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

I’d prefer two subwoofers for the smoother in-room response you usually achieve. So if I were in your spot, I’d opt for a pair of Sub 25s. From an output-capability standpoint, I’m 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 don’t 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 Fritz’s 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

I’ve 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 you’ll 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. I’d expect further improvement in the midrange, while the bass will likely be a horse race. Ultimately, what I can’t answer is whether you’ll 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. I’m 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? That’s hard to tell. Obviously both methods are successful to a great degree, if the subwoofers’ performance in my room is any indication. I’d 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 they’ve achieved their engineering goals, and that pays off on the subjective listening without a doubt. . . . Jeff Fritz