine does the exact same thing - you made a comment that you doidn't like numerical reviews and now I see why. What Hi fi gives a prooduct 5 stars and best buy and three years later they review it and drop it to 2 stars as they did with the Arcam AV 200. - they have dropped speaker ratings as well. My review of the K would go down a bit after the J. There is a problem when I only have 5 stars to deal with - If the K drops one spot then the N805 has to drop one and the 40 has to drop 4 and then I'm into the negative for the Wharfedale 8.2. Unless i review to the price.

[Woochifer]

Yuo are trying to shift from the FACT that when people are asking about buying Series 3 B&W 600 speakers that you always mention the series 2 and that ONE of their center channels was not an appropriate match - that BTW is just your opinion - the BLIND reviews at hi-fi Choice say otherwise - and while I agree about that cheap center channel not being as good as the bigger one - well it was cheap - people are in a budget - and that is moot since the Series 3 is what people are concerned with and all of them match.

Yeah, I mention them because I've heard them, and as a result, tell people to listen to newer versions for themselves and see if they like them. Where's the fault in that? When have I EVER commented on the sound quality of the S3 or made any direct references to their sound quality or EQUATED them to the older B&Ws? I'm basing my opinion of B&W based on my auditions of the 600 S2, 303, CM, and Nautilus series models, and since the latter three series that I listened to are still in production in the same form as when I auditioned them, I don't think my observations about B&W are based on stone age information.

My observation of that particular center speaker model (the CC6) was one of the key reasons why I decided against the 600 series when I was purchasing. I've ALWAYS said that people should do their own listening on the center speakers, and suggest that with the S3 models. Again, are you objecting to that suggestion?

You mention to people who are inquiring about the Series 3 speakers about the fact that your auditions with the series 2 blah blah something about being polite. Why are you even talking about your experience with the Series 2? Why tell people to audition the Series 3 when you have not heard it - you are then presuming that the Series 3 will be as good as the series 2 at the very least - it may not be it could be a total disaster to you. I am not bothered that you do this because you are making a REASONABLE assumption that the differences between the series 2 and series 3 will be in the ballpark - which is exactly the same thing I have done with the V2 and V3(and I have at least heard the 100V3) - the reliability of my comments in your opinion - just because this is a paradigm love forum - I have news for you a lot of audiophiles think Paradigm is some of the worst garbage on the market - to which on the Titam and Atom I might concur but I have defended several of their speakers.

And I see that your memory is just as selective as ever when it comes to paraphrasing and characterizing other peoples' opinions. In comparson with the Paradigm Monitor series, yes the 600 series is a polite speaker. In comparison with the Klipsch RF series, JBL Studio/Northridge series, the DefTech floorstanders, and a host of other forward sounding speakers that people inquire about, yes the 600 series is a polite speaker. I don't use adjectives in blatantly derogatory terms most of the time like you enjoy doing, so to me a polite speaker is not something that's a negative, it just is what it is and it's always qualifed in relative terms. And it would take a drastic change in how that speaker series is voiced in order to change that assessment. Nothing that anybody has told me, including notes from your listenings, about the S3 series indicates to me that a drastic change has occurred, certainly not to the point that I would stop telling people to give them a listen for themselves. When someone notes that the 600 series is more forward sounding than a JBL and has unbalanced peaks and dips throughout the frequency range, then I'll take notice and qualify my comments.

just because this is a paradigm love forum - I have news for you a lot of audiophiles think Paradigm is some of the worst garbage on the market - to which on the Titam and Atom I might concur but I have defended several of their speakers.

Yeah, and I have news for you. I don't buy speakers to appease the biases of so-called and self-described audiophiles. (And judging from a lot of the so-called "high end" speakers that I've heard over the years, I'm actually flattered that some of them would hate my speakers, because I sure as hell can't stand a lot of their stroking material either) I buy speakers that best fit MY preferences and MY listening habits. If you or anybody else wants to describe them as the "worst garbage on the market" then I take no issue with it, so long as it's for well thought out reasons, and not just because it's advertised or following a specific design principle or some other irrelevant tangental reason other than the sound quality.

I am plenty aware of my positive review of the 40V2 and on the 100V2. For the $1100.00 or so of the V2 for both speakers I would give them an 8/10. I also say they are worth an audition - I sure would not want to own them and that is the difference when reviewing a product for other people's benefit on what I think they might like and what I personally would like. 8/10 is solid compared to other speakers round the ball-park. If i gave it a 1/5 in absolute terms then I would have had 46min audio breathing down my neck for an opinion - so comparing it to what I have heard from Polk, Bose B&W, JM Labs, PMC(The no longer made TB1) Totem etc the 40 is a bit above middle of the pack(The top of the middle of the pack) and far from the best I've heard in the $800-$1400.00Cdn range.

Ohh and like manufacturers is a person not permitted to change their view? The Reference 3a MM De Capo over the last year will have fallen a few pegs - which takes everything else below it down a few pegs. Or when something else comes along like the AN - it shifts my view down on the Paradigm. What Hi-fi Magazine does the exact same thing - you made a comment that you doidn't like numerical reviews and now I see why. What Hi fi gives a prooduct 5 stars and best buy and three years later they review it and drop it to 2 stars as they did with the Arcam AV 200. - they have dropped speaker ratings as well. My review of the K would go down a bit after the J. There is a problem when I only have 5 stars to deal with - If the K drops one spot then the N805 has to drop one and the 40 has to drop 4 and then I'm into the negative for the Wharfedale 8.2. Unless i review to the price.

"Into the negative" on a 0-5 scale? This is no longer creative spinning and just empty desparation to keep an argument going. And through all this, all you're left with is "Uh, I changed my mind." Nice copout.

If your opinion of a speaker that you haven't even listened to since last year has changed that much in the meantime, what are you basing the change on? Direct comparisons or auditory memory? How do you know how the previous series would fare in comparison to newer speakers that you've heard, if you don't even do direct comparisons? This obsession you have with rank ordering and assigning ratings to everything is really doing you in this time, because you're no longer even consistent with yourself.

I think it's ridiculous that just because you now like something better that suddenly everything else now drops down and becomes mediocre. Those other speakers did not suddenly become something else, they're the exact same speaker that you listened to in the first place. You observed of the Studio 40 v.2 that "Coherency was the speaker’s best attribute, and technically well proportioned throughout the midrange, punchy, colourful and an exceptional rocker." But, now that you're in this Audio Note swoon, they're suddenly the "height of mediocrity"? Sorry, but shifts that drastic just don't fly, especially since you've always portrayed yourself as an experienced listener. I don't like numerical scales and rankings because they don't say squat about anything except for what a person arbitrarily assigns at a particular moment. A ranking or rating does not take into account the usage, listener preferences (except the reviewer's biases), or say anything qualitative about what the speaker actually sounds like. And unless you're doing follow up comparisons, they're always subject to the fallibility of selective memory, "changing minds," and faint recollections. How would I rank the Nautilus 805 against the Studio 20 v.3? I remember that I liked both speakers and they each have their strongsuits, but unless I get to listen to them both in the same room, I'm not going to rank them based on memory alone. That would just be wasted effort.