Well, the definition of "best" depends on whether it is the relative best or absolute best.
On the relative end, my best speakers were
KLH 6V's (the vinyl clad version of the 6's pointing out that there was a time when real wood veneer was the norm and vinyl required special designation). Even after I got better speakers I still always enjoyed these immensely. For the time and within speakers I had access to, these were exceptional. Pretty sure I got them in '74 using money I made flippin burgers at Dairy Queen!
Next came my
AR 3a's. I'm not sure they were actually better speakers in the midrange than the KLH's, but the bass was to die for in a period when speakers just did not do much for deep notes (I had a Sansui AU-717 which had the muscle to properly drive the AR's woofer). I have listened to these recently and while the midrange and highs do not compare to modern offerings, I still love the sound of the bottom end. So much that I am considering using them as "woofers" for small bookshelf speakers.
I also need to mention a pair of
EPI 100's. I already had the AR's and the KLH's when I got these, and I can't say they eclipsed either, but they were wonderful speakers and I think their tweeter was a step up from either of the other speakers!
None of these were the best on an absolute scale, but they were so good compared to anything else I had heard at the time (the KLH and AR in particular) that I would never realize another speaker that offered the substantial improvement over the SQ I had previously been familiar with! That makes them the best speakers I have owned in the relative sense!
Maybe another way to say it is that these are the speakers that will always be favorites.
More recently, I have to mention the
Paradigm Signature S-2 as my first really, really good speaker (although a little hot on the high end - the Be tweeters had the highs and Paradigm flaunted it! - I never really considered them harsh or too bright, but they definitely are bright speakers). My
Focal Solo6Be monitors offered a level of accuracy I had not previously experienced and the high end of the Be tweeter beat out Paradigm's! Looking to upgrade from the Solo6's, I moved to the
Focal Twin6's.
I also have to mention my
Martin-Logan Vista's which are smaller electrostats, but capture most of the electrostatic magic when used in my bedroom. My
Phil3's were fantastic speakers once we set them up in TheWarrior's LR, so much so, I sold them to him (they did not suit my LR because of a 5 foot deep alcove I had behind the right speaker that muddied the sound reflected from the open back of the speakers-reflected sound from the right had to travel 10 feet farther than reflected sound from the left). My LR was the only proper room to fit the Phil3's so they had to go
.
Philharmonic BMR's work fine in that room and
aside from missing the wonderful TL bass of the Phil3's the BMR are amazing and I'm not sure they give anything up to the Phil3's in the mids and highs!
The
RBH T1/Ref's are an interesting speaker. Tested Blind, they are not so special, but sighted, they are amazing speakers. I can't help it! I am a human being and if a speaker excites me to perceive higher SQ because of how it looks, why should I forfeit that? I won't recommend these speakers because the actual SQ is not as good as my my subjective sighted perception leads me to believe. Plus, it is a mute point since they are no longer in production. I did find adding 1.5dB at 16kHz improved my blind impression of them quite nicely - which is strange on its on since I can no longer hear 15kHz at all and 14kHz is well suppressed, but somehow I definitely hear the +1.5dB @ 16kHz (on Denon EQ) improvement when blind A-B'ing against other speakers. The top end performance of the Scanspeak 9500 tweeters (3 per speaker) as compared to Be, RAAL, or the Canton Vento ceramic tweeter was the biggest short-coming of the RBH and the simple EQ did a lot to bridge the gap!
Last, I must mention the
Canton Vento 820.2, which I find wonderful for their size (and the $600/pr I paid for them). The Philharmonic BMR has had the most comparison time against them and I have concluded the BMR is definitely a better speaker. However, for stuff like a jazz trio with female vocals (Norah Jones, etc) the Vento's are wonderful. They have a bass hump that requires a sub to avoid. The FR is not flat, but it is incredibly smooth with a gradual ramp-up as the frequency increases from mid-range to highs. A-B'ing the Vento's side-by-side with the BMR's with a full orchestra in play reveals the raised highs, but something like chamber music generally plays well on them. I think a big part of why I have to give a shout to the Vento's is they are such a small box (about the size of the Pioneer BS-22's) but put out incredibly good sound - it defies expectations!
Interestingly, the tiny Vento's, when compared blind to the huge RBH T1/ref's did not give away the size mis-match (at 10' away). I did not have the sense that one was significantly larger or smaller than the other!
