Paradigm Studio 20 vs B&W 602 S3

[RGA]

Kex

Well I agree if I'm Totem and I get the kind of sales I get at Soundhounds I can;t stay in business - so A&B Sound (alla Future shop without the appliances and computers) comes along - you instantly get into a place where there is high volume people and a tenfold increase in stores.

My reason for suggesting Totem could suffer - and they may not is that one out of the high end stores they will be perceived less so as high end speakers. IMO they really are not a high end speaker though - they cost more and they are beautifully finished but the Model One is grossly overrated and always has been - it's great for the size - but what does that really say?

Take the Arro - was $1500.00Cdn now it's $1100.00 - every Totem they sell has dropped like a stone in price - people who go to these kinds of stores are not going to pay the premium - so A&B sound puts a demand on Totem and the prices drop - Totem now loses money - so maybe they skimp.

After hearing their $4000.00 Hawk - I'm amazed anyone could possibly justify that as a good speaker to buy at that price - I must say the frequency response specs look quite impressive on paper but the sound at $4k

Then again it' obviously more than JUST sound quality - look at B&O - if Totem is viewed as being sexy people will pay for it - very few "look" as nice as Totem - and unlike B&O Totem makes very good sounding speakers - but I feel you pay about double for the looks

[kexodusc]

Yeah the Hawk wasn't at the top of my list either, but I'm not sure it's fair to say you pay "double for the looks", there's more than a few $4000 speakers out there that are butt-ugly that don't sound as nice as the Hawk. But I will admit, veneer, and woodwork doesn't come cheap.

As for the Arro, I think this price drop is more indicative of 2 factors: 1) the sharp decrease in Totem's cost of acquiring high end Peerless and Vifa-Speak drivers from Denmark with the dollar increase (everybit as good as Dynaudio, though I'm not sure if substituting drivers like Totem did is a great practice)
2) Reconsidering how much mark-up is appropriate on their speakers.

I have a friend back in Maine who runs a small A/V shop, and from what he tells me mark-ups on speakers vary a lot from company to company, with some as low as 20% to others at over 200% markup. He's observed that over the last few years, mark-ups on entry level speakers have decreased substantially, especially for smaller companies, forcing manufacturing to be done overseas for smaller companies, and with the HT boom, the so-called "mid-fi" market has become more competitive. But high mark-ups still exist on speakers in the $1500 USD range and higher because the competition hasn't grown so rediculously fast.
FWIW, since I've come back to Canada, I've observed alot of differences in pricing for not only speakers, but all audio gear. Totem appears a bit more competitive abroad. Harman's stuff is rediculously expensive in Canada. Not sure, but this could have some bearing on Totem's pricing schemes as well.

With Totem, I think you also pay a bit of a premium for the compact size most of their speakers have. And I haven't heard many speakers image better than Totem's bookshelfs, the Rainmaker in particular. Some people do care about looks, size, in addition to speakers. If I was in a small room, that would almost be essential.

[Woochifer]

Maybe I'm not being clear - a book and a movie are closer than music is to either. Most Novels, Plays and Films have a story arc which usually begins with soem kind of intro or set-up, rising action to build suspense, a climax, falling action, and some sort of conclusion and denoument. The Novel is read and you the reader place the images and sound in your mind - language is descriptive because it requires the reader to fill in the visuals tastes smells and sounds that are not there. The play is a visual and has sound - it is real live braeathing and engages the audience in a way film can not approach. Films have the advantage of, for the actor, that mistakes can be re-shot it is and always will be exactly the same and it is stamped for all time - spectacle is placed high (which is low on Aristotle's form of good plays) usually higher than everything else. Films also have the best opportunity to manipulate audiences. Spielberg gets blasted for this often in criticl circles by using the rising music to suck out a tear from the audience - I defend him on that because the so called greater directors like Kubrick used camera tricks and colour to induce emotion or other feelings.

The experience though with live music and live theater present a more limited range of experiences -- i.e. you're limited to what can be rendered inside whatever room you're in and whatever can be performed in real time. That's why I don't think that music should be limited to recreating a concert hall acoustic performance or movies limited to whatever can be performed in real time on a stage in front of a live audience.

Movies present a broader palatte of what they can do both visually and aurally, and they can move across a broader range of situations and scenery, and render those with more of sense of reality and place. That's why I think the surround sound adds immeasurably to viewing a movie, because it takes you into another reality the same way that the moving pictures do, except that the surround sound can create go outside of the screen area and give you the back side coverage that you would get in a real life situation.

I simply go back to the T2 argument - It was better in the theater than it is at home - and it's not because I' not currently running rear channels - it's because the screen isn't as big. AHHNOLd's head isn;t the size of truck on a 27 inch tv - I am presently about 6 feet from my tv watching some Star trek Enterprise thing watching ships fly through space and ain;t no Enterprise on the big screen. I have been to FS and even their big screen tvs - while much better in the big department won't have me avoiding the movie theater(though what look to be bad films are).

