Paradigm Signature S8's

[syd123]

I have developed and carried out controlled listening tests (double blinded) of resonances in order to be able to accurately identify this particular effect. I have thus trained my hearing to identify this coloration, along with others. It is a lot like compressed audio blind testing; if you do this enough, you can learn to identify the specific coloration(s) that occur from specific effect(s) that otherwise one would not be able to specifically identify without such training. I have also done such training with harmonic distortion, transient perfect crossovers, etc.

In what case is it that two speakers measure identically and sound substantially different? Please provide these examples.

I don't recognize any such thing. Any audible difference will have a measurable difference.

Because statistically, most speakers have substantially resonant cabinets. This is the most expensive part of the speaker. Producing a very low acoustic output cabinet tends to increase costs substantially. I have seen many examples where the crossover and drivers were excellent and the cabinet system was not.

-Chris

I have to be honest here and say that I just don't buy what you're saying. Your golden-eared claims are boastful but hardly believeable.

What sort of double-blind testing is it that trains a persons ear to discern cabinet resonances that a speaker manufacturer (or Stereophile) claims to be inaudible? I just can't imagine what that would be like. To be a well-controlled experiment it would have to include many speakers that differ from one another ONLY in that they have measureable resonances at different frequencies? Did you begin this quest by first constructing 15-20 pairs of such otherwise identical pairs of speakers??? And how do you do conduct your tests in a double-blinded way?? Did you actually have someone switching the speakers around in a way that neither he nor you is aware of what you're listening to? And wouldn't you need to do this with MANY different types of speakers, including: sealed, ported, transmission-line, electrostatic, etc.. etc.?

As for Stereophile, it's interesting that you believe them competent enough to accurately take measurements of resonances, but NOT competetent in their judgement of when they are, or are not, audible. This seems silly and self-serving. ..If I recall, Stereophile did find your B&W's to have small measureable resonances AND that they were likely inaudible. In this case, however, Stereophile is to be believed?

As for speakers that measure the same and sound different, I recall that the Vandersteen 3A's and 3A Signatures had very simliar measurements yet - to my ears - they sounded different. I had Vandersteen 3A Sigs for 4 years before I replaced them with the Paradigm S8's. I also owned a revised version of PSB Minis that, again if memory serves, measured differently from the previous version but sounded different.

And I also disagree that companies who spend heavily on driver and cross-over R&D simply throw in the towel when it comes to developing inert cabinets because of cost. This strikes me as nonsense. ...The biggest contributor to cabinet cost are the hardwood veneers and furniture like finishes. It is NOT having partitions, baffles, or braces inside the speaker. A good speaker company, like Paradigm, will recognize the need for an inert cabinet and will find a way to incorporate these to reduce resonances to inaudible levels. That some companies fail to tend to this is not in dispute, but your contention that all but B&W ignore this is.

To repeat, I can't help but think that you're simply a B&W fan (nothing wrong with that!) who is fixated on a particular measurement that your speaker happens to perform well on.

 

[Matt34]

I have to be honest here and say that I just don't buy what you're saying. Your golden-eared claims are boastful but hardly believeable.

What sort of double-blind testing is it that trains a persons ear to discern cabinet resonances? I just can't imagine what that would be like. To be a well-controlled experiment it would have to include many speakers that differ from one another ONLY in that they have measureable resonances at different frequencies? Did you begin this quest by first constructing 15-20 pairs of such otherwise identical pairs of speakers??? And how do you do conduct your tests in a double-blinded way?? Did you actually have someone switching the speakers around in a way that neither he nor you is aware of what you're listening to? And wouldn't you need to do this with MANY different types of speakers, including: sealed, ported, transmission-line, electrostatic, etc.. etc.?

As for Stereophile, it's interesting that you believe them competent enough to accurately take measurements of resonances, but NOT competetent in their judgement of when they are, or are not, audible. This seems silly and self-serving. ..If I recall, Stereophile did find your B&W's to have small measureable resonances AND that they were likely inaudible. In this case, however, Stereophile is to be believed?

As for speakers that measure the same and sound different, I recall that the Vandersteen 3A's and 3A Signatures had very simliar measurements yet - to my ears - they sounded different. I had Vandersteen 3A Sigs for 4 years before I replaced them with the Paradigm S8's. I also owned a revised version of PSB Minis that, again if memory serves, measured differently from the previous version but sounded different.

And I also disagree that companies who spend heavily on driver and cross-over R&D simply throw in the towel when it comes to developing inert cabinets because of cost. This strikes me as nonsense. ...The biggest contributor to cabinet cost are the hardwood veneers and furniture like finishes. It is NOT having partitions, baffles, or braces inside the speaker. A good speaker company, like Paradigm, will recognize the need for an inert cabinet and will find a way to incorporate these to reduce resonances to inaudible levels. That some companies fail to tend to this is not in dispute, but your contention that all but B&W ignore this is.

To repeat, I can't help but think that you're simply a B&W fan (nothing wrong with that!) who is fixated on a particular measurement that your speaker happens to perform well on.

AFAIK Chris doesn't own any B&W speakers...he builds his own.

 

[Rickster71]

I never knew resonance existed until I first heard the 802D, even after that I wasn't sure what it was I just knew someone was off with many speakers. Eventually the source of the aberration was narrowed down and I focused my attention on the subject.

Initially, I used a well recorded piano piece and listened to it on my old, highly resonant, speakers. The coloration was fairly clear, but when I put my ear on the speaker I could hear the specific coloration being reproduced from the panel directly. It was rather surprising, I never even realized that a loudspeaker panel could produce such substantial output. Additionally, from this point, with these speakers I could overlay the acoustic panel output over the transducer output mentally. Essentially, separating the resonance from the sound making it more obvious to myself.

From this point I wanted to learn more of the subject so I read research papers on resonance and found myself a low resonance reference point, a pair of headphones the 2003 model of Beyerdynamic's DT880. I have taken these headphones with me to various audio shops and done unscientific AB comparisons to listen for resonances. Often times it is very clear. Eventually, I altered some well recorded classical music files to recreate resonances so I could put myself through blinded trials to test my personal thresholds.

I think resonance is not a very commonly thought of issue primarily because it is hard/expensive to properly deal with and it seems many are accustom to its coloration.

Thanks Andrew, I really appreciate the reply.

Rick

 

[PENG]

AFAIK Chris doesn't own any B&W speakers...he builds his own.

lol, I thought syd talks more like he is a Paradigm fan than Chris being a B&W fan. Paradigm does know how to make great speakers though.

 

[avaserfi]

Thanks Andrew, I really appreciate the reply.

Rick

No problem at all. Be careful learning about such things. Cabinet resonance is the main reason why I started doing DIY speakers. I was happy with my old speakers until then....

 

[Sheep]

Chris I think it's time to put up a photo of your Monitors. He doesn't seem to get just how much bracing is required.

SheepStar

 

[Alex2507]

I have to be honest here and say that I just don't buy what you're saying.

I'm buying what he's saying. I'm sure you can imagine that after a while you get to know who on a forum is good for what. You would have to be a very quick study in order to determine that Chris is boastful within a month. Maybe you would be good enough to pass judgment on all the other people that I think know what they are talking about. Start with the ones who have contributed on this page. I think all of them are credible sources of info.

Maybe just ease up some for like another month.

 

[bandphan]

Chris is boastful in a month..

lmao

 

[PENG]

The biggest contributor to cabinet cost are the hardwood veneers and furniture like finishes. It is NOT having partitions, baffles, or braces inside the speaker.

It is not that simple. Those internal partitions, baffles and braces has to be well designed and installed correctly, and that, can be costly. And yes, I am sure paradigm knows that very well. It's a little like the architectural, civil and structural engineering involved in buildings, bridges, towers etc.

 

[WmAx]

I have to be honest here and say that I just don't buy what you're saying. Your golden-eared claims are boastful but hardly believeable.

Golden ear claims? I have regular ears.

What sort of double-blind testing is it that trains a persons ear to discern cabinet resonances that a speaker manufacturer (or Stereophile) claims to be inaudible?

Such training for me has included using identical speaker drivers/crossovers in different cabinets (of varying resonance) and doing both real time switched blind tests and recordings of the speakers in a semi-anechoic tunnel and later analyzed with dbt software on a reference grade headphone with various simulated reverb/acoustic delays (resonance audibility varies with the environmental delay/reverb), as well as testing thresholds using simulated resonance (overlaying band limited signals mixed with an original signal). Resonance thresholds are no secret, and are a serious issue with sound quality. Conditions/environments/music-signal types and thresholds for resonances over various frequency bands have been carefully studied in listening tests by Flody Toole, Sean Olive and P.A. Fryer.

As for Stereophile, it's interesting that you believe them competent enough to accurately take measurements of resonances, but NOT competetent in their judgement of when they are, or are not, audible. This seems silly and self-serving. ..If I recall, Stereophile did find your B&W's to have small measureable resonances AND that they were likely inaudible. In this case, however, Stereophile is to be believed?

No, quite frankly, I have reviewed their measurement methods, and they are valid. But their information they talk about in the subjective is simply bull most of the time and unreliable. They don't take any precaution to place any type of useful controls in listening tests.

As for speakers that measure the same and sound different, I recall that the Vandersteen 3A's and 3A Signatures had very simliar measurements yet - to my ears - they sounded different.

