Best speaker ever?

You should check out Chris Harris on Youtube, his videos are numerous and review/commentary is golden. It is purely subjective reviews. His style is that of a Top Gear in a one man show.

I like Chris Harris and his videos. However, they're not traditional reviews. He doesn't make the same sort of sweeping conclusions Zeos does. He also doesn't smack of a relatively clueless n00b when he talks. He's been a race car driver. His subjective opinion carries more weight as a result. Further, he generally takes cars out on a racetrack and actually tests them in the target environment. He doesn't make a run or two to get groceries or beer in them and then tell the viewer which one is the best handling sports car (ever).
 
I have no opinion of them or their work as I have no idea who they are.
They're the scientists whose research set the goals for the JBL Studio speakers, among others.

If you don't mind pointing it out to me, from a quick googling I came across a blog, and a post about blind testing, but I'm not sure what that has to do with what you quoted.
This video makes a good intro. Note that it's 75 minutes. You should be able to find similar info by Googling “Sound Reproduction - Science in the Service of Art” PDFs.

Going back a few years, here's a brief Olive post that covers the fundamentals.

Toole has articles at Audioholics.com, and you might find them a solid follow-up here.
 
Pretty much.. I actually stumbled along his videos when I was researching monitors/speakers for my desk, thought I found a gold mine of reviews. Unfortunately he does no real measurements other than volume levels, everything else is completely subjective. Now that's not really inherently BAD, but you find very quickly watching his videos that whatever item his video covers, is now the next best thing, like he's either convincing himself of his purchase or trying to sell you something (not that that's the case, it's just the vibe I get).

He has no reason to justify his purchases because most of his reviews are equipment that is on loan to him, he even said during the SVS Ultra review that he has to send them back and will regret doing so.
 
Welcome to [H]ardform... Where everyone with a keyboard and an Internet connection is an expert. :rolleyes:

By what exact justification can you discount research you haven't read, from people you aren't familiar with?

I don't know who this Einstein guy is, or what he thinks about general relativity, but let me tell you why he's wrong about general relativity... :censored:

Unfortunately, that was badly worded. What you quoted was me specifically asking which of their research was relevant. Nothing was discounted, but I can't confirm it for myself without being able to view what he's actually referring to, which is why I said I have no opinion of their work. Not sure I deserve the snarky response after stating multiple times that what I was claiming was nothing more than opinion, but as you said, this is the [H] ;). This is why I prefer lurking, everyone has to pick apart your comments, regardless of actual meaning or intention.

They're the scientists whose research set the goals for the JBL Studio speakers, among others.


This video makes a good intro. Note that it's 75 minutes. You should be able to find similar info by Googling “Sound Reproduction - Science in the Service of Art” PDFs.

Going back a few years, here's a brief Olive post that covers the fundamentals.

Toole has articles at Audioholics.com, and you might find them a solid follow-up here.

I'll check out the PDF soon, the video will have to wait for this evening, I don't have 75 minutes to spare at the moment hahaha. Thanks for the links.

EDIT: Started watching the first 5 minutes or so of the video and was thoroughly hooked, responsibilities will have to wait.. I will say that when he bumps the mic at around the 23:40 mark in the video, it scared the shit outta me. Had volume cranked to hear him, and "thump thump" O.O
 
Last edited:
He has no reason to justify his purchases because most of his reviews are equipment that is on loan to him, he even said during the SVS Ultra review that he has to send them back and will regret doing so.
And if he doesn't give favorable reviews they'll keep sending gear right?
 
They're the scientists whose research set the goals for the JBL Studio speakers, among others.


This video makes a good intro. Note that it's 75 minutes. You should be able to find similar info by Googling “Sound Reproduction - Science in the Service of Art” PDFs.

Going back a few years, here's a brief Olive post that covers the fundamentals.

Toole has articles at Audioholics.com, and you might find them a solid follow-up here.

SO! Absolutely wonderful presentation, I could listen to Toole go on all day. He reminds me of David Brailsford in the way he speaks. I had a few "what ifs" going in, but he touched on so much, and has so much data, that it would be foolish to argue with his logic. For example: around 53:40 when he delves into the test pool, I was sure that there had to be some variation in peoples opinions on the speakers tested, and yet ALL 268 people agreed on the relative ratings of the products tested. I'm pretty floored. The white paper touches on reasons for variations and outliers, mostly related to hearing loss, and goes into more detail about what you were referring to over the video (specifically page 8 and 9), but it'd be beating a dead horse at this point.

