Printable View
Here is my question . Does anyone think the cost difference between this system , CMT-340 fronts, CMT-340 center, CBM-170 rears and Hsu VTF-3 MK2 and Paradigm studio 100 centers, CC-470 center , ADP-470 rears , and a Seismic 12 , really make sense? The Paradigm system is more than twice the cost of the Ascend system , is it that much better? I don't know without having both in front of me to compare. Anyone have an opinion?
After hearing the CMT-340's next to the Studio 60's without a sub, I would love to hear how the two systems you are proposing sound when compared.
I think the biggest difference will come from the surrounds since they are different philosophies.
It's not an unfair comparison but why would you want to outside of idle curiosity? For the kind of money the Paradigm set-up costs, I can think of lots of alternatives. I'm not a fan of the 100's. They're good speakers but not at the price point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich0301
David
Saying that a comparison between the two systems is unfair because of price is entirely backwards to me. The reason that I ordered and kept my 340 L/C/R, 170 surrounds, VTF3-MkII setup is because of how well it holds its own, and a lot of times blows away, setups costing a lot more money. That's exactly the kinds of comparisons I like to see........it lets me see how wisely I spent my hard earned money.
Unfair to who? Paradigm? It would a very interesting comparison with the Ascends setup at half the price. PM Craigsub. I believe he has done this with 340's and Hsu STF-1 against a pair of Studio 100s.
certainly not unfair. the paradigm v.3 studio series was one set of speakers i had in home when i was making my decision.
I compared the Studio 20s to my 340s with no sub and preferred the 340 by a good margin. With a properly integrated, high quality sub such as Hsu, SVS, ACI, Velodyne, et al, there's no reason the 340 can't go toe to toe with Studio 100s.