Again, you're focusing strictly on the spectacle aspect of action pics to make your point. I've been saying that the surround sound brings you closer to the action, even if it's just a bunch of people standing around chatting about pie recipes. Having a fully appointed surround system is not about making things out of scale with the image, it's about bringing everything about a movie as close to real-life scale as possible, regardless of how big or small the image you're looking at is. The illusion of being a part of the scene is just as applicable, whether that sound is coupled with a portable TV or a full-wall projection system.

And on T2, I will say that the sound portion of the movie was far more involving at home with that great DTS ES soundtrack that came with the Ultimate Edition DVD. My home theater gives better dialog intelligibility, more convincing surround imaging, better tonal balance, better rendering of subtle sounds and ambient cues, etc. Better picture in the theater yes, but soundwise, there are only a few theater sound systems that I would prefer to what I get at home. And besides, what theater close to where you live is currently showing T2? You like it better in the theater sure, but when do you get to see it? If I feel like watching the movie, I simply pull out the DVD and play it.

I'm picky - If I'm going to get home theater at home or better it as the claims may be that requires me to FEEL that that is the case - there is absolutely nothing about the picture size and or quality of televsion screens and DVD resolution that makes me buy into the picture quality. The picture Quality I don't care too much about but I'd like the size impression(the impression of scale) as for sound how exactly do you know for sure what isthe appropriate time delay and level of a bird chirping should be at the rear channel - I can;t believe all movies are recorded in exactly the same standard and volume level so the bird chirp in the first movie may be louder in the next movie - one reason I disliked Prologic is because I was fiddling with the remote every single film. This moive needs the center turned up and the rears down then the next movie some other issue and then you turn one thing up and some breaks some glass and it blows you out the door.

Yeah, but there are many levels of picture quality that far surpass what you currently get with a 27" standard resolution 4:3 TV. Once you start getting into widescreen HDTVs, then it doesn't take much more than about 50" to give you about the same peripheral vision coverage as you would get in a multiplex theater. Again, you sit closer to the screen at home that you would at a movie theater, so it's not about matching the image size one for one. DVDs won't give you the necessary resolution to rival the image quality of film, but true HD resolution comes pretty close, especially when you consider the variability of the projection and print quality at most movie theaters.

Not all movies are recorded the same, the same that not all music is recorded the same. But, movie sound has guidelines in regard to the levels with multichannel soundtracks. There's generally more consistency with how movie soundtracks are recorded and mastered than with music. The levels for individual effects are the discretion of whoever's mixing it, but at least with 5.1 you're getting the intended effect put forth by the filmmakers.

Forget about Pro Logic if you're discussing surround sound. That has zero relevance to what's incorporated into most DVD releases nowadays. Pro Logic is inconsistent because it varies by the stereo separation of source. And with analog devices, it can wildly vary. Different VCRs can produce huge variations in how much information gets directed to the center and surround channels, and broadcast TV stereo is even worse. Discrete 5.1 is just that, discrete. You'll get the same channel balances going through your system, no matter what source equipment you use. Can't say that about Pro Logic.

[fahertyps]

I've heard both of these speakers at two separate local dealers and I liked the sound from both of them. I'm going to see if I can audition both sets in home but I'd also like some thoughts from people out there that have either set of speakers.

1. The studios are ~800 retal and the 602s are ~600. I know price doesn't necessarily mean better quality but why are the studios 200 more?

2. Can anyone recommend a stand for either of these speakers? The girlfriend really likes the Bello stands we saw at a dealer.

I can get them online for a lot cheaper here:
http://www.racksandstands.com/cats/A...tands/0C97.htm

3. I watch movies 80% of the time so the center channel is going to be important. Which brand has a better matching center?

Thanks for any input. Hopefully I'll be able to audition them in house soon.

I was looking at Paradigm also, I own a Paradigm HT system and really like it. Several folks on this Forum suggested looking at Monitor Audio (MA) Bronze 2. After much research, I went with them and have not regretted the decision one bit. Besides saving several hundred on the price, I love the sound. I also needed a front-ported speaker because of location. I ended up buying them from Saturday Auido (Chicago area) via the phone.

Happy hunting,
SF

[shokhead]

4 -602's with a center to match and a good sub wouldnt be half bad.603's up front would be better.

[sixty9@gmail.com]

Hi,

I'm new to the forum, but i thought i'd jump in and discuss the original topic. Last night i had a chance to compare studio 20's and 602 s3 directly with each other.

