Lots I’m sure but Ohm Walsh series 3 and newer come to mind. Probably series 2 as well. It’s only the originals that came about in the early 80s that I can assert with confidence were not current big-league competitive. Those come up a bit short on resolution detail and accuracy. Many have been upgraded by users since which fixes that.
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?
158 responses Add your response
Comparing one’s own system to speakers heard at audio shows, stores, or even other people’s listening rooms is questionable at best. To know if some product might improve the SQ of one’s own system requires auditioning it at home for at least a week’s worth of critical listening. That said, I own Von Schweikert, PSB and Magneplanar speakers (all full-range floor standers) and half a dozen lesser monitors; I’ve auditioned Martin Logan "The Quest" and three different iterations of B&Ws, each for weeks. Finally, friends in our local audio club have uncompromising rigs of various kinds: stacked Quads, Harbeths, Dynaudios, KEFs, MBL 101 Radialstrahlers in a specially constructed listening "room" built in consultation with an acoustician that is larger and more opulent than most people’s entire homes.... And yet, I have not found anything I prefer to my Scientific Fidelity "Teslas," built in the early 1990s. A bad review in Stereophile pretty much killed the company. Recently, Bill Legall at Millersound restored the drivers for me. They cost a mere $1000 in 1992 (I got them used), and they even look great. My second system has settled on the Magneplanar 1.6 QRs installed in an acoustically treated room just right for them, but the Teslas in my living room remain my favorites. |
The Trinnov is fine for home theater. I looked carefully at the Amethyst but Its bass management is severely limited and it is not programmable at a level that is acceptable. I waited 3 years to see what DEQX was going to do making a PITA out of myself in the process as my old TacT processor was dying. It did three months ago. At any rate I will be getting one of the first units. The DEQX is far more powerful and flexible than the Trinnov. It will do everything I want and more. It is also obviously built as well or better than any other equipment on the market. The technology is so powerful now that you can make a system sound anyway you want within the limitations of your other equipment, the speaker/room being the most significant. You can not make a point source system sound like a linear array and vice versa. Mike, come on, every modern record and most of the rereleases you listen to are digitally modified. I just got a new pressing of Fontessa in mono (Modern Jazz Quartet) and the tape hiss is gone, disappeared. I wonder how that happened. All modern material with few exceptions are recorded digitally on a hard drive. I know that too many digital recordings are compressed into high volume pancakes. Vinyl is also to some degree to keep the volume above the noise floor. I just recently recorded an audiophile delite from a friends collection in 192//24 with digital RIAA correction. Nobody can reliably tell the difference between the original and the recording. It is a great way to get music that is no longer being produced.
|
Speaker built in the mid to late 80s and now are modern designed speakers. We should discuss speaker built in the late 60s to the 80s. Speakers Like: JBL, Bozak, Rectilinear, Klipsch, Macintosh. These speakers were another breed of designs. Example JBL had terrible crossover and were basically a Rheostat divider and the. One of the earliest good speakers were Duntec's. |
Gotta agree with mijostyn, even though I share Mike’s skepticism regarding DSP. In fact, I learned of a superlative digital (DSD SACD) "reference recording" from a post of Mike’s many months ago: Anna Netrebko’s DGG recital of opera arias called "Sempre Libera." Mike especially called attention to the glass harmonica on several tracks. (Note that this was before the recent scandal involving Ms. Netrebko’s support for Putin, and its consequences for her career.) Turntables are beautiful technologies (or can be), and I do appreciate the nostalgic thrill of spinning LPs. But privileging vinyl for sound quality is really hard to defend rationally. |
we have already kicked this can around completely. nothing more to say about it. look up our last go around and read my responses. i have 8000-9000 Lps pressed prior to the late 70’s. and a couple thousand reissues since then without a digital component. then another 2000-3000 with some sort of digital step. not going to add another conversion. plus my Wadax digital would be negatively affected by another conversion. it’s purity sets it apart. no way any conversion would be transparent. then there is my tape, which is not going to be digitized. not looking for any consensus. and never said my room is perfect, it’s only epic. |
I went to Lyric HiFi in White Plains, NY in 1981 to buy a pair of DCM Time Windows - the then darling of the audiophile press. I asked to listen to them and the salesman obliged and I thought they sounded really good. The salesman then switched to a pair of Mission 770's and I was blown away. The boomy cabinet resonances of the DCM were gone, and the imaging was incredible, with the double bass palpably 6' behind the speaker and the rest of the musicians placed solidly within the sound field. Switching back to the DCM, the sound stage collapsed and the muddy bass returned. I bought the Missions on the spot and still have them today. |
The purist and the early adapter. Black and white. My room is also epic and I use dipole linear arrays which limit room interaction, ESLs with an order of magnitude less distortion than any dynamic driver. I digitize my turntable and use digital RIAA correction which is more accurate than any analog circuit. I would never buy another tape machine (I am being given an old Nagra for display purposes only) IMHO they all belong in museums next to Edison's cylinder machines. Recording in 24/192 is more accurate with less distortion not to mention that it is far less expensive, no tape and the software is far less expensive. The only reasons I play records is because I have thousands of them and I've been doing it since I was 4 years old. Black and White. Two entirely different approaches to the same problem, the romantic and the modern. Both are valid for differing reasons. |
There are a lot of older speakers that can compete with many new speakers today. Within their obvious limits, a pair of Quad 57s can run with many of the best (I use original Martin Logan CLS and they are fantastic for non bass heavy material). I also have some Vandersteen 4A that were at the time his top speakers, made in quite small numbers - all the money went into the drivers rather than 'wasting' it on fine veneers - he just 'put a sock on it' for looks (Anyone looking at these be sure to buy 4A, not 4). And the speakers I use in my main system (Wilson Maxx2) still handily compete with many today - and they don't give small children nightmares like the stupendously priced current top of the line Wilsons. |
I am curious about this. The RIAA pre-emphasis is of course done with analog components; as a result is not the ideal but instead a modified curvy slope. Does the digital version do the curvy thing? ************************* I first heard the Classic Audio Loudspeaker model T1 at the Triode Show in Philadelphia back in ’98. John Wolff also made a slightly smaller version called the T-3. It was the first speaker I’d heard that really did everything. I had John make me a set of T-3s with the same internal volume as the T-1 (the T-1s were too wide for my room) and I’ve had them ever since. They have been updated with a new crossover, field coils, a 2nd 15" woofer (downfiring) and a beryllium midrange diaphragm With a Kapton surround (which has its first breakup at 35KHz). Most of the updates were 15 years ago. I’ve yet to hear anything to convince me to move on; they do the best job I’ve heard with my reference recordings, which I recorded. 98dB, 16 Ohms, flat to 20Hz. I think the Sound Labs would have been very satisfactory, but had no way of making them work in my room. |
like @cleeds I enjoy my IRS Betas. Had AR3a, DQ10, Mirage M3 and M1, Aerial 8b (still have them on secondary system) and the Betas which reign supreme. Big Threshold 12e's on the bass and Manley Snappers on the mid highs! |
@ghdprenticeI upgraded my Apogee Duetta II pair with new ribbons, crossovers and internal damping material, and they're better than ever. I agree they deserve the highest quality associated equipment. For my asymmetrical listening room and eclectic musical tastes, I don't know of a better speaker made. For a symmetrical room, I can imagine there may be better speakers, but few cone-type speakers can produce the realistic image size and soundstaging that planar speakers can, and they are probably all very heavy and expensive. (Although I admire fine wood, I'm OK not paying for it with a speaker.) And the Apogees don't sacrifice much in bass or other areas to achieve their fine soundstaging and imaging. I don't think I'd want to return to cone speakers for my main system, although I tolerate them in secondary systems. |
Depends on quality of said speaker; depends on conditions the speaker lived in over those 25+ years … newer hifi expensive speakers likely better, yes absolutely … the only people that will argue probably think a carburetor & cap/rotor engines get better gas mileage than modern cars … technology always gets better … the fractions or level of differences, perhaps minor. |
@mikelavigne wrote:
Impressive looking setup and listening room indeed. Not to unnecessarily stir up the "why no DSP?"-question that appears to have been aimed your way already as an option with your system, but have you - in the analogue domain with an electronic crossover - experimented with an outboard active configuration at some point? I’d also add that a DSP can act as a digital crossover only (wholly replacing a passive ditto), sans room correction, but of course that still involves the "intervention" of a conversion to and from a digital processing part. Though you have no doubt come to a conclusion on this matter, from my chair - and with a digital source only - the use of a DSP acting as a digital crossover is thinking about the passive counterpart it replaces, and which of the two is the lesser evil. Assessing a DSP section as such comes in conjunction with the important negation of the passive crossover to offer a direct driver-to-dedicated-amp-channel connection which, in the different converted from passive to active setups I’ve heard (that is, maintaining the same main speakers), has always led to an advantageous outcome - by a comfortable mile even. It just seems to me that many regards the insertion of a DSP (and mostly assuming it’s acting as a room correction device exclusively) without considering that it can replace a passive crossover as a digital ditto, with all that entails wrt. driver control and overall filter implementation and the elaborate settings potentially involved here. Thinking that a DSP is mainly an add-on to an existing passive setup as a room correction means, while being perhaps its primary function as they’re mostly implemented, is really only seeing it for a part of what it can do, while arguably missing out on the most important one. |
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
@mijostyn Re "There is no such thing as a perfect room."
I’ve followed the evolution of Mike Lavigne’s room for over a dozen years, and I doubt that many people will ever get closer to a perfect room. I’d love to visit it. Hat tip to Mike!
Robert Harley has a really good room (and system) , I’ve read and seen in videos. Either one are to die for. Dreams. |
Had the chance to snap up a pair of Equation 7 speakers a few years back. The original owner proclaimed they were "Harbeth Killers". Tall order but I was actually using 7es 2 so thought they must be something worth grabbing. Was told they should run with tube gear, of which I have plenty so took them home, plugged them and gave then a shot. Beutiful speakers in Spanish Birdseye Maple finish but I really wasn't expecting them to outplay the Harbeths. Wow, I was wrong. Simple two way with HQ drivers and a hand spun crossover. Actually the entire package was hand made in Belgium. I play them with better tube gear front to back and still haven't found a speaker I enjoy as much. These were $3K in 2003 and are now up on 20yo but they are special speakers. If you spot a set in the used market (maybe $14-$1500) I suggest you buy them especially if you like Spendor, Harbeth, Falcon and the like. The Equations do everything right in a med size space. Image like champs, unpack all the music throw a nice balanced sound stage; very nice. Just my opinion. |
I do not think anyone has mentioned the Rogers LS3 5A, the little speaker that could. If you have never heard these with properly integrated subwoofers you have no idea what you are missing. We had these set up next to a huge pair of Dunlavys. People routinely would think it was the Dunlavys playing! And that sirs is the trap. What a system and room looks like and what it sounds like are two entirely different issues. I have heard really tricked out systems/rooms sound like crap. This is not to say Mike's room does not sound good but he does stubbornly refuse to make it sound better over the romantic concept that he has to keep everything analog. It is interesting to see the contrast between Mike and myself, also a Mike. We are polar opposites in so many ways. I am line source Dipole, Mike is Big point source. Mike will spend huge money, I will approach it from a value perspective. Mike has everything on display. I have as much as possible hidden. There is no cable visible until you look behind the speakers. The amps are below in my basement shop. My room is rather plain, I can not stand anything rattling. The only commonality I can see is we both use 8 woofer drivers and both rooms were purpose designed for audio. It would be a lot of fun to take people blindfolded into both rooms, play the same program and see which system they liked better. There are two diseases that audiophiles routinely catch for which there is no vaccine. There is the Mark Levinson disease, if it costs more it must sound better and the Dan D'Agostino disease, if it looks cool it must sound better. |
My brother has a pair of Dayton Wright XG10 Mk I Electrostatic Loudspeakers (circa 1980) driven by a bridged pair of Richard Brown's BEL 1001 Amplifiers (last series). They required some TLC, but they are spectacular. Now Francois Lemay (Lemay Audio) has created the Dayton Wright Hommage Loudspeakers (Toronto). |
Two models I don't see mentioned are The ESS AMT series (1A, B,C,D) and the Rogers Studio Ones. Completely different designs that both produce outstanding sound. I'm especially fond of the ESS. A friend of mine still has his from the mid 1970s. He's replaced drivers one them and they still sound fantastic. Sadly his electronics aren't the greatest. Having tubes drive these speakers makes them mind blowing. |
Hello KennyMacc. I have two sets of speakers I wouldn't trade for anything. the newest set is a pair of Theil CS3.5's; the second is a pair of Altec Lansing Voice of the Theaters. I love them both but the Altec's I've had since high school 55 years ago. I can't believe I've have made all the relocations in my life with these monsters, but they sound so good I couldn't part with them. In fact, now that I'm nearing the latter part of my lifespan it occurs to me, I may end up like Jacob Marley chained to these monsters for the rest of eternity. I find solace in the idea that at least I'll have the equipment to listen to some really outstanding music. perhaps there are some speakers out there that sound better than these, but I can't imagine they'd be appreciably better. At least not to my ears.
|
The Salons 2 are a keeper. I might recommend you play around with the Rythmic's placement and especially crossover setting. Sometime setting the point too high muddies up the detail full range. On my speaker the rolloff point is 40Hz (f3) so I setting the cover in that region. Turning the woofer volume down can help. |
not doing dsp is not refusing to make things better; you are blind to a different approach. after building the room and taking 11 years refining it, i then put enormous sweat equity for 9 months tuning the room and making my room sound better. you are blinded and maybe offended by my investment in gear, and ignore all the work i’ve done. that is not fair. come listen, then form your opinion. many have. we don't have to agree. i don't question that you have a great room and performance. if you say you do, then why would i question it? |
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...
|
| Post removed |
@mikelavigne Well said !!!! |
@mikelavigne wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
I only commented that it looked impressive, but I see no issue in assuming it sounds great. |
I bought my KRIX Euphonics when I lived in Denver (OMG was that 30 years ago???). They've outlived a couple amps, if not entire systems. For no particular reason, boredom? acquisition gene? I am speaker shopping. Limited budget means mostly window shopping. But I have peeked into some interesting windows. Every now and again I get nostalgic for my Maggies, and the Advents.... but I get over it eventually. The Euphonics are too big for the second, or third system, maybe I'll keep them around to A-B... peace, out |
1977 had DQ10s sounded great to me. Shop in LA had DQ10s and B&W. B&Ws sounded bright until salesman switched to B&Ws which sounded great. I think they were quite pricey compared to DQs. Next MK satellites/subwoofer - decent sound more wife friendly. 1996 Thiel CS2.2, big improvement, definite improvement. 1998 replace Adcom amp with Bryston 3B, big improvement Don’t listen much at home but I think it’s a very good system My old ears have diminished range, haven’t heard many new speakers. Martin Logan electrostatic were impressive. 1969 Quad esl64s gave me the big |
Japanese musical clubs favor altec_lansing and Tannoy too till today... Perhaps this means something....😉 https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/special-report-the-japanese-audio-industry/
|
Very interesting thread. Particularly appropriate to me, as only yesterday i visited a dealer who's system was what he felt to be excellent sounding. Yet, and here's the thing, this system was a disappointment to me. Not because it did not have some good gear in it, but because the system was put together with the typical mistakes that someone who thinks they really know what they are doing, yet disregard the very basic things that separate a great sounding system from a mediocre sounding one. For example, no consideration given to cabling, no consideration given to room acoustic treatments, no consideration give to the importance of speaker placement, and so on. One thing i have learned in this hobby over the years, is this, no matter what the listener's experience level is, the dealer always believes he/or she ( not many ladies in this scenario) has more expertise than the customer. @mikelavigne You are a highly experienced a'phile, why would someone believe that they could improve your system, without a) first listening to it and then b) believe that their knowledge would trump yours??...I don't really understand this attitude from several members who have posted upstream. To these very same members, i would ask this question: Is it possible that in fact someone like Mike L could have a superior sounding system to yours...and not only that, have more experience/knowledge than you? I have wanted to ask this very same question to numerous dealers in this hobby, iow-- is it possible that the customer who just walked in the door, could in fact teach you something about not only system set up, but also about music itself??
To get back to the subject in the OP. are there speakers today that can compete with today's best? Absolutely, I think some of these speakers from the past have in fact never been bettered in some areas. Take for example, the Quad '57's. How many speakers on the market today can equal their mid-range reproduction, never mind beat them? Another example, the SF Guarneri Homage speakers that I utilize in my system, how many stand mounts can equal these today?? There are a few (maybe a handful that i know of)...but the vast majority of current stand mounts still cannot better them. There is a point made by RH in TAS that he recently heard the old Hill Plasmatronic speakers (with the ion tweeter), stating that the upper mids to highs were the best reproduction of these frequencies he had ever heard!! RH has heard a lot of speakers.... |
