Paradigm Monitor series questions...

[IRG]

Cam

You are probably right -- A dealer in Qualicham the next town over from me carries Paradigm and they only carry the very entry Paradigm standmounts because they're cheap (Atom and Titan) and then they carry the 7,9 and Studio 100. They said people are unwilling to spend big dollars on the 20, 40 or even the 5 because the speakers don;t have enough bass and the 7 is only a little more than the 5 here ($125.00 more or so). The 40 they sat on for 18 months. They have a 705 though -- sold exactly one in the last 5 months.

Most average folks do not listen to classical strings they listen to blue collar music --- so do I and it's no insult but Joe sixpack want AC/DC and he wants it loud with impact and a bit of box noise isn;t so bad if you get BALLS in your system. All of these standmounts have none of this in any credible way.

If you get the chance to hear a Cerwin Vega D9 one day or one of the replacements which use a 15 inch woofer then you'll know what I mean -- They are by no means perfect with numerous obvious problems - but one can buy one of these PARTY speakers and I bet most people listening to the heavy rock are going to laugh at monitors and so they should. When you go to ANY nightclub they usually have some monster JBL with huge woofer and gigantic horn -- lots of them played real loud. Sorry but most monitors are not going to do that.

He said selling a Monitor at $1300.00 versus a floorstander like the B&W 603S3 for ~$14000.00Cdn --- the customers were buying them at a clip of 20-1. And I can tell you right now that if it's between spending $2300.00 on the B&W 705 which is laughably pathetic with anything of bass or dynamic or dynamic bass content, and the B&W 604S3 which is reasonably competant in the bass for $2000.00 ($300.00 less money and I don't need to pay extra for for stands), there is simply no contest as to which one I would buy. The colouration offered up by the 604 is a good trade for the puny bass, dynamics offerred up by the 705.

The sad part is that the Monitor 3 I would probably buy over the 705 as well...and the reason is that for the price difference I could buy a $2000.00 Rel Subwoofer for the differnece. Yeah maybe the 705 has a better tweeter but -- the 3/Rel combbo would kill it under 100hz.

And I think you are right, at least when it comes to Joe six pack. I find myself in the middle - just like my politics (I'm a moderate!). I like to crank the metal now and then, but also love to listen to the wonderfully played violin of Hillary Hahn.

One thing is for sure - the ability to find and buy quality speakers today is much better than say 10 years ago. The quality of speakers like the Energy C-3, Monitor 3, JM Labs Chorus, PSB Image, etc. would be given rave reviews and would sell for $1k+ a decade ago. Now it's the Von Schweikerts, etc. that get the rave reviews at $1k. Just think what might be affordable in 2015. The Reference 3A could be the next Mini-Monitor. Or not.

Anyway, a speaker like the JM Labs 706 S Chorus with a good sub (I'm still not paying $2k for a sub though) is probably the way I will go until something more affordable comes along. Or my budget expands, or both. I hope to listen to the Monitor 3 today, and see how that compares. I can get it pretty cheap, so it is worth an audition at least.

However, besides sound, aesthetics also comes into play for me, and the Monitors don't really cut it, nor does my C-3, although they aren't bad. Here is where I do like speakers like the CDMT-1nt or the 705- they do look sharp. But not at their prices. The VR-1 are a nice in-between speaker therefore. I think even your AN have grown on me a little bit. Not the prices though, that will have to wait.

I should correct myself in that I don't really want "sizzle" that is the wrong adjective, but I do look for very clear, open spacious highs that seem to be very lifelike. No veiled or rolled of highs. Accuracy is key, and if a recording is bright, the speaker will show that, if the recording is dull then that is what you will also hear.

