What are the most overrated speaker brands, IYO?

[Florian]

RGA said exactly what i ment.
I consider these brands as overrated to my ears.

1. BOSE
2. Martin Logan
3. B&W
4. Dynaudio
5. Kef
6. AN-K (older model, and may have had the wrong setup)

-----...well pretty much every box exept

1. VMPS (incredibly fast, dynamic, neutral, transparency) thats why i bought it
2. Avalon
3. Kharma
4. Thiehl
5. Genesis
6. Infinity IRS or the old Prelude MTS

The below stated loudspeakers i like, because they are neutral, have a huge soundstage and sound not like a box.

-Flo

[RGA]

RGA said exactly what i ment.
I consider these brands as overrated to my ears.

1. BOSE
2. Martin Logan
3. B&W
4. Dynaudio
5. Kef
6. AN-K (older model, and may have had the wrong setup)

-----...well pretty much every box exept

1. VMPS (incredibly fast, dynamic, neutral, transparency) thats why i bought it
2. Avalon
3. Kharma
4. Thiehl
5. Genesis
6. Infinity IRS or the old Prelude MTS

The below stated loudspeakers i like, because they are neutral, have a huge soundstage and sound not like a box.

-Flo

Of course I don;t feel you can really put the AN K on the list -- Unless you can point to the piles of ga-ga reviews for it. To be overrated people have to Rate-It if you will. AN generally is not a mainstream product and does not actively seek out reviews. The AN K has been selling since 1990 in relative obscurity -- but selling nevertheless.

Bose -- well I don't think they can be on the list for the simple reason that no one overrates them (other than people on forums perhaps).

I might be inclined to agree with ML and Totem not that they;re bad but overpriced IMO for the sonic results you get -- but in both cases sonics isn;t the only or perhaps even the main reason you buy those speakers -- they have striking visual appeal and to many that counts a lot. In fact I'd have to take Castle back because they are not really mainstream in the press either nor did the Eden get universal praise.

And i don;t think you can go after entire companies anyway -- I can find certain B&W and Paradigm products overrated and then in the same breath find some that could be underrated -- the Monitor 3 doesn;t seem to get the notoriaty it perhaps deserves -- at least to me it's a better value than some more touted models.

[Florian]

Well thats exactly what i mean. I did not want to put AN on here, but other members judge entire companys based on one or two speakers. I respect AN electronics a lot for instance eventough they are picky when it comes to matching but nonetheless the turntables and preamps are outstanding regardless of price. I really dont like that Apogee was put there, since they never were a mainstream product and they made High End. But if i have to judge a company by one product, then i have to put AN on there eventough i do not agree with it.

-Flo

[RGA]

Apogee did get universal press reviews however -- and it should ALWAYS be about the specific product not the whole company based off one product. I can;t speak to the specific Apogee but it is not right to knock the Scintilla based say onan audition of a lower model. There is a But here though. For instance if the lower panel is the same house sound and uses similar design and IF most people who have heard say several agree that they sound very much the same but one has more bass then it's fair to say you might not or you might like others in the line.

The distinction though is important -- you don't judge magnepan off the MMG but if you heard the 3.6 and someone who's owned both tells you the MMG is basically a stripped down version with less bass etc and you're not a bass hound to start with then you would probably have a pretty decent idea what you're in for.

For instance if someone listened to the AN J I feel they would probably have a fair idea of what the E would be like since both speakers are designed similarly and use the same exact drivers and are both ported designs. The K is a sealed box uses a smaller tweeter by a different company, a different woofer by a different company, different surround materials etc. It has an entirely different bass character and isn't nearly as open in the treble - OTOH it isn't nearly as expensive.

Now if you listen to the 100V2 and the 40V2 other than bass there isn;t a whole lot of real difference between the two -- same drivers, same cabinet material, same design concept etc. I heard every speaker in the line.

To save time this go around I listened to the 100V3 and once again the lower models use the same design drivers cabinet materials etc -- so i feel pretty confident I'll know with pretty good accuracy how the lower models will sound - ditto for Energy C series, PSB Stratus Energy etc - basically they add a woofer/crossover point and more immitation wood.

I know of exactly 2 reviews of the AN K that have ever been done -- and one of those was mine (which really doesn't count beyond a few hundred forumers who MIGHT MAYBE bothered to read it). The other review I know of was done in 1992 by Hi-fi Choice which you can't get anywhere now. That is very different from a company that when you type a google search you can get 20 reviews by major magazines with pages of stuff on them.

There are speakers I think are not very good and way overpriced but they are not necessarily overrated...and it's the height of arrogance to think that what I think is overrated actually is overated -- just overrated to me...but then in some ways if you are looking at 10 highly reviewed and hyped $3k speakers and you pick one over the others and you really only liked 3 of them then the other 7 would be overrated to you.

I find nothing in Vandersteen or Thiel that excited me -- they are hyped heavily and to be frank I don't get the praise over Quad panels I've heard over the years.

[theaudiohobby]

The Quads are definitely not overrated, for less than ~800USD for a working pair of Quad 57s and suitable amplification it will knock the spots off many loudspeakers, the midrange of this ancient speaker is thoroughly superb, I can see why it has remained popular over the years, it has limitations such as the absence of very deep bass (subwoofer required), limited positioning options (the source of bad sound in many dealer showrooms) and limited loudness capability, but get past those issues and you will be rewarded with superb sound.

[Florian]

Very true, same as the Martin Logan CLS Panels or the Apogee's. Also Soundlab and Acustat are very special loudspeakers.

-Flo

[RGA]

The Quads are definitely not overrated, for less than ~800USD for a working pair of Quad 57s and suitable amplification it will knock the spots off many loudspeakers, the midrange of this ancient speaker is thoroughly superb, I can see why it has remained popular over the years, it has limitations such as the absence of very deep bass (subwoofer required), limited positioning options (the source of bad sound in many dealer showrooms) and limited loudness capability, but get past those issues and you will be rewarded with superb sound.

Sorry but I have heard these and the ESL 63 -- I get why people like them but I don't see much value in a speaker whose job is to reproduce music that lacks bass, dynamics, volume capability, and on top of that are tough to position don't like to be integrated to cones are not room friendly and extremely costly to repair if something goes wrong and they are easy to go wrong...I'm not at all surprised that JNR traded his 57s after owning them for 20+ years for the E which does all the things the panels did for him but can play louder with bass dynamics and a more open treble.

The 63 is a nice midrange speaker -- and interestingly the same people who rave about many of these midrange speakers slag tube amps for supposedly being midrange amplifers...curious indeed. Still there is a hollographic quality to these Quads that are I suppose unparalelled in the boxed speaker world --- and if one places a huge emphasis on the importance of this aspect then I suppose there is no substitute --- which is why I understand the appeal.

[theaudiohobby]

Sorry but I have heard these and the ESL 63 -- I get why people like them but I don't see much value in a speaker whose job is to reproduce music that lacks bass, dynamics, volume capability, and on top of that are tough to position don't like to be integrated to cones are not room friendly and extremely costly to repair if something goes wrong and they are easy to go wrong.

Subwoofer integration issues are not specific to the QUAD. It does not lack dynamics neither does it lack bass only deep bass ( 35Hz -6dB for the 988). Loudness capability and dynamics are two different things completely. All these issues are acknowledged in reviews and by the manufacturer. Considering that the 57 has been out of production for over 20 years, it is a very venerable speaker.

[theaudiohobby]

The 63 is a nice midrange speaker -- and interestingly the same people who rave about many of these midrange speakers slag tube amps for supposedly being midrange amplifers...curious indeed. Still there is a holographic quality to these Quads that are I suppose unparalelled in the boxed speaker world --- and if one places a huge emphasis on the importance of this aspect then I suppose there is no substitute --- which is why I understand the appeal.

the ESL 57 came out when tube amplifiers when the only game in town, QUAD itself still builds tube amplifiers. Owners of these speakers use a variety of amplifiers from both sides of the divide to drive them, so saying that those that praise these speakers slag tube amplifiers is a non-starter.