Speaker Characteristics and Why?

[RGA]

Patd

Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.

If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.

The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.

Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.

And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.

I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.

The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.

Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:

This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight

That means lacks bass weight

Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,

Grainy

But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.

That means badly built.

As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.

Shadow = ringing.

Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,

Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.

"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."

Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.

Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.

Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.


And looking at the measurements

The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.

Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks

the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.

Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.

The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.

Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.

However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.

Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.

slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.

boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.

I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.

To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."

To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.

All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...s/705paradigm/

[poppachubby]

Yes Rich as I said, I want to hear them again. Remember, I have indeed heard them. I also could care less what Stereophile think about anyhting.

[frenchmon]

Patd

Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.

If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.

The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.

Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.

And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.

I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.

The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.

Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:

This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight

That means lacks bass weight

Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,

Grainy

But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.

That means badly built.

As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.

Shadow = ringing.

Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,

Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.

"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."

Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.

Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.

Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.


And looking at the measurements

The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.

Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks

the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.

Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.

The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.

Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.

However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.

Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.

slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.

boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.

I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.

To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."

To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.

All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...s/705paradigm/

RGA...you make the Signiture S2 sound worse than John Atkinson or the report intended. Lets get a little context because you have used his words out of context a little for your perspective on Audio Note Speakers.

To be fair RGA, I think you should have noted the fact that the article was written in 2005, the very first year the Reference Signiture S2 came to market. In 5 years I am sure Paradigm has cleared up the problems of there Reference speakers, but as we all know, no speaker is perfect, not even Audio Note. You should have also mentioned up until that point, Paradigm had never built a speaker for the high end speaker market, Up until then, The Studio Reference 100 was the best they offered in the top of the mid fi speaker market.

And you never said any good points that JA had to say about the new speaker that was just hitting the market.

At best you have painted a picture of Paradigm that I think has been unfairly ascribed to them because of you and your party bent towards AN speakers.

This is how JA ended the review....it would have been wonderful if you had mentioned it.

"Summing up
If you value ultimate loudness and bass extension, then you should check out Paradigm's similarly priced, more utilitarian-styled Reference Studio/100 v.3. But if you're willing to sacrifice those attributes in favor of nuanced higher-frequency purity and the ability to develop a stable, detailed soundstage, Paradigm's Reference Signature S2 might well be for you, particularly if you have a smallish room. Drop-dead gorgeous at an equally attractive price, with faults that are minor and strengths that are major, the S2 comes highly recommended."

Below are a few comments you made......I added your quotes within the context.

"Sound
I set up the Paradigms on 24" Celestion stands, the central pillars of which were filled with a mix of sand and lead shot, in the positions where the Dynaudio Special 25 that I reviewed in June had worked well. bass This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midwith minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight. However, its rich upper-bass register meant that only occasionally did I feel that I was being shortchanged on low frequencies. The Fender bass on the channel-identification tracks on my Editor's Choice CD (Stereophile STPH016-2) had a reasonably full-bodied tone, but with a slight accentuation of each note's leading edge."


"Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments, but provided the playback level was not extreme—this is a small speaker, after all—this was never a serious issue in my auditioning. "


"This track also revealed some slight problems with midrange clarity. I created this test signal, which steps a sinewave burst from 32Hz to 4kHz and back again for each channel individually, because it quickly reveals when a speaker's drive-units have problems speaking with a single voice. As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone. I wasn't sure if I could consistently hear anything like this effect when listening to music; with spectrally pure sounds, however, such as the clarinet on my Mosaic CD (Stereophile STPH015-2), the instrument occasionally sounded a little more sour in intonation than I was anticipating.

[JohnMichael]

Yes Rich as I said, I want to hear them again. Remember, I have indeed heard them. I also could care less what Stereophile think about anyhting.

Poppachubby you should have heard the Snell Type E that the AN E was based on as well as the other Snell speakers with the same letter designations. I really liked the Snells. My neighbor had the Snell Type A's which I listened to as much as I could.

The photo shows a different woofer since the original had a foam surround.

[RGA]

Frenchmon

I mentioned that anyone can take quotes from a review to create a negative picture which is precisely what PatD did. So I took his loudspeaker and illustrated my point.

What PatD does not get is that ALL speakers are inaccurate. There is not perfectly accurate loudspeaker which is why designers - you know designers - the people with engineering backgrounds can't even decide whether or not to use a dynamic driver or ribbon, or electrostat, whether to house them in a box or have an open baffle whether to have one driver or 2 or 10 drivers, whether to go active or passive, whether corner load, horn load etc.

