My Top 10 List of Speakers

[edwinr]

This is my current list of favorites. Why are they in my list? No real reason, I just like 'em. My order of preference will probably change by the time I finish posting this thread...

1. Martin Logan Summit
2. Klipschorn
3. Wilson Audio Sophia
4. Harbeth Monitor 40
5. B&W 802D
6. Magnaplanar 20.1
7. ATC SCM 50
8. Martin Logan Vantage
9. BBC LS3/5a
10. Avantgarde Duo

[Bill H.]

Here is the Stereophile rpt on #9- The BBC's.

BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker

J. Gordon Holt & Various, March, 1977

These diminutive little sleepers have been available in the US for

quite some time but have attracted little attention because (1) they

have never really been promoted and (2) they are just too small to look

as if they could be worth $430 a pair.

Originally

designed by the BBC for monitoring of on-location broadcast and

recording pickups (footnote 1), they hide most of their costa complex

equalizer and phase-corrected crossover networkinside a cabinet only

slightly larger than a shoe box. They were intended for "close-in"

listening in a small control room rather than to fill a large room, and

they will definitely not put the kind of levels beloved of rock nuts without woofer-bottoming or ultimately permanent damage.

Despite what must be a rather large amount of built-in bass boost (to

compensate for the small size of the woofer), they are fairly

efficient: We would estimate around 1¾%, which is comparable to an

average acoustic-suspension system. Maximum safe output level is around

95dB SPL (sound pressure level) at a listening distance of up to 15',

which is about as loud as a symphonic crescendo from 10' behind the

conductor. This is with full-range program material; the limiting

factor on power input is the "woofer" (because of its bass boost), so

when the speakers are used with a subwoofer (crossing at 60 to 80Hz),

they are capable of a clean 100 to 105dB, which is enough to give any

masochist a most gratifying case of permanent ear damage.

Judging by their size, one's first thought is likely to be that these

will work just dandy up on the wall, right below the ceiling and toward

the room corners, where standing-wave resonances in the room will help

augment the speakers' thin bass. But their size is very deceptive.

These are not thin-sounding. In fact, they produce an overall

balance similar to that of a pair of large systems when they (the

Rogers) are located on 30"-high stands, right out near the center of

the floor. (This bass-balance design is consistent with the BBC's

recent research findings which showed that the smoothest bass response

is obtained when a speaker is as far as possible from room boundaries.)

It is because these speakers are so well-balanced when they are out in the room that they may well produce too much

bass when placed against a wall, particularly when located near the

junction between three room surfaces. In corners, they are (in most

rooms) intolerably boomy because they are designed for out-of-corner

placement, and because that location excites the maximum number and

amplitude of standing-wave resonances (footnote 2) in the room.

The close proximity of room surfaces (or, worse yet, of a box or shelf

under the speakers) also causes diffraction interferencethe chopping

of deep holes in the frequency response due to selective cancellation

of certain frequencies. The smaller the speaker enclosure, the less

audible are these diffraction effects and the smoother the system

sounds. But nearby corners and surfaces can spoil the advantage of the

small enclosure.

Another advantage of a small sound source is

that it tends to radiate sound waves as expanding spheres rather than

as a planar wave (as from large screens). Human ears react in a

seemingly paradoxical manner to a spherical sound field: The reproduced

sound seems, much bigger than its source, yet the angular localization

of sounds across the "stage" between the speakers (ie, the

imaging) is dramatically improved. In fact, the apparent audible size

of these tiny speakers is almost laughable; we had the feeling that it

just could not possibly be.

Adding to the illusion of a

large speaker system, is the remarkable low-end performance, which is

not really all that deep (subjectively flat to a bit below 57Hz in our

rooms) but sounds deeper than it is because the response is

actually pretty flat down to there (rather than drooping), and the bass

detail is astonishing from 5" woofers. The speakers gave such a

startling account of themselves at the low end that we were not acutely

aware of the lack of deep bottom until deeper notes (as from bass drum

or the bottom range of the string bass) that we knew were on the recording failed to come through.

High-end performance is quite remark able. The speakers have a very

slightly rising response above about 5kHz (fig.1), but because there is

no audible peak at the top, the rise does not cause any sizzling or

spitting, but tends rather to exaggerate slightly the extreme high-end

energy in the program, adding a bit more sibilance to voices, a bit

more shimmer to cymbals, and a bit more overall airiness to the sound

than is actually in the program material (footnote 3).

---

Footnote

1: American visitors to England consistently report that the BBC

transmits superb-quality sound and that unlike the US (where

practically everything aired is canned), Britons are privileged to hear

frequent live broadcasts of orchestra concerts. It is thus reasonable

to assume that the BBC engineers know good sound when they hear it.

[Daddy Dee]

The BBC is a complete new one on me. I'd like to hear those sometime. A most interesting lineage.

I've never heard anything I preferred over the Khorn.

One speaker I'd add to the list, but have to give the disclaimer, it's just a matter of affection. It would however be considered by most to be a redneck top ten.

The Large Advent Loudspeaker was a favorite in college and I have as much affection for them as remembering my first car.

[PrestonTom]

I see a number of panel speakers listed.

Although I have Klipschorns as my main system, I do keep some Martin Logans (aerius) around. The have a very different sound, they are hard to drive, they are hard to set up, and they are very bass shy. However, there is something very seductive about their sound and I just can't imagine ever selling them.

-Tom

[dbflash]

Edwinr,

How close is 1 and 2?

Ever since you posted that you bought new speakers I have been thinking about listening to a pair of Martin Logans.

Thanks,

Danny

[Me Loves Khorns]

What, no BLOSE listed?[][6]

Paul

[Chicago_Pete]

Avantgarde Duo down on the bottom. Glad I never chased a pair. Always liked the looks of them. Giant Duntechs worked very well for me until I got my Khorns.

[joshnich]

Here is the Stereophile rpt on #9- The BBC's.

BBC LS3/5a loudspeaker

J. Gordon Holt & Various, March, 1977

These diminutive little sleepers have been available in the US for

quite some time but have attracted little attention because (1) they

have never really been promoted and (2) they are just too small to look

as if they could be worth $430 a pair.

Originally

designed by the BBC for monitoring of on-location broadcast and

recording pickups (footnote 1), they hide most of their costa complex

equalizer and phase-corrected crossover networkinside a cabinet only

slightly larger than a shoe box. They were intended for "close-in"

listening in a small control room rather than to fill a large room, and

they will definitely not put the kind of levels beloved of rock nuts without woofer-bottoming or ultimately permanent damage.

Despite what must be a rather large amount of built-in bass boost (to

compensate for the small size of the woofer), they are fairly

efficient: We would estimate around 1¾%, which is comparable to an

average acoustic-suspension system. Maximum safe output level is around

95dB SPL (sound pressure level) at a listening distance of up to 15',

which is about as loud as a symphonic crescendo from 10' behind the

conductor. This is with full-range program material; the limiting

factor on power input is the "woofer" (because of its bass boost), so

when the speakers are used with a subwoofer (crossing at 60 to 80Hz),

they are capable of a clean 100 to 105dB, which is enough to give any

masochist a most gratifying case of permanent ear damage.

Judging by their size, one's first thought is likely to be that these

will work just dandy up on the wall, right below the ceiling and toward

the room corners, where standing-wave resonances in the room will help

augment the speakers' thin bass. But their size is very deceptive.

These are not thin-sounding. In fact, they produce an overall

balance similar to that of a pair of large systems when they (the

Rogers) are located on 30"-high stands, right out near the center of

the floor. (This bass-balance design is consistent with the BBC's

recent research findings which showed that the smoothest bass response

is obtained when a speaker is as far as possible from room boundaries.)

It is because these speakers are so well-balanced when they are out in the room that they may well produce too much

bass when placed against a wall, particularly when located near the

junction between three room surfaces. In corners, they are (in most

rooms) intolerably boomy because they are designed for out-of-corner

placement, and because that location excites the maximum number and

amplitude of standing-wave resonances (footnote 2) in the room.

The close proximity of room surfaces (or, worse yet, of a box or shelf

under the speakers) also causes diffraction interferencethe chopping

of deep holes in the frequency response due to selective cancellation

of certain frequencies. The smaller the speaker enclosure, the less

audible are these diffraction effects and the smoother the system

sounds. But nearby corners and surfaces can spoil the advantage of the

small enclosure.

Another advantage of a small sound source is

that it tends to radiate sound waves as expanding spheres rather than

as a planar wave (as from large screens). Human ears react in a

seemingly paradoxical manner to a spherical sound field: The reproduced

sound seems, much bigger than its source, yet the angular localization

of sounds across the "stage" between the speakers (ie, the

imaging) is dramatically improved. In fact, the apparent audible size

of these tiny speakers is almost laughable; we had the feeling that it

just could not possibly be.

Adding to the illusion of a

large speaker system, is the remarkable low-end performance, which is

not really all that deep (subjectively flat to a bit below 57Hz in our

rooms) but sounds deeper than it is because the response is

actually pretty flat down to there (rather than drooping), and the bass

detail is astonishing from 5" woofers. The speakers gave such a

startling account of themselves at the low end that we were not acutely

aware of the lack of deep bottom until deeper notes (as from bass drum

or the bottom range of the string bass) that we knew were on the recording failed to come through.

High-end performance is quite remark able. The speakers have a very

slightly rising response above about 5kHz (fig.1), but because there is

no audible peak at the top, the rise does not cause any sizzling or

spitting, but tends rather to exaggerate slightly the extreme high-end

energy in the program, adding a bit more sibilance to voices, a bit

more shimmer to cymbals, and a bit more overall airiness to the sound

than is actually in the program material (footnote 3).

---

Footnote

1: American visitors to England consistently report that the BBC

transmits superb-quality sound and that unlike the US (where

practically everything aired is canned), Britons are privileged to hear

frequent live broadcasts of orchestra concerts. It is thus reasonable

to assume that the BBC engineers know good sound when they hear it.

