The best "imaging" speakers?

Asuming that great imaging is indeed what will satisfy (and that's NOT a given), you still have to make choices:

Minimonitors, whether alone (ProAc's Tablette is the best iamging mini I've heard) or coupled with a woofer cabinet (I own Parsifal's - also outstanding) can provide a particularly dramatic "object hanging in space" effect. Narrow baffle floorstanders with extreme cabinetry can also mimic this effect.

OTOH, Omnis like the MBLs (or, to a slightly lesser extent Ohms) can create "weightier" localized sources and a wall to wall soundfield that feels real in a different way.

Planars can create something in between, with more "continuous ambience" than minimmonitors and more specificity than most omnis.

I currently own examples of all 4 types (Maggie planars, Merlin VSM narrow floorstanders, Parsifal mnimonitors with separate bass cabinets, and Ohm omnis) and the imaging from each can -at any given time- seem more convincing than the others. At the moment, I'm sticking with the Ohms, but check back in a year....

Marty

PS I'd agree that, overall, MBLs are the most convincing imagers I've heard, but they have tonal issues that make them a difficult proposition for me (especially at their price).

Map,

I've heard every MBL (except for the new monster Extremes with the separate bass towers) on multiple ocassions and, as you know, I own Ohm 100s. The big MBLs definetly offer a more dramatic (Dylanhenry's term "hyperrealistic" is a good one) presentation than the Ohms, particularly at the crushing SPLs that MBL likes to use for demos. OTOH, my $1800 Ohms offer -IMHO- a much more neutral octave to octave balance than I've ever heard from the >$50,000 101s. But for this thread, imaging only, I'd still point to the MBLs.

Marty

Map, (sorry all if this wanders a bit off thread).

I'd need to hear larger Ohms to answer the question. I talked to John about possibly switching to the Sat 5 for use with my subs, but even if I go that route, its gonna be a bit off in the future. Until that happens, 100s are the only Ohms I know. Very fine and - in some ways - I prefer them to any MBLs, but not for that quality of imaging/dynamics Dylanhenry dubbed "hyperrealism".

As to room matching, I would expect the MBL 101s to overwhelm my medium sized room with info below 150hz or so. I have always felt that the bass from this speaker is a bit "ripe", even in the 2 VERY large rooms I've heard them in. For this reason, I thought the little MBL 121 and a good sub might be a better choice, but I was a bit disappointed when I heard them. The same applies to the smaller MBL floorstanders (111 and 116, I believe) - they provide just a taste of the 101, but not the whole enchilada. So, its tough to speculate about bigger Ohms without a listen. One day (pretty) soon I may have a better basis for this comparison...

Marty

Strange coincidence.

I've heard the Gallo 3.X refs on any number of ocasions, but today I happened to hear the new Gallo towers for the first time. They were very, very good sounding speakers, but off a severey limited audition they seemed like very good, but not great imagers. (Just a quick impression, more time would be needed for more confident commentary). I'd say the same of the 3s, very good, not great.

I know that the Gallo 3s have a 300+ degree dispersion tweeter that crosses in quite low, so I'd suspect that the overall radiation pattern looks a bit like the smaller MBL floorstanders. However, they've never struck me as imaging like omnis. The 3s are wonderful, small, pretty much full range, seamless, reasonably priced speakers, but their imaging capabilities never seemed remarkable to me.

Marty

BTW The big MBLs switch from radial drivers to conventional drivers at app 100ish hz. In this respect, they may be more appropriately compared to Ohm Sat 5000 w/Ohm subwoofer. OTOH, they aren't biamped, so neither comparison is strictly apples to apples.