Best High End Floor Standing Speakers under $2,000

[ridikas]

If I'm strictly going to stick with your criteria (under $2000 for the pair retail and must be floorstanding) and only recommend products from manufacturers who know what they're doing, the list becomes very small. Here are the recommendations:

SVS Ultra 45 $2000pr. (If you can wait until release, this might be one of the best speakers ever made.)

Revel F12 $1500pr. (Excellent engineering and sound.)

PSB Image T6 $1300pr. (Excellent engineering and sound.)

Dynaudio DM 3/7 $2000pr.

Klipsch RF-82 II $1200pr.

Paradigm Monitor 11 $1600pr.

B&W 683 $1500pr. (Just OK.)

KEF Q900 $1800pr. (Just OK.)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If I'm strictly going to stick with your criteria (under $2000 for the pair retail and must be floorstanding) and only recommend products from manufacturers who know what they're doing, the list becomes very small. Here are the recommendations:

SVS Ultra 45 $2000pr. (If you can wait until release, this might be one of the best speakers ever made.)

Revel F12 $1500pr. (Excellent engineering and sound.)

PSB Image T6 $1300pr. (Excellent engineering and sound.)

Dynaudio DM 3/7 $2000pr.

Klipsch RF-82 II $1200pr.

Paradigm Monitor 11 $1600pr.

B&W 683 $1500pr. (Just OK.)

KEF Q900 $1800pr. (Just OK.)

I guess ever since Stereophile did their measurement of the Q900, word on the forum is that the Q900 is more compromised than originally expected. Of course, Kal Rubinson also said he thought the Q900 was the best $2K speakers.

John Atkinson wrote: "KEF's Q900 offers superb measured performance".

HTM also liked the Q900; the listening window of the Q900 looks pretty good, a lot better than most speakers.

So the question is, did Stereophile do the exact same type of measurements for all the other speakers mentioned here on the thread?

Did Stereophile measure the Q900 differently than all the other speakers?

And lastly, we know how the speakers look on paper, measured by one person, is one thing; how the speaker sounds is the more important thing.

The key is actual audition, taking notes, comparing the speakers.

 

[ridikas]

Fortunately for us, Stereophile plotted the curves for tweeter and woofers separately. And in doing so, we now know that KEF does not care about the lower end models. The crossover does not suppress the break up one bit and the metal cones ring like bells. If that region is to be excited by music, it would sound very harsh indeed.

All that those speakers need is just one extra part in the crossover. Just one! And this one part makes all of the difference between a well engineered speaker and one which has severe distortion in the midrange. A savings of $2 practically ruins the entire product. I'm actually very disappointing in KEF, who I ALWAYS held to extremely high standards.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Fortunately for us, Stereophile plotted the curves for tweeter and woofers separately. And in doing so, we now know that KEF does not care about the lower end models. The crossover does not suppress the break up one bit and the metal cones ring like bells. If that region is to be excited by music, it would sound very harsh indeed.

All that those speakers need is just one extra part in the crossover. Just one! And this one part makes all of the difference between a well engineered speaker and one which has severe distortion in the midrange. A savings of $2 practically ruins the entire product. I'm actually very disappointing in KEF, who I ALWAYS held to extremely high standards.

I can't argue about being a little disappointed.

Does Stereophile plot the tweeter and woofer separately on all speakers, or JUST the Q900?

JA: I attempted to measure the speaker's (Q900) true farfield low-frequency response by placing it 8' above the ground—easier to say than do! —in the center of my back yard, and positioning the microphone to get the maximum path-length difference between the Q900's direct sound and the reflections from the walls and ground.

So he measured the Q900 differently than all the other speakers.

What would we see if he measured all the speakers this way? More compromises than expected?

IOW, if he had measured the Q900 like he does with all the other speakers, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this issue.

But again, it's still just his one measurement in his back yard, 8 ft above the ground. How the speakers actually sound to us is another story.

 

[ridikas]

It's not necessarily how he measured, but what he measured The measurements of the KEF900 were actually at tweeter's height and at 50" mic distance. They pretty much measure all of their speakers the same way. But this is what's interesting to look at:

Look at the green trace, the woofer(s) response. Major break-ups between 5500Hz-9500Hz. It even shows up in the red trace, which is what Stereophile usually only posts. By looking at the medium sized wrinkles on the red graph, it's hard to judge the true performance, unless we can see the individual driver's roll-offs, or distortion graphs (which Stereophile doesn't publish for some reason). So yes, the overall SPL looks more, or less acceptable. BUT! If the region between 5500Hz and 9500Hz is excited by music, the distortion would literally be through the roof! And right smack in the midrange, no less.

It's actually a very poorly designed speaker.

