Best all around speakers

I own Hansen Prince speakers. They are the best speakers I've heard in my room or any other. They play everything from rock, jazz, female vocals (my favorite), classical, and country. They are so natural! Never bright or analytical, but highly detailed. Excellent micro and macro dynamics. An amazing sound stage. I can't really find fault with them other than they are a little expensive. Given I'll probably own them for 20 years, I don't mind.

JohnK:

You are correct, I miss-spoke. The open baffel di-pole design allows the creation of a null at the sides of the speaker which cancels bass reflection from the side walls and thus removing the common placement issues associated with most other designs, that are able to generate bass to +/- 20 htz. It also removes cabinet resonance and propagation issues since there is no cabinet.

The only other design that does bass as well, that I have experienced, are horns. However, my listening room does not have enough room to accomodate two refridgerator sized bass units.

I did not state that the EP's are perfect. In fact, I said that "I don't know if they are the best." But to my ears, the combination of the open baffel, di-pole, and waveguide (horn for the treble), plays any type of music extremely well.

And I stand by my assertion that "I have not heard a more accurate, revealing, live-sounding, and dynamic pair of speakers."

For a more detailed explanation, and no doubt a better written one, see John Potis's new review of the EP's in Positive Feedback.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue38/emerald_physics_2.htm

Pubul57 said:

"Is compression much more common in pop/rock? It seems like it is."

I think you're right about that.

Dave

Is compression much more common in pop/rock? It seems like it is. It would make sense if much of this music is listened to in a car where the noise floor is louder than my living room. Classical recordings do seem to be startling in their dynamic range, especially we you "accidentally" play the low volume passage loud and then....

To Shadorne's point, last Saturday I listened to Mahler's 1st, which gets incredibly loud at several points when the average loudness is set around 85dB. Immediately after that I put on a Bruce Cockburn CD that had mysteriously arrived in the mail despite me not ordering it. I love much of Bruce's work, but the thing blared out at 90+dB and just sounded crappy. I turned it way down, but it was totally lacking in dynamics and sounded lifeless at lower level. It didn't sound good loud and it didn't sound good medium or soft. I gave it one listen and, even though I was intrigued by some of the lyrics and music, I'll never listen to it again.

Dave

I have to imagine that a large speaker with multiple drivers and large woofers can do things that a small two-way cannot, and just as importantly the small two-way will excel in many ways that a large, multi-driver, big woofer cannot match. The Vandersteen 3As comes to mind as a speaker that has some of the attributes of both extremes, and makes an excellent all-around speaker for all types of music. I prefer Merlin VSMs that excel at the kind of music I most care to listen to small group jazz, accoustic, and chamber music - a similar genre speaker as the Quads, but louder and more dynamic and ultimatley a wider range of music - but I would not choose it if I wanted to listen to reggae all day long.

SPL of 110db is insane. More detail???? Wow.

Yes a drum set is insane! Most brass instruments are insane. Indeed, many musical instruments are insane - even grand pianos! Who would want to play or listen to this insanity. Long live recorded music - compressed and squashed to a pulp for audio playback at artificially low levels!

Lets Kill the dynamics! After all Dave has found a recording with 40 db dynamic range....holy smokes! - that is unheard of these days when most recordings have 3 db of dynamic range. Who are these rebels at San Fransisco Symphony? I mean this is nearly half the available dynamic range of the redbook CD format? Surely 90 db of the 96 db spl range of CD should not be used for such a horrendous purpose as to bring back dynamics to music (so you can listen louder comfortably)!!!

=> The reason 110 db spl sounds absolutely horribly loud is because of modern ultra compressed music which has absolutely NO DYNAMICS anymore - old vinyl is way better than most CD's nowadays (but none of this is at all like the real thing - live music). Of course 110 db SPL peaks are hellishly loud when the AVERAGE continuous sound is at 107 db SPL! This is not the same as the odd 110 db SPL peak/accent/cresendo on music that averages 90 db SPL.

