The 12 Most Significant Loudspeakers of All Time (TAS 205)
September 28th, 2010 -- by The Absolute Sound Staff
Source: The Absolute Sound
Source: The Absolute Sound
For this special loudspeaker-focus issue, I asked our most senior contributors to each name the twelve loudspeakers that had the greatest impact on high-end audio. These are the speakers that introduced a new technology, changed the market, influenced future designs, or revealed some previously unheard aspect of sound quality. Although each writer worked in isolation, the individual choices exhibited remarkable unanimity. From each writer’s picks we selected, by consensus of the senior editorial staff, “The 12 Most Significant Loudspeakers of All Time.” Our final verdict is presented in ascending order of significance (#1 being the most significant). Robert Harley
12
Klipschorn
The Klipschorn is the only speaker that has been in continuous production for over 60 years. But that’s not why it makes the list. The Klipschorn is a landmark product due to its folded horn design. Paul Klipsch, inventor and entrepreneur, patented the idea of assembling chambers and passageways for a bass driver’s sound waves to gradually expand as they travel out to the opening. The sound is mechanically amplified by the expanding “folds” in the passageway of the horn. (Without this, a low-frequency horn would be the size of a full room.) In 1946, the first 20 Klipsch loudspeakers were assembled in a tin shack in Hope, Arkansas. The base horn design has never been improved—it was perfect from day one. Klipsch’s four principles of sound reproduction are: efficiency, flat frequency response, controlled directivity, and dynamic range. A Klipschorn provides a detailed wall of sound that emanates from the corner of a room. It was the first “absolute sound.” Imagine the sound of a windup Victrola being replaced overnight by the sound of unamplified live instruments in space. Most amazing is that you can buy it today. That’s 60 years of advancement in one moment.
Peter Breuninger
11
MBL 101 E
In the history of high-end audio, there have been a number of fascinating and genuinely innovative drivers—Alan Hill’s plasma tweeter and Lincoln Walsh’s “transmission-line” cone, for examples. Not all of them caught on—for good reasons (the joke about the Walsh driver used to be that it took 200W to get it to make sound and 201W to blow it up, while the Hill produced enough ozone to choke a horse). Wolfgang Meletzsky’s omnidirectional “Radialstrahler”—a truly ingenious pumpkin-shaped contraption constructed of aluminum/magnesium “petals” that flex in and out in response to an audio signal (like the pleats of an accordion), producing near-equal sound pressure throughout 360 degrees (rather, dare I say it, like a pulsating, er, pumpkin)—is certainly a brilliant concept and happily it doesn’t blow up or poison the air. What it does do is produce the most enveloping soundstage this side of a surround system, absolutely thrilling large-scale dynamics, and timbres that are very true-to-life (in frequency response, the MBL is an exceedingly flat-measuring loudspeaker). Though omnis aren’t as commonplace as they once were back in the day, the sui generis 101s set a standard of excellence and sheer lifelike excitement that has kept them the foremost omnidirectional speakers for more than thirty years.
Jonathan Valin
10
Advent
Not very long ago, a long-time audio buddy gave me a chance to hear his Double Advent setup (and in his garage!). The experience in a sense, just about took my breath away: The speakers, even in that primitive setting, were magnificent! They remained as uncolored and neutral as ever, exceeding too many of today’s so-called “super” systems. I had, if the truth be told, forgotten (audibly) just how very special this doubling up [stacking a pair atop another pair] of Henry Kloss’ last great speaker was and remains. Wished I had had the sense to hold on to the pair I bought (back when, actually in 1972, just before I started Issue One of this rag). The Advents weren’t then entirely trouble-free thanks to mechanical problems with the original tweeters. Seen in today’s light, aside from an airy top end, the only thing missing was its ability to recreate a wide and dimensional soundstage. If you can grab a pair in good condition, and they are out there, be smarter than me.
Harry Pearson
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Comments
The picture of the Advent does not represent the speaker that's described.
The original Advent, and Smaller Advent, had only one tweeter.