I'm willing to eat my words and admit when I'm incorrect, it's the only way to expand your knowledge base. Thanks again for the links.
 
Have you actually heard them? I haven't so I won't make any pronouncements about them.

The best speakers I've ever heard are the TAD Reference One. Jawdropping and amazing... They've ruined audio reproduction for me now that I know what's possible. I don't have crazy stacks of cash to plunk down for a pair though. They were $60k when I heard them years many years ago. I think they're about $80k now.
The TAD:s are good. Even the entry models. Although you have to watch out, they use acoustic panels in their demos which obviously changes the sound of a boxed speaker like night and day.

But still I was very impressed with their demo.

Funny, that Floyd Toole presentation is speaking about the same exact things I've been writing here. Controlled directivity, room interaction etc.
 
Last edited:
The TAD:s are good. Even the entry models. Although you have to watch out, they use acoustic panels in their demos which obviously changes the sound of a boxed speaker like night and day.

But still I was very impressed with their demo.

Funny, that Floyd Toole presentation is speaking about the same exact things I've been writing here. Controlled directivity, room interaction etc.

Though you might note that his presentation comes to some different conclusions you do. In particular he was not a fan of some ESLs (it was a Martin-Logan he was looking at) and he believes the key with directivity is having it narrow as frequency goes up in a controlled fashion.
 
I like Zeos for budget audio reviews.

I've left the audio hobby, but I wish I could have listened to a good set of Electrostats... Ideally I'd want to compare Flat to curved to Quad's latest designs...

I really wonder what type of speaker I'd end up deciding is best. I know I'm a fan of high-SPL and effortless dynamics, so that limits my options:

1. Electrostat + midbass + distributed subbass? - Or would that be SPL-limited and not produce the polar response pattern that I prefer? I'm aware that Roger Sanders went back to narrow-dispersion flat ESL panels...and that they apparently image the best... but the inconvenience! Good lord...

2. Compression Driver (probably Gedde's oblate-spheroid waveguide) + midrange/bass (sized similar to waveguide, like Geddes) + distributed subbass? - Gedlee designs optimize for directivity first... they provide ridiculous dynamics due to high-SPL capability. But only above 110db/1m might they be considered the lowest distortion option (unless the new drivers suggested by Gedlee are a big improvement. But that doesn't get rid of the huge waveguide... a bit scared of "horn honk" - even if Geddes mathematically described that as "higher order modes" and alleviated it with a foam plug).

3a. (Beryllium / Diamond / other rigid) high-SPL-capable traditional tweeter on a waveguide + midrange + midbass + distributed subbass? - or would so many sound sources ruin the illusion?
3b. Concentric tweeter / midrange + midbass + distributed subbass - Would this sound more cohesive? Does this necessarily compromise the midrange and/or tweeter? Probably... the dome tweeter and smaller midranges already tend to strain in trying to reproduce high-SPL dynamics (waveguide helps the tweeter). But Genelec does this on high-SPL monitors...and some of the speakers linked above do the same.

For an end-game system, the dome tweeter and small midrange are often unable to reproduce the huge SPL-spikes...the dynamics are lost (or distorted, rather). I'm not sure how ESL systems do here...just that the Quad ESL's don't get particularly loud (distortion tests at 98db/1m, maybe 100db/1m... and I think some power cutoff is reached shortly after that).

Some notes:

- A waveguide is pretty much mandatory to give a regular dome tweeter a chance at high SPL (and lower the x-over point). Controlled-directivity is of course the primary objective.
- Accuton tweeters (some of them) and midranges have been regarded to have high-SPL capability. I'd need to check my charts... I think if I found the right tweeter and waveguide combo, that'd be the ticket to the ultimate speaker.

- EDIT: I haven't found any good 3rd-party evidence that any accuton tweeter would outperform some of the stalwart tweeters from scanspeak, seas, SB Acoustics / Satori. I've found evidence to the contrary. Supposedly some of the true beryllium (with actual high content of Be) and diamond tweeters are potentially excellent, but... I suppose I'd have to see some very convincing test results.

