Just read this thread for the first time. My, my, TLS Guy! I understand that you have vast knowledge and experience in this field. However, your judgement of the Studo 60 contradicts a
lot of other opinions. If your comparison between the B&Ws and the Paradigms was conducted in a properly conducted double-blind test, I'll accept what you say without question. However, I suspect that it wasn't...
It was the Studio 100s I auditioned.
The dealership is one I have known and bought from over 25 years, with a well treated room. Electronics was by Rotel. The sound of the Paradigms and B & W 803s were vastly different.
The main comparison disc was the fourth movement of the Sibelius Symphony No.2.
Telarc
Now this is a glorious symphony. I had heard it recently in Orchestra Hall Minneapolis under Osmo Vanska. So I had a good recent frame of reference. In a good performance it brings the house down, as Osmo succeeded in doing.
This last movement builds magnificently. There are massed high strings and a huge brass choir and frequent use of tympani. The scoring is fairly thick in places, but is full and lush and comes to a huge dramatic conclusion. It is a score that when reproduced badly is highly unpleasant. The paradigms failed miserably to give pleasure and make the blood run. This was largely on the basis of sins of commission.
The bass was poorly controlled and tymps obscured the bass stings. The forte high strings were unpleasant and edgy. The worst crime however was the brass, it was all lip over bell and unpleasantly strident. There was no perspective or sense of space.
The B & Ws on the other hand gave an excellent rendition, with the stings smooth and silky, good bass articulation and definition, even if they did not plumb the depths. The brass was glorious and warm and sounded as it should coming from the back over the orchestra, blazing in glory.
I can assure the speakers gave a totally different account and I know for certain which was the more accurate rendition and it was not the Paradigms.
After my audition a young couple came in to buy speakers. They were enthusiast of the the folk genre with acoustic instruments. Again the paradigms gave a poor account on the female vocal. The voice was poorly balanced with too much head voice. Even though the B & W were almost twice the price, there was no trouble clinching the deal for the B & Ws.
Now I admit the B & W were smaller and around twice the price, but they were far more than twice as good.
I have stated before that sins of commission on speakers a far less tolerable than sins of commission. Unfortunately far too many speakers with multiple drivers and crossover points are highly prone to gross sins of commission.
I think audio enthusiasts far too often get to tolerate a lot of these ills and come to accept them as a type of norm. Also in pop music electronically produced, there is no definite frame of reference. Here bad speakers can hide.
So yes, I personally do prefer a good humble table, or car radio with a full range speakers with paper cone, not prone to sudden abrupt disastrous cone break up. Yes, the last couple of octaves will be absent, but the bass won't boom all over the place. The critical midrange is often reasonably smooth without phase aberration, and the HF rolls off, but at least I won't have a poorly reproduced brass section boring a hole in my head. If you think this unreasonable, consider the speech clarity of a lot of expensive speakers compared to a humble full range paper cone speaker. Often it is not in favor of the expensive Hi-Fi speaker, and that's a problem.
