cam said:
I chose the Paradigm monitor 7 floorstanders for many reasons over the standmount mini monitors.
1- they are 3 db more efficient which means they get alot louder with less power.
2- no need to waste money on stands where little ones can easily topple them.
3- if one chooses to listen to music with no sub on, a floorstander (within the same series) should produce more bass.
4- THIS ONE IS MY OPINION- some say that standmounts image better then their matching big brother floorstanders within the same series. Anyone who states this is only trying to convince themselves that buying standmounts was the best decision. I gaurantee that if money was no object, these people who buy Paradigm studio 20's and 40's would most certainly buy studio 60's or maybe even 100's. When the receiver is set up for 80 hz, a Paradigm studio 20 or 40 does not image better then a studio 60. I have listen to many standmounts and floorstanders in the demo room. A floorstander within the same line will lick the standmount everytime. But for most people, if you can only afford the standmount, you will defend your decision as to why the standmount was better then the equivalent floorstander. Most people can only afford the standmount within a certain line of speaker, this is why most people say that you only need a standmount, I say, floorstanders are the right way to go. If by chance a floorstander is overkill for your situation, chances are it is more efficient then its standmount counterpart and when buying an amp, you can save some money by buying a smaller amp. But if you end up buying floorstanders, chances are you are probabely going to buy a bigger amp.
A month ago, I was at a reputable audio shop in my area auditioning the Paradigm Studio Series. I brought my Hayley Westenra's "Pure" CD for the listening test. The Studio 20's, 40's, and 60's were lined up in an organized pattern, 10 ft. apart per pair, and were allowed to be switched by a press of a button. Audio equipment was the Cambridge Audio Azure 640A/640C integrated amplifier and CD player combo. I played Hayley's rendition of Carl Orff's "In Trutina", track no. 11, because it is of reference quality, and a true test of a speaker's midrange sound and quality. I started off with the 20's: the imaging was superb, with the voice being extremely focused at dead centre. When I switched to the 40's, bass was more evident, but Hayley's voice became less focussed and less clear. The same thing happened when I switched from the 40's to the 60's. There was definitely a transition from better imaging (with less bass) to poorer imaging (with more bass) by going from the 20's to the 40's, then from the 40's to the 60's. Don't get me wrong, the 60's still sounded very good, but it's imaging is significantly worse than the 20's; it was really obvious when I switched directly from the 60's to the 20's.
The sale's person said that people usually do not jump from the 20's to the 40's when they buy; they jump from the 20's to the 60's. The reason for this is because the price of the 40's with stands is almost the same price as the 60's.
The one true strength of a floorstander over a bookshelf is in it's musical dynamics capability. Music through a floorstander is more complete and cohesive, especially when playing music with alot of midbass and alot of overlap between midrange and midbass; the feeling is akin to being consistently poked and jabbed at the gut. This is the biggest reason I would pick a floorstander over a bookshelf. You will not appreciate these dynamics with a bookshelf speaker, even coupled with a subwoofer. Also, it is generally more difficult to make a subwoofer disappear when it is mated with bookshelves due to the higher crossover frequency on the sub; when you can localize the sub, you've destroyed the entire musical experience. Adding a subwoofer to a floorstander would only make the musical experience more enjoyable, because now you can cross the sub frequency really low, enabling it to completely disappear.
Ohmage.
