What are the best loudspeakers under $4000 to re-create lifelike piano


Over the past 4 months I've spent time with five loudspeakers.  On a scale of 1-10 I'd rate them as follows in their ability (with my equipment in my room) to recreate a lifelike piano.  Tekton Lore - 6.5 (great scale but tonal accuracy and clarity somewhat lacking),    Kef LS50 - 7.0 (moderate scale but slightly better clarity and tonal accuracy)  Kef R500 - 8.0  (great scale and very good clarity and tonal accuracy), Spatial Audio M3TurboS -8.1 (great scale and very good clarity and tonal accuracy and very smooth)  Magnepan 1.7i - 9.0 (very good scale with excellent clarity and tonal accuracy - very lifelike).

In your room with your equipment, what loudspeakers are you listening too and how would you rate them for their ability to recreate a lifelife piano and if possible a few comments as to why?
snapsc
Diffused can mean a lot of things of course.

Recently I’ve been using a Chord Mojo DAC in my system from time to time as an alternative to the mhdt Constantine DAC I use normally.

With the Mojo, I notice a huge difference in the presentation. Location of elements in the recording, which are already very well defined with the older mhdt DAC, become more focused, essentially more palpable. The overall soundstage width may actually be somewhat smaller with the Chord but still extensive with added depth.. Its a night and day difference anyone could hear.  Another step towards the absolute best  sound stage and imaging I've ever heard which was with a six figure mbl setup at a local dealer in a room setup to enable the mbls to work their soundstage and imaging to the nth degree, a room unlike anything most would ever have at home.

The Chord DAC sound does express itself as well but perhaps to a somewhat lesser degree with all my good quality gear including headphones, their prime application. I’ve used the Chord in at least half a dozen or so different listening scenarios with my stash of various gear.

My point is how transparent the OHMs are in regards to to the source device used. They will sound radically different depending on what they are fed. So as is always the case but particularly applicable in teh case of OHMs, one must take caution in attributing the sound heard in a single audition uniquely to the speakers. You will hear radically different things in different setups. The OHMs are merely the messenger. I love that!
@snapsc “What do you mean when you say the sound is too difffused.”

Let me take a whack at this.  I have a family member who had a 5.2 Ohm system with reasonable AB amps and run of the mill DAC.  Big Ohms in the front and smaller Ohms in the back. That system in either 2.2 or 5.2 formats excelled at presenting music with accurate tone and dynamic impact. And it could be enjoyed in anyplace in his large listening/living room.  While there was a sweet spot, especially in 5.2, every place sounded pretty sweet. 

But the kind of spatial definition and seemless placement of instruments you get from excellent dynamic drivers in two channels in a traditional listening “sweet spot” just was not there. In contrast, you felt like you were inside the performance - perhaps more like a live venue. Piano music sounded fine, but not remarkable.  Perhaps better electronics and cables could have helped there.

He moved and sold all that gear and replaced it with a Focal/SVS 5.2 system powered by Emotiva electronics.  Same basic cables used.  This system is more resolving, with the spatial definition that I have come to expect from Focals.  Piano music is convincing.  Good recordings of classical, jazz, country or alternative are breathtaking.  The deficiencies of most pop and some old rock recordings are exposed in the glare of accuracy.

So, my experience was that the Ohm based system presented naturally throughout a larger listening area, and was more forgiving of poor recordings, while a Focal system was more incisive but less forgiving. I find both enjoyable in different ways.
Also, I had meant to weigh in on the suggestions for monitor speakers.  Of course smaller speakers will struggle to reproduce the scale that larger speakers can, but with many of these you can get within 90%, with potentially better spatial resolution and less cabinet coloration.  And integrating a very good sub can get you 102% of what you can get with most larger speakers alone. Right now I would look at these on Agon, many already recommended above:

Focal Electra 1007 Be
Monitor Audio Platinum PL 100
Harbeth 7es3
Harbeth 30.1
Harbeth Super HL5 Plus (stretch for these)
Audio Note AN-E SPE
Wilson Benesch Trinity
Dynaudio C1
Revel Ultima Gem

All of these can reproduce piano music convincingly.  The Dyanaidios look like they were in a car wreck but if operating to spec are a steal.

Dynaudio monitors, set up well, are a very good choice for piano.

I run Dynaudio Contour 1.3mkII monitors in an adjacent smaller room to the room with the big OHM F5s. They are very competitive with the smaller OHM 100s I switch in and out with the Dynaudios in that room and especially good with dynamics and bass extension for their size. Esotar tweeter is a natural for crisp dynamic piano that you can feel as well as hear.

YMMV, of course, but what mapman says about the Ohms I completely agree with.  They do a good job of telling you what is going on upstream, but they are not so ruthless that poor quality recordings become unlistenable.  I think Jonathan Valin of TAS would say the Ohms are "As You Like It" speakers.  Yet, I don't feel like I am missing any details.  And while the imaging may not be laser-cut, on good recordings, each performer occupies their own space within the sound stage. 


I also agree that the Ohms respond well to upstream improvements.  I have a pair of subwoofers that cost more than my 2000s.  My amplifier, which is in the middle of being upgraded, will have cost about what the speakers did, and my preamp cost significantly more than the 2000s.  Yet, I would not consider the Ohms the weak link in my system.  Not even close.