Well, no one else did it so here is a link to Advent photos. BTW, the speaker shown in the article is the Small Advent, with basterdised tweeters, most likely from the plastic cabinet, cheapie Advent II's. If you click on the link below, you will see that there is more room on the cabinet face on the Advent than on the smaller Advent shown.
I guess the author of the article does not know about Google Images.
http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1T4ADSA_enUS370US370&biw=157...
DanV
When I clicked on the link to see if it worked, I scrolled down and found the Advent II in a cabinet that I never knew existed. Guess what? It is the speaker in the photo from the article. I had only seen the original white, one piece plastic cabinets with rounded edges. I owned 4 Advents (Wood cabinets, sounded better due to beveled edges), as well as two Small Advents and two Advent II's, both bought from the Earth Shoe store at UT Knoxville when it shut down. I miss those shoes.
DanV
If the Bose 901 is not in this list, you are just lying to yourselves.
Gary Eickmeier
I agree. I thought the Bose 901's were very poor speakers even for their time period, but there is no denying their significance.
... this is a joke, right?
http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/425/
I have to admit, when I saw the article title and started to mentally make a list of speakers I thought would be candidates, I grudgingly put the 901 there. Obviously, audiophiles are loathe to allow the name "Bose" to pass their lips/keyboards, but the 901 had a major impact. [Edit: actually, re-reading the intro for the article, since it's focused on the high end audio world only, omitting the 901 makes sense.]
I'm also shocked to see the B&W 801 is not on the list.
Here is a photo of the DM70 speaker which came out in 1970. The 801 was new in 1979 and had nothing in common other than being a speaker and having cone rather than electrostatic mids and highs on top of the base. There was also a square cabinet DM70 called the Continnental.
Whoops, this website won't allow a photo. Here is the link:
http://www.google.com/images?rlz=1T4ADSA_enUS370US370&q=B%26W+dm70&um=1&...
Also, the B139 KEF driver was used in the B&W DM1 before B&W made their own drivers.
DanV
In Rainman, Tom Cruise made Raymond learn to say, "K-Mart Sucks." In the 70's I taught my son (Honestly) to say, "Bose Sucks."
I assume you own their crap now or have a faulty memory.
I was in the Military from 1976 to 1985. My first station was in Germany. Even way back then I was a person obsessed with listening to music-good, loud and clear. I had done some research back then and decided I was going to purchase a set of ESS AMT Monitors (a compnay located (if I can remember correctly-Sacramento, California). One of the reasons I did so was because of an inovative (at the time) Tweeter System called the "Heil Air Motion Transformer." 12 pounds of metal plates with a high frequency tweeter ribbon wrapped in a coil in the middle. Anyone remember these? I had paid (in 1978 economy) $1200.00 for the pair! These were the most clearest sounding speakers I had ever heard. The depth of the music along all frequency lines was superb-in my opinion. These speakers were with me for a total of 29 years and still were kicking untill I finally decided to retire them back in 2007. It was a sad day, but mostly filled with sonic memories.
I never had a Heil AMT based speaker but read bout them many times and it's certainly an interesting design. Interesting that you mention this as I was just this week reading a review of Martin Logan's new "Motion" series speaker which uses a "Folded Motion" tweeter that is clearly a descendent of the Heil design. Might be worth a look.
While the 70s ESS versions of Oskar Heil's Air Motion Transformers were not perfect and correctly do not belong on the list, the Oscar Heil's principle of an air motion transformer was revolutionary, and so relevant a technology that today it is used by about a dozen manufacturers including Eton, Mundorf, Adam (studio monitors), Martin Logan HT speakers, Elac, in Japan FAL, Precide, Mark & Daniel, and of course ESS (still in business) - many years since Oskar's passing. Heil (who also invented the Field Effect Transistor) also designed a bass version which was implemented in the ESS Transar and the bass air motion transformer design was replicated over 30 years later by Tymphony which called it LAT for linear array transducer. Oskar Heil was a modern day Edison.
