Paradigm Studio 20 vs B&W 602 S3

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'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.

IMHO, the B&W 600 line matches up with the Paradigm Monitor line. The B&W 700 series competes with the Studio series. And the Nautilus series competes with the signature series. Taking this into account I've always viewed Paradigm as a more of a budget option. Their prices seem to be rising, which reduces some of their value, but I think they are still considerably priced under B&W, which has always tended to be fairly expensive. Additionally, the two speaker companies have distinctly different sounds. Make sure to do in an in home audition. I would try some other brands as well.

I agree with Bruhaha mostly except that I always felt the 600 series competed very well with the Studio series for sound quality but not for build quality - the Studio's build quality mtes well with the CDM and 700 series.

I would personally take the 602S3 for sound over the Studio 20V2 (have not heard the V3 but the 100V3 dissapointed me greatly). SOmetimes the 602S3 can sound a bit dry and polite and I get the sense the whole series needs careful positioning.

I can safely say I like the 602S3 more than the 705. I would not buy based off of price.

If you can get your hands on a used CDM 2SE you might be quite pleased - that was one of the better standmount speakers B&W made IMO.

Also try and listen to other companies who have different design approaches - You'd be surprised that many lesser known speakers can IMO easily outperfom these guys for less money.

I have Studio40V2s, and I've done a lot of listening to both Paradigm and B&W. I'm more of a music person, so I'm not really used to thinking about sound from a HT perspective. In terms of low end extension I don't think there is a big difference between the Sudio20 and the 602. The really noticable difference between these two is that the Studio series tends to be a bit more "lively", while the 600 series is, as RGA put it, a little "polite". To me, I would think that the Studio20s would suit HT a little better, but that's just me. The B&W 600 line has a nice smooth sound. I once heard a system with 4 602S3s (main and surround) and the LCR60 center, that I thought sounded pretty sweet.

Definitely try them out for yourself at home. The Studio 20 v.3 is one of the best speakers in its price class that I've heard, and has particular strengths in how it images and projects a big soundstage. Very impressive overall speaker.

When I was auditioning speakers a few years, the previous versions of these speakers were among my finalists. The 600 series overall had a more balanced sound, but it was also less involving with home theater sources, which is why I opted for the Studios.

These S3s are voiced somewhat differently than the previous versions that I heard, so that might have changed. However, the 20 v.3 versions are now better balanced than before, but still retain the involving character that I appreciated with the v.2 series (which I own) while adding a noticeable improvement in the imaging and ability to "disappear", which were already strengths to begin with. Like I said, try it for yourself. When I auditioned the two series for myself, the choice was pretty obvious for my preferences.

As far as the center channels go, definitely take a careful listen and make sure that the levels are matched as closely as possible. And if you plan to add surround speakers, take a good listen to those as well, because the quality of the ancillary speakers can vary a lot from manufacturer to manufacturer. The new Studio v.3 center speakers are a good timbre match for the mains and use identical drivers to the rest of the Studio series. In general, Paradigm has done a good job making center and surround speakers that are up to the quality of their mains, and can voice match them. The surround speakers in particular give you a good option between the dipolar surrounds or going with another set of direct firing bookshelf speakers.

B&W has had some missteps with their ancillary speakers, so I would watch out for which center and surround models you opt for. With the previous 600 series, their lower priced center speaker model was a less than adequate match for the mains, and the dipolar surround speakers were even worse. If you prefer dipolar surrounds, I'm not altogether sure that B&W's current surrounds improved upon the previous versions by much. If you go with B&W, you're probably better off going with another set of direct firing bookshelf speakers.

Thanks for the all the input. Hopefully the local dealers will allow a home audition and the choice will be easier. Speaking of audio dealers, I've heard you should never pay retail at an audio store. How does one go about asking for a discount?

Also can anyone recommend speaker stands for either the B&W or Studio speakers? Should I just go with whatever the dealer uses assuming it sounds good?

When I was auditioning main speakers, the B&W 602 S3's, the Focal-JM Labs Chorus 707S and the Paradigm Reference Studio 20 v.3's ended up being on my short list among those speakers that I could afford. I agree with brulaha that Paradigm's Studio series matches more closely with B&W's 700 series. In fact, I really liked the B&W 705's; they were the best looking and best sounding speakers I auditioned. But, alas, they were way out of my price range. So, among those three that made my short list, I opted for the 20's. To my ears, they are truly amazing speakers for their price point. They are designed and made in-house by Paradigm and seem to be solidly built. BTW, they are designed to be used with the grills on.

I agree with all of the previous comments though about auditioning them, preferably in your home. It's what sounds best to you that's paramount.

Can't help you with the stands; my 20's rest on bookshelves.

For a deal just ask what the best price you can give me them for. You can of course draw it out by leaving your number - they may call you back after they have talked it over with the owner - ie just like car dealers - and they;ll usually come down - it does depend a bit on what you're buying. B&W and Paradigm should come down 15-20% maybe more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeti2003

Thanks for the all the input. Hopefully the local dealers will allow a home audition and the choice will be easier. Speaking of audio dealers, I've heard you should never pay retail at an audio store. How does one go about asking for a discount?

Also can anyone recommend speaker stands for either the B&W or Studio speakers? Should I just go with whatever the dealer uses assuming it sounds good?