To know whether something is accurate (something is either 100% accurate or it isn't) then you MUST have an actual reference point. In other words if every engineer on the planet past present and future who agree upon ONE set of loudspeakers as being "perfectly" accurate ONLY then can you possibly be able to make comparisons and say speaker X is 89% accurate and speaker Y is 23% accurate.

We have as Peter eloquently noted an elephant in a room with one light above and we are looking at the shadows trying to determine what the Elephant looks like. We are trying to piece back together what it is we're looking at.

If we accept the fact that they're all inaccurate then it comes down to the two things sitting on the side of your head. Dynamics timbre tone and "naturalness" are the lifeblood of music. Frequency response while important changes dramatically in room, your ears forgive frequency issues but can't put dynamics back or bass or pressure. And the S2 is not perfect in terms of frequency - not even remotely so. So why take a theoretical better response for actual in room results?

As for coming out with a new version every 4 years - IMO that is convenient. New product buzz 6 months before release. Product hits market and makes rounds through the review press for 2 years. Sales then plateau in the 3 and 1/2 year range and then it's suddenly time to get the hype machine geared up for the next version. Version 5 is out now right? Same type of cabinet - some new driver to advertise and it will be doubtful if any of them are as good as Version 2 - version 3 and 4 were much worse and cost more.

[YBArcam]

I think it's still v.2 for the Signature line, it's v.5 for the Studio line. Cabinets are all new btw, curved rather than square. IMO there is nothing wrong with releasing new versions, if they can improve on something from the prior version that is. We must remember that to some folks a new version may sound worse than an older one, but to others it may sound better. Depends on taste, room, and system. There are probably lots of fans of v.3 and v.4 despite you hating those versions, RGA. Now, do companies that don't release new versions believe their speakers cannot be improved on? Granted, Paradigm may take it to the extreme, but they are a business and many businesses tend to play the marketing game. It's up to the buyer to determine if an "upgrade" is worth it.

Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up before he set his sights on them. I know you've said RGA, they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker and so I'll overlook the frequent negative comments as some kind of indication that is not the case, and more just that they are a favorite whipping boy.

Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/p...tudio10_v5.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/

[JohnMichael]

I think it's still v.2 for the Signature line, it's v.5 for the Studio line. Cabinets are all new btw, curved rather than square. IMO there is nothing wrong with releasing new versions, if they can improve on something from the prior version that is. We must remember that to some folks a new version may sound worse than an older one, but to others it may sound better. Depends on taste, room, and system. There are probably lots of fans of v.3 and v.4 despite you hating those versions, RGA. Now, do companies that don't release new versions believe their speakers cannot be improved on? Granted, Paradigm may take it to the extreme, but they are a business and many businesses tend to play the marketing game. It's up to the buyer to determine if an "upgrade" is worth it.

Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up. I know you've said they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker.

Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/p...tudio10_v5.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/

He has been beating the one note AN drum for as long as I can remember. They sound good to his ears but what sounds good to your ears is what is important. Once you are home listening to music he will not be there with his shiny coin saying AN is best, you want AN, buy AN, AN is best and now you are getting sleepy.

[poppachubby]

Rich is Canadian and therefore Paradigm is his birthright. We have proprietary rights to love or hate them.

I suspect he targets the digms because it's a brand alot of people know and like. You would have to ask him I guess.

[YBArcam]

He has been beating the one note AN drum for as long as I can remember. They sound good to his ears but what sounds good to your ears is what is important. Once you are home listening to music he will not be there with his shiny coin saying AN is best, you want AN, buy AN, AN is best and now you are getting sleepy.

haha, yes I know. I've noticed his posts for a few years. But he's not so bad. I respect his opinion, because it's different than what one would typically read. He's eloquent and I see the logic in what he says. I've bounced around between many different 2-way thin baffle designs and while I'm still happy to do so I recognize it'll soon be time to try something different. In all fairness to RGA, he has no problem admitting there are good examples of the design type that he's not particularly fond of. So it's cool!

[Pat D]

Patd

Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.

If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.

The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.

Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.

And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.

I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.

The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.

Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:

This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight

That means lacks bass weight

Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,

Grainy

But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.

That means badly built.

As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.

Shadow = ringing.

Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,

Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.

"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."

Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.

Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.

Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.


And looking at the measurements

The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.

Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks

the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.

Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.

The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.

Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.

However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.

Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.

slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.

boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.

I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.

To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."

To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.

All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloud...s/705paradigm/

You just keep showing you don't understand measurements, RGA. You should also distinguish between what the measurements say and your own preferences in sound.

We already know you don't like monitor speakers and you don't like subwoofers. If you really wanted to compare a Paradigm Signature speaker to the AN-E Lexus Signature, you should have picked the bigger Signature S8--still at half the cost. Comparing the biggish AN-E to my little Paradigm Signature S2 speakers brings it down to a matter of taste in speaker formats.

One wonders how well you can understand what you read. John Atkinson's concerns were quite minor. The 800 Hz suckout is very narrow and JA noticed something on test tones but was not sure he could hear anything untoward on music, and that on a recording he himself had made.

A little bass hump in the S2? Really tiny in the room response--but you don't seem to be aware that JA's frequency response measurements in the bass tend to add a little bit of a bass hump as an measurement artifact. He often mentions it in reviews. He evidently prefers to leave the data he gets there as is and let an intelligent reader assess what is happening.

JA's measurements will show ringing in a tweeter, but usually, as in this case, well above the audible range--another illustration that you don't understand measurements and say things you don't really understand.

A slight shelving in the treble? Well, it it's kind of hard to see that in the NRC measurements for Soundstage, which I presume are more accurate.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me..._signature_s2/

In your hurry to try to find support for your contention that the Paradigm Signature S2 is bright, you only quoted part of JA's sentence. Granted, it is not the best sentence he ever wrote, but still, taken in its entirety the meaning is clear: the treble is less forward for the S2 than for the Dynaudio Special 25:

"Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side, though not quite to the same degree as the Danish speaker."

This is also quite evident if you actually look at the measurements for the Dynaudio speaker:

http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...io/index3.html

Take a little more care next time. Even JA can write a convoluted sentence.

OK, if you want a speaker with a shelved up response below about 600 Hz, a depressed response between 1-4 kHz, that's fine with me. Probably sounds pleasant enough most of the time, like the old Celestion 66.

Your remarks on how old recordings will sound seem to be a gross misinterpretation of what JA actually said. It's you who say they should be unlistenable on the S2 speakers. As for me, I have lots of older recordings and CD reissues of older recordings and find they generally sound better than ever on my Signature S2 speakers. Occasionally older recordings are rather bright--that's one reason I like the Quad 44 preamp, which has its Tilt control and if need be, elaborate filters. But I very seldom use the Tilt control or the filter. Of course, I listen mostly to classical music, and some of the labels (London comes to mind) seem to have done a very good job on their early CD reissues. Ansermet's recordings of De Falla and Mussorgsky are examples.

Of course, if you check the room response of the less expensive Audio Note AN-E/SPe HE loudspeaker, you will find that the treble and highs fall off above 2 kHz by about 4 dB/octave, at a guess! Similar with the Harbeth M40.1, BTW. Yeah, you won't get brightness there--the speaker doesn't reproduce the treble and highs at level. No wonder you think flatter speakers are bright!

And check out that big hump in the bass centered at 60 Hz in the room response for the AN-E SPe HE! And you have the gall to complain about a tiny bump in the Paradigm's upper bass response!

http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index6.html

The Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature loudspeaker has that monstrous hump in the lower midrange and moving them closer to the corners is only going to increase the bass to match it. It will do nothing to flatten the response from 1-4 kHz or ameliorate the anomalies in the horizontal dispersion from about 1.5-5 kHz or so.

JA found major strengths with only minor faults in the Paradigm Signature S2, faults and gave it a Class A, Restricted Extreme LF.

The Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature got a Class B, Full Range rating. It's measurements show some pretty major anomalies. One would never get around to discussing minor faults such as found in the Paradigm Signature. Art Dudley at least notices them, but they don't seem to bother him much. As he said in his review: "But people who are sensitive to departures from perfectly flat frequency response should consider themselves forewarned." They don't seem to bother you, either. But I am forewarned. As Bob Neill has often suggested, they aren't for everybody. Remember, I haven't said I would expect them to be unpleasant sounding, just that they have some quite audible anomalies of types I know would bother me.

A few years ago, when I was in Denver, I said to myself, maybe I should just try to listen to some AN speakers to see what RGA is talking about. I called up the AN distributor in Boulder, Audio Federation, and at the time, they had no AN speakers in--they were busy with one of the audio shows, she said. Not too many people carry them. Maybe there is a reason for that.

Again, I repeat, you should compare the full range AN-E Lexus Signature or, for that matter, to the AN-E SPe HE, to Paradigm Signature S8, another full range speaker, rather than compare them to a small monitor speaker. Surely you couldn't complain that the S8 lacks bass or won't play loudly enough.