The dynamic range or contrast between soft and very loud sounds is what gives music life...it is sad that dynamic range is all but completely DEAD today. No wonder 90 db SPL sounds so extremely loud with modern music - as it averages 87 db SPL continuously - that is why!

Consttraveler [The open baffel dipole design takes the room and its' problems out of the equation] and just how does it do this? Since its impossible;) Maybe you ment takes cabinet and a few cabinet problems out of the equation. Still OB are not perfect as are all loudspeaker designs.

Timrhu said:

"When looking for speakers I look for a one that can play at low volumes without losing its sonic signature. Not all speakers do this well."

Unfortunately for you, Flecther and Munson (sp?) demonstrated that your ears don't hear the same at low volumes. The old "Loudness" button on old two-channel receivers was meant to compensate for this.

Does anyone have a modern, audiophile-level way to deal with this today?

Listening near-field is my only suggestion. I do this often on morning when I get up early for coffee and the paper while others are asleep. It works pretty well.

Dave

The previous discussion about speakers playing at high volumes brings me back to the original post and an attribute needed in a "best all around speaker."
Much of my listening is late at night. As the system is not tucked away in the basement and I don't care for headphones, the volume needs to be kept low. When looking for speakers I look for a one that can play at low volumes without losing its sonic signature. Not all speakers do this well.

Eweedhome asked:

"You have any suggestions?"

Playback Designs MPS-5.

Dave

Dcstep - To your question about my digital sources: As I may have reported above, I used multiple digital players in order to deal with differently-engineered sources. My primary source now is an EMM CDSA. I use it for a lot of things, but particularly classical. My secondary source is a GNSC-modified Wadia 860x (a fair bit different sounding than the unmodified version), which I tend to use more for pop and jazz. I also have an EAR Acute with Pope 6dj8's that's fairly forgiving and "analog" sounding. In the past, I was using a Linn CD12, but I thought the EMM and Wadia both bettered it (for my ears). Finally, on the comparison (analog) side, I have a Linn LP12 w/ Koetsu Black through an EAR 834P w/ a Telefunken and 2 Mullards in it.

It's all designed to be relatively mellow--"relatively".

I don't think I have a huge problem with a front-end that can't handle (in one way or another) "difficult" CDs--at least not a problem that a different piece of gear can resolve...but maybe I'm wrong. You have any suggestions?

If you listen at average levels of 85 to 87dB, which is what I do, you'll hit peaks over 100dB. They don't last long and will not hurt those with healty ears.

Dave

No amp,preamp or speakers can replace the most important of all.......your hearing loss.

SPL of 110db is insane. More detail???? Wow.

why is it necessary to expose one's ears to 100db in a room no larger than 12 feet by 20 feet ?

You hear more detail and it is realistic/exciting/fun/enveloping but you are right in that there is no reason why music cannot be enjoyed at more modest levels too. (better for your ears!)

why is it necessary to expose one's ears to 100db in a room no larger than 12 feet by 20 feet ?

my wife complains when the spl exceeds 85 db, and she is 22 feet from my speakers.

85 db is loud enough. i don't see why music can't be enjoyed at spls less than 90db.

That was mastering really, wasn't it? No doubt it was in a pretty small room and, perhaps, some subs were integrated into the mix to get the full range, even in a smaller room.

In an average room, without subs, IMHO, ELS 63s will be stretched beyond capacity by Mahler. They'll sound glorious most of the time, but the peaks will slay them. That's just not acceptable for me, but I understand the attraction for those that go that route.

Dave

To expand on Learsfool's theme, any one of the recent SACDs of Mahler by SF Syphony with Michael Tilson Thomas will test the limits of a speaker system. Symphony #1 and #6 have over 40dB of dynamic range, with huge sounds juxtiposed with almost silent spots.

