Paradigm 20: any good?

[Pat D]

Umm firstly this is what you quoted from me

" would think you could get a host of sepakers over there better than the Studio 20 - note though that I have not heard the V3 Studio just the V3 of the monitor line -

If it's a sound yu like go for it but it sounded to me that you had reservations - there are lots of other brands - Quad seems to have a similarity in their views as the speaker I bought so perhaps I would like the Quads too - and in Europe there is the classic Spendors - there is Harbeth there is ATC(I'm not familiar with). "

Please point out where I am commenting on the sound of the Paradigm speakers - I went out of my way to note that I have not heard the V3 of the Studio 20 - I have heard the V3 of the monitor line and in fact I have heard the V3 of the Studio 100(but not in a music only set-up). 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?

Either way the poster is at issue here - your attacks are simply to side-track the issue.

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.

Exactly. You evaluated a speaker you had not heard and the quoted passage shows it. If that is not a comment on the quality, then I don't know what is! You even suggest other speakers you haven't heard are likely to be better . . You based your comment not on the speaker's performance but because you don't particularly like the manufacturer.

Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters.

[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]

Exactly. You evaluated a speaker you had not heard and the quoted passage shows it. If that is not a comment on the quality, then I don't know what is! You even suggest other speakers you haven't heard are likely to be better . . You based your comment not on the speaker's performance but because you don't particularly like the manufacturer.

First no i have not evaluated the speaker at all - I said I bet it wouldn't be hard to beat it - since I have always found that to be the case with this brand the track record is sound(or statistically predictable to the .05 level that I would find a better speaker for the same or less money). And since the poster disliked the speaker in question and obviously hated them so much that he returned them then the odds are favoruable that yes indeed, he will likely be able to find a speaker which he will deem better. I made recommendations to LISTEN to speakers which would be available widely in Europe and that will have a different design approach - rather than him listening to other similar designs from Energy. I have zero against the manufacturer (when and if they make a good sounding speaker I will sing their praise louder than anyone here - especially since they're Canadian). As yet that has yet to happen.

[/QUOTE]
Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters. [/QUOTE]

Umm he doesn't like standmounts because he basicaally says all small speakers are total garbage that can't recreate realism - and you support him by buying such a speaker? - Then you claim he is technically suitable - This is contradictory. Yes I'm sure direct firing speakers standmounts can't do what he wants them to do - neither can the Paradigm do for this person what he wants them to do - which is not sound irritating. That has been my experience with all but about 2 speakers in 10 years from this company. And those two are not earth-shatterringly great speakers - and neither are made anymore.

I don't spread myths at all - metal tweeters sound like sh!t most of the time to me. How can a personal opinion be a myth. I bother to listen to them. I make no technical comment about metal tweeters other than their break-up tendancies. Which of course get's beaten down as "well only at high volumes" or some such drivel. I am generalizing too widely because I have not heard ALL speakers using metal tweeters - but I do believe that the material has a sonic signature. Some companies I feel are better at not reminding me of it all of the time - most do unfortunately. I make comments about what I hear from them - usually with their grilles on and I have no idea whether they use metal tweeters or soft domes until AFTER I listen to them first. I have merely found that since 1990 in most cases speakers fairing rather poorly use metal - those scoring highly use something else. My one compliant of the PMC TB1 and 2 was the treble these cheapest speakers in the PMC line-up used a metal driver - they have now shifted to silk domes like their mega buck products - if the rest of the TB2 sounds the same and they fix the etchy fatiguing treble(which was still way better than any of the Paradigms I've heard over the years) then this would be something terrific for nearfield monoitoring.

I am uninterested in measurements that do not corelate to real world sound(or can't detect crappy treble from such speakers). I am uninterested in corporations trying to sell me documents to prove their speakers sound good - Bose is good at this - Harman is learning well and making dreck as well. When I set speaker A against speaker B it will become very apparent which sounds better. Tom Nousaine may not approve but then it ain't his money he's spending.

But this person didn't like the speaker 20V3 it gets an F - failed to meet expectations of sounding good. There are probably 1000 alternatives - I am sure he will be able to find one better even if only a D-. You are now saying that he won't be able to find a speaker more to his liking than the 20V3 by saying that I am wrong in saying that I bet he can find a speaker he will like more eh?

Why not just suggest PSB and be done with it.

Get speakers that sound like instruments in any room - what if a person moves to a new home? Means they should dump their speakers if the room isn't agreeable? A great speaker will always sound great relative to others. Even if the room is lousy the better speaker will sound better than the rest in that room (assuming the size of the room is appropriate). And yes I have heard the same Paradigm speakers in several rooms over the years - maybe 15 different ones and B&W in a number of rooms and Audio Note - etc etc.

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

The person is hearing the same thing I hear with speakers from this brand and chances are likely, if he hears it the way I do, that he will hear similarities from other speakers using metal tweeters. Then again he might love a JM Labs or B&W.

[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.

[Pat D]

First no i have not evaluated the speaker at all - I said I bet it wouldn't be hard to beat it - since I have always found that to be the case with this brand the track record is sound(or statistically predictable to the .05 level that I would find a better speaker for the same or less money). And since the poster disliked the speaker in question and obviously hated them so much that he returned them then the odds are favoruable that yes indeed, he will likely be able to find a speaker which he will deem better. I made recommendations to LISTEN to speakers which would be available widely in Europe and that will have a different design approach - rather than him listening to other similar designs from Energy. I have zero against the manufacturer (when and if they make a good sounding speaker I will sing their praise louder than anyone here - especially since they're Canadian). As yet that has yet to happen.

Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters. [/QUOTE]
Umm he doesn't like standmounts because he basicaally says all small speakers are total garbage that can't recreate realism - and you support him by buying such a speaker? - Then you claim he is technically suitable - This is contradictory. Yes I'm sure direct firing speakers standmounts can't do what he wants them to do - neither can the Paradigm do for this person what he wants them to do - which is not sound irritating. That has been my experience with all but about 2 speakers in 10 years from this company. And those two are not earth-shatterringly great speakers - and neither are made anymore.

I don't spread myths at all - metal tweeters sound like sh!t most of the time to me. How can a personal opinion be a myth. I bother to listen to them. I make no technical comment about metal tweeters other than their break-up tendancies. Which of course get's beaten down as "well only at high volumes" or some such drivel. I am generalizing too widely because I have not heard ALL speakers using metal tweeters - but I do believe that the material has a sonic signature. Some companies I feel are better at not reminding me of it all of the time - most do unfortunately. I make comments about what I hear from them - usually with their grilles on and I have no idea whether they use metal tweeters or soft domes until AFTER I listen to them first. I have merely found that since 1990 in most cases speakers fairing rather poorly use metal - those scoring highly use something else. My one compliant of the PMC TB1 and 2 was the treble these cheapest speakers in the PMC line-up used a metal driver - they have now shifted to silk domes like their mega buck products - if the rest of the TB2 sounds the same and they fix the etchy fatiguing treble(which was still way better than any of the Paradigms I've heard over the years) then this would be something terrific for nearfield monoitoring.

I am uninterested in measurements that do not corelate to real world sound(or can't detect crappy treble from such speakers). I am uninterested in corporations trying to sell me documents to prove their speakers sound good - Bose is good at this - Harman is learning well and making dreck as well. When I set speaker A against speaker B it will become very apparent which sounds better. Tom Nousaine may not approve but then it ain't his money he's spending.

But this person didn't like the speaker 20V3 it gets an F - failed to meet expectations of sounding good. There are probably 1000 alternatives - I am sure he will be able to find one better even if only a D-. You are now saying that he won't be able to find a speaker more to his liking than the 20V3 by saying that I am wrong in saying that I bet he can find a speaker he will like more eh?

Why not just suggest PSB and be done with it.

Get speakers that sound like instruments in any room - what if a person moves to a new home? Means they should dump their speakers if the room isn't agreeable? A great speaker will always sound great relative to others. Even if the room is lousy the better speaker will sound better than the rest in that room (assuming the size of the room is appropriate). And yes I have heard the same Paradigm speakers in several rooms over the years - maybe 15 different ones and B&W in a number of rooms and Audio Note - etc etc.

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

The person is hearing the same thing I hear with speakers from this brand and chances are likely, if he hears it the way I do, that he will hear similarities from other speakers using metal tweeters. Then again he might love a JM Labs or B&W.[/QUOTE]
No, the original poster rather liked the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, IN The STORE, but found they didn't meet his needs AT HOME. What has your silly generalization about metal tweeters to do with that? Nothing. Indeed, you deny that is likely to happen since you maintain good speakers sound good in virtually every room. But he didn't seem to find them irritating in the store. Even at home, the poster even mentions they sound very good with some recordings but not others, hardly a hate message. I suggested the placement could be a reason (in this case, listening distance, as a possible reason, but with a small room, there's not much he can do about that I gather). But we do agree that a good option was to get more suitable speakers for his purposes and he has taken the Studio 20s back and is no doubt looking for something else.

I don't agree with Skeptic as to everything he says, but he is sure that mini-monitors are not suitable for him and gives good reasons for it. You once told me that the NRC curves for a Paradigm Titan and a Revel Performa M20 looked the same--which is totally laughable, but of course you think Revel makes "dreck" anyway. Anyone can see the differences, though understanding their significance is another matter. Hence, I concluded you don't understand speaker measurements. I find such measurements as done in the NRC and by Stereophile and even Sound & Vision to be useful, and they don't have to tell me everything to be useful.

Why don't I just recoment PSB and be done with it? . . . well, why don't you just recommend Audio Note and be done with it? I don't just do that because the other people may well prefer something else.

[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]

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.

[RGA]

Skeptic understands enough technically to be able to say something about the suitability of a speaker for his purposes--he doesn't like mini-monitors, for example, as they can't do what he wants his speakers to do. I think I understand speaker measurements well enough to use some of them as a screening tool; you evidently do not. You spread myths about soft and metal dome tweeters.

Umm he doesn't like standmounts because he basicaally says all small speakers are total garbage that can't recreate realism - and you support him by buying such a speaker? - Then you claim he is technically suitable - This is contradictory. Yes I'm sure direct firing speakers standmounts can't do what he wants them to do - neither can the Paradigm do for this person what he wants them to do - which is not sound irritating. That has been my experience with all but about 2 speakers in 10 years from this company. And those two are not earth-shatterringly great speakers - and neither are made anymore.

