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

[AudioTragic]

Revel Performa3 M106 stand mount speakers. Amazing sound, imaging and female vocals rendering for the price. MRP $2000

[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.

[ctsooner]

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.

 

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.

[ctsooner]

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.

 

 

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.

[semente]

Several people have recommended the Vandersteen 2Ce IIs but judging from Sphile's measurements these speakers are probably quite bright and forward sounding.

 

 

I wouldn't bother with a listen and perhaps try the 3s instead.

 

R

[ctsooner]

Are you serious? This is the problem with many of you who only use measurements to 'listen' to audio. They are anything but that in the real world. Go listen for once and then you could come to the boards with real thoughts on how they SOUND and not measure. The audio community has had plenty of components over time that may not measure perfectly, but are musical and sound great. These speakers don't smear or distort the way so many others do in their price range. There is a reason these have been considered a best buy in their price ranges since the 80's in all their forms and updates. Since Vandersteen isn't a strong marketer, there is probably a reason so many reviewers and manufacturer's in the industry who own and love Vandersteen's for their own personal use.

 

Not saying that measurements aren't important, but they don't always tell the full story. Just saying.

 

Several people have recommended the Vandersteen 2Ce IIs but judging from Sphile's measurements these speakers are probably quite bright and forward sounding.

 

 

I wouldn't bother with a listen and perhaps try the 3s instead.

 

R

[beetlemania]

Several people have recommended the Vandersteen 2Ce IIs but judging from Sphile's measurements these speakers are probably quite bright and forward sounding.

 

 

I wouldn't bother with a listen and perhaps try the 3s instead.

 

R

 

That figure is JA's in-room response and I suspect it is an artifact of interactions in his room and how he measures over a "listening window" rather than where his ears are. This puts 1st order speakers at a disadvantage in this test. Also, this graph is quite different than his quasi-anechoic measurement!

 

May I kindly suggest it is well worth bothering with a listen rather than rely on JA's dubious in-room measurement? Many folks have suggested Maggies on this thread. Can you imagine how *those* would look using JA's measurements!

[ctsooner]

Beetle, thanks for being so much nicer than I am in your response, lol...

 

That figure is JA's in-room response and I suspect it is an artifact of interactions in his room and how he measures over a "listening window" rather than where his ears are. This puts 1st order speakers at a disadvantage in this test. Also, this graph is quite different than his quasi-anechoic measurement!

 

May I kindly suggest it is well worth bothering with a listen rather than rely on JA's dubious in-room measurement? Many folks have suggested Maggies on this thread. Can you imagine how *those* would look using JA's measurements!

[semente]

Are you serious? This is the problem with many of you who only use measurements to 'listen' to audio. They are anything but that in the real world. Go listen for once and then you could come to the boards with real thoughts on how they SOUND and not measure. The audio community has had plenty of components over time that may not measure perfectly, but are musical and sound great. These speakers don't smear or distort the way so many others do in their price range. There is a reason these have been considered a best buy in their price ranges since the 80's in all their forms and updates. Since Vandersteen isn't a strong marketer, there is probably a reason so many reviewers and manufacturer's in the industry who own and love Vandersteen's for their own personal use.

 

Not saying that measurements aren't important, but they don't always tell the full story. Just saying.

 

I am not saying that they will not "sound great" for many people (surely not me) but I have learnt from experience how to correlate some measurements with the actual sound, by measuring the speakers I have own, some DIY experiments I did and looking at measurements of speakers I have listened to.The frequency response plot, even a weird one consisting of averaging several very wide averagely spaced measurements such as this one, tells us about the tonal balance of the speakers, the accuracy with which it reproduces "colours".

 

In this case the upper midrange and lower treble are shelved some 5dB above the remaining spectrum denoting poor midrange driver integration.

 

R

[esldude]

That figure is JA's in-room response and I suspect it is an artifact of interactions in his room and how he measures over a "listening window" rather than where his ears are. This puts 1st order speakers at a disadvantage in this test. Also, this graph is quite different than his quasi-anechoic measurement!

 

May I kindly suggest it is well worth bothering with a listen rather than rely on JA's dubious in-room measurement? Many folks have suggested Maggies on this thread. Can you imagine how *those* would look using JA's measurements!

 

Well the spectral decay plot looks similar in overall trend.

 

 

The Maggie 1.6 speakers look like this:

 

 

The spectral decay like so. Plenty of hashy upper midrange there. Almost as bad as something like the electrostatic panels I listen to.

 

 

Though more expensive the Revel Ultima Studio 2 shows a better result.

 

 

The decay is pretty clean looking as well.

 

[semente]

That figure is JA's in-room response and I suspect it is an artifact of interactions in his room and how he measures over a "listening window" rather than where his ears are. This puts 1st order speakers at a disadvantage in this test. Also, this graph is quite different than his quasi-anechoic measurement!

 

May I kindly suggest it is well worth bothering with a listen rather than rely on JA's dubious in-room measurement? Many folks have suggested Maggies on this thread. Can you imagine how *those* would look using JA's measurements!

 

Planar speakers, especially large ones, are difficult do measure.

But let's not change the subject; we are not talking about Maggies.

 

But since you are dismissing the significance of JA's in-room measurement here's another plot, this time a gated near field measurement which is quasi anechoic above 350Hz:

 

 

R

[semente]

Well the spectral decay plot looks similar in overall trend.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31181[/ATTACH]

 

The Maggie 1.6 speakers look like this:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31182[/ATTACH]

 

The spectral decay like so. Plenty of hashy upper midrange there. Almost as bad as something like the electrostatic panels I listen to.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31183[/ATTACH]

 

I think read somewhere that the hash in panel speaker measurements results from the near field mic picking up reflections from the panels...

 

For such speakers I would rather look at a listening spot measurement.

 

 

 

As for Stereophile measurements in general, one should note that the frequency response is not made on-axis but consists of averaging several very wide spaced measurements and produces an artefact in the bass, namely a ~6dB bump at ~100Hz.

 

I believe that the waterfall plot shows the on-axis response.

 

 

This is why I prefer Soundstage's measurements which are made in Canada's NRC anechoic chamber.

 

R

[esldude]

I think read somewhere that the hash in panel speaker measurements results from the near field mic picking up reflections from the panels...

 

For such speakers I would rather look at a listening spot measurement.

 

 

 

As for Stereophile measurements in general, one should note that the frequency response is not made on-axis but consists of averaging several very wide spaced measurements and produces an artefact in the bass, namely a ~6dB bump at ~100Hz.

 

I believe that the waterfall plot shows the on-axis response.

 

 

This is why I prefer Soundstage's measurements which are made in Canada's NRC anechoic chamber.

 

R

 

Yes, both Stereophile and Soundstage.net offers useful measurements.

 

Unfortunately Soundstage hasn't done either Vandersteen or Magnepans.

 

Here is a listening window (averaged over 15 degrees) for the Revel Ultima Studio speakers. They don't look dissimilar to what JA obtained especially the back of his spectral decay plot.

 

 

The Revel F12 at much lower price I have in my video setup don't look too bad either.

 

[esldude]

SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com - SoundStageNetwork.com | SoundStage.com

 

Here is an index to all the speakers soundstage.net has reviewed and measured which links directly to the NRC measurements. Might be useful if they have measured speakers you are considering.

[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...............

[beetlemania]

Planar speakers, especially large ones, are difficult do measure.

But let's not change the subject; we are not talking about Maggies.

 

But since you are dismissing the significance of JA's in-room measurement here's another plot, this time a gated near field measurement which is quasi anechoic above 350Hz:

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31184[/ATTACH]

 

R

 

The Maggies are relevant because they illustrate that measurements are not the be-all, end-all that replace the experience of actually listening.

 

I'm not dismissing JA's in-room measurement so much as suggesting to take it with a grain of salt. The sum of JA's quasi-anechoic measurements for the 2 Ce Sig II looks respectable to me although, curiously, not as good as Vandy 2 measurements from an earlier iteration also measured by JA. I have read that RV has taken issue with the height that JA measures his designs. Also, RV told me (at RMAF) that he has upgraded the Sig IIs since that SP review.

 

Meanwhile, I've noticed that many high-dollar speakers with near ideal anechoic measurements very often show suck-outs in the upper bass and/or lower midrange in JA's room.

 

* I have a dog in this fight - I'm listening to my Sig IIs right now! I've heard many $$$ speakers over the years. My faves are the Vivid Giya, TAD Ref 1, Vandy 7, and Avalon Ascent. The Sig IIs are, clearly, not as good as those. They are not the last word in frequency extension or resolution but they are always superbly musical and give most of what those $$$ speakers do for a fraction of the price. YMMV.

[Kelly]

I have listened to various Vandersteen models intermittently over the course of 30 years. I still own a set of 2C's. I have heard of Vandersteens being criticized for a lot of things, and most frequently for being a little dull, soft sounding or hazy. Indeed a lot of times they don't jump out and grab you the way some speakers might, (I would argue this as part of their drivers being aligned.) But I have never, ever heard anyone criticize them for being bright. The most recent model 2 variants I have heard were 4 years ago and they did not sound bright at all. They sounded very natural. I don't use Vandersteens as my primary speakers right now, but they are always great sounding, no matter how expensive or inexpensive in the lineup you are.

[Rt66indierock]

You two have some interesting opinions. But you are wrong. 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. To quote Danielle Seydor in Paul’s review of Martin Logan’s Montis Reserve Series “hi-fi,” as in edgy, bright, toppy, glaring, irritating, and relentlessly, fatiguingly over-detailed.

 

To summarize there is a good reason why people don’t play my reference albums at audio shows they expose their flaws.

[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

[rodrigaj]

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.....

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.

It seems that this USA election cycle has triggered incivility in the masses.

 

Back to topic:

Having owned Advents, Fried, Celestion, Spendor, ProAcs and now PMC's over the years, I have found the quality of "contrapuntal integrity" to have advanced enormously over the years. I only listen to classical music and the ability to clearly differentiate the musical lines makes listening more enjoyable and educational.

[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.

[Jud]

I am not saying that they will not "sound great" for many people (surely not me) but I have learnt from experience how to correlate some measurements with the actual sound, by measuring the speakers I have own, some DIY experiments I did and looking at measurements of speakers I have listened to.The frequency response plot, even a weird one consisting of averaging several very wide averagely spaced measurements such as this one, tells us about the tonal balance of the speakers, the accuracy with which it reproduces "colours".

 

In this case the upper midrange and lower treble are shelved some 5dB above the remaining spectrum denoting poor midrange driver integration.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]31180[/ATTACH]

R

 

 

Hi Ricardo -

 

Two speculations from me of possible interest regarding the Vandersteen measurements:

 

- The extremely comprehensive setup guides in the Vandersteen speaker manuals (well worth reading for setting up *most* speakers, not just Vandys) strongly suggest using very little if any toe-in. I don't know whether JA's measurements were done on-axis, or if off-axis by how much; that's a possible explanation for a difference between measurement and listening experience.

 

- Regarding integration of the midrange, Vandersteen's avowed goal was to maintain correct phase and time response, so first-order crossovers are used. (See, e.g., SoundStage! Interviews Richard Vandersteen of Vandersteen Audio Part One (08/1998).) Use of a first-order crossover in order to serve Vandersteen's design priorities (which I feel as an owner pay off handsomely in terms of imaging and localization of instruments and vocals) may be in part responsible for that aspect of the response measurement.

[Qhwoeprktiyns]

I listened to a harbeth p3esr today and was impressed.

[PeterG]

Bowers & Wilkins CM-1 with REL T5 sub--about $2300 with the stands