These were monitored and mixed using Quad ESL 63's. These speakers will not play much more than 100 db SPL peaks before shutting down. Not suitable for realistic Mahler playback in a large room IMHO but obviously for the recording engineer (Andreas Neubronner) the unsurpassed midrange accuracy of the Quad's must be very important for classical mixing decisions. The recordings have won awards so if you are into classical and want to hear the detail of each instrument (at low SPL's) then this would obviously be a good choice of speaker. If you listen to rock or jazz then I think this speaker would be a mistake (Andreas has PMC AML1, Rogers Ls3/5a and Genelec 1031 too - so I expect the checks his mixes on these speakers too in order to ensure they are suitable for the general market)

To expand on Learsfool's theme, any one of the recent SACDs of Mahler by SF Syphony with Michael Tilson Thomas will test the limits of a speaker system. Symphony #1 and #6 have over 40dB of dynamic range, with huge sounds juxtiposed with almost silent spots.

For someone that doesn't know symphonic sounds, then some vocal music will need to be added to check timbres. Female and male vocals in rock or pop genres will usually do, so long as the recording is not grossly compressed.

Dave

My vote is for a design incorporating Open Baffel and Waveguide (horn). Having +/- 400 hrs on a pair of Emerald Physics CS-2's, I can honestly say I have not heard a more accurate, revealing, live-sounding, and dynamic pair of speakers.

The open baffel dipole design takes the room and its' problems out of the equation.

I'm not saying they (the EP's) are are the "best", but their design plays everything as well as any speakers I have heard. And, once you have heard bass without the box, you will get a completely different understanding of what dynamic means.

Best regards,

Dave

As I said in a different thread, by far the best type of music to use to test a speaker is classical, specifically full scale orchestral music, or perhaps even better, opera. This type of music places more demands on the speaker than any other type, by far - particularly the huge dynamic ranges, variety of timbres, the sheer number of instruments and voices, the greater size of the soundstage to reproduce, the much greater complexity of the music itself - one could go on and on. A speaker that can handle all of this can handle any other type of music one could choose to throw at it. That said, it is also true that no single speaker is going to excel at all of these things more than all the others, and personal preference will enter into it a great deal. But if we are talking best all-around speaker, it's got to be able to handle the biggest challenges, so if it can handle the above things, it WILL be able to handle any other type of music - so I would disagree with those who have said that it is a must to own multiple sets of speakers for different types of music. Set up a speaker system that sounds fantastic for all types of what we call classical music from huge opera to a solo string instrument or voice, and no fan of any other type of music will have any complaints when their favorite type is played over them - I have found this to be true 100% of the time, with different types of speakers, too, though in the experience of myself and many professional musicians and audiophiles, horns will reproduce all of the above with the greatest accuracy overall. The other thing just about all professional musicians would agree on is that this requires floorstanding speakers as well, so I guess that 100% number I threw out there does assume floorstanders - smaller speakers simply cannot reproduce some of the qualites necessary for the reproduction of the very largest scale music.

I really like my VSA VR-7s - they play MUSIC. Period.

Although "problem" older recordings don't sound great, thankfully I have very few of them and they have in fact already been remastered to take the "grunge" out (my system is non-vinyl and pretty revealing).

Good thread.

I with MrT, if you suffering, then get another hobby. Music should be a joy.

Dave

i think the issue here is :

what is the virtue in suffering ?

it is a poor investment to spend money to suffer.

MrT - you are missing the whole point of this hobby. Frustration and suffering is where it is at. If you don't have a whip to self flagellate your back while listening to Nina Hagen then you haven't lived.

i think the issue here is :

what is the virtue in suffering ?

it is a poor investment to spend money to suffer.

there will always be "problem" recordings. some collections of recordings can have many of them. it would be nice to be able to enjoy listening to the "problem" recordings.

thus, if one strives toward accuracy, have a second system for the "problem" recordings and listen to the "non-problem" recordings on the "accurate" system, where they can be enjoyed.

if one is to own only one system, let the buyer beware.

beware of what you desire, for you may get it.
this last statement especially applies to high-resolution systems.

You know, I was always pleased with the way some speakers I owned sounded fine on all recordings (CDs). These were Aerial 10Ts and Apogee Stages. No, they didn't do all the amazing things some top-notch speakers do, but they never sounded like mid-fi, either. So I think it is definitely possible to deal with any kind of input across the board.

Another example of tolerant transducers are headphones--notably Senn 650s and (my) Sony R10s. So if they can do it...

And yes, a good CD player can remove the grain and buzz, like the EMM and Playback Designs units.

Eweedhome, what's your digital source? That's often the real issue with unlistenable CDs. No front end can overcome an overly compressed extremely poorly mastered CD, but a good player/DAC combination can work wonders with most CDs, removing the glare and digital uglyness marring many CDs.

Dave

"A speaker that will not let you hear a bad recording is a poor investment."

It's all a question of degree. I've had systems in my house on which about 10% of the CDs I played sounded great. The rest ranged from tolerable to "run screaming from the room" intolerable. Some would have considered those systems to be wonderfully accurate. From my point of view, they stank. And they're gone from my house, and I am thrilled.

The system I've built now will certainly let me know if I'm dealing with problematic source material. (And I think it is much more appropriate to call it "problem source material" than "a bad recording". What sounds "bad" on one system may well have sounded great to the recording engineer as he was playing it back perhaps as long as 30-40 years ago.) But it is rarely "in your face" about it. I can usually hear the music beyond the sonic problems. That, to me, is a sign of a very well designed system/speakers/whatever.

When I audition equipment at a dealer's, I always take some CDs to play that have problematic sound (in addition to some that sound great on almost anything). That way, I hear the strengths of the equipment, but I am also well aware of whatever fatigue factor exists in the equipment.

A system that is fatiguing to listen to is pretty darn worthless, seems to me. And it is hugely fatiguing to be regularly reminded of all the flaws in the source material you want to hear.

Calldr said:

"A speaker that will not let you hear a bad recording is poor investment."

Absolutely!!

" if you can listen to any recording , even one of poor quality without running out of a room, you probably have found an "all around speaker"

Get a Bose... no highs or lows... it's a Bose... LOL!

A speaker that will not let you hear a bad recording is poor investment.

What flavor of sound you like is a personal choice. I agree with some on here that if you listen to your music through a good set of headphones then you will find what you are shooting for.

Mrtennis,

if you can listen to any recording , even one of poor quality without running out of a room, you probably have found an "all around speaker".

Well said.
Listening to Radiohead "OK Computer" or Santana "Abraxas" has caused me to sell speakers I was originally smitten with on more than once. Absolutely must be able to listen to those.

here's another idea:

a speaker which is compatible with many components, is an all around speaker. a speaker which is compatible with a select set of components is not.

lets look at the issue from a different perspective.

the first principle of audio is do no harm. when evaluating a speaker system, one approach is to try to detect flaws. thus, select "average" to mediocre recordings for that purpose.

if you can listen to any recording , even one of poor quality without running out of a room, you probably have found an "all around speaker". thus the quest for an all around speaker might be to seek one that minimizes unpleasantness. while i admit this approach is the antithesis of the conventional way of thinking, it certainly keeps you from suffering when listening to "bad recordings".

are there any speakers that come to mind ?

i lived with one for 7 years, namely, 2 pair of stacked quad 57s. i don't recall ever being displeased with a recording played through that system, which also included the original quad amps, a mac c22 preamp and a thorens tt, ortofon arm and cartridge.

my motto: judge a stereo system by what it sounds like with the worst recording, not the best recording.

I simply see no reason to accept an obvious misconstruction of the text that I posted.

Go ahead, extract whatever you want out of context, the fact is I said, "replicate a live performance". Your just being argumentative for some reason.

Dave

DcStep: Actually your phrase was "How can adding distortion on top of distortion replicate a performance say, "Sympathy for the Devil"?" You would have been better off in your most recent retort by not inserting the word "live" in "replicating a live performance" - at least then you could have argued that the use of the word "performance" was not intended to mean "live" as opposed to "studio" or "live""studio". As you have clarified, you were brought the term "live performance" into the discussion - while neither I nor the OP mentioned a live performance. It is your post that became fixated on live performances in any regard whether it is the live performance itself or replicating the live performance.

