Paradigm Persona 5F Tower Loudspeaker Review

[gene]

The Paradigm Persona 5F tower speaker is a three-way tower speaker featuring beryllium midwoofer and tweeter, and three 7" bass drivers. The highly-regarded Canadian loudspeaker manufacturer Paradigm has launched themselves into the high-end speaker market with their Persona product line, their first foray into speakers with five-figure price tags. While no one doubts that Paradigm has the resources and expertise to make a high-end super-speaker, the question is how well have they accomplished that task, and how will the market respond? In our review, we attempt to answer the former question, and we are very interested in learning the answer to the latter question, which is yet to be determined.

Read: Paradigm Persona 5F Tower Loudspeaker Review

 

[slipperybidness]

Likely the best series that Paradigm has ever produced?

The nice thing about Paradigm, the local shop never sales Paradigm at full MSRP!

 

[shadyJ]

Likely the best series that Paradigm has ever produced?

Undoubtedly the best series that Paradigm has ever produced.

 

[GO-NAD!]

If I were wealthy enough, they would be in my living room.

 

[Paul Lane]

Seems way too expensive ..

 

[everettT]

Seems way too expensive ..

Relative to?

 

[ichigo]

Seems way too expensive ..

And yet it's a steal compared to other speakers featuring beryllium tweeters + woofers.

 

[KEW]

Those grilles remind me of the resonators used with guitars!
I know at this level you are kind of looking hard and being very critical, but was wanting to know if you had a speaker of similar caliber that ranked 5/5 for "Treble Smoothness" in mind when you rated the Paradigm at 4/5.
Thanks!

 

[shadyJ]

Those grilles remind me of the resonators used with guitars!
I know at this level you are kind of looking hard and being very critical, but was wanting to know if you had a speaker of similar caliber that ranked 5/5 for "Treble Smoothness" in mind when you rated the Paradigm at 4/5.
Thanks!

I gave it 4/5 because there was a low Q peak around 10 kHz on direct axis. It was not severe, but it was audible. It mellows out at 15 to 20 degrees off axis, so it is not a big deal, but for 17K, I'd prefer a flatter response in that range. A small imperfection in an overall stellar speaker.

 

[Figaro]

I'm waiting for someone to review/compare any of the Paradigm Personas to the GE Triton Reference. I can't be the only one curious about this.

Thanks!

 

[TLS Guy]

I gave it 4/5 because there was a low Q peak around 10 kHz on direct axis. It was not severe, but it was audible. It mellows out at 15 to 20 degrees off axis, so it is not a big deal, but for 17K, I'd prefer a flatter response in that range. A small imperfection in an overall stellar speaker.

This goes to the nub of the issue.

I think there were marketers in charge of this design. They laid down the law that there had to be exotic material and a toxic material at that.

So we have an otherwise good speaker spoiled by a tweeter with an audible Q resonance, and far from a state of the art response. The fact is there are plenty of tweeters that do not use exotic materials that do not exhibit this behavior. This problem should have been corrected in a speaker costing that much before being offered on the market.

My next point is, was that mid driver really worth money? If you spend the cash and time for a driver like that it should be something special. What we have is a driver crossed at 450 Hz and 2.4 KHz. That is nothing special and there are plenty of good drivers not made if exotic metal that have a bandwidth even wider than that with good response. That is a bandwidth just over 2 octaves. Nothing special about that. If they wanted to go to that much trouble it should have had a bandwidth allowing cross 450 Hz to around 4 KHz.

I do commend them for not putting a passive crossover lower that 450 Hz which is a recipe for trouble.

I don't doubt this is a superior speaker, but I'm certain they could have produced a better speaker for less money.

If you are going to develop drivers like that, then they had better advance the state of the art. This design does not. It does not indicate the cost of the R & D that must have been considerable was money well spent.

This design has not pushed the boundaries from current practice.

As a point of reference I think the mid range driver in the new B & W 800 D3 series has advanced the state of the art.

This driver really advances the state of the art and costs $18.39!

 

[shadyJ]

This goes to the nub of the issue.

I think there were marketers in charge of this design. They laid down the law that there had to be exotic material and a toxic material at that.

So we have an otherwise good speaker spoiled by a tweeter with an audible Q resonance, and far from a state of the art response. The fact is there are plenty of tweeters that do not use exotic materials that do not exhibit this behavior. This problem should have been corrected in a speaker costing that much before being offered on the market.

My next point is, was that mid driver really worth money? If you spend the cash and time for a driver like that it should be something special. What we have is a driver crossed at 450 Hz and 2.4 KHz. That is nothing special and there are plenty of good drivers not made if exotic metal that have a bandwidth even wider than that with good response. That is a bandwidth just over 2 octaves. Nothing special about that. If they wanted to go to that much trouble it should have had a bandwidth allowing cross 450 Hz to around 4 KHz.

I do commend them for not putting a passive crossover lower that 450 Hz which is a recipe for trouble.

I don't doubt this is a superior speaker, but I'm certain they could have produced a better speaker for less money.

If you are going to develop drivers like that, then they had better advance the state of the art. This design does not. It does not indicate the cost of the R & D that must have been considerable was money well spent.

This design has not pushed the boundaries from current practice.

As a point of reference I think the mid range driver in the new B & W 800 D3 series has advanced the state of the art.

This driver really advances the state of the art and costs $18.39!

Beryllium is only toxic if inhaled as a dust or ingested. It isn't toxic as a loudspeaker driver cone. Beryllium is an excellent diaphram material for speakers, so I am not so sure that this was a marketer's decision. If you were going all out to design drivers where cost is not an object, why not use beryllium? The only reason not to use beryllium is cost.

As for the 2.4 kHz crossover point, I am guessing the reason for that is to keep a uniform dispersion pattern going from mid-range to tweeter, since 6" is somewhat large for a mid-range. I would guess the mid-range driver could handle higher frequencies without worrying about break-up.

As for the bump in treble, that may well be a matter of 'voicing' to bring out detail if you wanted to listen on direct axis rather than an intrinsic property of the tweeter like some kind of resonance. Anyway, Paradigm recommends a moderate toe-in, so these aren't really intended to be listened to on direct axis.

 

[Beave]

What I find interesting is that since Paradigm built their new anechoic chamber, their newly released speakers (Prestige and Persona) have not measured anywhere near flat according to measurements from the NRC, Stereophile, and Sound & Vision. But according to Paradigm's measurements, they're much better. So who is right?

Given how closely Stereophile's measurements are to the NRC measurements, despite being very different techniques, I tend to think they are the more accurate measurements. Does that mean Paradigm's anechoic chamber is flawed or improperly calibrated? I don't know, but something doesn't seem to add up.

 

[TLS Guy]

Beryllium is only toxic if inhaled as a dust or ingested. It isn't toxic as a loudspeaker driver cone. Beryllium is an excellent diaphram material for speakers, so I am not so sure that this was a marketer's decision. If you were going all out to design drivers where cost is not an object, why not use beryllium? The only reason not to use beryllium is cost.

As for the 2.4 kHz crossover point, I am guessing the reason for that is to keep a uniform dispersion pattern going from mid-range to tweeter, since 6" is somewhat large for a mid-range. I would guess the mid-range driver could handle higher frequencies without worrying about break-up.

As for the bump in treble, that may well be a matter of 'voicing' to bring out detail if you wanted to listen on direct axis rather than an intrinsic property of the tweeter like some kind of resonance. Anyway, Paradigm recommends a moderate toe-in, so these aren't really intended to be listened to on direct axis.

It is very hazardous to the workers who have to work with. So toxic I view it as unethical.

You do not need to use Beryllium to make a decent speaker. If you look at the Scanspeak that is the favored Beryllium tweeter the soft dome version is actually better.

I would argue, that my Excel soft dome tweeter is a far better one than the tweeter in the speaker under discussion.

If the midrange could be crossed higher there would be no off axis problems.

I just don't believe this unit is moving the state of the art forward. At that price it should.

If you remove the exotic metal, that is a very run of the mill design.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

This driver really advances the state of the art and costs $18.39!

I can get it for you wholesale.

 

[slipperybidness]

It is very hazardous to the workers who have to work with. So toxic I view it as unethical.

Well, then any semiconductor device is also unethical.

Semicondutor manufacturing uses some of the most toxic, nasty chemicals out there.

 

[Swerd]

It is very hazardous to the workers who have to work with. So toxic I view it as unethical.

You do not need to use Beryllium to make a decent speaker. If you look at the Scanspeak that is the favored Beryllium tweeter the soft dome version is actually better.

I have to agree with TLS Guy. Although these seem like very good speakers, the high price also makes me wonder if the manufacturer was looking to make more of a marketing statement than a demonstration of a breakthrough in audio design.

Beryllium is toxic:

The toxicity of finely divided beryllium (dust or powder, mainly encountered in industrial settings where beryllium is produced or machined) is very well-documented. Solid beryllium metal does not carry the same hazards as airborne inhaled dust, but any hazard associated with physical contact is poorly documented. Workers handling finished beryllium pieces are routinely advised to handle them with gloves, both as a precaution and because many if not most applications of beryllium cannot tolerate residue of skin contact such as fingerprints.​

Also see Acute beryllium poisoning and Berylliosis.

Paradigm should have held out on the new speakers until they had Oxygen-Free-Beryllium drivers .

 

[TLS Guy]

Well, then any semiconductor device is also unethical.

Semicondutor manufacturing uses some of the most toxic, nasty chemicals out there.

Using trace amounts of these compounds in a highly automated semiconductor plant is one thing, machining a loudspeaker cone another.

When the risks of Beryllium in manufacture became known, Shure stopped making Beryllium cantilevers out of concern for their workers.

I'm sorry, but making loudspeaker cones out of Beryllium is an error of judgement.

 

[Swerd]

I'm sorry, but making loudspeaker cones out of Beryllium is an error of judgement.

It often isn't so much ethics as it is lawyers and money that drives companies to correct such errors in judgement.

The high cost of manufacturing the sheets of beryllium alloy used to create (stamp or machine?) these speaker cones may become too high to continue. That includes the medical liability costs incurred among the factory workers exposed to beryllium dust.

 

[slipperybidness]

Using trace amounts of these compounds in a highly automated semiconductor plant is one thing, machining a loudspeaker cone another.

When the risks of Beryllium in manufacture became known, Shure stopped making Beryllium cantilevers out of concern for their workers.

I'm sorry, but making loudspeaker cones out of Beryllium is an error of judgement.

Yeah, I think you underestimate the usage in a semiconductor plant. We're talking thousands of gallons per year here.

I'm a chemist, I work with these hazardous chemicals routinely in the labs, and much more intimately than anyone in the factory.

Just like any other job or work--Recognize the risks, utilize engineering controls, wear the appropriate PPE. Now, if we are talking about poor controls in developing countries, that is a different argument that I would completely agree on.

It's difficult to demonize Be, then ignore chems like the Wright Etch used routinely in semiconductor labs. Concentrate HF and Hexavalent Cr!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_etch
60 ml conc. HF (hydrofluoric acid)

30 ml conc. HNO3 (nitric acid)

30 ml of 5 mole CrO3 (mix 1 gram of chromium trioxide per 2 ml of water; the numbers are suspiciously round because the molecular weight of chromium trioxide is almost exactly 100)

2 grams Cu (NO3)2 . 3H2O (Copper II Nitrate Trihydrate )

60 ml conc. CH3COOH (acetic acid)

60 ml H2O (deionized water)