Paradigm Founder 100F and 70LCR Loudspeakers Review

Paradigm 100F and 70LCR Introduction

The famous loudspeaker manufacturer Paradigm Electronics was founded by Scott Bagby and Jerry Vendermarel in 1982. Jerry left in the early 2000s, and Scott partnered with the investment company Shoreview Industries to run the company, but eventually, Shoreview took on a controlling role as the majority shareholder in 2005. In 2019, Scott and his son John Bagby purchased Paradigm back from Shoreview, and to celebrate, they began work on a state-of-the-art speaker line to replace the aging Prestige line. This new line was appropriately branded the “Founder” series.

The Founder series incorporates a great deal of cutting-edge loudspeaker design that is both brand new for these models as well as evolutions on technology from previous models. Given how highly that some of their previous loudspeakers have performed, that bodes well for the Founders, although they still must prove themselves in practice instead of coasting on prior success. That brings us to today’s review of the Founder 100F floor-standing speaker and Founder 70LCR speaker where we look at how much that advanced design has added up to. Let’s dive in!

Appearance

The Founders speakers are not inexpensive, but they do look every penny of their price, if not more. They look like true luxury items.

The pair that I received came in a “Midnight Cherry” wood veneer that is one of the nicest I have seen to date. The veneer is a deep reddish color with dark grain and has a highly polished finish. The cabinet holds a black finely brushed aluminum front baffle that the drivers are mounted on. The drivers themselves are attractive and almost look like jewelry embedded in the front. All of the drivers have a polished brass trim ring that gleams in the light. The tweeter has an intricately patterned ‘PPA’ lens cover and is mounted in a satin black conical waveguide. The midrange driver also uses Paradigm’s signature PPA covering that gives it an elaborate geometric pattern that is quite eye-catching. The bass driver cones have a streaking that looks like they were marbled, and they are encircled by a ribbed surround that looks like beading all around the cone. Of course, with the grille on, this driver array is all hidden by a flat, black fabric, and the grille dulls the appearance of the speaker considerably.    

The 100F speakers have a diagonal crease on the side which helps to make the speakers less boxy and more interesting. A small Paradigm badge hangs near the bottom of the front baffle and the speaker ends in black outriggers that are topped with metallic rings. I have to say that the industrial design of these speakers is outright beautiful, and they could fit in nicely even in a very high-end interior decor.

Design Overview: Founder 100F

There is a lot going on with the Founders speakers. Both the speakers under this review have some significant differences, so we will just discuss the 100F speaker for now and then explain how the 70LCR differs afterward. To begin discussing the design, we will simply start at the top with the tweeter. The Founder speakers use a 1” dome tweeter made from aluminum, magnesium, and ceramic that they have termed AL-MAC.  The ceramic probably just comes from anodizing the aluminum which creates a thin layer of ceramic on the surface. In the past, Paradigm had been pretty insistent on using aluminum tweeters and even termed their pure aluminum diaphragms the X-PAL drivers, so the infusion of magnesium and ceramic is a slight departure for them. This combination of materials should push ‘break-up’ modes to higher frequencies with respect to pure aluminum. Break-up modes are when the driver diaphragm is moving so fast that it begins to deform and can not hold a stable shape. When the diaphragm loses its shape, the frequency response becomes very erratic and it can have negative audible consequences.

The tweeter is covered by Paradigm’s PPA lens which looks like a small grille for the tweeter dome. PPA stands for “perforated phase-aligning” lens and it serves a function similar to phase plugs, in that they prevent frequencies generated by different areas of the cones from conflicting with each other which can happen at frequencies with a shorter wavelength than the diameter of the dome. In the pattern cut into these ‘driver lenses,’ we can see the larger holes start from the outer rim and become smaller as we move inward toward the center. Higher frequencies will be more affected by regions of the grille with smaller perforations, so they will be more greatly hindered by the central region of the driver lens. This means that the higher frequencies generated by the more recessed center of the dome will be blocked from interacting with those same frequencies that are generated by the more forward edges of the dome. Theoretically, this will help to keep all the sound generated by the dome to keep better phase-coherence which will make for a smoother frequency response.

The tweeter is mounted in a waveguide that Paradigm calls the “Oblate Spheroid Waveguide” (OSW). The naming and design of this waveguide draws from renowned loudspeaker engineer Earl Geddes’ research into waveguides. Earl Geddes is rightfully considered one of the world’s foremost experts in waveguide design, so Paradigm has turned to the right source in designing their waveguide. Given the source research used to derive this waveguide, we would expect the OSW to have a good degree of directivity control with a smooth off-axis response throughout the tweeter’s frequency band. With a smooth off-axis response, the speaker should have a more consistent sound over a wider area as well as lessening the need for acoustic treatments or equalization for optimal sound quality. 

Something else to note about the tweeter is the use of an iron ferrite magnet in the motor instead of a neodymium magnet. Neodymium may be smaller and more expensive than magnetized iron, but it is more subject to heat build-up since its smaller surface area cannot disperse heat as effectively. The greater surface area of the equivalently powerful iron magnet can radiate heat more efficiently so the tweeter will be less subject to thermal compression than a neodymium motor.

