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

[semente]

I'm not a fan of horn speakers but in my personal ranking many of them are among the best looking loudspeakers. These ones look impressive too!

 

BTW I've heard about a Japanese audiophile whose listening room ceiling was horn shaped and served as a subwoofer for a SET system. Would like to hear it if the story was true!

This solution looks interesting:

 

 

[semente]

And this one from the designer of the Total DAC:

 

http://vincent.brient.free.fr/bass_horn.htm

[Ralf11]

I wonder if the Brits saved those gigantic listening horns they built for WWII?

[sphinxsix]

@semente

 

Sorry for derailling the thread for a moment but somehow I find audio extremes attractive..

 

 

 

[Ralf11]

I wonder if the Brits saved those gigantic listening horns they built for WWI?

 

aha...

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=gigantic+listening+horns+they+built+for+WWII&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ9Jydrc_QAhUCzmMKHXrQAHgQ_AUICSgC&biw=1438&bih=768

[Cornan]

@semente

 

Sorry for derailling the thread for a moment but somehow I find audio extremes attractive..

 

 

 

I wonder if the low end of those speakers goes "bonk bonk bonk"? ?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Computer Audiophile mobile app

[Carzee45]

Martin Logan CLX metal framed.Astonishingly transparent.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Computer Audiophile

[sphinxsix]

On 11/30/2016 at 7:27 AM, Carzee45 said:

Martin Logan CLX metal framed.Astonishingly transparent.

 

 

Haven't heard the CLX Art but similarly priced ($25k) ML Renaissance ESL 15A (dynamic bass drivers) were IMO the best sounding speakers in a small local audio show in the Netherlands I attended recently (but not the best ones I've ever heard ).

BTW as for more budget friendly speakers, Monitor Audio transducers showed lots of class in two rooms (connected to Yamaha and Roksan/Transrotor gear). 

[Allan F]

On 10/7/2016 at 1:27 PM, esldude said:

I knew someone with a very rigidly constructed square room. Not just length and width, but height as well. Nothing sounded better than maybe nearly okay in it.

 

It's called a cube.

[Ralf11]

The  best sounding speaker I ever heard was Allen Ginsburg.

 

John McPhee was not good at all; luckily his wife did most of the reading.  At the "after-party" he spoke very little but kept watching everyone with very bright eyes.  I figured everything we we saying would be material for another book.

[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.

[Rexp]

1 hour ago, gmgraves said:

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.

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

[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.

[sphinxsix]

9 hours ago, gmgraves said:

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.

OTOH heavy metal isn't their favorite genre.. 

[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.

[semente]

 

Requirements: loud, loud, noisy, loud, distorted... loud?

[Ralf11]

Martin Logan is more accurate than SoundLab??

[StephenJK]

I haven’t had many speakers since 1979. 
 

1979 to 1984 - Koss CM 1020 

1984 to 2014 - Fostex GZ2000 electrostatic hybrid

2014 to 2016 - Klipsch Klipschorns from 1976 that I fully rebuilt/restored

2017 to 2018 - Kharma CRM 3.2 FE

2018 to now - KEF Blades

 

without a doubt the Blades are the best of the bunch, but if not for downsizing homes I would still be running with the Klipschorns.
 

I never had the opportunity to do a comparison, but suspect the Blades would have been superior in overall spacing, depth and just a better balanced and superior sound with great retrieval of the most subtle details. 

[Racerxnet]

All in order of ownership:

 

Kappa 9's

RS1B's with Graz EMIM's

Genesis 2 early series

 

[fas42]

4 hours ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

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 ...

[fas42]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

Requirements: loud, loud, noisy, loud, distorted... loud?

 

Interesting what happens here - it starts with something like live dynamics, but then someone apparently switches something, and it collapses into PA sludge - I tend not to like the "tiny sound" of the latter, 🤪.

[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.

[fas42]

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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?

 

OK, what I particularly look for is that "slam" - like your buddy, 😉. But I'm not interested in headphones, because of all the reasons that people who don't like headphones always mention. Speakers can deliver the "real thing" in this area; but with the typical quality of the components that one can buy, one is moving out on a tightrope, here - the more "slam", the more obnoxious, added distortion is introduced - it's a delicate balance, because the engineering of the system parts has not not been done well enough, to ensure that the exercise is straightforward ...which is where I come in, 🙂. If starting from scratch, I would buy equipment with plenty of raw slam - that side has already been taken taken care of - and then do what's necessary to improve the integrity of the working system.

 

Why is slam so important? Because it's part of all music, especially classical music, 😝. If it's not there, then, yes, the "audio system sounds (not) even close to the sound of real music". Which is why one works hard on making it happen.

 

 

4 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

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.

 

What it will sound like are the individual tracks. This is the 'magic' that happens when a rig is working well ... it will no longer sound like a clogged mess - which is perhaps what the producer was after; but his efforts were in vain ... ☺️. You hear each of the feeds to the mixing desk, nicely separated. - even on, yes, hard rock.

 

Just yesterday I came across a review of a ML speaker that nicely expressed the concept, talking of a Yello track,

 

Quote

In "Electrified II," the subterranean pulsing bass is accompanied by an array of electronic effects scattered around the soundstage, which the Renaissance pushed out to my large room's walls and beyond. Then Dieter Meier's crazily unhinged, deep-throated baritone entered to rattle the room. There's no tougher test of a speaker's ability to untangle a complex bottom end than a track like this, and the ESL 15As presented a wonderfully clear picture of each and every part of it. It's as if you could solo any track in the mix you wanted to hear by sheer listening will.

 

Precisely.

[Rt66indierock]

Best I've heard Ocean Way Audio HR2.

 

Best I might buy Ocean Way Audio Pro2A Monitor.