---

I purchased Studio 20s about four years ago and got the matching black Paradigm stands that I believe were around $100 at the time. The only reason that I can think of for not getting the Paradigm stands would be cosmetic IMHO. Also instead of buying the matching Paradigm center I got a third Studio 20 to use as my center. I use Paradigm Mini Monitors for my back speakers. I am very happy with the system which is used 50/50 music/movies.

Nick

Everybody has fav's that sound right on THERE system. Thats why its important for you to hear them on the same or as close of a system as you are using. Make sure you bring along your music/movie to here. My B&W's sound great on my Denon as they might sould like crap on a Kenwood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shokhead

Everybody has fav's that sound right on THERE system. Thats why its important for you to hear them on the same or as close of a system as you are using. Make sure you bring along your music/movie to here. My B&W's sound great on my Denon as they might sould like crap on a Kenwood.

---

And I'm sure that YOU'RE [sic] favorite sound is on YOU'RE system too.

Until you actually hear the B&Ws on a Kenwood, you have no idea if they would sound like "crap." Typically, the characteristics of the speakers are by far the biggest variable, then comes the room acoustics, then further down on the list is the amplification. Most of the differences I've heard, except with difficult to drive speakers, are subtle when the amplification gets switched out. The acoustical variations between demo rooms can be more than enough to negate any differences that you might detect in the amplification, so it's actually more important to make sure the listening comparisons take place in the same room than it is to make sure that the system components are comparable.

Actually I disagree - my Wharfedales are 95db snesitive horn speakers 8ohm - adding a Bryston Power amp - and nothing else no changing rooms no repositioning.

This made more of a substantial change to the sound than moving the speakers around a bit. But then there is a reason Bryston has been selling so long - it's not the everyone is delusional or that they're running impossible to drive loudspeakers - it's because receivers suck donkey balls.

Interestingly Arcam made the 600 series sound a lot better than the Denon flagship 5200?? it's been a while.

Then there is the OTO SE I recently heard again - they carry some nice SS amps from MF and Bryston among many others. I thank Bryston for getting me interested in better gear - the OTO unfortunately makes the Bryston unlistenable with those speakers anyway.

Well, back to the subject at hand...

I was wondering if anyone here has compared the Paradigm Studio 20 and the B&W DM602S3 with the Monitor Audio Silver S2? Could be a contender for the original poster.

http://www.monitoraudio.com/products.../series/s2.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Actually I disagree - my Wharfedales are 95db snesitive horn speakers 8ohm - adding a Bryston Power amp - and nothing else no changing rooms no repositioning.

This made more of a substantial change to the sound than moving the speakers around a bit. But then there is a reason Bryston has been selling so long - it's not the everyone is delusional or that they're running impossible to drive loudspeakers - it's because receivers suck donkey balls.

---

And the post that I was responding to had to do with comparing a Denon and a Kenwood. I'm simply pointing out that doing comparisons in the same room is more important than making sure that the amplification is comparable to what you got at home. Given a choice between auditioning speakers in different rooms with the same amp versus auditioning speakers in the same room using a different amp than you use at home, sorry but the most meaningful comparison will be in the same room because the tonal variations between rooms are much larger and more audible.

Besides, in your view, they would both "suck donkey balls" so therefore ANY speakers would sound like crap on ANY receivers, right? As I've pointed out before, many manufacturers make both integrated amps and receivers. The only difference is the presence of the tuner in the receiver. So, Yamaha, Rotel, and Arcam's receivers "suck donkey balls" and the integrated amp versions (with otherwise identical transformers, preamp electronics, and controls) would not. Nice bit of nonsensical generalizing.

If you want to suggest that someone add a $2,000+ amp to a $500 receiver, fine. I'll go along with it making an audible improvement, but you still cannot generalize that these improvements will have the same effect from room to room because a bad room will result in bad sound regardless of what's playing.

A Bryston amp making a pair of speakers "unlistenable"? Well, whatever your want to believe for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woochifer

And I'm sure that YOU'RE [sic] favorite sound is on YOU'RE system too.

Until you actually hear the B&Ws on a Kenwood, you have no idea if they would sound like "crap." Typically, the characteristics of the speakers are by far the biggest variable, then comes the room acoustics, then further down on the list is the amplification. Most of the differences I've heard, except with difficult to drive speakers, are subtle when the amplification gets switched out. The acoustical variations between demo rooms can be more than enough to negate any differences that you might detect in the amplification, so it's actually more important to make sure the listening comparisons take place in the same room than it is to make sure that the system components are comparable.

---

I said they might and i was just throwing kenwood out as an example,could have used emerson. Hard to judge on demo room setups. There is a high end place by me that has 3 or 4 rooms set up like a living room,its nice.

Here's another option, do what I just did...

Buy the Studio 20's for $800, then buy the EFE AR.com DIY kit by Ed Frias from Madisound or Speaker city for $300 (pre-built, cheaper if you DIY) and compare them in your room.

The Studio's look a bit better than my humble woodworking skills, butmy DIY's have a much nicer, real veneer.
Sound wise it isn't even close. I've already sold a pair of 20's, when I've got the other 4 built, the othe pair of Studio 20's and 40's are going too.

I don't care if they the Studio 20 v.3's, B&W 700's or 600's sound a wee bitbetter than the Studio 20 v.2's at this point, the EFE DIY's destroy my Studio 40's v2's, especially in the midrange, and are dirt cheap!!!

Once I figure out my new digital camera and build the next pair, I'll snap some pics and post a more thorough review of the head-to-head...

