What speakers can b considered as world reference?

the one's you enjoy the most.

What the @#&& is a "world reference?

Does this mean the best in the world? If so, impossible to answer because who could possibly hear and evaluate all the contenders.

Or maybe it means any speaker on that list of contenders. But who could possibly decide that? Most "professional" reviewers may only hear a half dozen speakers per year in an environment and set up where they may be qualified to form solid opinions.

Sorry Pedrillo, don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you but I hear references made to "world class this, or world class that". This has become a pet peeve of mine because it is so meaningless. Our modern society has made products from most everywhere in the world available which means most consumer goods are considered on a world wide scale. So why not simply ask, "What speaker(s) do you consider to be a reference or benchmark?" and leave it at that?

the best (read biggest) of the duntechs or dunlavys are very, very revealing. In this way, you may or may not consider them musically satisfying ike say, a quad 57, but there tell you a lot about what is going on in the music. The midrange detail allows you to hear things like subtle speaker cone distortion on the attack of a bass guitar note.

Some speakers are hi-fi largely in the higher freq. If you can get the same midrange detail , which is where a lot of the music lives, you get a good reference for what is in the track.

of course, whatever you like wil work too quite often.

A bit aside from the question, but I don't really like this common audiophile thing where averyone compares speakers to the "live sound". If you want a speaker to sound like it did live, go get a 15" JBL PA speaker and maybe an overcranked Hartke subwoofer. Turn it up louder than you are ever comfortable listening to it, add croud noise and a high noise floor and that's what it will sound like live. (except for classical and intimate jazz of course, where there is no PA system) I myself would rather have a high end system where I can hear things recorded in a much more controlled environment such as a recording studio that you would never hear live. (pages turning, chairs creaking, musicians breathing ect) Now, I do however like studio recordings that were made when all the musicians were playing at the same time, preserving the musicians interactions, and dynamics. Audio quality though live, is normally too loud, lots of excessive reverberation, overpronounced bass and not that hifi. Just my 2 cents. Am I crazy, or do I just not follow the mainstream?

As far as world references, I would have to say all the big dogs with $20K and up speakers. They all will tell you that they make a world class speaker. Most of them will tell you that theirs is the best. The thing is,it's all about opinion. And... In my opinion I'd have to say Sonus Fabers Flagship, Focals Flagship, B+W's flagship, Martin Logans $125K monstrosity, Revels Salon 2, Wilsons Alexandria, and the list goes on. All different, but all reference level stuff. The right answer is what sounds the best to you.

Drew,

Enjoyed reading your post.

If I might comment on one thing - Earl Geddes' speaker was called the "Summa" (as in "summa cum laude"), so you were very close there. Earl is no longer building the Summa, but has sold the rights to a Thailand-based company called Audio Intelligence (Ai), for whom Earl is the principal designer. From what I understand, two similar-configured smaller models as well as a subwoofer or two complete their lineup. At this point they are marketing to Asian prosound customers, and have not yet set up distribution in the US.

Getting back to Pedrillo's original question, I'd have to nominate the Wilson WAMM as a world reference speaker. I don't even know if they still build it, but in my mind it's still pretty much the standard for comparison among ultra high-end loudspeakers.

Duke