[RGA]

IRG

Actully I think speakers are worse for the money today than they were 10 or even 15 years ago. Consider, and sure I may have a bias but my Wharfedale Vangaurds which were failry popular speakers -- they were $2k...looking around today at what I can buy for $2k and other than technobabbling reviews I would be VERY hard pressed to vouch for $2k speakers. Though I will concede that many new speakers will create a more realistic soundstage and they may image better -- and they probably have a flatter response -- say the Studio 100V3 and B&W 604S3. On the other hand the Wharfedales use real wood, 20lb woofer magnets, Fostex ringdac horn tweeters(or very close oem variant), can play louder than either of them and ocmpletely embarrass them dynamically -- they sound bigger fullerr have more impact a smoother less etchy treble...and seem to go deeper in the bass(though it may just be that they can play it's bass at louder levels which is even more important).

So certainly there are newer speakers that have better attributes but they also draw attention to what they lost IMO -- one can;t throw the baby out with the bathwater and then say it's an improvement because they bought a new bathtub (ie; we're still missing the baby). I don't find standmounts better either -- heck from the same companies I can't even agree. Most people I know even B&W fans would say that the B&W Matrix 805 is better than the N805 -- I would argue that the CDM 2SE is the best standmount other than the M805 that they have made ...the DM 302 was IMO better than the 303. Missions older stuff is better than their new stuff. Ditto for Klipsch.

Even my Audio Note's are 1980 Snell inspired -- the owner knew that much of the problems could be worked out not completely chucked out for a good looks and cheap parts. Some companies have largely felt the same way -- Magnepan and Quad for a start.

[thepogue]

you throw some BS like this...

"say the Studio 100V3 and B&W 604S3. On the other hand the Wharfedales use real wood, 20lb woofer magnets, Fostex ringdac horn tweeters(or very close oem variant), can play louder than either of them and ocmpletely embarrass them dynamically ..."

now help me out brudda...where can I read about this face off? where is the data to support this blow out?...are we talking all Wharfedales models? were not just talkin better than.....we're talking BLOW AWAY DYNAMICALLY....please.. I've done a internet search and can't find a bloody thing that leads me to beleive this WTF!!! or could it be...that you might just happen to own a set?...why do you do this?...it's sooo damned transparent
...over and over again...pleaseeeee stooppppppp!!! ppppplllllleeeeaaaaasssseeeee...cant you just say...this is what I own AN...Wharfedales...bla bla bla...and suggest that others might like it too?...why so deep a story line? It always sounds like your trying to justify what you own...and that you've got some brillant secreat that your just now unvailing..it makes you sound like as arse...sorry...it does.....son..get a grip.....please...and stop stalking Peter...he's afriad of you..and he thinks your hurting his stock.....and leave those poor guys alone at "Your" hi-fi shop...they talk about you when you leave...they wish you had a girlfriend...I do too....I'm your friend...you sound too old for your age...you talk like you've seen it all...heard it all...then we find out you dont drive a car....that looks silly...but it's good for the local eco-system...but never the less it looks silly......you need a pet, one that needs to be taken on walks......drink more...study less...take a month off the computer...play D&D with some ole buddies...without calling your fighter "AN the annihilator"....stop hugging your speakers....they like you for taking them home..but not that much...stop thinking we're all knott-heads...we know you like the stuff you bought (AN)....ok...thats cool...now leave us alone...we're all adult...if we're all silly for not buying the best like you did...so-be-it...let us wallow in out stupidity...play baseball...be a youth leader...take up weilding for a hobby...ok...now go..and sin no-more...and come back and enjoy...and stop sounding like a deaperate AN amway dealer...we'll buy them if we want...not a second before.......whew..

end rant...

BTW I still love you RGA....

Peace, Pogue

[RGA]

Yes a month off might be good.

I don;t want to seem to be like those religious converter folk "trust in me for I shall lead you to God -- otherwise you'll burn in hell -- Christians Catholics Jehova's -- man if i've turned into that then yikes.

[IRG]

Yes a month off might be good.

I don;t want to seem to be like those religious converter folk "trust in me for I shall lead you to God -- otherwise you'll burn in hell -- Christians Catholics Jehova's -- man if i've turned into that then yikes.

I kinda agree with the Pogue too. You may not have noticed how influenced you have become by Peter, although it isn't hard to imagine. I had a good friend from college that ended up in a religious cult (he was not the religious type at all) and ended up being kidnapped back by his parents to be deprogrammed. He was even on the TV show 20/20 about the experience. Not saying the same thing here is true of course, but it is easy to see how one person with a wealth of experience can be so influential. Yet it doesn't mean they are right. AN may be a fine product, although most of us can't hear/see it because it isn't readily available. Too expensive for most people, and even those who can afford it won't. True about most high end audio I guess, not just AN.

I disagree with you though about speakers in the last 10 years. Your reference as others pointed out, is extremely limited. Speakers from Paradigm, PSB, Energy, Axiom, B&W, etc. that sell quality speakers under $1k (and many under $500) are of much higher quality for the money than 10-20 years ago. Not that there weren't fine products 10 years ago, but today there is more to choose from, at all price levels.

[Woochifer]

I disagree with you though about speakers in the last 10 years. Your reference as others pointed out, is extremely limited. Speakers from Paradigm, PSB, Energy, Axiom, B&W, etc. that sell quality speakers under $1k (and many under $500) are of much higher quality for the money than 10-20 years ago. Not that there weren't fine products 10 years ago, but today there is more to choose from, at all price levels.

I think you nailed it right there. The state of speakers right now is such that differences have narrowed a lot and you don't have as many of the very distinct sounds that before would get associated with a particular company or region (i.e. the "west coast" sound, the "New England" sound, the "British" sound). But, at the expense of blurring the distinctions and losing some of the personality that speakers used to have, the current speakers in general are higher in quality and you don't have the extreme inconsistency that existed 20 years ago.

Back then, the personalities of most speakers were defined by their most extreme colorations. But, it's not necessarily a good thing to instantly identify the sound of a particular speaker, when in actuality the speaker is supposed to reproduce a source signal as transparently as possible. The biggest difference nowadays is that you can find plenty of credible sounding speakers in the entry level price points, whereas before most of the entry level speakers sounded awful, and not just in subtle ways. Speakers are still where you find the biggest contrasts in audio, but at least now, those contrasts are less likely to make you cringe.

[RGA]

Woocifer et al...I understand the notion that it's not necesarily a good idea to be able to identify a given sound as the new England sound -- I may not be old enough to get most of those references but I don;t really think that has changed -- I can identify an electrostat and planar versus a boxed enclosure.

Also, if a homogenous sound is going to be the ideal where all speakers want to sound like all other speakers it had better be the RIGHT sound -- and despite what is out there there is no evidence that PROVES it's being done correctly.

I was in a shop several weeks ago -- a used cd seller and he had in the corners some music playing through some old I believe Celestions or AR 3's whatever they were they must have been at least 15 years old. Right next store to this shop is a major retailer called A&B sound that sells a number of currently popular speakers - a friend of mine plays acoustic guitar and is in a band...regardless the old speakers played the same music and it was absoutely phenomenal -- the new ones played them but left us cold.

I have no problem with the notion that speakers today offer a similar sound across the board because most of them are vry very similar -- so similar that many people want to sepnd weeks at home with several pairs -- so they are hardly so different to be knocked out of the running quickly. They are notidentical but the differences are small. Whereas in 1990 which was when I just started to get into it, you had wildly different speakers - Cerwin Vega fat 15 inch woofers, My wharfedale horns Klipsch was very popular then with the big 12 inch and a horn in a two way enclosure, the crazy Bose 901s . Then you had a number of slim boxes showing up -- Wharfedale changed approach and went to the Modus line presumably to copy B&W. Gone were the Boston Acoustics and Snell fatter boxes for slim boxes and some very expesnive ones put side firing subwoofers in their enclosures. I have heard the fat and thin the planar and panel and read the reviews all of these years even being published several times in UHF.

This is ultimately a personal issue I take with some of this because my speakers are based off a late 1970's design and so it's hard to remove my listening sessions from my take on other people's views. It is very hard to read the theory and then have it go the other way in the listening room -- and I believe my very first post of a 5 speaker review I had done a few years ago had me more puzzled by it all --- it should have went very differently.

