Most forgiving high end speaker 10k-20k?

I AGREE WITH MAPMAN regarding the underlying basis of the question- i.e.- what really well made speaker will sweeten up poor recordings? well, what is a "poor recording"? there's muddy, there's thin (like an old Charlie Parker album),
there's ear-bleeding treble, boomy bass, hiss(sss), background noise, etc.
then there's poorly MIXED albums (what do you propose can correct that?).
now i know of some systems that just sound pretty decent on just about everything, but they are generally called "MID-FI" and they play popular music the way most people like to hear it- ample BASS and a wide-open upper-midrange and treble. you simply do not have to pay a great deal of money for a system that plays MDNA (madonna) or AEROSMITH, this level will also do justice by ok-recordings of jazz and even some classical.
so who needs HD-Audio anyway? if you lust after a level of resolution that makes you believe you are "there", then you have to take a critical look at each piece of the system (plus your room) that gets out of the way of a good recording. and there is an abundance of good recordings, SACD, internet, or just properly engineered in the 1st place. but IF such a well-designed system doesn't turn a terrible recording into a clean clear balanced one, then just adjust your ATTITUDE towards what your real goals are in spending your hard-earned money on a stereo. it's THERE you will find that you really WANT
Realism, or you would much rather get something that "does the job, period".
of course back in the 60's and 70's most of the equipment fell into MID-FI or "HI-WATTAGE MID-FI (that cost a little more but still had the same design).
so either way you couldn't lose; it all just depended on how LOUD you wanted
to play your music. but the sound quality was pretty good overall. i am no expert on when and why things became more "complicated" with the advent
of Quad Speakers and Levinson 25 watt "class-A" amplifiers. that some people had the money for this gear was apparent. i just didn't know anyone who did for a very long time afterwards, or why they would even bother.

Agree with the Harbeth recommendation, but Spendor should be auditioned as well. Spendors and tubes go together very well especially if one is looking for a less analytical sound than the typical high-end speaker.

Hesson11: Hey Bob, I agree about the tone controls. In fact, maybe that's an answer all by itself. Maybe all we need is old fashioned "tilt" or "presence" boost to make the unlistenable once again listenable, even on a very revealing, unforgiving speaker. McIntosh preamps always had tone controls, no? The new Classe CP-800 preamp has tone controls AND parametric EQ, AND bass management. Perhaps the answer is to keep the ruthless speaker for all it does with great recordings and just EQ the bad/mediocre ones?

Thanks, Jeffkad. But I'm afraid that, among audiophiles, we are doomed to remain a minority! Given the wide range of sound quality among my recordings, being without tone controls just makes no sense. Not if you love the sound of music more than the sound of equipment. I also couldn't live without a balance control. Recording L/R balances are all over the place.

-Bob

Many loudspeakers are undersized with to small a cabinet with to narrow a baffle and to small a driver for proper bass or mid bass. Plus we have made much progress in tweeters. So you end up with a thin sound that emphasizes the upper range. On great recordings this may just add extra air but if recordings poor this over emphasis can cause listening fatigue. If loudspeakers are of proper design ie not over compromised
for WAF and profits and the music has merit even if recordings poor the music should still be enjoyable.