What Are the Best Sounding Speakers UNDER $2,500 that You've Ever Heard.?

[bluesman]

I disagree. I have found that a speaker that someone likes (they are SUCH a personal choice) in a showroom will still be preferred in their own room. Yes, there are some (rare in my experience) room / speaker interactions that will change a speaker enough to make it unsuitable for certain rooms but I still think a better speaker will sound....better.

There's another factor that's far more important. Listening to speakers in a room in which there are many other speakers causes significant aberrations, because all those other drivers are passive radiators that are resonating with the sonic output of the speakers being auditioned. Those connected to internal crossovers or to amplifier output terminals are damped by the output impedance on the other end of their wires, but all of them are resonating to some degree and producing audible contributions to the sound you think is only coming from the speakers being auditioned. It may be complementary, e.g. when those passive radiators are accidentally (and luckily) damped perfectly to reinforce the bottom or when dissipation of highs softens a hard edge. But in my experience, it's almost always detrimental.

 

This was particularly apparent when I used to bring my LS3/5as in to my dealer's showroom to compare them with the latest and greatest - having other speakers anywhere close to them really spoiled their outstanding imaging (which, BTW, is a major part of why I put them on the best sounding speakers lists along with the natural character of their limited bass).

 

I've had many high end dealers try to demo equipment for me in rooms with a dozen or more sets of speakers. To my ears, this affects the sound quality, which is why I far prefer to listen in my own home if I can't get the dealer to remove all other speakers from the listening room. The encounter I remember best is the time I bought a pair of Klipsch Heresies (maybe 35 years ago) because they sounded so good to me at Bryn Mawr Stereo when it was a high end shop. I got them home, set them up, and got hit in the face with strident highs that were apparently dissipated by the many speakers in their showroom - and I was driving them with my late beloved Marantz 7 & 8b, a system that was anything but a fast ball pitcher. They went immediately back!

[bluesman]

LYes, there are many companies who just source drivers from a company or do very small and easy mods. Many top manufacturer's do that and they charge over 100k for some of these speakers. That doesn't mean the speakers aren't really good, just a bit over priced as the drivers and components don't even cost that much considering.

There's a classic old story about a very wealthy woman who goes to a famous New York milliner for a new hat. She selects one and is told it costs $10,000, to which she responds "That's outrageous! It's nothing but a piece of felt!"

 

The milliner goes into the back of her shop, returns with a piece of felt, and says "No problem, madame. This piece of felt will cost you $25, and you can make your own hat."

[bluesman]

For this price range I would choose either the AR LST/2 or stacked Advents.

I'm a bit surprised at your continued admiration for LSTs & contemporary competitors, given their primitive designs and features. The LSTs are just AR3as with more of the same drivers set into angled panels. As such, they had all the phase, image and other SQ issues of the era that were later addressed in newer designs.

 

I'm old enough to remember being astounded at the SQ in the AR & KLH listening rooms when I went to college in Boston in the early '60s, and stacked Advents were a similar eye opener not that long afterward. But all of those acoustic suspension designs displayed common flaws that (at least for me) audibly limit SQ across the frequency spectrum, e.g. the bass was tighter and more linear by far than older vented and other open cab designs, but it was far from realistic. My JBL 305s are much closer to live music than any AR product I've ever heard, as are many many modern standards in the under-$2500/pair category.

 

Of course, the speakers that impressed me the most back in the day were KLH 9s. I'd love to hear a pristine pair today to see how well they do, especially with great source material and top quality contemporary electronics.

[bluesman]

completely agree. I have just never understood those posting to others how great such older speakers are. I fully believe these folks have just not been out in the last few years to audition the newest gear. It's not even close IMHO and to my ears. Many of us have owned or have had friends who owned many of these older speakers so we do know what we are talking about. The other speakers with serious problems are the British monitors from various brands. Even using upgraded enclosures and drivers etc...they are lacking severely.

And many of those old pieces are still capable of serviceable sound. My 35 year old son has used my KLH 17s in his second system to provide backing tracks for him to practice his drumming for many years. As I recall, I re-coned the woofers about 20 years ago, and they still sound OK - but I bought them new at Sam Goody in 1969.....and they sound like it.

