Paradigm Cinema 100 Review (home theater speakers)

[krabapple]

Unfortunately most of the old names that originally made their name by their technical knowledge, ingenuity and research, Paradigm was one them, left that legacy behind. Paradigm almost went bust until the new management decided that good marketing and sales network management brings market share. Since then their products have nothing to do with physics but all to do with marketing and pushy sales channel.

Original Paradigm speakers, in their own words "were based on audio researchers and the detailed scientific findings from audio studies conducted by the National Research Council of Canada."

How can you then interpret this speaker? If those speakers are designed for surround then how is it possible that the centre speaker is simply a rotated front speaker?

They aren't designed for surround...or any particular position, any more than any other brand/model of speaker is. There's no need for a special 'surround' design for loudspeakers, though those do exist. You can just use 5 of the same speaker. That guarantees consistency of timbre at least. (FWIW, the original mixing spec for DVD-A and SACD 5.1 audio called for 5 identical full range speakers).

In fact my 'other' 5.x system uses five identical speakers, just like this one is...only it's a different, bigger speaker.

How can you use a speaker optimised for wider horisontal dispersion (drivers on top of each other) on a centre channel.

You can keep it vertical. That's what I do for music listening.


Btw, in 2019, one of the original Paradigm founders bought the company back from the private equity firm that took over in 2005.

 

[krabapple]

You misunderstand me, I said my 2 channel JBL 308p system is miles better for music listening than my parents Onkyo 5.1 surround system. If you didn't misunderstand me, then yours is just a contradictory data point to mine, but I highly doubt that a mediocre/poor 5.1 system is better than a great 2 channel system for stereo music listening.....in fact I know that from my experience.

Leaving aside our surely differing takes on how to determine 'mediocrity' in a surround sound system (read Floyd Toole on the masking effects of adding more channels), stereo has inherent flaws that adding more channels overcomes pretty handily.

Re your first paragraph, that's an inference of mine based on the less than ideal spinorama of the speaker combined with what would be a high crossover point to the subwoofer....so I don't think that's unreasonable.

A high crossover point is not as much an issue when using multiple subs. (In fact I haven't found it a terribly big issue even when using one...experimenting with subwoofer placement can help)

.......I'm beginning to doubt the validity of your posts...that you shouldn't be taken too seriously......or do you just like internet jousting & cluttering up threads!

That's fine, there's plenty of posters here I can't take seriously, given how vastly misinformed their posts are.

I'm glad Amir has embarked on a video series debunking a lot of the nonsense they take as gospel truth.

 

[krabapple]

Excuse me but since when this Canadian B-category brand became something? I remember their Monitor line and these were a cheap-n-crappy boxes with Titanium ear-piercing tweeters. Typical "JBL Northridge style" sound (I heard 1 or 2 models). Nothing interesting. They were on par with Cerwin-Vega due to reviews/recommendations.

$35K/pair seems pretty pricey for a B brand.
https://www.paradigm.com/en/floorstanding/persona-9h

Not saying these must be therefore good...but just sayin'.

 

[krabapple]

You kind of missed my point, which is these are significantly overpriced. If ADAM can make better speakers that measure much better and include amplification for the same price, these are at gouging the consumer. Just buy a soundbar.

Soundbar technology is pretty incredible these days, but AFAIK it still can't replicate the sound of 5 actual speaker-sized point sources in a circle playing material mixed for surround.

(Also, I presume by soundbar you mean, soundbar + sub.) (Or in my case, 2 subs)

 

[krabapple]

I think you guys (you're all guys, I'm positive) complaining about Amir reviewing cheap and/or bandwidth-limited and/or spinorama-challenged speakers are missing part of the 'fun' of the audio hobby, to my reckoning: leveraging audio technical knowledge to meet a challenge imposed by real-world constraints on cost, room acoustics, decor, tolerance for complexity...

It's a handy knowledge set to have. I've had multiple friends who've wanted decent systems (from 2.0, to 2.1, to 5.1) systems but have one or more such constraint they have to deal with . I enjoy helping them out too.

 

[beagleman]

Excuse me but since when this Canadian B-category brand became something? I remember their Monitor line and these were a cheap-n-crappy boxes with Titanium ear-piercing tweeters. Typical "JBL Northridge style" sound (I heard 1 or 2 models). Nothing interesting. They were on par with Cerwin-Vega due to reviews/recommendations.

$1k for 6 pcs ins't THAT much, just an usual price for such pack IMO as far as these are not Chinotiva etc.

Nothing you said that I bolded, made any sense at all. What world do you live on?

 

[Sancus]

I thought it introduced a filter to shunt frequencies below a set cut off to a sub. What else does that setting actually do?

Ya, sorry, that's basically the definition of bass management. It redirects bass-below-crossover from "Small" speakers to subwoofers. If you set your fronts to Large, though, then they will only play the low-bass from those channels. The LFE channel and all the rest will still go to the subs. And since the LFE is 10dB louder than all the rest, you're not really saving the sub from much load, you're just getting worse bass response(unless your fronts are legitimately flat to 20hz) to random bits of bass in the whole mix. Even speakers that are flat to 20hz likely run out of steam long before comparable subs. In addition, most people with big HT speakers have multiple subs(or they should). Multiple subs will give better low-bass response because subs can be positioned independently and EQed together with advanced tools like Multi-Sub Optimizer or Dirac Bass Control.

The subs are designed to play low frequencies and do it best, so they should be left alone to do it.

 

[Rottmannash]

Thanks- that's very helpful. I have F208s but probably need a couple subs when not listening in 2 channel.

 

[richard12511]

Does Amir?

No. I'm pretty sure he runs them full range, though I don't think he disagrees with Toole here(ie highpassing mains to multiple subs has higher potential).

Toole I believe runs 4 external subs, and he crosses his Salon2s at 80Hz for both music and HT. He also upmixes all his music with Auro3D, which is something I've come to love recently.

 

[Maiky76]

Hi,

Here is my take on the EQ.

The raw data with corrected ER and PIR:

Score no EQ: 1.0
With Sub: 4.9

Spinorama with no EQ:

• Very limited LF, looks like a satellite
• Tuned for flat SP?
• Very good directivity
• Needs a lot of work for stereo listening
• Score with Sub probably more relevant

Directivity:
Better stay at tweeter height but as bad as some other speakers
Horizontally, better toe-in the speakers by 10/20deg and have the axis crossing in front of the listening location, might help dosing the upper range.
Pretty even up to +/-30deg.

EQ design:
I have generated two EQs. The APO config files are attached.

• The first one, labelled, LW is targeted at making the LW flat
• The second, labelled Score, starts with the first one and adds the score as an optimization variable.
• The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment although the LW might be better suited for this purpose.

Score EQ LW: 3.5
with sub: 7.0

Score EQ Score: 4.1
with sub: 7.5

Paradigm Cinema 100 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
April202021-110811

Preamp: -2.5 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 74.7 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.24
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 233 Hz Gain -2.72 dB Q 2
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 902 Hz Gain 1.55 dB Q 1.21
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 2694 Hz Gain -0.76 dB Q 1.19
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4396 Hz Gain 1.59 dB Q 6.33
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 14396 Hz Gain -1.59 dB Q 6.33
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 22813 Hz Gain -6.56 dB Q 0.32

Paradigm Cinema 100 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
April202021-110710

Preamp: -2.4 dB

Filter 1: ON HPQ Fc 80.8 Hz Gain 0 dB Q 1.25
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 226 Hz Gain -3.16 dB Q 1.57
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 875 Hz Gain 1.37 dB Q 1.72
Filter 4: ON PK Fc 3101 Hz Gain -1 dB Q 1.74
Filter 5: ON PK Fc 4302 Hz Gain 1.22 dB Q 9.05
Filter 6: ON PK Fc 14960 Hz Gain -3.36 dB Q 8.2
Filter 7: ON PK Fc 18185 Hz Gain -6.96 dB Q 0.31

Spinorama EQ LW

Spinorama EQ Score

Zoom PIR-LW-ON

Regression - Tonal flat after EQ

Radar no EQ vs EQ score
That's some improvements! 4x the initial score...

The rest of the plots is attached.

 

[Robbo99999]

Leaving aside our surely differing takes on how to determine 'mediocrity' in a surround sound system (read Floyd Toole on the masking effects of adding more channels), stereo has inherent flaws that adding more channels overcomes pretty handily.



A high crossover point is not as much an issue when using multiple subs. (In fact I haven't found it a terribly big issue even when using one...experimenting with subwoofer placement can help)



That's fine, there's plenty of posters here I can't take seriously, given how vastly misinformed their posts are.

I'm glad Amir has embarked on a video series debunking a lot of the nonsense they take as gospel truth.

Yes, I suppose it would come down to what we deem a mediocre or poor surround sound system. I've never listened to 2 channel music on a good or excellent surround sound system, so I've not had the opportunity to compare an excellent 2 channel system with an excellent surround sound system when it comes to 2 channel music listening. But I do know that my 2 channel system is better for music listening than my parents Onkyo surround system from 2010, which was bought as an all-in-one system, so I'm assuming that's a mediocre to poor surround sound system at best. My initial comment was that mediocre to poor surround sound system was better for movies than my "excellent" 2 channel system, but that mine was vastly better for music......you then quoted my post trying to contradict me & dismissing my points, hence my previous sharp comments in my last post....anyway, I've made my points on our topics of discussion so I'm done with that.

 

[Sancus]

Leaving aside our surely differing takes on how to determine 'mediocrity' in a surround sound system (read Floyd Toole on the masking effects of adding more channels), stereo has inherent flaws that adding more channels overcomes pretty handily.

This is true but other studies indicate that significant dispersion mismatches between surround speakers are very audible and not preferred. I agree with most of your points I just wanted to make it clear that research shows you absolutely can screw up a surround system despite the masking effect of multiple speakers.

Personally, my experiences with changing "good" speakers to other "good" speakers in a surround system indicate that differences are pretty small but still noticeable especially on effects that transition across multiple speakers. Still, a surround system with small mismatches is a lot better than stereo. And the center speaker is by far the most important -- it is easy to degrade your whole experience by treating it as an afterthought.

Certainly though, the gold standard is matching speakers all around.

 

[uwotm8]

$35K/pair seems pretty pricey for a B brand

A lot of brands you'd barely look at have or had one or few specific expensive models, even Mission; not even mentioning PMC or Spendor. Can you imagine buying $20k Mission speakers? Or Jamo? The point is, these can be actually good but the whole brand is focused on budget speakers so most of people just don't take their sudden hi-endish attempts seriously. Paradigm is in the same category IMO.

Nothing you said that I bolded, made any sense

Lol. Did it hurt?

 

[krabapple]

A lot of brands you'd barely look at have or had one or few specific expensive models, even Mission; not even mentioning PMC or Spendor. Can you imagine buying $20k Mission speakers? Or Jamo? The point is, these can be actually good but the whole brand is focused on budget speakers so most of people just don't take their sudden hi-endish attempts seriously. Paradigm is in the same category IMO.

First: I noted in that same post, right after the part you posted, that price is no guarantee of quality.

Second: Paradigm has in the past and even now claimed to use NRC research in its design process....is that common among 'B-category'?

(I thought it was common knowledge.)

 

[krabapple]

This is true but other studies indicate that significant dispersion mismatches between surround speakers are very audible and not preferred. I agree with most of your points I just wanted to make it clear that research shows you absolutely can screw up a surround system despite the masking effect of multiple speakers.
.
.
.

Certainly though, the gold standard is matching speakers all around.

Which is what I do, in any 5.1 system I've owned.

(And which is yet another impetus for exploring how much good can be milked from small speakers)

 

[krabapple]

Yes, I suppose it would come down to what we deem a mediocre or poor surround sound system. I've never listened to 2 channel music on a good or excellent surround sound system, so I've not had the opportunity to compare an excellent 2 channel system with an excellent surround sound system when it comes to 2 channel music listening. But I do know that my 2 channel system is better for music listening than my parents Onkyo surround system from 2010, which was bought as an all-in-one system, so I'm assuming that's a mediocre to poor surround sound system at best.

What *made* your parents' system 'mediocre to poor' (-sounding). Inherent flaws of the gear? Poor/improper speaker placement or AVR configuration? Truly awful room acoustics? Only the first would be Onkyo's fault.

Such comparison isn't even apples to oranges; it's apples to question mark.

 

[Hugh Jass]

Small/Large are just really bad names for a setting that has nothing to do with speaker size alone. It literally just means "Do you want to use bass management?" The correct answer is yes(Small) 99.99% of the time. Not using bass management introduces additional problems in most systems. The only use case I can think of for it is if you had huge speakers with 15"+ woofers or something, but only a single 12" sub. A normal HT with serious front speakers has multiple, larger subs, in which case there is no benefit to having some percentage of your low bass randomly played through your fronts instead of having everything below the crossover played through the subs.

This makes intuitive sense. Despite this, my AVR (an older Marantz with an older version of Audessey) chose to make my bookshelf front LR speakers large. I am too lazy to figure out how to override this, and it still sounds “good enough”. But it seems strange to me that after testing the frequency response of an old speaker (2nd Gen PSB Alpha) with only a 6.5 inch woofer, it chose to assign it full range. Maybe my sub sucks?

 

[Robbo99999]

What *made* your parents' system 'mediocre to poor' (-sounding). Inherent flaws of the gear? Poor/improper speaker placement or AVR configuration? Truly awful room acoustics? Only the first would be Onkyo's fault.

Such comparison isn't even apples to oranges; it's apples to question mark.

If you read my original post on this at least part of your question would be answered. I pointed out that I had time aligned & level matched all the speakers of my parents Onkyo system to the listening position, and in that post I also stated that I wasn't able to EQ it even though I did a frequency sweep, which I showed too. From memory of comparing some of my benchmark tracks, bass clarity was lacking vs my 2 channel system, and perhaps just clarity in general. It's not easy to say how much of it was the room & how much was the gear......simply I made the comment that my 2 channel system sounded way better than their multi channel system for music listening, yet their "poor to mediocre" multi channel system was better than my "excellent" 2 channel system for movie watching. To be honest I'm getting more than a little tired of you, I'm leaving it there.

 

[ahofer]

Seems like the bright response is a Paradigm house design choice.

 

[Sancus]

This makes intuitive sense. Despite this, my AVR (an older Marantz with an older version of Audessey) chose to make my bookshelf front LR speakers large. I am too lazy to figure out how to override this, and it still sounds “good enough”. But it seems strange to me that after testing the frequency response of an old speaker (2nd Gen PSB Alpha) with only a 6.5 inch woofer, it chose to assign it full range. Maybe my sub sucks?

The auto-assign stuff is an AVR marketing decision much like the "LFE+Main" setting(which shouldn't exist). Here's some posts about Large/Small and LFE+Main by the Audyssey CTO. As he says, "Do you have a subwoofer in your system? Great. Then your speakers are small."

It's not that way because of juvenile beliefs about manliness and size, pretty much. The Audyssey FAQ on AVSForum answers a LOT of these questions thoroughly.

Which is what I do, in any 5.1 system I've owned.

(And which is yet another impetus for exploring how much good can be milked from small speakers)

Ya I agree, these speakers are too small. I have serious misgivings about anything smaller than a Neumann KH80 used as a surround speaker even at shorter listening distances. And even that's the lower end, I'd say 5-6" woofer is a reasonable compromise of capability and aesthetics/placement for most people.