Best new loudspeaker

I have heard many loudspeakers ,I own Magnapan , and
a Aerial 10-t . This new loudspeaker I heard at great lengths and many agree is from a new company called
NSR -Sonic Research the D-3 Sonata was absolutely killer
and they were saying the wiring and crossover are not even final as of the Jan show . parts quality is excellent in the Silver finish I saw,for a speaker under $5k to create such a soundstage presence with bass that had articulation and impact is beyond me how they do it ,I am told it is a
sealed focal lens .They will be selling by March ,I for sure will be saving my bucks, this is one loudspeaker to watch ,I am already selling my 10-ts.
monatan kas 2
A little info on you system, sonic taste and budget would be helpful. The "newest" speaker is not always the best.
Hello All out there unless you heard the NSR-D-3 Sonatas
at the show you have no idea how good these Loudspeakers are I thought they were a $10k + loudspeaker and you would to for sure if you seen them ,then listened!
Audiophile is totally correct Myself and brother were at the show in Vegas for we do custom home theatre installation for a cable company.
My brother has the Von Schweikert vr4jr mk-2 and he now is selling them his.The NSR Loudspeakers are way faster and totally dissapear in the room it was like having a line source with a sub it was that good. I personally am saving for a pair but not until spring.You would be nuts to buy another speaker before spending a few hours with these.A lot of big name companys are not going to rest very well knowing this speaker with either their standard or reference xovers will beat most speakers at $10k that is saying tons.the samples at the show were not even the finished product, In march they are in full production, at the show not one person had anything to say but good things about them including the press,Judge foryourself .
Here is a link.

I want a do-over. I missed this room at Alexis Park (T.H.E. Show).
I must be missing something. Doesn't the website say the xover is two way? Something just don't add up......

to shakey deal what don't add up ? it is a 2way with 4 drivers ,in a simple linkwitz circuit with a inductor a lpad a couple of high end caps and a few good resistors you have a seamless Xover ,and the Excellent Patented
APL Lens system for the Bass. Check out their site or you can check out out at a dealer on the East coast if in New England where I just ordered mine and only had to leave 1/2 at

You mean to say 2 midrange drivers(different drivers at that), a tweeter, and a sub bass driver all have ONE crossover point?

the mid drivers share the same capacitor in parallel
the resistors are a different value which changes it's
position for a specific frequency in the midband.
It is seamless , there are 2 versions of caps the standard are the excellent Auri caps and Caddock resistors.
The Reference Xover which is $700 more and that is not even retail they are practically giving it away for the retail is over $1000 for the parts with your choice of Dueland Copper caps or the Mundorf Silver oil Gold and Dueland resistors, which by the way are in the $28,000 Magico speakers Xover except the resistors, the Magico
uses Mundorfs the Duelands in the D-3 are better!
To all readers I am a dedicated audio systems builder for some 30 years now, I have seen and heard pretty much everything in the industry, this new Loudspeaker from
Nsr Sonic Research D-3 Sonata is a Brekthrough product .
The simplicity of the crossover with only 2 capacitors in the signal path of 4 drivers is a worthy accomplishment.
The patented sealed APL-Acoustical projection lens is
superb in it's articulation and lack of bloat even at the lowest of notes room dependant of course,also the Xover uses all quality parts such as Auricaps CAddock or Vishay resistors,. The Reference Xover is as good as any in the World it is a $900 upgrade using the Hand made Dueland
resistors and Copperfoil vsf capacitors which take 8 days
per batch to make and sonicly the best by far,the inducors are the superb Solen Hepalitz ,with custom multistrand wiring.These speakers are so refined that I feel they easily compete with any at 2x+ the price and I welcome anyone in the area to come have a listen .there are several reviews in the works .if you are thinking about buying a new speaker please don't overlook this transducer it would be a big mistake .even the standard model is now at least 15% better than the show examples that received many praise at the shows.
I thouhght it was my obligation to set the record straight on pricing and misinfomation thankyou. http://www.Hifidelityaudio

What, you've already dropped the Ref 3As you raved about so recently?? Honestly, how do these compare?
this reference to the NSR Sonic D-3 Loudspeaker is loaded with good information. that other link don't work.
The new Zu Definition mKII's and the Zu presence are the most promising.. Oh and best sounding I have heard for "Real" sound yet.. and on only a few tube watts :-)
to Fla I am taking nothing away from the reference 3a for midrange sonic purity excellent the NSR sonic D-3 loudspeaker
with standard Xover which uses good quality parts is better balanced across the board especially in the tight Bass ,the ref 3a Decappo for instance may have a slight edge in transparancy, that is the only dept. When you add the Reference Xover in the mix Game over The Duelund vsf Copper caps ,and their resistors are the finest hand made products out there to complement the Solen Litz inductors this Xover uses no plastic whatsoever this is why it sounds so natural and completely hand soldered throughout -No current robbing circuit boards on any of their speakers, as you will see when the reviews come out in the next few months .
Just as an FYI...

Threads started by:

Best new loudspeaker
Best New speaker under $5000

best New LOudspeaker to hit the market under $5k

That is their complete thread history. They both have identical styles of writing (bad spellings and grammar, no new paragraphs)

Pjl2122 has the same writing style as well, and from his content, it is clear that he has "insider" info about these speakers.

There are better ways to promote your product than to post duplicate threads on audiogon under different monikers.
>>Pjl2122 has the same writing style as well<<

He's posting the same crap in the Mundorf capacitor thread as well.
Yep, goatwuss, I think you have nailed it. Even if I were in the market for new speakers, I would pass on such shady doings as this. And I still have a hard time understanding a speaker with 4 dissimilar drivers operating with one xover point. I'm no EE, but doesn't make sense to me.

Look you guys do what you will ,there are 2 capacitors which are their main Xover point .and as far as capacitors
The Mundorfs were the best untill I found out the Hand built Duelunds are better ,if you did a search you will
see this .This is enough on this subject.and as far as the Xover parts their is no better that is a fact do your home work and ask any speaker builder who has worked with them.
anf pjl knows what he is talking about the Duelunds are by far the best cap and Audio fiel you don't have a clue
I doubt u ever made a loudspeaker by hand . and I have already ordered the NSR Sonic D-3 it is the best speaker out there in the $5k class as the upcoming reviews will confirm!
To you guys who feel you have to rap me ,I confess i do write late at night and make writting errors .What I do believe in is the products I sell .I am proud that I have ordered several of the Nsr Sonic D-3 and with 2 Audiogon members having the faith in what they have read and to hear them at the show to order them from me .I don't see why we cannot get along ,I truly believe they are by far the best loudspeaker to come along in a long time and I will even pay the Gas for someone to take the time to make the drive out in March when I get my Reference with the all Duelund setup.I hope this is plain enough, and as far as the Xover parts go I have several thousand of hours experience in comparing parts quality and the Duelands are by far the most natural to come along yet ,do your homework and you too will see what a lot of people are finding out, unless you have listened to these speakers and Xover parts first hand for at least several hours then you cannot give a educated opinion.
never will any cone design be the best. electrostats are less inaccurate in reproducing timbre.

there is a way to demonstrate this, but unfortunately people live to far away to do a simple test.

the quads unlimited quad 57 are closer to real than anything out there, period.
I have had stats and you are partially correct .
The best stat by far for full scale is the Soundlabs A1
one of the best loudspeakers out there but big and not room freindly .Nowadays most living rooms donot want a big loudspeaker that is for a dedicated room .Electrostatic loudspeakers have probably the clearest midrange out there
but there is much less of a sweetspot than a cone loudspeaker,the top end for sure is softer and donot have the dynamic range from soft to loud,also they are not as efficient. These are facts just read from the many reviews.
MrTennis, I'm shocked :) are you running a double standard ??!

Why can't an amplifier have the same status you just bestowed on the Quad??
Following on from Goatwuss' comment, I find it strange that these three 'users' who are promoting this new speaker all have previous transactions with each other.


I guess we're just talking about one user, not three.
the quads unlimited quad 57 are closer to real than anything out there, period.

Time for all those speaker manufacturers to close shop and admit defeat....they will never better this 50+ year old product!

Why everyone does not own one remains one of those mysteries...
for you skeptics your are partially right in theory
Dallas is my cousin ,but that is far as it goes ,we all have our own choices ,such as you may hang with a group and follow advise if it is good .If you never heard the NSR D-3 speakers than don't knock them .
hi shadorne:

there is no mystery. no component is perfect. since imperfection is all that is available, there is a variety of imperfect products, preferred by a variety of hobbyists.

when taste is the motivator of behavior, many products will flourish. this is true in other industries as well.

a successful enterprise will differentiate its product from that of its competitors, thereby helping to insure its viability. manufacturer's do that as well as trying to convince buyers of the superiority of their products. if enough buyers are convinced, such businesses are successful.

end of economics 1 lecture.
hi audiophile1958:

you can have a negative attitude toward a product initially, even if you haven't heard theproduct, if it is a member of a class of products to which you have been exposed and the result has been a dislike for such products.

for example, while i have heard many cone speakers, i am skeptical that i would like a cone speaker that i have not heard, based upon my vast experience with cone speakers.
it is highly unlikely that i will ever own a cone design. yet i have not auditioned every cone design.

when i hear of a cone speaker that is highly regarded, i am inclined to think i will not like it. of course, i would need to audition the speaker, to confirm my predisposition. however, i would indeed make a wager that i would not want to own a cone speaker, based upon a fair evaluation of that speaker.
Mrtennis we may not agree on all our tastes but your
statement on success of a enterprise was well done.
Symposium. Ugly as sin but beautifuly voiced and balanced.
Hello I am new to these forums I guess I have been to busy
allways working ,as far as Audio I have over 30 years in the field and have seen it all come and go seeing the rantings on the Quad speaker ,and Nsr Sonic ,Maggis these are all excellent products in their own parameters and even a reference to the improvements made by using high calibur capacitors and parts which can be big ,there is no such thing as a perfect loudspeaker in absolute terms ,and unless u use the same electronics and cables to compare them, it is impossible to even do a one to one comparison.discussing what your particular speaker does well and it's price point is another story this has been my experience .
there is no mystery. no component is perfect.

Indeed....but the Quad 57 is as close to perfect as any speaker in the past or the future will ever get...right?
considering the entry date for this speaker. so far, no design has reduced errors of timbre in the midrange to a greater extent than the quad esl. i doubt any design in the future will surpass the quad in this respect.

i have to give serious consideration to the purchase of stacked quad esls as my next and hopefully last speaker system. there is only one other contender, namely the analysis audio omega.

enjoy your cones. perhaps you can put some ice cream and syrup on them. they'll taste better that way.... lol!
you are correct the quads do have excellent timber my buddy has I believe the 989 ,but severely limited in dynamics from soft to loud and a limited sweet spot compared to the best of the cone loudspeakers
as well as soft at the upper and lower extremes,many people are willing to sacrifice these factors for the purity of the midrange,so do enjoy your loudspeakers,
the only true full range electrostat loudspeaker is the Big Soundlabs which are excellent .the big MBL radiastraler
is also superb speaking of a incredible loudspeaker
these 2 are the finest representatives of their specific
Hi Techmachine,

You may be new here but obviously you're no newbie.

You mentioned the big SoundLabs and the big MBL Radialstrahlers as "the finest representatives of their specific technologies". I'd have a hard time arguing against you on that.

These two speakers have at least one important acoustic characteristic in common, which they also share with live instruments. Care to speculate on what that might be?

the quad 989 is inferior in purity to the original quads.

the 2805 is no better. the 57 was and is the best midrange and lower treble reproducer. the soundlabs are a distant second.
MrTennis, I have a customer who would disagree with you. He plays, or played, violin in a symphony in either Vermont or New Hampshire (I can't remember which). Prior to auditioning SoundLabs, he told me that the only speaker he had ever heard get his instrument right was his personal pair of tricked-out original Quad ESLs. He brought 90 discs to the audition, and over the course of two days he listened to portions of 80 of them (the other 10 were SACDs and I didn't have an SACD player). When we were through, he told me that not only did the SoundLabs get his instrument right, they also got the cello and double-bass right, which he said he'd never heard any speaker do before.

ask david chesky the same question about sound labs vs quads. this is the first time i have ever heard anyone suggest that any sound lab speaker was closer to the real think than the original quad esl.

i suppose it is a matter of perception. there is no absolute answer to this question without a reference
to compare to the recording.
the only true full range electrostat loudspeaker is the Big Soundlabs which are excellent .

Indeed Big Soundlabs is what Gordon Holt used for many years until he got his current ATC SCM 50 ASL....I guess he has enjoyed many speakers over the years and reviewed more than most, however he is apparently extremely happy with these particular cones...perhaps its just the ice cream or syrup?
"for example, while i have heard many cone speakers, i am skeptical that i would like a cone speaker that i have not heard, based upon my vast experience"

I wish I had your vast experience MRT. As an admitted lover of panel speakers, I once decided to get out of the house a little more, and surprisingly discovered that what I really enjoy and not enjoy has pretty little correlation with underlying technology; rather, I found some moderate correlation with the 'house sound' of particular designers/manufacturers; yet more often than not, I simply fall in love with one particular model. . . but then. . . my problem is that I may be an empiricist with a strange distrust of inductive thinking.
MrTennis, I've played string bass since 7th grade, piano since I was 3 (I was getting lessons that early :/ ), guitar since 6th grade and flute since 6th grade. More recently I've added a variety of synthesizers...

( and
-obviously I am still playing. I've also been producing CDs and LPs for the last 22 years. Of course, none of **that** makes me an authority about sound :), but-

By no means does a Quad play all those things right, regardless of the amplifier driving it, even one of ours. It lacks bass performance, is dynamically restricted, is not the last word in transparency and is rolled-off on the highs. Not to say that its a bad speaker- I think they sound great! and I like them a lot. But *I* think the speakers I have at home sound better as they are equally transparent, have frequency extension, way more dynamic range and set up easier in the room (meaning I get better room interaction).

Now- you have to admit you have a preference (and not because I say so, simply because it *is* so); that the Quad is in fact not the **best** speaker around, even though it is excellent, that your feelings about the speaker are in fact your own opinion.

OR- take back all your comments about how there is no 'best amplifier'.
hi mr g:

if i heard a cone design that had all of the admirable characteristsics of a planar/dipole, i would consider it for purchase.

unfortunately, every cone design i have heard has exhibited "colorations" which i do not like.

there is a very good chance i will purchase two pair of quads unlimited quad 57s, realizing limitations in dynamics and bass.
Perfectly fine by me MRT. My admittedly non-inductive reading of your words is that the quads unlimited 57s were your favorite speakers at the time of submission of your last post.
the quad 57 has the least inaccurate midrange, period. i am surprised you have not revealed it. it is not attenuated in the treble, but it is dynamically restricted nad attenuated in the bass. greater transparency does not guarantee less timbral inaccuracy. where the quad excels is in accuracy of timbre. there is no speaker which surpasses it in that respect.

obviously any statements without definitive proof are opinions. i will admit that. i am curious as to what speaker system you own.

by the way, i visited you at the sahara hotel at a ces during the 90's. you remarked that you like a lean sound.
i have a witness who will confirm your comment.

too much transparency and accuracy of timbre are not synonymous.
i consider the quads unlimited reproduction of the original quad esl to be the least inaccurate with respect to timbre. my concern is the bass response as well as the susceptibility of the panel to degradation due to temparature and humidity. i am also not looking forward to having a speaker dependent upon the quality of the ac.

the alternatives to my ears are few, so it may be a comprimise among the imperfect speakers. if you have any ideas as to a speaker system which is minimally erroneous when recreating the sound of an instrument, please let me know.

ATC 20s. Pro studio quality.
Hello Mrtennis you said if you could find a transducer that would fit the bill you would at least pursue it, the fact there are such transducers out there ,can you afford them is the better part of the question for 2 speakers come to mind the Superb MBL
loudspeaker which are every bit as good in any parameter of your loudspeaker and the Big Soundlabs properly driven
these are reference loudspeakers in every parameter and by many well know educated reviewers, do check them out seriously than come back and give your observations
as to their worth thankyou.
hi timemachine:

i have heard mbl speakers many times at ces shows.
they are fine speakers. however, they are nopt what i would call pure sounding. they do not sound like electrostatic speakers, magnepans, apogees, eminent technology speakers and other planar magnetics.

the mbl speakers were driven by mbl amps and featured mbl cd players, as well. i was not overly impressed. it is a speaker that is not on my short list.

perhaps you have another idea.

as for the big soundlabs, i prefer the earlier soundslabs, the a2 and b2. in addition, the big soundlabs will not fit in my room and would require an amlifier i don't own.
they do not sound like electrostatic speakers, magnepans, apogees, eminent technology speakers and other planar magnetics.


Forgive me for being presumptuous but I do believe that you are confusing things. At least this is the only way I can reconcile your statements/preferences.

The biggest difference in all these electrostatic designs compared to almost all the cone speaker designs is NOT in the timbre but in the radiation pattern!

I think it is the RADIATION pattern of panels that is what "turns your crank".

It is entirely possible you prefer the enhanced reverberant sound field that you get from a large panel! This is perfectly understandable. However, claiming that the timbre of "all cones is wrong" is simply not supported by any science that I know of. I call this panel sound an atmospheric effect...dipoles do it also but not as is almost magical and the sound from panels can at times be enveloping and almost three dimensional - sometimes with a distinct source between the speakers but more often not. It is also possible to hear increased emphasis in certain stringed instruments and vocals due to the later reverberant information that reaches the ears (reverberation spreads out the energy and gives the ear/brain more chance to discern things/details). In fact the sound can be highly variable depending on both placement and listening position (you also tend to get a lot of comb filtering/lobing with such large radiating surfaces and reflections, which changes the sound of long lasting notes - although the spacing between the ears generally compensates for the comb filtering and you are left with just an impression of "spaciousness" in the sound rather than a change in tone/timbre). The highly variable nature of the sound ( due to room interaction ) is why these panel designs are shunned in studios....studios want translatable and reproducible sound....they want to know exactly what a mix or master sounds like ....NOT what it sounds like in a particular room! Besides the dynamic comression from panels is just a non starter for evaluating a mix.

Of course, the acoustics that a large panel may create in your room are probably more akin to what you might hear towards the back of a large concert hall where there is a heavier emaphasis on reflected rather than direct sound ( defintely true of classical and church music compared to typical rock/pop/jazz club/concert sound). Indeed, if you only attend the ballet and opera then you will ONLY hear reflected sound from the orchestra that sits in a pit. The comb filtering (from multiple reflections of the same signal all reaching your ear but with various delays) has a marked impact on what you hear. Even a symphony orchestra which sits on a wooden floor is gaining from a huge amount of reverberant energy off the floor. Contrast this with an amplified rock group with speaker towers and of course the sound field radiation pattern is completely different!!

I propose that your beef with ALL cone speakers and you adoration of all panels (especially Quad 57) has absolutely nothing to do with timbre. IMHO, you are mixing your terms, which is understandable given the complexity of a natural sound field, the nature of audio reproduction in a room at home and the difficulty in translating your perceptions into language...
hi shadorne:

it is my experience, auditioning many cone designs that cone designs do not as good a job creating natural timbre as ribbons, electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers.

cone designs have driver colorations, cabinet colorations and crossover colorations with cones.

if cone designs reproduced timbre naturally, i would consider them.

as for radiating patterns. if you listen in the near field, there are still differences in radiating patterns, but they are reduced.

are you suggesting that a ribbon tweeter and a dome tweeter sound similar except for radiating pattern ?

how would you demonstrate that ?
how would you demonstrate that ?

By measuring the frequency response and the distortion on axis and verifying that the impulse response is of similarly high quality. A check of the phase and impedance plot for anomalies would also help. Many speakers have low distortion. Many have pretty good impulse response - especially in the midrange and at modest levels. However very few have similar radiation patterns though and very few maintain low distortion at higher levels.