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/p...gnature_s8.htm

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me..._signature_s8/

Another fine speaker would be the PSB Synchrony One, one of the best large speakers I have heard.

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/p...chrony_one.htm

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/408psb/

[JohnMichael]

Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm

[Pat D]

Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm

Nah, that's just cheap stuff. Look on page 2 for some good stuff for around $200,00. You have to pay that much to find something really good.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page2.htm

Or, you could take the interest on that money to travel to lots of live concerts . . .

[frenchmon]

Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm

$108.000 for these??? I would not pay that kinda money for something that looks like that! For that kinda money, I dont care how good it sounds, it better not look like a Radio shack speaker from the 80's.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Every speaker on that page looks like a $100.000 speaker...all but the Audio Note speakers. I suspect someone at Audio Note is laughing all the way to the bank and have been for years.

[Mr Peabody]

I hope it sounds good for $108k and only a 8" 2-way. Interesting Audio Note says they use very little damping material or internal bracing, I guess this is another point they choose to do the opposite of most other manufacturers. The only $100k speaker I've heard was the Dynaudio Evidence and it's hard for me to believe the AN-E could sound like that, keeping an open mind though because I've never heard the AN-E. The Evidence played lower than any speaker I've heard including subs and reproduced sound pressures like at a live show, although with more control and quality to the sound. It just doesn't seem possible for an 8" 2-way to do that. "Live show" is so open to interpretation but there is just no way to put into words the amazing force of the Evidence.

Following JM's link I am surprised at how many speakers you can buy over $100k that I've never even heard of

[RGA]

PatD -

First - let's set some things straight. Art Dudley wanted the AN E speaker to be given a class A rating - quite vehemently so and he bought them. Wes Phillips hailed his audition as the best sound has he ever heard from an audio system (he would be in the non idiosyncratic camp by the way) and Wes I am pretty sure was a Dynaudio contour speaker owner at the time so he has heard this kind of design.

Art Dudley is not the editor of Stereophile - though he was the editor for Listener a better magazine with less advertising pull. John Atkinson is the arbiter of what is represented in the Stereophile listing - one guy one vote but it depends on who holds the biggest vote. That's fair enough since he is the editor but that is hardly representative. Two of his writers own the AN E and a third hails it the best sound he's ever heard - and nobody bought A Paradigm anything except one writer who owned before he was reviewer. And that writer tends to get the Paradigms.

Since Peter Qvortrup and John Atkinson have a "history" well I am not convinced by the objectivity there. Measuring a "known" corner speaker freestanding is laughable but fortunately those with money, ears, and brains know this.

I have auditioned the S2. I noted the issues I had with it - JA mentions those same concerns. I find them VERY noticeable, he mentions that to HIM some of these issues are not a big deal. But to some of us they ARE a big deal. To my Paradigm dealer and every single guy working there those issues are a big deal. You are welcome to disagree but it would be nice if instead of spending thousands of hours reading white papers and trying to claim that your preference is best because you have some measurements that you actually bother to listen to loudspeakers widely considered to be "some" of the very best in the world.

[RGA]

Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up before he set his sights on them. I know you've said RGA, they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker and so I'll overlook the frequent negative comments as some kind of indication that is not the case, and more just that they are a favorite whipping boy.

Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/p...tudio10_v5.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/

This is not an attack on the S2. Speakers - all of them - have shortfalls. PatD got on my case because he thinks I am unfairly comparing speakers - why? Both are two way loudspeakers. The AN E is bigger - so. What we're complaining unfair advantage because one speaker is designed to have bass and dynamics and sound natural but because it's bigger it is in a different class. On stands they both have tweeters that will be at the same height and they both will take up a similar footprint. If two way small standmounts can't compete then it says more about those designs than anything else.

I will state that I do have a bias not against the S2 or the Monitor 20 - I am not in general a fan of this kind of 2 way speaker - from almost everyone. I don't listen to JUST classical music and strings and as such I want music, all music, to be handled by the loudspeaker system and I want as spot on cohesion as is possible. I don't feel the Studio 20, S2 does that - but to be fair to Paradigm I also have not heard anybody else with similar offering like say the B&W 705 doing it either. The reason they make an S8 is for people who want the fuller scale reproduction - trouble is, while they give me that which I desire they also don't sound cohesive to me and are highly priced. As much as Audio Note may get attacked for extreme price points of one or two super charged versions the AN E can be bought for well under $3,000 as a kit and takes under an hour to build.