I can't speak to speakers from the 1970's too well but I don't see how mathematics has been drastically changed to such a degree -- allmost every review I read of a panel speaker the review always says something like speaker design has not progressed yada yadda... Perhaps the drivers, the wiring and crossovers but the theory? the bosx and cabinet shape? I dunno.

Or perhpas everyone is talking in genaralities in that generally speaker an entry level speaker today was better than an entry level speaker back then across the board - sort of like a Pro-Ject Debut table today being better than a Fisher turntable back in the 1970s for similar dollar considered equivelant. But the Linn LP 12 back then is still a bit of King in many circles even against more expensive brand new stuff.

I remember years ago in the mid 80s where Cadilachad put out a new flagship vehicle and were going to have a publicity stunt against a Rolls Royce -- apparently knowing full well that Rolls would refuse the challenge because they custom built them(built to order) then and no such vehicle. This would then be a kind of coup that Rolls chickened out. However Rolls agreed to the challenge in thatthey would put up a 10 or 15 year old model they had on hand which had few hundred thousand Miles already on it. To which cadilac then refused. Obviously.

I believe regardless that people should have as much varying choice in what they want to buy...If ultimately that is X brand is not the issue -- but I would like to go into a store where Y and Z don't sound almost exactly the same.

One of the big reasons I bought my Wharfedales was interestingly the way it presented Mancini's The Pink Panther theme...I was young and probably jumped into it too fast arguably but it presented it differently and seemingly more truthful(of course not being at the recording studio who knows), either way it sounded better than the other speakers to me - other horns even like the Klispch were completely different. These speakers are not bad they have given good musical enjoyment for over 15 years.

I like to use B&W as a good example -- the Matrix 801 is very widely considered to be better sounding than the Nautilus 801 and same for the 805. The matrix suffers from poorer quality parts granted and those can now be rectified with varous advancements that make the Matrix series better than it was. The Matrix was what 1980, the Nautilus in new form is 2005...and even these statement speakers of then and now are not totally different -- they are closer in sound than people in both camps would like to admit I suspect.

[kexodusc]

RGA: Stats and planars and and box speakers, even ported vs. sealed, transmission line vs. passive radiator etc are all usually very noticeable because these are huge fundamental design changes.
I think Wooch was more referring to the traditional "flavors" that a 2 or 3 way reflex system would have a few years back...the so called warm, bright, forward, etc buzzwords that have worked their way into receivers now too. A lot more tuning was done by ear back then, where as todays perfectionists spend thousands of hours running simulations to make a speaker as neutral sounding as possible, even if it doesn't suit their preference.
Designs come and go, but RGA, I think your really stretching the truth when you say the AN J or E is based on a 1970's design...maybe the cabinet dimensions, but there's been so many tweaks, modifications, driver improvements, etc in the last 30 years that it's not really fair to call it old technology. And old compared to what? Most of the modern slim-line design speakers aren't using any fancy new technology either, slim-line cabinets were around back then too but in the absence of advanced computer simulation programs, both crossover work and cabinet design work were much more difficult and costly, so they didn't catch on until they became cheaper to make. Designers tended to resort to golden rule figures because it was cheaper and easier.
I believe that most research in the last 10 years or so hasn't gone as much into improving sound as it has into reducing production costs. Perhaps with the exception being in driver design - the push for cleaner-while-louder (but not necessarily better sound). A $300 pair of bookshelfs today would cost $25 back in $1975, and for $25 you wouldn't be able to buy much back then People forget this. Even looking at speakers from 15 years ago and today, my Wharfedale Emeralds had a higher retail price in 1993 than my my Studio 40's in 2003, yet I like the Studio 40's a bit better (but I got the Emeralds used for $250!!! )
Today's entry level speakers are much better than yesterdays. The higher-end products haven't enjoyed the same economies over time because their just isn't enough business to justify the massive investments. I believe those who are fortunate to have the luxury of exceptional sounding speakers in their homes are often too hard on lower end speakers because they've been spoiled. Remember they aren't made with you in mind...they're made with people considering buying Boomboxes in mind, and in this they are incredibly successful.

It's amazing how often the AR-3's get brought up...Someone should buy the rights to these and find a way to mass produce them to lower cost without compromising sound!

[oddeoowphil38]

Does anyone like the Monitor 3 over the minimonitor? At this price point, I can get the JMLabs Chorus 706 S for about the same price, and I would probably go for those. TOugh to decide when I can't hear both back to back. Good luck with the move to New Orleans. I've never been there, but will be there in May for a conference. Supposed to be a fun town!

Hello there I am a newbie here. But I must tell you that I really like the monitor 3's. They a have more presence and are fuller sounding as compared to the mini's. The 3's also play a lil deeper than the mini's because of the 8" midbass vs. the 61/2" on the mini's. Just thought I would add my two cents so to speak. Good luck on your descision and remember what works for you is paramount. That is, speaker choice is highly subjective -so if one brand sounds better to you then go with them and be done with it or you will go insane like I did.

[IRG]

Hello there I am a newbie here. But I must tell you that I really like the monitor 3's. They a have more presence and are fuller sounding as compared to the mini's. The 3's also play a lil deeper than the mini's because of the 8" midbass vs. the 61/2" on the mini's. Just thought I would add my two cents so to speak. Good luck on your descision and remember what works for you is paramount. That is, speaker choice is highly subjective -so if one brand sounds better to you then go with them and be done with it or you will go insane like I did.

I ended up buying the Monior 3 and have liked them quite a bit. I auditioned them with what I formerly owned, the Energy C-3, and the Monitor 3 is a fuller sounding speaker. I also auditioned them to the more expensive Paradigm Reference 20 v3, and surprisingly on some music, I preferred the Monitor 3, and other music (classical) I preferred the 20. Overall, I would have taken the 20 if the cost was similar, but since they were more than twice the cost, I was happy enough with the Monitor 3. My next purchase is a better sub that will really make the Monitor 3s shine.

[Feanor]

...
Anyway, I am curious about the Paradugm Monitor series, I never considered it before (and didn't think I had a local dealer, and now I do). I have heard great things about the Reference series (which the dealer also sells) but it is a bit out of my price range new.
....

I have MiniMonitors, (V.3, I believe), as fronts in my HT system. They're OK but not great -- limited bass, somewhat forward and colored mid-range. I originally bought them for my main system but I wished I'd saved my money.

I replaced them there with Magneplanar MMG's. The Maggies wasted them in every respect, at least with accoustic music.

From your profile I see you have Energy C3's. If I were you I'd keep those until I had the cash for at least, say, the Paradigm Reference Studio 40's.

[kexodusc]

Hey Kex, I agree that the mini's coupled together with a capable sub would meet most peoples needs. The mini's are a very good recommendation. You say your preference would be for the 5's, I'm just wondering though, have you actually heard them, I know you have the studio 40's so maybe you are biased towards this style of standmount. Both RGA and I would most definetaly recommend the less expensive 3 over the 5. The 3 sounds alot better in everyway (to me) and save you some money as well. Maybe the studio line the 40's are better then the 20's but maybe in the monitor line the 5's are a step back from the 3's. For the most part, I have never heard anyone say anything good about the 5's except you and Wooch and both you guys have the 40's. Hmmmm, I heard the 5's and believe me you, they suck, and I'm not surprised they have sold so poorly.

Cam:
I don't know how I missed this post, but I've been having "issues" with the auto-email thing...
Anyhoo, just to clarify: I have a cousin who until recently owned the Monitor 5's...I'm extremely familiar with them. To me the Monitor 3 had the poorest midrange response of all the Monitors...I attribute this solely to that 8" woofer. It pounds the bass though, and when I say poorest mid-range, I don't mean that it's bad, just not quite as nice as the others (there's a larger Monitor with the 8" woofer too, I think...I confess I haven't heard this one). The Monitor 5 has a much tighter, more accurate, and punchy bass sound IMO, while preserving the superior midrange. It's a bit more money than 3, but I like it better for these reasons. It seemed to me to be a bit more dynamic too, not as stressed when musical pasages get busy.
I flip-flop between the Mini and Monitor 5 as being best value in that line.
Interestingly enough, I'm not sure I like the Studio 40 that much better than 20's except that the bass is a definite improvement, and it made listening to 2-channel stereo better. I bought mine used but I think if I was buying new, I would have had to listen more closely between the 20 and 40....I used a subwoofer always so the extra bass might not have been justification for the added price...I'll never know now though.

