|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Though the Inmates might like this. We were discussing what the 10 best Engineered speakers of all time were. I decided to see what other aficionados thought.The rules for your selection:
1. Can be a home or commercial model of substantially full range.
2. The speaker in question has to be a commercial success (the
company may have eventually folded, but the speaker sold well
for a sustained period).
3. The design has to show deliberate solutions to a number of
problem areas (just sounding real good is not acceptable)
and the design has to be woven into a synergisitic whole that
exhibits superior performance for its era and price range.
(it's harder to design a ggreat cheap speaker than a cost-is-no-
object one)
4. It's your own opinion, you're entitled to it, and you cannot
flame someone for their selections.
5. A brief explanation of each choice is optionalMy choices:
1. Altec-Lansing A-7: The short plywood horn on the woofer time aligns it with the sectorial tweeter, and provides constant directivity. The combination of front horn loading and rear reflex loading brings the woofer into the same efficiency range as the sectorial horn. Born in the late '30s and still around.
2. BBC's LS3/5a: The king of the mini monitors.
3. Advent Loudspeaker (original model): Best selling model of its time. Priced far below comparable sounding products. A much more complex and synergistic design that it looks at first.
4. Quad ESL 63: Technological tour de force. Concept departed significantly from prior ES designs.
5. Bose 901: Aimed at the classical music market, the 901 introduced direct/reflecting sound and the use of many small equalized drivers. Built on several years of pioneering psychacoustic research.
6. B&W Nautilus: Both a technological masterpiece and an art object. a cost is no object exposition of technology.
7. Tannoy Dual Concentric, The Churchill: The pinnacle of coaxial speakers. Any of the older "classic" Tannoy's would qualify. A time aligned coaxial tweeter using the curved woofer cone as the horn.
8. Weathers Bookshelf speakers and Hide-Away bass module: The first three piece sub-sat system from the late 50's. Slot loaded subwoofers that fit under furniture, and bookshelf speakers about the size of a Collegiate dictionary that actually fit into bookshelves like books.
9. Dahlquist DQ-10: Innovatively addressed both diffraction effects and time alignment. Excellent integration. A true classic.
10. Beveridge 2SW-2 system: Full range non-dipole electrostatic speakers in a vertical linesource format with diffractionless mounting. A subwoofer and crossover module completed the system.OK there's my 10. Lets see your's.
Follow Ups:
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)
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.
Have always enjoyed the Bozak 410 Concert Grands and would include them in a top ten list; especially with piano featured recordings.
John
What fun... my list, in no particular order:1. Maggie Tympany 1Us for the best lower midrange/upper bass I've ever heard, and for looking very cool at the time (and now).
2. KLH double 9s when driven by Futtermans for giving us for the first time the "lighter than air" weightless feeling of the real thing, and a midrange that was thrilling.
3. Spica TC-50s for capturing the soul of a live performance in an astonishing small, inexpensive box.
4. Double Advents driven by dry, etched, BIG, early solid state amps because they are more fun than almost all the others.
5. McIntosh ML-1s (really!) for doing something no speaker before or since has done, and I'm not sure what that is. But listen to a big band or a violin solo, and, despite its missing top octave(s?), embarassingly reticent midrange, and wooly mushy tubby bass, there is *something* more real there that I've never understood.
6. Infinity Servo-Statik I's, for taking the joys of the KLH and adding volume (but skip the terrible woofer).
7. Braun LV-300 through LV-1020's for almost creating a soundstage and image in 1971.
8. Vandersteens, all of 'em, for getting out of the way of the music, having great balance, and reasonable prices.
9. Quad ESLs driven by tubes (Quad II or other 1950s-era) and listened to at extremely close range (like your desktop) for letting you see into the performance in ways nothing else can.
10. Paul Klipsch's early big horns for reproducing the bloom of the orchestra or band without changing the nature of the sound, as every other non-horn-loaded moving-coil reproducer does.Oh - the Tannoys, LS3/5As, Dahlquists, Concert Grands, Sequerras ... oh well.
And I cannot resist... we need a 10 worst list too:
1. Bose 901s, which I once sold, for being unmusical, gimmicky, overpriced, and having an impedence curve that wreaked havoc on many amplifiers. (Mr. or Ms. Eagle, we need to talk some day... and I'll buy the drinks!)