[RGA]

I hope it sounds good for $108k and only a 8" 2-way. Interesting Audio Note says they use very little damping material or internal bracing, I guess this is another point they choose to do the opposite of most other manufacturers. The only $100k speaker I've heard was the Dynaudio Evidence and it's hard for me to believe the AN-E could sound like that, keeping an open mind though because I've never heard the AN-E. The Evidence played lower than any speaker I've heard including subs and reproduced sound pressures like at a live show, although with more control and quality to the sound. It just doesn't seem possible for an 8" 2-way to do that. "Live show" is so open to interpretation but there is just no way to put into words the amazing force of the Evidence.

Following JM's link I am surprised at how many speakers you can buy over $100k that I've never even heard of

Acapella sells speakers for over $850,000. Fred Crowder on our staff owns a smaller $200,000 speaker. He has been going to shows for over 25 years and has most of the best stuff come through his house. The Audio Note E's surprised and more than impressed him in terms of bass and the ability as he notes to produce density changes in the air (I refer to it as "pressure") that I hear when an actual instrument is played in the room. For absolute bass depth the AN E is not going to beat massive subwoofers or very large floorstanders - but they are certainly in the same class and IMO offer deeper bass than speakers like the Wilson Sophia II or Sasha at considerably more money.

I never really understand the uproar that the AN E Sogon speakers get at something like $125,000. Is it because it's a two way box? Well it can't be that because the outboard crossovers for each speaker are as big as a Krell amplifier. The silver caps and wiring alone weigh in at over 40lbs per external crossover.

My editor, a nice fellow who has heard every speaker out there and could have purchased virtually any speaker out there BOUGHT $40,000 Audio Note speakers with the smaller outboard crossovers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=352

Unlike most speaker makers it's nice to be able to buy a $125,000 speaker (although I think they're up over $160k now) in a scaled down $2,500 kit and upgrade when money is available. Teresonic does something similar as do a few others.

Granted Peter named the flagship speakers Sogon for a reason (So Gone) due the price. These were designed for the desire to have a system that is 100% silver from cartridge to voice coil. I don't think anyone can justify that cost for loudspeakers, but I suppose if you have the money.

I think the thing to realize about the AN E "scale" of upgrades is that there are something like 11 versions of the speakers. The higher end models preach to the choir. I doubt too many people start there. But there is a very good chance that the AN E/Spe HE will be a speaker that has enough on tap for many people to say that it is the ultimate jack of all trades loudspeaker. It is two way loudspeaker that has bass that will hang in with something like the B&W N801 and Wilson Sophia II or Sasha. For people who conclude this as I do they will say for $7,500 I get bass that hangs in with those and I get all the advantages of a two way and I get to drive it with superior sounding SET amps and they can be put in corners which leaves me more of my living room that I am paying a mortgage on and the wife won't disown me for cluttering up the house. This is tough to beat on all grounds. Sounding beautiful to boot is not too shabby.

The upper models IMO are largely for people who are already convinced by Audio Note. The people who buy complete Audio Note systems for example typically tend to have been audiophiles for 20-40 years and if they got to this point they are convinced by them. Whether other people agree or not is beside the point. The AN guys are the guys convinced and those are the people who will typically move up into the stratospheric prices. This is why I try not to compare a Vandersteen $50k speaker to an Audio Note 50K speaker. I like the AN E $50k speaker more - I like the $7,500 AN E speaker more because I like the sonic perspective of the AN E more than the Vandersteen. But the $50k Vandersteen does sound a helluva lot better than the 2CE and to a Vandersteen lover they may make the same argument. That is their sonic perspective and the $50k version is the ultimate version of Richard Vandersteen's sonic belief system.

And let's not forget that just because something is BIG and has MANY drivers does not mean it costs more to make than a 2 way box with external crossovers. You would need to break down the costs of producing materials. A big box made of MDF is cheaper than a smaller box made of Birch. Silver costs more, expensive caps versus non expensive ones, the woofer in the two way may cost more than 6 drivers combined in the other guy's speakers. The AN E uses carted sheep's wool versus run of the mill dacron or foam inside many other speakers. Audio Note puts a LOT of money into the stuff you can't see while many others put it "only" into what you can see. Look how many people complained and whines about the caps and wiring of expensive B&W's. Why put money into good parts when nobody can see them. There is a cottage industry to upgrade old 801s.

And hey with Audio Note - if you feel the wiring thing is all bunk great there is a cheaper copper wired version available. When did choice become a problem?