Geez, I can build a whole 7 speaker HT system for what I paid for my Studio 40's...I feel hosed now.

Wooch

Actually the Arcam receivers in two channel were quite good very close to the Delta 290 I had - theproblem was that Arcam's surround features att hat time wasn't as good and they charged a healthy premium over competitors. Some of the Flagship receivers sound OK - but you pay $5,000.00+ for them up here and I want more than OK. But then music isn;t really what people are buying them for so no knock on them.

As for alternatives to the B&W and Paradigm speakers - instead of a "like" speaker in the Monitor Audios why not try and listen to spekaers with different design approaches - AN, Magnepan, --- and stuff like Spendor etc.

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

I just posted similarily in a different thread but I own a pair of 602's and before I bought them I listened to Monitor audio and was far less impressed. IMO the Monitor's featured harsh almost tinny highs and lackluster lows. Granted I listened at different stores with obviously different rooms, but I feel the 602's are a better deal. And hey, I got $50 knocked off the price so you could give that a shot as well. Also I've heard Magnepans before but not immediately after either of the other two so I can't accurately compare but I found them to be a little lacking in low end although overall I was impressed. They are a commitment to place well in a room though due to the large size but that's also not a bad road to travel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

it's because receivers suck donkey balls..

---

I reckon everyone that owns a receiver should now chuck it because YOU (RGA god of all audio) say it sucks DONKEY BALLS..Maybe you ought to do a poll to see if all these receiver owners think there unit sucks DONKEY BALLS.I Myself dont think receivers suck DONKEY BALLS.I however think you do though...

I've owned several receivers over the last 12 years - I've heard the top models from Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, Pioneer Elite, Sony, NAD among others over the years as well.

I currently own a Donkey ball sucking receiver in the Marantz 4300. Which I recently bought even with my Donkey Ball sucking sentiment towards receivers. Receivers are quite handy little boxes I have found and I greatly enjoyed watching the new Spidey Flick with the big booms and cool little train screeches and the neato sound effects Doc Ock crushing everything as he goes by. Quite a fun and might I say relatively inespensive receiver - musically? Sucks Donkey Balls - but having heard a lot better this is very easy to notice - not having heard better - well I might foolishly think that my Marantz was remotely competant for music replay - or the top Yammaha or Denon or Marantz - which are a "little" better musically - though a lot better moviely. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I've owned several receivers over the last 12 years - I've heard the top models from Yamaha, Denon, Marantz, Pioneer Elite, Sony, NAD among others over the years as well.

---

Several? You've only mentioned two that you actually owned, a Pro Logic Pioneer Elite and your current entry level Marantz, which you earlier said that you primarily use as a headphone amp. I guess your usage of "several" has the same validity as your assessment of "sucking donkey balls"? Given that none of us (at least that I'm aware of) have an obsession with donkeys, their balls, and/or sucking things that approximate them, I guess you're making up a point of reference that nobody else can relate to, or wants to for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I currently own a Donkey ball sucking receiver in the Marantz 4300. Which I recently bought even with my Donkey Ball sucking sentiment towards receivers. Receivers are quite handy little boxes I have found and I greatly enjoyed watching the new Spidey Flick with the big booms and cool little train screeches and the neato sound effects Doc Ock crushing everything as he goes by. Quite a fun and might I say relatively inespensive receiver - musically? Sucks Donkey Balls - but having heard a lot better this is very easy to notice - not having heard better - well I might foolishly think that my Marantz was remotely competant for music replay - or the top Yammaha or Denon or Marantz - which are a "little" better musically - though a lot better moviely. :)

---

Oh yeah, you've heard better, therefore everything else is a donkey ball sucker. Interesting that you enjoyed watching the Spidey flick through your receiver, given that you don't even have the thing set up for multichannel or to accommodate the LFE channel for that matter (assuming that you use an analog audio connection between the DVD player and the receiver). Indeed, I guess with how you have your receiver set up, you "might foolishly think" that it was "remotely competant [sp] for" movie playback! Playing a 5.1 soundtrack through a two-channel mixdown at the source? No LFE accommodation? You haven't even optimized your multichannel playback, yet you enjoy it. Yet again, by castigating an entire class of product, you accuse others of having low standards because they enjoy playing music through their receivers?

I owned a regualr Pioneer receiver which was first before the Elite and a Sony(but very briefly before that.

If you don't like the Ace ventura kind of humour - then I can just say they're terrble at the reproduction of music 2 channel cd music - relative to what else I have heard.

I am far less critical of home theater because the reference points are less demanding in my view one T-rex scream on one set-up versus another t-rex scream on another system is of zero use to me. Nor frankly do I much care. I can enjoy Spiderman 2 on 2 channel just as I can enjoy films on tv with the crap tv speakers - because I watch movies for the story. I also have a problem that my firends and I would be amused by that I had a big surround system with a 27 inch tv. Frankly, just as when I was starting to builf a car stereo I realised that with the car - that no amount of money was going to make that work for me - and for movies - the amount of times I re-watch a film(and the TYPES of films that I would rewatch) the amount of money I would need to invest to make me happy would not be feasable. Movie prices have gone way up - but I enjoy the movie going experience(which is not just about the sound) more-so than any home theater system can hope to provide for me. I would need at least a 70 preferably 100 inch screen - without the kind of picture offerred up by LCD and Plasma. The though of buying two more sets of Audio Note speakers to have E's in the corners J's as centers and K's in rear - to be able to bypass the receiver out of the loop completely when i want to listen to music and the front projection system - is a bit much. And a receiver capable of real bass response not one that is "Expecting" the customer to buy a subwoofer when all channels are being driven.