2. The Phillips itty-bitty bi-amped "David's", so promising and so horrible.
3. The JBL Ranger Paragons, so sexy, so gorgeous, so expensive, so big, so screechy, so honky.
4. The Infinity POS-1's, so aptly named by their engineers when ordered to make a "cheap" speaker.
5. Several of the smaller KLH speakers from the 60s (the ones on the Model 15, and maybe the 17s or 22s come to mind) for being frightfully dishonest ported jobs sold as their "revolutionary acoustic suspension" design. They didn't sound that bad, though...
6. Everything with the name "Polk" on it for reasons too numerous to even start with.
7. Infinity Servo Statik I's, for causing more problems than all my old Jags and Alfas did combined.
8. JBL studio speakers, all of them, for being partly responsible for decades of wretched recordings.
9. All those omni-directional round things from the 70s.
10. All Cerwin Vega speakers, for taking bad sound and raising its volume to the point of pain without self-destructing.Happy New Year everyone.
Bill
gutsy of you to include the Bose 901. I must say, that when I first heard a pair of 901s in 1969, I was impressed; and it's not like I hadn't heard other decent speakers at the time.I concur with those who want to add the Klipschorn and the AR 3a to the list, even though I have issues with the sound of both.
Some other candidates:
The big KLH electrostat. Not as common as the Quads, but more powerful and with lower bass.
The ESS AMT-1. The speaker should have been a 3-way (using a 12-inch driver as a midrange doesn't work too well), but the clarity of the Hiel tweeter was absolutely stunning.
Magnepan Tympani -- The original multi-panel Magnepan planar speakers and no longer made (the single-panel "Magneplanars" were the cheaper versions). The first time I heard a pair of these, driven by Audio Research electronics, I was in another country, figuratively speaking. Bass, power and dynamics from a planar speaker that has not been equalled in the subsequent models, which are reduced in size because of cosmetic reasons. Ask Jim Willis; he owns a pair of them; although I don't think his work any more.
Allison Ones -- Roy Allison was willing to address the fact that a loudspeaker plays in a room, not outside or in an anechoic chamber. By being adamant about where the speaker was to be placed, and by doing his homework and designing for just that placement, Allison got the bass right. A-1s, while not subterranean in bass extension, produce incredible amounts of undistorted bass in the musical bass range (35 Hz and up).
The AR LST: The speaker that created the demand for super-powerful amplifiers (for good or ill). Like the A-1, it was designed with an ear towards where it would be placed. Unlike the A-1, it could be adjusted to accomodate more than one placement and produce a flat amplitude response.
(Don't shoot me, please) The Sunfire True Subwoofer: Say what you will about the quality of the bass produced (and I don't care for it either), but Bob Carver did produce a speaker that produces true sub bass (flat to 20 Hz) at 100 dB levels that is small. Many, many so-called subwoofers are really just "helpers" for the bass drivers of the main speakers, and their bass heads south below 30 Hz.
Finally, a comment about the theatre horn speakers that Brennan and others include on their lists:
I think that one has to recognize the difference between an auditorium and a listening room in your house. Brennan dismisses the acoustic suspension speaker as a concession to decorating and WAF. But most people live in homes, not auditoriums, with rooms of relatively small size (and it's worth remembering that, in the US at least, average room and house size today is bigger than it was 40 years ago). The size of the stereo equipment in them is a relevant consideration. Secondly, most people in homes don't want the SPL or dynamic range capability of a theatre horn speaker. So, the acoustic suspension set of tradeoffs is not as bad, in my opinion, as Tom and others believe. That's also why I agree with Tom's inclusion of the Klipschorn on the list. PWK worked within the parameters of the "WAF" issue and came up with a speaker that had much of the good qualities of the theatre speakers in an acceptably-sized package. Also, we shouldn't forget that there were other "box speakers" out at the time, especially those made by Bozak. These were "bass-reflex" speakers that were fairly efficient but could not produce much bass, in terms of either volume or extension. The AR design brief was to take the same sized box and get another 1/2 octave of bass out of it, with less harmonic distortion. At that, they succeeded.
Nice idea to start this thread, Eagle, BTW. Lots of interesting thougts added by the commenting inmates.
thanks!