P.S. NHT has also been reported to sound rather harsh in it's upper midrange and I suspect the same lack of care in the crossover holds true for the overrated Classic Three. Take a look at these measurements: SoundStage! Measurements - NHT Classic Three Loudspeakers (3/2007)

Notice it has the same break-up visible in the overall SPL graph? Now if you look at the distortion graph, this same region (6000Hz-8000Hz) all of a sudden spikes.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It's not necessarily how he measured, but what he measured The measurements of the KEF900 were actually at tweeter's height and at 50" mic distance. They pretty much measure all of their speakers the same way. But this is what's interesting to look at:

Look at the green trace, the woofer(s) response. Major break-ups between 5500Hz-9500Hz. It even shows up in the red trace, which is what Stereophile usually only posts. By looking at the medium sized wrinkles on the red graph, it's hard to judge the true performance, unless we can see the individual driver's roll-offs, or distortion graphs (which Stereophile doesn't publish for some reason). So yes, the overall SPL looks more, or less acceptable. BUT! If the region between 5500Hz and 9500Hz is excited by music, the distortion would literally be through the roof! And right smack in the midrange, no less.

It's actually a very poorly designed speaker.

P.S. NHT has also been reported to sound rather harsh in it's upper midrange and I suspect the same lack of care in the crossover holds true for the overrated Classic Three. Take a look at these measurements: SoundStage! Measurements - NHT Classic Three Loudspeakers (3/2007)

Notice it has the same break-up visible in the overall SPL graph? Now if you look at the distortion graph, this same region (6000Hz-8000Hz) all of a sudden spikes.

I wonder if KEF ever responded to that Q900 graph on Stereophile.

Well, a lot of people seem to think the Q900 sound great, in addition to HTM, John Atkinson, and Kal Rubinson. KEF cut some corners on the Q900, but apparently not enough to detract the SQ.

 

[GranteedEV]

I'm sure the KEFs sound okay in the midrange from 200hz to ~3khz. Maybe forward though.
I'm also sure your B&Ws sound good in that same range.

It's above there that the KEFs raise an issue with me. Not only the aluminum driver but also the tweeter response itself.

 

[PENG]

If I'm strictly going to stick with your criteria (under $2000 for the pair retail and must be floorstanding) and only recommend products from manufacturers who know what they're doing, the list becomes very small. Here are the recommendations:

SVS Ultra 45 $2000pr. (If you can wait until release, this might be one of the best speakers ever made.)

Revel F12 $1500pr. (Excellent engineering and sound.)

PSB Image T6 $1300pr. (Excellent engineering and sound.)

Dynaudio DM 3/7 $2000pr.

Klipsch RF-82 II $1200pr.

Paradigm Monitor 11 $1600pr.

B&W 683 $1500pr. (Just OK.)

KEF Q900 $1800pr. (Just OK.)

I would substitute the Q900 with the R500. It may not need a sub in some room and it is still a floor standing speaker, albeit a small one. To me, that's the only one that may beat the PSB at the <= $2,000 price point.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I would substitute the Q900 with the R500. It may not need a sub in some room and it is still a floor standing speaker, albeit a small one. To me, that's the only one that may beat the PSB at the <= $2,000 price point.

I agree. I heard the R700 and loved it. I think the R series has upgraded drivers vs. the Q. But the retail on the R500 is $2,500. I also heard the Dynaudio DM 3/7. Very nice speaker. I slightly preferred the Focal 816v and 826v though.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I agree. I heard the R700 and loved it. I think the R series has upgraded drivers vs. the Q. But the retail on the R500 is $2,500. I also heard the Dynaudio DM 3/7. Very nice speaker. I slightly preferred the Focal 816v and 826v though.

How would you compare the Focal 826V vs the KEF R700?

 

[ridikas]

I've listened to Focals many times at ABT Electronics. Their 800 series of speakers are not that great, in my opinion. First, the cabinets are rather flimsy and lots of resonances color the sound. The woofers don't have a proper box volume/tuning, resulting in high Q, which gives a very boomy bass. The tweeter is crossed over WAY too high at 3kHz and to a 7" midwoofer, no less. Resulting in poor off-axis response.

It's interesting how these big companies (KEF, B&W, Focal, etc.) do everything right for their flagship speakers, but when it comes to the budget line it all falls apart. All three companies have multiple anechoic chambers and world class acoustical engineers.

So my question is: Are they PURPOSELY building inferior lower end speakers to differentiate them from the mid priced ones and the top of the line?

 

[Hocky]

So my question is: Are they PURPOSELY building inferior lower end speakers to differentiate them from the mid priced ones and the top of the line?

Of course they are.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've listened to Focals many times at ABT Electronics. Their 800 series of speakers are not that great, in my opinion. First, the cabinets are rather flimsy and lots of resonances color the sound. The woofers don't have a proper box volume/tuning, resulting in high Q, which gives a very boomy bass. The tweeter is crossed over WAY too high at 3kHz and to a 7" midwoofer, no less. Resulting in poor off-axis response.

It's interesting how these big companies (KEF, B&W, Focal, etc.) do everything right for their flagship speakers, but when it comes to the budget line it all falls apart. All three companies have multiple anechoic chambers and world class acoustical engineers.

So my question is: Are they PURPOSELY building inferior lower end speakers to differentiate them from the mid priced ones and the top of the line?

Well, the question is how the speakers actually sound to the OP.

Every engineer/ designer has his preference, objective, and limitation.

But the only thing that really matters in the end is how the speakers sound to the OP.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Of course they are.

I don't know about you, but I don't expect the parts inside the $190K Focal Grande Utopia to be the same as the $3K Focal 826V.

 

[ridikas]

I don't know about you, but I don't expect the parts inside the $190K Focal Grande Utopia to be the same as the $3K Focal 826V.

Yeah, but the parts have nothing to do with it. Moving the tweeter/midwoofer crossover point from 3kHz to 2kHz requires no additional expense (maybe one additional crossover part). Adding one, or two MDF braces inside of the cabinet is a very minimal expense. Tuning the box for low Q is also a bare minimum expense (a bit of extra polyfill possibly).

Just doing these simple things would automatically bring the speaker to optimal performance.

But by doing that, the speaker (on performance level alone) would compete with the Electra line. So customers buying the Electras would only be buying them for aesthetics and I think Focal realizes that that's not good enough.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

How would you compare the Focal 826V vs the KEF R700?

Well, the R700 sounded better to me, given that it was in a different store with different equipment. It had a very full, rich sound and the Focal could not quite match that. It is also more money,not that more cost always equals better sound, but I think Kef did a nice job with the R series.

As far as companies short changing their lower priced stuff vs. their flagship speakers, obviously,that has to happen to some degree given the relative costs. But, as I mentioned in my thread, the coax driver in the R series looks very similar to the driver in the Blade, suggestion it maintains at least some of the quality of the flagship speaker. Well, I guess the Muon is really the Kef flagship, but you get my point.

 

[cpp]

I've listened to Focals many times at ABT Electronics. Their 800 series of speakers are not that great, in my opinion. First, the cabinets are rather flimsy and lots of resonances color the sound. The woofers don't have a proper box volume/tuning, resulting in high Q, which gives a very boomy bass. The tweeter is crossed over WAY too high at 3kHz and to a 7" midwoofer, no less. Resulting in poor off-axis response.

It's interesting how these big companies (KEF, B&W, Focal, etc.) do everything right for their flagship speakers, but when it comes to the budget line it all falls apart. All three companies have multiple anechoic chambers and world class acoustical engineers.

So my question is: Are they PURPOSELY building inferior lower end speakers to differentiate them from the mid priced ones and the top of the line?

You got a good point. But I'm not sure if I would call them inferior but built to support the lower budgets of those that desire a speaker built by a reputable company and not some one off company. If KEF, B&W, Focal built all their speakers to the design requirements regarding cabinets and using the best of the best internals their overall sells would die on the vine as their market direction would then only be higher end and would rarely reach the lower budgets of those wanting to get into audio. But in the end, it really depends on how the unit sounds to the person. I've got some old Kef's that being OLD, they still sound good to me.

 

[ridikas]

Here are my ultimate tower recommendations if we can relax the budget a little, but not go crazy high:

Coming Soon (if you can wait until the end of the year, these towers will be absolutely reference):

SVS Ultra 45 $2000pr.
Revel F208 $5000pr.
Revel F206 $3500pr.

Readily Available:

Polk Audio LSiM707 $4000pr.
Polk Audio LSiM705 $3000pr.
PSB Synchrony One $5500pr.
Klipsch RF-7 II $3200pr.
Philharmonic 3 $3500pr.
KEF R900 $5000pr.
KEF R700 $3600pr.
Dynaudio Focus 260 $4900pr.
Dynaudio Excite X36 $3800pr.
Dynaudio Excite X32 $3000pr.
Sonus Faber Liuto $5000pr.
Sonus Faber Toy Tower $3000pr.
Sonus Faber Venere 2.5 $2500pr.

 

[cpp]

I would have to add the Salk Songtowers ( $2000 - $3499) to that list

 

[ridikas]

I would have to add the Salk Songtowers ( $2000 - $3499) to that list

The reason why I find the Songtowers (same goes for the Ascend Sierra Towers) hard to recommend is because they use tiny 5" midwoofers. They really have no realistic bass extension, or output. And at that price point, there are many better options.

Take a look at the upcoming SVS Ultra 45 towers. They use dual 7" Peerless HDS woofers with fiber glass cones. The motors are state of the art in low distortion, featuring shorting rings. The bass should have excellent extension, output, and sound as clean as it gets. That is how a proper speaker is made