2. speakers
  3. 1027381007

TAS's recommended speakers under 2500

Earlier this year, "The Absolute Sound" magazine began a new feature called "Centerstage", which is their new format for recommended components. The "Centerstage" feature in the current issue contains their recommended speakers under $2500.

Their recommendations are grouped into 5 classes, with Class 1 being the "state-of-the-art" (within the stated price range), and ranging down to Class 5, which "offer a fair taste of high-end sound at the most affordable prices". I have summarized the ratings for those who may be interested (speakers are listed alphabetically, not by ranking within the class).

Class 1 ("state-of-the-art" within the price range):
1. Harbeth HL Compact 7 ES-2 (MSRP $2400)
2. Infinity Intermezzo (MSRP $2200)
3. MartinLogan Scenario (MSRP $2000) -- a "Best Buy" rating
4. Spendor SP-1/2 (MSRP $2495) -- a "Best Buy" rating
5. Thiel CS1.6 (MSRP $2390) -- a "Best Buy" rating

Class 2:
1. Aerial Acoustics Model 5 (MSRP $1800-2200, depending on finish)
2. Audio Physic Yara (MSRP $1500)
3. Magnepan MG 1.6 (MSRP $1495) -- a "Best Buy" rating
4. Sonus Faber Concerto (MSRP $1895)
5. Vandersteen 2Ce (MSRP $1400) -- a "Best Buy" rating

Class 3:
1. Definitive Technology Power Monitor 700 (MSRP $1200) -- a "Best Buy" rating
2. Harbeth HL-P3ES-2 (MSRP $1100)
3. PSB Image 5T (MSRP $800) -- a "Best Buy" rating
4. Polk Audio LSi-15 (MSRP $1740)
5. Spendor S-3/5 (MSRP $895)
6. Snell Acoustics K.5 Mk2 (MSRP $1200)
7. Totem Arro (MSRP $1100) -- a "Best Buy" rating

Class 4:
1. B&W 602.5 S3 (MSRP $700)
2. Dahlquist QX-6 (MSRP $500)
3. Paradigm Monitor 5 (MSRP $520) -- a "Best Buy" rating
4. Snell QBX 20 (MSRP $750)

Class 5:
1. Acoustic Energy Aego 2 (MSRP $399) -- a "Best Buy" rating
2. PSB Alpha B (MSRP $199) -- a "Best Buy" rating
3. Paradigm Atom (MSRP $189) -- a "Best Buy" rating

Comments (pro or con), anyone?

sdcampbell
kthomas
911 posts
 
I understand why the mags do this, but I have to admit that I'm really tired of the whole concept of component ratings. I'd be a lot more interested if they rated them in a matrix, with a bunch of categories including build quality, visual appeal, soundstage depth, soundstage width, etc. etc. (and if they could then avoid the massive temptation to total the ratings into the Grand Total rating to linearize everything). There are so many speakers in this price category that they don't rate, based on not having reviewed them (fair enough) that it can be really misleading. They stress in every review how system synergy is so important, you have to listen for yourself, in your own room, etc., and then they give simplified ratings for the products they review. Oh well, it doesn't hurt anybody.....Kirk
gunbei
2,327 posts
 
I completely agree with you Kirk, that's why I look at the magazines for pictures and info, then wait to see what "real" people with real experience think of the stuff. I wish audio rag reviews were more like car magazines. At least when a car has poor build quality or handles like a boat they say so, they don't always get on their knees for their advertisers.
sdcampbell OP
2,136 posts
 
Kirk: I like the idea of having a matrix to rate speakers -- rather like the matrix used by Road & Track mag uses to compare cars by class.

If the Audiogon regulars were to design such a rating matrix, we would need to identify the relevant factors (e.g., transient response), and a weighting scale (since some factors may be less important, such as the grade of veneer used on the cabinet exterior).

So, the question for other A-gon readers is: what factors should be included in a rating matrix, and what weighting would you give to each factor? If we can get enough responses to this, I'll be glad to collate the ideas and present a first-cut attempt at a matrix that A-gon members could use when presenting speaker evaluations.
john_l
782 posts
 
You right on da money kirk. I think both the magnepan 1.6 and the vandersteen 2ce's are outstanding speakers, yet they couldn't be more different.

The matrix might work. I wish the audio magazines would be a little more up front in describing a component's weaker areas. They all have them. An audio physic has lightweight bass and sounds bad with cheap components, a vandersteen lacks detail and has fairly opaque imaging, a magnepan vertically oversizes images, has haze in the low level detail and has weightless dynamics. Wilson MAXX's are too big & look like they want to attack you. Why don't they just COME OUT AND SAY IT. I get tired and confused trying to read between the lines.

A criticism of the above list is that I don't see some truly outstanding speaker's here. I know they are limited in how much they can review, but I feel a magazine of their size should have a few more in there. Where are the Meadowlarks, Paradigm Studios, and Joseph Audio's ?
More to discover