I brought my system (Cambridge Audio C500, P500, and B&W 602 s3) over to my friends home to compare my equipment with his (Krell 300i, NHT ?? full size speakers). Of course it was no comparison, his blew mine right out of the water, but he has studio 20's for his ht, so we compared the studio 20's with my 602's. I think the studio 20's were s2.

Before i get into this, to let you know, we took turns placing the speakers on the speaker stands, and positioned the speakers for their optimal sound. It seemed the studio 20's perferred toe in (to make it more bright) while the 602's did better parallel.

First we hooked up the studio 20's to my cambridge audio system, it was slow, boxy, very lifeless. After switching the studio 20's to the krell, it was a night and day difference... a lot more dynamic and smoother. When we switched my 602's from the cambridge audio's to the krell, there was a definite improvement, but not as big a difference as with the studio 20's. Studio 20's definitely need a bright amp to power them, while the 602's in this limited experiment seem more forgiving.

In my personal opinion, the studio 20's have a warm sound, but seems to have a narrow range, and even on the krell, still sounded boxy, i think this is due to it's unnaturally inflated bass. When listening to the NHT's, it felt like i was listening to a live performance, when listening to the 602's, it felt like i was listening to a wall of sound, but with the studio 20's, i was very aware that the music was emanating from 2 points in front of me.

The 602's are very bright compared to the studio 20's, but have a wider dynamic range, definitely more detail, and a more natural defined bass. Another thing i'd like to point out is that the 602's are very effecient, sounded bigger than they are (definitely not boxy at all), and easily filled the large room we were in with music.

My friend liked the warmth of the studio 20's, but admitted the studio 20's did sound more boxy and had a unnaturally inflated bass.

Before this experiment, i was curious to how my 602's stacked up against the studio 20's. I can tell you that i have no regrets getting the 602's.. i find the studio 20's inflated bass and boxy sound unforgivable.

[kexodusc]

Kex- for you DIYers of the world http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/beraneklaw.html

I think I partially agree with that...that's why it's important to have some measurement equipment (and reference commercial speakers). I don't design speakers, just assembly, testing, and slight modification of other designs so far...the only thing I've ever designed is 2 cabinets, had tons of help with crossover and driver selection for my vifa/scanspeak monitors...but I'm learnin'...

[kexodusc]

My friend liked the warmth of the studio 20's, but admitted the studio 20's did sound more boxy and had a unnaturally inflated bass.

Before this experiment, i was curious to how my 602's stacked up against the studio 20's. I can tell you that i have no regrets getting the 602's.. i find the studio 20's inflated bass and boxy sound unforgivable.

You and your friend are the first people I've met that could listen to the 20's compared to the 602's and call them "warm". Mine sizzle.

[RGA]

I'm a bit surprised by the listening as well - the 602 is usually described as being a bit polite while the 20 to me is pretty hard - the whole series was but given the competition the V2 was a good series. I prefer the sound of the 600 series against the Studios but I certainly understand why people prefer the V2 series paradigms. Incidentally I like the 600 series much more than 700 series which I feel is pretyt pathetic all across the board.

Quite simply the 600 series is less refined but it's more engaging to listen to. Dynamically BAD speakers may have the smoothest tweeters, best imaging impecable soundstage - but none of that is worth beans if the lifeblood of the music is shot before you even start. Some people might call it PRAT. A kind of misnomer term - but it's a guit reaction when listening - the 600 series knows the business better than many others in its price despite a few issues - others have less issues but seem to me to get it wrong.

The DM 302 for example was quite entertaining and involving which is why I bought em - still regret trading them.

[Yeti2003]

Thanks for all the input! I tried out both speakers at home with the same equipment and I found that I liked the Studios better (just my personal preference). It's hard for me to describe sound but I thought they were more "detailed". Anyway, now I'm in a bind because the speakers are sitting on my old towers which is probably less than optimal.

The speakers are 15 inches tall and I was told I should get a 29-30 inch stand for them. The Sanus stands seem to be all over the place. I was looking at the Sanus SF30 (30 inches) which is about $150 but I was wondering if there's other "stand" brands I should be looking at. Personally I don't want to spend $300 for the matching J-Premier stands from Paradigm.

Suggestions?

[kexodusc]

I don't blame you for looking at other stands, the Premier's aren't exactly the greatest stands out there and are about 100% over priced in my opinion. Stands don't have to cost you an arm and a leg...the solid MDF stands that Sanus sells, with $2 worth of rubber bumpers you can buy at a hardware store will effecitvely eliminate all vibration issues you might have...steel's even better. Stands are almost as bad as cables when it comes to some of the claims manufacturers make.

