F
fredk
Audioholic General
Another great comparo! Did you try switching the position of the two sets of speakers to see how this affected imaging? Sometimes positioning can make a difference here and in other areas.
"Let our rigorous testing and reviews be your guidelines to A/V equipment – not marketing slogans"
john72953
Full Audioholic
Another excellent write-up Kurt!
You hit the nail on the head with the desciption of the Rainmakers. All of Totem's speakers, from the Dreamcatcher to the Wind, are reknowned for having excellent imaging ability. Aditionally, as so well pointed out, they excel at acoustic sounds and (I will add this) female vocalists. Anyone with a preference for that kind of listening preference should most definately consider the Rainmakers, The Mites or the Dreamcatchers (in descending order by price). I won't discuss the Model One's, as they are in a league of their own and not relevant to this discussion.
Based on some of your musical preference, I can see why the Studio 20's, with their stronger bottom end, would appeal to you more from an aural perspective. I, on the other hand, value imaging much more than a bookshelf's ability to reproduce the lower end, which is why I chose the Totem brand over any other I auditioned.
Your evaluations over the last several weeks have been a joy to read and I congratulate you on finding a speaker that fullfills your requirements. I am sure that the Studio 20's will satisfy you for years to come.
John
You hit the nail on the head with the desciption of the Rainmakers. All of Totem's speakers, from the Dreamcatcher to the Wind, are reknowned for having excellent imaging ability. Aditionally, as so well pointed out, they excel at acoustic sounds and (I will add this) female vocalists. Anyone with a preference for that kind of listening preference should most definately consider the Rainmakers, The Mites or the Dreamcatchers (in descending order by price). I won't discuss the Model One's, as they are in a league of their own and not relevant to this discussion.
Based on some of your musical preference, I can see why the Studio 20's, with their stronger bottom end, would appeal to you more from an aural perspective. I, on the other hand, value imaging much more than a bookshelf's ability to reproduce the lower end, which is why I chose the Totem brand over any other I auditioned.
Your evaluations over the last several weeks have been a joy to read and I congratulate you on finding a speaker that fullfills your requirements. I am sure that the Studio 20's will satisfy you for years to come.
John
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
Thanks!
No I did not switch their positions.
On this count, I should explain the reason I "dinged" the Paradigms against the RBH's for imaging while I did not "ding" them for imaging against the Totem.
In the case where I was auditioned the RBH's against the Studio20, the voices sounded crowded on the 20 (relative to the 61-lse) and were less clear.
This was not the case with the Totem where even though the voices were not as spread out, the clarity of the voices were still very clear (compared to the Paradigm).
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
Thanks!
Well, I'm not done yet. At this point I have covered what I am aware of being available in my area, plus the RBH's which, at $650, were a lark I found on Audiogon.
If there are some ID speakers which might be competitive in this range, especially based on any inclinations I have shown in my reviews, I would like to try a couple. I'm kind of anal and don't like to leave stones unturned. In this case it is simply impossible to turn them all, but I would like to catch at least what appears to be the low hanging fruit among the ID stones (as if that makes any sense
).
Swerd
Audioholic Warlord
Based on what you seem to prefer, you might consider these ID speakers:…If there are some ID speakers which might be competitive in this range, especially based on any inclinations I have shown in my reviews, I would like to try a couple. I'm kind of anal and don't like to leave stones unturned. In this case it is simply impossible to turn them all, but I would like to catch at least what appears to be the low hanging fruit among the ID stones (as if that makes any sense
Salk Surround I - Marketed as a surround speaker to go with the Salk SongTowers, these make excellent stand mount speakers for a 2.1 system. Salk's wood finishes are the best I've seen. IMHO, they make Totem's very nice finishes look like plain vanilla in comparison.
Ellis 1801 - A step up in price and performance, but they are available as kits in several stages of price & assembly. Scroll down to see details.
Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1 - A close competitor to the Salk Surround I, they have been very popular. I prefer the Salk Surround I to these, but its your preference that counts here, not mine.
J
just listening
Audioholic
Kurt:
First, congrats on taking the time to find the speaker that best suits what your ears/brain desire. You'll be much happier having taken the time to find out what appeals most to you.
