If you could only own one set, which speakers are your "keepers"?

[kirk78h]

Not home speakers; but I had some car speakers that I really loved. It was a component set made by Elemental Designs (I forget the model number). When I needed speakers for a new vehicle, I didn't even think twice -- I went online to buy another set. Unfortunately, they went out of business. Their web site was taken down; and there was no information to be found on them. I guess it is harder for these to be "keepers" when you don't keep the vehicle.

[martyh]

My Stormtroopers from back in 2014. Still the best speaker I've ever built and every so often I surprise myself with how good they sound in my home.

[Ray Tremblay]

The ones in my signature. If I ever needed "more", I would double up on the Scan mids and switch to the 13" Revalator subs for a little more output in a larger room. Otherwise, they sound phenomenal.

[dlr]

My (no-name, not-yet-finished woodwork) 3-way dipole system (mono-pole tweeter). The Ultimate Equalizer does crossover duty. Designed using johnk's dipole spreadsheet for the dipole aspect, crossover designed using the Ultimate Equalizer to obtain the best polar response throughout the crossover area. Not the ultimate (excuse the pun) in driver complement (DXT tweeter), but it's my best result to date.

[DDF]

Maggies were always one of my favorite commercial speakers. While I didn't own them, I had a friend who owned them in a listening-room that was magic. Because I couldn't afford Maggies, I got into speaker building. And here I am.

An acquaintance had a pair of MGIIa's with a blown tweeter panel and asked me for a DIY fix. Jury rigged on a modest "line source" of dome tweeters, measured in room, new xover, tweaked a bit through listening. Weirdest mod i ever did, but there was no denying the really mice mids of the panels (allot of the magic possibly from less floor/side wall reflection)

[craigk]

So you base whether a speaker is a copy of another speaker on how it looks in profile rather that how the speaker operates? Look at the OM-5. It is basically two small 2-way, sealed box speakers, back to back mounted on top of a rectangular, ported woofer cabinet with triangular gussets to help support the top section. The SAE system actually curves forward, with a 12" woofer in sealed box, small enclosed midrange coupler, and ELS array to handle the upper frequencies. The NaO II is an open baffle, MTM dipole with quasi-cardioid woofer system and, in it's present configuration, solid, sculptured side panels. None of these speakers are copies of each other any more than a small speaker in a rectangular box is a copy of the LS3/5a. But if you want to make that judgment, then I would suggest that the Linkwitz LX 521 is a copy of an early implementation on the NaO, because the panel is mounted in a fashion which straddles the woofer system which is, of course, absurd.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1349981[/ATTACH]

http://www.musicanddesign.com/NaO_Note_II_RS.html amazing the cabinets look the same. i never said it was the same design, just the cabs look the same. I am not judging anything.

[craigk]

So you base whether a speaker is a copy of another speaker on how it looks in profile rather that how the speaker operates? Look at the OM-5. It is basically two small 2-way, sealed box speakers, back to back mounted on top of a rectangular, ported woofer cabinet with triangular gussets to help support the top section. The SAE system actually curves forward, with a 12" woofer in sealed box, small enclosed midrange coupler, and ELS array to handle the upper frequencies. The NaO II is an open baffle, MTM dipole with quasi-cardioid woofer system and, in it's present configuration, solid, sculptured side panels. None of these speakers are copies of each other any more than a small speaker in a rectangular box is a copy of the LS3/5a. But if you want to make that judgment, then I would suggest that the Linkwitz LX 521 is a copy of an early implementation on the NaO, because the panel is mounted in a fashion which straddles the woofer system which is, of course, absurd.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]n1349981[/ATTACH]

Yes when I say one cabinet looks like the other that is what I mean. I said nothing about sound, driver config or anything else. The CABINETS look the same. Nothing else. This is as clear as I can make it.

[williamrschneider]

Maggies were always one of my favorite commercial speakers. While I didn't own them, I had a friend who owned them in a listening-room that was magic. Because I couldn't afford Maggies, I got into speaker building. And here I am.

[fdieck]

As part of the diversion I will do as you wish. I really miss my modified Magnapan MG IIIa. I had redone the crossovers with much better caps and had rigid stands from 1” steel tubing made at an ornamental fence shop. The mid range wires broke didn’t have the time and inclination to glue new wire to the diaphragms. I bought the Linkwitz 521 plans and am working on a simpler version with Scan Speak, Vifa, and BG neo 3s.

[williamrschneider]

Not that I'm a moderator or anything, but the topic of this post is what is your "keeper" speaker. It's starting to diverge into other areas.

Up until now, it was fun to see what other people treasured in their listening space. We're all different and like different things, and that's a lot of the fun in this hobby.

Can we keep going the way the thread was progressing earlier?

Pretty Please?

[fdieck]

Gilbert Briggs 3way dipole from 1956, the year I was born. https://www.inner-magazines.com/audi...arfedale-sfb3/ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HQbpwp_i6qg

[fdieck]

Uh oh......

Linkwitz actually kind of revisited his L-07 speaker he did in the late 1980s.

[johnk...]

that is my point and you made the case better, the cabs are not one of his original designs. the design has been around a long time.

So you base whether a speaker is a copy of another speaker on how it looks in profile rather that how the speaker operates? Look at the OM-5. It is basically two small 2-way, sealed box speakers, back to back mounted on top of a rectangular, ported woofer cabinet with triangular gussets to help support the top section. The SAE system actually curves forward, with a 12" woofer in sealed box, small enclosed midrange coupler, and ELS array to handle the upper frequencies. The NaO II is an open baffle, MTM dipole with quasi-cardioid woofer system and, in it's present configuration, solid, sculptured side panels. None of these speakers are copies of each other any more than a small speaker in a rectangular box is a copy of the LS3/5a. But if you want to make that judgment, then I would suggest that the Linkwitz LX 521 is a copy of an early implementation on the NaO, because the panel is mounted in a fashion which straddles the woofer system which is, of course, absurd.

[craigk]

The NaO II has a long history. It was refined over several revisions but basically remains the same using the same driver compliment as the original version, same driver layout and same U-frame quai-cardioid woofer (not a ported box a la OM-5), same basic baffle but has now progressed to a fully active, digital crossover and the addition of side panels reminiscent of numerous designs from the 80s such as the SAE Model X ELS.

that is my point and you made the case better, the cabs are not one of his original designs. the design has been around a long time.

[johnk...]

The cab is almost an exact copy.

The NaO II has a long history. It was refined over several revisions but basically remains the same using the same driver compliment as the original version, same driver layout and same U-frame quai-cardioid woofer (not a ported box a la OM-5), same basic baffle but has now progressed to a fully active, digital crossover and the addition of side panels reminiscent of numerous designs from the 80s such as the SAE Model X ELS.