I don't spread myths at all - metal tweeters sound like sh!t most of the time to me. How can a personal opinion be a myth. I bother to listen to them. I make no technical comment about metal tweeters other than their break-up tendancies. Which of course get's beaten down as "well only at high volumes" or some such drivel. I am generalizing too widely because I have not heard ALL speakers using metal tweeters - but I do believe that the material has a sonic signature. Some companies I feel are better at not reminding me of it all of the time - most do unfortunately. I make comments about what I hear from them - usually with their grilles on and I have no idea whether they use metal tweeters or soft domes until AFTER I listen to them first. I have merely found that since 1990 in most cases speakers fairing rather poorly use metal - those scoring highly use something else. My one compliant of the PMC TB1 and 2 was the treble these cheapest speakers in the PMC line-up used a metal driver - they have now shifted to silk domes like their mega buck products - if the rest of the TB2 sounds the same and they fix the etchy fatiguing treble(which was still way better than any of the Paradigms I've heard over the years) then this would be something terrific for nearfield monoitoring.

I am uninterested in measurements that do not corelate to real world sound(or can't detect crappy treble from such speakers). I am uninterested in corporations trying to sell me documents to prove their speakers sound good - Bose is good at this - Harman is learning well and making dreck as well. When I set speaker A against speaker B it will become very apparent which sounds better. Tom Nousaine may not approve but then it ain't his money he's spending.

But this person didn't like the speaker 20V3 it gets an F - failed to meet expectations of sounding good. There are probably 1000 alternatives - I am sure he will be able to find one better even if only a D-. You are now saying that he won't be able to find a speaker more to his liking than the 20V3 by saying that I am wrong in saying that I bet he can find a speaker he will like more eh?

Why not just suggest PSB and be done with it.

Get speakers that sound like instruments in any room - what if a person moves to a new home? Means they should dump their speakers if the room isn't agreeable? A great speaker will always sound great relative to others. Even if the room is lousy the better speaker will sound better than the rest in that room (assuming the size of the room is appropriate). And yes I have heard the same Paradigm speakers in several rooms over the years - maybe 15 different ones and B&W in a number of rooms and Audio Note - etc etc.

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

The person is hearing the same thing I hear with speakers from this brand and chances are likely, if he hears it the way I do, that he will hear similarities from other speakers using metal tweeters. Then again he might love a JM Labs or B&W.[/QUOTE]
No, the original poster rather liked the Paradigm Studio 20, v. 3, IN The STORE, but found they didn't meet his needs AT HOME. What has your silly generalization about metal tweeters to do with that? Nothing. Indeed, you deny that is likely to happen since you maintain good speakers sound good in virtually every room. But he didn't seem to find them irritating in the store. Even at home, the poster even mentions they sound very good with some recordings but not others, hardly a hate message. I suggested the placement could be a reason (in this case, listening distance, as a possible reason, but with a small room, there's not much he can do about that I gather). But we do agree that a good option was to get more suitable speakers for his purposes and he has taken the Studio 20s back and is no doubt looking for something else.

I don't agree with Skeptic as to everything he says, but he is sure that mini-monitors are not suitable for him and gives good reasons for it. You once told me that the NRC curves for a Paradigm Titan and a Revel Performa M20 looked the same--which is totally laughable, but of course you think Revel makes "dreck" anyway. Anyone can see the differences, though understanding their significance is another matter. Hence, I concluded you don't understand speaker measurements. I find such measurements as done in the NRC and by Stereophile and even Sound & Vision to be useful, and they don't have to tell me everything to be useful.

Why don't I just recoment PSB and be done with it? . . . well, why don't you just recommend Audio Note and be done with it? I don't just do that because the other people may well prefer something else.[/QUOTE]

I was not looking closely at the measurements of the titan and revel - I have looked over every single speaker they have reviewed at Soundstage since that time. And your statement is bogus as a 3 dollar bill about the room - sounded good on good recordings - how do you know they were good recordings - how can the recording fix the bad room of all a sudden - maybe he didn't sopend enough time at the store auditioning and was at first impressed by the crappy spitty tweeters and then after several hours realized that in fact the tweeter creates its own detail (detail = distortion if you notice it.) Live music I don't sit there thinjking wow check out the detail - unless it's the paint on a guitar.

[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]

Anyway get back to the poster rather than creating a spiral. I will listen to the 20V3 in August and I'm sure it will be a fatiguing constipated speaker with little dynamics and bass quality or depth I have come to expect from the previous model and to which people have told me of. But my expectations have been turned on ear before. Pun semi-intended.

Yeah, that's an objective and open minded approach if I ever heard one! And if you come back in August and report exact what you were expecting, what did you accomplish? Basically, that you heard what you expected to hear based on a sighted listening. That's quite a valid approach to me.

And all this stuff that you have "come to expect from the previous model" is quite interesting considering that I own those speakers and find them quite dynamic with very good bass quality. And I don't observe anything resembling fatigue or constipation whenever I listen to them either. Maybe you should try a healthier diet with more fiber, and not load up on junk food before you go in for your oh-so-objective listenings. Maybe we won't have to hear you always coming up with these rectal analogies to everything that you hear -- crap this, constipated that. Please, not while we're eating.

