Speakers: Anything really new under the sun?

I agree that resonances can never be fully eliminated but they can be lowed so they have negatable impact.

Here's what I use:

Mundorf Twaron Angel Hair

Well worth investigating along with a sound deadening covering of all internal surfaces to help with lower frequencies

^That^ is all good, but the OP was asking about speakers as a whole system.
Many manufacturers address resonances, and other “State of the art” things. Just it is not clear that the Monitor Audio speakers they were looking at is addressing them.

Maybe they are OK with modifying their speakers? It seems like bracing and deadening the existing speakers could be more worthwhile - but if we knew what’s their new model is doing, we would know whether to mod the old ones, get new ones, or just get something else...

You can apply extraordinary measures to eliminate cabinet resonance and the result is a speaker like those made by Magico.  Is this good?  It depends on whether you like their speakers.  There is no defined engineering path to a great sounding speaker.  Ultimately, we like what we like, and what we like comes down to a personal preference for a particular combination of strengths and weaknesses (i.e., the right compromises) and perhaps even a liking for certain distortions.

If we never come close to agreeing on what is a great sounding speaker, how can we then extrapolate from this uncertain data what is the right approach to speaker design?

@audioguy85 

Indeed! I bought a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 12.2's this year. I've been fooling around in the audio world since the mid 70's. The 12.2's are much better than anything available, inflation compensated, for the same money in the 70's or 80's. 

You can apply extraordinary measures to eliminate cabinet resonance and the result is a speaker like those made by Magico.

And a dozen others or more.

There is no defined engineering path to a great sounding speaker.

The engineering path to troubled speakers is easier:

• Cabinet resonances
• Compression limiting dynamics
• High distortion
• poor frequency response
• directivity issues
• port noises
• cone breakup
• Issues with diffraction
• issues with phase in the crossover regions

And probably a few more??

Many companies make speakers using quality drivers and cabinets that address the majority of the issues. And most of them sound pretty good.

If we never come close to agreeing on what is a great sounding speaker, how can we then extrapolate from this uncertain data what is the right approach to speaker design?

I thought many people did agree on which speakers are great sounding and many agree on which are poor sounding?

There is range in the middle, say $500-$5000 , where the cost compromises affect 1 or more areas, and we end up not being very certain that they are good. Or some will abide the flaws and others will abide different flaws more easily.

So there is a huge agreement on the manufacturers side where they know what makes a speaker good and bad, and which flaws they can overlook to limit cost.

I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons.

@holmz 

"I can point to handfuls of speakers I would be happy with, from quite a few manufactures. That gets a lot harder in the $1000 range as there are usually 2 or more flaws so we have your “Pros and cons”… the better ones just have fewer cons."

And still - these days there are a number of $500-$1000 speakers that while having flaws, are quite satisfying. It's all about making the right compromises. In some respects, I think it's harder to make a very good speaker that needs to match a price point vs a cost is no issue design. Look at the original Andrew Jones speakers for Pioneer. Certainly had their faults but what a great accomplishment!