Best speakers 100-250K for classic rock

[treitz3]

Hello and good evening to you, Duke. Eye to eye brother. Outstanding post IMO, and one that should be highly regarded.

Thank you for taking the time to explain something that I could not tonight. My hat is off to you, sir. Have a great evening!

Tom

 

[Brucemck2]

I really enjoyed a good cross section of “classic rock” on Alsyvox’s fed by VTL electronics at Rhapsody in Brooklyn.

 

[Serenade]

A few decades too late ...... but here is my recommendation made in jest. Naim DBL driven by Naim olives. Heard them decades ago playing rock at high volume and cannot get them out of my head. Ditto with the Klipschorns.

 

[gleeds]

A few additional thoughts for @fuscobal on getting as much useful information as is reasonably possible from the audition process:

1. Use music that you know well and that is representative of what you normally listen to, whether or not it's "audiophile approved." Your approval is the only one that matters.

2. Listen with closed eyes. The less brain power you're devoting to processing visual information, the better you can concentrate on listening deeply into the sound quality and spatial quality.

3. If you like what you are hearing from the speakers so far, this next listening test is usually pretty good at predicting whether they will give you fatigue-free listening over long listening sessions, because sometimes you may not have time for a suitably long listening session during the audition process. It's called the "L.I.A.R." test, and that stands for "Listening In Another Room":

Turn the volume level up louder than normal and walk out of the room. Listen through the open doorway but with no direct line-of-sight to the speakers. All you'll be able to hear is the reflections and their dynamic contrast. If it still sounds good, and still sounds a lot like live music, through the open doorway, ime that is a good predictor of long-term fatigue-free listening. This test will not work if the room has been heavily treated with sound absorption, as that will remove too much of the high frequency energy.

4. If something sounds obviously wrong, give that a lot of weight. One of the take-aways from the controlled blind listening tests conducted by Harman under the supervision of Floyd Toole is this: The most highly preferred speaker is not necessarily the most virtuous speaker; rather, it is the least-flawed speaker.

Duke, this is among the best and most concise pieces of advice I have seen for those seeking new loudspeakers. For me, outside the room test has been a staple benchmark for nearly five decades. If timing is off, it will never sound like musicians are playing in the next room. Get the timing right, and most other things can fall into place based on individual preferences, room, and equipment capability, etc.

 

[sbo6]

I owned Usher BE-20DMDs and wanted a more resolving, full - bodied (but not bloated) speaker with excellent bass that could play loud effortlessly. After much research yielding a short list and after listening to them all I decided on the Vivid Audio G2 S2s (made the Ushers sound like an AM radio), then upgraded to the Spirits. This speaker fits the bill (the Soundstage review is the most accurate IME).

I enjoy jazz, rock and some classical, but for rock, look no further. And the new Spirit Cu via early feedback looks to truly be even better. GLWYS.

 

[sbo6]

If you haven't done this already, my suggestion would be to compile a "short list" and, if possible, do some traveling to listen. I suggest including at least one or two horn-type speakers and one or two dipolar (open baffle) speakers so that you will have a good idea of whether looking in either of these non-mainstream directions could make sense for you.

A good dipole speaker's secret weapon is its backwave. The backwave has the same spectral balance as the front wave, which is generally not true for the off-axis energy of conventional cone-n-dome speakers. Given a long enough reflection path length (i.e. sufficient distance from the front wall), ime that backwave energy can do a very good job of conveying the "sense of space" on the recording. You might need to reduce the amount of absorption on the wall behind the speakers to get good results with dipoles.

A good horn's not-so-secret weapon is dynamic contrast. Musicians use dynamic contrast to convey emotion, and horns do a better job of conveying dynamic contrast than other speaker types. The relatively narrow radiation patterns of good horns tend to minimize the amount of energy in the early reflections, and it is those early reflections which most strongly compete with the "sense of space" on the recording. So good horns can also do a very good job of conveying the "sense of space" on the recording, though ime they are usually not quite as enveloping as good dipoles.

Among conventional loudspeakers Von Schweikert has impressed me, and it might be because their rear-firing tweeters make a beneficial contribution to both sound quality and spatial quality.

(Disclaimer: I'm a dealer for a dipole brand, and am also involved with "hybrid horn" speakers; that is, speakers with direct-radiator woofers and horns for the upper frequencies.)

With due respect, one can tout the pluses for any speaker topology including cones, omnis, etc. And they can all play rock music well, depending on the actual mfr. and model. What's omitted are the minuses like many (most?) horns make your ears bleed ~>90DB, many dipoles require significance distant to the front wall and careful placement / choice of treatment, etc.

Objectivity is key.

 

[Anton D]

Horns objectively cause ears to bleed?

 

[sbo6]

Horns objectively cause ears to bleed?

Yep, the majority deem it to be so. ;-)

 

[Duke LeJeune]

With due respect, one can tout the pluses for any speaker topology including cones, omnis, etc. And they can all play rock music well, depending on the actual mfr. and model. What's omitted are the minuses like many (most?) horns make your ears bleed ~>90DB, many dipoles require significance distant to the front wall and careful placement / choice of treatment, etc.

Objectivity is key.

Imo a "good horn" would be one that doesn't "make your ears bleed". That's why I specified a "good" horn. I didn't go into detail because "this horn type vs that horn type" could easily become a thread de-rail.

And imo ALL dipoles require significant distance from the front wall, which is why I said "given a long enough reflection path length (i.e. sufficient distance from the front wall)..."

The point of my post that you quoted was to encourage @fuscobal to consider a couple of speaker types that he might not have been considering. And yes, omnis could be included.

 

[Anton D]

Yep, the majority deem it to be so. ;-)

Well, there’s audiophile objectivity in a nutshell!

 

[bonzo75]

Yep, the majority deem it to be so. ;-)

You should listen to Spotify though Apple ear buds like the majority

 

[bonzo75]

at least one or two horn-type speakers and one or two dipolar (open baffle) speakers

Someone who looks to audition only 1 - 2 horn speakers is likely to end up listening to the worst. High probability duos or unos or that type will be one of the two

 

[andromedaaudio]

Imo a "good horn" would be one that doesn't "make your ears bleed"

Thats a pretty low standard dont you think.

And if it makes your ears bleed then put a low powered SET on them to stop the suffering

 

[morricab]

I would say this speaker will fit the bill perfectly:

Nighthawk Speaker System No.1636

Nighthawk Speaker System No.1636 Price: $60,000 USD per pair (plus shipping) Lead Time: Made to order – please allow approximately 4 months for delivery. Inquiries: Contact joseph_crowe@josephcrowe.com Overview The Nighthawk No.1636 is a bespoke, ultra-high-performance loudspeaker system...

josephcrowe.com

Plus, it’s rather unique but should deliver the power of well recorded rock but also other genres…and very good value I think.

 

[tima]

Just get a pair of these! The Who used them.

Rob

Or for something a touch smaller the JBL 4344 or 4345.

 

[metei]

Which would you consider in this price range for a 40sqm room with decent acoustics (GIK absorption panels, diffusers to be added soon). 90% of the music is classic/progressive rock, country, pop and mixes between them (Dire Straits, Pink Floyd, Fleetwood Mac, Tom Petty, Dylan, Cash, Marillion, Styx ...). Current system consists of Aurender N10 + Emm DAC2X V2 + Pass Xp-10 + Pass X250.5 + Usher Be10. After the speakers, the digital gear will also be upgraded.

Hi Fuscobal,
This is a tricky question, but in a positive manner, not negative, since at the price range You mention, any reputable brand's any reputable model would perform perfectly, for any and all kinds of music, naturally classic rock. But I also get Your question, there would be minuscule differences but they shouldn't be so influential on decision. In this concept, what You prefer in tone character is more important; as in size / number of bass drives, number / toning of mid drives, toning of tweeter etc. Also depending on where You live (US / EU / Asia etc.) availability, price advantage etc. would be important. Even more, in this price range, the looks would be a more important decision maker than sound due to all having high quality of it.
Having owned Focal Maestro Evo 3 for 5 - 6 years now and listened to a lot of the music You have mentioned meanwhile, way below Your budget, that would be my suggestion without a heartbeat. But since Your room size and budget are bigger than mine I would definitely suggest Focal Stella. Having owned and listened to many speaker types, I -personally- prefer one big bass drive over two smaller drives having same total surface area but on the contrary, I prefer two mids instead of one. Stella has these two over Maestro. But not the Grande due to room size.
I -personally- don't like horns and ribbons especially on tweets, so -my- suggestions would be around that liking. There are listeners out there prefer other build structures and tone characters.
As per Your room size, speakers below Your budget would better suit You; as in Wilson's Alexia V; similar to Focal, slightly softer mid and not Berilyum so a way softer tweeter, similar bass. But not the bigger brother Alexx that's in Your defined budget range due to room size.
I would also suggest Marten speakers, Coltrane Quintet and Mingus Septet would be suitable for Your room. Coltrane Quintet was my dream speaker but way out f my budget. Haven't heard it in my own room / system, but it is the most "correct" sounding speaker ever to my humble ears.
You have very good power amp, I had demoed the mono of it (260?) in my room against my Dan 550 monos and they were hair thin different. So they would drive all these speakers easily, with a good tone character. Also the remaining budget would make room for any other link of the chain.

 

[DasguteOhr]

Not 100k but best simple handyhornspeaker

 

[sbo6]

Well, there’s audiophile objectivity in a nutshell!

I guess you misinterpreted the ;-)

 

[sbo6]

You should listen to Spotify though Apple ear buds like the majority

A) check the ;-) B) I assume "though" means through and "ear buds" means earbuds?

 

[sbo6]

Imo a "good horn" would be one that doesn't "make your ears bleed". That's why I specified a "good" horn. I didn't go into detail because "this horn type vs that horn type" could easily become a thread de-rail.

And imo ALL dipoles require significant distance from the front wall, which is why I said "given a long enough reflection path length (i.e. sufficient distance from the front wall)..."

The point of my post that you quoted was to encourage @fuscobal to consider a couple of speaker types that he might not have been considering. And yes, omnis could be included.

You missed my point entirely -
A) Any speaker type/ topology can be excellent or not, by selecting specific types and omitting others you're favoring a specific type. For example: If one asks for car advice and I say, Porsche and BMW are excellent sports cars because of X, Y and Z and list no other cars, how do you think this gets interpreted? That's what you did.

B) All have + and - which you conveniently omitted or articulated not as a negative. Sugar coating afterward doesn't change the facts.