That's because source material is recorded and mastered using all kinds of different-sounding equipment, such that there are all kinds of variabilities in the sound of source material--with an end result being that some source material is going to sound better with speakers of a certain "voice" and other source material will sound better with other types of "voicings"

This gets my vote for one of the wisest statements I have seen on Audiogon for months, may be years...

If more people understood this then there would be much less equipment frustration and flipping. With the best all round speakers you are likely to find that most music sounds good. A distorted/colored system may improve some tracks and even shine in a particular genre. One can think of it like good polaroid sunglasses...during the sunniest parts of the day or in a bright environment they actually improve your vision and work great, however, wearing them 24 by 7 and all year would NOT result in an overall improvement in vision.

When one goes to a dealer - chances are he/she has chosen a demo disc with tracks that work well through the system lens that he/she is selling. This is why it is a sensible idea to bring one's own discs and to bring a wide variety of music (not just audiophile selections). It is also why one must be prepared to accept that some particular tracks may sound better on one speaker/room setup compared to another but that does not necessarily guarentee the better sounding speaker is the best - the track may have been mixed in a way that it just works best on a particular setup with a slanted response...so the converse could be true when auditioning a wide variety of music.

This is one excellent reason to trust professionals and their equipment choices...after all, who else listens to all kinds of music, live and recorded, day in and day out! If many pros, each with a wide background and working with different genres, generally agree on certain gear as being "excellent" then you are pretty safe following their lead....the nice thing is that this still leaves you with plenty of choices...but it certainly narrows the selection down enormously to a few brands and often just a few models (particularly if you focus on mains monitoring and mastering)...anyway it takes some of the guess work out of the equation/merry-go-round. Sit back, relax, enjoy the music and if a particular track ain't quite as perfect sounding as you would like then you can always remind yourself, "If it is good enough for _______, then it is good enough for me!

Musicnoise, I never said anything about live performance, so why are you talking about it? I talked about replicating a live performance. Get your panties out of your crack and move on.

Dave

There is no ambiguity in the text of the post to which you initially commented. I did not refer to live performances. All references to specific equipment and to systems in general were to home audio systems. The OP did not refer to live performances or live performance equipment. The examples of rock music that I referred to have been performed live and recorded in a studio. The plain language of the text was clear, did not reference other posts - other than that of the OP, and was not in reference to a discussion of other than home audio systems. Reading the post as a whole, in the context of the OP's question, there is no ambiguity in the sentence "There are really two broad schools of thought with speakers and sound in general" or any other part of the text. Hence, the text did not require distinguishing between live performance equipment and home audio equipment. A reasonable reading of the text would not leave one with a question as to whether I was referring to live performance equipment or a home audio system.

Musicnoise, what you meant to say in your quoted text is muddy, at least. We're talking about home music systems here, not live performance equipment and I still can't see where you made any clear distinction. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

I think we agree, but I'm not sure, that we both think that distorted reproduction systems really make little sense, even though many people choose them. I think this choice is often made because getting the sources right, particularly on a budget, is hard to do, so they buy distorted amplification to smooth over the shortcomings of their frontends.

Dave

Good and lively discussion here, glad I started this thread, and it's interesting and imformative to learn the various points of view that people have on this subject. One thing I appreciate is that the discussion is getting beyond the "buy this, buy that" and getting more into the "why" some of you have made the choices that you have made. And to me that is more useful information, as it allows me to understand the process of getting ones audio system to place you want it to be.

Once again thanks to all of you, and keep your thoughts coming.

Timrhu,

THe room is one of the BIGGEST factors for sure.

Macdadtexas,

Funny you say that becasue I recall the first really good systems I ever heard that caught my ear was at a dealer circa 1978. The first thing that caught my ear was a pair of Magnepan (Timpani's, I think). The second were Klipschorns.

And so here I am 30 years later...Maggies and Klipschorns still intrigue me. I've owned Maggies + believe I may one day own one of the cornerstones of good sound for, what 50 years or so, the Klipschorn.

