What Are the Best Sounding Speakers You've Ever Heard.?

[gmgraves]

First of all the subject of this thread isn't my idea. I borrowed it from another forum But I love it!

 

I'm a big fan of audio and maybe even bigger fan of speakers which IMO are the most important component of any audio system. I know this statement is debatable for some but for me speakers plus speakers-room interaction (room acoustics, matching speakers' bass performance with the room size etc) taken together are responsible in 85% for any audio system's sound. BTW I'm not an extremist here, a well known in my country ex-audio journalist and audio gear distributor claims for him it's 95%..

 

This absolutely doesn't mean that I don't care about DAC's, amp's, cables', power conditioner's etc. quality - I do 'cause obviously they all influence sound quality.

 

Yet, for me these are loudspeakers which are the 'royal' component of any audio system!

 

What are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard.? What sound qualities made you love them so much? What were the other components of the system? And least but not last what music was played by them?

 

Let's have fun!

 

1. Sound Lab Majestic

2. Martin Logan Neolith

3. Martin Logan CLX with matching M-L subwoofers.

[gmgraves]

Priaptor: I too had Watt/Puppies with a Wham (subwoofer), much better without the Wham part.

 

+1. Watt/Puppies were excellent, but the Wham ruined the entire illusion by making the whole system sound worse than mediocre.

[gmgraves]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29661[/ATTACH]

 

Apogee Duetta Signature powered by Threshold monoblocks and FET ten/e pre-amp with Meridian CD front-end.

 

 

I had a pair of those. Sounded great but the fiberboard "cabinets" were fragile and easily broken and the pair I had, for no apparent reason had a huge piece of magnet break-off which fell down into the bottom of the speaker frame making that speaker rattle all the time. I sold them to a kid who said he didn't care...

[gmgraves]

I still think best bang for the buck speaker and regardless of price one of the most engaging speaker of all time is the Magnepan. The 3.7i IMO is their best. It does so many things right.

 

I agree that Maggies are very good, Yes they do many things right. They are not quite as good, IMHO, as electrostatics, but the Maggie's ribbon tweeter might be the best transducer yet devised. Too bad nobody has been able to make a full-range version of such a ribbon and have it keep the tweeter's coherence, speed, and low distortion all the way to the bottom-most octave! BTW, have you heard the MG-20 in it's latest incarnation? It's the 3.7i with almost another octave tacked on the bottom and lots more dynamic range and is even less colored in the mids.

[gmgraves]

I haven't heard the 20. My friend in NY who sells Maggies loves the 20 but his favorite is the 3.7i. I have a pair of Lawrence Mandolins in my second home and "thinking" about selling them. They are not in a dedicated room and they do require loud SPL to get their best sound and I am always faced with "lower those things" so I am thinking maybe selling them and trying the 1.7, however, I may just have to face the fact that I "stuck" with my headphone rig out there.

 

I must admit that I have not heard the latest 3.7s, but if they are better, overall, than the MG-20s, that's saying something - and they'd be a bargain, to boot! I've owned many Maggie's (including the huge, 8-panel Tympani III-C) and have reviewed many more, and even their flagship models have always been reasonably priced for what one gets. Performance -wise, both the MG-3.7i and the MG-20, are excellent, and each new iteration of the entire Maggie line just gets better and better. In my second system, I have a pair of MG-Point Sevens, and a pair of subwoofers from Dayton Audio (Parts Express). The combo is so good and so cheap (under US$2k) that It would be difficult to justify anything else based on price/performance (of course, the Krell KAV-300L with which I'm powering the Point Sevens (the subs are self powered with on-board, Class "D" amps) can't hurt either!).

[gmgraves]

Try mine

 

Oh, yeah, I'll bet a symphony orchestra sounds "real good" through that monstrosity!

[gmgraves]

If I could afford them, the ESL system from Sanders Sound Systems. They are actually not terribly expensive given you get speakers, amps and crossover w/ DSP for around $20k.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

 

Sanders speakers sound very good however, even though he holds the patents for curved, wide dispersion ESLs, he doesn't make his speakers that way. The result is head-in-vise directionality. I loved the sound of the pair, that I had, but the inability of more than one person to listen at a time, the fact that that "one" can't move their head one iota or all the highs will go away, made them impractical IMO.

[gmgraves]

First of all the subject of this thread isn't my idea. I borrowed it from another forum But I love it!

 

I'm a big fan of audio and maybe even bigger fan of speakers which IMO are the most important component of any audio system. I know this statement is debatable for some but for me speakers plus speakers-room interaction (room acoustics, matching speakers' bass performance with the room size etc) taken together are responsible in 85% for any audio system's sound. BTW I'm not an extremist here, a well known in my country ex-audio journalist and audio gear distributor claims for him it's 95%..

 

This absolutely doesn't mean that I don't care about DAC's, amp's, cables', power conditioner's etc. quality - I do 'cause obviously they all influence sound quality.

 

Yet, for me these are loudspeakers which are the 'royal' component of any audio system!

 

What are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard.? What sound qualities made you love them so much? What were the other components of the system? And least but not last what music was played by them?

 

Let's have fun!