I included the Bose 901 because of the innovative design and the amount of solid research behind it. IMHO the best were the first two generations when they were acoustic suspension and had wood cabinets. I can remember when they first came out, and the audiophiles couldn't get enough of them. You and I are definitely in the minority here.Your nomination of the KLH Nines and the Tympani Magneplanar is one of many. I left them off because I didn't see them as highly engineered designs. Good nonetheless.
You're alone on both the Allisons and the ESS AMT-1. Both were on my list of considerations. I think both are good selections.
I didn't consider the AR-LST, but it's a viable candidate. I did consider the AR-9. But the Allison is a better example of room boundary considerations.
Sorry, innovative and technologically interesting as it is, the Sunfire isn't full range.
Finally, in your closing comments, you mention the ported Bozaks. Like what, the 201?
Thanks for contributing. I thought this might be fun.
Sorry, can't remember the model number. When my wife was in college (and I was going out with her) she shared the top floor of a house in Austin with two other students. One of them supplied the stereo (quite nice, actually) and I remember it had a pair of Bozak box speakers, say about 30% bigger than an AR 3/3a. I can't remember anything else about the system. The Bozaks were very listenable, but a little "polite" for my taste. They didn't have much in the way of bass or top end extension. My wife's roommate was something of a jazz fan; I remember listening to several MJQ records on them.
Bruce,I think those were the Bozak B-401. An attempt by Bozak to compete with the "bookshelf" models from AR, KLH, Advent, JBL, etc. They used the standard Bozak 12" coax with the two tweeters normally bracketed across the front of the woofer mounted separatly, and a 6" midrange. I had a pair back in the late 70's. 2.3 ft cu cabinet with a removeable back. Foam grill with vertical ridges about 3" wide. Drivers mounted from inside the box. Padding on the walls. Not sealed, the tweeters had gaps around them in their cutout. Crossover was basic first order Bozak, but the ones I had used ordinary electrolytic caps, not non-polar! No bass below 60 Hz, and no top as you remember, but a very nice midrange.
I gave the drivers to a Bozak fan, and used the box for a system based on a Speakerlab 12" and Peerless mid and tweeter. They eventually became subs for another friend.
Don't know if I'll get to ten, but here goes:
Ohm A -full range Walsh driver, needed a big Phase Linear or McIntosh amp to drive them. Blew everything else that I heard away, up to that point in time. I think it was about 1970.
JBL L100 Century -amazing bang for the buck, the best rock speaker that any teenager could realistically aspire to financially. Heard them at the start of the '70s, bought a pair of JBL 4311 Control Monitors 7 years later.
Videoton D132E -tiny acoustic suspension bookshelf speaker with a 3 1/2" paper cone tweeter and a 4" paper woofer and a die-cast woofer frame. I first heard these as part of a wall of speakers at a discount "hi-fi" shop on Yonge Street in Toronto. They sounded better than speakers 5 times the price. Amazing bass, too. $64.95 a pair, plus tax in '74. These produced a major cult following in Britain, with all sorts of tweaks being done.
Quad ESL -seamless, smooth sound. Reliable electrostat that set the benchmark for all competitors that followed, or tried to.
Wilson Audio MAXX -impressed me even more than the Grand SLAMM. Properly set up, flawless sound quality and stage.
PSB Stratus Gold i -most amazing sound for the dollar that I've auditioned in the last 5 years. My wife and I kept forgetting to "audition" them when we sat down to give them a test run at the dealer. The fact that they're cheaper in Canada makes them even better. True high end for less.
Joseph Audio RM33si -best sound I've heard this year. Richard Modaferri knows some things about speaker and crossover design that nobody else does. I lust after these speakers. That sums it up.
It seems that most of my choices revolve around superior value due to kicking the competitions' asses in a sound/dollar ratio. It takes great engineering to do this, so that's my justification for my choices.
Cheers,Graham
"You never really know how fast you're going until you hit the ground"
#1--The MGM Shearer Horn. Developed in the mid 30s as an improved theater speaker massive talent was employed in it's development: John Hilliard, James Lansing and Bob Stephens among others. This was the standard high-quality theater speaker until the advent of the VOTs in the mid-late 1940s. The Altec 288 driver, still coveted by hornies was an outgrowth of the Lansing 285 driver developed for this system. #2--The Altec 604 DuPlex concentric speaker. This was in production from 1945 to 1998 when Altec was killed by Telex. Used in more recording studios than any other speaker and also has a large following for use in the home. Tannoy copied the 604. #3--The Lansing Iconic of 1937--a 1" compression driver on a multi-cell horn combined with a 15" woofer in a vented box, the prototype for a type of speaker still very popular in studios and in homes of hornies. #4--Altec VOT. Many, many variations on this system developed by Hilliard and Lansing. 55 year old basic design and still going strong. #5---The Quad 57, opened the door for the modern electrostat, the only kind of speaker besides horns I care for. Still a great speaker. #6---The AR-1. Started the downhill slide of speakers in which we find most today; first of the muddy, compressed speakers in small boxes. Performence traded for small size and WAF; cheap cones and domes replace expensive compression drivers and 15" woofers with big edgewound voicecoils, small magnets replace large ones, "accuracy" replaces dynamics and lifelike sound. A real trend-setter. #7---The Klipschorn. PWK gets deep bass and high efficiency in a reasonably sized cabinet and somehow wrings great sound from some pretty mediocre drivers. Huge cult following, this speaker is now out of production, evidently killed by the Hoosier bean-counters who've taken a once great company down the Bose road. #8---RCA LC-1. A 15" fullrange some with "camel bumps", much Elvis music was monitored and mixed over these, that's enough to make it a very historic speaker. That's it, I'm outta gas.
Well.....It may not be ten, but I like these guys:OHM F......the first speaker I ever heard that made me stay just to listen to them. They just engulfed you. They sent music everywhere.
Rectilinear III......they still, today, give me everything I want from a speaker...bass, mid-range, high-end....it's all there.
Electro-Voice Interface Series......still the most "flat" frequency response I've heard from a "small" speaker. I have never heard the "D" from this series.....BUT I WANT TO!
Base on the rules you out stated...these would be my choice's...I like other speakers....but.....for one reason or another, they don't make the list.
music has the power to make you happy
Add:Avantgardes (Duos/Trios)
Wisdom M-50
Thiel 7.2s
Bose 901 - no.
B&W Nautilus - no.-Certainly one must add the big Dunlavy's to be serious about this.
-Early Sound Labs 'stats.
-The REPS fullrange driver.
-Maybe some of the exotic Japanese items: ALE, GOTO, Onken, etc.
-And the world's best: The top-line Stax earspeakers ;o)
I'm a "planar" guy, so this may show bias!1: Infinity IRS Beta. Still a reference. In one of my systems after much tweaking and experimentation has become virtually transparent. A dynap, powerful wall of sound with no apparent source.
2: Maggie 3 series. Bang for the buck and musical to the n'th degree if set up properly....Drawback for me is lack of dynamics.
3: Apogee Diva. Had these for years, sold after IRS Beta. Transparency, detail, better bass response than you'd think from a planar. In the end for me, the Beta's won the race, your mileage may vary!
otari
My mother-in-law, after seeing the Levinson 33H amps in my listening room: "Those are the nicest electric room heaters I've ever seen".
From a Canadian perspective, here are a couple of choices:1. Energy 22 Reference Connoisseur: circa 1983. Did everything well. Large design team, Winslow Burhoe, Ottawa National Research, University of Waterloo.
2. The PSB Avante II: Now extremely rare, built in St.Jacobs Ontario, rubber surround woofer, midrange absolutely gorgeous, almost liquid.
And a tribute to our American friends... (drivers only)
1. All drivers designed and built by Babb Speakers. Burt and Allan Babb to me are legendary.
I agree with most choices, however, given the criteria, I'd be inclined to include the Quad 57 before the 63, but wouldn't argue about it.
Hm..Don't agree with the Bose 901, they are overpriced and sound terrible in most environments, and even when they are in a proper environment, they add reflections to the sound which need not be there.
B&W Nautilus - in my opinion one of the most bright and overpriced speaker lines out there. Bleh..
Not the Nautilus line. The snail shaped Nautilus speaker itself. The one the 800 series is named after.
.
The Nautilus is an excellent speaker, But even better is the NEW! SIG800 speaker produced by B&W.I have a couple of pairs at work, $20,000 a pair these are just the best speakers in the world!
Even the Germans think so!
Mostly agree with two exceptions: The Bose 901's were only decent sounding at high levels and with the benefit of a concrete reflecting wall,
The B&W Nautilus is mostly about 'Designer' than sound.. recently had to return a set as being far below expectation.
There may be other worth 'listing' speakers to add to your list though.
I agree about some on your list. Here's a few more. These are not in particular order:
Klipschhorn corner horns Life size dynamics
AR3a Defined what a reasonable size cabinet can do, advanced direct radiator technology.
Apogee Diva full range ribbons -Perhaps the ultimate planar speaker-Detail, dynamics, soundstage size. Like a microscope for your ears.
Merlin VSM The fulfillment of two-way design. Detail and dynamics almost like Apogee but less coloration in a practical size.
I might have also added:
Fulton J 1978
Levinson's HQD using Quads midrange 24" Hartley sub
Acoustats succesfully indestructable
Dayton Wright Electrostats
Magnepans 3 series
Within my limited experience, Big Soundlabs. A1's? One of my friends had a set up with all Accuphase electronics and various subs at different times. Clark Johnson in Positive Feedback a few years back also liked the same system--one of the few he said got most of it all right, yes, phase coherant. Also Martin Logan CLS--originals were my first 'blown'away' audio experience at a very early Sterophile show, maybe the first show in Santa Monica. Full range enough for most music, disappeared with a very convincing soundstage. Also the top-o-the-line Vandersteen 5. One of these days I'd like to hear some plasma based speakers. Also, was it JBL that made a large furniture type console about 8-10' long with left and right horn speakers coming out of either side? Convincing enough I skipped analyzing it--you know, 'gee, bass it a tad whooly, highs sparkle but shaved off the top'. Didn't care, it was good.
Thanks one and all. I hoped we'd get a good response, but this is excellent. Many good thoughts.I have a few followup comments to this point. We should get some more entries later.
The huge JBL was the Paragon. I considered that one, but I only had room for 10. It also figured in the Sherman Adams payoff scandal in the Eisenhower era.
I picked the Quad ESL 63 because of the timed diaphragm acceleration which made the diaphragm act like the expanding surface of a sphere. As if there were a point source located some distance behind it and the spherical wavefront were expanding through the speaker.
I figured the Bose 901 would get a lot of raised eyebrows. But it was based on a lot of research. And in the right setting, did a very good job of sounding like an orchestra in a large hall. Lousy for solos tho'.
I forgot the RCA LC-1. Sorry about that. Olson would never forgive me.
I did consider Klipsch, also Lowther corner horns. One of those little drivers in its horn produced as much bass as a Bozak Concert Grand.
I hope we get some more.
Thanks again.
Just my .02 based on what I've personnaly experienced...(Not in any particular order)
The Khorn by PWK. In the right room with the right source material, the dynamics just blow you away.
Duntech Sovereigns (and, I'm guessing the Dunlavy Vs and VIs)- Incredible lifelike soundstage and presence. Listened to them at Audition (Hi-end store) in Birmingham, AL in the late 80s, still remember their sound.
The KEF 107. Unique approach with superior results.
The Carver Amazing Platinum. I know a lot of people hated them as soon due to their name or the fact that Bob Carver built them. But they use the same ribbon as the $60000 Genesis, and produce better sound. Open baffle design with four 12" woofers worked well with the excellent ribbon. Truly full range speakers.
Legacy Whisper. I owned a pair of Legacy Focus which I thought was "all that", but was completely stunned by the Whispers a few years later.
Magnepan MG 20s. Something magical about a good dipole...
I'm sure there may be better speakers (that I haven't heard), but, as of now, these top my list.
Texas,If you look through the postings in this thread, you find the same models over and over. The Dunlavys (you are one of the few to mention Duntechs, but Richard Heyser loved them), the Magneplanar in both the single panel and the Tympani versions, and the K horn.
Your other selections are also worthy candidates. The Carver is one I missed. It probably is more worthy than several I put on my list. Thorough understanding and creative use of the physics. Wonderful reviews, but you have to have heard one to understand.
KEF is always a contender, with several potential candidates, although my favorite was the 103.2. Lovely sound on strings.
Clearly, you understood my guidelines. Good list.
Thanks for making me think about this. I realize that I have two 'great speaker detector kits.' One is analytical, one is holistic. Few are good under both test conditions. Oh, and thanks for identigying the JBL Paragon.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: