Speakers 10 years old or older that can compete with todays best,

I attend High End Audio Shows whenever I get a chance.  I also regularly visit several of my local High End Audio parlors, so I get to hear quite a few different speaker brands all the time.  And these speakers are also at various price points. Of course, the new speakers with their current technology sound totally incredible. However, I strongly feel that my beloved Revel Salon 2 speakers, which have been around for over ten years, still sound just as good or even better than the vast majority of the newer speakers that I get a chance to hear or audition in todays market.  And that goes for speakers at, or well above the Salon 2s price point. I feel that my Revel Salon 2 speakers (especially for the money) are so incredibly outstanding compared to the current speaker offerings of today, that I will probably never part with them. Are there others who feel that your beloved older speakers compare favorably with todays, newfangled, shinny-penny, obscenely expensive models?


Incredible arrogance....

I was already confronted by arrogance and ignorance too from the same person for the same reason ...Mike lavigne because his system cost are one of the highest in audiogon and the more spectacular, myself at 700 bucks one of the lowest in audiogon; the two system with a claimed good sound quality experience by their satisfied owners in their own bracket S.Q. /price ratio .... Is it a coincidence ? Are we ignorant ? one ignorant by paying too much without the recommended DSP and me by paying not enough without the recommended DSP ... ( i used equalization for my headphone by the way and as Lavigne had already said i think DSP also may be a useful tool )

DSP of any kind is a tool or a component but not always necessary as a tool or as a component...

The only necessary DSP as a component IN ALL CASE and for everyone in my opinion is the BACCH filters...It is more than a useful tool or a mere component , it is more than a mere equalization tool . it is a psycho-acoustic revolution in the making ... But even this BACCH filters does not replace room acoustic and room tuning mine or Lavigne...... Room tuning does not even exist in  mijostyn opinion  as he said to me, this is pure ignorance  ... For example if you use some Helmholtz resonators grid, you tune the room pressure zones form and distribution by their parameters and location , you modify the room in some way not only the speakers response ...I call that room tuning...It can be made invisibly in the wall itself and esthetically etc ...Mine was homemade and unesthetical not perfect either but spectacularly transformative FOR ME ...At least i learned acoustic using my hands and ears...

We cannot impose to others our diktat for their own acoustic experience, too much parameters are implicated...

This is not to say Mike’s room does not sound good but he does stubbornly refuse to make it sound better

Post removed 

@mikelavigne wrote:

no, i have not done dsp in my 2 channel room. years ago i decided instead to fix the room; building a room without limits. then tune it to work with ultimate speakers. which over the last 20 years i have done.

For this context I’m inquiring merely on the use of DSP/electronic crossover as an approach replacing a passive ditto for outboard active configuration, and not - as an outset - with anything that involves digital room correction. What you’ve done acoustically is extremely dedicated and thoroughly executed; I can only assume you’ve achieved stellar results here in conjunction with your chosen hardware/gear and overall implementation.

when you write about dsp, replacing passive crossovers, i don’t think you imagine passive crossovers that are inside the top level speakers. what that looks like, or sounds like ...

First of all, any crossover option is a potential, but irrespective of the quality of the parts a passive crossover will always be a bottleneck between the amp and speaker (i.e.: impacting an amp’s ability to control the drivers) that prevents either to be nearer their fuller performance envelope - the more so the more complex the crossover at hand, with potentially severe impedance dips and steep phase angles which seem to be more prevalent among "high-end" segment speakers, and that therefore have a tendency to require very sturdy, more or less load indifferent (and very costly) amps to perform their best.

... and when you write about driving each separate driver with it’s own amp and dsp crossover, you forget what that means in terms of choices of amplification.my darTZeel 468 mono blocks are crazy spendy and the best amps i have heard......how is that going to fit (physically and $$$) into active crossovers for each driver? the answer is that is does not fit at all. i would have to settle for less capable amplification. a compromise.

I’m not forgetting anything here, because outboard active config. doesn’t require of you to compromise with regard to amp choice. You can choose whatever amps you like this way seeing they don’t need to fit inside the speakers, however you do need more of them (as always with active config.) to feed each driver section with its separate amp channel. Remember, active config. is defined by the filtration part taking place prior to amplification on signal level, and not on the output side of the amp taking the full power as a passive approach.

Not seeing into a passive crossover, not least a complex one will be making more effective use of the power at hand, why less power is needed for the same overall SPL actively. Moreso, and importantly, the actual sonic potential of a given amp will also see an uptick being presented to a much easier load actively, so here as well you can get by with less - should you so choose. It worth noticing also the power independency between the bandwidth limited amps; the bass amp could be blasting along, and it would mean zilch to the other amps feeding the remaining driver sections. To boot: the mids/tweeter amps would be rid of any LF signals, meaning even easier load and better sound. My advice though would be to use what’s essentially the same amps top to bottom, possibly power differentiated, to maintain coherency as best as possible.

reality is that dsp does make a great deal of sense doing particular things. fixing rooms, powering more modestly priced gear, enabling DIY’s to build interesting projects. integrating subwoofers. doing multichannel such as Dolby Atmos.

It can do that for sure, but that’s still selling active short; it’s sad more audiophiles aren’t aware of the potential of active as an outboard (or, for that sake, bundled) and all-out solution, instead seeing it being met with conjecture, dogmatism even or what’s otherwise an ill-informed stance. Certainly here you could ask yourself what imparts the bigger obstacle: a passive crossover on the output side of the amps, or an active ditto feeding the signal inputs of dedicated amp channels looking directly into each of their drivers sections, conversion steps be damned. Only actual experimentation will make one the wiser.

i have a never opened box unused XILICA XP-2040 upstairs in my storage attic that i bought 3 years ago intending to use it to integrate 3 subwoofers into my Home Theater. i get what dsp can do. turned out my 3 Funk Audio 18.0 subs came with their own dsp engines, so never needed the XILICA. so i’m not anti dsp.

Xilica make very good DSP’s (it’s what I use myself).


Look, I’m in no position nor do I intend to impose on you anything. The setup and room you have looks to be a true all-out approach years in the making, and one that’s rarely seen. And yet I felt slightly provoked by your all-analogue stance that I thought it interesting to tempt an active approach via DSP - only because I’ve seen it trump most any passive variant (i.e.: one and the same speakers converted from passive to active) that I’ve heard.

@mijostyn wrote:

And that sirs is the trap. What a system and room looks like and what it sounds like are two entirely different issues.

I only commented that it looked impressive, but I see no issue in assuming it sounds great.