Accuton's best products seem to be their midranges, I believe the C173-6-90 midrange (speaker magnet says c173n-T6-90, sometimes called T6) can uniquely play to 105db/1m cleanly and over a wide bandwidth. The smaller C90-6-079 exhibits some of the same characteristics, and is probably cleaner ~350hz - 3Khz, rivaling the Seas excel w22 magnesium below.​


- I think the Yamaha beryllium ns-2000 and ns-1000 had some of the lowest distortion ever measured - in ESL territory... not sure about SPL-capability though.
- The legendary ATC dome midrange can get super loud (I think it was above 115db/1m) and remain clean (above 700Hz). Probably the lowest-distortion high-SPL midrange ever measured from 500hz- 2.5khz+.
- The Seas Excel w22 Magnesium cone seems to be about the lowest distortion mid from 200hz - 1Khz (though the inexpensive Zaph ZA14 is competitive and will extend beyond 2Khz - perfect for a high-value-performance 3-way)
- The Raal 140-15d ribbon measured cleanly (relatively... 2% distortion at this SPL is still good) out to 113db/1m and maybe higher... I saw some exceptionally clean measurements at lower SPLs, rivaling the Mundorf AMTs below:
- The Mundorf AMTs seem to be exceptionally clean (below 0.5% THD) all the way up to 102.5 db/1m per AMT (AMT25), tested by a DIY'er. I think Mundorf believes they'll be good to 105db+. Larger than that size and... would have to go line-array probably due to vertical dispersion issues.
- The larger Aurum Cantus AMT seems to be pretty good at a lower price point.

Then there's the actual design and integration process. Measure and re-measure over and over...bah

Oh well... whatever... I probably don't care enough to figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Though you might note that his presentation comes to some different conclusions you do. In particular he was not a fan of some ESLs (it was a Martin-Logan he was looking at) and he believes the key with directivity is having it narrow as frequency goes up in a controlled fashion.
Yes his opinions on ESL:s do not concur to mine but that's understandable. His background is from mass production general purpose hifi so he probably didn't spend much time researching ESL:s. Also Martin Logans are by far not the perfect product either. They make too many compromises with their hybrids and curved panels.

A really good ESL features segmented panels which cause the radiating area to increase towards lower frequencies, creating a steady DI. Also if an ESL is built literally floor to the ceiling high, it becomes an infinitely narrow point source with completely linear amplitude band. Understandably you can't buy this sort of ESL:s ready anywhere since you need to custom build them for the room. The thing with ESL:s is that most of what he was talking about (reflections) do not apply to ESL:s when only one person listens to it. The directivity is so huge on a large ESL that it behaves with completely different laws compared to a regular speaker. The nonlinearity becomes totally a non-issue when all the bad room effects of a regular speaker are missing. But again, for someone looking for mass sales, a one person speaker is a bad design.

In this recording:

he talks about 'envelopment' being the key to believable audio - and that's exactly what a good ESL can do for one person at a time.
 
Last edited:
"a one person speaker is a bad design" - yep... I'm told they're like headphones

B00nie: Do you have a custom (DIY, I assume?) floor-to-ceiling ESL setup? How low can you cross them, and what are you using as a midbass/range (including type of enclosure / physical arrangement) ? Any SPL-limitations?
 
"a one person speaker is a bad design" - yep... I'm told they're like headphones

B00nie: Do you have a custom (DIY, I assume?) floor-to-ceiling ESL setup? How low can you cross them, and what are you using as a midbass/range (including type of enclosure / physical arrangement) ? Any SPL-limitations?

No, ESL:s are not like headphones. They have the accuracy of a headphone but not the imaging problems. A large ESL makes an extremely holographic sound that makes you feel you are sitting inside the concert hall, pub or where ever the recording was made at. A smaller panel such as used in most Martin Logans is very nonlinear. But once you extend the panel from floor to ceiling, the acoustic length of the piston becomes "infinite" and the top and the bottom cancel eachothers out, providing a very flat response. One of my friends pictured it this way: With an ESL you 'see the black' or 'hear the silence between notes' partly because the membrane responds near instantly and partly because the level of room reflections is dramatically lower so there's practically no echoing.

A large ESL can easily play down to 30-40hz so only the panel with no crossover (except an active notch and high pass filter) is even needed. The very lowest bass is usually handled by a transmission line or a horn bass. Some use large dipole basses too if they're space limited. Properly made ESL:s can play at ear shattering volumes.

In fact, everyone that has seen my ESL:s were all completely amazed how much and good bass the panels are giving out. The panels themselves are often all you need unless you really want that night club style thump in your chest. Because of the high directivity the bass is also very clean, panels don't excite room resonances as bad as regular speakers.

