Most "Accurate/Realistic" Sounding Speakers?

Infinity Irs Betas........

In continuation of my respons above a more general observation, one that may "only" be an aspect of realism in sonic reproduction (albeit a very important one), namely the frequency spectrum from some 100-400Hz - or the upper bass/lower midrange. As such this would serve to highlight no individual speaker principle or brand/model in particular (although one could rightly point to specific items, as is the case with linked review below), but rather stress the relevance of named aspects’ implementation in loudspeakers more widely. Reading a review today by Robert E. Greene over at The Absolute Sound of the Stirling Broadcast LS3/6 speakers, I noticed his elaboration on this important issue in the comments section:

...
The truth is, that as I discussed in my "guest editorial" in TAS some months ago, many audiophiles have come to perceive the hole in the warmth region that occurs all too often with floorstanding speakers as being accurate and lively and "realistic". But of course it is not. Does anyone really believe that a big dip somewhere between 100 Hz and 400 Hz and a big midrange projection above is really the way things ought to be?
Properly set up the BBC speakers avoid this --but this does not mean they are coloured by warmth,. It means that they are correct, This has nothing to do with personal taste(though I do in fact like warm concert halls for instance). It has to do with being correct. Inducing a hole in the lower mids and a projection above does not let you hear what is on recordings and it is wrong. Saying it is modern and that the alternative is "lazy" and "old school" is to use semantically loaded phrases to misrepresent reality. There is truth involved here. One just neeeds to figure out what it is.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/stirling-broadcast-ls36/?page=5

I'm sure some will find above quote controversial in seeing Mr. Greene speak of "correctness" (repeatedly, I might add) in sonic reproduction, but I fully agree with him; it does make sense to speak of reproduced sound that borders more closely that of live instrumentation and voices, and that doing so doesn't necessarily cost a fortune. We're up against an industry that seeks to keep the financial wheels turning (through branding, not least) more than any endeavor to seek out authentic sound, and introducing "subjectivity" into this mix makes it all the more easy to cater to these mechanisms. 

I would add the importance of physicality/air displacement area and speed in the upper bass/lower mids as well to more significantly approach sonic realism, something I find a variety of larger horn speakers in particular to be capable of.

I'm a fan of Robert E Green's writing.   That said,   I don't know that I've noticed the floor standing "dip" phenomenon he mentions, at least insofar as being more common than among monitor speakers (i.e. I hear dips and colorations in both types of speakers).

I know that Mr. Green has long extolled the truthfulness of Harbeth speakers.   I briefly owned the very well regarded Harbeth Super HL5plus speakers, on approved-height stands, in an acoustically excellent room.
They were really wonderful in some ways (vocals!) but I found my Thiel 3.7s beat them handily in just about every area I could think of, even in terms of the Thiels midrange sounding more substantial and believable.

So at least in my case, anecdotally, the BBC type monitor did not display the purported superiority over a larger floor stander.

Many people don’t care about sound systems that try to sound like live music. Many more younger people (Ipod generation) care even less about this. This is compounded by the fact the vast majority of speakers do not sound like live music.
I think another question might be, how much money does one have to spend to do a magic trick into fooling your ears and brain (for a brief period of time) that you are listening to live music. That will differ from one person to another.
My guess is around $10K, maybe more.