[bluesman]

Serviceable is totally different from what folks are looking for when asking about the best speakers for them to audition under 2500 isn't it? As you said they sound like 1969 speakers that have been re-coned. Just not up to today's standards. Even the old panel speakers can't keep pace with today's panels.

I'm not proposing KLH 17s as belonging in this thread list. I'm just pointing out that those great old speakers still sound good enough to impress many who never heard them and view "vintage" as a quality credential. In research, a predetermined positive attitude toward something under evaluation is bias. This is behind many inexplicably positive reviews of things that differ objectively from their supporters' perceptions.

 

But I know where some lucky audiophile can score a pair of KLH 17s for only $5k...............

[bluesman]

You two have some interesting opinions. But you are wrong.

Hmmm - that's a fascinating approach to effective interpersonal communication. I never would have thought to express the sentiment that my opinion differs from yours in those terms.

 

I don't know how old you are or how deep your levels of knowledge, skill and experience might be. But for most of us, there's rarely a consistent and unambiguous right / wrong dichotomy in any situation other than those governed by truly objective and measurable scales, e.g. 5+5 always equals 10 for most of us. Euclid's postulates (at least the first 4) are similarly set in stone for most of us, although non-Euclidians like the disciples of Bolyai and Lobachevsky even disagree with some of the traditional geometric "rules". I suppose they must be wrong too.

 

Those who prefer the sound of 50+ year old designs are welcome to enjoy their loves, and I applaud them for having the courage of their convictions. But the preponderance of sentiment among knowledgeable and experienced audiophiles is that many well designed and constructed current speaker systems selling for $2500/pair or less are far superior to even the top designs of the 1960s and 70s. I've owned many serious speaker systems in the last 55 years, up to and including Infinity Reference Standards. I've driven my speakers with everything from Marantz 7/8b combo to Citation II to Mac 275 to Yamaha B1 to PrimaLuna to highly modded Dyna clones to Hafler 500 etc. Sources have been similarly excellent, and I've been a professional musician since 1959 with hearing that still tests within normal limits.

 

I can't imagine that anyone would prefer ARs or Advents in any configuration to any of the modern systems named in this thread as contenders for the list in the title - but that's why there's chocolate and vanilla, and we all have a right to like what we like. In closing, here's a gentle suggestion that might help you exchange ideas more effectively: simply dismissing others on this forum as "wrong" is probably not the best way to get them to consider your opinions.

 

Best regards -

 

David

[bluesman]

Please visit John Darko’s site and read KIH #35 and KIH #37 Steve’s comments. Then read Sterophile’s Listening #165 and #166 comments. There is a good reason I prefer older speakers, I’ve listened to the new ones lots of them and I don’t like the sound of newer speakers.

"I don’t like the sound of newer speakers". That's nice - I'm very proud of you! I wish we all had the same right to express our preferences without judgment.......

 

I don't like the sound of many newer speakers either. Then again, I didn't like the sound of many modern speakers in 1965, and the ones I didn't like in 1965 haven't gotten any better in the ensuing decades (which may explain why I don't like them now either).

 

You might also want to reread 166. Art Dudley's a pretty cool dude with a very practical attitude toward all this, to wit "I claim no prescience, nor have I done the heavy lifting one associates with people of greater-than-average curiosity and ambition regarding vintage gear (or any other such endeavor)". He's personally focused on the sound of plucked string instruments having no acoustic output at either extreme of the audible frequency spectrum. Plucking a string with a hard object (e.g. a pick) creates what's known as a "spectral splash", in which there is much extraneous harmonic content (at least, in the attack - it does not sustain) beyond the fundamental frequency. Bluegrass is awash in spectral splashes, which is part of the lively and immediate quality of the genre. But it has little in common acoustically with the human voice, wind instruments, bowed strings, pianos, and even amplified archtop guitars as played by Wes Montgomery or Johnny Smith. It is exactly this kind of music, filed with transient harmonic content (which is technically distortion but is actually part of the music) that comes out of field coil speakers well, probably because the fidelity of reproduction is less critical than the mere presence of a ton of harmonic "noise" in the attacks of the notes. But extrapolation to all audio reproduction seems a bit of a reach.

 

The controversy over which magnet material sounds "better" has raged for decades among guitar players. Some love alnico while others wear by ceramic (aka ferrite). Voice coil materials have their supporters too, as do speaker cone materials. For what it's worth, Eric Johnson used to claim that he could hear differences in the brands of batteries used in his effects pedals (although no one ever put that claim to the test, as far as I know). But based on the above, there must be a lot of guitar players who are wrong.

 

No, old guitars are not better than new ones (I'm a guitar player). Anyone who's played the wonderful products of Bill Collings, Ed Foley, Dale Unger or any other current luthier making fine guitars can attest to the fact that there are many brand new guitars the equal of any Martin, Gibson, D'Angelico, Gretsch, Epiphone etc from the '30s. I've owned some stellar guitars, of which my circa 1975 Martin 0-16NY was my favorite by far (a sentiment shared by the many performers with whom I played it). But my Larrivee P-09 (rosewood body, spruce top) comes mighty close, and the current 12 fret Taylor is every bit as wonderful. My 1969 Martin D28 was a mighty fine guitar - I chose it from among about a dozen and bought it new from the Philadelphia area Martin rep. I sold it when I discovered an '80s Guild that sounded and felt even better. I bailed on D'Angelico and Benedetto when I discovered American Archtops made in Pennsylvania by Dale Unger. Even the top Eastman guitars (which are made in China) are excellent. And my ~25 year old National Tricone is every bit the equal of friends' originals in tone, feel, and projection.

 

You might also want to read 165 again with a bit more care, even to the point of actually asking for whom the bell tolls. If you want to suggest a vintage speaker or two for the "best sounding under $2500" list, please do. We don't even ask for evidence - your opinion is more than sufficient for us to take you seriously.

[bluesman]

I listened to a harbeth p3esr today and was impressed.

They're very nice and great value. As an alternative, you can still get the LS3/5a for a few hundred less - the latest incarnation from Falcon drew great reviews, e.g. from Stereophile. The BBC minimonitor genre is not for everyone, as none has earth-shaking bass and there are a few colorations that you either find objectionable or wonderful but won't ignore. Some say they don't have any bass at all, but that's a bit of an exaggeration. I nominate the LS3/5a family for inclusion on this list.

[bluesman]

I'd also advocate for a pair of used ProAcs in this price range.

Yes! The little ProAc monitors are fabulous - I had a tough time deciding between the Tablettes and my Focals a few years ago when I decided we should have a pair of contemporary speakers for our living room system. I "retired" my LS3/5as (originals I bought in early '76) to a vinyl-only system powered by my PrimaLuna amp.

[bluesman]

many audiophiles don't listen to classical music and as such accuracy is often not a requirement.

And that comment only has meaning for you. I and the rest of us lower class proles do prefer that the sonic garbage to which we listen sounds like it does live. OTOH, I've heard and played more than a few "classical" pieces that might have benefited from a wee bit o' distortion.

[bluesman]

I have been led to believe that many audiophiles do not have accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal.

Then you are too easily led, my friend. I've never encountered an audiophile who didn't seek what he or she considered to be accurate reproduction. The problem is that we don't all hear things the same way, so I may think a system is accurate while you think it's highly colored & vice versa. What's true is simply that many audiophiles do not have your concept of accurate reproduction of the recorded signal as their goal. This is not a problem - we're all entitled to our own opinions. You need to respect that even if you don't agree with any of them.

[bluesman]

Apparently we don't agree on the meaning of accuracy.

 

 

For me (and I'd dare say most engineers and designers) accuracy means reading, amplifying and transducing the signal with as little distortion as possible.

It's high fidelity to the recorded signal.

Good recordings will sound good, bad recordings will sound bad.

 

It has nothing to do with getting an "enjoyable" / "exciting" sound from your system or making recordings sound more "real" which is what I understand most people are pursuing (especially because studio recordings do not sound "real" in the first place and they're not supposed to).

 

In my opinion and experience critical listening (for accuracy in reproduction) requires the use of minimally mic'ed recordings of acoustic instruments playing in natural reverberant spaces and knowledge of both live (unamplified) and reproduced sound.

And because listening is fallible (in my opinion and experience) we also need to rely on measurements for evaluating accuracy.

 

R

If you can't shed your "I'm the only one who knows what's right" schtick and accept that someone somewhere might actually have a different but equally valid opinion, there's no point to attempted communication with you. No one is intentionally buying speakers he or she thinks are inaccurate - you just don't agree with them that their choices achieve the goal.

 

What they hear as accurate you hear as inaccurate. That's fine - if we all heard things the same way, we'd all have the same systems or cost-controlled variants thereof. Your self-described understanding of "what people want" is in reality your self-generated interpretation of what they have.

 

How about simply telling us what you think are the best sounding speakers you've ever heard for under $2500? If you want to say why, and the answer is because you think they're the most accurate reproducers you've ever heard, that's wonderful. Your opinion would make me go out and find a pair to hear. That's how I found & bought many speakers: Rectilinear 3s in 1973, LS3/5as in 1976, IRSs in 1983, etc up to and including the Focals and JBLs I use now. They all shared a quality I perceive as accuracy - and after paying decades of dues to AFM local 77, I kinda think I might have some idea of what live music sounds like. You may disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

So help me/us out here. Recognizing that you prize what you perceive as accuracy over any & all other factors, what are the best sounding speakers you've heard under $2500? I'm sure my wife thinks we need another pair by now anyway.........

[bluesman]

I think many of us have been taught by reviews, friends, or experience to listen for "high fidelity" or the sonically extraordinary rather than plain old accuracy.

I think the best approach is to listen for the experience of the music rather than the equipment. If it gives you the same tingle that you get from live performance of the music you prefer in the setting(s) you prefer, it's emotionally accurate. That, for me, is far preferable to the cold and sterile presentations I've heard from many systems with lower measured distortion and technically "better" specs.

 

I went over to a big box retailer to hear a cheap pair of Pioneer bookshelf speakers (SPBS22?) that got a rave review from Stephen Mejias a few years ago and listed for about $130/pair. Yes, they were incredible (especially for the price) despite their clear limitations, e.g. low bass - they had that special something that makes you hear the music through them. For those who haven't seen this interview with Andrew Jones (the designer of both the Pioneers and the TAD Evolution 1s), he offers some pretty sage counsel, e.g.

 

"In the design process, I firstly use music I am intimately familiar with, much of it music that I obtain from studios and engineers where I have either listened in when the recordings have been made, or am able to get the opinion of the recording engineers as to the capability of the speaker. This is generally the same music that I use at shows. Additionally, it is always music that I personally find emotionally involving. I rarely play music that is simply a “demo” piece. Even with the dynamically spectacular type pieces, they are still ones that I enjoy listening to. This way I know that if a prototype doesn’t give me that emotional connection, then it isn’t yet tuned correctly."

 

 

"Clearly, a good speaker is one that has wide bandwidth, low distortion, controlled directivity, and high resolution. However, it should not be resolving in a way that initially sounds impressive, but ultimately fails to be musically satisfying. I want to relax back in my seat when listening, not be on the edge of my seat. Too many systems sound like 'hi-fi!'”

 

 

The AJ-designed Pioneer series go on a list of "best speakers ever for under $300" for sure!

[bluesman]

This is amazing. I'd never heard anyone mentioning "soundstage" effects of depth and width in reference to a live amplified poprock concert before. I certainly would not be able to focus on it let alone perceive it's characteristics. And I'd probably have to be blind folded for that. Do the sound people even worry about such trivia?

Live sound reinforcement can get as granular as that and more, although few devote resources to trying to create "...the illusion of the voices and instruments coming from the people and instruments" because it's not easy and it's imprecise at best (and impossible for many bands in many venues). In most such concerts, the music is not coming from the instruments - it's coming from their amplifiers unless they're using DIs (direct inputs into the house mixing board). I haven't played a concert or festival in decades at which my amp wasn't mic'ed and run through the board, which is why I sold my big guns a long time ago. It's also why there are so many excellent, pro quality low power amps available now.

 

Stage amplification (the "back line") is usually placed both at the pleasure of the players and in practical locations. So keyboards, guitars, basses etc are "coming from" their amplifiers, wherever they may be. Drums are often isolated acoustically with large clear shields, so that there's little bleeding of the acousticl drum output into the venue. So it's probably a bit easier to control how the drum kit "sounds" spatially, assuming well placed speaker arrays with tightly controllable dispersion patterns (line, point etc). But there are so many phase and delay issues in larger venues that it's simply not practical to try to make the band sound seem to emanate solely from the stage, let alone to make each instrument sound like it's coming from its physical location.

 

Strings used for pop / rock have pickups now (or are actually synthesizers...boo hoo), but most horns are still mic'ed. They're often powerful enough acoustically to anchor their apparent location to their physical location even with reinforcement. But many blues, rock and pop horn players use shields in front of their bells, both to reflect enough of their own sound back at them so they can hear & modulate themselves (sometimes even with in-ear monitors) and to give the sound people some more flexibility. I played a blues festival in Monkton, MD about 10 years ago at which Delbert McClinton was the top bill. I was with Frankie Lee (second bill), and DM asked me to stay on stage for his set. All the horns had shields, but I'm not sure what difference it made - his band was so loud that I was on the verge of discomfort up there. There was no way anyone in the place could focus on the "soundstage" - and although this was the loudest stage and audience volume I'd ever experienced, it was otherwise typical of most concerts. The sound guys were primarily focused on making sure the audience could hear well with no feedback and minimal distortion - there's rarely any consideration of spatial relations because there's rarely anything to be done about the projected soundstage. This is not the case for small groups, small venues, and lower SPLs in jazz, chamber, classical etc. But fine acoustic instruments in a well designed hall project well, and sound reinforcement is literally just that if it's used at all. So we're only talking about pop, rock, blues etc here.

[bluesman]

I guess in a live concert or gig the soundstage cues come from your vision and take precedence over hearing.

The sound of many instruments is not precisely located anyway, especially in the non-classical world. For example, a proper Hammond organ sound comes through a Leslie rotating speaker cabinet (or two) and is so full of phase effect that it's essentially 3-dimensional. It spreads across the entire venue and defies localization - that's part of its allure. I play keyboards as well as guitar, and I've been provided some fabulous B-3 / Leslie setups over the years that made me feel like I was sitting on a plush bench pulsating and vibrating with and around the music. It's a fabulous feeling that's probably impossible to duplicate in the audience, although a well set up Leslie or two with good stereo mic'ing through a serious sound system does fill the place with a set of inspiring sensations.

 

Similarly, the bass player and drummer have to provide more than just a sound if they're to keep the groove going. Listen to the best blues and rock bands, and you'll notice that the bass line and the kick drum are tightly synch'ed. When the band sounds really together, it's almost always because the rhythm section is aligned and all are laying down the same rhythmic patterns. And when that happens, you feel it as much as you hear it (or more). The best big pop orchestras are similarly tight, so you're feeling it as much as you're hearing it and spacial location is largely irrelevant.

 

I went to a Neil Diamond concert once because my brother-in-law and sister-in-law love him and took us despite my absolute lack of enthusiasm for his music. I have to admit that the performance was stellar. We were up in one of the luxury boxes, so it was hard to see detail - but it looked like he had a keyboard for a string section, another for a horn section, a third for the keyboard sounds, plus guitars, bass and drums. These guys were absolutely stellar! They did over 2 hours and never audibly missed a beat or a cue. They made stuff swing that usually puts me to sleep. And this was through a stadium sound system designed for sporting events, so a "realistic sound stage" was simply not in the cards.

 

Ya' gotta get in the groove and let it take you where it goes - live concerts are for having fun, not criticizing the sound system.

 

[bluesman]

at the local level the sound people are just happy everything works.

So's the band !!! It's a true nightmare when the only thing you can hear on stage is feedback and the audience gets only drums on top of it. Throw in a loud hum from a poorly chosen or set up DI box and you want to strangle yourself with a guitar string.

 

I've played some local clubs where the sound was absolutely stellar, though. For example, Black Eyed Sally's in Hartford had a fabulous sound system and an even better sound guy when I've played there - it was truly a treat. I haven't been back since the last time I played there for Larry Garner some years ago, but it's still open and has a steady calendar of fine live music. I assume and hope that the food, sound and people have stayed as great as they were (the lobster quesadillas were absolutely fantastic!).

[bluesman]

Blues, where u at man?

I'm just outside of Philadelphia - but where I play is determined by who hires me and where the gig is located. I'm just a multi-instrumental sideman, which is basically a musical "utility infielder". I've gotten many calls with 24 hours notice (or less) and had no idea what kind of music it was or for whom I was playing until I got there. Most of the gigs that I get far in advance are weddings and Bar Mitzvahs, but even most corporate holiday parties are subject to budgetary constraints that prevent long term planning in the post-9/11 world.

 

Believe it or not, I've actually been called within 10 minutes of start time on many occasions. If someone didn't shown up, the club owners and other sidemen knew to call me for whatever they needed (guitar, keys, bass - and I've been using a Roland guitar synthesizer for about 20 years, so I've been an entire horn section on many occasions). I've even gotten a few calls from the stage because a player couldn't cut it with the national act for whom he or she was hired and the star threw a fit.

 

The stars can schedule gigs a year out - I'm not in that league, but thanks so much for the thought! Let's make a concerted effort to get more CAers to appreciate the blues. I rarely see any mention, yet there are so many styles that almost anyone can find something to love. And there are many many well recorded albums that will test your system to the max. Acoustic recordings of slide guitar (e.g. Kelly Joe Phelps, whose voice is also an acoustic marvel) will bring out the best and worst of those under-$2500 speakers for sure, as will large & loud ensembles like Roomful of Blues and the Memphis Horns. So thanks for keeping the blues alive!

[bluesman]

Maggie 1.7

Proac Tablette

Maggies - maybe. Tablettes - you bet your life!

[bluesman]

ProAc, Celestion, all of the BBC endeavors (LS3/5A), PMC, etc.

Nobody loves to see LS3/5A praise more than I do - I still own and love the original pair I bought 40 years ago. But I have to be honest and admit that design and materials science have kinda caught up with the BBC. If I had to replace them on a budget of $2500, I'd almost certainly go for the ProAc SM100s (Maggies are also an old flame). Today's LS clones are at the same price point as the ProAcs and several other excellent speakers, but they simply don't have the flexibility and versatility of their modern competitors.

 

In 40 years, I've driven my Rogers with a wide range of electronics - HK Citation 2, Marantz 8b, Crown D150, Hafler 500, Yamaha B2, Alesis 100, multiple S70 clones, Mac 40s and 275, Wadia 151, PrimaLuna, etc. They've done well or better with all, but they have a limited dynamic range that leaves just a little of the bloom off the rose. I've heard the dreaded voice coil knock a few times over the years, especially with the Hafler (I know enough to stand by the volume knob when pushing the limits and crank it back at the first clunk). The character of reproduction is pure reality, and the sound quality is excellent. But when comparing my own recordings of my own Yamaha grand or my good acoustic guitars (made on my high speed Crown SX724 with good mikes) to the piano or guitar in the same room, the Rogers just sound a little bit "smaller" at the same measured SPL.

[bluesman]

What do you mean by "flexibility and versatility"?

 

In my opinion, tiny standmounts such as the LS3/5a have serious limitations both in low frequency extension and dynamics.

The LS5/9 and LS3/6 are more adequate for music reproduction, and modern versions by Graham Audio, Harbeth and Stirling use better drivers than the original versions.

 

I don't agree that similar ProAcs perform better than any of the aforementioned brands/models.

 

R

You don't have to agree with me - there's room for multiple opinions here. We're all friends.

 

I don't think I used the word "perform" at all, but it's a good one here. A performance is an interpretation of an artist's work (I consider composers, choreographers, playwrights etc to be artists and their works art). Audio systems do interpret program material unless they're entirely without influence on it and present it exactly as played (which, I hope you'll agree, remains a fantasy at present).

 

Here's one example: ProAcs and others mentioned do pianissimo as well as LS3/5As and they do fortissimo better. In fact, LSs don't do fortissimo at all - the woofer voice coil bottoms. It's mechanical compression at a basic level and no different from a governor or rev limiter on a car.

 

Flexibility, to me, means consistent SQ regardless of environment, placement, poitioning, source, associated equipment, etc. LSs are rather sensitive to all. If you like DSP (which I do not), the Xover EQ makes it harder to dial in your preferences because you also have to dial out the internal "adjustments" . Etc etc etc.

 

Again: I LOVE my Rogers. But, like my wife & kids (all of whom I love even more), they're a wee bit demanding.