 

Moving down to the midrange driver, we can see that it is also using a PPA lens but obviously a much larger one. Aside from sorting out phase conflicts, the PPA lens would also seem to be a good protective barrier for the midrange driver, much more so than most grilles. The midrange cone has a 6” diameter and is made from an aluminum and magnesium mixture that Paradigm calls “AL-MAG.” This is not to be confused with the tweeter material that they call AL-MAC which uses ceramic in addition to aluminum and magnesium. Other notable features of the midrange driver is the 2” diameter voice coil on a heat-resistant polyamide former, a cast aluminum basket, and a vented pole piece; all of that should add up to a fairly robust driver.  

Moving on to the bass drivers, they look to be using a very large magnet around a 1.5” diameter voice coil that has plenty of room for excursion. The 7” diameter cones are made from a material that Paradigm calls CARBON-X (yes, it is all capitalized). CARBON-X is a single-piece cone construction that uses carbon infused with minerals, and the minerals must be what gives it that streaking color. Paradigm claims this material is very stiff, and it seems to be quite stiff in touching it. The CARBON-X cone is attached to a cast aluminum basket with a pleated surround that Paradigm calls the ART surround system, where ART stands for “Active Ridge Technology.”  Paradigm says the ART system allows for more headroom than conventional half-roll designs. When typical surrounds are stretched at high excursions, particularly in the inward-stroke, deformations can occur from the high tension, and these deformations can cause distortion or even tears in the surround. This ridged surround design by Paradigm supposedly reduces these deformations by directing material stress to points that can better cope with it due to the shape of the surround. Paradigm claims that ART allows 1.5 times the excursion for the same surround roll which can result in a 3 dB increase in headroom. 

The crossover circuit uses 2nd order electroacoustic slopes for both the bass driver/midrange crossover and midrange/tweeter crossover.  The crossover frequencies are 500Hz and 2.1kHz. 2.1kHz is a somewhat low frequency for a 1” dome tweeter, but such a low crossover frequency ensures a better directivity match with the 6” midrange driver. The tweeter has a pretty beefy motor and it is also assisted by a waveguide so it should be able to deal with that low crossover frequency. The 100F has dual binding posts and so has the option of bi-amplification. In most home audio loudspeakers, I think that the bi-amplification ability is nonsense, but I am almost willing to give the 100Fs a pass here since three heavy-duty 7” bass drivers should be capable of a lot of power handling. Paradigm’s “Maximum Input Power” spec for the 100F is 250 watts. That is a fair bit more than what most AVRs are capable of. For those who want a bit more dynamic range and have the extra amplifiers handy, bi-amping looks to be a reasonable choice, although if possible I would just get one serious amp to drive the entire speaker as one circuit and avoid the complications of bi-amplification.

The enclosure is made from ¾” MDF paneling. As was mentioned before, there is a ¼” thick brushed aluminum plate mounted on the front baffle that holds the drivers. Window braces provide lateral support and there is a large diagonal brace running the length of the exterior crease. Paradigm seems to have a name for everything, and they call their bracing system “cascade fusion bracing.” One of the ideas of the diagonal brace is that it can help break up standing waves since it is not a parallel surface to anything else in the cabinet. It also adds a great deal of rigidity on the vertical plane which is a good idea for an enclosure with a 16” depth. Additionally, it helps to seal off the compartment that houses the midrange driver so that it isn’t affected by the internal pressure waves caused by the bass drivers. The cabinet is packed with acoustic stuffing to damp backwave pressure from the drivers. Overall, the cabinet is a very sturdy construction, and it should be very inert at any drive level.

A 7 ½” deep port with a 4” diameter is mounted on the bottom of the speaker to give provide deep bass. That kind of length-to-width ratio would not suggest an extremely deep tuning point, and I wouldn’t guess that the 100F speakers would extend below 30Hz from just knowing those dimensions, but we shall see the port tuning frequency in the measurements section. The decision to mount the port on the bottom would help to give it some additional loading from the floor boundary.

The feet are some very sharp spikes mounted on metal outriggers that have to be assembled upon unpacking. The user can omit the spiked feet and just use the rubber discs above the spiked feet. The spiked feet are only useful for carpeted surfaces unless you use the discs that protect hard flooring. If the user slipped with lifting the speakers, the spikes could leave a significant gash in any hard flooring. I wish loudspeaker manufacturers would stop using spikes like these. Their only advantage is that they don’t leave an impression on the carpet from a long-term placement. Spikes haven’t been shown to lead to any acoustic advantage whatsoever (read our article: Speaker Spikes and Cones - What’s the Point?). They just make the speaker more unwieldy to set up and a potential hazard to homes that have children. However, one thing I do like about the feet is that their depth can be adjusted by a knob on top of the feet so that all four feet can make solid contact on the floor even if the floor is uneven.