[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.

[RGA]

Firstly the 603s3 is not a polite speaker - no review mentions this anywhere - yet you imply they are because of the previous series - sorry that is what you always do.

Now you make no sense - the Review of the Paradigm was agaisnt several speakers - it was cheaper by half to some of them and was reviewed largely in the context of money. The N805 IMO is a better speaker than the Studio 40. I compared the B&W one of my favorites - and on my shortlist to buy - to the AN K then to the AN J later. Very simply the N805 to me now is an utterly unlistenable loudspeaker. No the N805 didn't change - it didn't get any worse - my reference point however got a helluva lot better. So I can leave the 4/5 rating for Paradigm but then I'd have to give the J a 62 out of 5. Which is why I rate according to general price ranges. Just as the magazines do. The 5 star Dm 302 is 5 stars because it was under $200 GBP - if that speaker was selling at $9,000.00 it would get laughed at and probably a Zero.

[Woochifer]

Firstly the 603s3 is not a polite speaker - no review mentions this anywhere - yet you imply they are because of the previous series - sorry that is what you always do.

But, again you're making that kind of pejorative assessment absent of any context or comparative basis. Whenever I use the term "polite" to describe the B&W 600 series, it's typically RELATIVE to the more forward sounding alternatives in that same price range. I've never used "polite" to describe the DM603 (including the S2 series model) and you keep periodically accusing me of that for whatever reason. At some point, I might have said that it's "more polite sounding than" something like the Klipsch RF series, and I seriously doubt that B&W has revoiced the 600 series to sound more forward and aggressive than those speakers. So, unless that has actually happened, my comments are still valid.

There's a huge difference between using adjectives in an absolute context and in a relative context. That's why I'm not prone to making exaggerations that cannot be backed up, and you more typically use terms like "always do" to describe things. If I "always" use the term "polite" to describe the 600 series, then go ahead and prove it. All I have to do is find one exception and there goes another discredited RGA exaggeration, meanwhile you have to dig up every comment I've ever made on this board about the 600 series. Should I scroll to a post that I made yesterday to prove my point, or do you finally understand where I'm coming from?

Now you make no sense - the Review of the Paradigm was agaisnt several speakers - it was cheaper by half to some of them and was reviewed largely in the context of money. The N805 IMO is a better speaker than the Studio 40. I compared the B&W one of my favorites - and on my shortlist to buy - to the AN K then to the AN J later. Very simply the N805 to me now is an utterly unlistenable loudspeaker. No the N805 didn't change - it didn't get any worse - my reference point however got a helluva lot better. So I can leave the 4/5 rating for Paradigm but then I'd have to give the J a 62 out of 5. Which is why I rate according to general price ranges. Just as the magazines do. The 5 star Dm 302 is 5 stars because it was under $200 GBP - if that speaker was selling at $9,000.00 it would get laughed at and probably a Zero.

I guess that's copout #2 -- now I'm the one making no sense. Nice try, but I'm not the one who's twisting around and amending my own ratings and rankings to suddenly account for price (when the original ratings posted included a separate rating for value) and arbitrarily assigning negative numbers or absurdly large numbers to my own 0-5 star ranking scales. I'll leave it up to the others to see if anyone else can decipher all this random mangling around of numbers that you've conjured up.

[RGA]

Ahh but you are the one who has brought up the Studio 40 - look back and note that my initial height oif medicrity comment was not about the 40 or the 100 but the 20V2.

You OFTEN do so scratch Always - Are you trying to say that you have NEVER commented EVER on these boards about the sound of ANY 600 series speaker when the poster was asking a question on the 600Series 3 models? Are you saying that when a poster has EVER asked about the B&W Series 3 surround packages you do not go off on a tangent about the poor CC6 center speaker designed for the series 2. A simple yes or no is sufficient. I have been in numerous threads with you when you have done this - how quickly you forget. - And your comments about the Series 3 being polite relative to anything - is spurious because gee - you have not heard them. Of course you just buy into the myth that British brands are polite I suppose.

My reviews previously on the Studio 20 V2 - if you recall - was not favourable - Perhaps a reson why I only consider the 40, 60 and 100 to have redeeming qualities. The 20 and 80 were dreadful to me. I shall see if Paradigm has fixed the 20 - they fixed the 80 by eliintating it - thank heaven for small mercys.

I hadn't noticed that you tried to twist my height of medicrity comment to the 40V2 - I should know by now that you "often" do such things to create starw men.

[Woochifer]

Ahh but you are the one who has brought up the Studio 40 - look back and note that my initial height oif medicrity comment was not about the 40 or the 100 but the 20V2.

Okay, you're right about that one. But you're then presuming that the 20 and 40 sound significantly different. I own both, and have done side by side comparisons. If they're as different as you say they are, then I would not have a timbre matched surround setup, right? Well, turns out that I have a timbre matched surround setup, so read into that however you want.

You OFTEN do so scratch Always - Are you trying to say that you have NEVER commented EVER on these boards about the sound of ANY 600 series speaker when the poster was asking a question on the 600Series 3 models? Are you saying that when a poster has EVER asked about the B&W Series 3 surround packages you do not go off on a tangent about the poor CC6 center speaker designed for the series 2. A simple yes or no is sufficient. I have been in numerous threads with you when you have done this - how quickly you forget. - And your comments about the Series 3 being polite relative to anything - is spurious because gee - you have not heard them. Of course you just buy into the myth that British brands are polite I suppose.

Like I said, when I have I ever said in absolute terms that they are polite? Good gawd, you treat this like it's some kind of insult; it's a description that might be useful for people looking for a different type of sound than the more forward sounding alternatives out there. Are you telling me that the S3 is on par with Klipsch, Paradigm, JBL, DefTech, or some of the other speakers that I've described as having a forward sound, in terms of how forward and aggressive sounding they are? I've never heard of that from anybody, and even your notes don't indicate anything close to that end.

Are you saying that you've NEVER commented on speakers that you did not hear before, or cite third party sources to support a point? So, I guess that anytime you bring up the Von Schweikerts or Axioms or third party product reviews, then it too is a spurious point? At least in my case, I'm commenting based on listenings from the same brand, the same model group, and current speakers in other series.

In case you forgot, the center and surround speaker comments are a reiteration of the importance of listening for timbre matching when evaluating ancillary home theater speakers. (Check the threads, I will bring up the B&W center speaker example in many other timbre matching discussions, including those that don't even mention B&W) And in case you forgot, you have defended B&W center and surround speakers that you haven't heard before and cited British magazine reviews to support your point (including the CC6, which I have heard and you have not), even though you've repeatedly denounced audio magazines, product reviews, and reviewers. The simple fact that B&W made such a poorly matched center and surround set with the S2 series in my view is an example of why people can't take the timbre matching for granted. Calling it a tangental point I guess is easy if you don't own a surround setup, have never done a 5.1 system calibration before, and don't know what a properly calibratated timbre matched surround system sounds like.

British, polite, myth? I've repeatedly said that it was mostly true 20 or so years ago, but not as prevalant now. I've repeatedly said that I dislike "polite" sounding speakers, and I like the current B&Ws even though they are "more polite than" other more forward sounding alternatives. (Again, relative versus absolute, remember?) And I presume that your past comments about American speakers being "tizzy" or "crapola" is absolute fact and not myth, right?

I hadn't noticed that you tried to twist my height of medicrity comment to the 40V2 - I should know by now that you "often" do such things to create starw men.

Nah, don't need to create straw men. Your ready-fire-aim exaggerations and inconsistencies do more than enough to knock your own arguments down.

[RGA]

Are you saying that you've NEVER commented on speakers that you did not hear before, or cite third party sources to support a point? So, I guess that anytime you bring up the Von Schweikerts or Axioms or third party product reviews, then it too is a spurious point? At least in my case, I'm commenting based on listenings from the same brand, the same model group, and current speakers in other series.

Look I don't have a problem with you mentioning a previous model as plausibly being similar t the new model - i did the same thing with the V2 and V3 and I get duped on but it is ok for you to do it with the 600 series - Patd dumps on me and not you for the simple reason that he likes one speaker and not the other. I comment on third party speakers to give them a try - giving them a try doesn't cost any money and is the best free advice to buying loudspeakers - it is also merely obvious. The poster returned the series 3 of the 20 - I heard the previous 20 the model before that and the V3 100 - so I'm right around the speaker - my comment was that it should not be hard for him to find a better speaker (implying a speaker better to him since he returned them). I made no actual comment about the speaker's sound.

BTW if the 40 and the 20 sound exactly the same you're pretty silly for paying extra for the same sounding speaker. Since you have a sub and they perfectly integrate according to you then the 20 was all you needed. I realize it sounds thin and weak willed compared to the 40 - apparently your Yamaha or your hearing isn't good enough for you to tell them apart. Just like a different look and throwing money away? Sorry but the 40 is a considerably better loudspeaker because the bass draws the ear from the treble better than than the 20 - I heard them side by side as well.

In case you forgot, the center and surround speaker comments are a reiteration of the importance of listening for timbre matching when evaluating ancillary home theater speakers. (Check the threads, I will bring up the B&W center speaker example in many other timbre matching discussions, including those that don't even mention B&W) And in case you forgot, you have defended B&W center and surround speakers that you haven't heard before and cited British magazine reviews to support your point (including the CC6, which I have heard and you have not), even though you've repeatedly denounced audio magazines, product reviews, and reviewers. The simple fact that B&W made such a poorly matched center and surround set with the S2 series in my view is an example of why people can't take the timbre matching for granted. Calling it a tangental point I guess is easy if you don't own a surround setup, have never done a 5.1 system calibration before, and don't know what a properly calibratated timbre matched surround system sounds like.

I have heard the studio 100V3 in a surround set-up the center channel was discordant and rather poor with it's matching center channel - not a good surround system at all from what I heard. So what - it was set-up typical of most set-ups with big screen TV. You bring up the CC6 only to slag B&W and it's only YOUR OPINION that it wasn't a satsifactory match - do you have any independant factual research for this conclusion that B&W didn't match the center channel - or did you just look at the woofer material and draw your conclusion. The match for that series was the LCR 60 and LCR 600 - I don't particularly think the LCR 60 series 2 was particularly good. Others may like it including reviewers.