Well, show me measurements using the same measurement techniques/conditions that show they are identical. The array of measurements must include a sufficient number/type of measurements, also, not just a few (that don't cover all of the likely relevant performance characteristics).

And I also disagree that companies who spend heavily on driver and cross-over R&D simply throw in the towel when it comes to developing inert cabinets because of cost. This strikes me as nonsense. ...The biggest contributor to cabinet cost are the hardwood veneers and furniture like finishes. It is NOT having partitions, baffles, or braces inside the speaker

.

It takes more than a few extra braces to make an inert cabinet. It requires far more involved construction, and/or more exotic materials/construction. And when braces are used to reduce resonance by any appreciable amount by themselves, it requires an incredible level of bracing that greatly increases production time and involvement of construction(and as I pointed out earlier, this still is not likely to be sufficient to create a true inert cabinet). Hardwood veneer is very cheap unless you are using some kind of rare exotic wood.

A good speaker company, like Paradigm, will recognize the need for an inert cabinet and will find a way to incorporate these to reduce resonances to inaudible levels. That some companies fail to tend to this is not in dispute, but your contention that all but B&W ignore this is.

Again, I have no real information regarding the S8 cabinet. But it will not surprise me to find it similar to most other cabinets. Since this issue is rarely addressed anyways, it places less motivation on companies to put forth the extra money/effort.

To repeat, I can't help but think that you're simply a B&W fan (nothing wrong with that!) who is fixated on a particular measurement that your speaker happens to perform well on.

B&W is not the only company with very low resonance cabinets. They are simply an example of one of the few that do. I am not a B&W fan; I don't own any B&W speakers.

-Chris

 

[syd123]

It is not that simple. Those internal partitions, baffles and braces has to be well designed and installed correctly, and that, can be costly. And yes, I am sure paradigm knows that very well. It's a little like the architectural, civil and structural engineering involved in buildings, bridges, towers etc.

I agree - it's not simple, nor cheap (I didn't really say it was either of these). ..But it IS essential to designing a good speaker and as such it's not apt to be overlooked as often as Chris seems to suggest.

And please understand that I'm not trying to convince Chris, or anyone else, that Paradigm's are good speakers (like many speakers, it has it's fans and detractors which is all good and well).

What got me on this rant is that Chris (paraphrasing here)told a poster that he thought buying the S8's would be taking a step down from B&W because he knows that B&W builds inert cabinets whereas Paradigm probably ignored this important aspect of speaker design. He offered no compelling reason for thinking this other than it was statistically likely (?). To me, it seemed like he was recklessly impuning the reputation of a company without any compelling evidence to do so. ..If you re-read the who thread (pour a cup a coffee), I think you'll agree (or not).

 

[Mika75]

www.audio-ideas.com/reviews - paradigm-s1

Review by Andrew Marshall July 7, 2008

“All parts (baffle, rear and shell) on these compact cabinets are die-cast aluminum. The die-cast design also functions as an effective heatsink. Bass/midrange baffles and chassis are physically integrated allowing space for a powerful 6-inch (155mm) driver. Cabinet interiors reveal heavy-wall construction and extensive internal bracing. Constrained layer damping (CLD), is used in conjunction with a sophisticated Permacote Linacoustic to completely subdue stray residual vibrational energy within the cabinets.”

I’d also suggest that the application of veneer to the exterior box part of the enclosures also provides further damping of the cabinets. In the cutaway pic, you can see the bracing, and the well-organized crossover on the rear panel insert, as well as the close integration of the drivers on the front baffle surface. This is quite an incredible level of engineering and materials science in a loudspeaker, to a degree I’ve not seen before.

And there’s more: “”Critically placed isolation inserts and gaskets actually decouple drivers from the speaker enclosure itself. In Signature speakers the problem of enclosure resonances is not simply reduced, it is essentially eliminated.” Paradigm calls this the “Isolation Mounting System”.

..one would think the S8's would share the same construction. www.paradigm.com/advanced design facility

 

[Rickster71]

No they aren't the same at all, the S1 was added years later to the Signature line.
It's cabinet is all metal construction. It's completely different from the S-2 thru S-8 line.
The S-1 is a nice speaker, though it is different construction.

Rick

 

[syd123]

Thanks for this Mika75. ...A relevant contribution to the discussion.

While this may not - to Chris' satisfaction - prove that the S8 cabinets are totally inert, it does show that Paradigm has certainly given much thought to minimizing audible resonances. ..I'm eager to read Chris's reply.

 

[syd123]

No they aren't the same at all, the S1 was added years later to the Signature line.
It's cabinet is all metal construction. It's completely different from the S-2 thru S-8 line.
The S-1 is a nice speaker, though it is different construction.

Rick

Rick is correct that this S1 is different from the others. ..It is made with (I think) aluminum cabinet. ..But the link is still informative as it takes you to pages where their R&D related to managing resonances is discussed.

What I glean from all this is that Paradigm is indeed mindful of reducing cabinet resonances.

 

[Sheep]

Thanks for this Mika75. ...A relevant contribution to the discussion.

While this may not - to Chris' satisfaction - prove that the S8 cabinets are totally inert, it does show that Paradigm has certainly given much thought to minimizing audible resonances. ..I'm eager to read Chris's reply.

Having seen Chris's Monitors insides, I can tell you that the S1 does not have enough bracing.

SheepStar

 

[Sheep]

I think they are an excellent speaker, and they are beautiful as well, not that is as important, just an added bonus.... I doubt Chris has heard them, and if he did he would say they are not neutral enough for him...

Sorry to say that I don't think you will find alot of people that will want to add an extensive EQ setup to a set of speakers they just spent $15K on, like the 802D's. I certainly wouldn't. But that is neither here nor there...


Go with your gut, have you listened to the S8's...

I have auditioned many different speakers and as I said they are one of the best speakers I have ever heard. But that is ME. Speakers are a very emotional purchase, and you shouldn't go with what someone else suggests, you should go for something that sounds great to you...

I just wanted to clarify what you're saying here...

EQing main speakers that handle the largest load is too much work, but you'll but you do it for a subwoofer, that plays a 60Hz range of frequencies.

SheepStar

 

[Davemcc]

Having seen Chris's Monitors insides, I can tell you that the S1 does not have enough bracing.

SheepStar

“All parts (baffle, rear and shell) on these compact cabinets are die-cast aluminum. The die-cast design also functions as an effective heatsink. Bass/midrange baffles and chassis are physically integrated allowing space for a powerful 6-inch (155mm) driver. Cabinet interiors reveal heavy-wall construction and extensive internal bracing. Constrained layer damping (CLD), is used in conjunction with a sophisticated Permacote Linacoustic to completely subdue stray residual vibrational energy within the cabinets.”

After working for several years in a cast aluminum foundry, I've come to have some experience with that material. In the case of the image and description of the S1 above, I think that would produce a significantly neutral cabinet. Of course that can depend on the wall thickness of the die cast pieces used and the thickness/effectiveness of the constrained layer damping. Only actual testing, as Chris suggests, would show one way or the other whether this method works or whether it is primarily marketing.

Having said that, I'm no fan of the S8. I listened to them a couple of times in a dedicated room and I found that the midrange sounded "off" somehow. My reaction to it and the best word I found to describe it was resonant. I did not find this characteristic in the 803D. But as they say, different shops, different days, who knows...somebody put an accelerometer to these things and settle this once and for all.

 

[PENG]

What got me on this rant is that Chris (paraphrasing here)told a poster that he thought buying the S8's would be taking a step down from B&W because he knows that B&W builds inert cabinets whereas Paradigm probably ignored this important aspect of speaker design. He offered no compelling reason for thinking this other than it was statistically likely (?). To me, it seemed like he was recklessly impuning the reputation of a company without any compelling evidence to do so. ..If you re-read the who thread (pour a cup a coffee), I think you'll agree (or not).

I do appreciate what you are saying, but this is what I found in one of his response to you:

"Not true at all. I am simply pointing out the importance of the cabinet, assuming the drivers and crossover are extremely well executed. The B&W referenced has superb drivers/crossover, overall. The S8 has excellent drivers/crossover as well. The cabinet quality is unknown to me."

I thought this has been a healthy debate and whether it means anything to you or not, I also find your posts interesting and quite enjoyable. That being said, the way you questioned Chris seemed unnecessarily aggressive (sort of like interrogating if I may exaggerate a little). As usual, he responded calmly and stuck to the relevant points.

 

[Sheep]

After working for several years in a cast aluminum foundry, I've come to have some experience with that material. In the case of the image and description of the S1 above, I think that would produce a significantly neutral cabinet. Of course that can depend on the wall thickness of the die cast pieces used and the thickness/effectiveness of the constrained layer damping. Only actual testing, as Chris suggests, would show one way or the other whether this method works or whether it is primarily marketing.

Having said that, I'm no fan of the S8. I listened to them a couple of times in a dedicated room and I found that the midrange sounded "off" somehow. My reaction to it and the best word I found to describe it was resonant. I did not find this characteristic in the 803D. But as they say, different shops, different days, who knows...somebody put an accelerometer to these things and settle this once and for all.

WmAx's monitors use solid oak bracing every 3 inches on every axis (sometimes metal), Concrete, and the Peal N Seal to dampen the walls. Aluminum walls with no cross bracing side to side or front to back, will not be enough to tame midrange panel resonance.

SheepStar