I have an issue. I am overwhelmingly convinced that the HPM-100 is the best speaker ever made, because I've never heard a pair of speakers that prove me wrong. I want somebody to try to convince me otherwise - tell me why you DONT like the HPM-100 or what its downfall is.
Pioneer HPM-100: Best speaker ever made?
- Thread starter acdc7369
- Start date
- Status
marantzfan
...
Ugh. 
Well, you asked, so....
I thought they sounded like 4 drivers fighting a war over a box. And it was a two-front war, because it's stereo of course.
All kidding aside, I really didn't hate them, I just found them to have a significant coherency problem..I could hear the individual drivers. It didn't sound like one coherent source. They sounded 'phasey' (for lack of a better term)...timbre was all messed up in instruments. The bass wasn't really there until I really cranked them, at which point it was REALLY there, but by then the top end was ripping my ears off.
So..that's what I think of them. If you like what they do...find something like a JBL L-100t and hear it done with coherency, controlled bass, and a nice detailed top end.
I thought they sounded like 4 drivers fighting a war over a box. And it was a two-front war, because it's stereo of course.
All kidding aside, I really didn't hate them, I just found them to have a significant coherency problem..I could hear the individual drivers. It didn't sound like one coherent source. They sounded 'phasey' (for lack of a better term)...timbre was all messed up in instruments. The bass wasn't really there until I really cranked them, at which point it was REALLY there, but by then the top end was ripping my ears off.
So..that's what I think of them. If you like what they do...find something like a JBL L-100t and hear it done with coherency, controlled bass, and a nice detailed top end.
AnalogDigit
Realistic fan.
Everyone's hearing is different and just because you think one brand of speaker is better than another, it does not mean it's the best. It just means it's the best speaker for you.
Have you heard another pair of speakers?
Trolling? This is a speaker discussion is it not?
That's wrong. They aren't made of untreated paper cone material. All of the drivers (except the super) is made of carbon fiber. That was one main advantage of the hpm-100 is that they never rotted out. All the drivers are also chemically treated, btw.
As far as the mids go, I always felt that the mids were good, and if anything, the tweeters a little on the bright side.
Explain?
Maybe to you, but I've fried the super tweeters many times with a crappy receiver before and I was able to tell within seconds that one of them was done. Maybe only certain people can hear the ultra high frequencies becuase I can definitely tell the difference.
And can you explain what you'd change about them? What's scrambled about them?
Yes, please do.
Last edited:
Just out of curiosity, what kind of receiver were you driving them with? I've found that they sound subpar unless theyre matched with a Pioneer SX receiver.
Last edited:
Bose 901s failed to change my opinion. Though they do sound very nice. And I do mean VERY nice.
Arkay
Lunatic Member
I own HPM-100s, and they CAN sound pretty good, as mass-market speakers go. In fact, I've never heard them sound like separate drivers fighting a war over a box, etc... When I read something like that, I have to wonder what gear was driving them, what room they were in, or where the problem was, because my hearing is measurably excellent, I've heard many, many speakers, and I really haven't heard my HPMs sound THAT bad, even with some added imagination and effort to hear the flaws that people describe (but I have heard other speakers that might fit that description).
I wonder sometimes if these speakers aren't prone to some strange anti-synergies (oscillations?) or interactions that make them sound horrid in one application and good in another --?
I can't find any other explanation for the extreme divisiveness of opinion that they seem to provoke. Surely listening preferences alone cannot fully explain the extreme dichotomy of opinions on these?
I think they are not outstanding at all, but still are very decent, pretty good speakers. BUT they have their weaknesses, mainly a weakness in realistic soundstage placement and depth, something I value in speakers. But they are not BAD speakers, certainly not worth burning. They make decent speakers for television, in particular.
I'd even go so far as to say that they are better than most speakers out there, but worse than most of the good "audiophile" speakers. If you are into high-quality two-channel hi-fi, you can do better. But if you are looking for pleasant enough speakers for a garage system, or for television (sound effects), etc... they really aren't bad.
Perhaps rather than criticizing them, I could suggest some speakers that you could try to listen to, that (IMO) sound noticeably better. Someone used to listening to much better speakers will naturally find the HPMs somewhat lacking, in comparison. Try to find a chance to listen to one of these:
Most early/vintage Infinities (ones with EMIT tweeters)
Vintage ESS speakers with the big Heil AMTs
Dalhquist DQ-10s (or 12s or 20s)
DCM Timewindows or Timeframes (most models)
Some JBLs
Magnaplanars
Acoustats
MBLs
Magicos
Avant Garde horns
Some Altecs
Some EVs
Some Wilson/Watts
Many studio monitors (Yamaha NS-1000 series, Genelecs, Westlakes, etc...)
...those just off the top of my head. There are many more!
I wonder sometimes if these speakers aren't prone to some strange anti-synergies (oscillations?) or interactions that make them sound horrid in one application and good in another --?