British, polite, myth? I've repeatedly said that it was mostly true 20 or so years ago, but not as prevalant now. I've repeatedly said that I dislike "polite" sounding speakers, and I like the current B&Ws even though they are "more polite than" other more forward sounding alternatives. (Again, relative versus absolute, remember?) And I presume that your past comments about American speakers being "tizzy" or "crapola" is absolute fact and not myth, right?

Well what to you is polite is accurate and correct to me - so the relation is a preference - you admit to liking forward sounding speakers. I found nothing forward about the 100V2 compared to the 603S3 which sounded more in your face - with the 100V2 being laid back - bright but laid back. The 603S3 is more agressive than the 602 - especially in the bass clearly going for the humped up sound to suit home theater shoppers.
But this is going in circles - the point is this poster didn't like the speaker - I said roughly I bet he can find something better. .

[Pat D]

Look I don't have a problem with you mentioning a previous model as plausibly being similar t the new model - i did the same thing with the V2 and V3 and I get duped on but it is ok for you to do it with the 600 series - Patd dumps on me and not you for the simple reason that he likes one speaker and not the other. I comment on third party speakers to give them a try - giving them a try doesn't cost any money and is the best free advice to buying loudspeakers - it is also merely obvious. The poster returned the series 3 of the 20 - I heard the previous 20 the model before that and the V3 100 - so I'm right around the speaker - my comment was that it should not be hard for him to find a better speaker (implying a speaker better to him since he returned them). I made no actual comment about the speaker's sound.

I have heard the studio 100V3 in a surround set-up the center channel was discordant and rather poor with it's matching center channel - not a good surround system at all from what I heard. So what - it was set-up typical of most set-ups with big screen TV.

But this is going in circles - the point is this poster didn't like the speaker - I said roughly I bet he can find something better. .

But RGA, I have stated several times that I haven't been as impressed with the Paradigm Reference V. 3 speakers as I was with the v. 2 speakers! I disagree with Wooch on that one, but he is perfectly entitled to give his opinion and he has listened to them both extensively.

I have nothing against third party recommendations for auditions, per se, but I don't offer my own evaluations for speakers where I have no knowledge about their performance.

The fact is, RGA, that half the time you don't seem to realize what you are actually saying. For a long time, you have spent a great deal of prose dissing the Paradigm References Series. You even spent sometime bad mouthing the v. 2's, even though you hadn't yet heard them! Now we find you are doing the same with the V. 3's. Sometimes you turn around and say well, the Paradigm Reference Series aren't bad but you diss them because you think they are overhyped by--whom? Apparently the people who do like them! Then you say there are lots better speakers out there in their price range and lower, although you haven't heard the speakers (and you admit you have only heard the Studio 100, v. 3, in a poor HT set up). Sorry, that implies an evaluation of the speaker. Now you put in all sorts of qualifications about that you really only meant that since the original poster didn't like them he should be able to find ones he likes better. But that's not what you said originally.

You say the poster didn't like the speakers. Your formulation misses the fact that he did like them in the store, and thought they were better than a lot of other speakers. It was when he got them home he found he didn't like them nearly as well there.

You and I both agreed that he should look at other speakers. However, I think my advice that he be sure to try out any speakers he likes at home is more likely to give satisfaction. In store auditions can be very helpful, but they are not the same thing as trying them out at home.

[RGA]

Okay I can accept that Patd. I do not agree that it is at all necessary to listen at home before you buy however. I believe you need to compare the speakers against each other in the SAME room. The best speaker will sound the best in any room - now I grant you that when a person gets home the speaker may not sound as good there - no question - it may also sound a lot better at home than in the store if you're lucky. But if speaker A was miles better than speaker B (especially standmounts) in the store - all things like positioning and appropriate room size accounted for then speaker A should win in any room. After all it isn't the speaker's fault if the room sucks.

However I'm also willing to be this person spent more time listening to the speaker at home than he did at the store. My friend once bought a Panasonic TV that was absolutely incredibly when it came to deep blacks and vibrrant whites - at the store it was way more impressive than the Sony Toshibas so he bought it. But when you watch Schindler's List there was little definition between blacks on Oscar's lapel - watching Hockley games hurt our eyes it was too bright and the puck was black againt it. 12 days later he had to return it. Yes it was great for the 1/2 hour in the store A/Bing them but later it was far too annying when the things he thought were superior aspects in fact were the things bringing the TV's picture down. Panasonic changed the tv the next year.

People seem to refuse to accept that this could even REMOTELY be a plausible reason that someone would like the sound of a speaker for 15 minutes to 1/2 an hour and 3 weeks later really be irritated by it. It's happened to me - though I didn't buy.

I mean I like scary rollercoster rides for a short while but I don't know if I want to be on one for 8 hours. What at first was a thrill may later be highly nautious.

[Woochifer]

Look I don't have a problem with you mentioning a previous model as plausibly being similar t the new model - i did the same thing with the V2 and V3 and I get duped on but it is ok for you to do it with the 600 series - Patd dumps on me and not you for the simple reason that he likes one speaker and not the other. I comment on third party speakers to give them a try - giving them a try doesn't cost any money and is the best free advice to buying loudspeakers - it is also merely obvious. The poster returned the series 3 of the 20 - I heard the previous 20 the model before that and the V3 100 - so I'm right around the speaker - my comment was that it should not be hard for him to find a better speaker (implying a speaker better to him since he returned them). I made no actual comment about the speaker's sound.