The picture is some kluge modified it's NOT teh original, so teh article is flawed. I had the double Advent system back in teh 70's it was terrific, BUt, still not enough, so I wired on a set of AR-2ax and a pr of Dynaco A-25 and a micro coustic tweeters, it was pretty good, but not like what can be done now with large floor standers. they are obsolete, underperforming. Where did you get this picture, it's not an original.
Of course that wire sounds better!
The picture is some kluge modified it's NOT teh original, so teh article is flawed. I had the double Advent system back in teh 70's it was terrific, BUt, still not enough, so I wired on a set of AR-2ax and a pr of Dynaco A-25 and a micro coustic tweeters, it was pretty good, but not like what can be done now with large floor standers. they are obsolete, underperforming. Where did you get this picture, it's not an original.
Of course that wire sounds better!
One would think that a prestigious publication like The Absoloute Sound could at least display a proper photo of a speaker that they say is one of the twelve most significant speakers in history. The tweeters in the photo appear to be from the little white Advent 2's, not to be confused with the Smaller Advents, which used the same dual concentric, orange tweeter of the original Advent.
DanV
No Dynaco A-25? Come on, they where one of teh most popular speakr of all time, they did amazing things for small size and price, as they where discounted heavily, it didn't get the price fixes like other brands did. The A-25 was a true classic.
Of course that wire sounds better!
Would you please check the model designation of the MBL speakers because I think the E refers to Extreme. The 101 Extreme have two "pumkins" in one column and cone bass drivers in another. They were demonstrated at the Hong Kong AV Show in 2008 and I listened to them for two sessions. They were the best sounding speakers at the Show though in my view the midrange was a bit coarse probably because the metal strips making the "pumkin" were too thick, thus causing slow response.
Sorry, I checked just now. The 101 Xtreme spells with X and not Extreme.
Why no Beverage speakers on this list??? Or the Hill Plasmatronics???
Ummm. Beverage/ECM Time Windows/Hill Plasmatronics/BIC omni's-GNARLY RETRO!!!
Why no Beverage speakers on this list??? Or the Hill Plasmatronics???
Regarding the Quad ESL 57 - Boy, did you get this right! Again!
I remember the ESS AMT speakers very well. I assume you are talking about the ones that were about 45 inches tall. At the time I heard them I thought they were real sleepers. They had an open, natural sound that really drew you in. They rivaled many of the speakers in this group. Unfortunately they weren't that popular, so as good as they were, they probably don't belong in this group.
Another pair of speakers I thought might be in this list was the EPI Towers. They stood close to 7 feet tall by 2 feet square and had their drivers at the bottom of the enclosures. They reproduced a midrange that was amazing. I remember hearing the Persuasions on a pair of EPI Towers and I had to look around them to be sure the group wasn't standing behind them. I wanted a pair, but they were too big for my space. Again, however, the Towers didn't gain the popularity that they deserved.
I was surprised that the JBL Paragon didn't make the list. It was such a classic and many thought it produced an accurate soundstage. In actuality it was a thing of beauty whose sound almost didn't matter. Maybe it just needs to be inducted into the furniture hall of fame.
I still have a pair of Sequerra Met 7's, which I believe give the Rogers LS3/5a's a run for their money. I wouldn't call either a true breakthrough, but they were pretty amazing for their size.
All in all, with maybe one or two that could be questioned I think the list is a good one.
I totally agree with the comments about the Bose 901 and Bose speakers in general, but there was a time when they were making the rounds of high end stores. I would consider them to be bellweather speakers, introducing the notion of reflected sound (perfected by the Maggies) and the notion of electronic assist to make up for acoustical deficiencies. Their wide soundstage did sound impressive in the right environment even though it made Joan Baez appear to be the same size as Mama Cass. I think in spite of their many shortcomings, they belong in this list--certainly in company with the Rogers LS3/5a's.
Thanks Les. But I fear the audiophile crowd, including myself for the first 10 years I owned them, never learned how to use the 901s properly. Speaker positioning is critical for any speaker, but this design is unique in using the walls around it as part of the design. When I learned how to place them, everything snapped into focus and Joan Baez was once again the correct size and position. So much so, in fact, that I began a life-long study of all of these "imaging" effects. I learned the importance of reflected sound, something that no other manufacturer had ever addressed, and wrote it up as a new theory for stereophonic reproduction that takes all of the factors into account. It is called Image Model Theory, and is found in
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=5825
It may help all of you to partly understand why the Infinity IRS had 12 tweeters on the back of the enclosure, and why the Vandersteen in this very issue has a tweeter on the back of the speaker.
ALL high end stores were demo'ing most of their other equipment with the 901s, because it made it sound so impressive. Pecar Electronics in Detroit used to place a 901 on top of an Electrovoice Patrician and A/B the two, and people couldn't tell which was which. In another store they were comparing the 901s to the Ohm F and the Magneplanars. They decided to discontinue the Bose speakers because they were so much less expensive than the other speakers, and were taking sales away.
This speaker built a factory on a mountaintop, and the magic of the 901 name caused many other manufacturers to use the "901" designation as part of their model name for various electronics or transducers. There is a lot more to all of this, but the 901 is a speaker that changed my life, and I still own them and have found nothing that can even pretend to replace them. They were the most sensational loudspeaker of all time, and are to this day the only one in which the radiation pattern is designed in and not accidental.
Gary Eickmeier
The entire design is flawed, you cannot possibly move any air with low distortion with teh tiny drivers used in the 901 system. Making up for it's flawed design, with an equalizer is even more ridiculous. 4.5" drivers cannot move enough air, to begin to be lifelike. They are completely horrible sounding speakers, they are not complete., nor full range. No highs, no lows, must be BLOSE
Of course that wire sounds better!
I think Gary hit on some very important points concerning the 901's. They were most sensitive to proper placement. The ideal was a room about 12 feet by 15 feet with nothing on the walls on either side of the speakers. I had a pair of them for several years, driven by my Phase Linear 400, but what I didn't have was a room that allowed for side wall reflection. It was mainly this that caused me to "graduate" to Cambridge Audio R50's with their Kef drivers.
In any case my room limitation does explain my comment about the width of the sound stage. I think the 901's got a bad rep because most people didn't have the right room for them and/or didn't drive them with enough power. That said, the comments by cedup are not only inaccurate, but they are also inappropriate. Dr. Bose's patent introduced the idea of many small speakers acting as one with the ability to move lots of air. The 901's did just that. Their base wasn't bad and the treble wasn't bad either. Those 4" CTS drivers did a pretty amazing job.
What is an "audiophile speaker" anyway? It is a subjective statement. Hundreds of thousands of people in the early 70's considered them to be the creme de la creme, so as I stated before, they earned a place in the short list of the most innovative ("audiophile" or not) speakers of all time.
As an aside, I've always thought it was a shame that Bose went "commercial" after the 901 and as a result most of us who are reading the likes of The Absolute Sound now shy away from their products and even resort to calling them nasty names. Maybe there is a little jealousy in this--for how much money they have Bose has made. But I digress...
It is very difficult to put a list like this together without missing some candidates. We heard Tubular Bells on the Ohm F's and thought they were pretty amazing and we heard the B&W electrostatic/woofer combination (I think that was the original 801) play Frederick Fennell's Telarc recordings and thought they sounded pretty doggone good. We heard the Acoustats and the Vandersteens--all good and each bringing innovation to the fore. What about the Weathers system as the first 3-enclosure system with its satellites & subwoofer? And what about my Infinity Preludes???
There are so many variables in listening experiences (electronics, room acoustics, recordings, mood, etc.) that it is impossible to get everyone to agree universally on a list like this. Aside from the sound itself, it is equally difficult to prioritize innovations. I still think the panel did a good job even if the 901's are missing in action.
McDonalds makes a lot on money it still sucks.. BLOSE no low, no highs, must be BLOSE
Of course that wire sounds better!
I'm a long time fan of Mirage's bipolar/omnipolar designs, going back to a pair of M3s I purchased in 1990. It seems to me that Bose is at least somewhat of an ancestor, philosophically. Obviously dipoles have been around since before the 901 so the idea of the open, ambient sound via reflections from the speaker's back panel is something not exclusive to the 901, but as someone else said it was the first to be specifically designed to do that, not as an unavoidable consequence of the technology.