The fact that these speakers (Klipschorn) were created for state of the art reproduction of the music of that era alone, which produced some fantastic and distinctive recordings, is justification for entry in my mind. If I do, one of the pair I own (probably the Dynaudios)may go or may stay if I can figure out something useful to do with them because I really like them too and hate to part with good components.

Dcstep: You misconstrued the content of my post by inserting your own thoughts within that post and making connections that were not present but rather were distinguished. The statement regarding sympathy for the devil was a separate and independent statement unrelated to the statement regarding a system purposely chosen for distortion or how distortion affected sound. The statement regarding the song had to do with spl listening levels, described as one factor that would logically influence the choice of one set of speakers over another in that particular application. The sentence specifically referred to volume levels and did not mention live performance or distortion. You drew a link as to distortion and a live performance that was not in the text. I did not say that a distortion based system was in any way connected to reproducing the sound of a live performance of a stones concert - that was your statement, not mine, so I have no idea how distortion would recreate the performance. The second sentence you quoted, about distortion, followed a general statement as to two broad themes in building systems. I stand by both statements. A lot of folks purchase tube systems and speakers that clearly have distortion and clearly are meant to, whether the purchasers know it or even care about why the system has its particular sound. This is particularly true in the single tube amplifier designs. These purchasers want a tube sound. The tube sound primarily comes from the distortion characteristics of tubes. I agree that a better approach to tailoring the sound of a song is to make adjustments with software. I also agree that choosing a system with certain distortion characteristics is a crude way of achieving a particular result for a particular piece of music. The biggest drawback with the distortion based system is that everything pretty much sounds the same. I am not currently a tube enthusiast or an analog source enthusiast, but rather prefer digital sources and solid state because I believe that accuracy is best achieved with those technologies. That being said, the relative merits of a distortion based system, chosen for a certain overall sound, vs a system chosen for accuracy in sound reproduction, and the method of creating or reinterpreting music by using such a system, are separate issues from the broad classifications to which I referred. While these are arbitrary classifications, I believe the classifications are valid (note - a different idea than saying that that the goals and methods of either class are themselves valid -to which I here offer no judgment). Furthermore, I believe considering these classifications may be helpful to the OP in making a speaker selection.

It's subjective as Macdadtexas points out. Let me add it's also personal and for me that means small room dependent. Six years ago I moved my system into a small dedicated listening room and started searching for a speaker that worked well there.
After giving up on monitors I purchased a pair of Meadowlark Kestrel Hot Rods. These speakers have been with me since as they produce music in a way that makes me forget I'm listening to my stereo.
Don't get me wrong here, in the five years or so I've owned the Kestrels they have spent a lot of time in the closet as experimentation has been the rule. My room has hosted some exceptional speakers costing many times what I paid for the Kestrels. And yes they wow me for a few months with resolution, deeper bass, more detail or whatever audiophiles listen for. But that eventually wears off and the Kestrels will be returned to make me wonder why I keep searching.
In a larger room some of the speakers I've owned would probably kick the Kestrel's butt. In a small room though I've found them to be the best overall speaker I've heard.

This is such a subjective hobby, I really got into this hobby when I accidentally heard some Magnepan 1.6r's when I went into a high end audio shop with a buddy of mine. He was looking for an expensive video set up, and we both walked out with Maggies. They just had such a different sound from anything else I had/have ever heard. Since then I have owned and listened to tons of different speakers, but I always come back to the Maggies. To my mind, only Vandersteens and well set up Klipschorns are in the same league as far as all around musical ability.

I currently own 3.6R's (for the second time) and couldn't be happier. I love to change out the upstream equipment because they so vividly reproduce what is upstream, it's really fun to try and "get it right".

My listening tastes are primarily vocal jazz, classic and hard rock, and I could not be any happier with the SLAM of these speakers. Although, I still believe that the best rock speakers I have ever heard are Klipschorns.

Well, that's my opinion, the Magnepan 3.6r's are the best all around. If you add in price, I think they are a slam dunk. I have never seen any speaker with better overall reviews. The fact that Magnepan has not changed them in nearly 10yrs says quit a bit about the design.