The only reason I'm even arguing this point is because you decided to involve me in this spat that you got yourself into. You said that I was EQUATING the S3 with every other B&W, and that's simply not the case.

BTW if the 40 and the 20 sound exactly the same you're pretty silly for paying extra for the same sounding speaker. Since you have a sub and they perfectly integrate according to you then the 20 was all you needed. I realize it sounds thin and weak willed compared to the 40 - apparently your Yamaha or your hearing isn't good enough for you to tell them apart. Just like a different look and throwing money away? Sorry but the 40 is a considerably better loudspeaker because the bass draws the ear from the treble better than than the 20 - I heard them side by side as well.

The basic timbre characteristics of the two speakers are very similar, except for the better bass extension and midrange coherency with the 40s and the better imaging with the 20s. The basic tonal characteristics are otherwise identical, especially in the highs. Those differences are very similar to what I observed between the DM602 S2, DM601 S2, and DM303. And I don't think you would have judged it silly if I had opted for the 602 over the 303.

It's not a "silly" waste of money to go with the 40s, considering that I purchased the 40s nearly two years before I acquired the 20s and a year and a half before I bought a sub. When I started putting my system together, I wasn't even sure if I wanted a sub, so I knew that whatever main speakers I had would need to have enough low end extension to handle the LFE track from a 5.1 soundtrack (which incidentally does NOT get passed into the default two-channel mixdown analog output, like what you use with your DVD playback; need a HT receiver or a DVD player with built in bass management to direct the LFE into the mains or the subwoofer output). The 40 is capable of that, the 20 less so.

Pretty presumptuous of you to resort to taking shots at my hearing and my receiver for not agreeing with your assessment of "thin and weak willed" sound from the 20s. I originally auditioned the 20s and 40s in side by side listenings using both Classe and Bryston amps. In those listenings, the tonal characteristics were well matched except in those areas that I noted. In none of my listenings with either the 20 or the 40 have I ever detected anything like the "lack of dynamics" of "constipated" sound that you attribute to the 20s, but not the 40s. Whether listening thru separates or receivers, I've never noted the kinds of broad differences that you've convinced yourself of.

The bass drawing the ear away from the treble better? Are you kidding me? Where do you get this idea? As far as I'm concerned, the highs with both speakers are pretty much identical, whether I'm listening to those speakers with the bass management active or not. The only substantive difference between the speakers when the crossover is on is in the lower midrange, which is still slightly more coherent with the 40s. If I felt that the voice characteristics of the two speakers was drastically different, I would have gone with another pair of 40s for the surrounds. And if the timbre was as night and day different as you claim it is, the imaging cues with 5.1 music sources would not hold together at all. In my system, they do.

I have heard the studio 100V3 in a surround set-up the center channel was discordant and rather poor with it's matching center channel - not a good surround system at all from what I heard. So what - it was set-up typical of most set-ups with big screen TV. You bring up the CC6 only to slag B&W and it's only YOUR OPINION that it wasn't a satsifactory match - do you have any independant factual research for this conclusion that B&W didn't match the center channel - or did you just look at the woofer material and draw your conclusion. The match for that series was the LCR 60 and LCR 600 - I don't particularly think the LCR 60 series 2 was particularly good. Others may like it including reviewers.

And if I remember from your description of that listening, the center speaker was placed high on top of a big screen TV, and you had no information about the calibration levels (and you didn't describe the speaker alignment either). That's more an indictment of the setup than the center speaker itself. You could drop a B&W Nautilus center speaker (which incidentally I think is an excellent match for the other Nautilus series speakers) in that same room with timbre matched speakers and it too could sound "discordant" if the calibration and placement aren't done right. Out of all the stores in my area that I've visited, only two of them specifically arranged the surround speakers according the ITU reference standard (which is the alignment that's most commonly used to mix the 5.1 soundtracks in the first place) and Dolby's guidelines, so it's not like properly aligned and calibrated demos are that common to begin with, even among high end stores. Unless you're visiting a dealer that knows how all the pieces fit together, and how much more critical the alignment and calibration are with a 5.1 setup than a two-channel setup, you're not getting anywhere near an optimal demostration of a surround soundtrack. (Those dealers in my area that use the ITU alignment in their demo rooms also use center speaker stands that put those units at a more proper height)

Yeah, my opinion on the CC6 IS MY opinion! And I voice my displeasure about that speaker not to diss on B&W in general (because I have otherwise given B&W many a recommendation on this board), but to tell posters that they need to double check the center speaker match for themselves before they finalize their decision. That would be my opinion for ANY center speaker, but especially so if I know that a company has cranked out center and surround speakers that were not up to the standard of their mains. And you can look up the info if you want, but the CC6 WAS one of the two "matching" center speakers for the 600 S2 series.

Pretty funny that you're now asking for some independent verification of my assessment when so many of your posts go on deriding measurements, reviews, and third party assessments. I drew my conclusion based on what I HEARD. Yes, it was a sighted listening, but the calibration and placement for that evaluation were done correctly.

