Two Paradigm Sub 25s or one Sub
2?
February 25, 2010
Editor,
Would two Paradigm
Signature Sub 25s outplay the Sub 2, or
would the Sub 2 outplay two Sub 25s? I want to buy one of the subs, but I have not been
able to get an accurate answer from the sales reps at the stores because they have not
seen or heard the Sub 2.
I am willing to buy two Sub 25s if they would outplay the
Sub 2, but I would love to save money as well. So if the Sub 2 beats two Sub 25s I will go
with the Sub 2. I know when you have two subs in a room the response is even better.
Andrew Moniz
Id prefer two subwoofers for the smoother in-room
response you usually achieve. So if I were in your spot, Id opt for a pair of Sub
25s. From an output-capability standpoint, Im not sure which alternative is the
better one. In most systems, I think either choice would provide immense output capability
that would satisfy even the most ardent bass fanatic. But dont underestimate how
much the room response matters -- that could mean the difference between great bass and
lumpy, uneven bass. One other option, and not trying to confuse matters, would be two Sub
1s. Perhaps a call to Paradigm would be a good idea to get their opinion on things. . . .
Jeff Fritz
Rockport versus Salk
February 19, 2010
To Randall Smith,
I saw your
review on the Rockport Technologies Ankaa and [Jeff Fritzs review of the] Mira.
I heard the Mira and was impressed as well. One question is whether you have ever had the
chance to compare the Miras to the admittedly less expensive Salk HT3 or HT4 (prototype)?
I'm trying to hear them and any feedback would be appreciated.
Best,
Jim
Ive not heard the Salks and so I cannot comment on
their sound. They do appear to be an interesting design. Looking at their website, there
seems to be lot of attention paid to cabinet finishes and the wood options available for
the speaker. Very nice woodwork! The Rockports, on the other hand, also feature a great
finish, although painted as opposed to wood veneer. The world-class engineering that goes
into the Rockports is what is most striking about the designs themselves, however, and
this manifests itself in the sound quality that youll hear. Their coherence, dynamic
capability, transparency, and sheer neutrality, are amazing. The Miras are simply the
speaker to beat under $20,000, in my experience. . . . Randall Smith
New Paradigms better than old B&Ws?
February 11, 2010
Editor,
I listen to music through B&W 802 Series III speakers,
a Simaudio Moon W5 LE amp and SuperNova CD player, and an Audio Research preamp. Will
these components be a good match with the Paradigm Reference S6 v.3 speakers? Will it be
better than with my old B&Ws on bass and treble? Thank you for any information.
Simon
Your B&Ws are still formidable speakers that are
highly regarded amongst their supporters. However, the Paradigms are really the latest in
speaker engineering and I think better in some important ways. First, there is no question
that driver technology has come a long way since your B&Ws were developed. For
example, the tweeter in the S6 v.3 will significantly outpace the unit in the B&W, so
the highs produced by the Paradigm will be more extended and more detailed as a result.
Id expect further improvement in the midrange, while the bass will likely be a horse
race. Ultimately, what I cant answer is whether youll prefer the Paradigms to
the B&Ws -- a lot comes down to taste. What I can say is that the Paradigms are a
thoroughly modern design that have some real technical advantages over the older B&Ws.
. . . Jeff Fritz
Vibration-cancelling subwoofers
February 1, 2010
Editor,
I just read your reviews of the Paradigm Sub
2 and JL
Audio Gotham.
I myself have never gotten into subwoofing (I don't do HT),
but though my speakers (Mordaunt-Short Performance 6) are probably only capable of the
mid-30Hz or so response that most typical 3.5' - 4' floorstanders will give, my lack of
room-acoustic treatment or EQ, along with the sanity of my girlfriend with I whom I share
the house, mitigate other solutions. And musically I'm really OK with that for the time
being, said house not having the largest listening room or most soundproof construction,
not to mention pocketbook considerations.
However, I am curious about a design point that your
articles didn't touch upon. The Paradigm incorporates multiple drivers in a mechanically
opposed, vibration-cancelling array, while JL arrays its two drivers conventionally on the
front baffle. Ever since seeing the concept for the first time (can't remember where or in
which product anymore), I haven't understood why sub designers, given the option of
multiple drivers and a large enough cabinet (and price point) in a design brief, wouldn't
avail themselves of some kind of vibration-cancelling arrangement, considering the
excursion and output power of which these drivers are capable.
This goes not just for cabinet vibration of course, always
an issue in any speaker, but especially in the case of a sub, vibration also transmitted
to the floor, which won't be foundational in many installations. Relying on a floor that
may resonate to counteract the physical G-forces it would seem must be transmitted by a
single-baffle sub doesn't appear to make theoretical sense, if transparent,
well-integrated, noise-free sound is the goal. Yet there continue to be plenty of subs
made, both "statement" models and not, that don't incorporate this seemingly
logical approach.
Lacking much personal subwoofing experience as I do,
perhaps I'm missing something or overstating the issue. But then designs like the Paradigm
argue to the contrary simply by dint of their very existence. So does your experience with
either of these subs and/or others lead you to any thoughts on this subject?
Happy listening,
Alex in MD
Your query is an interesting one. Im certainly no
expert on cabinet design, but do have a few thoughts. First, the construction of the
cabinet, as well as the physical layout of the drivers, certainly both play a part. The JL
and Paradigm subs are prime examples. The Paradigm does exactly as you say: they use a
force-cancelling arrangement which enables them to employ a lighter-constructed MDF
cabinet than would otherwise be possible. The JL sub, on the other hand, uses a much
heavier fiberglass cabinet with extra-thick walls and ribbed bracing. Which is better?
Thats hard to tell. Obviously both methods are successful to a great degree, if the
subwoofers performance in my room is any indication. Id hazard a guess that
some cabinet resonance makes its way through in both subwoofers -- I doubt either company
would claim perfection. But they both would likely say that theyve achieved their
engineering goals, and that pays off on the subjective listening without a doubt. . . .
Jeff Fritz
|