Personally, I think it takes a fair amount of guts to produce such a wide array of price points from boxes that LOOK pretty much exactly the same. The money is in the stuff nobody sees and that could be a tough sell if the bottom line is the first priority.

Contrary to popular belief not all rich people are stupid. True audiophiles of means are not sheep that buy from a catalog or Stereophile. They audition, they get the gear to play with and they are the guys buying the creme de la creme. As Cai Brocman noted "Audio Note isn't for posers but for connoisseurs." Either one gets it or they don't. Experienced Audiophiles like this get it. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/..._Note_engl.pdf

[RGA]

I do apologize if I have taken this off topic. If you want to discuss this further please send me a PM on the matter as it really probably doesn't belong in this thread any further. Both sides have stated their respective cases I think.

[basite]

I withdrew my post -

RGA admitted he took this thread of topic, he made his point (yet again, the same point...) and I didn't want this thread to go further off topic too...



Cheers,
Bert.

[frenchmon]

delete

[Pat D]

Frenchmon

I mentioned that anyone can take quotes from a review to create a negative picture which is precisely what PatD did. So I took his loudspeaker and illustrated my point.

What PatD does not get is that ALL speakers are inaccurate. There is not perfectly accurate loudspeaker which is why designers - you know designers - the people with engineering backgrounds can't even decide whether or not to use a dynamic driver or ribbon, or electrostat, whether to house them in a box or have an open baffle whether to have one driver or 2 or 10 drivers, whether to go active or passive, whether corner load, horn load etc.

To know whether something is accurate (something is either 100% accurate or it isn't) then you MUST have an actual reference point. In other words if every engineer on the planet past present and future who agree upon ONE set of loudspeakers as being "perfectly" accurate ONLY then can you possibly be able to make comparisons and say speaker X is 89% accurate and speaker Y is 23% accurate.

We have as Peter eloquently noted an elephant in a room with one light above and we are looking at the shadows trying to determine what the Elephant looks like. We are trying to piece back together what it is we're looking at.

If we accept the fact that they're all inaccurate then it comes down to the two things sitting on the side of your head. Dynamics timbre tone and "naturalness" are the lifeblood of music. Frequency response while important changes dramatically in room, your ears forgive frequency issues but can't put dynamics back or bass or pressure. And the S2 is not perfect in terms of frequency - not even remotely so. So why take a theoretical better response for actual in room results?

As for coming out with a new version every 4 years - IMO that is convenient. New product buzz 6 months before release. Product hits market and makes rounds through the review press for 2 years. Sales then plateau in the 3 and 1/2 year range and then it's suddenly time to get the hype machine geared up for the next version. Version 5 is out now right? Same type of cabinet - some new driver to advertise and it will be doubtful if any of them are as good as Version 2 - version 3 and 4 were much worse and cost more.

Did I say anything about the speakers' accuracy, RGA? I don't think so. You are the one that mentioned the accuracy of speakers. Since I didn't talk about the accuracy of speakers, I see no reason to comment on your rambling discussion of it, bringing in everything but the kitchen sink.

I said that I think the NRC measurements are probably more accurate than the ones Stereophile does--and John Atkinson has sometimes said he is glad his curves often are quite close to those done on the same speakers at the NRC. But that's a different thing than talking about the accuracy of the speakers.

What I want to know is what the measurements will tell me about whether I will like the speakers in question. Dr. Floyd Toole's research dealt with preferences: what characteristics in speakers listeners generally prefer. Now you get all upset when I point out things in the AN-E Lexus Signature that I know will be quite audible and will bother me. That does not mean you will prefer those same characteristics. As I pointed out. Art Dudley hears them and describes them--but they don't bother him much. I've seen no evidence you notice them as you never talk about them.

I am concerned with what the measurements tell me about the sound. Again, you have some delusion that I am somehow supposed to predict "exactly" how a speaker will sound--well, RGA, everyone knows kissing and telling aren't the same! Piano sound is quite important for me, and so is vocal reproduction--and Art Dudley describes hearing the sorts of things the measurements would predict.

Now, I did not pick on your speakers. I talked about the measurements of the AN-E Lexus Signature speaker, which you don't own, and also a little about the AN-E SPe HE, which you don't own. You said you picked on my speaker because it was also a two way--so is that tiny little Radio Shack speaker that used to cost about $50. No, you picked on it because I have the S2 speakers. As I pointed out, it would have been more appropriate to compare with the S8, or perhaps the PSB Synchrony One, a speaker I also like.

