Surround Duty: Paradigm Studio 20 or 40? (1 Viewer)

[Martin Rendall]

After some consideration, I've decided to go with monopole surrounds, going forward. I'm starting to think about what precisely to get. So the question is, for an eventual 7.1 system, should I go with the 40's, or can I get away with the 20's?

I would be very grateful if anybody can directly compare the performance of the 20's with the 40's. Are the 40's worth the extra dollars? For mains, I think the answer is an obvious yes, but for surrounds? The goal is music first, HT second.

Either will be stand mounted to be sufficently high to fully clear the height of the sofa back in question, which will only be slightly higher than ear level.

Will be used to complement 100's and CC.

Thanks in advance,
Martin.

 

[Evan S]

Martin,

I have 40's and 20's in a 5.1 setup. Associated equipment is Anthem AVM-20 prepro, Anthem MCA-5 Amp, Sony SCD-555ES SACD player and Sony 330 DVD player (the weak link).

My system is used for 75% music, 25% movies. Prior to putting the 40's and 20's in my HT, I broke them both in on my bedroom system (100% music) seperately. 20's first, then 40's.

IMO, the 40's are BARELY better than the 20's. In fact, I think it's close enough that I would never consider the 40's for surround work as I feel they are overkill. I'm planning to go to 7.1 in early 2003, and to do so will get another pair of 20's. I'm not even considering the 40's.

The only thing you miss out on (and this is still debatable based on specs) is the low bass down to 40 or 45htz. The rest of the frequency spectrum is smooth as silk...very similar to the 40's. If I HAD to, I would have no problem putting the 20's in front as my mains. Would not feel as if I'm losing all that much.

Again, YMMV.

 

[James Bergeron]

Well I chose 40's all around just so that I would be more consistent. I suppose 20's may have been more economical on the surrounds, although I never auditioned them. I was very impressed with the 40's and for 5.1 dvd-audio it sounds awesome with the extension of the 40's.

 

[Gruson]

I am running a 7.1 set up and have (4) Studio 40s for now...I will be buying 2 more Studio 40s for my rear centers, bring me to 6 total in my system.

 

[Martin Rendall]

Gruson,

It was one of your posts on another forum which helped influence my monopole/dipole decision. Enjoy the Porsche!

Evan and James,

Thanks for the comments. Sounds like one just can't go wrong. I would appreciate any other opinions.

Martin.

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

You might want to consider the Studio/ADP since they are maid in a bipolar setup specificly for surround duty. I'm not a paradigm expert, but just from looking at their website, you might want to think about the ADPs

 

[Martin Rendall]

Stephen,

Thanks for the thought. I've decided to stick with monopole speakers, as my emphasis will be music. It's been strongly suggested elsewhere that a 7.1 monopole configuration can sound both directional enough for music, yet ambient enough for HT. But there are compromises whichever way one goes. So that rules out the ADP's.

Martin.

 

[John Dunlap]

Martin,

I was planning on going with Studio 20's or Studio ADP's for my rear surrounds but I was in a local Hi Fi shop purchasing an amp when I saw a pair of Studio 40's in mint condition for $400 USD! I decided this was way too good to pass up.

The only thing I've been struggling with is how to mount them! They are way too big and heavy to be wall mountable. I just decided to get a pair of Premier J-60 stands that I will probably try to build pedestals for to elevate them.

Anyway, back to your question-if I were you I would probably look at the 20's. For this application and considering the difference in price I think the 20's are probably the way I would go.

 

[James Bergeron]

John, mine are mounted (all 4) check out my site.