[IRG]

Cam:
I don't know how I missed this post, but I've been having "issues" with the auto-email thing...
Anyhoo, just to clarify: I have a cousin who until recently owned the Monitor 5's...I'm extremely familiar with them. To me the Monitor 3 had the poorest midrange response of all the Monitors...I attribute this solely to that 8" woofer. It pounds the bass though, and when I say poorest mid-range, I don't mean that it's bad, just not quite as nice as the others (there's a larger Monitor with the 8" woofer too, I think...I confess I haven't heard this one). The Monitor 5 has a much tighter, more accurate, and punchy bass sound IMO, while preserving the superior midrange. It's a bit more money than 3, but I like it better for these reasons. It seemed to me to be a bit more dynamic too, not as stressed when musical pasages get busy.
I flip-flop between the Mini and Monitor 5 as being best value in that line.
Interestingly enough, I'm not sure I like the Studio 40 that much better than 20's except that the bass is a definite improvement, and it made listening to 2-channel stereo better. I bought mine used but I think if I was buying new, I would have had to listen more closely between the 20 and 40....I used a subwoofer always so the extra bass might not have been justification for the added price...I'll never know now though.

I'm not cam, but your comments surprised me. I thought the midrange of the 3 better than the mini. It seems fuller to me, and not just bass. It was also better than the Energy C-3 I had before it. I did not hear the Monitor 5 though. My dealer rarely orders them, I think he said in the number of years he has been selling Paradigm, only 2 customer wanted them. Others on this site and other places didn't give the monitor 5 high praises either. Originally that was going to be my choice. It is also a pretty large speaker, so that alone creates some different issues, as in stand height.

You mentioned the Monitor 3 pounds the bass because of its larger woofer. I thought the Reference 20 v3 I listened to pounded the bass even more so, especially on rock materials. At times it almost seemed more bloated to me, although on strings and some vocals I preferred it. To each his own I guess.

The monitor 3's midrange to me sounded better than the mini, and even better with a subwoofer which I use. That can change things as well. Some people have mentioned that the best value in the line is actually the Monitor 7, which I didn't really get to audition, but without stands being needed, and possibly not even a sub if you do 2 channel music and not need it for rap, this could indeed be the best value.

I've seen more 2 way moniors using a larger woofer size, like Reference 3A, B&W 602, and some others. Maybe not a trend, but not all monitors need to be a 5 or 6" woofer anymore. It seems that the midrange as well as bass can be improved with a slightly larger woofer.

[RGA]

IRG

Well I agree with you on the Monitor 3 which I heard again recently -- the 5 is punchier in the bass but then that is hardly a good thing necessarily. Do I want an organ to sound punchy or the low notes of a piano -- I find most every "so-called" punchy speaker is insufferably bad at recreating acoustic instruments - they sound strained, thin and bright.

Take the acoustic Guitarist Jesse Cook -- the Monitor 5 IMO is unlistenable to my ears with guitar works -- it sounds bright on leading edges with an exagerration on leading edges -- the monitor 3 isn;t free either but it's acceptable for the fact that it's a lot less expensive and it seems to be able to create more body to the guitar box...that's the problem to me these days the box resonance of an instrument is critical NOT JUST the leading edge of the string pics.

I don't expect the world from this price range of course and the monitor 5 is by no means a bad speaker for this money $599.00Cdn. For $101.00 more the AX Two lays a world of hurt on it though. For $379.00 or so the Monitor 3 is a better value to me. It has a fuller kind of sound which compensates to the ear for weaknesses...they say much of speaker design is art -- art at hiding the faults of the product -- they all have their faults so give me the best artists.