TLS Guy -vs- Studio 100's

[jostenmeat]

Now that I think of it I'm going to dig out that Hiliard Group thing for tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure you already listened to it, and since you weren't raving about it, I might suggest waiting for the new puppies to arrive? (I suppose you didn't take that disc with you on your recent x-country audition trip either . . .)

 

[Alex2507]

I'm pretty sure you already listened to it, and since you weren't raving about it, I might suggest waiting for the new puppies to arrive? (I suppose you didn't take that disc with you on your recent x-country audition trip either . . .)

I didn't know that it would turn out quite like that but it wasn't one of my 'don't leave home without it' CD's. The new puppies will take time and money for amps and a rec'r to use as a pre. Just over $2,000. I ain't got it now.

BTW I edited in the correct name and spelling for that recording. I just got my main system tuned in, amp'ed up and EQ'ed with ParadigmDawg's sound panels. I got that CD when I was working and really only listened to it in the truck and maybe at home a little ... probably on the 2 channel secondary system. I'm excited to try it out on the living room system now that it's all loved up. Another thing is that I want to become really familiar with it for auditions. It will be interesting to see what the sound stage is like on that recording.

 

[Swerd]

It looks like TLS Guy never showed up. I've come home from work, finished dinner, and the Burro Dance Team has run its course. Maybe we can try to work on Alex's original question without TLS Guy. What can we see in the various graphs and measurements of those Studio 100s that corresponds with TLS Guy's brief critique of them?

TLS Guy said

Right from the first violin cord, the speakers disappointed. The treble was harsh and the mid range shouty. The bass was very tubby and bloated.

Nothing was well balanced. The violins were stealy with no bloom and the brass was of the flat out harsh, bore a whole in your head variety.

How do we go from those words to this:

or this

Nothing was well balanced. That is probably the easiest. Even though the Studio 100s got praise in the Stereophile review, they could have a flatter and smoother frequency response. They aren't real bad (like these Cerwin Vegas), but they aren't as flat and smooth as these Paradigm Reference Signature S1s. Remember that we can easily hear differences of 3 dB or larger, especially if it is in the midrange (very roughly from 500 to 3,000 Hz). The Studio 100s vary by at least 5dB, and in the upper treble by a lot more.

The treble was harsh. That's a little more difficult because frequency response curves only show relative changes in loudness. They don't tell you anything about good or poor sound quality. Just the same, the Studio 100 tweeter has a pretty rough looking FR curve, especially above 8 kHz. I can think of many moderately priced tweeters that are smoother.

The bass was very tubby and bloated. This is the toughest one for me, because the bass doesn't look that bad in the FR curve. True, it is a little exaggerated, but I've seen much worse, like those Cerwin Vegas.

The mid range shouty. This may not mean much to many of you, but the words "shouty midrange" sound like a classic description of a speaker that suffers from uncorrected baffle diffraction.

The most common version of that problem usually happens in small 2-way speakers where the mid range is louder than the bass. Like this example. Look in the midrange at the raised plateau between ~700 Hz and ~3000 Hz. It is a lot louder than the bass (100 to 500 Hz). This can be corrected by a circuit in the crossover that compensates for the so called "baffle step response".

I'm not sure that a 3-way design with three woofers like the Studio 100s would have that same problem, but the words "shouty midrange" set off alarms in me. Look in either of the Studio 100 FR curves, and see a strange jagged ridge that suddenly rises at about 700 Hz. It may not look like much, but in that range, our hearing is much better than at either extreme. I'm gonna take a guess, that this ridge may contribute to the shouty midrange that TLS Guy heard.

TLS Guy, paging Dr. Mark Carter. Please tune in.

 

[PENG]

I am starting this thread because I have heard these speakers and I liked them.

I have listened to the 800 series, the Sigs and Studios many times. I ended up with the Energy's because I found them closing to the B&Ws. If you like the Studios but not "love" them yet, then you should listen to the 800's and be ready to change you mind. Try something brass heavy on the 804S, the cheapest 800 series towers. I will take the 804S over the Signatures but I am not prepared to take anything less than the 803D.

 

[JerryLove]

I will take the 804S over the Signatures but I am prepare to take anything less than the 803D.

804S < 803D

 

[PENG]

804S < 803D

It was my typo, I missed the "not". I meant I wouldn't take anything less than the 803D but even the 804S the cheapest tower, sound better than the Signatures (V1) to me. I know my view is extreme (not as bad as TLS Guy's), those Signatures are highly regarded.

 

[chris357]

i listened to a set of 804d's and they blew me away i cant even imagine what the 803's would sound like.

 

[Alex2507]

Compliments of the good Dr.

This is the 800 range.

The B&W's are getting mentioned often enough.
I wanted to get a similar page for Paradigm's line but their site seems to be down.