Another design decision that I have to question the efficacy of is Paradigm’s “Advanced SHOCK-MOUNT Isolating Mounting System” - and yes, the capitalization is again from Paradigm. In this system, the drivers are mounted to the cabinet with a bracket that has an elastomer cushioning which provides a layer of damping so that the movement of the drivers is not mechanically transmitted to the cabinet. The problem with this system is that now the drivers are not going to have as rigid of a mounting system as they would have had otherwise; the cabinet is supposed to absorb the vibrations caused by the drivers. The cabinet should be constructed well enough so that those vibrations do not become a problem, and the Founders cabinetry definitely looks good enough in that regard. But by having a soft-mounting system for a driver, the driver itself would be vibrating more, which is far from ideal. This looks to be a solution for a problem that can potentially be much worse than the problem itself - and I don’t think there was really an existing problem to begin with.

Editorial Note by Gene DellaSala

Speaker manufacturers often gasket their drivers to create a better seal while also minimizing conductive resonances on the front baffle so I can appreciate Paradigm’s unconventional approach here. If we put aside the argument about the isolation benefits of Paradigms new “Advanced SHOCK-MOUNT” system, there are two-fold benefits from serviceability and assembly standpoints.  The weight of high-quality drivers like the ones used in the Founder series have a tendency to strip lesser threaded inserts upon assembly or servicing. Paradigms approach should minimize this concern and in fact upon speaking with them, they did tell me it does prevent over tightening of the drivers during assembly.

Design Overview: Founder 70LCR

The 70LCR is an interesting and uncommon design that deserves a separate discussion. It can be used as a center or front left/right speaker, hence the name ‘LCR.’ There are other speakers that have been designed with that use in mind, but the 70LCR’s design holds an advantage that makes it better for this type of use than most other LCR speakers: it is a 3-way design instead of a 2-way design. The reason why that is advantageous is that the dispersion pattern will not change as much from laying it down horizontally or standing it up vertically. That is not at all the case with most MTM (midwoofer-tweeter-midwoofer) speakers, because they change their character a great deal just from this simple orientation switch.  Essentially, if you change the orientation of a normal MTM speaker in this manner, it can’t really be considered the same speaker.

The Founder 70LCR achieves a 3-way design by using a coaxial driver for the tweeter and midrange driver. Sometimes also called concentric or coincidental drivers, coaxials work by nesting the tweeter in the center of a woofer. The advantage here is that there is no distance difference between the points of acoustic emission of the tweeter and woofer, so there are no off-axis points where they are not in phase with each other. Any time drivers are separated by distance, there will be a phase conflict relative to the wavelength of the distance difference. This manifests itself in major gaps in the frequency response at off-axis frequencies where the distance difference between the drivers can become substantial. In other words, if you are listening to a speaker where the drivers do not have equal spacing to your listening position, you could be missing big chunks of the sound. We mostly see this as an issue in horizontal center speakers that simply place a tweeter between two woofers (the above-mentioned “MTM” design). With such speakers, if you are not seated in a dead-ahead direction with respect to the speaker, you could be missing a great deal of sound, especially in the critical speech band which can really hurt dialogue intelligibility. The 70LCR shouldn’t have this problem at all.

Much of the driver technology is the same as the rest of the Founder series, including the CARBON-X woofers, the AL-MAG midrange cone, the AL-MAC tweeter dome, and so on. The major change is the motor topology of the midrange driver and tweeter; the magnetic fields of the driver motors being so close to each other is bound to be a source of complication. Paradigm says they have addressed this with something that they call the Dual-Sync Continuous Flux Motor, but they haven’t explained how it works. Another change is that the midrange cone serves as the waveguide for the tweeter, so it takes on Paradigm’s OSW geometry to do so.

Since the enclosure is intended to be used in either a vertical or horizontal orientation, there is no front badging that would make it visually awkward for either set-up. The binding post plate is aligned for horizontal orientation, but that doesn’t affect the operation of the speaker at all. The 70LCR is a sealed enclosure design, and that is a sensible choice considering this speaker will probably mostly be used as a center speaker. Most center speakers are placed in a quarter-space placement where they are near two surfaces, and that can induce a lot of boundary gain in low-frequencies, so the speaker isn’t likely to miss the extra bass from a port. What is more, using a ported design would necessarily make the speaker larger, and many people have trouble finding space for their center speakers as it is. The sealed design makes the 70LCR more versatile for placement. However, it probably would stand to benefit from the addition of a subwoofer more than a ported design for those looking to use it as a full front-stage set.

The 70LCR has dual binding posts, so the user can opt to separately amplify the bass drivers if they wanted. I don’t think the bi-amping ability is warranted in this case. Given the specs of this speaker, it isn’t likely to be able to take more than a couple of hundred watts continuously. If you need that kind of headroom, there are a lot of amps that can put out that much, so why get into the extra complexity and thus potential problems of bi-amping? And don’t even get me started on “bi-wiring.”