I can't find any other explanation for the extreme divisiveness of opinion that they seem to provoke. Surely listening preferences alone cannot fully explain the extreme dichotomy of opinions on these?I think they are not outstanding at all, but still are very decent, pretty good speakers. BUT they have their weaknesses, mainly a weakness in realistic soundstage placement and depth, something I value in speakers. But they are not BAD speakers, certainly not worth burning. They make decent speakers for television, in particular.
I'd even go so far as to say that they are better than most speakers out there, but worse than most of the good "audiophile" speakers. If you are into high-quality two-channel hi-fi, you can do better. But if you are looking for pleasant enough speakers for a garage system, or for television (sound effects), etc... they really aren't bad.
Perhaps rather than criticizing them, I could suggest some speakers that you could try to listen to, that (IMO) sound noticeably better. Someone used to listening to much better speakers will naturally find the HPMs somewhat lacking, in comparison. Try to find a chance to listen to one of these:
Most early/vintage Infinities (ones with EMIT tweeters)
Vintage ESS speakers with the big Heil AMTs
Dalhquist DQ-10s (or 12s or 20s)
DCM Timewindows or Timeframes (most models)
Some JBLs
Magnaplanars
Acoustats
MBLs
Magicos
Avant Garde horns
Some Altecs
Some EVs
Some Wilson/Watts
Many studio monitors (Yamaha NS-1000 series, Genelecs, Westlakes, etc...)
...those just off the top of my head. There are many more!
2DualsNotEnough
Addicted Member
Very recently I gave my opinion of HPM-100s that I MYSELF owned,and got ripped to shreds.
Ill pass this time.
Jimmy
Ill pass this time.
Jimmy
I was driving them with an SX-1280 at first (I bought them together).
After that, I switched to something that I thought might not make them sound so strident, which if I remember correctly (been about a year) was my Robert Grodinksy power amp and a tube preamp. I rocked out to some Queen on that rig, but they did not hold together at all until I fed them a lot of juice, at which point they 'rocked out' but didn't sound so great doing so. The Dahlquist DQ-30s that I was running at the time could play as loud, but didn't sound as loud..if that makes sense. They remained much clearer and cleaner running full out than the HPMs, so they didn't make me want to turn them down like I did the HPMs.
After that I ran them with a Fisher X202 tube integrated amp, and actually thought they sounded pretty good on that. But my Regas sounded better and took up much less space, so I traded the HPMs away as part of a deal that landed me an ARC Sp-3 tube preamp...so I really like them for that!
If you love them, that's all that matters. But you DID ask us to prove you wrong. There are a lot of great speakers out there, even great rock speakers. I just don't personally think the HPM 100s are among them.
I own HPM-100s, and they CAN sound pretty good, as mass-market speakers go. In fact, I've never heard them sound like separate drivers fighting a war over a box, etc... When I read something like that, I have to wonder what gear was driving them, what room they were in, or where the problem was, because my hearing is measurably excellent, I've heard many, many speakers, and I really haven't heard my HPMs sound THAT bad, even with some added imagination and effort to hear the flaws that people describe (but I have heard other speakers that might fit that description).
I wonder sometimes if these speakers aren't prone to some strange anti-synergies (oscillations?) or interactions that make them sound horrid in one application and good in another --?
I think they are not outstanding at all, but still are very decent, pretty good speakers. BUT they have their weaknesses, mainly a weakness in realistic soundstage placement and depth, something I value in speakers. But they are not BAD speakers, certainly not worth burning. They make decent speakers for television, in particular.
I'd even go so far as to say that they are better than most speakers out there, but worse than most of the good "audiophile" speakers. If you are into high-quality two-channel hi-fi, you can do better. But if you are looking for pleasant enough speakers for a garage system, or for television (sound effects), etc... they really aren't bad.
Perhaps rather than criticizing them, I could suggest some speakers that you could try to listen to, that (IMO) sound noticeably better. Someone used to listening to much better speakers will naturally find the HPMs somewhat lacking, in comparison. Try to find a chance to listen to one of these:
Most early/vintage Infinities (ones with EMIT tweeters)
Vintage ESS speakers with the big Heil AMTs
Dalhquist DQ-10s (or 12s or 20s)
DCM Timewindows or Timeframes (most models)
Some JBLs
Magnaplanars
Acoustats
MBLs
Magicos
Avant Garde horns
Some Altecs
Some EVs
Some Wilson/Watts
Many studio monitors (Yamaha NS-1000 series, Genelecs, Westlakes, etc...)
...those just off the top of my head. There are many more!
I have never heard any of these speakers and would love to give them a try. I'm not denying the possibility of better sounding speakers at low to medium volumes.
However, one thing about the HPM-100 is its ability to get extremely LOUD without any distortion. And when I say loud, I mean insanely painfully loud. I have to get a 270wpc SX-1980 to drive 4 of these things to their full capability! I remain skeptical about other speakers able to acheive the volume that these can without distortion.
- Status