[Woochifer]

I don't blame you for looking at other stands, the Premier's aren't exactly the greatest stands out there and are about 100% over priced in my opinion. Stands don't have to cost you an arm and a leg...the solid MDF stands that Sanus sells, with $2 worth of rubber bumpers you can buy at a hardware store will effecitvely eliminate all vibration issues you might have...steel's even better. Stands are almost as bad as cables when it comes to some of the claims manufacturers make.

That would depend on which Premier stands you're referring to. The J-series (the ones that get photographed with the Studio and Signature series models) stands are a bit overpriced, but no more than the stands that other manufacturers like B&W, Energy, or Sonus Faber sell. When you get up into that price level, a lot of what you're paying for is the design, although I will say that a lot of those higher priced stands give you added stability and mass as well. The J-series stands are nice and very functional, but if you're willing to go with an uglier stand, then Sound Anchor and Target Audio sell stands that are just as stable as the Premier J-series stands for less.

As far as the other Premier stands go, the S-series stands (which I use with my system) cost $120, which is comparable to the steel stands that Sanus sells, and IMO better constructed than the Sanus Steel Foundation stands. The wooden Premier T-series stands cost even less, and I believe are cost competitive with the Sanus stands.

With stands, I think the cost increases stem from the look of the stands, and how stable and/or heavy they are. The Bell'O stands with the swooping Italian designer frame and cherry wood insets go for over $300, but they are relatively lightweight and have average stability. The adjustable Sound Anchor stands that I use for my surrounds are utilitarian/ugly and cost $350. But, they weigh 65 lbs. each, have a frame welded into one piece with no seams, and they'll bruise you before you can accidentally knock them over or wobble them. B&W also sells a set of $350 stands that look nice, but aren't any heavier or more stable than competitors selling for half the price. The $500 Sonus Faber stands have a polished look with heavy four-post construction, and are solid all around.

[kexodusc]

With stands, I think the cost increases stem from the look of the stands, and how stable and/or heavy they are. The Bell'O stands with the swooping Italian designer frame and cherry wood insets go for over $300, but they are relatively lightweight and have average stability. The adjustable Sound Anchor stands that I use for my surrounds are utilitarian/ugly and cost $350. But, they weigh 65 lbs. each, have a frame welded into one piece with no seams, and they'll bruise you before you can accidentally knock them over or wobble them. B&W also sells a set of $350 stands that look nice, but aren't any heavier or more stable than competitors selling for half the price. The $500 Sonus Faber stands have a polished look with heavy four-post construction, and are solid all around.

Well said Wooch...if you factor in a premium for design/looks, a fair price is much harder to determine...obviously people are buying these, I suspect they're happy. Being the frugal-phile that I am I went cheap and built my own out of MDF, loaded with cat litter, and veneered them to match my speakers...simple, but they get the job done...heavy, and really hard on the toes.

[RGA]

Thanks for all the input! I tried out both speakers at home with the same equipment and I found that I liked the Studios better (just my personal preference). It's hard for me to describe sound but I thought they were more "detailed". Anyway, now I'm in a bind because the speakers are sitting on my old towers which is probably less than optimal.

The speakers are 15 inches tall and I was told I should get a 29-30 inch stand for them. The Sanus stands seem to be all over the place. I was looking at the Sanus SF30 (30 inches) which is about $150 but I was wondering if there's other "stand" brands I should be looking at. Personally I don't want to spend $300 for the matching J-Premier stands from Paradigm.

Suggestions?

Skylan stands are $200.00 CDN and Noel will custom build them - find out what the speaker recomends as a height - the manufacturer should have calculate the floorbounce of the woofer and should have a specific height within a few inches for the speaker - then provide that info to a company like Skylan - I have found their stands to be better than what is partnered with the speaker makers (who usually like to add profit here). http://www.skylanstands.com/

You could pay significanly more money for something like Sound Anchors which I have now or some of the companies even more expensive adjustable stands - whcih is nice if you change speakers you don;t have to change stands. But you could probably buy 4 sets of custom Skylans for one sound anchors adjustable stand - and if you upgrade your speakers your next set may also be for that height - lots of things to consider. DIY is another option - but the Skylans look nice are solid, sand fillible and good to deal with(which counts IMO).

[requiem]

I've looked at these. Both nice sounding. For $800 ish I would audition the Klipsch RB75s. At $600 the B&W are cheaper mainly because B&W does more volume (units) than Paradigm. Paradigm fans will have other reasons. Both of these speakers are not outsourced to asian fab houses. Many folks would contend that you'd need a sub for either pair HOWEVER the B&W have a larger internal volume and it is likely, a more satifying bass note. You might look at the Klipsch, very nice detailed sound. Made in Arkansas still. I was contemplating all of these but went for something else. I am importing these from Germany.
Canton
I think the B&W will be best for you.

Could anyone describe how's the sound of the Cantons compared to the B&W 602?