Paradigm Signature S8's

[WmAx]

To me they are very UN-engaging... they simply provided me with no emotional connection to the music... sure the tweeters are nice, but they are truly just flat overall in my opinion.... Now if I have to add an EQ to make my speakers come to life, I'm sorry that to me is not what I search for in a speaker period.

But... that is exactly how a neutral speaker with no EQ applied should sound with the way most commercial recordings are produced.

Using EQ properly merely allows YOU to add in the specific curves that you prefer instead of using the ones the manufacturer hard-wired into a speaker system. One can always get a better sound by customizing the curve to their preference as compared to settling for the hard-wired curve of a speaker. Of course, the EQ method I advocate is only suitable for truly neutral speaker systems.... and it's not some 'all over the place' type of curve you have to use. Specifically, there are only two primary EQ filters one needs to use with a neutral speaker to customize the sound to their exact preference: a high shelving filter that starts at about 4kHz; gradually attenuating response over that point from 1-4dB, set according to user preference. The other setting a low shelving filter to properly set baffle step transition amount for the specific room/placement. No speaker can have a baffle compensation transition that is fixed and have it work in multiple environments properly. This is completely dependent on the specific environment and placement in that environment. It must be adjusted for ideal response; the only exception being if the environment/placement it is used in is exactly the single one that was hard-wired into the response to begin with. It is highly improbable you will have the exact environment/placement that matches the factory hard-wired curve. A 0.5 dB error difference here can make a substantial sound quality difference! On top of these two filters, one can add filters to customize the 'tightness' perception of bass if using a powerful EQ like the DCX2496, on top of the ability of this device to ideally integrate speakers with subwoofer(s).

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

The Be tweeter is to me the best tweeter I have ever heard to date... It is light and delicate - airy if you will, but not overwhelming or bright even in a bright room, it just floated about the room. It is easily the same as the best ribbon tweeter I have heard, but doesn't possess the restrictiveness or beaming nature of a ribbon.

The tweeters used on these high end Paradigms are among the best, if not best measuring dome tweeters I have noticed. Besides having a smooth/flat response overall and low distortion, they have incredible horizontal dispersion that is extremely wide even at 15kHz; extremely rare for dome tweeters. This, in the right environment/set up, will provide for more realistic sound in itself in regards to the reflected ambient signals containing a larger amount of the band responsible for human spatial perception. It would even be worthwhile to buy 'replacement' tweeters to use for high end DIY project, assuming the replacement tweeter comes complete with the driver AND the faceplate(the faceplate is obviously a specialized waveguide providing the unique dispersion here).

The midrange is truly brilliant - bringing an extremely wide soundstage, and is very prevalent not recessed, strong and powerful mids are extremely important to me, the Sigs just do all of it right.

To be accurate, the treble band is the one responsible for the primary spatial effects of humans. I believe the tweeter is primarily responsible for this on the Paradigm.

-Chris

 

[Timmy245]

hey chris

i would really like to end up buying these speakers in the near future (sig 8s) do you recommend them ? and also sorry for hijacking the thread a little here but would you if you had the choice would you go with two diy infinity kappa 12" subs or two svs pb13 ultras

cheers Tim

 

[Warpdrv]

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...

 

[WmAx]

hey chris

i would really like to end up buying these speakers in the near future (sig 8s) do you recommend them ?

I really have no comment to make towards these speakers. Until I see credible 3rd party analysis of the cabinet system or at least get to measure, or compare it to a known non-resonant reference A/B myself, I can't make a recommendation for it in this price bracket.

and also sorry for hijacking the thread a little here but would you if you had the choice would you go with two diy infinity kappa 12" subs or two svs pb13 ultras

cheers Tim

No doubt, 2 of the Kappa Perfect subs. The PB13s would produce a bit more SPL over 30Hz, and the Kappas would produce more output under 30Hz, due to the cabinet design that minimizes port compression. But if you want to spend that kind of budget equal to two PB13 Ultras - I may suggest dual Audiopulse AXIS 15" DIY subs. These will outperform the PB13 Ultras by a large margin in every possible way. But I will point out that you need a dedicated circuit from the breaker box for each Axis. They require huge levels of power, at least 2000 watts RMS per driver, and you still won't come near their limits. You would need about 5000 watts RMS per AXIS to actually drive them to their limits. Another option would be dual 12" JL Audio W7 DIY ported subs, powered by 1000-1200 RMS each. You could do this on a single circuit. Of course, there are still more options; I am just listing a few top choices I would suggest for ultra high performance.