The Bose 901's were significant, but they were never an audiophile speaker. My Blaze Linear 400 powered, stacked Advents murdered them in bass precision and midrange presence, not to mention actually playing treble stuff like cymbals, something the 901s entirely omit. Many dealers quoted the sweet sixteen principle concerning the Bose's 9 drivers; You can take a crap speaker, add 15 (or 8) more, and you still have a crap speaker. Many B&W dealers kept 901s in stock to compare them directly. My Advent dealer did the same.
B&W DM 14s replaced my Advents in 1980; of course, I had to stack two pair: WoW! Although I also have B&W 803s and Acoustats, the stacked Advents, now Forte powered, still rock my game room, 30 years later.
The Bose 901s were very impressive, but not an audiophile product... thus it's omission.
I was also surprised by the lack of the B&W 801 on the list. It's amazing how such an innovative company can become last year's cast away orphan. I guess Wilson was a couple years ahead in the non-resonant noiseless box design, but the 801 was already reviewed as the best ever, by far. Still, this is a really good list.
DanV
.
I take issue with the statement that the WATT was "the first loudspeaker in which reducing enclosure vibration was a high design goal." The benefits of making the enclosure acoustically dead have been known from the first day someone (I believe at RCA) decided to mount a speaker in a box. Wilson should be given credit for doing a great job of building an acoustically dead enclosure, but not for essentially inventing the concept. What about Wharfdale's sand-filled baffles that predated the WATTs by many years? What about the AR3s and the stacked Advents, both of which can trace much of their uncolored sound to the rigidity of their enclosures?
You are right. Even my old, very resonant B&W DM14 cabinets were completely stuffed with rock wool and had the drivers mounted with rubber washers between the cabinets and drivers. The omission of the wool and washers on the subsequent DM1400's, and their use of wood screws rather than metal inserts, really showed that B&W had worked to reduce the vibrations, at least by 1979. And let's not forget that one of the best examples of non-resonant speakers are the ones with no cabinet, such as planars. That's Quad in 1957.
DanV
this list covers different types of speaker designs..like the HORN design..Planar design..but still: on LS3/5a the role of kef drivers worth a mention...its good
Yes the LS3/5a was a pretty nice speaker, but let us not forget that it was designed to play in a remote van and not designed to put out much power or bass. Important, Yes. A great speaker, No.
Some early KEFs and B&Ws both used Celestion drivers and B&W also used the sweet Coles, Sticky clear (Texture not sound) supertweeter.
Very interesting. I didn't know so many people back then used KEF drivers. My long since departed Cambridge Audio R50s (not to be confused with the current American Cambridge R50) used a combination of KEF B-139, B110, T27, and STC 4001G drivers. I never knew much about the STC super tweeter until I saw your post. Apparently it was used in B&W and KEF speakers and was it also in the Rogers L5/3a? I also just discovered that the STC 4001 was originally a microphone turned into a speaker and it was acquired by Coles. The B-139 was truly legendary and could be seen in many systems. In my acoustic labyrinth Cambridge Audio enclosure, the B-139 produced some very clean, unencumbered bass down to 45 Hz. KEF made some good stuff.
The Apogee Acoustics full range ribbon models were revolutionary when they appeared on the market and their Diva, Duetta, and Stage models are still sought after today. Their advancement of the state of ribbon designs is legendary. The line ribbon midrange tweeter design was later imitated by people like Bohlender Graeber and Carver, and Carver blatantly copied Apogee's iconic angled side flat panel look combining a ribbon Mid/Twt with conventional dynamic bass drivers. Using bass ribbon design started by Apogee, Magnepans latested quasi-ribbon bass panels now share Apogee's use of a ribbon conductor instead of wires on the bass diaphragms with a commensurate improvement of sound over previous versions. If not for the early death of Jason Bloom (accidental death) they would probably still be around. A new company (Apogee Acoustics) has emerged in Australia making replacement part for original Apogee products, and brand new speaker based on improvements to the the originals are also available. Apogee's contribution to the state of the art during their time dwarfs some of the others on the list such as Dalquist.
I fully agree as a ribbon user, for midrange and high.
Are you sure about the history of Magnepans and Apogee? The first Magnepan speakers came out in 1976 whereas the first Apogee speakers came out in 1980 as I remember. I always thought Magnepans used a combination of foil strip and wire conductors glued to a Mylar sheet from the beginning. Also, the Acoustats came out in the mid 70's and I thought they used a type of ribbon. Are you saying that Apogee was the first to slice the Mylar into strips? In any case I'm not saying the Apogee didn't advance the state of ribbon designs, but I am not sure who did what to whom at what time. The mid 70's was a time of very prolific electrostatic development.
Also, I remember vaguely that Carver made some kind of arrangement with Apogee for his speaker, so it may not be correct to characterize him as blatantly copying the Apogee outside physical design.
I remember listening to the Apogees (probably the Diva) and thinking they beamed in a narrow listening field a little more than I would have liked. Beaming was one reason why Martin Logan curved their panels.
I find all of this discussion very interesting. It is like a walk down memory lane. My favorite speakers of all time are the early Magnepans, but they were so sensitive to placement that I never had a house that would take them (not to mention the veto by my wife). Their midrange was to die for.
Les
I wanted to point out innovations that Apogee did to contributing to the state of the audio art - not disparage others - and I think accurately.
To your questions - Actually for years Magnepan has been making BASS panels with aluminum wires glued to pre-stretched mylar, (see - http://www.soundstagelive.com/factorytours/magnepan/). Ribbon conductors have previously been ONLY used on their quasi-ribbon midrange/tweeters (and true ribbon of course), but NOT on woofer panels. Now, with the introduction of the new 1.7 they are using a ribbon conductor on a woofer panel (as did Apogee from the first speaker). To quote Magnepan -
"The 1.7 is a departure from Magnepan's 41-year history of using planar magnetic drivers for the bass or lower midrange. The use of quasi ribbon technology down into the lower midrange and bass will provide a new level of coherence."
No intent to disparage Magnepan, nor to imply they copied anything - they are one of the most respected contributors to the art. Just pointing out Apogee's contributions. So, I think I fairly stated the history.
Another unique thing Apogee did was the use of the trapezoidal bass diaphragm which allowed them to distribute the membrane resonances to a broader range of frequencies - with the wider portions tuned lower than the narrower portions. This distributed resonance technique is something that Soundlab does with their electrostatic panels according to their literature (though by different tuning of segments - not the trapezoidal method). Apogee was very innovative in their day and left their mark in audio history.
BTW, I do have a bias - owning bi-amped Apogee Duetta Signatures which have updated M/T ribbons from Apogee Acoustics in Australia.
Thanks for the answers. Very enlightening. I am also sure your Apogees sound great.
By the way, I agree with your on Dahlquist versus other significant contributors . I remember all the hype that went with the Saul Marantz/Jon Dahlquist introduction of the DQ-10. I was at the CES when it was introduced and remember that it had a nice sound, but that I thought several other speakers in the show were better. I was curious why they chose a baffle that looked so much like the Quad--especially since I felt both the Quad and DQ-10 would have been better if they had radiated at ear level. Both were definitely sit-down-on-the-couch speakers, which made them lose a little at CES, where most people are standing. [smile]
Les
..
Thank you for a correct and proper comment on the obvious failings of this list-no Apogee. Seems crazy. DQ-10's? Oh pleeze!
I must say that this list well represents significant contributors to advances in speaker designs in the past. But if you want to talk about the present, there is one loudspeaker that employs the best of currrent technologies, the Legacy Whisper XD. As a hybrid, it employs a progressive Heil AMT, ribbon mids, acoustic suspension mid-bass, and differential gradient bass radiation quite coherently integrated with 24 bit DSP. It benefits from two 500 watt ICE amps in each loudspeaker for the bass section. It has greater room independence and is far less diffuse than the MBL. You really need to check it out.
Well spotted, gearhead. I haven't heard the current edition. The earlier one, although not as crammed with technology, sounded great. Alas, they fit into neither my house nor my budget.
General comment: good list.
Specific comment: "His spectacular debut in audiophile circles in the pre-high-end era was a full-range speaker he called the Servo-Statik One "
This was the speaker that first interested me in good sound. I heard it by accident and was astonished. I had no idea anything like that was even conceivable, let alone possible. A flashback from my youth.
I don't know where the quote on the Servo-Statik came from, but I was also really impressed by the sound of this system. It burned the Infinity name into my head, even though I couldn't afford the system at the time. When I could afford that system and might have had the room for it, it was no longer made. After going through many speaker systems, I now listen to Infinity both in my car and at home (Preludes). I've always liked Infinity sound--a little on the bright side but balanced overall. Though Infinity has been folded under the Harmon Group, I still think the company has produced some incredible, innovative sound, not the least of which was the Servo-Statik. Unlike Bose, they stuck with the high end while also going "commercial" and as a result have been a business success. I was glad to see the Infinity Reference System in the list because I do believe Nudell & company deserve to be there for at least one of their products.
Les
New Infinity speakers are still being manufactured. Please see www.infinitysystems.com/home/default.aspx There is an importer of the Prelude Forty model here in Hong Kong and I spotted the picture of the speakers in the booklet of the 2010 HiFi Show.
Superior speakers to most things produced now. My Whispers smoke most. Not even the HD or current XD, but they are superb, natural, REAL i drive em with about 5200W RMS on 4 VanAlstine OmegaaStar EX/Insight stuff Hafler P500 running about 1200-1400W each into 4 OHMS. Watts is not just loudness it's control and REAL. Legacy has to be some of the finest stuff produced in the last 20 years. i started with the Foccus and moved on up. Once you go Legacy Whispers, everything else basically sucks
Of course that wire sounds better!
Gearhead and cedup,
I agree on the Legacy Whispers.
If you want pin-point imaging and a big soundstage- the Whispers have it.
I was impressed with the HD's- add the redesigned woofers and the 4 internal channels of 500 watts powering the XD's and you have all the bass you could want.
Stereo Mojo sums up my experience with the Whispers:
"I'd put the Whisper XD up against any Wilson or Focal. I've heard them all. I'll take the Whispers."
http://www.stereomojo.com/Legacy%20WhisperXD%20Review.htm/LegacyWhisperX...
Add in the second-to-none cabinet, and the competition is over.
Yup, I had people listen to my Whispers, they had $40K Focal Utopias, they SOLD EM! They bought a pair of used Whispers from Legacy and pocketed the cash, and had a much much much better sounding system! The Whispers are far superior . If only I could go HELIX, NOTHING compares! Incredible stuff.
Of course that wire sounds better!
Top ten lists are always a bit dumb in my mind...and this is one no exception.
First off...it should have been called Most Significant in the USA as the list has very little bearing on what was significant around the rest of the world.
Secondly...someone really likes flat panel and planar speakers.
They represent the majority of choices here and this alone illustrates a distinct bias.
But I must point to one choice in particular ...the Dahlquist DQ‑10...as being the antithesis of a speaker that was significant...unless you are talking about one that was very popular with certain buyers despite it's horrendous sound.
The writer states that it influenced many other speaker manufacturers including B&W and Keff. Is he kidding? Just how did this multiple driver open baffle unit influence the likes of the ubiquitous B&W 801?
He states the drivers were time aligned. I would strenuously disagree with this statement. There is no way these were time aligned in the recognized sense of the word.
Many people have pointed to the Bose 901 as a pivotal design but have been shot down with the "it wasn't audiophile" argument. Well I have to say that the Dahlquist falls into that camp too. Like em or hate em...the 901's were a very significant design.
Finally, I am amazed that no one chose the B&W 801 as a significant speaker as this incredibly popular and long lasting design really was the precursor to all the time aligned box speakers which have come to be recognized as great since then....Wilson, Vanderstein, Keff etc etc.
Like I said...I think top ten lists are so stupidly subjective as to be a complete waste of time and effort and this one just confirms that ideal to me.