Since subwoofers are so ubiquitous, speakers like the 70LCR are something I would like to see more of: high-output stand-mount speakers that leave deep bass duties to the subs. These types of speakers have most of the dynamic range of tower speakers without the size or extra cost. Most people, especially in the home theater hobby, already have subwoofers and are likely crossing over the deep bass around 80Hz, and that negates the need for the bass extension advantage that towers have over stand-mount speakers. With no need for the extra bass extension, the only advantage that tower speakers have over stand-mounts is the extra dynamic range, but the 70LCR isn’t likely to be at a serious disadvantage against the Founder tower speakers or most other home audio tower speakers when bass below 80Hz isn’t being considered.

Listening Sessions

In my 24’ by 13’ (approximately) listening room, I set up the speakers with a few feet of stand-off distances between the back wall and sidewall and equal distance between speakers and listening position. I angled the speakers to face the listening position. The listening distance from the speakers was about 8 feet. Amplification was handled by a Pioneer SC-55. No room correction equalization or subwoofers was used.

Music Listening

Looking for something that could really show off a nicely recorded vocal, I had a stroke of luck as Adele’s new album “30” had just dropped and landed on Qobuz. Adele’s fusion of pop and R&B always had a high level of sound engineering that managed a wide array of instruments yet never lost Adele’s distinctive voice in the mix. “30” sees more maturity from Adele and thus less reliance on studio gimmicks for musicality. Because of this, we get a more straightforward experience with Adele’s singing and an intimate recording of her voice. This makes it a great demonstration of a sound system’s ability to reproduce some well-recorded vocals, and so I put it on to see what the Founders speakers would do for Adele.

From the first track onward, the 100F speakers were able to position Adele’s voice squarely in the center of the soundstage. One attribute that I noticed was that the speakers needed to be a bit further back than where I normally position them for the sweet spot to ‘open up’ so that a small change in my listening position didn’t result in a large swing in imaging. Once I repositioned the speakers, the area in which I could listen without the imaging being so sensitive to the listening position broadened considerably. Adele’s voice was rendered with detail, and the richness of her voice combined with the precise imaging enabled the 100F speakers to project her out in my room like an aural hologram. The speakers gave a tonally balanced presentation that had a strong bass sound without it becoming overbearing. Likewise for treble, the 100Fs provided detail and articulation without being sibilant or hot. As a test to see how naturally the 100Fs could reproduce a human voice, they passed with flying colors on Adele’s “30.”  

A stunning new release from the Glossa label features performances of Josquin des Prez’s late period compositions, a period of melancholy and lamentations as Josquin contemplated his own mortality. While the subject matter may be sorrowful, the music is undeniably beautiful. This release, titled “Josquin, the Undead: Laments, Deplorations & Dances of Death,“ is performed by the Graindelavoix, an experimental early music ensemble under the direction of Bjorn Schmelzer. The music is all-male choral singing with some light accompaniment by a lute and a cittern. The 96kHz/24bit streaming quality befits the pristine recording quality, and the superb production quality here is appropriate for the masterful artistry. This gorgeous album would make for a fine exhibition of the fidelity of any sound system.

The 100F’s soundstage for “Josquin, the Undead” had excellent demarcation between the singers, so each of the singers had sharply defined positions. The soundstage spread from the left to right speaker with ambient reverberations from the recording space seemingly expanding beyond the width of the speaker’s placement. While the singers were individually identifiable, the harmony of the whole ensemble was beautifully woven into a singular performance. The voices were eloquently recreated and the speakers gave this recording the kind of realism that one hopes for from a high-fidelity sound system. Indeed, I briefly left the room, and, from an upper floor of my home, it sounded as if I had a live choir in my home theater room. Again, the tonal balance was spot on, and the tenors, altos, and baritones of the Graindelavoix sounded even and proportionate. The moroseness of the music gave the serious-looking 100F speakers the aura of a cenotaph. However, there was no question that the fidelity of the speakers was a great match for the beauty of this recording. 

For something more deeply rooted in the future rather than the past, I listened to “Electron Birth” by Steve Roach. “Electron Birth” is one of Roach’s forays into ‘Berlin School’ style electronic music reminiscent of older Tangerine Dream or Klaus Schulze records except done with much more modern production techniques along with Roach’s inimitable ‘voice.’ This album is an arpeggiated swirl of analog synthesizer sounds that weave in and out to create a soundscape that is at once futuristic yet with unmistakable nods to the past. It was performed and recorded live at a concert in Tucson in 2018, an amazing feat for such a complex work. The otherworldly soundstage of this album makes for a fun listening experience as well as a display of how a loudspeaker can image something that is cohesive yet wholly artificial. 

The 100F speakers had no problem tracking the multitude of synthesizers that could be running at any given moment nor did they ever blur the synths together. The various strands of sound were kept distinct from each other but not at the expense of the overall composition. Nothing sounded over-emphasized nor did anything sound like it became lost in the labyrinthine swirl of electronics. The soundstage was a spinning vortex held together by a bass melody at the center of the structure, and it extended well past the boundaries of the speakers’ placement. The effect was the musical equivalent of endlessly falling into a fractal zoom with the 100F speakers supplying the vivid imagery that a hallucinogen would normally have delivered. The 100Fs provided the immersion that headphones can have with this sort of music but keeps it anchored in front of the listener instead of all over the place like a headphone would do. “Electron Birth” was a fun journey to take with the 100F speakers, and I think anyone into this progressive type of electronic music would have a great appreciation for what these speakers bring to this genre.

For something that could show off the Founder 100F’s dynamic range as well as their bass extension, I found a killer dubstep album in “Collapse” by Levitate. This is another terrific release from Division Recordings that explores new sounds and new ideas in music within the context of electronic bass music. As would be expected from this genre, these tracks are heavy on bass and utilize substantial compression for loud playback. While it is a bit on the experimental side, it still is intended to be played loud, and so that is what I did in order to see how the Founder speakers would react to a high drive level.

One thing I found out right away was that the 100Fs can easily get louder than I can tolerate. My amplifier can only put out 120 watts per channel but that was more than enough to blast me out of my seat like the guy in the Maxell advertisement. Even at these elevated levels, I didn’t hear anything unintended such as distortion or compression. While these aren’t huge tower speakers, I do think they have sufficient dynamic range to handle a large room. Their bass extension seemed to be fine, but I do think that subwoofers would have brought a bit more lower-end grunt to the deeper notes in some of these tracks. There is deep bass output, but not quite on the level of mid-bass output. My guess is that the speakers are a bit over-damped in the low end in order to prevent too much boost from boundary gain. Unfortunately, the stand-off distances that I have for these speakers (about 4’ from the backwall and 3’ from the side walls) leave them a bit dry for music with substantial deep bass. I also think they give up a bit of extension for more dynamic range which isn’t a bad trade-off depending on the circumstances and  intended use. We will get a closer look at their extension in the measurements section.  

Movie Watching

One movie I had an interest in that looked to have a unique sound mix was the 2020 science-fiction thriller “Possessor.” In this movie, an assassin is able to telepathically take over other people’s bodies for the purpose of murder without getting caught or for getting closer to highly protected individuals that would be difficult to kill otherwise. This high-concept sci-fi plot looked to have a mixture of dialogue, action, and more far-out effects sounds as bodies and minds become invaded through technology. It looked to be a good showcase for the abilities of a front-stage speaker system to reproduce a modern science fiction production.

“Possessor” turned out to be a good deal darker than I was expecting. Nonetheless, it was an enjoyable movie and benefited from the capabilities of the 100F and 70LCR. The focal point of the sound design was undoubtedly the music score from Jim Williams which had double-duty of not only setting the mood but relaying the state of mind of the characters. The music was a complex mixture of neoclassical and ambient electronics, and it would undoubtedly suffer from playback on a subpar sound system, but luckily the Paradigms Founders speakers are in no way a subpar sound system. The dialogue was always clear, and effects sounds were beautifully reproduced, although the sound mix, as well as the movie as a whole, did not put much emphasis on effects scenes as a typical Hollywood movie might have. “Possessor” is not a movie for everyone, but those who want to take the plunge into a relatively disturbing science fiction movie ought to do so with loudspeakers as good as the Founders. The movie deserves that level of treatment.

For a lengthier test of the Founder’s sound, I checked out the AppleTV science fiction series “Foundation,” which is based on the great Isaac Asimov’s epic novels. In this big-budget series, a mathematician’s model shows that the galaxy-spanning empire is about to collapse leaving civilization in ruins and potentially on the brink of extinction. He sets out to start an organization that can withstand this calamity and saves mankind’s collective knowledge of science, art, and other intellectual achievements. This big-budget show set in the far future should make for a fine demonstration of a sound system’s capabilities if the sound engineers are allowed to unwind their creativity a bit and put in some really ear-catching sound design of exotic future technologies.

While the drama of “Foundation” was somewhat disappointing, the sound mix helped to make it watchable, and the Founders speakers helped the sound mix. There were many scenes with extravagant sound effects such as the collapse of the gigantic Star Bridge, the activation of the gyroscopic warp drive, and the breach of a planet-destroying battleship. The Founders speakers helped to realize the colossal scale of the show’s setting that spans a 12,000-year-old empire that is composed of thousands of worlds and trillions of citizens. Much of the action takes place on a fully mechanized planet called “Trantor,” which has its own sonic palette that resembles “Blade Runner” taken to an extreme. The 70LCR’s dialogue intelligibility was always very good even across the many accents of the various cultures in the show. Bear McCreary’s generic but bombastic score was given an appropriate amount of verve by the Founder speakers, and the occasional action scene was also given a good amount of thump and punch. The show may not have lived up to the reputation of Asimov’s book series, but the visual and audio effects were a big-budget distraction at least, so a good sound system can help to make it more palatable. 

Paradigm Founder 100F and 70LCR Measurements & Conclusion

The Paradigm Founder 100F Towers were measured in free-air at a height of 4 feet at a 2-meter distance from the microphone, with the microphone raised to a 7.5’ elevation that was level with and aimed at the tweeter center. The measurements were gated at 8-milliseconds. In this time window, some resolution is lost below 400 Hz and accuracy is completely lost below 200 Hz. Measurements have been smoothed at a 1/24 octave resolution.

The above graphs depict the Paradigm Founder 100F tower’s direct-axis and horizontal dispersion out to a 90-degree angle in five-degree increments. Information on how to interpret these graphs can be read in our article Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II. Right off the bat, we see a nicely flat response for many of the angles up to upper treble frequencies. There is a rise that starts at around 8kHz (depending on the angle) that can end up as a 5dB peak above 10kHz over the response average. This may lend the speaker a slight amount of brightness, but that is too high in frequency to make it sound forward or harsh. That elevated upper tweeter response will probably make the speaker sound a bit more “airy” than it would be otherwise. This is a sound signature I have seen in other Paradigm models. I am not normally a fan of hot treble, but this is too high in frequency to give the speakers an aggressive sound, so I don’t find this elevated upper treble to be bothersome at all. There is a lot of spikiness in the upper treble, and I would guess that is due to diffraction effects from the waveguide since these spikes seem to shift in frequency as the angle changes.

With all of the undulations in the treble frequencies at various angles, it is slightly difficult to trace the response per frequency in the ‘waterfall’ style graphs, so the above graph provides a view of the angle responses separated for easier tracking.  When looked at carefully, it can be seen that the overall flattest response does not occur on-axis but rather between five to fifteen degrees off-axis. The response still stays within a pretty good window (not including the upper treble spike around 15kHz). I would angle these speakers for a toe-in that puts the listener at about a 10-degree angle from the on-axis direction. An average of these responses would come out to a fairly flat response overall, so I think that normal room acoustics would probably yield a very good room response. The story of all of these curves is that this speaker would be misjudged from any single response.

The above polar map shows the same information in the preceding graphs but depicts it in a way that can offer new insight regarding these speakers’ behavior. Instead of using individual raised lines to illustrate amplitude, polar maps use color to portray amplitude, and this allows the use of a purely angle/frequency axis perspective. The advantage of these graphs is they can let us see broader trends of the speaker’s dispersion behavior more easily. More information about interpreting this graph can be read in our article Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II.

In the polar map of the 100F, we can see pretty good directivity control from 1kHz to above 10kHz. That can be achieved with directivity matching the drivers’ dispersion up to a point, but an effective waveguide is still needed to control the tweeter’s dispersion, and Paradigm has achieved that with their OS waveguide. The penalties that come in the form of some diffraction effects are now paid for when we see the overall picture of dispersion. Simple dome tweeters on a flat baffle can not maintain that wide dispersion out to such a high frequency nor can they temper dispersion at the lower end of their passband. The end result is a consistent sound out to about a 40-degree angle. Listen anywhere within a 40-degree angle of the on-axis angle, and this speaker should maintain the same sound character. This also reduces the need for acoustic treatments since the reflected sound should have a strong resemblance to the direct sound. What is seen here is above average for tower speakers in this segment.

The above graph shows the 100F’s low-frequency response captured using groundplane measurements (where the speaker and microphone are on the ground at a 2-meter distance in a wide-open area). Here we see a nice flat response down to 70Hz where it starts to taper off at a gentle slope. While this speaker is ported, the ported output is a bit overdamped in order to achieve this type of roll-off. The reason for this type of low-frequency response is that a flat response all the way down to port tuning has a high chance of getting over-boosted as an in-room response. The room will always add some low-frequency gain that bumps up the lower bass, and how much gain is added depends on the individual room as well as speaker position. With such a shallow roll-off, users are assured some significant deep bass output without the response becoming boomy. I would guess that most users are going to get a strong in-room response down to at least 40Hz and probably lower.

The above graphs show the electrical behavior of the 100F speakers. Paradigm does not clearly state the impedance of these speakers, merely saying that they are “Compatible with 8 ohms,” but these clearly are not 8-ohm speakers, at least with a nominal rating. That being said, this isn’t a particularly hard load, although it does dig down to 4 ohms at around 100Hz but not with a severe phase angle. Most amplifiers should be able to run these speakers without problem, even typical AVRs. It is probably not a good idea to really blast them with entry-level AVRs or cheap chip-amps, but it’s not likely that anyone buying speakers in this price range is going to do that. In this graph, we can see from the nadir of the low-frequency saddle that the port tuning frequency looks to be around 30Hz. We can also see from the mismatch of the lower frequency saddle peaks that the resonant frequency of the bass drivers is much lower than that of the enclosure. This is surely the result of the shallow slope of the low-frequency response that Paradigm was targeting. 

I measured sensitivity at 90.1dB at 1 meter for 2.83v. That seems to be a good match for Paradigm’s own spec which is fairly ambiguous: “anechoic sensitivity: 90dB.” These speakers don’t need a hugely powerful amplifier to get loud, although, with a maximum input power spec of 250 watts, they can handle a fair amount of juice if you happen to have an amp that can provide it.

Measurements and Analysis: Paradigm Founder 70LCR

The Founder 70LCR speakers were measured in free-air at a height of 7.5 feet at a 1-meter distance from the microphone, and the measurements were gated at an 11-millisecond delay. In this time window, some resolution is lost below 250 Hz and accuracy is completely lost below 110 Hz. Measurements have been smoothed at a 1/24 octave resolution.

The above graph shows the direct-axis frequency response and other curves that describe the speakers’ amplitude response in a number of ways. For more information about the meaning of these curves, please refer to our article Understanding Loudspeaker Measurements Part 1. Here we see a decent response up to 4kHz where we run into some kind of high-Q notch that takes a bite out of the response between 4 and 5kHz. The response shores up again above that where we get into some elevated upper treble as we saw with the 100F. While this is a flawed response, the dip above 4kHz looks much worse than it would sound since it is so narrow in bandwidth. What would color the sound more is the slight shelving of the ‘Listening Window’ and ‘Early Reflections’ curves at around 2kHz. That might give this speaker a warmer sound despite the elevated upper treble above 15kHz which probably won’t be all that audible by most listeners. My guess is that this speaker would sound a tad recessed when compared to a speaker with a more neutral response. Equalization may prove to be difficult since there are major fluctuations in directivity. I wouldn’t try any EQ fine-tuning of this speaker since the reflected sound is a bit disassociated with the direct sound.

The above graphs depict the 70LCR’s lateral responses out to 90 degrees in five-degree increments. More information about how to interpret these graphs can be read in this article: Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II. These are somewhat ragged results, but the summation of the highest responses do add up to a fairly flat response when viewing them stacked up as in our profile view. The flattest responses occur at 10 to 15 degrees, and that is where this speaker should sound the fullest- when used horizontally. There is a lot going on with the 70LCR that is affecting the response at various angles. We can see cancellation lobes between the bass drivers that affect dispersion between 500 to 1,000Hz. There is some kind of off-axis notch at the crossover frequency of 2.2kHz, although I don’t know whether that is due to the waveguide or the cone or the crossover circuit. I am not certain of the cause of that 4kHz dip that we saw in the above ‘spin-o-rama’ data, although, as I said before, I don’t think that is a significant flaw. There is a flare-up in dispersion at 15kHz which is certainly a consequence of the waveguide.

The above polar map graphs show the same information that the preceding graphs do but depict it in a way that can offer new insight regarding these speakers’ behavior. Instead of using individual raised lines to illustrate amplitude, these polar maps use color to portray amplitude and this allows the use of a purely angle/frequency axis perspective. The advantage of these graphs is they can let us see broader trends of the speaker’s behavior more easily. For more information about the meaning of these graphs, we again refer the reader to Understanding Loudspeaker Review Measurements Part II.

The polar map for the 70LCR is an unusual one. It shows some problems but it also shows some strengths. The overall problem is that it isn’t very uniform at any single angle, and, as we saw in the directivity indexes in the ‘spin-o-rama’ graph, there is not great correlation between close angles and far angles with respect to the main axis. The good news is that there is, broadly speaking, a lot of output at all angles out to a 50-degree angle which makes this less restrictive than typical toppled MTM center speaker designs which have to constitute 90% of the center speaker market. Still, in order to stay out of the crossover notch, best listening is done within 20-degrees of the on-axis angle.

The above graph shows the 70LCR’s response behavior along its vertical axis. Since it can be used in an upright orientation, we will give it the same level of analysis that we have given its horizontal orientation. This being the case, the above graphs are what the horizontal response would be when used in an upright orientation. The responses in this orientation are a bit less cluttered, unsurprisingly. There are two reasons for this. One reason is that the woofers are not fighting against each other as cancellation lobes form off-axis since they keep the same distance from each other for all angles in this orientation. The other reason is that the baffle is much shorter in the upright position rather than the horizontal position, and that makes for much less baffle diffraction. Some of the same problems crop up such as the anti-resonance at 4kHz and off-axis crossover dip. These problems are narrow-band issues and I don’t regard them as very severe. Again, I think the most audible flaw would be the off-axis shelving that occurs above the crossover frequency that also happens in this orientation.

The vertical polar map for the 70LCR is OK. The thing that should stand out the most is the waist-banding that occurs above the crossover from about 2kHz up to 3.2kHz. That doesn’t really set in until after 40 degrees, and most listeners are unlikely to be seated outside of a 40-degree angle, so it’s not overly concerning. It may have some secondary audible effect in acoustical reflections, but it’s hard to say how that might affect the overall sound. In my own listening, I didn’t detect any problems, but I was listening on-axis in a room that is acoustically friendly.

The above graph shows the 70LCR’s low-frequency response captured using groundplane measurements. This measurement essentially shows a near picture-perfect sealed speaker response. The response is beautifully flat and then takes a 12dB/octave slide downward at around 80Hz. This is pretty much ideal low-frequency behavior for a center speaker. It’s nice to see something normal about this speaker for a change!

The above graphs show the electrical behavior of the 70LCR. Much like the 100F, Paradigm ambiguously specs this as “8-ohm compatible.” If there was an amplifier that could only run 8-ohm speakers, it wouldn’t be able to carry this load, but the good news is that few amplifiers are like that. If the user were really blasting this speaker with a budget AVR, that 4-ohm dip from 100Hz to 200Hz might cause some thermal problems after a while, but, as we mentioned before, no one is going to run these expensive speakers on a $300 AVR. As with the 100F, this is not a particularly challenging load, and it will not present a problem on any amplifier that the user will plausibly use it on.

I measured the sensitivity at 90.6dB for 2.83v at 1 meter. That is close to Paradigm's spec of 89dB, but Paradigm doesn’t offer any information about how that value was arrived at except to say it was anechoic. That makes this center a bit more sensitive than the norm, and any reasonable amplifier will make this speaker get loud.

Conclusion

I will end this review by briefly going over the strengths and weaknesses of the products under evaluation, and, as always, I will start with the weaknesses. The Paradigm Founders speakers are generally well-conceived, but they are not without flaws, although, in my view, none of their flaws are major. Firstly, the response that I measured from the 70LCR is somewhat uneven. If you ‘zoom out’ and look at the larger picture of the 70LCR’s output, the evenness of the overall output does level out a bit, and that may be why I didn’t hear anything odd in my own listening, but there might have been acoustic circumstances in my environment that mitigated the nonlinearities in the responses, or maybe the content that I used wasn’t stuff that would have been particularly revealing of these specific flaws. To my ears, the 70LCR sounded fine. However, there are some oddities in the measured performance that are surprising given the cost of the speaker. It is an ambitious design; shaping a midrange driver to conform to an oblate spheroid geometry so it can also be used as a waveguide in a coaxial speaker on top of a tweeter with a PPA lens. There is a lot going on in that single drive unit, and perhaps it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Paradigm didn’t quite hit the mark. But, as I mentioned in the measurements section, many of the flaws are the type that is more visible on a graph than audible in a typical listening environment. The 100F speakers have a much more steady response, although there is some upper treble raggedness, but that mostly only occurs in the on-axis response.

With my complaints out of the way, let’s get on with my compliments, of which there are many. First of all, the performance of the 100Fs is very good. Aside from some upper treble shagginess that isn’t very consequential, we have a very flat response from lower treble extending down to the bottom of the speaker’s bandwidth. It has excellent dynamic range and could surely handle a larger room if given a couple of hundred watts. Directivity is well-controlled up past 10kHz, so they won’t be fussy about placement for good sound nor will they require any serious acoustic treatments in an average room for a good sound. Their sensitivity and electrical load are good as well and won’t present any problems for any competently engineered amplifiers. The great sound of the 100Fs is backed by a solid set of measurements.

On the subject of performance, while I was a bit critical of the 70LCR’s measured performance above, it does have its strengths such as a wider dispersion pattern than traditional MTM center speakers. In fact, for all of its rocky off-axis response, it will still have a preferable dispersion pattern for a center speaker role than pretty much any toppled MTM. Also, its low-frequency response is essentially perfect for a center speaker; almost totally flat, and then a 12dB/octave slope starting at 80Hz which is a textbook THX crossover filter for a center speaker. What’s more is its above-average 90dB sensitivity so it doesn’t need a ton of power to sing loudly.

Aside from the performance of the Founders speakers, there is the dead-sexy appearance. These are some gorgeous loudspeakers, especially in the midnight cherry veneer. The industrial design done on these speakers is top-notch. They really do look like luxury items and could complement the interior decor of nearly any high-end living space. The build quality is excellent as well, and these products have the heft and solidity that is suggested by their appearance.

In the end, I enjoyed my time with Paradigm’s Founder 100F and 70LCR loudspeakers, and I think that buyers will feel the same way. They look nice, and they sound great. I do think that the coaxial drive unit in the 70LCR might benefit from a little bit more time in the oven, so to speak, but it didn’t sound bad at all in practice. The 100Fs are terrific loudspeakers from top to bottom, and I would love to keep the pair that I was sent, but sadly I must send them to Gene next to showcase in the AH Smarthome. The good news is if you're on the market for an upscale speaker system, you're going to have a killer one with the Paradigm Founder series that you will surely enjoy for years to come.

The Score Card

The scoring below is based on each piece of equipment doing the duty it is designed for. The numbers are weighed heavily with respect to the individual cost of each unit, thus giving a rating roughly equal to:

Performance × Price Factor/Value = Rating

Audioholics.com note: The ratings indicated below are based on subjective listening and objective testing of the product in question. The rating scale is based on performance/value ratio. If you notice better performing products in future reviews that have lower numbers in certain areas, be aware that the value factor is most likely the culprit. Other Audioholics reviewers may rate products solely based on performance, and each reviewer has his/her own system for ratings.

Audioholics Rating Scale

• — Excellent
• — Very Good
• — Good
• — Fair
• — Poor

Metric	Rating
Build Quality
Appearance
Treble Extension
Treble Smoothness
Midrange Accuracy
Bass Extension
Bass Accuracy
Imaging
Dynamic Range
Fit and Finish
Performance
Value