But all of that is another issue - Home theater is not a major priority for me so a cheap H/T receiver is acceptable especially since the vast majority of films that I would re-watch don't make much if any real use out of surround channels or subwoofers - and I've had no trouble with any of my 200+ movies in 2 channel - mix downs they may be.

Even a film like Spiderman 2 - I liked it not because of the cheesey special effects - but because it's a pretty smart and human story. I agree with Roger Ebert - it's the best comic book movie I've seen - Superman II next.

I'm not a fan of the action genres of films, if I loved deafeningly stupid Michael Bay films with car chases and planes blowing up I might care more - I prefer mostly story telling films that requires thinking about subject matter which needs two crappy tv speakers and a viewable tv screen. I'm willing to enhance those films a bit - but i won't throw the minimum $10k on sound alone(that would make me happy) to ge me more "into" this week's movie for morons action blow up cop buddy movie. Though I suppose paying attention to the little noises in the rear would help me take my mind off virtually every hollywood pice of crap that rolls out into video stores - give me pyrotechnics to show off on my grear rather than force me to listen to banal dialogue and formula story.

which I use for home cinema and sometime for music. The two main speakers are B&W DM -602 S2 and the rears are Monitor Audio Silver S2. The Yamaha does a very good job playing music. Only opening a door is my main audio system which is Paradigm Studio 100 V2, NAD 521i cd player and NAD-370 integrated amplifier. Is there a big difference between these two systems? Probably yes but when you are listening to the Yammy, you don't turn off this to turn on the Nad staff. What I mean is my family and I enjoy both systems without be looking which is playing.
Jorge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dvjorge

which I use for home cinema and sometime for music. The two main speakers are B&W DM -602 S2 and the rears are Monitor Audio Silver S2. The Yamaha does a very good job playing music. Only opening a door is my main audio system which is Paradigm Studio 100 V2, NAD 521i cd player and NAD-370 integrated amplifier. Is there a big difference between these two systems? Probably yes but when you are listening to the Yammy, you don't turn off this to turn on the Nad staff. What I mean is my family and I enjoy both systems without be looking which is playing.
Jorge.

---

Well that is fine - I don't turn off my receiver when music starts up in the middle of a movie either.

I'm not going to get into what other people should be listening to because it's none of my business - your second system IMO isn't a huge step up over the first one so If the first one was alreayd on I might not be bothered to switch over either - it's been a while but the 602S2 is no slouch and easily hangs in with any Paradigm I've heard - I like the 604S3 over the new studio 100V3. I'm not talking about "like" sounds and even this set-up isn;t really helpful as you have NAD with Paradigm and Yamaha with B&W. The speaker makes the most noticeable change in the system - that however doesn't mean it's the most important change in the system. And some systems are less sensitive to changes in ancillary gear.

the B&W driven by NAD, Rotel (which I sold) and it doesn't mean anything. To compare the B&W 600 series with the Paradigm Studio Serie is missing the respect to this forum. Anybody knows the Studios are better, let say a lot of better than the 600 serie which I own too. What you conclude about this is really stupid for me. If you say other B&Ws, like 800 serie, I can admit that but the 600....it makes me laugh. Man, the hate you feel for Paradigm has more power than you. It is incredible how a person like you who sometime give good advise be so stubborn. If you don't want to hear anything about Paradigm, I agree but don't talk nonsense hard to believe by yourself.

Jorge

See your statement makes little sense to me - you are the one who just said that if you were listening to the B&W with the Yamaha that you would not bother to change over to the 100V2 Nad set-up - becuase you and your family enjoy the B&W's. If the Studio's were SOOOO much better then you would IMO bother to open the door and switch it. I would bother to switch if the other system were truly that much better - and the 100V2 is very good but it's not THAT MUCH better than the 600 series 2 - hell even the big Paradigm fan Woochifer was going back and forth between the two lines - so it is obvious the 600 series wasn't blown out of the water - great speakers and system SHOULD have that effect.

The Studio 100V2 I would prefer listening to than the Series 2 B&W series as well - but then I would prefer listening to the Paradigm 100V2 than a lot of speakers including the 100V3. I bought my amp based off an audition of the 100V2 - it's a fine value it's a good speaker - there is better much better out there - but for the $1900.00Cdn price for the 100V2 it was one of the better speakers around.

The B&W 800 series is overpriced for what you get - some people prefer the 100V2 to many more expensive B&W's - I would take the 100V2, 60V2 and the 40V2 over any of the B&W 700 series I have heard and these speakers are about double the price. Paying more doesn't mean you get more - and just because a company says one line is better than another line doesn't make it so.

Anyone on this forum who thinks I'm anti-Paradigm has to take a real look in the mirror - the only reason it SEEMS that way is because this particular forum has a lot of Paradigm owners on it and they come up a lot - bigger speaker companies like Paradigm and B&W are often in conversation - If I say something good about a Paradigm speaker - and I do often no one says anything - say something bad then wow everyone goes on a tirade. Other people like Kex says some $300.00 speaker blows his 40V2's out of the water and no one says anything. Paradigm simply doesn;t offer pinnacle sound - that's ok becuase they don't charge pinnacle prices - but they are what they are and they are not more than that. I am planning to buy a very good amplifier a high end amplifier - but I am not delesional enough to believe that because that is what I can afford that now diminihing returns stops and spending more doesn't get more. Some guy who can afford $2k speakers and then deludes himself into thinking that because he could afford $2k that any more than that is a waste. Yeah sorry but no.

B&W is the same on other forums people and me like some and hate some - Audio Note same thing - if it's no good it's no good period and if it's a great value IMO then I'm going to tell people about it - excellent speakers for value - Paradigm Atom V3/Wharfedale 8.1/Athena ASf1/B&W 602S3/Dynaudio A42/Audio Note AX Two as starters.

And if it's a lousy value or not so good a speaker like the JBL e10 /Paradigm Studio 100V3/B&W 705 and 703/Audio Note AX One/ Bose 901 etc then I'm going to say it.

I've been on e-bay and a few classifieds for some 602's{i thought an upgrade from my 601's for DVD-A and SACD might be better} to go with my 603's and notice mostly 800 series for sale. Whats up with those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I am far less critical of home theater because the reference points are less demanding in my view one T-rex scream on one set-up versus another t-rex scream on another system is of zero use to me. Nor frankly do I much care. I can enjoy Spiderman 2 on 2 channel just as I can enjoy films on tv with the crap tv speakers - because I watch movies for the story. I also have a problem that my firends and I would be amused by that I had a big surround system with a 27 inch tv.

---

No one's saying that you can't enjoy the movie through a two-channel audio system. The contradiction is that you're so dismissive of the very concept that music can be enjoyable played through a receiver just because you've heard something better, yet you enjoy a multichannel soundtrack that has been piped down to the DVD player's two channel analog output, played through a donkey ball sucking receiver, and with the LFE channel jettisoned.

Using your logic, then the movie soundtrack should not be enjoyable because there are many higher reference points. Even with your own receiver, a digital connection will at least recover the LFE information, and we're not even on the subject of the missing surround channels.

And what's wrong with playing the big surround sound with a 27" TV? I play widescreen movies on a 32" TV and don't see anything odd or "amusing" about that. What you and "your friends" regard as amusing in itself a source of amusement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Frankly, just as when I was starting to builf a car stereo I realised that with the car - that no amount of money was going to make that work for me - and for movies - the amount of times I re-watch a film(and the TYPES of films that I would rewatch) the amount of money I would need to invest to make me happy would not be feasable. Movie prices have gone way up - but I enjoy the movie going experience(which is not just about the sound) more-so than any home theater system can hope to provide for me. I would need at least a 70 preferably 100 inch screen - without the kind of picture offerred up by LCD and Plasma. The though of buying two more sets of Audio Note speakers to have E's in the corners J's as centers and K's in rear - to be able to bypass the receiver out of the loop completely when i want to listen to music and the front projection system - is a bit much. And a receiver capable of real bass response not one that is "Expecting" the customer to buy a subwoofer when all channels are being driven.

---

And no home audio system can reproduce the experience of a concert hall either, so I don't see the point you're getting at.

While the big picture of a movie theater cannot be replicated at home, the audio part of the experience can be easily topped at home because the surround imaging on a 5.1 setup can be optimized to a single listening position rather than compromised for the entire auditorium. Furthermore, more and more DVD soundtracks are getting repurposed for home theater rather than simply ported over from the theatrical soundtrack. The sense of space and precise directionality in a repurposed soundtrack like "Master and Commander" simply cannot be duplicated in a theater.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

But all of that is another issue - Home theater is not a major priority for me so a cheap H/T receiver is acceptable especially since the vast majority of films that I would re-watch don't make much if any real use out of surround channels or subwoofers - and I've had no trouble with any of my 200+ movies in 2 channel - mix downs they may be.

---

How would you even know what a movie makes of the surround channels if you don't even have surround speakers?

Contrary to your assertions, it's not just action pics that make use of the surround channels and the subwoofer tracks. Even dialog driven movies like "Memento" and "Insomnia" have excellent surround soundtracks that greatly enhance the viewing experience, and make the movie more involving because they pull the viewer into the scene on the screen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I'm not a fan of the action genres of films, if I loved deafeningly stupid Michael Bay films with car chases and planes blowing up I might care more - I prefer mostly story telling films that requires thinking about subject matter which needs two crappy tv speakers and a viewable tv screen. I'm willing to enhance those films a bit - but i won't throw the minimum $10k on sound alone(that would make me happy) to ge me more "into" this week's movie for morons action blow up cop buddy movie. Though I suppose paying attention to the little noises in the rear would help me take my mind off virtually every hollywood pice of crap that rolls out into video stores - give me pyrotechnics to show off on my grear rather than force me to listen to banal dialogue and formula story.

---

Again, it's not all about loud sound effects and stuff blowing up. If that's all that you value in home theater, then you're missing out on a huge part of the experience for other movies. It's not just "little noises in the rear" that are in these surround soundtracks, especially as more DVDs are getting mixed specifically for home theaters. It's about creating a cohesive soundfield that encircles the viewer and makes them part of the scene. Then again, you wouldn't know this if you're listening with a two-channel mixdown. More of the music is now getting shifted into the surrounds, more sounds are getting mixed at equal levels between the front and surround channels which solidify the side imaging and depth perception.

It's about making the experience more engaging and involving. I'm sure you can relate to this with music, so why is this point so elusive when it comes to movies? I mean, you're saying that a good movie would still be a good movie played through crappy speakers, so why would this not apply with music?

Actually it does apply to music - Miles Davis is still Miles davies on a clock radio or a level 6 AudioNote system. The difference is that Movies are story driven not sound driven (some movies are effects and sound driven) Music is all about sound(and lyrics are there to tell a story but it's all about the sound.

I have heard my receiver in surround mode and many movies watched in surround mode - not at my house as of yet becuase I'm looking for suitable loudspeakers that will be easy enough to drive and which meet my basic minimum standards. Money does not grow on trees however at elast not for me - big sound small screen is hoaky which is what causes my amusement. When a person puts his cup oin atable and it throws you off your seat from the thud(apart from that being horribly recorded or a product of the systems out there) it is plausible if the guy on screen is 50 feet tall as opposed to 27 inches. The movie going experience includes the picture - that is in fact the most important part of the film.

I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the value of home theater - if it gets you into the movie then buy it - It takes more than most of what I have heard to get me into the movie any moreso than I was into it with two channel - and none compete with the full movie going experience.

I agree live music is applicable to home 2 channel audio - but Sarah McLachlan comes around only eveyr few years and costs me $80.00 to see her - a movie is $9.50 - chances are I'm going to want to play the Sarah McLachlan CD more times in my life than I will watch even my most cherrished motion picture. I use the digital connection from the DVD player to the Marantz and let the Marantz also act as a DAC for the unit - simply because the DVD player is horrible for cd replay - well tha is obvious - it must be horrible if the Marantz improves it.

I am considering three sets of AX Two loudspeakers to be purchased in stages (becuase I need stands) - They are not magnetically shielded but I can space them well away from the tv - problem is I don't get the height match in the center which is critical for any system to be believable for me - no system not using the exact same speaker all around IMO is believeable at all. If I'm going to do it it has to be done right - or it's not worth doing - this is especially critical for SACD. It's not that i don;t care about surround sound - it is simply because I'll be anal about it and it's too costly to do right - so accepting that fact I will toy with it.

MD is still MD on a clock radio or level 6 AudioNote system? Your hearing 1/10th what you should be hearing on a clock radio,come on. Thats like saying a picture of crap is the same as standing in it. One is as far away as you can get and the other is up close and detailed. Sound makes the movie better and gets you ready for the story and helps tell the story. I've enjoyed all my movies on my 8 year old 27" and hope they are better on my new 30" . I was brought up on four track so you dont know how cool it will be to hear DVD-A and SACD. I can hardly wait. For money growing on trees,i would rather wait and save to buy better then to buy now and not as good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

If I say something good about a Paradigm speaker - and I do often no one says anything - say something bad then wow everyone goes on a tirade. Other people like Kex says some $300.00 speaker blows his 40V2's out of the water and no one says anything.

---

Oh geez, I did say that, didn't I....Destroy, or blow out of the water is too strong. But they are significantly better....I'm sorry guys, please don't flame me...uhh...go Paradigm go! :)
Want another one, I bought a really cheap (though heavily modified) BIC America DV-62CLRS speaker that outperformed my cousins CC-370 and Monitor 5's in a head to head audition, and wrote some reviews...waiting to get flamed for that too...

Actually I find Paradigm is quickly becoming the next JBL as someone else on another forum mentioned to me. It seems in this industry, any time someone enjoys mass success, particularly among knowledgeable people, the audiophile community rejects it as being mainstream and inferior for a whole bunch of odd ball reasons. And vice-versa, more exotic gear is often deemed better just because it's not as popular. Paradigm's definitely at that stage now.
I don't think Paradigm makes a bad sounding speaker. They make some great values, and some not so great values (Signatures, Monitor 7's, 11's, Studio 100's) IMO. What I don't like is money to someone else though.

I've really only heard a few speakers I can genuinely say I did not like at their price point, and quite often they were sold in Sears, Best Buy, or Radio Shack. Oh, and then there's Bose.

As annoying as RGA gets, constantly bashing every Paradigm except the Atom v.3 (which is identical to v.2 other than production date from what I've heard), you have to respect that he's heard a bunch of Paradigm stuff, and decided against it.

I'm almost ready to ask for a rule requiring no more "this vs. that" threads...they always lead to flame wars between owners, non-owners, and brand-bashers. I'm not sure if this is really adding any value anymore...

The real issue is that many brand-bashers are simply furious at the sucess of the mass market manufacturers and take delight in concocting various conspiracy theories accusing them of trading in bad faith. I thought it fun, when JA named one of Paradigm 100v3 very good value in comparison to the boutique brands, the real truth that many boutique brands cannot compete on equal footing with the mass market manufacturers and force to restrict their products to upper end of the market. The last time I heard a B&W 802, I was very impressed, moreso because I had heard were regarded audiophile brands that simply did not cut the mustard, also the Revel M20, I was very impressed, these speakers perform well. Somehow I think many audiophile waste a lot of money and effort giving attention to a misguided prejudices, and end up paying exhorbitant prices for not a lot of performance. Some speakers are poor value but that applies to boutique as well as mass market manufacturers, a speaker that needs an amplifier with rolled-off frequency extremes to perform well :rolleyes: , amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

As annoying as RGA gets, constantly bashing every Paradigm except the Atom v.3 (which is identical to v.2 other than production date from what I've heard), you have to respect that he's heard a bunch of Paradigm stuff, and decided against it.