I'm currently in the process of building a dedicated listening room with custom built floor to ceiling ESL:s and multiple subwoofers. I have ESL front channels, effect channels and rear channels.

I have professional measuring equipment and resources available since I'm also professionally designing loudspeakers as my second job.
 
Last edited:
he believes the key with directivity is having it narrow as frequency goes up in a controlled fashion.
That's not what I got from his CIRMMT talk. Here's the relevant section.

B00nie, are your preferred ESLs dipoles or do you absorb the rear wave somehow? If the first, do cone/dome dipoles offer the same advantages in soundstaging, exciting room modes, etc.? If the second, do CD speakers (such as Geddes or Synergy horns) offer the same advantages?

Also, how do good ESLs avoid the membrane resonances Toole noted?
I'm currently in the process of building a dedicated listening room with custom built floor to ceiling ESL:s and multiple subwoofers. I have ESL front channels, effect channels and rear channels.

I have professional measuring equipment and resources available since I'm also professionally designing loudspeakers as my second job.
Wow! Have you posted your design/build process anywhere? I'd really enjoy seeing more detail.
 
That's not what I got from his CIRMMT talk. Here's the relevant section.


B00nie, are your preferred ESLs dipoles or do you absorb the rear wave somehow? If the first, do cone/dome dipoles offer the same advantages in soundstaging, exciting room modes, etc.? If the second, do CD speakers (such as Geddes or Synergy horns) offer the same advantages?

Also, how do good ESLs avoid the membrane resonances Toole noted?

Wow! Have you posted your design/build process anywhere? I'd really enjoy seeing more detail.

I posted a picture of a hybrid ESL some time ago but I'm starting from scratch. If I'd post it now you'd only see demolished walls and bare concrete floor :D
 
I posted a picture of a hybrid ESL some time ago but I'm starting from scratch. If I'd post it now you'd only see demolished walls and bare concrete floor :D
Understood. First, good luck with the project. Second, take photos & get everything posted someplace like diyaudio.
 
This Toole guy is quite old, I doubt his hearing is very good. Especially after blasting his ears with stereos and live concerts for so many years.
 
It looks too small to be the best speaker ever. I'm not exactly an expect, but don't bigger speakers deliver better sound?

I don't know what the best speakers in the world are, but I do know that the best speakers I've ever heard demonstrated are these:

Magnepan

I couldn't afford them, of course. The same wealthy relative that got me my Surface Book was looking at them for his home theater, and I was in the store with him. Ended up not wanting to pay $14,000 on speakers and went with something cheaper that had better bass. Still, it sounded more like real life than any other speakers I'd ever heard before.
 
I won't get into the 'best speaker ever' nonsense..., as everyone has different tastes and 'best ever' is way out of my price range....

The best speaker I have heard that fits on my desktop is my Snell CR7 (sadly they are discontinued as Snell closed when Joseph D'Appolito retired). The Snell CR7 is a LCR design with a 1" soft dome tweeter between two 4" woofers (classic sealed box D'Appolito array design). They do need a subwoofer to fill in the bottom as the -3db point is 80Hz (-6db is 60Hz). One also needs to remove the grills for the best sound.

I also have the KEF LS50 (which is a bit big for my current desk). But the only advantage the KEF LS50 has over the Snell CR7 is more bass. But I prefer the LS50 with plugged ports and with a decent subwoofer, but the Snell CR7 with a decent subwoofer is better.

Personally I think the KEF LS50 has only three advantages over many lessor priced speakers (such as NHT).
1) The KEF LS50 comes as matched pairs. (This can be quite a big advantage when compared to speaker pairs that don't match so well.)
2) The KEF LS50 comes without grills. (Most under $2000 speakers are designed for best sound and flatest frequency response WITHOUT the grills! Then grills are added. This means that MOST of these speakers will sound BETTER WITHOUT the grills than they will with the grills! Yest most people, and even most reviewers, if a speaker comes with grills they find it necessary to listen and review speakers only with the grills on!)
3) The KEF LS50 has more bass. (It is NOT great bass. In fact the LS50 has rapidly rising distortion at frequencies below 200Hz. Yet most reviewers seem to rate speakers that can be used without a subwoofer better than those that need a subwoofer even if the bass is poor. And most buyers buy into this even when they do use a subwoofer!)

For me #1 is the only one that counts, as I have no problem removing speaker grills for better sound, and I usually use a subwoofer.