You say you heard the same things John Atkinson heard in the Paradigm Signature S2--other than its limitations as a monitor speaker, I see no evidence of this. You are not as well trained a listener as is JA and you mention nothing about a slight sourness of a note on a clarinet. JA's point was that with the S2, one can talk about subtleties in the sound one never gets around to with most other speakers.

Do you really want to compare room responses of the S2 with the AN-E SPe He? Go right ahead! Remember, the S2 will likely be used with a subwoofer, which as Soundmind used to point out, would be a three way system.

http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...gm/index3.html

http://stereophile.com/standloudspea...an/index6.html

Of course, the rooms were different and the measurement methodology was different.

You also talk about reviewers buying speakers. Doug Schneider of Soundstage bought the Paradigm Signature S2 speakers, or doesn't he count? They're probably too cheap for Art Dudley to consider.

You seem to be privy to the inner workings at Stereophile. Art Dudley's taste in speakers seems to be so different from mine, not to say erratic. AD wanted the AN-E Lexus Signature to be Class A, did he? I pay no attention to his ratings, though perhaps I will take some account of his descriptions of what he hears from speakers. Nevertheless, even though I tend to share JA's tastes in speakers, in Stereophile, I look most closely at JA's measurements--just as I look most closely at the NRC speaker measurements done for Soundstage, and Andrew Marshall's speaker measurements in Audio Ideas Guide.

[Pat D]

PatD -

First - let's set some things straight. Art Dudley wanted the AN E speaker to be given a class A rating - quite vehemently so and he bought them. Wes Phillips hailed his audition as the best sound has he ever heard from an audio system (he would be in the non idiosyncratic camp by the way) and Wes I am pretty sure was a Dynaudio contour speaker owner at the time so he has heard this kind of design.

Art Dudley is not the editor of Stereophile - though he was the editor for Listener a better magazine with less advertising pull. John Atkinson is the arbiter of what is represented in the Stereophile listing - one guy one vote but it depends on who holds the biggest vote. That's fair enough since he is the editor but that is hardly representative. Two of his writers own the AN E and a third hails it the best sound he's ever heard - and nobody bought A Paradigm anything except one writer who owned before he was reviewer. And that writer tends to get the Paradigms.

Since Peter Qvortrup and John Atkinson have a "history" well I am not convinced by the objectivity there. Measuring a "known" corner speaker freestanding is laughable but fortunately those with money, ears, and brains know this.

I have auditioned the S2. I noted the issues I had with it - JA mentions those same concerns. I find them VERY noticeable, he mentions that to HIM some of these issues are not a big deal. But to some of us they ARE a big deal. To my Paradigm dealer and every single guy working there those issues are a big deal. You are welcome to disagree but it would be nice if instead of spending thousands of hours reading white papers and trying to claim that your preference is best because you have some measurements that you actually bother to listen to loudspeakers widely considered to be "some" of the very best in the world.

As you should know, I spent quite a lot of time auditioning speakers before picking the Paradigm Signature S2 for my main speakers, and I first heard them before I had found any reviews of them. I auditioned the S2 a number of times against some other speakers, though that was not always possible. I know that I have very fine monitor speakers and really, I don't care what you, Art Dudley, and Peter Qvortrup think about it.

If I had come across anyone who actually carries Audio Note speakers, I would have been happy to listen to them. I am sure I would have heard the same anomalies Art Dudley and John Atkinson heard--they're just too big to miss and they would get in the way of the music.

But if you and your dealer like AN speakers, fine. If Art Dudley wanted AN speakers, fine. That's not my problem. I have long suggested people buy the speakers they like and I have no idea why you suggest otherwise.

Why on earth does it bother you that I have different needs and tastes in speakers than you do and that I find competent speaker measurements to be useful in setting up an audition list?

As for reviewers buying speakers they reviewed, well, Doug Schneider of Soundstage got the S2 speakers. Does he count?

I really don't much care about the speaker preferences of most audio consultants or sales people. Good sales people have to believe in the products they sell. I have often had to insist that the speakers I want to audition be set up properly. I've even seen the speakers they really wanted to sell placed better than the ones they weren't so anxious to sell.

[poppachubby]

OK I think we are approaching redundancy here...

[RGA]

Patd

Fair enough PatD. I thought you were suggesting they were accurate or that Toole's research was some sort of vindication for your "preferences" - this is how I read some of your posts which may not be your intent.