---

RGA bashes everything that does not follow his opinion.kex I hope you dont own a recevier.If you do however, I have just learned it sucks donkey balls.I own one and almost hate to use it anymore because RGA (god of all audio)said it sucked donkey balls.Ever notice RGA will tell posters never to go by Personal,and pro reviews if they dont share his opinion,But will quote them and ask posters to view them if they agree with him..This guy is a AN shill and very biased. ANYTHING RGA says should be taken with a huge grain of salt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 46minaudio

RGA bashes everything that does not follow his opinion.kex I hope you dont own a recevier.If you do however, I have just learned it sucks donkey balls.I own one and almost hate to use it anymore because RGA (god of all audio)said it sucked donkey balls.Ever notice RGA will tell posters never to go by Personal,and pro reviews if they dont share his opinion,But will quote them and ask posters to view them if they agree with him..This guy is a AN shill and very biased. ANYTHING RGA says should be taken with a huge grain of salt...

---

If you substituted AN with Paradigm, and Paradigm with BOSE, RGA would be the resident AR.COM hero.

I don't think he's here to shill specifically, or to troll etc...I think he really believes he's found a great speaker and wants all to share.

Perhaps he'd be better served by openning his mind to the possibility that to some people, those same speakers don't sound real, life-like, or good at all. (Though having heard alot of AN stuff, I can honestly say they are great speakers until you get into the exotic E models).

He's slowly toning it down a bit...have faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

Actually it does apply to music - Miles Davis is still Miles davies on a clock radio or a level 6 AudioNote system. The difference is that Movies are story driven not sound driven (some movies are effects and sound driven) Music is all about sound(and lyrics are there to tell a story but it's all about the sound.

---

No, books are story driven -- movies need both visuals and sound to be a movie. Without the audio or visual angle, movies are nothing more than screenplays or storyboards. Citizen Kane or Goodfellas would not be the same if you took out either the sound or the visuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I have heard my receiver in surround mode and many movies watched in surround mode - not at my house as of yet becuase I'm looking for suitable loudspeakers that will be easy enough to drive and which meet my basic minimum standards. Money does not grow on trees however at elast not for me - big sound small screen is hoaky which is what causes my amusement. When a person puts his cup oin atable and it throws you off your seat from the thud(apart from that being horribly recorded or a product of the systems out there) it is plausible if the guy on screen is 50 feet tall as opposed to 27 inches. The movie going experience includes the picture - that is in fact the most important part of the film.

---

Surround mode? As in Pro Logic or a 5.1 format?

You have the means to try surround sound out at home. Just use the digital connection so you can route the LFE channel through the mains and temporarily use your ANs as surrounds or mains.

Also, it's NOT at all implausible to go with the big sound and a 27" screen. Why? Because at home we sit a lot closer to the screen than we do at the movies. Nowadays, stadium theaters are designed with smaller screens than before (often under 20' wide), yet audiences perceives the image area as larger because the steep angle puts the majority of the seats closer to the screen than with a conventional rectangular setup.

The sound in a 5.1 setup can elevate the overall experience because the visuals are flat and two-dimensional. The sound is the only part of the experience that can envelop the audience and make them part of the scene. Doesn't matter how big or small the screen size, better sound makes for a more involving experience. I don't know why you would think that this applies to music and not to movies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the value of home theater - if it gets you into the movie then buy it - It takes more than most of what I have heard to get me into the movie any moreso than I was into it with two channel - and none compete with the full movie going experience.

---

That's probably because you've yet to actually hear a properly setup 5.1 system. Don't bring up the demo room experiences again. I'll reinterate again, the vast majority of demo rooms that I've visited do not have the surround setups configured properly. And without a SPL meter, proper adjustments to the delay timing, and proper placement, it won't sound right at home either.

As far as the full movie going experience, yeah it's not the same. At home there's no loudmouth chatter, cellphones going off, speaker channels shorting out, grainy overprojected prints, focus that shifts between projectors, long lines, overpriced junk food, etc. And at home, the audio portion that I get with my system sounds better than at all but the top showcase theaters. Better imaging, better tonal balance, better dialog intelligibility, more precise directional cues, etc. The only area where my system might fall short with the audio is in the deep bass extension, and even there a lot of theaters overshoot the bass beyond what the subwoofers are capable of and distortion's audible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I use the digital connection from the DVD player to the Marantz and let the Marantz also act as a DAC for the unit - simply because the DVD player is horrible for cd replay - well tha is obvious - it must be horrible if the Marantz improves it.

---

Or it could be that the Marantz is bad at handling analog signals. A lot of entry level receivers convert all signals to digital and reconvert them to analog, even if the signal gets played with no signal processing. Don't know if your Marantz model does this, but it is a very frequent design approach at the entry level, and it's not until you get to midlevel or higher models that you see more analog bypass features incorporated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Actually I find Paradigm is quickly becoming the next JBL as someone else on another forum mentioned to me. It seems in this industry, any time someone enjoys mass success, particularly among knowledgeable people, the audiophile community rejects it as being mainstream and inferior for a whole bunch of odd ball reasons. And vice-versa, more exotic gear is often deemed better just because it's not as popular. Paradigm's definitely at that stage now.