My views are in no way a criticism of you. Far from it. We need to all realize that our on hearing is unique, and within certain criteria, honest differences in taste are both truthful, and a part of what makes this hobby so fascinating.
At the shop I went to the Rainmaker had the outside left, and the 20v5 outside right. There was about 18 inches between each speaker. Both speakers were slightly toed-in. Distance was 4 ft from the back and 8ft apart. Rotel gear with 12 gauge wire and banana plugs was used. I had my own special audio demo cd for music.
Rainmakers- The tweeter goes higher and is more natural-sounding. The mids are more open and offer up a wider soundstage. Vocals are rich though they can sound a bit nasally with females, and chesty with males. Bass response was deeper though slightly looser. Imaging has always been a huge Totem strength and valued part of my criteria.
Studio 20v5- Vocal location is tighter, and clearer, though slightly missing in depth and detail. This explains why for HT I think the 20v5's are solid choice. A third 20v5 would make for an excellent center channel IMHO.
The tweeter in the 20v5 is less shrill and easier on the ears than previous models, the v1-3's could be like fingers on a chalkboard at times. I believe a metal dome tweeter requires better x-over parts than a fabric one. That may explain why the tweeter has shown such improvement as the Studio series has been able to borrow more from the Signature line in the last two versions.
Bass response was tighter, but I just didn't hear as many notes as I did with the Rainmakers. I listen to classical music about 25% of the time, so I tend to crave bass detail more than just the boom.
For me and that I'm a 2 channel guy (I have a separate HT setup), in my experience in a head to head the Rainmakers are a better speaker. I could happily "survive" with either speaker.
But in any case, I think that you'll end up with a sub at some point, as HT lives for subwoofers to recreate what the director had in mind for the audio experience.
Enjoy!!
First, congrats on taking the time to find the speaker that best suits what your ears/brain desire. You'll be much happier having taken the time to find out what appeals most to you.
My views are in no way a criticism of you. Far from it. We need to all realize that our on hearing is unique, and within certain criteria, honest differences in taste are both truthful, and a part of what makes this hobby so fascinating.
At the shop I went to the Rainmaker had the outside left, and the 20v5 outside right. There was about 18 inches between each speaker. Both speakers were slightly toed-in. Distance was 4 ft from the back and 8ft apart. Rotel gear with 12 gauge wire and banana plugs was used. I had my own special audio demo cd for music.
Rainmakers- The tweeter goes higher and is more natural-sounding. The mids are more open and offer up a wider soundstage. Vocals are rich though they can sound a bit nasally with females, and chesty with males. Bass response was deeper though slightly looser. Imaging has always been a huge Totem strength and valued part of my criteria.
Studio 20v5- Vocal location is tighter, and clearer, though slightly missing in depth and detail. This explains why for HT I think the 20v5's are solid choice. A third 20v5 would make for an excellent center channel IMHO.
The tweeter in the 20v5 is less shrill and easier on the ears than previous models, the v1-3's could be like fingers on a chalkboard at times. I believe a metal dome tweeter requires better x-over parts than a fabric one. That may explain why the tweeter has shown such improvement as the Studio series has been able to borrow more from the Signature line in the last two versions.
Bass response was tighter, but I just didn't hear as many notes as I did with the Rainmakers. I listen to classical music about 25% of the time, so I tend to crave bass detail more than just the boom.
For me and that I'm a 2 channel guy (I have a separate HT setup), in my experience in a head to head the Rainmakers are a better speaker. I could happily "survive" with either speaker.
But in any case, I think that you'll end up with a sub at some point, as HT lives for subwoofers to recreate what the director had in mind for the audio experience.
Enjoy!!
Matt34
Moderator
Five star thread, great job Curt!
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
Thanks!
Any idea what Salk's return policy is?
I did a quick look around the site, but didn't spot a policy link or anything about trial period, shipping, or restocking fee.
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
Thanks.
These speakers are for use in a 2.1 music-only setup.
Wow! I am simply astonished! It is a shame we live so far away - I would love to be able to redo this and compare notes on what passages revealed what to whom! I expected to have some differences of opinion, but am amazed with the degree to which we heard opposite things. Not that there needs to be resolution, but if you would endure a round of comparisons, it might be educational (for me, at least):
1) Rainmakers- The tweeter goes higher and is more natural-sounding.
>That is what I would say about the Paradigm's. I wonder if our hearing tops out at different frequencies. That could explain it.
2) Rainmakers- Bass response was deeper though slightly looser.
>I don't understand what you mean by looser. To me loose would be boomy, but if I interpret your statements correctly, you describe the Paradigms as boomy. To me, tight would mean the note starts and stops more precisely (with less resonance), but I have no idea where I inferred that definition
.3) I'm curious to know more about the set-up. Did you use an A-B switcher? Were you able match volume without having to readjust? Do you generally listen for seconds or minutes before switching? I assign no significance to these questions as far as interpreting our differences, I'm just curious. My set-up at home was much better for comparisons, but I don't feel that the setup at the shop undermined my observations either.
Another thought is that the Totems were brand new when I compared them to the Vandersteens two week-ends ago. At the time, they commented that they were not broke in yet. Since the Totems out-performed the Vandersteens, I didn't worry about it. I put maybe 1 hour on them then. Their shop was closed last week, so unless they made the effort to break them in, they probably have not been. The sales guys did not mention it on this visit and I didn't think about it until now. I wonder if the Studio 20's you listened to were broke in. If you'll recall, on my first listen to the Studio20's, I preferred the Paradigm Monitor Mini and Studio 10's to the 20's. Those 20's sounded bad! My conclusion (which I never confirmed) was that these speakers had not been broke in - when I went to another Paradigm shop the Studio 10's and 20 had the same mid-upper frequency sound characteristics as you would expect.
Thanks,
Kurt
J
just listening
Audioholic
Kurt:
I apologize for not being clear earlier. To answer your questions:
1. Hearing is one of many factors, the room I heard them in had a ceiling of 12 ft, and has heavy drapes across the entire wall behind the listener as well as behind the gear. I was a bit surprised that the Totems went higher as years ago I owned the Studio 100v2, and felt that with certain cd's they were too bright. I believe that over the generations Paradigm has worked on toning the highs down. I also heard on a track by Adele the highs distorting far more (Dynamic compression) with the 20v5's.
2. What I mean by looser is that Totem speakers by design use the cabinet as part of the resonance creation. I would call it fuzzy rather than boomy. The 20v5's I felt hit a couple bass notes with a forward thump, but lacked instrumental detail. Your definition of tight is correct, at least to me.
3. The Rotel was an 100wpc amp. The sales staff used a switch box and hand adjusted the volume to pencil markings that appeared to correspond to equal output volume. The Rainmakers were 4 months on display, and the 20v5's 2 months. I was told that they break in all speakers in a soundproof room overnight for several nights. With that I'm assuming that both had plenty of break-in time.
The one problem with any shop is that it isn't your home, or your gear. Shops are great for initial demoing, but unless you can hear any piece in your own system, it can still be a bit of a crap shoot.
With my demo cd, I have very specific points that I'll replay passages that really can tell me a great deal about a piece of gear or speakers. their is a high point in one song where the Paradigm tweeter couldn't sustain and the sound cracked.
If you're comfortable with what you heard, then stay with it. I won't talk you out of your opinion.
I apologize for not being clear earlier. To answer your questions:
1. Hearing is one of many factors, the room I heard them in had a ceiling of 12 ft, and has heavy drapes across the entire wall behind the listener as well as behind the gear. I was a bit surprised that the Totems went higher as years ago I owned the Studio 100v2, and felt that with certain cd's they were too bright. I believe that over the generations Paradigm has worked on toning the highs down. I also heard on a track by Adele the highs distorting far more (Dynamic compression) with the 20v5's.
2. What I mean by looser is that Totem speakers by design use the cabinet as part of the resonance creation. I would call it fuzzy rather than boomy. The 20v5's I felt hit a couple bass notes with a forward thump, but lacked instrumental detail. Your definition of tight is correct, at least to me.
3. The Rotel was an 100wpc amp. The sales staff used a switch box and hand adjusted the volume to pencil markings that appeared to correspond to equal output volume. The Rainmakers were 4 months on display, and the 20v5's 2 months. I was told that they break in all speakers in a soundproof room overnight for several nights. With that I'm assuming that both had plenty of break-in time.
The one problem with any shop is that it isn't your home, or your gear. Shops are great for initial demoing, but unless you can hear any piece in your own system, it can still be a bit of a crap shoot.
With my demo cd, I have very specific points that I'll replay passages that really can tell me a great deal about a piece of gear or speakers. their is a high point in one song where the Paradigm tweeter couldn't sustain and the sound cracked.
If you're comfortable with what you heard, then stay with it. I won't talk you out of your opinion.
N
Nuance AH
Audioholic General
+1 - Yup, that's correct. Win win in my book.
Matt34
Moderator
Kurt,
Are B&W available for audition in your area? If so, have you listened to the 705S?
Are B&W available for audition in your area? If so, have you listened to the 705S?
F
FirstReflection
AV Rant Co-Host
Another great write-up, KEW!
IMO, you were completely right to use switching gear to go between the two pairs of speakers, rather than physically connecting and disconnecting the speakers. The people who believe that the switching gear will negatively affect the sound are the same people who believe that super-expensive cables are better simply because they're expensive. There is no electrical reason - no scientifically measurable reason - why a simple switch would make any difference in the sound quality. Too much voodoo, not enough understanding of how electrical signals actually work We can literally measure everything about an electrical signal with FAR greater accuracy and precision than our meager human senses could ever hope to perceive and yet there are people out there who still play that "doubt card". "Wouldn't one extra connection make a negative difference in the signal? Wouldn't connecting two runs of wire together be worse than just a single run of wire? Mustn't there be a good reason for such-and-such a wire costing SO much more than another?"
No, no and no
Anyways, other than Salk, no internet direct company jumps to mind as something that you "just gotta hear". I'm pretty much dead certain that nothing is going to better the RBH 61-LSE and there aren't many speakers IMO that are a really clear step up over the Paradigm Studio 20. To me, the internet direct companies are, for the most part, all about getting really good sound quality for a much lower price than store-only brands. Companies like Axiom, Ascend, Emotiva, Aperion, SVSound etc. - to me, they put out speakers that offer a genuine taste and entry into true "high end" sound quality and they do so at unusually low prices. That is their great appeal and the reason for their well-deserved success: superb "bang for the buck".
But, for the most part, the internet direct companies definitely seem to be focused on hitting lower, more mass-market-friendly price points, which makes total sense! So I'd recommend getting some Salk speakers to audition against your RBH and Paradigm, but nothing else ID really jumps to mind.
I think if you were to audition bookshelf speakers from most of the other popular ID brands, you would come to a similar conclusion as me. They deliver a heck of a lot for the price. They deliver more "high end" sound quality traits than similarly priced store-only brands. But they don't quite stack up to the Studio 20 and certainly not the 61-LSE. For sure, I think you'd be like me and have no qualms in recommending most ID brands to people who are looking in those price ranges. But if you're looking for something that might actually better the Studio 20 or the 61-LSE? It's my guess that you won't find it from an ID brand. That is no knock what-so-ever against the ID brands. It's just that the 61-LSE are that good
IMO, you were completely right to use switching gear to go between the two pairs of speakers, rather than physically connecting and disconnecting the speakers. The people who believe that the switching gear will negatively affect the sound are the same people who believe that super-expensive cables are better simply because they're expensive. There is no electrical reason - no scientifically measurable reason - why a simple switch would make any difference in the sound quality. Too much voodoo, not enough understanding of how electrical signals actually work
We can literally measure everything about an electrical signal with FAR greater accuracy and precision than our meager human senses could ever hope to perceive and yet there are people out there who still play that "doubt card". "Wouldn't one extra connection make a negative difference in the signal? Wouldn't connecting two runs of wire together be worse than just a single run of wire? Mustn't there be a good reason for such-and-such a wire costing SO much more than another?"No, no and no
Anyways, other than Salk, no internet direct company jumps to mind as something that you "just gotta hear". I'm pretty much dead certain that nothing is going to better the RBH 61-LSE and there aren't many speakers IMO that are a really clear step up over the Paradigm Studio 20. To me, the internet direct companies are, for the most part, all about getting really good sound quality for a much lower price than store-only brands. Companies like Axiom, Ascend, Emotiva, Aperion, SVSound etc. - to me, they put out speakers that offer a genuine taste and entry into true "high end" sound quality and they do so at unusually low prices. That is their great appeal and the reason for their well-deserved success: superb "bang for the buck".
But, for the most part, the internet direct companies definitely seem to be focused on hitting lower, more mass-market-friendly price points, which makes total sense! So I'd recommend getting some Salk speakers to audition against your RBH and Paradigm, but nothing else ID really jumps to mind.
I think if you were to audition bookshelf speakers from most of the other popular ID brands, you would come to a similar conclusion as me. They deliver a heck of a lot for the price. They deliver more "high end" sound quality traits than similarly priced store-only brands. But they don't quite stack up to the Studio 20 and certainly not the 61-LSE. For sure, I think you'd be like me and have no qualms in recommending most ID brands to people who are looking in those price ranges. But if you're looking for something that might actually better the Studio 20 or the 61-LSE? It's my guess that you won't find it from an ID brand. That is no knock what-so-ever against the ID brands. It's just that the 61-LSE are that good
J
just listening
Audioholic
If there is one ID speaker that I'd like to see a comparison to the RBH 61-lse it would be the ACI Sapphire XL's. They sell for approximately the same price.
Just a thought.
Switch boxes are a fine way to compare speakers, the key is being able to have the volume level-matched. In my comparison opportunity, volume level matching had been previously measured and marked on the volume control. All it took was to press the selector and quickly adjust the volume. That made the experience much more valuable to my ears.
Just a thought.
Switch boxes are a fine way to compare speakers, the key is being able to have the volume level-matched. In my comparison opportunity, volume level matching had been previously measured and marked on the volume control. All it took was to press the selector and quickly adjust the volume. That made the experience much more valuable to my ears.
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
Not to worry, I'm not one to quickly redefine my judgment. Nor am I so arrogant as to discount someone elses judgement because it does not align with my own.
Where I'm coming from is there are some things which are (should be) objective and others which are subjective.
Obviously our difference of opinion on the significance of imaging is a subjective issue. However something like which has deeper bass seems like a pretty objective measure. But the concept that you heard the bass deeper on the Rainmakers while I did on the 20's is troubling (at least, to me). If either of us had boom boxes as our recent reference I could understand how one might perceive tipped up bass at higher frequencies as deeper bass, but that is not my background and I think it is safe to believe it is not yours either.
Like I said earlier, I am anal and don't like to leave stones unturned...
I pursued this as a research project; however, incredibly, I haven't found a single review with the frequency response of the Studio20 v.5 (much less one from the same lab which has measured the Rainmaker). I'm sure one will turn up in time, but inquiring minds want to know...
The closest I could find were measurements by John Atkinson of the Studio 20 v4 and the Rainmaker. I'm sure the v5 has some different sound characteristics, but I don't know if the driver or anything else changed to specifically effect the depth of the bass. Does anyone know?
Link to FR for Studio20 v4 (see figure 4):
http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/508para/index4.html
Link to FR for Rainmaker (see figure 4):
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1104totem/index3.html
For these two, the bass curves seem amazingly close to me. When you consider the Rainmaker has a 5.5" woofer (which I didn't know until I started researching), this is absolutely astounding (Paradigm has a 7" driver)!
Assuming that Paradigm did not add significant depth with the v5 (the v4 appears to have the same driver), it does seem that our impressions were based on some very small differences either way!
Cheers,
Kurt
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
There is a dealer close by. I'll check if they have the 705S in stock and see if they will let me bring them home or carry in my speakers. Thanks!
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
I checked the B&W shop I mentioned and they are pretty much a custom installer only operation. If I was ready to buy a pair, they would be happy to sell them to me with a little discount, but they only keep in stock the speakers which are in their 3-4 HT showrooms (with only 1 HT system per room).
The 705 have been discontinued, though he said there may still be some at the distribution center. If they happened to be on the floor, they would let me take them home, but they are not.
F
fredk
Audioholic General
I think you pretty much nailed it. A large majority of people, myself included play in that price range.
KEW
Audioholic Overlord
Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 vs. Paradigm Studio20 v.5
This was an in-home audition which I vastly prefer.
I don't understand why stores can't do a better job when I can set-up such a sweet A-B system at home. I am planning on setting up 3 systems throughout my home, and needed to add two receivers, so I bought two of the Marantz SR-6001's. Since they are identical, the same remote works on both, so all it takes is volume matching the speakers, muting one of the receivers, and use the remote's mute button for A-B switching from my listening chair. The switching is instantaneous and there were even places where I had to open my eyes to verify that the switch worked because there was no interruption to the sound and the particular music at that point didn't reveal different sounds from the speakers.
The Wharfedale 9.1's are a candidate for my second tier speakers (in zone 2) and, at $350 retail, should not be fair competition for the $1200 Studio20's. I picked these up via ebay for less than $200. Since I don't yet have any other competition in this category, it made sense to compare these two and see what I would be sacrificing for the lower price point.
At home, my testing consists of simply closing my eyes and switch between speakers until I decided which I preferred, switch a few more times to confirm my judgment, then open my eyes to see which speakers I was listening to. I did this hundreds of times. Doing this, I ended up with the Paradigm's about 9 out of 10 times. I expected the Paradigm's to win, but was surprised that the 9.1's won 1 out of 10 times. I am quite enthusiastic about these little speakers!
To my ear, it offers the same type of overall balance and musical sound that I like so much in the 20's and Rainmaker's. It is not better, but it is closer than it's price would suggest.
First off, the tweeter in the Wharfedale is incredible at it's price point. It does not best the Paradigm, but it is too close for $350! If the competition were restricted to producing the highest highs, Paradigm is the champion (among what I've listened to thus far). As I said in the RBH review, the Status Acoustics tweeter had clearer sound, but the Paradigm extends higher. Well, the Wharfedale tweeter stays strong higher in frequency than the Status Acoustics or the Rainmaker! When I was comparing the RBH to the 20's this was one of the "signatures" I could use to distinguish between them (as long as there was some cymbal or chime content with the high overtones). With the Wharfedale, the difference was there, but not as easy to discern. The Paradigm did have better clarity that the Wharfedale, but not by much.
But back to the audition. When I was doing the blind "which is better" test, I would tend to focus on the first thing that struck me as better or worse and focus on that until I was certain. The place where I found repeatability for preferring the 9.1's was listening to solo (or close to solo) tenor saxophone where there was no accompaniment in the higher frequencies. I really can't tell you what made it sound better other than it sounded more real. The brighter sound of a soprano sax would lean toward the Paradigm, and Alto Sax range was a toss up. There were other places where I chose the 9.1's but this is where, to my ear, the 9.1's over-performed and repeatably beat the Paradigms.
The Paradigm won about 9 out of 10 times. Most often the Paradigm sounded closer to live - maybe a little extra presence and clarity. It is not easy to define the specific differences in sound, so I think it is a combination of doing many things just slightly better rather than a decisive difference in a single aspect. However, the sum total of those many things did make a clear difference. Overall, I feel the Wharfedale has a composure which is similar to the Studio20's, but not as good.
One place where the Paradigm again excelled was when things got busy: the Wharfedale would lose some of it's definition. One place where I experienced this with easy repeatability was listening to The Four Seasons (Vivaldi, not R&B). The harpsichord sounded good on both speakers, but when things got busy, the Wharfedale transients for the harpsichord would get a little muddled. The same effect happened with Zappa on the Rainmakers. I almost wonder if too many signals at once cause the speaker to resonate in a non-linear fashion - that is total SWAG! but something is happening and the Paradigm manages to avoid it.
To my ear, the Paradigm had deeper bass. However, given the 5" driver, the Wharfedale put out more than it had any right to. I can't say there were many places where the difference in bass got in the way of my listening for better sound. I had considered setting both up using the Marantz 80Hz high pass filters (no sub), but decided to start listening then engage the filters later if the difference in bass was a distraction. I didn't give it any thought after that.
In conclusion, the 9.1's seem like a whole lot of speaker for little money
Cheers,
Kurt
This was an in-home audition which I vastly prefer.
I don't understand why stores can't do a better job when I can set-up such a sweet A-B system at home. I am planning on setting up 3 systems throughout my home, and needed to add two receivers, so I bought two of the Marantz SR-6001's. Since they are identical, the same remote works on both, so all it takes is volume matching the speakers, muting one of the receivers, and use the remote's mute button for A-B switching from my listening chair. The switching is instantaneous and there were even places where I had to open my eyes to verify that the switch worked because there was no interruption to the sound and the particular music at that point didn't reveal different sounds from the speakers.
The Wharfedale 9.1's are a candidate for my second tier speakers (in zone 2) and, at $350 retail, should not be fair competition for the $1200 Studio20's. I picked these up via ebay for less than $200. Since I don't yet have any other competition in this category, it made sense to compare these two and see what I would be sacrificing for the lower price point.
At home, my testing consists of simply closing my eyes and switch between speakers until I decided which I preferred, switch a few more times to confirm my judgment, then open my eyes to see which speakers I was listening to. I did this hundreds of times. Doing this, I ended up with the Paradigm's about 9 out of 10 times. I expected the Paradigm's to win, but was surprised that the 9.1's won 1 out of 10 times. I am quite enthusiastic about these little speakers!
To my ear, it offers the same type of overall balance and musical sound that I like so much in the 20's and Rainmaker's. It is not better, but it is closer than it's price would suggest.
First off, the tweeter in the Wharfedale is incredible at it's price point. It does not best the Paradigm, but it is too close for $350! If the competition were restricted to producing the highest highs, Paradigm is the champion (among what I've listened to thus far). As I said in the RBH review, the Status Acoustics tweeter had clearer sound, but the Paradigm extends higher. Well, the Wharfedale tweeter stays strong higher in frequency than the Status Acoustics or the Rainmaker! When I was comparing the RBH to the 20's this was one of the "signatures" I could use to distinguish between them (as long as there was some cymbal or chime content with the high overtones). With the Wharfedale, the difference was there, but not as easy to discern. The Paradigm did have better clarity that the Wharfedale, but not by much.
But back to the audition. When I was doing the blind "which is better" test, I would tend to focus on the first thing that struck me as better or worse and focus on that until I was certain. The place where I found repeatability for preferring the 9.1's was listening to solo (or close to solo) tenor saxophone where there was no accompaniment in the higher frequencies. I really can't tell you what made it sound better other than it sounded more real. The brighter sound of a soprano sax would lean toward the Paradigm, and Alto Sax range was a toss up. There were other places where I chose the 9.1's but this is where, to my ear, the 9.1's over-performed and repeatably beat the Paradigms.
The Paradigm won about 9 out of 10 times. Most often the Paradigm sounded closer to live - maybe a little extra presence and clarity. It is not easy to define the specific differences in sound, so I think it is a combination of doing many things just slightly better rather than a decisive difference in a single aspect. However, the sum total of those many things did make a clear difference. Overall, I feel the Wharfedale has a composure which is similar to the Studio20's, but not as good.
One place where the Paradigm again excelled was when things got busy: the Wharfedale would lose some of it's definition. One place where I experienced this with easy repeatability was listening to The Four Seasons (Vivaldi, not R&B
). The harpsichord sounded good on both speakers, but when things got busy, the Wharfedale transients for the harpsichord would get a little muddled. The same effect happened with Zappa on the Rainmakers. I almost wonder if too many signals at once cause the speaker to resonate in a non-linear fashion - that is total SWAG! but something is happening and the Paradigm manages to avoid it.To my ear, the Paradigm had deeper bass. However, given the 5" driver, the Wharfedale put out more than it had any right to. I can't say there were many places where the difference in bass got in the way of my listening for better sound. I had considered setting both up using the Marantz 80Hz high pass filters (no sub), but decided to start listening then engage the filters later if the difference in bass was a distraction. I didn't give it any thought after that.
In conclusion, the 9.1's seem like a whole lot of speaker for little money
Cheers,
Kurt
Sitemap
Site Information
Site Information
HTML
