Vandersteen 5a or Eggleston Andra II

"I would not hesitate to take a page out of Bob Ludwig's book and follow his choice."

I would. He used to use wilson's. very different. mastering peopole have some weird systems. Doug sax has a system I can;t make any sense out of.

As long as he can, it doesn't matter, of course.

"However, are you suggesting that you don't trust/respect the choices of successful mastering engineers that are demanded by top artists and top producers for their critical listening/mastering skills?"

I am saying they shouyld listen to whatever they like, but that doesn't mean you should own the same speakers they do just because they like them.

"Are you suggesting that when they master CD's/SACD's on these speakers that you can dramatically improve on the sound they produce by using another speaker at home?"

they will sound different, but you dont buy speakers because stuff is mastered on them. records were mixed on jbl's in the 70's a lot and ns10's a lot in the 80's but most people I know wouldn't listen on those.

it's not just speakers either, they have particular rooms, crossovers and amps.

"If you say that their taste is for too detailed and precise of a presentation and that you prefer a laid back warm colored sound ....then I understand completely and you have a good point."

no, i like as neutral as possible for work and usually for pleasure. Nothing is really neutral though. I haven;t heard the Ivy's just the Andrea's. I liked them fine but they lack in the lower bass region because of their physical size.

I never heard a wilson that i thought had accurate bass. But, there have been many iterations of wilsons and they are room dependent as well.

My point basically is that you should use what you like. People mix or master or listen to what they are used to. I would take the duntechs over the wilson's any day for phase coherency and flat reponse, but that's my taste too.

I have been in a lot of mastering studios and I just think the systems there, like ours at home, are very personal. O mentioned doug sax, because I am not the only person I know that can't make sense out of his system. The fact that he can is all that really matters.

Shad,

I am by no means an expert. I am an audio engineer and i do love music and "hi-fi" so i have heard some systems, but i don;t go around to CES or anything.

My personal speakers are as follows:

Dunlavy sc-IV's (with upgraded tweeter), B&W 801 series 2 limited editions with north creeks crossovers, spendor sc-100's, quad esl-57's, B&W matrix 805's.

Among these the dunlavy's are by far the most accurate and dunlavy's in general are among the most accurate speakers I have heard. The B&W's are pretty reliable too. I have heard seen many classical music engineers using them. they have a little low mid bloom and are not as razor sharp as the dunlavy's but really in terms of that kind of imaging and detail, I dont think even Revel Salons are (though they are great speakers). A lot of people find the dunlavy's clinical as they have no realy midrange "glue" that so many speakers have. My favorite mastering engineer has duntech soverigns. I feel they translate well to other systems and are brutally honest.

The quad esl 57 or the spendor/rogers ls-35a speakers are examples of great musical speakers which are not terribly neutral.

i think the B&W's of the earlier generation and the duntchs and dunlavy's represent quite a value at this point depending on what you look for. Coming from the pro audio world, I am more used to less "colored" speakers and enjoy the feeling of flat response as something that jumps out and hits you in a piece of audio equipment, generally i find to be abrasive later. Pro-ac's, in my limited experience with them seem to be in the more "neutral" category as well.

really, one should listen to anything one enjoys. While i used solid state amps in the studio, I use tubes amps in my stereo. I do not consider the tube amps to be less neutral but they are more euphonic and subject to heat and current changes.

As far as this argument goes, my experience with the Andrea speaker is all i can offer. I haven;t heard those Vandy's.

There is no best stereo or best speaker, so the "different league" talk should be taken with a grain of salt.

Unless we are talking about Bose of course!

i never minded doug's system, i just can;t tell what;s going on. the room seems to have real phase issues depending on where you sit.

I'll post some pics sometime. You guys would laugh. I don't have a listening room, i just have a bunch of junk all in one place!
Thanmks for the kind words. I like mt speakers but there are many other great speakers out there.

dev, I would call it in another league, if i really heard that. But the system and the room, source material and the time even have a lot to do with it. Duntechs are in another league than quad 57's technically , but if you like quad 57's musically, then I guess they are not. that's all I'm saying. Having not heard the vandy's I cannot comment empirically.

The grain of salt thing applies to all arguemnts about gear i think. I mean this discussion is fairly civilized compared to some of the cable discussions I have heard!