|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: 10 Best Speakers-What do you think posted by Bold Eagle on January 10, 2002 at 12:40:07:
Based on your rules, here's my list. All of the below-mentioned speakers were available sometime between 1996 and now, because that's when I got into audio. In rough order, except for #1, which is #1 by a pretty huge margin. I think the bottom 2 speakers in my top 10 are seriously flawed, but they do the rest well enough to make me prefer them to any number of high end speakers lacking such obvious flaws.10) Acapella Violon 1. I put this speaker on the list despite a fatal flaw, because it does the midrange and highs so well. The Violon incorporates three very different types of drivers: a plasma ion tweeter, horn-loaded mid, and direct radiator woofer. And despite the huge space between them, they integrate as well as any non-concentric speaker out there. If the Seas 10" woofer that anchors them weren't so hopelessly outclassed, this speaker would be my #1. Perhaps their next version will use something like a Lambda TD-15 instead. If they weren't so expensive, I'd likely have bought a pair and done precisely that by now.
9) Dunlavy SC-IVA. Massive, moderately efficient, multiway dyanamic direct-radiating tower. Unfortunately, though, it's the perfect speaker only for people with no friends, because the sweet spot is so minute. But oh, what sweetness inside that ~15" wide spot...
8) NHT 3.3. Basically, a sat-sub system in two boxes, with the side-mounted 1259 woofers and the 3-way satelite. A very clear-sounding, low distortion speaker. I suspect that a similar design using "back to the future" components (paper cones, for instance) would be an absolute world-beater today, just as the 3.3 was when it was first introduced.
7) Gallo Nucleus Reference. Two basketball-sized spheres containing Dynaudio 17W75's, and a custom 330-degree piezo tweeter. Besides the eye-catching industrial design (I heard them before the spheres were covered in cloth), they had surprisingly full-range sound for a pair of small 6.5" 2.5-ways. Also, that tweeter was something special.
6) KEF KAR System 160.Q. These car speakers were designed to get the best sound possible out of non-ideal locations, namely the doors of cars. Do to so, they are not flat, but have a rising top end. On the proper axis, though, they are by far the best sounding transducers I've heard put in a car. Most car-fi equipment is designed to make lots of noise. The KEF's are much more comfortable with Schostakovich 7 than Bass Mekanik 24601.
(These are not to be confused with the later blue poly-coned KEF KAR Q160, which was designed and manufactured by the American company Coustic.)5) Martin-Logan reQuest. The reQuest wasn't the first ML hybrid, nor was it arguably even the prettiest or best integrated of its generation (those honours go to the SL3), but it. I haven't heard ML's latest generation, but aesthetically they're a definite step backwards.
4) Avalon Avatar. Yes, six-odd grand is A LOT of money for an 8" 2-way, even one using an Eton woofer. And bass alignment (Qtc=0.5) aside, their design is "all wrong", with a horrid tweeter, a woofer with legendary break-up modes on top, and probably 15" of impeccably finished wood between woofer and tweeter. But they work, and work well. They're the smallest speakers I've heard to convincingly portray the raw energy of massed strings, and the overall spectral balance is wonderful. No one else has successfully tamed that MB Quart dome, to my ears. I actually had to look to make sure it was an MBQ dome, because usually they literally run me out of the room. The Avatar are also stunning pieces of industrial design, Avalon's best looking, to my eyes.
3) KEF Q15. Yes, a little US$350 KEF ahead of all of these multi-kilobuck speakers! IMO, the 4th gen Uni-Q was the first one that really sparkles. KEF's achievement with these little speakers was to package such smoothness with decent efficiency into a US$350 speaker. Are they the last speakers I'll ever own? Not likely. But in all honesty I think them the best 6.5" 2-way out there at any price, and I like them better than many five-figure speakers I've heard, the Wilson WATT/Puppy for example. (NOTE: Comments apply to the original Q15, not the newer Q15.2. I suspect the new one is as good or better, but I've never heard it.)
2) Tannoy D700. First and only speaker I've ever heard that basically does everything right. It nails the energy density of the lower mids, and (with ports plugged) it exhibits a top-to-bottom coherence like no other speaker I've yet heard. Also, despite its poly cones, this thing is QUICK!
1) Sennheiser HD-580. Headphones may seem like an odd choice for "best speaker of all time", but I have never heard recorded music more convincingly reproduced than over these headphones. Particularly when driven by a Headroom Total AirHead headphone amp or a Sonic Frontiers Line-series preamp that incorporates Headroom's spatial imaging processor. I picked the '580s over the 580 Jubilees or the 600s because the latter two are just variations on the theme established by the '580. Excellent variations, and perhaps better for people who don't already have '580s, not enough for this '580 owner to upgrade.
Dishonourable mention:
Any me-too 6.5" 2-way using the ScanSpeak 8545 and 9x00 tweeter. No matter how pretty or expensive you are, you'll still be just a 6.5" 2-way. Get over yourself.
NP: Dave Matthews Band, "Too Much" (Live in Chicago)
Follow Ups:
I have a pair of upgraded Dunlavy SC-IVAs. They are the Millenniums. They are hourglass shaped to get more room behind the woofers and provide non parallel walls to reduce resonances. Also there is a consistant distance from the edge of the driver to the edge of the cabinate for smoother horizontal dispersion. What this amounts to is cleaner, deeper bass, smoother treble and a more open midrange. I wounder where you would rate these? Also they are +/-1dB from 20Hz to 20KHz.
I'm sure they're awesome. However, I wouldn't rate them at all, because I haven't heard them. :-)
Probably pretty high. But the rules I set for this exercise limited it to commercial models. Otherwise we got into custom stuff that nobody but the owner and his friends have ever heard. I trust you understand why I did that. I don't think I ever had anything for more than 3 months that stayed stock, but how do you compare a known commercial model to what I claim for my modified version.But i think we got the juices flowing here.
Hi Brian A, I was the first to post a review of the Dunlavy Millennium on audioreview.com. Initially I thought the Millennium lacked deep bass; after I read your review, I re-positioned the speaker, install spikes and changed some cables then I got a truly full range speaker. I have the Millennium for almost 3 years now and still very happy with it, it is best speaker I've ever heard.Bold Eagle, the Dunlavy Millennium is a commercial model, it is not a popular model. If you only consider popular model, you may include the SC-VI, it was the Stereophile Loudspeaker of the Year. The speakers I've heard include Wilson Watt/Puppy, X-1, MAXX, ProAc 4, Sonus Faber Amati, Eggleston Andra, Thiel CS5, CS6, CS7...etc.. None can beat the Dunlavy Millennium.
Wow, I am glad I was able to inspire you to get the best out of your Millenniums. It is amazing how their bass is so clean you at first think it is lacking, for you are so used to bass bloat and booming. Tell me, what did your wife think of them. My wife about flipped but now she likes them. How did you go about getting them? What made you purchase them? Do you know of anyone else that owns a pair?
The fact that the bass is clean is the reason that one think it is lacking. Poor setup is the real reason that the bass is really lacking, just like what I did. When you have the big Dunlavy 'floating' on thick carpet, you will not hear any bass at all. Setup affects midrange and treble too, when you sit too close to the speakers you will hear excessive treble just like JA did with the SC-IV/A follow up review (I have the TACT RCS 2.0 measurement to support this).My decision to purchase Dunlavy was mainly base on magazine review, especially the reviews of the SC-V and SC-VI. I didn't get a chance to audition the SC-V and SC-VI as no local dealer had them on display. The only model I ever auditioned before my purchase was the SC-IV, it was very impressive. My initial target was the SC-V or SC-VI, the SC-V was better on price performance. With the introduction of the SC-IV/A I was hoping Dunlavy would release a SC-V/A so I waited for the 1999 CES to see if Dunlavy would release anything new; soon after the CES Dunlavy's website had a new model called Millennium priced between the SC-V and SC-VI; after checking the specification I was very disappointed as it didn't seem to be a replacement for the SC-V. I wanted to fly to the Dunlavy factory and compare the models side by side but I was too busy at work and finally picked the Millennium for its better overall measured performance just like you did; I'm glad you proved my decision was a correct one.
My girl friend said the Millenniums are awesome, I almost flipped when I first saw them; hated their look (as your wife did); too bad DAL didn't offer Kevazinga at that time, mine is rosewood finished. I believe Kevazinga would make them look much better.
I don't know anyone else who owns a pair. One of my friend was very excited when he first saw my Millenniums, he had a speaker in his dream which happen to be of the same shape as the Millenniums. He was completely blown away by the Millenniums, if he got the bucks he would probably buy a pair.
Interesting story. I was quite leary of their looks at first. I only had the picture on the Dunlavy website to look at. My speakers look a bit different than the picture. They have a smaller waist which makes them more graceful looking. As soon as I saw them in person I immediately liked their looks.Perhaps you would like to hear more on how the SC-V sounds compared to the Millennium. Actually I was disappointed in the SC-V. The female voice seems just slightly weak. My audiophile friend says it is those 3 inch upper mids struggling to produce the lowest octive of the female voice. Perhaps some important tone is right in the middle of a crossover.
But the bass of the SC-V was quite good. My friend nailed it when he called it effortless. Those two 12 inch woofers can really move the air. However the Millennium goes deeper and is yet tighter. The non parallel internal walls of the Millennium contribute to this. They give the speaks an incredible cleanness of sound that is hard to describe. It is bourn out in the waterfall plot, the Mill is cleaner than any other Dunlavy, or any other speaker I know of for that matter.
I would really like to read a review on this speaker. However it is deep in a nitch. Quite expensive to produce with that odd shape. The factory didn't seem too anxious to build up a set for me. They kept pushing the SC-VI. Factories are not the ideal place to produce single units. However John Dunlavy himself measured and tweeked my speakers himself.
I have two dreams. One is the NASDAQ hits 5000 again ;) the other is Dunlavy will produce a super Millennium with the one inch dome, two 6.5 inch mids and two 12 inch woofers. It would weigh 400 lbs and be 7 feet tall. Flat to 15Hz +/-0.5dB. Anyway, they are working on a digital speaker that will be pretty much perfect. You feed it with a digital data stream and it has internal digital amps with some digital corrections to eliminate all frequency, phase, and timing errors.
I understand that the Millennium is costly to build, no wonder they are not too anxious to build one for you; so we are very lucky indeed. Soon after your review appeared on AA, DAL increased the price by USD1,000; now they removed the price from the website. Did you ask DAL to send you the measurements of your speakers? I got the measurements for my speakers and the one they posted on the website is a little bit better than mine (just a little bit). The dimension of my speaker is slightly different from their website too, it is 23.5"(W) x 20.75"(D) x 73"(H) without the base and the width of the waist is 10". What's the dimension of yours?
Mine is about the same size. Oddly some of the dimensions are about .5 inch different. I never did get the written results of my speakers frequency response. I'll have to do that.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: