Floor Loudspeaker Reviews

Canton Reference 5 loudspeaker

Sasha Matson  |  May 5, 2025  |  First Published: May 1, 2025

Canton Elektronik GmbH is a family-owned manufacturer of loudspeakers based in Weilrod, Germany. Founded in 1972—the name is from Latin and German: "Can" from the Latin "cantare," "to sing"; "Ton" from the German for "sound"—Canton is now well past its 50th anniversary. The largest manufacturer of perfectionist speakers in Germany, Canton is still based in the small township where it began, with manufacturing facilities in the Czech Republic.

John Atkinson reviewed the Canton Reference 7K in September 2021, and Ken Micallef followed up. The 7K ended up in Class A, Restricted Extreme LF, of Stereophile's Recommended Components list. Now that Canton has significantly revised its Reference Series, it's time to take another look and listen.

Which new Reference-series speaker should I audition? I provided Jay Rein of importer-distributor Bluebird Music with the dimensions of my new listening room and asked him to choose the model he felt would be the best fit. In other words, I proceeded as customers with knowledgeable dealers should proceed. Jay recommended the Reference 5 ($11,000/pair), sharing that it was his favorite model in the series. Canton Head of Marketing Moritz Jung told me the same thing. The Reference 5 comes with an impressive 10-year warranty.

When I started gathering Canton intel, one of the first things that struck me was the breadth of the company's offerings. I counted 21 floorstanding models in seven named series. I may have missed a couple. I didn't count standmounts, wall-mounts, subwoofers, center channels, or speakers intended as surrounds. Canton has something for everyone, from that first parental graduation present on up to the most experienced audiophiles. Bluebird Music's Jay Rein commented: "Yes, there is a huge amount of choice. Canton offers solutions for music lovers of all stripes, no matter how they take their music. Their philosophy is to make anyone who wants music happy."

Canton's current Reference Series is, as the name implies, their top of the lineup (footnote 1). There are five models, designated simply, with numbers: 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. The Reference 7 is the smallest and least expensive, moving up in size and budget to the Reference 1. I auditioned the Reference 5, a three-way floorstander that weighs 79.3lb. Height is 39.7", width is 11.8", and depth is 18.1"—so, a substantial cabinet but not huge. Canton likes ceramic-diaphragm drivers, and these speakers come with a single 1" Black Ceramic dome tweeter, single 6.85" Black Ceramic Tungsten midrange driver, and two 6.85" Black Ceramic Tungsten woofers.

Canton designs and constructs all their drivers in-house. This has resulted in a sustained development process that separates this company from the pack. In 2015, Canton started using blends of ceramic, tungsten, and titanium in the manufacture of their speaker diaphragms. The material employed in the Reference Series, in tweeters, midrange drivers, and woofers, is described by Canton as "Black Ceramic" (BC). Starting with an aluminum cone, some of the molecular content is converted into a ceramic structure. From a Canton white paper: "A specialized electrochemical oxidation process binds oxygen molecules on both sides, creating a ceramic structure." The midrange and woofer diaphragms add tungsten to the mix; the resulting ceramic material maintains the advantages of ceramics with less brittleness. Canton refers to these as "Black Ceramic Tungsten" (BCT) cones.

The result, Rein told me, is "a cone material that is extremely stiff and extremely light. They are easily controlled by the amplifier. The result is speed and accuracy in musical reproduction. Canton's ceramic drivers have desired speed and accuracy but with some damping that keeps the high frequencies sounding sweet and natural."

Canton drivers feature what the company calls "Triple Curved Cone" (TCC): "The profile of the diaphragm consists of three consecutive radii that differ from each other. This gives the driver a much stiffer construction and reduces distortion. The TCC driver also offers improved dispersion characteristics, and a higher bandwidth."

Each driver is in its own enclosure. The tweeter features an "Isolated mid-high frequency wave-guide grille" and an "Ultra-light single wire voice coil." From a low extension frequency of 21Hz, the crossover hands off to the midrange driver at 160Hz. The midrange driver covers a large frequency band, from 160Hz up to 3kHz. From there, the tweeter takes over and extends to a rated 40kHz. Users should have flexibility in choice of amplification. Measurements will reveal more.

Another proprietary aspect of Canton's crossovers is what the company calls "Displacement Control," DC for short. Technical Director Frank Göbl described it as "An innovative solution that extends the bass range of the speakers. By employing specialized high-pass filters to control excursion, Canton effectively shifts the lower cutoff frequency of the drivers down by an entire octave, achieving a significantly deeper and more linear crossover to the midrange driver. This supports the midrange drivers' critical role in achieving broadband performance." Application of this circuitry increases impedance below 20Hz.

A significant external change from the K-series Reference models, including the 7K JA reviewed, is rounder cabinets. The new Reference Series speakers have fully rounded forms; there are no sharp angles anywhere, including the front and rear baffles. The prior Ref K models had flat front baffles and tapered sides.

These rounded cabinets are achieved with bentwood—laminated ply. Distributor Jay Rein observed, "Cabinet material is so important in the high end, and nobody offers shaped laminated ply at anywhere near our price." This is how the rims of grand pianos are constructed—very strong and inert. In this reviewer's opinion, the visual aesthetic of the Reference Series models is top-notch, and I would expect that measurements will reveal excellent dispersion behavior due to the absence of sharp edges.

The review pair was finished in smooth "Piano" white, contrasting the black drivers. Magnetically attachable black grilles are included, curved to match the cabinets.

Canton Reference Series speakers sit on a two-part support: "Bass-Guides" occupy the space between the traditional bottom plate and the bottom of the speaker cabinet. Göbl explained: "This design integrates the bass-reflex port into the enclosure, operating on a combined front-firing and back-firing principle. Airflow is guided through a channel recessed in the base plate, directing it to the front and rear of the enclosure. This ensures remarkably stable bass resonance, regardless of the speaker's placement in the room." This is similar in function and design to the more expensive TAD Grand Evolution loudspeaker I reviewed and may be unique in this price range. The base plates (and the rest of the speaker) are supported by adjustable feet with discs, not spikes.

The speaker taps at the rear are high-quality WBT Nextgen, in biwirable pairs; gold-plated bridges are provided for those who do not employ biwiring. Next to the speaker terminals is another significant feature, new to the Reference Series: two sets of physical taps that, by joining them with similar bridges, allow for independently boosting or cutting the tweeter and midrange output by 1.5dB. More on this in a moment.

Musical chairs
Bookshelf speakers they ain't, but the Canton Ref 5s are manageable in size and weight compared to some other speakers and amps I have wrangled recently. The two boxes arrived without incident, strapped to a pallet. Using my cloth-covered handcart, I was able to roll them into position in my listening room without having to hire my son and a homie as an informal hi-fi moving company. The Reference 5s ended up fairly close to the sweet spot for my reference system speakers: about 3.5' from the front wall, 7' apart, and 8' from my listening chair.

The Reference 5s arrived here from a dealer fully broken in, so I didn't have to go through that strange phenomenon specific to reviewers in which we worry whether a component is sounding as it was intended to sound, or whether it is in need of further break-in. What makes this especially challenging is that the sound of some speakers continues to change well after the manufacturer-stated break-in period has passed—at what point do we conclude that it sounds like itself?

Footnote 1: Although the new, even higher-end Alpha series is likely to be out by the time this review is published.—Jim Austin

NEXT: Page 2 »
COMPANY INFO
Canton Elektronik GmbH & Co.
Weilrod
Germany
(416) 638-8207
bluebirdmusic.com
ARTICLE CONTENTS

COMMENTS
cognoscente's picture
Submitted by cognoscente on May 1, 2025 - 8:56am

"Many audiophiles dedicate the largest portion of their system budget to loudspeakers". Since my mid-thirties, somewhere in the mid-nineties, I know that this is not the best approach. As a dealer once said "the speakers only have to reproduce it". And in line with that; an amplifier only has to amplify it. I have no influence on the recording, however nowadays I can choose the format. What I mean, the most important component (on which I have influence) is the source. In my case that is the DAC. Everything that is lost there (at the source) is lost forever.

Anyway, I have not heard this Canton Reference 5, but I have heard the smaller (not really small) Canton Reference 9, and that is an excellent speaker (in the sense of price-quality ratio) so I can say that is an outstanding loudspeaker, a bargain maybe even. This one does have a considerable price tag so .....

And US audiophiles, buy before this becomes unaffordable for you, like so many for you. And we all know who to thank for that.

windansea's picture
Submitted by windansea on May 4, 2025 - 11:18pm

I'll buy Magnepans again. As they say, Made in USA, sold in China!

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 6, 2025 - 8:40am

The Canton 9's?

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on May 28, 2025 - 2:44pm

They are the most important component, because they are the only component that actually interacts with the room you are in. And as we know, in general, untreated rooms are a nightmare for quality sound. If you don't start with speakers that perform (measure) well, then you cannot fix it with EQ, or anything like that.

If a person has these Cantons, or say YG Acoustic speakers, yeah... you need power. I have Neumann KH 80 monitors, and for my situation, close in monitoring, they are close to perfect, and you only need to connect them to an audio source.

For most audio concerns at home... for speaker based audio, I think "spend the most on speakers" is still valid.

Now, speakers, if you listen that way, are almost - the only thing that matters. Amps are high quality, we have Ohm's Law, we have faultless (faultless) digital reproduction.

justmeagain's picture
Submitted by justmeagain on May 1, 2025 - 9:51am

Although every component in a system is important, speakers are at the top of the list. Speakers are the final stage in putting sound into the room, and poor ones will turn the excellent sound of your source component into unlistenable mush.

bhkat's picture
Submitted by bhkat on May 1, 2025 - 11:48am

The speakers typically have the largest departure from a neutral frequency response and affect the sound the most.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 1, 2025 - 5:24pm

THIS

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 1, 2025 - 5:21pm

I agree. And speakers are by far the easiest to tell the differences between them, even for casual listeners. And if a speaker ain’t reasonably accurate, what’s the point of the accuracy of everything upstream of it?

As for DACs, those are always improving, and I believe that their relative contribution to the overall sound of the system has to be minor compared to the speakers.

If one is so concerned about the sound quality of the source, then I belief that they’re more at the mercy of the mixing and mastering quality of the CD/music files than anything a DAC could contribute or take away.

On that note, I just got the new Steely Dan ‘Katy Lied’ SACD and it sounds fabulous. The separation and dynamics of the instruments and vocals is noticeably better than the dark sounding original CD. Soundstage and imaging are quite noticeably better as well.

There is a strange, very apparent buzzing sound towards the end of ‘Daddy Don’t Live in That New York City No More’ that I wonder is attributable to the famous problems the engineers had during recording. Plus, the master tapes are obviously old at this point, and I understand a lot of state of the art digital patching and remixing had to be done to get this released.

Still, overall sounds fantastic. ‘Black Friday’ is the one track that sounds noticeably quieter and less crisp than the rest, and the soundstage on that one hasn’t benefitted nearly as much as the others. It sounds like it was recorded on a different day and a different studio than the rest.

sw23's picture
Submitted by sw23 on May 1, 2025 - 4:39pm

Converting a digital signal to analogue as in a DAC or converting an electrical signal into mechanical energy as in a loudspeaker are the remaining challenges. Amplification and switching not so much.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 1, 2025 - 5:24pm

But amplification and loudspeaker duties arguably benefit more and more noticeably the more money you can throw at them. I believe that this is especially true if one has a large listening room, where adequate scale and volume can be a challenge.

Besides, if you’re going to do something crazy like spend a quarter of a million dollars on a DAC, would you even be able to hear the difference unless you listened to it on a commensurately high resolution system that probably would need to cost $3 million+?

justmeagain's picture
Submitted by justmeagain on May 2, 2025 - 1:58pm

Very accurate statement.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 5, 2025 - 8:00am

A great, musical component could be heard as musical or great on any system. They are natural sounding components.

In listening to the $250k+ DAC at AXPONA, 'right' and 'natural' remain and it would sound good in ANY system.

Go to the shows.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 5, 2025 - 7:30pm

I disagree. When it gets that high end, we are by definition splitting infinitesimal hairs. ESPECIALLY when we’re talking DACs.

A $500 DAC would crush anything developed even five years ago, so you have that moving target, too.

Besides, we also fundamentally disagree on the nature and purpose of hi-fi. I don’t want my rig to be “musical” whatever that means. I take it to mean euphonic.

I want my music to be musical, and for my equipment to reproduce the music accurately. Something trying to make something that’s already musical to be more musical just means inaccurate to me.

Besides, how would you know that DAC would sound musical in any system when you only hear it on one, and one that is commensurately expensive? You have no basis for comparison till you actually hear it in another system.

You guys are overestimating the importance of the DAC in the big picture of the system.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 5, 2025 - 8:42pm

Being a 40+ year audiophile, I've realized that not everything is as easily verifiable.

I've heard those fantastic $300K DAC's.. They are not splitting hairs. They come closer to the real thing live vs. the law of diminishing returns of only 'a bit better'. I've heard Leonard Cohen sounding very real in the VTL room more than once, with multiple sources, over the course of several years. Memory serves us well, thank you.

If you heard some expensive demos at dealers or at the shows, you would realize there is a lot to be had at these state of the art prices.

Once you have heard a given DAC in a variety of systems... as you can at the shows. There are favorites that people hear in multiple systems whether it be VPI or dCS! One gets to hear what they are capable with in variety of systems, tube or solid-state or whatever.

Saying that there are hard, fast rules in audio is to be fooled. "A $500 DAC would crush anything developed even five years ago, so you have that moving target, too."

To assume that any $500 DAC is better than a $5000 one 5 years ago is not experienced nor informed.

Lastly, all parts of a system make up it's sound. Speakers do make up the communicated statement, but the foundation of that speaker is created at the source. All are critical, even cables and fuses.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 6, 2025 - 8:09am

I disagree with just about everything you just wrote.

You can’t approach the real thing live unless it’s already there on the recording. No magical DAC is ever going to enhance a recording (and recordings are often themselves not the real thing themselves, but a patchwork of overdubs and multitracks) to overcome the limitation of the source material. The best any reproduction equipment can do is to reproduce what’s already there as faithfully as possible.

To me, you are clearly confusing embellishing with improvement.

As for DACs, it’s you who doesn’t understand the technology if you actually think they haven’t been constantly improving over the years. The level of sophistication in design is based solidly in electronic technological improvements and efficiencies over the years.

I realize that implementation and design matter, but the DAC chip itself is the brain and heart of the DAC component, and no level of extra chassis and surrounding electronics is going to enhance that performance beyond what is possible. The best designs try not to limit or take away, but you can’t add what’s not there in the first place without it being inaccurate.

And I maintain that your ultimate ceiling is what’s on your source material. Sure, everything in the signal reproduction (not production) chain is important. But the difference a $300k DAC is going to make will be dwarfed in comparison to a $300k speaker difference.

To say that DACs haven’t improved over the years is close to saying that your iPhone 5 is just as capable as an iPhone 16. Don’t ask me- ask the chipmakers themselves.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 6, 2025 - 8:17am

You don't hear what the latest and greatest do, but you pretend you do. You have no idea of the audible difference from Dac to Dac, but again, you pretend you do. That measurements mean they all sound the same and don't deviate... I am not talking about embellishments or euphonic additives of any kind. I am talking about more linearity and smoother responses from any recording, live recordings, ideally.

You know, so we can get closer to live... from live. If a source isn't live, that's great too. Better equipment with better specs AND better parts leads to greater accuracy and more akin to live, whether you realize it or not.

Don't twist my words to your argument. Please tell me how the latest iPhone had an effect on the latest Dacs... Not everyone uses the same chips, technology or even architecture. I use a brand-new NOS ladder DAC, that doesn't rely on the latest chipset from ESS or whoever. They build they're own discrete circuitry and it is as or more accurate than the oversampled trash that is at the $500 price level, everywhere in the world.

Silliness, Dude. Your arguments blow because they're focused around 'theories'. Try getting some real world experiences.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 6, 2025 - 8:44am

Don’t get angry and defensive. I go with facts. Until you AB-X your $300k DAC with another DAC in the same system, there is no possible way you could isolate what the DAC is contributing to the overall sound.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 6, 2025 - 8:54am

Your 'facts' and arguments are trash. Like liars, that angers me.

Your comments prove you have no idea of what the fuck you are talking about. You've been clueless since your first post months ago.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 6, 2025 - 8:50am

We clearly have different aims for what we want to hear in our systems.

I knew my system was getting better and better over years of upgrading (and sometimes side grading TBF) when I could hear the differences between “good” and “bad” recordings more clearly and dramatically.

That’s when I knew I was getting the high fidelity I was after.

Honestly- I don’t know what you’re after, but I have my doubts that you’re going to find it.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 6, 2025 - 9:01am

Or that you even know yours. Please, give us your full system breakdown, as I have in the past. I think we could all see what 'level' of knowledge and experience you possess.

Or just keep deluding yourself dude. After 40 years in this hobby, I can see liars and bullshitters every time. You have definitely proven yourself to be one on these pages time and time again.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 6, 2025 - 1:21pm

Look, Glotz. When you resort to angry ad hominem attacks that completely ignore the facts I’ve given you, you just destroy your own credibility.

I find it interesting that you’re so keen to know what’s in my system so that you can figure out how much it costs and tear it down regardless of how good it is.

I notice no questions about my room size, room treatments, etc, which makes me think you have an exceedingly simplistic viewpoint of what goes into making good sound. And really, it is simply not your place to be telling me or anybody else what they hear and don’t hear. Again, opining about things you couldn’t possibly know about. The fact that you can’t countenance anyone else’s fact based argument on the matter of DACs indicates a level of intolerant egocentricity that is off putting. How much a person does or doesn’t spend on their system has no bearing on their self worth. Nor their critical listening and thinking skills.

I recommend two great books: the first one is Robert Harley’s ‘Complete Guide to High End Audio’. The other is Greg Milner’s excellent ‘Perfecting Sound Forever’.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 7, 2025 - 10:40am

Your hypocritical trash here dude.

What facts are you talking about? The ones you push as facts for others??

I already nudged you to spill it about your system, but you digress on some nonsense about how I don't know anything about room treatments, etc... What a lame attempt to deflect. Lol. I had the balls to list it on this website more than once; you on the other hand are scared shitless that we'll all know you're full of it... and yourself.

I read those books a loooong time ago. Thanks for trying to be patronizing.

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on May 28, 2025 - 2:53pm

You can be nice, but you're not trying. Telling. I'm just sure he's totally scared - of your audio system. What... does it beat people up? Screw your audio system, and screw your attitude. I've had the same attitude online before... it doesn't help anyone - and not you either.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 30, 2025 - 11:45pm

What are you contributing here for? Were you commenting on the article at all? No one was directing comments to this troll except for me.

Apparently you think he can't fight his own battles.

And since you are a troll too...

Screw you as well, even harder. Lol. No, seriously.

Nice 2nd account btw.... Dave's buddy. No way did Dave find out this thread alone.

2 losers with nothing better to do.

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on May 31, 2025 - 4:43pm

What am I contributing? I root out falsehood about audio wherever I find it. I'm not a troll. I've been reading - the measurements in Stereophile for most of my 62 years. I hunt audio subjectivists.

Your arguments are almost uniquely weak and based on attacks. Can you come up with anything thoughtful?

Clear enough?

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 31, 2025 - 5:38pm

Your entire post went to a rant about screw you and screw this.. when you did the exact same thing.

Remember your Neumann speakers you brought up above?? Pure hypocrisy talking about YOUR system like the same expert.

What aspect of subjectivism did you bring up, you liar? Zero.

Nothing. Just trolling- the magazine and the journalist and audiophiles.

And you are NONE of those things, old man.

It's all in your head. When did you start subscribing? Never? (Oh you did it online- 62 years ago??)

Or you bought the magazine just for the measurements? Liar.

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on May 31, 2025 - 8:41pm

Well, I guess I'm not going to have you as a fan. There used to be things called libraries. There were several hifi type magazines usually in those places. I've been in the audio hobby all my life. Do you ever stop attacking people?

If you're nice I'm all ears. But other than this text I'm spending exactly zero time on your outbursts. Yes, measurements. I liked the pictures too. You calling me a liar tells me you know nothing about me, yet in your ignorance are willing to claim things.

I'll give you something else to call me something about. I built speakers with the assistance of a physicist at Western Washington University when I was younger. Have you ever done that?

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 31, 2025 - 9:06pm

Yeah, I don’t feed that troll Glotz anymore. And let me tell you- we are just two of MANY on here.

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on June 2, 2025 - 12:46am

I believe you.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on June 1, 2025 - 10:58am

They have other trolls like Dave.

You are a pure liar by these posts alone. What contributions again??

And you sound like a retarded, shunned child by saying 'Look what I can do!" with your silly mention of you making speakers 60 years ago.

Dave is also a complete retard with his "Yeah, get em boss" childish retorts- the purest essence of a troll. Do you guys stroke off together too? Lol..

Neither of you are audiophiles but you are both utter walking contradictions. Troll Kings the two.

Keep trolling me with your 'outbursts' all you want, from the local library- from apparently where you do your trolling.

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on June 2, 2025 - 12:51am

Vale, Domine Superficialis.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 31, 2025 - 6:51am

Glotz is so grandiose that he actually expects us to have researched his system online (!)

HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Unbelievable.

Someone needs to tell him: WE DON’T CARE what his system is.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 31, 2025 - 5:35pm

Because you've admitted its mid-fi.

That's okay. I do know it does not make you an expert in any way.

But just a troll.

And you speak for yourself- no one agrees with you here or anywhere just because of some mutual hate.

It's your online persona, a pure cowardice where you think here you have a voice ridiculing journalists and this magazine like a jackass.

EZ SpeakerZ's picture
Submitted by EZ SpeakerZ on May 2, 2025 - 8:59am

2 audio buddies have Cantons and I didn't liked either because of their design. The tweeters were way way too low and no matter what we did they still sound like crap. These speakers appear to have the same issue with the tweeter placed too low. Why?

I design my own speakers with my ideas and they sound awesome and much, much, much cheaper. I've been building speakers since 1968.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 5, 2025 - 7:57am

Biased much? lol.. Canton's sound like crap and yours are amazing.

Who woulda thunk?

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on May 28, 2025 - 2:47pm

or REW in an anechoic chamber, etc - you can't tell how good a speaker is. See Equal Loudness Curves, and Masking. All you have are your subjective preferences which come nowhere near objective measurement - which is what you need to be definitive, scientifically. And that, ask any design engineer, is what matters. Human's have great talent in fooling themselves, and not being able to tell they are doing it.

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 2, 2025 - 4:50pm

After having been sold out everywhere for months, Birth of the Blue is now available (again) on both SACD and LP. My SACD copy is on its way, should prolly get it on LP too at some point

celef's picture
Submitted by celef on May 7, 2025 - 9:01am

It is funny that what hifi in uk did not like this speaker, I think it is good that all press does not agree

DaveinSM's picture
Submitted by DaveinSM on May 7, 2025 - 12:36pm

Glotz, either you didn't read or you didn't understand a single word that I wrote.

You need to pipe down and quit being so agitated. No amount of challenging is going to change anything. I go on facts, not a single one of which you were able to refute.

Glotz's picture
Submitted by Glotz on May 30, 2025 - 11:47pm

Seriously, you are a troll.

laxr5rs's picture
Submitted by laxr5rs on May 28, 2025 - 2:46pm

Good on them.

X