-Chris

 

[syd123]

I really have no comment to make towards these speakers. Until I see credible 3rd party analysis of the cabinet system or at least get to measure, or compare it to a known non-resonant reference A/B myself, I can't make a recommendation for it in this price bracket.

What 3rd party? You mean Stereophile? Is their another magazine that measure's cabinet resonance? ..If it is Stereophile then explain to me why even they don't place as much importance on this one single metric as you? Though I can't recall specific models I know that over the years they have given wholehearted A-class recommendations to speakers that performed imperfectly (though not poorly) with respect to their cabinet/ accelerometer analysis. It's also interesting how often a resonance is measured by JA, but none is heard by the reviewer doing the subjective analysis. So if a measurement doesn't strongly correlate with musical enjoyment by the listener, what good is the measurement?

Your view seems to imply that all one needs to do is shop by measurement and I'm not sure that would leave most people satisfied. Or perhaps your obsessing on this one measurement b/c it's the one that your particular speaker does particularly well on.

 

[codexp3]

I would pay more for the diamond. We don't know their margins so it is hard to say if we pay more (effectively speaking) because of the extra shipping cost. Years ago I used to wonder why Bryston amps were cheaper in Hong Kong (I mean from authorized dealers) considering they had to be shipped all the way from Canada. UK is certainly a lot closer. In terms of sound quality I actually find the Sig series overrated. They don't sound much different than the Studios.

I strongly disagree that the Signatures are overrated. I’ve never seen a review find a single fault with the S8v2s. As to diamond being a “great” material to use in tweeters, I have my doubts. I’ve seen numerous manufacturers make the switch to beryllium, but I haven’t seen another manufacturer jump on the gemstone bandwagon.

 

[jostenmeat]

I strongly disagree that the Signatures are overrated. I’ve never seen a review find a single fault with the S8v2s. As to diamond being a “great” material to use in tweeters, I have my doubts. I’ve seen numerous manufacturers make the switch to beryllium, but I haven’t seen another manufacturer jump on the gemstone bandwagon.

Hmrz.

IF I actually put as much stock into cone/driver material as you did, I would say that I abhor beryllium.

But, the fact is I don't think I put as much stock into it as you do. Now, I know of a dealer, and avid AV poster, who claims he can tell the difference between the various materials by ear.

The only beryllium I've heard was with Focal's high end, and I've never heard a more UNrealistic high end.

That's not knocking your Sigs though, cuz like I said, I know there's a lot more to it than material.

 

[PENG]

I strongly disagree that the Signatures are overrated. I’ve never seen a review find a single fault with the S8v2s. As to diamond being a “great” material to use in tweeters, I have my doubts. I’ve seen numerous manufacturers make the switch to beryllium, but I haven’t seen another manufacturer jump on the gemstone bandwagon.

As Canadian I would love to agree with you but I can only honestly agree to disagree. I know what you meant though as I have read a few rave reviews about them, but that is also the reason why I said they were overrated. One thing to keep in mind too, they are quite a bit less expensive compared to even the 803D so people may have a natural tendency to rave more about their performance.

Anyway I believe we all agree to a point that this is largely a subjective matter. To me even the original S2 sounded great but I just like the B&W much more. I know how violins sound (some may feel the real violin sound bright and cannot listen to them for longer than 30 seconds), they sound like what I heard through the 802/3Ds. When I auditioned high end speakers I always use the same CDs. The S8 did well too with violins but they just didn't sound as real to me. By the way, I have only auditioned the original Signatures version. It may or may not mean anything but I should have mentioned it earlier.

 

[codexp3]

By the way, I have only auditioned the original Signatures version. It may or may not mean anything but I should have mentioned it earlier.

The tweeter is greatly improved in the v2, that's what sold me. I liked the 803D, but ranked them third (cost not being included in the equation). I liked the Signature s8v2, Dynaudio Contour 5.4, B&W 803D, and the Revel f52s in that order. I'd be happy calling any of them my own. I do agree with your earlier statement, the Studio 100s did 90%+ of what the Sigs did, but the Studios are excellent speakers.

 

[PENG]

The tweeter is greatly improved in the v2, that's what sold me. I liked the 803D, but ranked them third (cost not being included in the equation). I liked the Signature s8v2, Dynaudio Contour 5.4, B&W 803D, and the Revel f52s in that order. I'd be happy calling any of them my own. I do agree with your earlier statement, the Studio 100s did 90%+ of what the Sigs did, but the Studios are excellent speakers.

I could have bought the original version a few years ago but I decided to settle for the Energy Verita (also Canadian made) that was priced between the Sig and the Studio but closer to the Studio 100 in terms of quality and price. In doing so I saved C$3,000. My logic at the time was to conserve cash and save up for the expensive 802. If the S8 V2 is greatly improved then I should audition them again but I think I would wait in case I could not resist the temptation. For me, this is really not the time to spend even 7K on speakers.

Thanks again for the info.

 

[Warpdrv]

Hmrz.

IF I actually put as much stock into cone/driver material as you did, I would say that I abhor beryllium.

But, the fact is I don't think I put as much stock into it as you do. Now, I know of a dealer, and avid AV poster, who claims he can tell the difference between the various materials by ear.

The only beryllium I've heard was with Focal's high end, and I've never heard a more UNrealistic high end.

That's not knocking your Sigs though, cuz like I said, I know there's a lot more to it than material.

That is not the first time that I have heard that the Focals high end with the Be tweeter they use was edgy and unrealistic... but then again, that also could come down to a room issue just the same... I have not had the opportunity to hear them myself...

I did not get that feeling with the Sig Be tweeter at all... A very well put together speaker in SQ from top to bottom... just one mans opinion.

 

[vicklan]

i thinks the B&W Nautilus speakers are much better

 

[WmAx]

What 3rd party? You mean Stereophile? Is their another magazine that measure's cabinet resonance? ..If it is Stereophile then explain to me why even they don't place as much importance on this one single metric as you?

I do not recommend Stereophile for anything except the measurement data base they have for loudspeakers and amplifiers. Their statements/reviews are usually of very low worth; don't presume that I imply that anything other than the actual measurements they make is of any worth. As an example of the ignorance of Stereophile: they recently reviewed the Theil CS 3.7, and made no note of the cabinet audibility in the review. But I listened to the 3.7, compared directly to a non-resonant reference in direct A/B, and the effect of the resonance was very clearly pronounced in certain music like piano and certain vocals; creating the typical emphasized frequency range coloration that resonance produces. The Stereophile measurements make it clear as to why it's so audible; it has substantial amplitude wall vibrations. But the reviewers make no reference comparisons under semi-controlled conditions, and I doubt they have trained with double blinded listening trials to be able to identify the exact cause of these coloration(s) as I have. For most, even when they clearly hear certain coloration, they can not usually specify the origin, as they have not under gone such training. I have found that resonance is one of these things that most people can not usually identify even though they clearly hear it's effects. It usually requires some sort of specific training to become familiar with the exact effect for them to be able to identify it.

I do not place all value on this single aspect. But it's one of many that a speaker must be sufficient at executing if it is to be of the highest sound quality.

Your view seems to imply that all one needs to do is shop by measurement and I'm not sure that would leave most people satisfied. Or perhaps your obsessing on this one measurement b/c it's the one that your particular speaker does particularly well on.

Now, while I will advocate that the right set of measurements will show nearly every aspect sufficient to determine overall sound/quality, I will point out that very few people are capable of interpreting that data even if it's available to them. To do such requires extensive knowledge of how measurements are performed and to be knowledgeable of the credible perceptual research that correlates specific measurements with human perception/audibility.

-Chris

 

[syd123]

very few[/I] people are capable of interpreting that data even if it's available to them. To do such requires extensive knowledge of how measurements are performed and to be knowledgeable of the credible perceptual research that correlates specific measurements with human perception/audibility.

-Chris

How do you know that the differences you heard b/w the Thiel and your "reference" were due only to cabinet resonance?? The drivers, cross-over, and cabinet shape (i.e., baffle) are all different too, correct?? Also, Thiel speakers are phase-coherent and time-aligned. How do you know that doesn't account for the difference??

Here again, you suggest that you can predict how accurate a speaker will sound based up on a small handful of measurements. ..How do you know that all such relevent measurements have already been developed?? People clearly hear differences b/w speakers that measure identically. Why??

So, recognizing that present day measurements likely fall short of quantifying all the nuances that differentialtes one speaker from another, why do you give such short shrift to actually listening?? ...To me, the Paradigms sounded more like the real music I'm used to listening too than the other speakers to which I listened. ..And I've listened (and played) a lot of live music in my life.

As for cabinet resonances, all that matters is that they are inaudible. ..Taking them from inaudible to non-measureable may not be worth the costs required to achieve. For a speaker built to sell at a given price point, a designer needs to spread costs across a bunch of pieces that make up the speaker - including cabinet, cross-over, cones, magnets, etc. etc.. The Paradigm Signature S8 v.2 retails for about US $7,000. ..Though definitely NOT an inexpensive speaker, it still is not a price-no-object design.

Though you've not seen measurements that relate to cabinet resonances, you did laud Paradigm for the fantantic drivers in the S8 v. 2., including the Be tweeter (you remarked it's one of the best you've seen meausured). Well, assuming that they didn't develop the drivers and tweeter by accident, it's not such a stretch to think that qualified engineers that developed these have given similar consideration to cabinet design and, as such, they've taken care to reduce cabinet resonances to the point of being inaudible. ..Your position seems to be that until you've seen evidence to the contrary, you're going to assume that the cabinet likely sucks. Why?

 

[WmAx]

How do you know that the differences you heard b/w the Thiel and your "reference" were due only to cabinet resonance?? The drivers, cross-over, and cabinet shape (i.e., baffle) are all different too, correct?? Also, Thiel speakers are phase-coherent and time-aligned. How do you know that doesn't account for the difference??

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.

Here again, you suggest that you can predict how accurate a speaker will sound based up on a small handful of measurements. ..How do you know that all such relevent measurements have already been developed?? People clearly hear differences b/w speakers that measure identically. Why??

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

So, recognizing that present day measurements likely fall short of quantifying all the nuances that differentialtes one speaker from another, why do you give such short shrift to actually listening??

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

Though you've not seen measurements that relate to cabinet resonances, you did laud Paradigm for the fantantic drivers in the S8 v. 2., including the Be tweeter (you remarked it's one of the best you've seen meausured). Well, assuming that they didn't develop the drivers and tweeter by accident, it's not such a stretch to think that qualified engineers that developed these have given similar consideration to cabinet design and, as such, they've taken care to reduce cabinet resonances to the point of being inaudible. ..Your position seems to be that until you've seen evidence to the contrary, you're going to assume that the cabinet likely sucks. Why?

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

 

[PENG]

Good morning Chris, I kow this is off track, but do you know of speakers in the 2 to 5K price range that have decent cabinets? If you do please name a few. Thanks!

 

[WmAx]

Good morning Chris, I kow this is off track, but do you know of speakers in the 2 to 5K price range that have decent cabinets? If you do please name a few. Thanks!

The B&W 804S has a decent cabinet featuring B&W's matrix bracing. An interlocking bracing system that leaves no more than about 4" unbraced from any relative point internally. Braces interlock and cross through all axises internally. This alone is not likely to produce a completely silent cabinet, but it will have a lower acoustic output compared to most. This speaker sells for under $5k, and it's a relatively neutral speaker overall, making it very suited to use with a device like the DCX2496 to obtain the specific sound one desires. I would recommend using dual high quality subwoofers with the 804 and crossing both the 804 and subs over at about 70Hz. The dual mid-basses on the 804 will allow for substantial dynamic range, but they are not suited to low bass reproduction and such low frequency energy should be filtered from them.

-Chris

 

[Rickster71]

Hi Chris, How can the "average" person detect cabinet resonance?

Would touching the side of the cabinet to feel any vibration be a starting point?
If I were to hold my ear against the cabinet and listen, while playing different types of music, would that give me clues as to what I should listen for?

Thanks,
Rick

 

[avaserfi]

Hi Chris, How can the "average" person detect cabinet resonance?

Would touching the side of the cabinet to feel any vibration be a starting point?
If I were to hold my ear against the cabinet and listen, while playing different types of music, would that give me clues as to what I should listen for?

Thanks,
Rick

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.