Rmaf 2015

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
The big "if only..." in high end audio. "If only" we could get panels to have serious heavy-weight scale and bass...without being the size of entire walls. If only they did not have to sit so far out from the rear wall that they also end up taking up so much room...;)

Panels do have (for me) a magic that is [almost] irresistible...but only almost...because of weight/scale and sheer ultimate slam which are more important to me.

+1 Good conventional speakers come so close anyway...

I wouldn't be interested in a dynamically limited speaker if I didn't feel comfortable that I have an excellent solution to overcome that particular limitation.

Lol, you'll be the first.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Hi Mike,

Might be an unfair question, but what did you in particular prefer about your system vs the Quads? I can imagine a legitimate answer would be 'everything' given your system...but in my case, i nearly bought the Quads and did a shoot out with SF Guarneri, small and big Quad ESLs, the SF Amati, SF Strad and Maxx II.

I was very suprised at how much the SF Guarneri and smaller Quad sounded very very very alike. And it was mainly on the element of WEIGHT and SCALE where the Maxx II and Strad really pulled away from the fantastic Quads, although i also recognize in the case of the Strad, you really had to have remarkably powerful current to ensure you max'd out their speed, alacrity to try to keep pace with the inherently faster Quad.

So for me, it is weight/scale-power where I felt i needed something else...otherwise, i find the Quad a beguiling speaker with an amazing combination of alacrity, detail, nuance...and yet tonal purity with almost no sense of artifice.

Lloyd, I think you summed up the sound of the SF GH's and the Quads very well. The reason that I so like the SF GH's, is because in a small room, they are able to bring the coherency of the amazing Quad and at the same time allow one to play louder and without strain. Once partnered with a quick sub, the G's throw off their lack of bottom end impact. Unfortunately, I do not think the same options are applicable with the Quad. Due to their inherent design, they cannot play louder without potential strain. Additionally, unlike the G's, the Quads are also not that dynamic. Now in the large/larger room, there are going to be several large speakers that will out-do both of these speakers in the portrayal of 'scale'. Something that no smaller speaker can accomplish, IMO. BUT put that same large speaker into the typical smaller room that most a'philes are utilizing, the small Quads and particularly the SF G's, will run away from that same speaker.
 
Last edited:

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
well.....I was really speaking to my own estimation of how the MSB V Diamond might compare to my Trinity dac playing redbook. and just doing my own 'best guess' of how to listen around the two different systems. I qualified my comments such as to admit that the MSB might better the Trinity dac in my system if I could actually compare it directly. so my comments were not strongly put.

but then you ask about how I actually compare the two systems, particularly the Quads/MSB amp compared to my Evolution Acoustics MM7/darTZeel. i'll try to do that as best I can.

my opinion is that the MM7's particularly match the Quads at their strengths of seamlessness, transparency and purity of mid range (when the requisite efforts are made to get them optimized which is a formidable task) with their ribbon tweeter and ceramic mids and woofers. people listening to my system often make that comparison between planers, electrostats and the MM7's on these issues....seamlessness and transparency. but the easier load of the MM7's allow for a much higher 'jump' factor and the ability of -4- 11" woofers (not talking here about the subwoofer towers) per side allow for much greater weight and snap through the mid bass. drum kits, pianos, any sort of vocal all go to another level on the MM7's. it matches the coherence of the Quad. here is where the Trinity's way with piano is remarkable and IHHO unique in terms of overcoming the worst of PCM's aberrations and artifacts and allowing the piano to be pure of tone. I did not hear that through the MSB on the Quads to the same degree that I hear on the Trinity in my system....even though in the opinion of the MSB rep that was the strength of the MSB (and the Quads too for that matter as you mention).

of course, in the bottom octaves it is no contest on any level. and how to deal with things like the dart monos, dart preamp, the Equi=tech and the room is hard to quantitate. it all matters.

YMMV, just my own opinion, and all that.

the Quads are wonderful speakers which have a special magic in smaller scale systems....and it's not really fair to compare them to the MM7's. almost any other (even uber level) speaker would allow the Quads more in the way of trade-offs.

again; IMHO.

Thanks for that, and i think, as with most all things audio, its not just about parts (cones, planars, etc) but also about execution and implementation. So with your remarkable system and system setup, i could easily imagine you miss nothing from the Quad experience and have much to gain over and above them.

I agree that at their pricepoint/level, the Quads have a unique magic that is in some respects a steal at their price if you are looking for that particular formula of magic.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
No, the speakers were both driven by the same amplifier - at that time mostly a Cello Duet. The Audio Research VT 150's were used with single Quad's.

The Quad's in double L could play string quintets and small vocals, such as ancient music, as no other speaker I have seen. As I said once, your neighbor apartment became the stage, and the purity of the sound and natural dynamics created a feeling of re-being there as no other.

The Aida's could have most of this purity, when properly matched. Unfortunately I did not like the combination with my VTL 750's and my decision was to keep the SoundLab's - a great speaker but without the purity of the Quad's. Although when used with the DatZeel NH108 their string tone is very close to the references. And the scale and bass of the SoundLabs with the Devialet's 400 is astounding!

Most interesting...i have thought about doubling up speakers (not big Wilsons!) but never had the daring (or knowledge) to actually try it. If you'd had the 18' feet of room you need, would you have kept them over the big SoundLabs or Aidas? Or would you still miss the deep powerful propulsive bass of a cone (assuming double Quad's still did not quite get there on that part)?
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
Lloyd, I think you summed up the sound of the SF GH's and the Quads very well. The reason that I so like the SF GH's, is because in a small room, they are able to bring the coherency of the amazing Quad and at the same time allow one to play louder and without strain. Once partnered with a quick sub, the G's throw off their lack of bottom end impact. Unfortunately, I do not think the same options are applicable with the Quad. Due to their inherent design, they cannot play louder without potential strain. Additionally, unlike the G's, the Quads are also not that dynamic. Now in the large/larger room, there are going to be several large speakers that will out-do both of these speakers in the portrayal of 'scale'. Something that no smaller speaker can accomplish, IMO. BUT put that same large speaker into the typical smaller room that most a'philes are utilizing, the small Quads and particularly the SF G's, will run away from that same speaker.

Yes, if it had been purely Quad 2805 to SF G, i still would have kept the Gs...that was an ear-opener for me. I was not expecting that at all during the audition. Plus, as you say, i had the sub at home.
 

still-one

VIP/Donor
Aug 6, 2012
1,633
150
1,220
Milford, Michigan
Did anyone go listen to the quad 2912 with MSB? The piano was so realistic. I don't usually go for planar speakers. But those quads were great!

After hearing those Quads at a local dealer recently I was a bit disappointed in the sound in the MSB room at RMAF. They needed more room to breath than was provided at RMAF. Don't get me wrong they sounded pretty good but after hearing the speakers in a larger room where they were positioned away from both side and rear wall I knew they could perform better. It didn't hurt that the local demo used a prototype version of the MSB Select DAC.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
After hearing those Quads at a local dealer recently I was a bit disappointed in the sound in the MSB room at RMAF. They needed more room to breath than was provided at RMAF. Don't get me wrong they sounded pretty good but after hearing the speakers in a larger room where they were positioned away from both side and rear wall I knew they could perform better. It didn't hurt that the local demo used a prototype version of the MSB Select DAC.

No doubt they can sound better than that being in such a bad listening environment. I am going to hear them in a better room today at a local dealer. I am bringing a good variety of music with me.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
No doubt they can sound better than that being in such a bad listening environment. I am going to hear them in a better room today at a local dealer. I am bringing a good variety of music with me.

Look forward to reading about your thoughts after the audition. Enjoy.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Look forward to reading about your thoughts after the audition. Enjoy.

I heard them today in a room about 15x25x9 (similar dimensions to my room); Berkeley referenced DAC, ayre pre amp and classe omega. The quads were great! The soundstage was very large and precise, particularly in the vertical plane. The midrange resolution was never heard before. It was like the best headphone but with a soundstage. I threw some very dynamic files at the quads and got them to clip a couple of times. I was listening at good levels but nothing excessive. :(

A friend of mine is a DSP guru. He uses Acourate like myself. He has quads and crosses them over to a sub pair in a phase/time aligned setup. He says the quads are fully dynamic in that setup. I want to believe it could work in my room but I don't know.

That midrange was so beguiling . . .
 
Last edited:

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Dallas, if you liked the Quads in the midrange, and after all that is where most of the musical info lies, you might want to seek out a pair of the new SF Guarneri Evolutions. The GE's are not quite as accurate or 'magical' in the mids ( or elsewhere for that matter) as the GH's, BUT they are a heck of a lot easier to find. Plus, the GE's will easily compete with the new Quads and give you a) more dynamics and b) a LOT more headroom.
 

LL21

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2010
14,411
2,509
1,448
I heard them today in a room about 15x25x9 (similar dimensions to my room); Berkeley referenced DAC, ayre pre amp and classe omega. The quads were great! The soundstage was very large and precise, particularly in the vertical plane. The midrange resolution was never heard before. It was like the best headphone but with a soundstage. I threw some very dynamic files at the quads and got them to clip a couple of times. I was listening at good levels but nothing excessive. :(

A friend of mine is a DSP guru. He uses Acourate like myself. He has quads and crosses them over to a sub pair in a phase/time aligned setup. He says the quads are fully dynamic in that setup. I want to believe it could work in my room but I don't know.

That midrange was so beguiling . . .

Great news and thanks for that...if you can get them to work with subs given your extensive experience in crossovers...that would be something!!! If you try, do please keep us posted. Beguiling midgrange, alacrity and full-range detail...plus power and slam is all pretty much i could think of in the ideal speaker setup! And at the cost of the Quads even with dual subs and crossover...even better!
 

Duke LeJeune

[Industry Expert]/Member Sponsor
Jul 22, 2013
747
1,200
435
Princeton, Texas
A friend of mine is a DSP guru. He uses Acourate like myself. He has quads and crosses them over to a sub pair in a phase/time aligned setup. He says the quads are fully dynamic in that setup. I want to believe it could work in my room but I don't know.

In my opinion this would probably entail crossing over in the 150 - 200 Hz region to get good headroom from the Quads, and ideally I'd want to use six small subs.

I'd have four of them (two stereo pairs) in the general vicinity of the Quads, but still spread out somewhat. This is because dipoles are inherently smoother in the midbass and bass region than monopoles, so I'm estimating that it will take four somewhat distributed monopole sources to approximate the in-room smoothness of two dipole Quads. But because these four subs will be operating up into the lower midrange region, you don't want to have them well to the sides or behind you or else you'll hear them as separate sound sources.

The other two subs (which can receive a mono signal, and which needn't be so small) would go well to the sides of, and/or behind, the listening area. These will give you the modal smoothing you need in the bottom two octaves, when combined with the output of the front four.

I've never actually done this with Quads but have done something similar with mains that had very good performance from 150 Hz on up. I lack your skill and experience with DSP, so you'll have more powerful tools than I did.
 
Last edited:

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
I'm afraid you are correct about the higher crossover. My impression of the quads is that they lacked some midbass in the 100-200 region.

My friend who has quads uses a pair of stereo subs and crosses them over at 90hz. I personally don't like using just a pair of stereo subs since they don't produce bass as even as mono subs. But those crossovers might be way too high for just a pair of mono subs. I think most of the "experts" think that the ear can't hear directionality below 80hz.

I know it seems crazy to even entertain the idea of buying such a deeply flawed speaker, but that midrange!

I want to hear the JBL M2. CEDIA will be here in Dallas, so I'll get my chance there next week. :)

In my opinion this would probably entail crossing over in the 150 - 200 Hz region to get good headroom from the Quads, and ideally I'd want to use six small subs.

I'd have four of them (two stereo pairs) in the general vicinity of the Quads, but still spread out somewhat. This is because dipoles are inherently smoother in the midbass and bass region than monopoles, so I'm estimating that it will take four somewhat distributed monopole sources to approximate the in-room smoothness of two dipole Quads. But because these four subs will be operating up into the lower midrange region, you don't want to have them well to the sides or behind you or else you'll hear them as separate sound sources.

The other two subs (which can receive a mono signal, and which needn't be so small) would go well to the sides of, and/or behind, the listening area. These will give you the modal smoothing you need in the bottom two octaves, when combined with the output of the front four.

I've never actually done this with Quads but have done something similar with mains that had very good performance from 150 Hz on up. I lack your skill and experience with DSP, so you'll have more powerful tools than I did.
 

DaveC

Industry Expert
Nov 16, 2014
3,899
2,141
495
I agree with Duke with one exception... I don't think a subwoofer will provide adequate performance for the higher frequencies it needs to cover (~200 Hz). I'd use a large midwoofer that has clean extension further up the frequency range and a lighter cone. Throw the quads on top. Then subwoofers with extension to 20 Hz. You could use that lower mid/bass setup for many different mid/high frequency units if it's all going to be DSPed together.
 

Duke LeJeune

[Industry Expert]/Member Sponsor
Jul 22, 2013
747
1,200
435
Princeton, Texas
My impression of the quads is that they lacked some midbass in the 100-200 region.

That has been my impression as well.

I don't think a subwoofer will provide adequate performance for the higher frequencies it needs to cover (~200 Hz).

Good point! I should have qualified that statement, as it depends on the specifics. A subwoofer with a high-inductance motor would be a poor choice. The driver I use has shorting rings in the motor and so would work in this application (and except for its low efficiency could theoretically be used out to 1 kHz or so), but it may well be unusual in that respect.

The 15" woofer Earl Geddes uses in his two-way Summa, which gets good reviews for its midrange performance, is a prosound subwoofer that he crosses over at about 1 kHz. The devil is in the details!
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
That has been my impression as well.



Good point! I should have qualified that statement, as it depends on the specifics. A subwoofer with a high-inductance motor would be a poor choice. The driver I use has shorting rings in the motor and so would work in this application (and except for its low efficiency could theoretically be used out to 1 kHz or so), but it may well be unusual in that respect.

The 15" woofer Earl Geddes uses in his two-way Summa, which gets good reviews for its midrange performance, is a prosound subwoofer that he crosses over at about 1 kHz. The devil is in the details!

Duke,
I noticed you are a SoundLab dealer. I have been reading up on various ESL speakers. Every speaker manufacturer seems to have a little different way of doing it. I've read the Quads rely on a "concentric delay line" which is designed to time align the panel which creates a point source. The step response for the quad on various stereophile reviews over the years bears this out. The Quad has the best step response of any speaker I've seen. This coherence comes through when I listen as well. Of course, it's a lot easier to get a totally coherent step when there's not a lot of bass going on. :)

How do soundlabs overcome the time domain issues associated with large line source speakers? IOW, if the entire panel is energized full band, then how can a frequency from the top of a 7' panel be arriving at the listening position in a time coherent way with the the same frequency coming from the center of the panel to the same listening position? I simply want to learn more and I hope you don't take this question as a criticism. I've read many folks say they love their SoundLab speakers. I am not trying to bash them or say they aren't technically as good as the point source Quads.

Michael.
 
Last edited:

Brian Walsh

Well-Known Member
Jul 7, 2011
336
29
935
ttsetup.com
Duke,
I noticed you are a SoundLab dealer. I have been reading up on various ESL speakers. Every speaker manufacturer seems to have a little different way of doing it. I've read the Quads rely on a "concentric delay line" which is designed to time align the panel which creates a point source. The step response for the quad on various stereophile reviews over the years bears this out. The Quad has the best step response of any speaker I've seen. This coherence comes through when I listen as well. Of course, it's a lot easier to get a totally coherent step when there's not a lot of bass going on. :)

How do soundlabs overcome the time domain issues associated with large line source speakers? IOW, if the entire panel is energized full band, then how can a frequency from the top of a 7' panel be arriving at the listening position in a time coherent way with the the same frequency coming from the center of the panel to the same listening position? I simply want to learn more and I hope you don't take this question as a criticism. I've read many folks say they love their SoundLab speakers. I am not trying to bash them or say they aren't technically as good as the point source Quads.

Michael.

Hi Michael,
Pardon my jumping in -- I'm not Duke nor am speaking for him, but I might offer a few thoughts.

It's true that the Quads (63 and later models) employ the concentric delay line design in an attempt to approximate a point source. How successful they might be delivering on that objective, I can't say. On paper it makes some sense.

Sound Labs, which I also sell and have owned for about 16 years, take a different approach from many ESLs by driving the entire panel (one piece of mylar with a conductive coating) full range and stretching it over a frame to form vertical segments (strips) to have a focal point (like a lens, from a top view) behind the speaker to approximate a line source. The sound coming off the back of the speaker membrane is not damped; rather, Roger West's distributed bass resonance principle is employed to take advantage of the resonances which naturally occur and reproduce responsive, full bass. This principle is described in detail on the Sound Lab website and on my own site.

You ask about the time for sound to reach the ear from the point on the speaker nearest the ear vs. say the top of the speaker. This may appear to be a concern, however consider that vertical dispersion is negligible, hence much of what is heard is coming from the point on the speaker nearest the ear, i.e. at the same height. No matter where you are relative to the speaker, even in a large room, you are listening in the nearfield. I think Dr. West could best elaborate on why the slight time delay you describe is of little concern in terms of listening. I should also point out that you also get significant contribution from the later arriving reverberant sound field coming off the rear of the speakers, which adds richness without smearing the sound.

I hope this answers your questions reasonably well, but if not perhaps Duke and others will chime in. Another option and maybe the best way to know is go hear a good Sound Lab set up.
 

Duke LeJeune

[Industry Expert]/Member Sponsor
Jul 22, 2013
747
1,200
435
Princeton, Texas
How do soundlabs overcome the time domain issues associated with large line source speakers? IOW, if the entire panel is energized full band, then how can a frequency from the top of a 7' panel be arriving at the listening position in a time coherent way with the the same frequency coming from the center of the panel to the same listening position? I simply want to learn more and I hope you don't take this question as a criticism. I've read many folks say they love their SoundLab speakers. I am not trying to bash them or say they aren't technically as good as the point source Quads.

Howdy neighbor!

Not taking it as criticism at all. The Quads do some things better and the SoundLabs do some things better.

Here is my best guess as to how the line source geometry of the Sound Labs affects arrival times:

A true line source wouldn't have any smearing of arrival times because the radiation would all be perpendicular to the line. Line arrays have complex lobing (in the vertical plane) and arrival-time smearing at frequencies where the spacing between the different radiating elements becomes a significant fraction of a wavelength. Because SoundLabs use one continuous panel in the vertical plane, I think they behave more like a true line source over at least some of the spectrum; at some point the wavelengths become long enough that they tend towards a point source, but by then the ear is more forgiving and the room is probably starting to dominate anyway.

That being said, I haven't seen any measurements that would validate or invalidate my guess. And because SoundLabs use a faceted-curved panel in the horizontal plane, there may be a little bit of arrival time smearing due to that, even if each facet's behavior in the vertical plane approximates a true line source. I think the idea is for the faceted-curved panel to approximate the behavior of a true vertical line source that would pass through the "focal point" located about two or three feet behind the panel, but its approximation of this theoretical ideal is probably not perfect.

In theory a continuously-curved panel (rather than a faceted-curved one) might come very close to mimicking a section of a "true line source", sort of like the delay-panels of the Quads approximate a section of the expanding spherical-shaped pattern that would characterize a "true point source". But the tension on a continuously-curved panel would change as the diaphragm moved forwards and backwards (think of it as a section of an expanding and contracting cylinder), which would necessitate a considerably stronger diaphragm material, and unfortunately in this case stronger = heavier. I've seen Martin Logan diaphragms (which are stronger and therefore heavier than SoundLab diaphragms) that had cracked presumably because of this stress over time.

That was probably a longer ramble than you were looking for, and I realize it wasn't a definitive answer. The defense rests.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Brian,
Aren't you also a Quad dealer? How do the two speakers sound different or similar?

Edit****. You aren't a quad dealer. My bad.

Btw, I read you use Adjust plus to setup TT. I ordered it because a friend of mine who is a more technically oriented TT guy recommended it. I use a lynx Hilo to measure and I will probably start a thread about how I use adjust plus to measure. I will also use to for loading and measure the results. I've given up on digital RIAA for the time being. I got a real phono pre which can adjust for various loads too. I'll still be converting my vinyl on-the-fly to do DSP.
Hi Michael,
Pardon my jumping in -- I'm not Duke nor am speaking for him, but I might offer a few thoughts.

It's true that the Quads (63 and later models) employ the concentric delay line design in an attempt to approximate a point source. How successful they might be delivering on that objective, I can't say. On paper it makes some sense.

Sound Labs, which I also sell and have owned for about 16 years, take a different approach from many ESLs by driving the entire panel (one piece of mylar with a conductive coating) full range and stretching it over a frame to form vertical segments (strips) to have a focal point (like a lens, from a top view) behind the speaker to approximate a line source. The sound coming off the back of the speaker membrane is not damped; rather, Roger West's distributed bass resonance principle is employed to take advantage of the resonances which naturally occur and reproduce responsive, full bass. This principle is described in detail on the Sound Lab website and on my own site.

You ask about the time for sound to reach the ear from the point on the speaker nearest the ear vs. say the top of the speaker. This may appear to be a concern, however consider that vertical dispersion is negligible, hence much of what is heard is coming from the point on the speaker nearest the ear, i.e. at the same height. No matter where you are relative to the speaker, even in a large room, you are listening in the nearfield. I think Dr. West could best elaborate on why the slight time delay you describe is of little concern in terms of listening. I should also point out that you also get significant contribution from the later arriving reverberant sound field coming off the rear of the speakers, which adds richness without smearing the sound.

I hope this answers your questions reasonably well, but if not perhaps Duke and others will chime in. Another option and maybe the best way to know is go hear a good Sound Lab set up.
 
Last edited:

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Thanks Duke! I noticed you live nearby now! I will briefly be be in Mckinney for Collin County this morning. I'm up there all the time.

Howdy neighbor!

Not taking it as criticism at all. The Quads do some things better and the SoundLabs do some things better.

Here is my best guess as to how the line source geometry of the Sound Labs affects arrival times:

A true line source wouldn't have any smearing of arrival times because the radiation would all be perpendicular to the line. Line arrays have complex lobing (in the vertical plane) and arrival-time smearing at frequencies where the spacing between the different radiating elements becomes a significant fraction of a wavelength. Because SoundLabs use one continuous panel in the vertical plane, I think they behave more like a true line source over at least some of the spectrum; at some point the wavelengths become long enough that they tend towards a point source, but by then the ear is more forgiving and the room is probably starting to dominate anyway.

That being said, I haven't seen any measurements that would validate or invalidate my guess. And because SoundLabs use a faceted-curved panel in the horizontal plane, there may be a little bit of arrival time smearing due to that, even if each facet's behavior in the vertical plane approximates a true line source. I think the idea is for the faceted-curved panel to approximate the behavior of a true vertical line source that would pass through the "focal point" located about two or three feet behind the panel, but its approximation of this theoretical ideal is probably not perfect.

In theory a continuously-curved panel (rather than a faceted-curved one) might come very close to mimicking a section of a "true line source", sort of like the delay-panels of the Quads approximate a section of the expanding spherical-shaped pattern that would characterize a "true point source". But the tension on a continuously-curved panel would change as the diaphragm moved forwards and backwards (think of it as a section of an expanding and contracting cylinder), which would necessitate a considerably stronger diaphragm material, and unfortunately in this case stronger = heavier. I've seen Martin Logan diaphragms (which are stronger and therefore heavier than SoundLab diaphragms) that had cracked presumably because of this stress over time.

That was probably a longer ramble than you were looking for, and I realize it wasn't a definitive answer. The defense rests.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing