The 12 Most Significant Loudspeakers of All Time

[DonH50]

The Infinities were line-source systems with EMIT mids/tweeters (I had a pair of QLS-II's for a while). The EMITs are sort of like little tiny panels, more like big versions of the Decca ribbons or a small version of a Maggie tweeter than a true panel speaker, though. The woofers and woofer columns were comprised of conventional dynamic drivers.

The electrostatic/planar dynamic sound influenced a number of other designs and arguably led to more time-coherent speaker designs like the DQ-10 (a speaker I was never ever to really appreciate).

 

[bird]

Do you think that there is any innovation in a horn speaker like the BD-Design swing
http://www.bd-design.nl/contents/en-us/d224.html

Or that is installation of a "me too" idea
(I heard the swing speaker before and they are really amazing in my opinion)

 

[LL21]

Interesting. As many loudspeakers as I have owned, I have owned ZERO that were on the list. I did own Klipsh Cornwalls, Apogee Duetta and Diva and Wilson Watt/Puppy that are at least similar to those listed. (of the previous speakers I just listed, the Apogee Diva was by far my favorite --- by a long long way!!)

Hi Audioguy...i still remember coming this close to buying a s/hand pair of Apogee STages...they were incredible. and i think incredible in a way that would challenge many speakers of today. I am betting dynamic range (particularly bass) would not stand up to today;s SOTA standards (it did not really do that then to be fair)...but the midrange/grainlessness...i think it would probably stand up very well thought perhaps not class-leading. However, the midrange magic...i think that would still stand the test of time.

but i did not own them (could not swing the cost when just out of grad school)...but given your ownership of the Divas...what would say about their ability to compete with today's SOTA?

 

[FrantzM]

I remember talking to Dan and Jason Bloom at CES when the huge Krell Reference amps were driving the Apogee Grands. If one had the right size room, damn!

Lee

I sincerely wonder how this system would sound in a well treated room. I have fond memories of the Krell reference amplifers. For some (audiophile biases ? ) reason I never thought well of Krell preamps but these amps the KRS (both the KRS-100 and the KRS-200) were IMO the best amps Krell ever made. I had for a while Apogee Diva driven by Classe DR-9 and the speakers to me were up to anything currently made today (no real comparisons were truly made). I am still wondering what Apogee could have been with today's powerful software in a room treated the way we are knowing today (advances have been made in this area if only in term of audiophile recognizing the necessity of such and/or availability of software and hardware to accomplish it and well) .
IMO Krell went the other way when they had to make their amps more home-conscious. The Plateau Bias or whatever scheme never sounded as convincing as the brute force approach of the Krell KRS series IMO...
Divas and Magnepan for that matter tend to devour floor and room space. They also require my experience require stout, serious power to get their best... They remain however significant speakers in their own right. more so than the Magico Minis which really were good but "significant" ? Not by any stretch , except those of TAS

 

[LL21]

Hi Frantz,

ARe you referring to the Krell Master REference monos? i have heard they are stunning beyond all reckoning. i would love to hear a pair. i also find the Krell's of today good, technically capable, but not magical in any way (a personal preference of course). Whereas i have heard earlier krell monos, pure Class, FBB 650 monos...which were not as grainless as today's SOTA, but the way they drive Sonus Fabers and other speakers is very compelling. The drive and solidity grips the music and delivers it to you 'whole' in a way that is pretty special. i have never heard the KRS 100 or 200.

As for Divas...i have heard the same about their requirement (both space and superb...and very high current...power).

As for Magico Minis...i tend to agree with you...i think the one thing that makes them significant (in a way) is that they almost seem to close the chapter on what can be done with wood enclosures which were well beyond what (at least i personally) had ever heard before in terms of incredible alacrity, electrostatic delivery. Even the Guarneris (which i owned) which i preferred to the Magicos i have heard...did not have the speed of delivery which until i heard magicos, i did not think was possible.

 

[MylesBAstor]

I sincerely wonder how this system would sound in a well treated room. I have fond memories of the Krell reference amplifers. For some (audiophile biases ? ) reason I never thought well of Krell preamps but these amps the KRS (both the KRS-100 and the KRS-200) were IMO the best amps Krell ever made. I had for a while Apogee Diva driven by Classe DR-9 and the speakers to me were up to anything currently made today (no real comparisons were truly made). I am still wondering what Apogee could have been with today's powerful software in a room treated the way we are knowing today (advances have been made in this area if only in term of audiophile recognizing the necessity of such and/or availability of software and hardware to accomplish it and well) .
IMO Krell went the other way when they had to make their amps more home-conscious. The Plateau Bias or whatever scheme never sounded as convincing as the brute force approach of the Krell KRS series IMO...
Divas and Magnepan for that matter tend to devour floor and room space. They also require my experience require stout, serious power to get their best... They remain however significant speakers in their own right. more so than the Magico Minis which really were good but "significant" ? Not by any stretch , except those of TAS

One wonders where Apogee might have been had they had any engineering diagrams and plans too

 

[RBFC]

One wonders where Apogee might have been had they had any engineering diagrams and plans too

Leo Spiegel was a brilliant guy, but was working on things almost before their time. Had he access to modern CAD equipment, etc., the results would have been stunning IMO.

Lee

 

[DS-21]

The electrostatic/planar dynamic sound influenced a number of other designs and arguably led to more time-coherent speaker designs like the DQ-10 (a speaker I was never ever to really appreciate).

I've never seen any evidence that the DQ-10 is time-coherent. Indeed, with its huge numbers of drivers covering similar frequency ranges seemingly haphazardly tossed across a baffle, I don't think it is possible.

The aesthetics of the DQ-10 were certainly influenced by Quad, though. First time I saw one, before I heard it, I asked if it was a Quad.

 

[karma]

I've never seen any evidence that the DQ-10 is time-coherent. Indeed, with its huge numbers of drivers covering similar frequency ranges seemingly haphazardly tossed across a baffle, I don't think it is possible.

The aesthetics of the DQ-10 were certainly influenced by Quad, though. First time I saw one, before I heard it, I asked if it was a Quad.

HI,
I owned the DQ-10's, eventually fully upgraded. I don't know exactly what you mean by evidence. Measured performance? If so, then I'll let my ears do the deciding.

I do know this. The DQ-10's taught me about imaging, stage depth, and placement. I think this is proof of time coherence. Of course, this is evidence offered only by my ears, the only thing that counts with me. If I hear it, it is there, period. But that will probably not prove anything to you.

I grew out of the DQ-10's. They were flawed mostly, I think, because of their use of inexpensive drivers and that stupid super tweeter. Also, because of the inexpensive drivers, many crossover points were necessary. Too many. I have learned to hate crossovers. This is the result of a speaker that was designed to a price point. The relatively low price caused detrimental tradeoffs. One result is the speaker was popular and exposed many folks to their strong points. Why they are still in demand is a bit beyond me. The state of the art has moved on.

The DQ-10's did start my journey into panel type speakers and I have never returned to conventional designs. After Acoustat and Apogee I settled on Martin Logan CLS IIA's (biamped with dual subs) which I have had for twenty years. No plans to change.

I do think the DQ-10's, even with their flaws, were very influential speakers. They certainly influenced me.

They belong on the list.

Sparky

 

[DS-21]

I owned the DQ-10's, eventually fully upgraded. I don't know exactly what you mean by evidence. Measured performance? If so, then I'll let my ears do the deciding.

"Time coherence" is a technical claim, so obviously the only evidence that could support it is measured performance.

I do know this. The DQ-10's taught me about imaging, stage depth, and placement. I think this is proof of time coherence.

It is not. "Time coherence" is a technical claim, not a subjective one, so obviously the only evidence that could support it is measured performance.

I do think the DQ-10's, even with their flaws, were very influential speakers. They certainly influenced me.

They belong on the list.

An odd comment, given that nobody seems to have claimed otherwise.

Others have questioned the Magico Mini, however. That strikes me as valid. It is just another overpriced bad-sounding speaker without anything novel or interesting about it.

 

[karma]

"Time coherence" is a technical claim, so obviously the only evidence that could support it is measured performance.

It is not. "Time coherence" is a technical claim, not a subjective one, so obviously the only evidence that could support it is measured performance.

An odd comment, given that nobody seems to have claimed otherwise.

HI,
Wrong. The expected results can also support the claim. The DQ-10's did have those results. Other speakers did not.

I thought you were arguing against the DQ-10's inclusion.

Sparky

 

[DS-21]

HI,
Wrong. The expected results can also support the claim. The DQ-10's did have those results. Other speakers did not.

Given that "time coherence" has never been even shown to be audible, that is simply incorrect.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Given that "time coherence" has never been even shown to be audible, that is simply incorrect.

Maybe not but Richard Vandersteen, who clearly values time coherence, has always made some damn good sounding speakers.

 

[karma]

Given that "time coherence" has never been even shown to be audible, that is simply incorrect.

HI DS-21,
I think you are putting yourself in the difficult position of proving a negative. Difficult position.

Every modern speaker designer seeks time coherence using a variety of techniques. This is especially true of speakers with multiple conventional drivers. In the case of full range electrostatic's, time coherence is a nice offshoot from the panel configuration.

There is no question that the hall mark of modern speaker designs is time coherence. Modern speakers image well, older speakers not at all. It started somewhere. It could be argued that it started with the DQ-10's.

Sparky

 

[mep]

I'm not aware of the fact that studies have been done and conclusively shown that time coherence in a loudspeaker is not audible.

 

[FrantzM]

Leaving aside the audibility of time coherence. The ESL 57 was att he forefront of imaging even by todays's standard.. Interesting that the DQ-10 resemble the ESL57

DQ-10

Orginal Quad (ESL-57?)

Now what do we mean by Time coherence?

If by that we mean that the signals from the all the drivers reach the listener at the same time and in phase at a given position, I would like to know if the DQ-10 did meet this specification. Very but very, very few speakers are phase coherent... Dunleavy, Thiel and Vandersteen come to mind.. I am not sure there are many (if any) time coherent speakers in the TAS list besides single panel electrostatics ... And indeed there is some great debate let's say doubts about the audibility and importance of phase coherence .. Which seems to be the case as most speakers on the SAudiophile and in fact any market ( I know I am repeating myself here) are not phase coherent ....

 

[karma]

HI,
Actually, I see the Vandersteen designs as direct hand me downs from the DQ-10. The Vandy's are more developed and use better drivers and are better speakers. But most of Richard's ideas reflect what Jon and Sol developed for the DQ-10. I'll bet in his quieter moments, Richard silently thanks Jon Dahlquist.

And I agree that the ESL57 was the original leader. But, it is an electrostatic design with significant flaws of its own. The DQ-10 was a good original attempt at solving the coherence problem using multiple conventional drivers and non-exotic technology at an affordable price.

Of course, there were other design ideas in the DQ-10 which have also become standard fare. Diffusion at the edges of baffles was another attack on the status quo.

All in all, I see the DQ-10 as an extremely creative and tightly wound design.

Sparky

 

[mep]

Frantz brought up a very interesting point, and that is that the DQ-10 very much appears to have copied the size and shape of the ESL-57. I think that what was remarkable about the DQ-10 is that in spite of the quality of the drivers that were available at the time (or for arguments sake, let's say the quality of the drivers that JD chose to use), the damn thing sounded pretty good.

 

[DS-21]

Every modern speaker designer seeks time coherence using a variety of techniques. This is especially true of speakers with multiple conventional drivers.

Outside of their propaganda, few do. Their measured performance tells the real story. As do the specs. How many speakers use 1st order (acoustic, not electrical) crossovers and/or coincident drive-elements spaced such that all elements arrive in time?

Excluding Quad - I think it's an open question how much development there has been in their point-source panel since the ESL-63 - the only speaker designer to my knowledge today who really does seek time coherence and actually achieves it is Tom Danley, with his Unity and Synergy horn concepts that have a compression driver at the horn apex, and midrange drivers feeding through bandpass enclosures at defined points along the horn.

I would love to hear his Synergy horns, but haven't yet had the pleasure.

(The new KEF Blades may also be time coherent. They could be, in theory at least, because of the drive unit configuration. Some other speakers, such as old Dunlavies, are time coherent in a limited area if you're willing to keep your head in a vise. Best-sounding headphones you've ever heard, Dunlavy SC-VI's...)

In the case of full range electrostatic's, time coherence is a nice offshoot from the panel configuration.

No. If anything they're more smeared in time than conventional speakers, because a signal arrives at the ears at different times due to the length of the line. That's just line-source panels, mind, not a point-source panel such as a Quad ESL-63.

There is no question that the hall mark of modern speaker designs is time coherence. Modern speakers image well, older speakers not at all. It started somewhere. It could be argued that it started with the DQ-10's.

Are you really saying that something like a Tannoy Gold doesn't image well?

I'm not aware of the fact that studies have been done and conclusively shown that time coherence in a loudspeaker is not audible.

Lipshitz, et al. found phase distortion to be "generally inaudible" with music in a 1982 JAES paper.

Frantz brought up a very interesting point, and that is that the DQ-10 very much appears to have copied the size and shape of the ESL-57.

I brought that up.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Originally Posted by mep
Frantz brought up a very interesting point, and that is that the DQ-10 very much appears to have copied the size and shape of the ESL-57.

I brought that up.

That's actually nothing new. The look of the DQ10 was talked about since its release and it's first review (whose review of in the UK press was very politically motivated and trashed by a then UK press , that was decidedly pro British products). It was never a secret and the design and the similarity was not accidental. BTW, both the Magnepans and DQ10s were in parts are response to the then unreliability of electrostatic designs.