Paradigm Studio 20 vs. Studio 40

[mike c]

I searched a bit and found no 20 vs. 40 threads.

Paradigm Studio 20 vs. Studio 40

if the speakers are gonna be used with a sub for 2.1 channel listening ...
do you think the extra driver of the 40 would improve SQ?
(less work for the middle driver)

also, what wattage would be sufficient for these guys?
(options 120wpc, 200wpc)

[speakerman39]

I searched a bit and found no 20 vs. 40 threads.

Paradigm Studio 20 vs. Studio 40

if the speakers are gonna be used with a sub for 2.1 channel listening ...
do you think the extra driver of the 40 would improve SQ?
(less work for the middle driver)

also, what wattage would be sufficient for these guys?
(options 120wpc, 200wpc)
Hello I own the Studio 20 v.3's and just love them. When I did some rather extensive listening to the Studio Line I was not too impressed with the Studio 40's. Sure, it will give you a larger soundstage but at the expense of imaging. That is, the Studio 20 v.3's do EVERYTHING the Studio 40 's do BUT with better imaging and more articulation in the upper midbass and migrange regions. However, the Studio 40's will offer you some lower frequency extension but it is not as tight as the
Studio 20's. I also believe the mids sound a bit better balanced than the
40's, therefore, at the time of purchase, I did not see ANY reason whatsoever to spend the extra $300-$400 dollars. Use your money more wisely and go with the 20's. The imaging and sound they produce is absolutely stunning!!!! Hope this helps. Happy hunting.:) :)

[mike c]

thanks speakerman. what amp are you using with the 20's?

[billy p]

I'm guessing but me thinks I saw it in a recent thread?Good chance I'll stand corrected lol.:D

[mike c]

right. beta 40 thread I think.

[wilkenboy]

I went to a local shop (Marvin's Electronics here in Ft. Worth) a few months ago and the (very helpful) sales guy gave me quite a bit of time and an A/B setup with the Studio 20s and 40s.

I enjoyed the 20s, more so than the 40s - with the caveat that you will use a sub with the setup. The 20s just seemed cleaner, less muddy in their mid-range presentation to me. We had them powered with a Denon 3805 if memory serves me right.

Primary audition material was Sting: Brand New Day in DTS, some Allison Krause, and the "Leeloo escapes / car chase" scene from the Superbit version of the 5th Element.

We were both there listening, pressing the A/B switch - and while I was thinking it, it was the sales guy who commented first that he liked the 20s better.

As always, listen for yourself if you can.

~Josh

[cornelius]

The 20s are a nice little monitor for the money. Once you start getting into the more expensive Paradigm floorstanders, I think there are better options elsewhere. The 20s and a sub is nice combo.

[j_garcia]

Hello I own the Studio 20 v.3's and just love them. When I did some rather extensive listening to the Studio Line I was not too impressed with the Studio 40's. Sure, it will give you a larger soundstage but at the expense of imaging. That is, the Studio 20 v.3's do EVERYTHING the Studio 40 's do BUT with better imaging and more articulation in the upper midbass and migrange regions. However, the Studio 40's will offer you some lower frequency extension but it is not as tight as the
Studio 20's. I also believe the mids sound a bit better balanced than the
40's, therefore, at the time of purchase, I did not see ANY reason whatsoever to spend the extra $300-$400 dollars. Use your money more wisely and go with the 20's. The imaging and sound they produce is absolutely stunning!!!! Hope this helps. Happy hunting.:) :)

I found exactly the opposite. I found the 40s to be more articulate than the 20s with better imaging due to the additional midrange capability. The 20s seemed to be the ones lacking midrange to me, making the bass seem a little heavier almost. The 40s do not have any more low extension than the 20s, they are tuned exactly the same and I was surprised to find that in-room they performed quite similarly in terms of bass (which is saying a lot about the 20s). I would pick the 40s over the 20s every time, though that is not to say that the 20s are a bad choice at all. For the money however, I agree with cornelius, even at the price of the 20s, I'd be looking elsewhere.

