Paradigm Millenia LP 2 Review & Measurements

[MatthewS]

I had been looking for a low-profile center channel for a while. The Kef T301c was very disappointing, though the Revel C10 looks good--it's simply deeper than I was targeting.

The Paradigm Millenia LP 2 retails for $549.

The speaker is solid feeling and only 1.75" deep. It has the tradition MTM center channel design. The outer two woofers are passive. It comes with a stand for horizontal or vertical mounting and is designed to be used either way.

Paradigm advertises it as ±3 dB from 120 Hz – 21 kHz.

Measurements were taken at 1m with about a 6ms gate providing resolution to 176hz. The remaining response was spliced in from hyper near-field measurements after baffle step adjustment. I utilized a minidsp UMIK-1 and REW. I'll include the full set of measurements as an attachment.

Well that's unfortunate, considering Paradigm advertises working with NRC, I expected better. When the speaker crosses over at 2.6khz, the response is quite elevated. Directivity is poor as well.

Near field drivers:

It appears we have some resonances from the woofers and ports.

Estimated in room response.

This flat in-room response is going to sound bright.


Distortion measurements at 86db.

Horizontal Directivity (mounted as a center channel):

The MTM configuration isn't doing us any favors in this orientation.

Vertical Directivity:

Significantly better.

Paradigm Millenia LP 2 Speaker Listening Tests:

Before measuring the speaker, I gave it a listen and two things jumped out. There is basically no bass response, and it sounds bright. I dialed in a low shelf and it helped balance it out, but it was still bright sounding. It didn't sound terrible, and there were some vocal tracks that sounded OK, if a little "detailed". I happened to have my 4 year old son sitting next to me at one point and agreed to play his favorite songs. I had the Revel M55CX set up with anechoic derived EQ on an A/B switch with the Paradigm. I went back and forth for a bit. He very quickly expressed that he liked the Revel better. The bass response difference is massive between the speakers and I don't doubt that was the difference for him.

After completing the measurements, I gave it a listen and had the same impressions. I applied the following EQ:

This helped massively. The speaker sounded fine now--though continuing the A/B against the Revel still left something wanting. I didn't really push the volume and wouldn't be surprised if you had major issues. I would expect in a home theater environment you'd cross this speaker over to your subwoofer(s). If you absolutely need a center channel that is less than 2 inches deep, this one tops the Kef, but I can't say I'd recommend it otherwise. You definitely would need EQ.

 

[pierre]

Thanks for the measurements.

Speaker is an MTM so it works better vertically, Paradigm is selling it both as a center and as a floorstander.
Directivity is atrocious and frequency response is bad but that's correctable.

Score is 0.3 (and 4.4 with a perfect subwoofer).
Score is 1.1 with an EQ optimising the LW.
Score is 2.5 with an EQ optimising the PIR.

What's happening? for the first EQ, you can flatten the LW but then the PIR is a disaster. for the second EQ, that's the reverse.
I would use the first EQ if I had to use one but overall I think its best to stay away from this speaker.

Here is the EQ for the LW:

EQ for Paradigm Millenia LP 2 computed from Misc data
Preference Score 0.31 with EQ 1.06
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.24
Dated: 2023-08-23-12:47:26

Preamp: -6.1 dB

Filter  1: ON PK Fc   107 Hz Gain +5.98 dB Q 1.55
Filter  2: ON PK Fc   796 Hz Gain +0.96 dB Q 0.36
Filter  3: ON PK Fc  3067 Hz Gain +4.32 dB Q 1.37

Here is the result if one optimise for a flatish PIR:

EQ for Paradigm Millenia LP 2 computed from Misc data
Preference Score 0.31 with EQ 2.46
Generated from http://github.com/pierreaubert/spinorama/generate_peqs.py v0.24
Dated: 2023-08-23-13:42:49

Preamp: -7.2 dB

Filter  1: ON LS Fc   120 Hz Gain +5.00 dB Q 0.93
Filter  2: ON PK Fc   120 Hz Gain +4.63 dB Q 2.62
Filter  3: ON PK Fc   400 Hz Gain +1.64 dB Q 2.46
Filter  4: ON PK Fc  2720 Hz Gain +2.72 dB Q 0.52
Filter  5: ON HS Fc  5104 Hz Gain -5.00 dB Q 0.69

I don't like the 2 eqs and I think that's a case where I would do it by hand.

 

[amirm]

Very nice work. Promoted to home page.

 

[Penelinfi]

Imo it was designed for wall mounting.
I had some, they did ok considering it's 4cm thin.
A little bright but did give a "big" sound. At least up on the wall. Not as refined as standard speakers

 

[ta240]

Imo it was designed for wall mounting.
I had some, they did ok considering it's 4cm thin.
A little bright but did give a "big" sound. At least up on the wall. Not as refined as standard speakers

Since it is designed to interact with the wall wouldn't it measure more the way it is supposed to sound with something solid behind it?

 

[Hipster Doofus]

Thank you

 

[respice finem]

I think it's fine for the "niche" purpose. And while it needs EQ, it will most probably get EQ, in a home cinema setup.

 

[beagleman]

Since it is designed to interact with the wall wouldn't it measure more the way it is supposed to sound with something solid behind it?

In this case and due to the tiny depth, I would think it essential it be wall mounted to get accurate measurements.
But not saying, doing that will "Cure" everything wrong with it, but to some extent it could improve it a decent bit.

Same/similar as any "In wall" speaker basically.