Well what to you is polite is accurate and correct to me - so the relation is a preference - you admit to liking forward sounding speakers. I found nothing forward about the 100V2 compared to the 603S3 which sounded more in your face - with the 100V2 being laid back - bright but laid back. The 603S3 is more agressive than the 602 - especially in the bass clearly going for the humped up sound to suit home theater shoppers.
But this is going in circles - the point is this poster didn't like the speaker - I said roughly I bet he can find something better. .

Again, you're presuming that you know what my definitions for all those terms are relative to yours.

The point is the poster did not like the speaker AT HOME, which only reiterates the importance of room acoustics when evaluating speakers. What sounds good in one room might sound terrible in another.

[Pat D]

Okay I can accept that Patd. I do not agree that it is at all necessary to listen at home before you buy however. I believe you need to compare the speakers against each other in the SAME room. The best speaker will sound the best in any room - now I grant you that when a person gets home the speaker may not sound as good there - no question - it may also sound a lot better at home than in the store if you're lucky. But if speaker A was miles better than speaker B (especially standmounts) in the store - all things like positioning and appropriate room size accounted for then speaker A should win in any room. After all it isn't the speaker's fault if the room sucks.

However I'm also willing to be this person spent more time listening to the speaker at home than he did at the store. My friend once bought a Panasonic TV that was absolutely incredibly when it came to deep blacks and vibrrant whites - at the store it was way more impressive than the Sony Toshibas so he bought it. But when you watch Schindler's List there was little definition between blacks on Oscar's lapel - watching Hockley games hurt our eyes it was too bright and the puck was black againt it. 12 days later he had to return it. Yes it was great for the 1/2 hour in the store A/Bing them but later it was far too annying when the things he thought were superior aspects in fact were the things bringing the TV's picture down. Panasonic changed the tv the next year.

People seem to refuse to accept that this could even REMOTELY be a plausible reason that someone would like the sound of a speaker for 15 minutes to 1/2 an hour and 3 weeks later really be irritated by it. It's happened to me - though I didn't buy.

I mean I like scary rollercoster rides for a short while but I don't know if I want to be on one for 8 hours. What at first was a thrill may later be highly nautious.

It is impossible to cover every contingent. Yes, it is possible that someone does not listen sufficiently in the store--but Jochem's post suggests otherwise. He mentions drums, winds and strings, so it seems he tried a variety of music. He didn't mention vocals but then it is reproduction of the upper strings that seems to be a problem. I am not sure what you would expect him to do he did not do.

Guess what? In the store, he thought the Paradigms a) sounded pretty good, and b) beat the competition, which included those B & W 603s you think beat the Paradigm Studio 20--even though you haven't heard it in the v. 3, nor apparently any of the v. 3 Reference Series speakers in a decent set up. I think there are a lot of things one can find out in a store, notably the midrange and and highs, which are above the largest room effects, especially if you make sure the store places the speakers reasonably well. Very likely, many of the faults and virtues exhibited by a speaker in the store will show themselves at home, too, but probably not all of them. A store audition will not tell you how they are going to fare at home where the acoustics are probably quite different. I've been at this a good deal longer than you have. I have been through this in recent months, having brought home both the Mirage M7 and the Paradigm Studio 40, v. 2 for home audition, and they just didn't work very well in our home.

However, if we follow your reasoning, the Studio 20 should beat all those other speakers in Jochem's home, too. This does not necessarily follow, far from it. Maybe he would prefer the B & W 603 at home, you really don't know. It is quite possible that the speaker which sounds best to you in the store may not sound so good at home whereas another speaker will sound better at home. Happens all the time and there can be good reasons for it. Your advice here not only goes against my own experience and against the advice of just about every audio expert I have ever known or read.

[RGA]

"Your advice here not only goes against my own experience and against the advice of just about every audio expert I have ever known or read."

A violin should sound like a violin in any room - I will agree to disagree and go with Peter Q on this one - his speakers have shown a nice ability to win out in all the rooms(of different sizes) and with the very different variety of gear attached - in or out of their ideal postiton.

But to each their own - It's not like this is a fight for world peace so Jochem good luck with whatever speaker you get and to the dynamic duo I'm happy you enjoy my country's loudspeakers.

[Pat D]

"Your advice here not only goes against my own experience and against the advice of just about every audio expert I have ever known or read."

A violin should sound like a violin in any room - I will agree to disagree and go with Peter Q on this one - his speakers have shown a nice ability to win out in all the rooms(of different sizes) and with the very different variety of gear attached - in or out of their ideal postiton.

But to each their own - It's not like this is a fight for world peace so Jochem good luck with whatever speaker you get and to the dynamic duo I'm happy you enjoy my country's loudspeakers.

I don't think you've thought this one out. This is what British comedian Michael Flanders said in Flanders and Swann's number, "A Song of Reproduction," as close as I can remember it off hand:

"They want the sound of an orchestra actually playing in their sitting room. Personally, I can't think of anything I should hate more than having an orchestra actually playing in my sitting room! But they seem to like it . . ."

What happened to the idea of creating the illusion of hearing a performance in a much larger hall or whatever ambience the recording was made in?