Check out www.ls35a.com for a lot more info and cult following on this speaker.

josh

[rcarlton]

snip

One speaker I'd add to the list, but have to give the disclaimer, it's just a matter of affection. It would however be considered by most to be a redneck top ten.

The Large Advent Loudspeaker was a favorite in college and I have as much affection for them as remembering my first car.

I agree with the large Advent. Still sound good.

[joshnich]

snip

One speaker I'd add to the list, but have to give the disclaimer, it's just a matter of affection. It would however be considered by most to be a redneck top ten.

The Large Advent Loudspeaker was a favorite in college and I have as much affection for them as remembering my first car.

I agree with the large Advent. Still sound good.

ditto on the Large Advent. In the same vein, I would include the Dynaco A25, the Wharfedale W-70 (the orignal alnico 3 way design), The AR3 and the JBL L100.

Josh

[Chicago_Pete]

Josh, I still have a pair of JBL L100's. They are in mint condition and sound great after all these years. Never use them but cant bring myself to sell them.

Pete

[oldbuckster]

Josh, I still have a pair of JBL L100's. They are in mint condition and sound great after all these years. Never use them but cant bring myself to sell them. Pete

Classics then, Classics Now JBL L 100's..................ESS AMT's Air Motion Transformers instead of tweeters and rear fired passive radiators.....then I bought Klipsch and never looked back..............

[Cornwalled]

Chicago_Pete,

Which pair of Duntechs did you have? I just recently bought an old pair of DL-15/Bs for $100, but all the drivers are incorrect. I'd be curious to hear which ones you had, and how you liked them?

-Jon

[joshnich]

Josh, I still have a pair of JBL L100's. They are in mint condition and sound great after all these years. Never use them but cant bring myself to sell them.

Pete

Hey Pete,

I always wanted the JBL L100s and they were always just out of my price range back in the day. When I did get some dough I bought a pair of cornwalls. Now that I am a little more comfortable I cannot resist buying som of the gear that I couldnt afford 35 years ago. I just picked up a pair of L100s for 300 bucks. I brought them home and put them in my garage next to three pairs of Wharfedales and a pair of Dynacos. They sound great btw!

Now its a good thing that Bonneville 650s arent a little less expensive!

Josh

[colterphoto1]

If the L100's sound so good, why are they in the garage? I'm confused.

Of course there are like 7 CW's in my garage right now. Think I need a bigger house!

M

[edwinr]

Edwinr,

How close is 1 and 2?

Ever since you posted that you bought new speakers I have been thinking about listening to a pair of Martin Logans.

Thanks,

Danny

Well... good question. These speakers are very different in tonal quality, but so similar in how they load the room. Each speaker has it's strengths and weaknesses. The Klipschorn's strength includes it's ability to reproduce a huge soundstage coupled with an amazingly dynamic presentation. The Summit's soundstage is not as wide as the Klipschorn but has more depth. The Summit is not as dynamic either, but is capable of reproducing finer detail. Both are real high end contenders for the best speakers reasonable money can buy. In summary, 1 and 2 are VERY close. When push comes to a shove, one could argue that 1 and 2 are interchangable.

Any person who discounts the Klipschorn's current credentials as one of the all time best loudspeakers, obviously has not heard them. I again recount my fairly recent experience in a major hi fi store where a pair of AK4 Klipschorns were setup in a room with a number of other speakers (not an ideal situation, I know). Even when not properly sealed into corners, the Klipschorn made a mockery of the other so called high end speakers I heard. It wasn't until I heard the Summits that I thought the Klipschorn had some competition. But even now I'm not sure...

P.S. I haven't heard the AK5's yet...

[edwinr]

Avantgarde Duo down on the bottom. Glad I never chased a pair. Always liked the looks of them. Giant Duntechs worked very well for me until I got my Khorns.

The Duo's are nice speakers, but they're not as good as the Klipschorns. They cost lots more and they have a slight discontinuity in the bass region which is hard to tune out. The Klipschorn's bass response is much more seamless in presentation. I think what I'm trying to say is that the bass doesn't match the mid and highs very well. I know the Summit is a hybrid as well, but Martin Logan has done a much better job than Avantegarde Acoustics on this score.

[PhilMays]

A few people have mentioned college speakers. I had a pair of Acoustic Research speaks that everyone loved. I wish I could remember the model number. They had tight bass (but perhaps a little thin) and very detailed mids with crisp highs.

Of course that was 25 years ago. I would love to hear them now to see if I liked them as much.

[Chicago_Pete]

Chicago_Pete,

Which pair of Duntechs did you have?  I just recently bought an old pair of DL-15/Bs for $100, but all the drivers are incorrect.  I'd be curious to hear which ones you had, and how you liked them?

-Jon

Jon, I used to have the Crown Prince model. Sounded great when they worked. These things went through a lot of drivers. Finally sold them to someone for parts. Pete

[edwinr]

The Tannoy Westminister might not be in my top ten, but I wouldn't say no if it followed me home...