And Snell did something better than matching pairs. With Snell every speaker was hand tuned to match a reference! As a result, each speaker in a model line not only closely matched every speaker in that model line, but it also matched all model lines (from like 200Hz-10kHz) in the whole series!

So when comparing the Snell CR7 and the KEF LS50, the Snell CR7 is at least as well matched as the KEF LS50 (both are superb in this). When used without the grills, the Snell CR7 has a smoother and flatter frequency response than the KEF LS 50. And suprisingly, the Snell CR7 actually has better timing between woofer and tweeter (the KEF UNI-Q driver is designed to have proper time alignment between drivers, but with the LS50 KEF actually screwed it up by using a crossover that connects the two drivers out of phase!) And finally, while the KEF LS50 does have more bass, it also has much more bass destortion (give the Snell CR7 a slight boost at 50Hz and it can match the low bass of the KEF LS50, and do it with less destortion!).

The dual 4" woofers of the Snell CR7 only have slightly more area than the KEF LS50 woofer, but they also have a nice 4.5mm xmax and better surround (at least better below 200Hz).

I have not heard the SVS speakers mentioned in this thread. But even so my biggest concern when compared to something like the KEF LS50 would be speaker matching. If they are sold as matched pairs this should not be a problem. But if not this could put them at a rather large disatvantage (meaning if you get a well matched pair then they would have very nice imaging, but if not..., UGH!)
 
When you realize you can't afford a good pair of electrostatics, and think DIY'ing them might be a little dangerous, do what I did.

Magnepan
 
Though you might note that his presentation comes to some different conclusions you do. In particular he was not a fan of some ESLs (it was a Martin-Logan he was looking at) and he believes the key with directivity is having it narrow as frequency goes up in a controlled fashion.

I just had a talk with Floyd and he seems to be a really cool guy. He said that his presentation gave a little misleading impression because he was mainly pointing that the Martin Logan design was flawed and had resonances, not the electrostatic speaker itself. He confirmed that he also loves a well made electrostatic (and quite frankly if he didn't I would have been very surprised indeed).
 
Nope, I doubt a $650 speaker could be the best ever, it's simple economics.

However, the name I consistently hear praise on AVS seems to be the TAD Reference One, from some of the top audio engineers in the world. It's only a $80,000 speaker though :D
 
I heard the TAD Reference One in Munich High-End expo. They had very impressive imaging. I would say it was the best speaker of the expo I heard. I didn't however have time to listen to all of them.
 
I won't get into the 'best speaker ever' nonsense..., as everyone has different tastes and 'best ever' is way out of my price range....

The best speaker I have heard that fits on my desktop is my Snell CR7 (sadly they are discontinued as Snell closed when Joseph D'Appolito retired). The Snell CR7 is a LCR design with a 1" soft dome tweeter between two 4" woofers (classic sealed box D'Appolito array design). They do need a subwoofer to fill in the bottom as the -3db point is 80Hz (-6db is 60Hz). One also needs to remove the grills for the best sound.

I also have the KEF LS50 (which is a bit big for my current desk). But the only advantage the KEF LS50 has over the Snell CR7 is more bass. But I prefer the LS50 with plugged ports and with a decent subwoofer, but the Snell CR7 with a decent subwoofer is better.

Personally I think the KEF LS50 has only three advantages over many lessor priced speakers (such as NHT).
1) The KEF LS50 comes as matched pairs. (This can be quite a big advantage when compared to speaker pairs that don't match so well.)
2) The KEF LS50 comes without grills. (Most under $2000 speakers are designed for best sound and flatest frequency response WITHOUT the grills! Then grills are added. This means that MOST of these speakers will sound BETTER WITHOUT the grills than they will with the grills! Yest most people, and even most reviewers, if a speaker comes with grills they find it necessary to listen and review speakers only with the grills on!)
3) The KEF LS50 has more bass. (It is NOT great bass. In fact the LS50 has rapidly rising distortion at frequencies below 200Hz. Yet most reviewers seem to rate speakers that can be used without a subwoofer better than those that need a subwoofer even if the bass is poor. And most buyers buy into this even when they do use a subwoofer!)

For me #1 is the only one that counts, as I have no problem removing speaker grills for better sound, and I usually use a subwoofer.

And Snell did something better than matching pairs. With Snell every speaker was hand tuned to match a reference! As a result, each speaker in a model line not only closely matched every speaker in that model line, but it also matched all model lines (from like 200Hz-10kHz) in the whole series!

So when comparing the Snell CR7 and the KEF LS50, the Snell CR7 is at least as well matched as the KEF LS50 (both are superb in this). When used without the grills, the Snell CR7 has a smoother and flatter frequency response than the KEF LS 50. And suprisingly, the Snell CR7 actually has better timing between woofer and tweeter (the KEF UNI-Q driver is designed to have proper time alignment between drivers, but with the LS50 KEF actually screwed it up by using a crossover that connects the two drivers out of phase!) And finally, while the KEF LS50 does have more bass, it also has much more bass destortion (give the Snell CR7 a slight boost at 50Hz and it can match the low bass of the KEF LS50, and do it with less destortion!).

The dual 4" woofers of the Snell CR7 only have slightly more area than the KEF LS50 woofer, but they also have a nice 4.5mm xmax and better surround (at least better below 200Hz).

I have not heard the SVS speakers mentioned in this thread. But even so my biggest concern when compared to something like the KEF LS50 would be speaker matching. If they are sold as matched pairs this should not be a problem. But if not this could put them at a rather large disatvantage (meaning if you get a well matched pair then they would have very nice imaging, but if not..., UGH!)

At the KEF LS50 price range ($1500) the two speakers that stand out the most from what I've seen are the Ascend Sierra-2 and Revel M105, both of which seem to beat out the Kef LS50 in direct matchups--coming from statements by LS50 owners themselves. You might want to try to listen to those speakers if you are ever looking for an upgrade.
 
"Best" is a relative thing, always, and even more so with speakers because everybody has different ears. While on paper a speaker might have a set of specs that some might use to make it or consider it "the best speaker" when it comes to actually listening to the audio it produces when fed a signal, well, that's where all those specs mean absolutely nothing.

I've heard some great sounding speakers in my years, and some truly horrible ones that were marketed as "the best" whatever at the time but to my ears they sounded so bad I couldn't believe any company considered them worthy of production.

I remember in the 1980s Radio Shack sold this tiny little AM/FM receiver, the STA-20:

Realistic_STA_20_Mini_Stereo_Receiver.jpg


and when that receiver was coupled with these rather popular speakers, the Minimus 7:

Realistic_Minimus_7_Speakers.jpg


the sound quality that came from that setup just blew me away, especially when I enabled the "Loudness" circuit the receiver had. The Minimus-7 speakers remain awesome things to this day with a fairly large after-market mod community. I even found some in a thrift store last year and got 'em for like $8 as well as some Minimus-77 at the same time (the 77 was the "big brother" to the 7 basically). They did have some damage, rotting speaker cones, etc, so I revamped 'em with some parts from Parts Express and sold them for a tidy profit locally to someone else that had been looking for some for a long time.

I've been trying to track down an STA-20 receiver for the better part of the past 20 years believe it or not, it's simple, but it just produced great audio in my opinion but nowadays as I'm getting older my ears ain't what they used to be but I still want one. I check eBay regularly for that receiver and some other items I owned in the 80s (a Panasonic RX-C100 "boom box" portable component stereo system is another thing, my god that was such an awesome piece of hardware in those days) but it seems like whenever I do find one the owner understands how popular that STA-20 happened to be and charges a premium price for it so I typically end up passing on the purchase - case in point being this one currently listed. Very nice shape and original manual too but, that price, ugh. 5 people watching the auction/sale is proof that even almost 30 years later that receiver is still a very sought after item. :D

But someday I hope to be walking through a thrift store and find one in good working condition and for a few bucks - if that happens I'm gonna have a smile a mile wide for days.

But the Minimus-7, honestly, just an amazing small speaker and always will be.

Never cared for super huge gigantic massive speakers, never felt that kind of hardware was necessary for good/great audio. I don't care about quantity, I care about quality. When I had my first car long ago and I put my first car audio CD player in it (again way back in the mid-1980s) while all my friends were all about having the "boom" car audio system you could hear blocks away I was interested in having a concert hall when I shut the doors and pushed Play and I accomplished it many times over.

Ah, the good old days... ;)
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Large speaker size is essential for bass performance and directivity (which reduces the negative effects of the listening room). That's why a small speaker is always a small speaker.
 
"Best" is a relative thing, always, and even more so with speakers because everybody has different ears. While on paper a speaker might have a set of specs that some might use to make it or consider it "the best speaker" when it comes to actually listening to the audio it produces when fed a signal, well, that's where all those specs mean absolutely nothing.