 

Actually no one speaker meets my criteria for "best speaker". But here are some contenders:

 

Sound Labs (the big ones. Don't recall the model name)

 

ML Neoliths

 

Magnepan MG-20s

 

I like these speakers because of their almost perfect neutrality coupled with adequate bass.

[gmgraves]

Maybe I should not say this. But I've never heard Avantgarde Acoustic speakers sound good. Maybe they have improved the last few year. I really hope so.

 

+1

[gmgraves]

On 11/29/2016 at 10:27 PM, Carzee45 said:

Martin Logan CLX metal framed.Astonishingly transparent.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

Agreed. They only go down to about 50 Hz, but the addition of a pair of Martin Logan subwoofers (there is a certain model that they recommend to pair with the CLX) completes the system. The problem is that the CLXs are so damned BIG, that they won’t fit in the average living room. And most wives would put their foot down at the idea of such huge speakers. But, for US$30,000, you simply can’t get a more accurate, transparent speaker system.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Rexp said:

Wow, I've never heard an accurate sounding Martin Logan. 

Then your idea of accurate and mine are totally different. I don’t know anything about you, but I hear a lot of live, acoustic music played in real space (not in a studio) and when I compare live classical music and acoustic jazz with Martin Logan electrostatic speakers, I hear a connection with that live music that tells me that while no speaker is totally accurate, Martin Logan ESLs are closer than most.

[gmgraves]

37 minutes ago, sphinxsix said:

OTOH heavy metal isn't their favorite genre.. 

That may well be, but since I don’t consider heavy metal to even be music, I really could care less. Besides, the words “accurate” and “studio produced music” (especially pop), are diametrically opposed concepts, I stick by my earlier opinion that Martin Logan ESLs are accurate to the sound of REAL acoustic music.

[gmgraves]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

Martin Logan is more accurate than SoundLab??

Nobody said that. Sound Labs’ flagship is a very accurate speaker, and a full-range ESL - no conventional cone speaker for low frequencies. But I’d have to listen to both at great length to be able to tell which is better, the Martin Logan CLX with subwoofers or the Sound Lab’s ‘Ultimate 745’ model. In my estimation, the beauty of the CLX “system” with subs is it’s price. US$30 grand will buy this system (assuming that one has the room for it) but it is not Martin Logan’s most expensive system. That honor belongs to the flagship Neolith at around US$70K. At that price, I’d be looking hard at the Sound Lab offering at around US$50K. Starts to make The CLX look like a bargain. $30K is the same price as the Magnepan MG-30.7, and the CLX’s are cleaner and faster in my opinion.

[gmgraves]

39 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I don't see that ... a system should be accurate to what's on the recording; not what one thinks a particular type of music, or sounds should be like ... IMO. A 'raucous' studio production should be as close to 100% true to what was captured, as possible - which means, that heavily distorted guitars sound like the amplifiers that were used by the guitarists; and vocals, and cymbals are as pristine as if they were from a folk singing session - sludgy rock playback might be liked by the listener because it mimics listening to a live PA  setup, but it's not what's on the recording ...

We’ve had this conversation before. No audio system sounds even close to the sound of real music. So most audiophiles look for the things in their systems that excite them about music. I have a buddy who thinks that Sennheiser HD-800 phones are the best because they have the kind of “slam” (dynamic contrasts) that he enjoys in music. That’s not so important to me. I prefer my HiFiMan Jade 2 electrostatic phones for their low distortion, wide frequency response and light weight comfort when wearing them for long periods. 
Besides, why should I (or anyone for that matter) care what a system sounds like playing music that they would never listen to?

Then of course, how would you know what a “‘raucous studio production” is SUPPOSED to sound like when you weren’t there? Studio productions are constructs. They were mixed, EQ’d and manipulated using playback equipment that ostensibly, you and I don’t have. And I can tell you from long experience, that the monitor speakers that most big studios have are ANYTHING but accurate. Each studio’s goal is to sound as much like every other studio, so that they can lay-down different tracks at different studios, and have a similar playback at all of them. Starting in the early 1970’s that meant the JBL studio monitor series. They are loud, efficient and bullet-proof, but any relationship between those speakers and the sound of real music was and is purely coincidental. But they sound great on hard rock, and they are what you need to come even close to hearing the same thing from that kind of “music” as did the producers, engineers, and musicians who made it.

[gmgraves]

On 1/1/2020 at 7:45 AM, semente said:

Horns are very directional, the tinny sound is probably happening on axis. Awful stuff, but apparently exciting and lively and loud is enough for some headbangers

 

The big three-way AvantGarde horns actually sound very good and don’t seem to beam like many horns do. The worst horns I’ve heard are the original Klipshorns, and the Altec-Lansing A7 “Voice-of-the-theater” speakers (which I briefly owned as a teen*. I ended up “donating” them to my high school for the auditorium). They were simply awful. They used the notorious Altec 500 Hz treble horn for the kids and highs. This exponential horn was made from cast aluminum, and if you thumped it with your finger it rang like the bells of St. Mary’s. I’m sure that you can imagine what that did to any musical material that came even close to that horn’s resonant frequency!

 

*These speakers were given to me as the local movie theater was being renovated into a retail space, and they were going to throw the speakers away.