As for descriptors people use different adjectives to describe sound. I have never reviewed the AN E. I have never formally reviewed the S2. In most cases I try to preselect speakers I want to review because I don't really want to waste time reviewing products that I don't much like.

The notion of experience comes up from time to time but I think you give credit to reviewers who support your position and not to those who don't. I was on about Audio Note E speakers for quite a long time before Stereophile. It's nice to have far more experienced and veteran reviewers like Art Dudley, Paul Messenger, Constantine Soo, Fred Crowder, Wes Philips arrive after many years at a place that I got to in my early 30's. Art is not a lavish spender - he raved about a playstation to be used as a CD player (of all the writers that should be up the objectivists ally) - he's the only major reviewer I know of who came out for a $20 cd player. His vinyl system is relatively thrifty and he said this about a $1300 amplifier kit. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/...w_Listener.pdf Art is one of the few reviewers out there looking to save a buck - so please don't suggest that he would pay $7,000 for a speaker and try to suggest that he just likes to show off. For him it is all about the sound and he's out to save people a buck.

The issue I take with your posts and I will try and get this across - is that you tend to support your opinion with the suggestion you are 100% correct on your preference because the measurements somehow support what you would buy. You have done it here by suggesting that JA is a better listener than me because he describes sourness in a Clarinet. Is there objective evidence that that is the S2 or the recording? Is he a better listener because he likes the S2 and I don't? Does that mean Art is tone deaf because he chose a speaker that doesn't conform to Toole's research. That's the way I read your posts. If JA and Soundstage like it then it is the best. If it's not a speaker that fits in that round hole then it is a lousy speaker and anyone buying it must have lesser hearing or likes euphonics. I could even accept those views had the person making those sorts of innuendos if he/she actually auditioned that which he/she condemns.

As for Stereophile - Art mentioned in the recommend listening that he felt the AN E should be class A+++ or something to this effect. I understand the appeal of lists but they're extremely dangerous just as things like rottentomatoes is dangerous in that you could take 100 critics and 80 of them could give the movie 3/5 for a recommendation, 10 could give it 4/5 a stronger recommendation, and 5 could give it a RAVE and five could give it a thumbs down. The movie scores 95% recommended so you say this is going to be great - all the critics agree. Conversely you could have a movie that gets 50 RAVE 5/5 reviews, 20 strong 4/5 reviews 10 recommended 3/5 reviews and the rest thumbs down. The movie has 80% which is lesser as a statistic but you have FAR greater chance that you will LOVE the second movie than you have of loving the first. Granted you have a greater chance of not liking it all with the second film.

The issue crops up in the review press. You have a reviewer review a certain number of pieces per year. They may review 3-12 pieces of gear over the year. A best in class list comes out but really how many people heard the specific speakers on a given staff. Maybe two. So you have one guy who LOVES the product to death and the second one gives it a solid but not rave review - so they cut the recommendation to a safer slightly lowered tier. Which is fair in some respects if the item is idiosyncratic. Hi-fi Choice does this and it makes some sense. They loved the OTO integrated - felt that none of the other amps in their group tests sounded as nice - but gave it 4 stars out of five. But that's fair because the amp is very low power has few features, no remote and won't play well with the average consumer speaker purchase. That is a completely fair rating and solid reasoning. Though it certainly makes it worth a listen if you do have the partnering gear so it would be a huge mistake to just see the 4 star rating and skip to the next amp - the next amp that got 5 stars but they felt didn't sound as good as one that got 4.

As for politics this is an issue for several companies. And you have conversed with Peter on AA. And certainly he doesn't mince words in person. He is not exactly the most loved guy when it comes to the press and he as well as Andy Grove and JA have been at it on AA a few times. It is not at all surprising that the reviewer who gets AN gear is the guy who got AN gear when he ran Listener. Taking personal bias out of it when you are not on good terms with the manufacturer is difficult to take out of the review.

As for Schneider or anyone else choosing the S2 - to be perfectly blunt it is not something I would argue against. If you're budget is in that $2k camp it's not like there are a lot of terrible loudspeakers or speakers that truly standout from the heap. I look at the $2k speakers sold at Soundhounds and there is Paradigm, Magnepan's 1.6, soem B&W's - a standmount and a floorstander, maybe a Sonus Faber and a Dynaudio. If standmounts that size are your thing then the S2 or 20 arguably are as good as anything in that price range I suspect.

But any ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there are many factors other than sound in play with most of them.

[3LB]

I look at driver measurements when building, but if I were just going to spend some time auditioning a set of speakers to buy, I'd just use my ears.