I've heard some great sounding speakers in my years, and some truly horrible ones that were marketed as "the best" whatever at the time but to my ears they sounded so bad I couldn't believe any company considered them worthy of production.

I remember in the 1980s Radio Shack sold this tiny little AM/FM receiver, the STA-20:

Realistic_STA_20_Mini_Stereo_Receiver.jpg


and when that receiver was coupled with these rather popular speakers, the Minimus 7:

Realistic_Minimus_7_Speakers.jpg


the sound quality that came from that setup just blew me away, especially when I enabled the "Loudness" circuit the receiver had. The Minimus-7 speakers remain awesome things to this day with a fairly large after-market mod community. I even found some in a thrift store last year and got 'em for like $8 as well as some Minimus-77 at the same time (the 77 was the "big brother" to the 7 basically). They did have some damage, rotting speaker cones, etc, so I revamped 'em with some parts from Parts Express and sold them for a tidy profit locally to someone else that had been looking for some for a long time.

I've been trying to track down an STA-20 receiver for the better part of the past 20 years believe it or not, it's simple, but it just produced great audio in my opinion but nowadays as I'm getting older my ears ain't what they used to be but I still want one. I check eBay regularly for that receiver and some other items I owned in the 80s (a Panasonic RX-C100 "boom box" portable component stereo system is another thing, my god that was such an awesome piece of hardware in those days) but it seems like whenever I do find one the owner understands how popular that STA-20 happened to be and charges a premium price for it so I typically end up passing on the purchase - case in point being this one currently listed. Very nice shape and original manual too but, that price, ugh. 5 people watching the auction/sale is proof that even almost 30 years later that receiver is still a very sought after item. :D

But someday I hope to be walking through a thrift store and find one in good working condition and for a few bucks - if that happens I'm gonna have a smile a mile wide for days.

But the Minimus-7, honestly, just an amazing small speaker and always will be.

Never cared for super huge gigantic massive speakers, never felt that kind of hardware was necessary for good/great audio. I don't care about quantity, I care about quality. When I had my first car long ago and I put my first car audio CD player in it (again way back in the mid-1980s) while all my friends were all about having the "boom" car audio system you could hear blocks away I was interested in having a concert hall when I shut the doors and pushed Play and I accomplished it many times over.

Ah, the good old days... ;)

I had a set of those too. Ah, the memories of Radio Shack when it was cool!
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Large speaker size is essential for bass performance and directivity (which reduces the negative effects of the listening room). That's why a small speaker is always a small speaker.

Yea, but I couple my Energy RC Minis with an 8" sub so get plenty of bass. These Minis can handle 150w so can play plenty loud too. In fact, I just recently received an eviction notice for playing loud music at 1:00am and it was just these Energy minis + sub.
 
Yea, but I couple my Energy RC Minis with an 8" sub so get plenty of bass. These Minis can handle 150w so can play plenty loud too. In fact, I just recently received an eviction notice for playing loud music at 1:00am and it was just these Energy minis + sub.
You can get non-subsonic bass plenty with small drivers like that but the speaker itself will still suffer from the small size. A small speaker is too omnidirectional to work in typical rooms. If you have an acoustically treated room with diffusers, absorption panels etc. then a small speaker can work wonders.
 
I use them on my computer so are for near field listening and not room filling, but they can do that too if needed.
 
At the KEF LS50 price range ($1500) the two speakers that stand out the most from what I've seen are the Ascend Sierra-2 and Revel M105, both of which seem to beat out the Kef LS50 in direct matchups--coming from statements by LS50 owners themselves. You might want to try to listen to those speakers if you are ever looking for an upgrade.

Thanks, I had hopes that someone would point other options than the KEF LS50. While personally I am quite happy with my Snell CR7, as they are discontinued they cannot be recommended...

I mostly mention the KEF LS50 because they are the best speaker that I own that is still currently available, and seem to get high ratings (though I don't really agree with those ratings, they are decent speakers).
 
Thanks, I had hopes that someone would point other options than the KEF LS50. While personally I am quite happy with my Snell CR7, as they are discontinued they cannot be recommended...

I mostly mention the KEF LS50 because they are the best speaker that I own that is still currently available, and seem to get high ratings (though I don't really agree with those ratings, they are decent speakers).

Both the Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2 and Revel Performa3 M105s are easily purchased in the USA, are you in Europe?
 
Back
Top