Swerd, looking at those two graphs is kind of like looking for ghosts. To make matters worse they look different enough that I wouldn't even guess them to be the same speaker and the kicker is that I know a graph of room response would look so wildly jagged that ... this is why the audition process is so important I imagine.

So far I have learned that:
1. What happens in that midrange is pretty important due to the way our hearing is most effective there.
2. Graphs of the same speaker can/do vary.
3. No high end roll off will get you the M.D. smack down.
* I'm still sort of processing what's there. I'm sure the list could be longer.

I haven't been to any live performances but my sister's kids are taking viola and piano lessons. I can say that no play back of any recorded performance that I have heard can even touch what Fur Elise sounds like on a baby grand played by a 13 year old who probably isn't that good. That's my favorite but my 10 year old niece on a cheap viola can pretty much make you melt when she gets it right. Royalty in the 17 and 18 hundreds sure had the right idea ... play me something nice or I'll cut your head off.

 

[bandphan]

So far I have learned that:
1. What happens in that midrange is pretty important due to the way our hearing is most effective there.
2. Graphs of the same speaker can/do vary.
3. No high end roll off will get you the M.D. smack down.
* I'm still sort of processing what's there. I'm sure the list could be longer.

Your starting to sound like Dr. Bose

 

[GO-NAD!]

I just had a look at the Paradigm website and the FR they claim for the Studio 100 V.5 is: +/- 2 dB, 44Hz - 22kHz. The good doctor stated that he listened to the studios "a few weeks ago", at a dealer's shop. Therefore, I would have to assume that it was the V.5 that he heard.

So, either Paradigm fudges their numbers, or that shop has some serious acoustic issues that hindered the Studios and flattered the B & Ws.

If Paradigm's numbers are accurate and the acoustics in that shop are screwy, the implication is that the B & Ws are the speakers with problems. I have difficulty believing that, but I also have difficulty believing that a reputable manufacturer like Paradigm, would give false specifications for their speakers.

So, what is one to believe?

 

[Alex2507]

Your starting to sound like Dr. Bose

I'm gonna get you for that.

 

[Swerd]

Swerd, looking at those two graphs is kind of like looking for ghosts. To make matters worse they look different enough that I wouldn't even guess them to be the same speaker and the kicker is that I know a graph of room response would look so wildly jagged that ... this is why the audition process is so important I imagine.

So far I have learned that:
1. What happens in that midrange is pretty important due to the way our hearing is most effective there.
2. Graphs of the same speaker can/do vary.
3. No high end roll off will get you the M.D. smack down.
* I'm still sort of processing what's there. I'm sure the list could be longer.

Your 3 points got it right. A good start . These graphs start making more sense after you've seen a lot of them and heard some of the speakers as well.

Remember that graphs also can vary because the test microphones, the computer software, or other test conditions were different. The SoundStage graphs made by the Canadian NRC are widely trusted. Their methods are considered the gold standard of the industry. I thought the two FR curves of the Studio 100s from Stereophile and SoundStage were reasonably similar looking.

FR curves make more sense if you can see the FR curves of the individual drivers without the crossover. You can see any faults in the drivers and what the crossover must deal with. And you can know if the crossover fixes them or introduces new problems.

Commercially available drivers usually publish such raw FR curves (look on Madisound for examples), but it is also important to see the FR of the drivers (especially the woofers) mounted in the cabinet, because the width of the front baffle will affect the overall balance. The manufacturer doesn't know what cabinet width the speaker designer will use. After you see all that, then the final FR curve of the drivers, cabinet, and crossover make better sense.

The only thread I know of that shows such before and after FR curves is this one (guess who wrote it? ). It shows the FR curves of JBL L100 speakers with their original crossover, the 3 individual drivers without a crossover, and with a newly designed and better performing crossover.

I haven't been to any live performances but my sister's kids are taking viola and piano lessons. I can say that no play back of any recorded performance that I have heard can even touch what Fur Elise sounds like on a baby grand played by a 13 year old who probably isn't that good. That's my favorite but my 10 year old niece on a cheap viola can pretty much make you melt when she gets it right. Royalty in the 17 and 18 hundreds sure had the right idea ... play me something nice or I'll cut your head off.

 

[highfigh]

It looks like TLS Guy never showed up. I've come home from work, finished dinner, and the Burro Dance Team has run its course. Maybe we can try to work on Alex's original question without TLS Guy. What can we see in the various graphs and measurements of those Studio 100s that corresponds with TLS Guy's brief critique of them?

TLS Guy said

How do we go from those words to this:

or this

Nothing was well balanced. That is probably the easiest. Even though the Studio 100s got praise in the Stereophile review, they could have a flatter and smoother frequency response. They aren't real bad (like these Cerwin Vegas), but they aren't as flat and smooth as these Paradigm Reference Signature S1s. Remember that we can easily hear differences of 3 dB or larger, especially if it is in the midrange (very roughly from 500 to 3,000 Hz). The Studio 100s vary by at least 5dB, and in the upper treble by a lot more.