08-15-08: Musicnoise said:

"... the amount of distortion desired or unwanted comes into play." and "There are really two broad schools of thought with speakers and sound in general. One is to build the most accurate system possible, the other is to treat the system as a musical instrument in and of itself."

This view boggles my mind. How can adding distortion on top of distortion replicate a performance say, "Sympathy for the Devil"? If the recording itself is full of distortion, then don't you want to hear what the artist intended??? I don't see that as a valid approach at all. A system like that couldn't reproduce anything well, IMHO.

If you want to reinterpret the recording, then load it into a music suite and modify it to your tastes, but then play it back through an accurate system, rather than a crap shoot, distorting system.

Dave

I hate to think you're right, Mapman, but I can sure think of a number of times after adding a new piece of gear when I've thought "Ah, this is what I needed" and yet a few months later I've figured out that there is this or that problem with the sound that sends me out searching for some and different piece of equipment to "improve" things.

Music to equipment makers' ears...

Its almost like investing.....maybe never put all your eggs in one basket.....

Also, I believe sharing listening time with multiple speaker designs in my house helps keep my ears unbiased.

Sometimes when you hear the same thing only day after day, it can get stale sounding, no matter how good it really is.

A little variety in anything usually helps keep things interesting, doesn't it?

That's probably why so many of use change components so often always looking for something better or at least something a little different that we think sounds better.

I agree that most speaker manufacturers tailor the speaker to a particular genre and I am not convinced that one set of characteristics are best suited to all types of music; even the volume level which can be achieved and the amount of distortion desired or unwanted comes into play. I find listening to a string quartet at low spl's completely satisfying. However, "sympathy for the devil" or "my generation" just seems to lose something when heard at 70 db. While auditioning a wide range of speakers for many months - basically everything I could find in a 100 mile radius - I came across the Monitor Audio GS60's. I did not find those speakers suitable for my needs. My impression of the speakers were that there was nothing wrong with them. They seemed accurate, sounded fine, added nothing to the sound, could produce acceptable spl's in a medium size room, etc. In short, there was nothing special about the speakers one way or the other - to my listening. I heard other speakers that worked well for vocals (classic spendors driven by low powered tubes for example - not particularly accurate but sounded very nice) rock (the largest paradigms driven by a bryston), classical (B&W 800 series, Genelec monitors and Dali floorstanders). The GS60's would be a serious option for me if I regularly listened to music of more than one genre. However, I do think that separate systems would give me more of what I would desire in that instance. There are really two broad schools of thought with speakers and sound in general. One is to build the most accurate system possible, the other is to treat the system as a musical instrument in and of itself. In my opinion an example of the first would be a digital source amplified by solid state system with low THD and with speakers designed for flat response across the audio spectrum. Of the second, an analog source with tube amplification (but specifically, tube amplification that is not designed for low distortion and that is almost meant to go into distortion) coupled with speakers that are not designed via laboratory measurements but more for an agreed upon sound. Both are viable options. The GS60's are worth a listen for speakers that can go across genres - if your pricing is more or less, Monitor Audio makes a higher end and less expensive models. Usually a company that goes in one direction or another tends to do so across their offerings.

I disagree with many audio designers have a narrow taste in music. I design loudspeakers and listening to most everything. Many of my friends in manufacturing have music collections as large as a university. But at most shows you get little girl with piano and when audiophiles want to demo most pick little girl with piano. I scared many off with my Zappa guitar LP and its amazing. They loved it till one asked who it was. Once Zappa was mentioned off they went. Shows and demos suck, real work for whoever does it, would you enjoy listening to music you hate over and over, some guys will play 1 cut over and over and over and yet again. You know who you are.. Maybe you guys can cut them some slack but you wont. Sure little girl music will pass in time but look how long Pink Floyds DSoM arrghh or DS brothers in arms, sure I heard both at the same time last show off in the distance with a mix of PB and DK tossed in hell on earth..