---

Believe me, JBL's reputation went into the dirt for a lot of reasons other than their mass success. The main hit that they took was when they abandoned their long-time specialty markets and moved a lot of inferior product through mass merchandisers. The speakers that these specialty dealers sold were no better or worse than before, but JBL introduced a lot of bottomfeeding junk that got sold through mass channels and did not measure up to the best of their vintage models. But, rather than compete with the big box retailers, nearly all of JBL's long-time dealers opted to go with other brands that did not distribute to mass merchandisers. That's why JBL continues to put out well regarded speakers, like the K2 and the TiK series, that hardly anyone has heard in North America. And the only JBLs that most people hear are whatever gets stocked and displayed at Best Buy, which is basically entry level speakers getting demoed in a terrible acoustical environment. Not exactly the best way to establish or maintain high end credibility.

Paradigm has been successful, but that did not occur by going through the typical mass merchandising channels like Bose and JBL do. The Canadian speaker manufacturers in general emerged right around the time that JBL was alienating their specialty dealer network. If anything, they filled a hole in the market that emerged when all those dealers were looking for alternatives in the midlevel price points. Basically, at a lot of dealers, Paradigm (and Energy and Polk and B&W) replaced JBL, but I'm not sure if that means that they're on their way to becoming the next JBL. In the U.S. at least, Paradigm has been fairly selective about who carries their speakers. If anything, they're more selective than Energy and even B&W because they don't go with even regional specialty chains.

You're right though in that audiophiles often embrace and reject brands for a whole litany of illogical reasons that are outside of the bottomline performance. Once you get into some of the more esoteric approaches, it indeed is often "different" as opposed to "better."

Thanks Wooch, for the little history lesson on the "demise" of JBL...Too bad, I guess. I've got no problem with pushing inexpensive models if there's demand, but it's unfortunate if causes your better products to disappear because of this.

But still, even hearing their inexpensive junk, to me it's not nearly as bad as alot of people say it is. Not my first choice, but not terrible.

I know first hand that big box stores can back fire in a big way for large manufacturers. If JBL becomes too dependant on Best Buy and Circuit City and such for distribution, these stores can command a lot influence on the MSRP, etc. Sometimes they prevent savings from being passed on to the consumer. And besides, who among us has really heard a Polk or JBL system properly calibrated and setup in a decent room with running on decent equipment recently? My trip the other day to Future Shop (Best Buy Canada) might as well have been a stroll through a large grocery store...Crowded shelfs, messy wires, 20 foot tall boxes of gear and 200 screaming customers isn't what I'd call optimal listening conditions.

I'd be curious to know exactly what happened to Acoustic Research...seems to me they've long since fallen from grace...any ideas there?

Kex - wow you leave the board a few hours and suddenly the influx of OT.

I don't think the point is to have to listen to JBL in the best acoustical environment since most people don't have that - The Future SHops are not ideal - okay but it's not ideal for all th other brands - you should always be able to get a sense of how a speaker sounds - Sarah Mclachlan is sarah McLachlan in the bath tub or Queen Elizabeth theater or at an outdoor concert etc etc. What I think is important is to compare the speakers in the same acoustic environment and see what happens. A recent discussion going on about phase coherence etc going on at AA makes the same point - our ear filters out much of the crap and focuses in on what we wish to hear same as in a crowded room as it is in a room with a lot of echo - none of that shows up in measurements because they are woefully inadequate compared to what the human brain is capable of with regards to hear location.

Kex - you are in Canada now no? Paradigm is in a big box chain called AudioVideo Unlimited - Paradigm is better than JBL. You're in the east and I don't know if A&B sound is out there but all of the high end dealers have dumped Totem and they have gone to A&B Sound. I odn;t think it necessarily says anything about the quality and I don;t believe it's because people want to own boutique brands(some are better than others in both camps). High end dealers here simply don't carry Paradigm because they are not high end speakers - Soundhounds carries Wharfedale/Paradigm as good budget speakers and with the V2 I can't argue with that. As Terry said you need to carry a lot of selection so that people can make up their own mind and people want what they read about in last months stereo magazine - he noted that there are speakers you carry to sell and speakers you carry to own. Then there lines like Totem they carry in name only - he said it was useless they got dropped by Dynaudio on the drivers - they sold 6 Totem products all year - they sold 6 AN products in one day. So he keeps them becuase basically you can compare them in an A/B session which helps sell their biggest selling line in AN. ANd Totem takes up little space. They dumped ML and the Big Nautilus speakers because they kept coming back - sooner or later the faults became noticeable - the same set of N801's were brought back by three different customers - that's tough on a dealer so now he carries the smaller N803 and N805.

They have 6-7 people this year scouting at CES looking for brands to carry.

I think Polk ran into financial trouble - they simply never were THAT great - and if you're a marginal high end brand like a Totem and you're selling 6 speakers a year at a huge dealer - then somewhere aloing the line you gotta eat - so you call up A&B Sound and Future Shop where you'll instantly be the prestige line at those places(Energy Veritas as well at A&B Sound). The problem is is that High end shoppers tend not to bother with A&B Sound and Future Shop and average Joe is probably not going to want to drop $3k on a standmount or $800.00Cdn on the Mite. These speakers are good I like the Rainmaker among others - but they're really small and average Joe likes big bass - and none of these cn produce bass with credible SPLs and if it's all about home theater - then the energy C series is cheaper and will do it H/T just as well. Which is why at least at this store Totem's prices are hacked and the manager told me they do the worst of all they carry in sales. If that is true across the board I don't see a big future for Totem - unless they cut corners - and then what's the point.