The treble was harsh. That's a little more difficult because frequency response curves only show relative changes in loudness. They don't tell you anything about good or poor sound quality. Just the same, the Studio 100 tweeter has a pretty rough looking FR curve, especially above 8 kHz. I can think of many moderately priced tweeters that are smoother.

The bass was very tubby and bloated. This is the toughest one for me, because the bass doesn't look that bad in the FR curve. True, it is a little exaggerated, but I've seen much worse, like those Cerwin Vegas.

The mid range shouty. This may not mean much to many of you, but the words "shouty midrange" sound like a classic description of a speaker that suffers from uncorrected baffle diffraction.

The most common version of that problem usually happens in small 2-way speakers where the mid range is louder than the bass. Like this example. Look in the midrange at the raised plateau between ~700 Hz and ~3000 Hz. It is a lot louder than the bass (100 to 500 Hz). This can be corrected by a circuit in the crossover that compensates for the so called "baffle step response".

I'm not sure that a 3-way design with three woofers like the Studio 100s would have that same problem, but the words "shouty midrange" set off alarms in me. Look in either of the Studio 100 FR curves, and see a strange jagged ridge that suddenly rises at about 700 Hz. It may not look like much, but in that range, our hearing is much better than at either extreme. I'm gonna take a guess, that this ridge may contribute to the shouty midrange that TLS Guy heard.

TLS Guy, paging Dr. Mark Carter. Please tune in.

I don't think I would like that peak in the 3K range. In a room that's more reverberant, that would be awfully annoying at anything more than a moderate level. I can see how it can be painful.

 

[Swerd]

I don't think I would like that peak in the 3K range. In a room that's more reverberant, that would be awfully annoying at anything more than a moderate level. I can see how it can be painful.

Good point. I failed to mention that, but I do agree with you. That peak would affect treble harshness and could have been why he didn't like the sound of brass instruments. Thanks.

 

[KEW]

I just had a look at the Paradigm website and the FR they claim for the Studio 100 V.5 is: +/- 2 dB, 44Hz - 22kHz. The good doctor stated that he listened to the studios "a few weeks ago", at a dealer's shop. Therefore, I would have to assume that it was the V.5 that he heard.

I don't believe this fully addresses your question, but unless I missed something, the graphs which Swerd & Alex used are for v3, not v5 of the Studio.
Paradigm supposedly made some substantial changes between v3 and v5.

 

[KEW]

Here is the NRCC's measurement of the Studio 10. FWIW, it is the same tweeter and voiced as part of the v5 Studio series.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/paradigm_studio10_v5/

Also, I believe Stereophile reviewed the Studio60, v5 in their November issue, but it is not on the web and may not include the NRCC graphs.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I don't believe this fully addresses your question, but unless I missed something, the graphs which Swerd & Alex used are for v3, not v5 of the Studio.
Paradigm supposedly made some substantial changes between v3 and v5.

Yes, I understand that the graphs are for a prior version. But, the guys are using these graphs to try to explain TLSGUYs assessment of the Studio 100, which I am guessing to be a V.5, based on when he was listening to them at a dealer's shop. I think we need some clarification from the doc, if he's willing to humour us.

 

[Swerd]

Here is the NRCC's measurement of the Studio 10. FWIW, it is the same tweeter and voiced as part of the v5 Studio series.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/paradigm_studio10_v5/

Also, I believe Stereophile reviewed the Studio60, v5 in their November issue, but it is not on the web and may not include the NRCC graphs.

The Studio 10 v5 still looks pretty ragged from 700 Hz and higher. If that is similar to the Studio 100 v5, it still could have problems.

 

[highfigh]

Good point. I failed to mention that, but I do agree with you. That peak would affect treble harshness and could have been why he didn't like the sound of brass instruments. Thanks.

The 3KHz peak is right about where the human ear is most sensitive, on average. That's also where a lot of sound reflections occur and when the RT60 is high, it gets loud and annoying in a hurry. Since they can't rely on consumers to treat the listening room, they may decrease the output in the middle to make the speakers to seem more warm or at least, less "aggressive" in the mid-range (another word that may/may not mean anything to consumers). The peaks and dips around/above 10KHz would be annoying, too.

Measuring speakers at 1M may be fine for finding the sensitivity but I don't think measuring frequency response at that distance is valid unless the speakers are designed specifically for near-field monitoring. I don't know of a single person who has wanted/needed to listen at that distance in residential use unless they had a home studio or were at a computer.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The Studio 10 v5 still looks pretty ragged from 700 Hz and higher. If that is similar to the Studio 100 v5, it still could have problems.

Are we coming to the conclusion that the doc is right and that the Studio series don't deserve their great reputation?

Say it's not so!!