best speakers for vocals?

Sorry, I didn't read all answers, so my apologize if I repeat some.

May be the speaker is not the only thing to consider. Interest of some speakers comes from the amplifier that you can use, as SET ones.
If you want something "plug and play" and compact, you can consider a full audio note system.
If you have more space dedicated to the hifi usage and if you are able to put the hands in the machine, you can have a look on old Klipschorn or Altec speakers.

I still have in mind a wonderful session, 50s jazz, all mono, with SET amps and voice of theater. It was just great.

But the amp is a big part of the sound!

Enjoy
Ugo

I still believe electrostats are (or a qualified "can be") the most accurate sound reproducer -- with some of the best horns, domes, and air-motion devices coming very close.

The 'qualification' with respect to 'stats', is they MUST be driven with a tube amplifier in order for them to deliver a 'complete' signal. One whose weak and tiny (but very necessary) nuances have not been lost in the "cracks" of a typical (solid state) push-pull amplification circuit.

Electrostatics are SO articulate/accurate/analytical/revealing (or whatever adjective you want to use) that when driven by (except the very best) solid state amps, they render EXACTLY what they receive from a solid state gain stage: an audio signal with a few "missing parts", including much of the low-level 'micro detail' which is responsible for harmonics, timbre, and overtones -- the stuff that makes reproduced sound believable to our brains; and which combine as sound waves in air to help create the audio 'hologram' we call 'soundstage'.

Even though it's a little off-topic here, I feel I should explain WHY (very genrally speaking ;~) tubes seem to be better than transistors at 'preserving' an audio signal: it is in fact because of a tube's SHORTCOMING as an 'electrical valve' - it is slow to turn on and off (like a light bulb.) And so there is some 'overlap' as one tube (of a pair) hands the signal off to the other tube. Transistors by contrast, are extremely high-speed devices which turn on and off instantaneously -- and if a pair of gain stage transistors are not PERFECTLY (and laboriously) matched, there will be a little time 'gap' as one hands off the signal to the other, where some subtle parts of the signal will be lost.

Unfortunately, many audiophiles believe that electrostatic speakers require gobs of current (NOT) and so drive them with huge solid state amplifiers. Thus missing out on the enormous pleasure their electrostatic speakers could provide! They need only stop and remember that the amazing Quad 57 was, from the very beginning, driven with a low-powered tube amps. Later on, no solid state amp has ever been able to improve their amazing ability to reproduce the human voice.

Thanks for your kind indulgence ;~)
.

Chiming in 9 years since the original post, I must put in a vote for Harbeth. A couple of weeks ago, I went over to a distant relative's house, who was clearly not an audiophile, but just as clearly had money and was advised by someone who knew their stuff. I don't know which model, as I'm not a Harbeth kind of guy. They were a large stand mounted model, maybe HL5 or 30.1? Front end looked like Musical Fidelity all the way. The music itself was some female vocal work that I neither knew nor cared about. Nonetheless, I was stopped in my tracks. I'd never heard such eerie, downright spooky vocals. Confession: I'm an entry-level kind of guy, but I've had some decent gear through the years (the usual suspects - ProAc, Thiel, Snell, Ref3A, SF, etc.). These Harbeths made me wonder how I could have been so far away from lifelike vocals. I guess it's because I always wanted a slew of specs before I gave a speaker a listen. Harbeths don't look good on paper, because of their price to performance. Not good value. But these sounded beyond anything I've heard. I'd love to hear about any "poor man's Harbeth's" if anyone out there has any.

This speaker comparison video, 1st speaker is clearly better.