[mike c]

for the price : what other options are there?
im drawing blanks ... if not digm, I can only go back down to the B&W 6 series

[speakerman39]

thanks speakerman. what amp are you using with the 20's?
No amp here sorry but do have a Pioneer 1015 which does just fine. The sound is full and plenty clean and loud.:p

[speakerman39]

I found exactly the opposite. I found the 40s to be more articulate than the 20s with better imaging due to the additional midrange capability. The 20s seemed to be the ones lacking midrange to me, making the bass seem a little heavier almost. The 40s do not have any more low extension than the 20s, they are tuned exactly the same and I was surprised to find that in-room they performed quite similarly in terms of bass (which is saying a lot about the 20s). I would pick the 40s over the 20s every time, though that is not to say that the 20s are a bad choice at all. For the money however, I agree with cornelius, even at the price of the 20s, I'd be looking elsewhere.
Well all I can say is that based on my listening session(s) in which I have spent many hours auditioning several of the Paradigm speakers these are my observations. And, after owning my Studio 20 v.3's I am still more convinced that the Studio 40's would offer me very little if any real advantage at all. In fact, the Studio 20's sound better each and everytime I hear them.:) :) Therfore, imho I would definitely go with the
Studio 20's. Never heard the Studio 60's or the 100's so can be of no help there.

[cyberbri]

for the price : what other options are there?
im drawing blanks ... if not digm, I can only go back down to the B&W 6 series


Ascend (www.ascendacoustics.com). And at about 1/2 the price.
See here for comparisons:
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=188577&postcount=24

[mike c]

thanks cyberbri, will check if they have dealers over here.

oops. looks like they're similar to SVS and axiom. no luck for me.

[cornelius]

Some nice alternatives to the Studio 20s are:
Monitors:
Alegria audio Ling or Emma
http://www.us.alegriaaudio.com/products.htm

Floorstanding (if you're paying retail for the Digms + good stands):
Vandersteen 1C
Ohm MicroWalsh Tall

[cyberbri]

thanks cyberbri, will check if they have dealers over here.


They are Internet direct, with a 30-day return policy. You'd have to contact them and see if they ship to where you are.

[ht_addict]

Go with the 40's. They offer a wide soundstage, very detailed and tons off bass in my opinion. Thats why I use them as my fronts in my HT:D Here's a couple off links to reviews off the two.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_2/paradigm-reference-20-470-speakers-5-2005.html

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=580

[mike c]

htaddict, only the denon 4806 running the right? (whats the wpc of the 4806?)

[Nick250]

Well all I can say is that based on my listening session(s) in which I have spent many hours auditioning several of the Paradigm speakers these are my observations. And, after owning my Studio 20 v.3's I am still more convinced that the Studio 40's would offer me very little if any real advantage at all. In fact, the Studio 20's sound better each and every time I hear them.:) :) Therefore, IMHO I would definitely go with the
Studio 20's. Never heard the Studio 60's or the 100's so can be of no help there.

I will share my experience the Studio 20s. Six years ago after auditioning many speakers in my price range $500 - $700 for the mains I decided the Studio 20s (ver. 2) were the best to my ears. Also at the same time I purchased a big ugly Hsu VTF2. Every time I think about upgrading my speakers, I realized how much I like the sound of the 20s. At least in ver 2 the bass can be a bit boomy for my taste, but no matter, I run them small anyway. It surprises me because for most things I always want the latest and greatest, but I have absolutely no urge to go out and audition other speakers, even after six years.

Nick

[Jason Coleman]

Unfortunately, I never had a chance to audition the Studio 40's or the 60's, but I did do extensive listening between the Studio 100's (v3) and the Studio 20's, both paired w/ the Servo-15 sub. I was sold on the 100's, as I was looking for floorstanding speakers for my fronts, but figured I'd listen to the 20's as they'd gotten so much good press. Needless to say, I was floored by the performance of the 20's. I ended up buying the 100's, but I'm now seriously considering buying the 20's for a Zone 2 setup where I currently have the Atom v3's. The only catch is that the Atoms are wall-mounted via Premier brackets and the 20's don't have any bracketing capability.

J.

[speakerman39]

Unfortunately, I never had a chance to audition the Studio 40's or the 60's, but I did do extensive listening between the Studio 100's (v3) and the Studio 20's, both paired w/ the Servo-15 sub. I was sold on the 100's, as I was looking for floorstanding speakers for my fronts, but figured I'd listen to the 20's as they'd gotten so much good press. Needless to say, I was floored by the performance of the 20's. I ended up buying the 100's, but I'm now seriously considering buying the 20's for a Zone 2 setup where I currently have the Atom v3's. The only catch is that the Atoms are wall-mounted via Premier brackets and the 20's don't have any bracketing capability.

J.
I could not even imagine someone mounting the
Studio 20 v.3's on a wall. I mean these things are quite heavy. I am sure there are ways to do it but man that would have to be one heck of a chore. Wish I could hear the Studio 100's myself.

[speakerman39]

I will share my experience the Studio 20s. Six years ago after auditioning many speakers in my price range $500 - $700 for the mains I decided the Studio 20s (ver. 2) were the best to my ears. Also at the same time I purchased a big ugly Hsu VTF2. Every time I think about upgrading my speakers, I realized how much I like the sound of the 20s. At least in ver 2 the bass can be a bit boomy for my taste, but no matter, I run them small anyway. It surprises me because for most things I always want the latest and greatest, but I have absolutely no urge to go out and audition other speakers, even after six years.

Nick
Not sure of the exact changes between the v.2 and the v.3 versions BUT I will say that the Studio 20 v.3's are anything BUT boomy in the bass. I thought the Monitor Line was a bit on the boomy side and that is the main reason I ended up with preferring the Studio Line. Heck I believe that the all new Reference Studio v.4's are beginning to hit some dealers. Just curious to see as well as hear what are, if any, changes both cosmetically and acoustically speaking.

[mike c]

...Heck I believe that the all new Reference Studio v.4's are beginning to hit some dealers. Just curious to see as well as hear what are, if any, changes both cosmetically and acoustically speaking.

where did you hear this? (v4 news)
thats good news, I can either wait for the v4 or get a good price on the v3

[ht_addict]

htaddict, only the denon 4806 running the right? (whats the wpc of the 4806?)

Only the Denon running the show at 140w/per. Has no problem powering the Paradigms to insane levels.

[Nick250]

Not sure of the exact changes between the v.2 and the v.3 versions BUT I will say that the Studio 20 v.3's are anything BUT boomy in the bass. I thought the Monitor Line was a bit on the boomy side and that is the main reason I ended up with preferring the Studio Line. Heck I believe that the all new Reference Studio v.4's are beginning to hit some dealers. Just curious to see as well as hear what are, if any, changes both cosmetically and acoustically speaking.

I may have to check out vr 4 myself. If I had to nit pick I would say the ver 2s are a bit bright.

I am curious, has anybody heard both ver 2 and ver 3 of the 20s and can comment on the differences?

Nick

[speakerman39]

I may have to check out vr 4 myself. If I had to nit pick I would say the ver 2s are a bit bright.

I am curious, has anybody heard both ver 2 and ver 3 of the 20s and can comment on the differences?

Nick
Very good question. I can say that the Studio20 v.3's are not bright but may be a bit forward. After owning them for over 5 months they seem to be more relaxed so to speak. They just sound better and better-I grin from ear to ear when I hear them.:p :p

[j_garcia]

I didn't hear much difference between the two. They changed the crossover and slightly changed the tweeter (bringing the brightness down a touch), but they are basically the same speaker. Visually, the cabinets and grilles are different.

The 40s give you +2dB over the 20s. That's like adding 75% more power to your system... THAT is the difference between them. I found the 40s more effortless in filling the room (my room is fairly large) - the 20s can sort of do it, but they have to be cranked louder.

[eirepaul]

I didn't hear much difference between the two. They changed the crossover and slightly changed the tweeter (bringing the brightness down a touch), but they are basically the same speaker. Visually, the cabinets and grilles are different.

The 40s give you +2dB over the 20s. That's like adding 75% more power to your system... THAT is the difference between them. I found the 40s more effortless in filling the room (my room is fairly large) - the 20s can sort of do it, but they have to be cranked louder.

Getting back to my original thread subject - your thoughts are where I am right now. I currently have Mini-Monitors in the front of a large, vaulted ceiling listening room and while they sound good, I find that they struggle to fill the room with clean power, hence I am considering the Monitor 5 or 7. I have plenty of amplifier power in reserve, so that is not an issue. Is that additional +2dB efficiency really like adding 75% more power?? How do you figure that?

[cyberbri]

It takes 2x the watts to get 3 more dB of sound. If you want 6 more dB, it takes 4x the power, or 8x the power for 9 more dB.


So if a speaker is 3dB more efficient...

87dB sensitivity --> 1w = 87dB, 2w = 90dB, 4w = 93dB, 8w = 96dB, 16w = 99dB, 32w = 102dB, 64w = 105dB, 128w = 108dB

90dB sensitivity --> 1w = 90dB, 2w = 93dB, 4w = 96dB, 8w = 99dB, 16w = 102dB, 32w = 105dB, 64w = 108dB, 128w = 111dB


That's just one speaker, but in stereo you have two speakers. The sensitivity are rated at 1w/1m, so doubling the distance to 6 feet or so is basically evened out by having 2 speakers. Of course you'll have room interactions, but that works evenly with all speakers.

[speakerman39]

where did you hear this? (v4 news)
thats good news, I can either wait for the v4 or get a good price on the v3
A buddy of mine whom sells the Paradigm Speakers claims they should be rolling in soon. Some dealers may be getting them already. If you go to the Paradigm website there you can download the all new Reference v.4 catalog. Not really sure if there are very many changes BUT it does appear to have some slight cosmetic changes. At least that is the way it has been with respect to the Audition and Monitor series in which both have been in the v.4 versions for a while now.

[speakerman39]

I didn't hear much difference between the two. They changed the crossover and slightly changed the tweeter (bringing the brightness down a touch), but they are basically the same speaker. Visually, the cabinets and grilles are different.

The 40s give you +2dB over the 20s. That's like adding 75% more power to your system... THAT is the difference between them. I found the 40s more effortless in filling the room (my room is fairly large) - the 20s can sort of do it, but they have to be cranked louder.
Woocifer and Kex over at audioreview.com have commented several times about the v.2 being brighter than the v.2. So maybe then that is where most of the improvement was made.

[j_garcia]

Getting back to my original thread subject - your thoughts are where I am right now. I currently have Mini-Monitors in the front of a large, vaulted ceiling listening room and while they sound good, I find that they struggle to fill the room with clean power, hence I am considering the Monitor 5 or 7. I have plenty of amplifier power in reserve, so that is not an issue. Is that additional +2dB efficiency really like adding 75% more power?? How do you figure that?

A more sensitive speaker is able to play equally loud with less power and will also play louder with the same amount of power as a lower sensitivity speaker.

I had Minis and went to 5s - the difference in their ability to fill the room was noticable. I compared 20s to 40s and found the same thing. I used to have A/V-1s, which are the little brother of the A/V-2s (similar to 20s vs 40s) and again, the same results. Each time a calibration indicated exactly a 2dB adjustment. Each was an increase over the former, the reason is that simply adding another driver playing the same thing to any cabinet automatically gives you that +2dB. This will definitely be more noticable in a larger room. Now, the 7s for some reason are 93dB sensitive vs 92dB of the 5s, but both should be a noticable improvement from the Minis. The 20s are the same 90dB sensitive, but they can handle a ton more power than the Minis (and they like more power...) That's also why when I recommend the Ascends, I usually recommend the 340s for larger rooms over the 170s.

One of the additional reasons why I liked the 5s was that I could choose a stand to give me exactly the tweeter height I was after - not so simple with the 7s, though you can still shove things under them to raise the tweeter height. Without stands, the tweeters of the 7s were almost 8" lower than with the 5s on my stands.