AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Why pay $5000+ for speakers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why pay $5000+ for speakers? - Page 5

post #121 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmiles View Post

I tend to agree with Rut. The high dollar stuff, for the most part, sounds damn good it's just over priced.

The Anthony Gallo Reference is weird looking but sounds great. That speaker went from $4K to over $6K in 3 - 4 years and it was due to a materials change in the cabinet and improved drivers. Come on a 50% jump!

Speakers, can't live with them can't live without them!

A lot of the price increases are due to the type of materials that they use. For instance Neodymium magnets which are used in many speakers have gone up 1400% since 2008. Neodymium is a rare earth element that mostly comes from China which controls 97% of the worlds supply. Also big increases in copper have added to the cost. By the way Neodymium is available in this country but the EPA rules make it unprofitable to mine.
post #122 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by toslat View Post

While I havent read the book...
.....but generalizing it is simply dubious.

Like the way you generalize by cherry picking tiny portions of what is actually a compilation of dozens of researchers. Hmmm...
That and the failure to comprehend basics, conflation, etc.
Interesting.
post #123 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class A View Post

By the way Neodymium is available in this country but the EPA rules make it unprofitable to mine.

That or we'll have plenty, when they have none .
Believe everything the government tells you and don't forget to wear your tin foil hats!
post #124 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Ha - same stuff, different day with you, DS-21. You provided one reference (a Wilson speaker), but that hardly proves all other speakers will have poor off-axis response.

You can tell by looking most of the time.

It's an inherent side effect of mating an acoustically large mid-range to an acoustically small tweeter. The 6-8" mid-bass, 3/4" - 1" tweeter, and ~3KHz cross-over used in most commercial 2/2.5-ways (and some 3-ways) fit that description. Exceptions using those driver diameters might have a shallow wave guide on the tweeter which looks significantly different, a cyclopean coaxial arrangement where the cone acts like a wave guide, or an extra beefy tweeter which tolerates a low cross-over point which is often identifiable, like the Seas Excel Millennium with its copper ring.

First over cross-over slopes force higher cross-over frequencies which exacerbate the problem. Given familiarity with the consumer speaker market you can often pick those out too (Vandersteen with the distinctive stepped baffles and grill configuration, Green Mountain Audio with their shaped baffles, etc.)

Quote:


Oh, I don't disagree with any of that sir. He stated that a non-controlled directivity design flat out won't measure well or sound good, so that's where my argument lies.

It depends on how you define "controlled directivity". Acoustically small drivers and baffles do a fine job at controlling directivity for uniformity, although the directivity index will be lower than you'd get with acoustically large wave guides or acoustically small dipoles. Acoustically small dipoles also do the job producing a 4.8dB directivity index. Arrays which are acoustically small horizontally for uniformly broad directivity but increasing dimensions with decreasing frequency for narrow directivity work OK too.

It depends on how you define "good." My wife and I have a 1994 Honda Accord that's a "good" car - although it's approaching 200,000 miles it never breaks down or has problems keeping up with traffic. Of course our German sports sedan is measurably quicker around a race track and more likely to keep the interior at a comfortable constant temperature.

For my definition of "controlled directivity" and "good" (which matches Toole/Olive's for the speakers that rank highest in blind tests) you can't have "good" speakers without "controlled directivity"

Quote:


He's simply wrong, and pushing his opinions as facts.

The Harman research group has come to the same conclusions. Sean Olive has actually produced formulas which predict loudspeaker preference based partially on the monotonicity of the polar curves that correlate very well with blind subjective comparisons.
post #125 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post

The Harman research group has come to the same conclusions.

They've concluded that any speaker not using a waveguide with the tweeter will measure poorly and not be classified as hi fidelity sounding? Can you point me to that link, because its not found here in Toole's book. Do they also have eagle-eye wizards that can look at a picture of a speaker and determine if it sounds good? How about this, do they treat everyone else like inferior morons while bashing every brand they don't like, all while pushing the same products based on clear biases? I don't disagree with anything you said, and I think you misunderstood my point.
post #126 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post

The Harman research group has come to the same conclusions.

They have and are seen as synonymous with Toole. But it goes way beyond them and involves decades of research by dozens and dozens of researchers.
An excellent but perhaps less know example would be the Eureka-Archimedes project (KEF/EC). Tons more.
Apparently all "dubious" in nature to the sadly informed.

cheers,

AJ
post #127 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I find it interesting in your choices of illustration that you picked basically a more expensive and prettier Bose 901 (mbl), some utterly conventional monkey coffin with a trillion braces...but utterly conventional and poor acoustic design (don't know/don't care what it is), and a wasteful method of making undersized midwoofer cones that's a debatable at best improvement over standard means of forming metal cones (again, don't know/don't care who makes those).

Not common does not necessarily mean "better."

The only exception to the general rule of overhyped mediocrity in your illustrations is the Keele CBT, which is a genuinely interesting design of theoretical merit (assuming one has a room conducive to wide-horizontal-direcitivity speakers) that I'd like to hear.

I'll be as diplomatic and polite as possible in responding to this. The photos I posted were in response to another poster's comment that "As far as speaker technology (design) goes, well, by todays standards it's ancient, there's not a heck of a lot that's truly "new".

If all you can say about the mbls is that they resemble 901s then you're (a) not very observant and (b) missing the point. Show me another speaker in the past 30 years that launches sound waves using this method. There's only one I can think of that's even mildly similar. This is an example of a company not relying on ancient or common technology, which was the purpose of my posting the MBL photo.

Ditto with the Magico cabinet design. It may not have anything to do with your infatuation with horizontal dispersion, but that's irrelevant because that's not what I was responding to. It's an implementation of a novel design, not "ancient technology".

Ditto with the YG's milling drivers out of pure aluminum billets to thicknesses on the order of a mm and milling strengthening ribs as opposed to stamping them. They have valid technical reasons for doing it that way and have shown distortion measurements that demonstrate the benefits. Is it overkill? Perhaps, but again, that is not why I posted the pictures. Follow the bouncing ball...
post #128 of 438
I own avantgarde duos omega g2 that i got recently, previously having owned b&w diamond 802s.

I got them used since i didnt want to pay full price premium.

I can tell you that the music experience is goose bump inducing... Im not sure what the actual value of the speaker should be but they sound amazing.
post #129 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_777 View Post

Ditto with the YG's milling drivers out of pure aluminum billets to thicknesses on the order of a mm and milling strengthening ribs as opposed to stamping them. They have valid technical reasons for doing it that way and have shown distortion measurements that demonstrate the benefits. Is it overkill? Perhaps, but again, that is not why I posted the pictures. Follow the bouncing ball...

Anyone who has heard the new YG's with the milled drivers, compared to the previous YG's should be able to easily tell the difference. The milled drivers make them an entirely different speaker, and are some of the finest sounding speakers I've ever heard (too bad I can't afford a pair ).
post #130 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Russ_777: It appears we are not going to agree on this. In my business I absolutely can produce a more capable system given more resources -- every single time.


Russ, I think you missed the point. Maybe you can and will produce something better for more money (since money is the subject, not necessarily your access to resources...not necessarily the same thing). However, there are a lot of very high end audio products that have nothing to do with much of anything but the willingness of some to champion/purchase such stuff. Curious, as reference, what kind of company are you a CTO of?

I'm in almost complete agreement with you. Yes, there are many audio products that are grossly over-priced...and some of those include speakers. Never meant to imply otherwise. My point was that given more resources (funding...it is the same thing, since you can use money to buy resources), you can usually improve the performance of a system. The degree of increase in performance/marginal dollar will vary of course, but it should be there...if you're trying to improve the performance. I think your POV and that of others is that in some cases in audio, OEMS are not making an earnest effort to improve their products while asking higher prices. I won't deny that happens.
post #131 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_777 View Post

If all you can say about the mbls is that they resemble 901s then you're (a) not very observant and (b) missing the point.

I have to agree with you. They look a heck of a lot more like robot from Lost in Space than 901s!



cheers,

AJ
post #132 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnrgagne View Post

However, it's not always true in the scenario we're discussing. 5 & 6 axis CNC machines certainly represent advanced technology, however not every speaker manufacturer can afford to own them.

No argument here, a company with deeper pockets can, and will, have the top of the line manufacturing equipment, access to better research facilities and greater buying power for raw components. Add in volume of sales and distribution and this company can provide speaker "A" for $5K where a smaller company would have to provide speaker "A" for $10k, but they're both still speaker "A".

Please look at the examples I've provided in the photos below that contradict this. I don't disagree with your 2nd point but do with your 1st

Well there's one unique technology there, the first one. But the others are nothing new, line-arrays have been around a long time, and the other is simply a box speaker, it doesn't really matter what goes on in the cabinet it's going to have the dispersion pattern of a box speaker. I'm talking about new ways to generate or distribute audio like the rotary sub, B&O's BeoLab units and the unit at the top of your list. Basically like I said, there's not a lot of new technology. Perfecting an existing technology isn't what I was referring to.

It appears we are not going to agree on this. In my business I absolutely can produce a more capable system given more resources -- every single time.

See loveinthehd's post above.

This is a very cynical opinion. In many product markets, there are OEMs who strive to push the envelope and produce a product that is the best.
Maybe I should ask -- what speakers > $50k have you heard?


I don't know about cynical, I think it's more "practical" based on common sense. Sure there's some manufacturers that really are in it for the art or science, but we're fools not to have some degree of cynicism when there's a ton of examples of unscrupulous vendors out there.
I'm at a loss for speaker examples but I've seen companies like Jeff Rowland & Bel Canto put $300 B&O amp modules inside their cases and sell them for $4k & $2k respectively. Then there's the shining example from Lexicon where they put their faceplate on a $500 Oppo and were selling it for $2500...(and don't get me going on cables)

I think the most expensive speaker I've heard was about $20k a pair, but I don't think that's really relevant. I don't think I could physically hear anything better than what I have even if I wanted to. I mean, once a speaker reaches a point where there's virtually no distortion and it's set up properly to ones listening position, what's another (or more expensive) speaker going to do that it doesn't?

I understand your last point and agree. After all, I sometimes refer to audiophile cables as "the C word".

I would disagree that most speakers have virtually zero distortion. they typically have 10 - 1000 times more distortion at some frequencies and volumes than most other components in the signal chain. In some cases that's what you get when you buy uber expensive speakers, less distortion. I can only suggest that you go to an audio show and listen to some of the more expensive systems and see what you think.

BTW, the concept behind the "line array" you're thinking has been around forever was derived from the US Navy's sonar technology. It's shape and illumination, obviously not linear as with most other line arrays, is designed to produce a constant beamwidth sound field. Conventional line arrays most definitely don't do that, nor do any other conventional systems. D.B. Keele developed the concept less than 10 years ago and I think Harman may have had it patented afterwards.
post #133 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by toslat View Post

I have always found the notion of 'you get what you pay for' to be quite amusing as there is no 1-1 mapping between cost and value. Expensive doesnt always mean better, and there is more to pricing than the quality fo the product. A more accurate phrase would be that 'you have to pay for what you want to get'.

Even the idea of diminishing returns is vague, as it depends on a valuation of the return. Theoretically, if we assume that all speakers are priced at true cost, then there should exist for every user a point where the increased cost is not justified by the perceived increased value, but there is no law that says the point must be same for everyone, and if we introduce real world pricing, then all bets are off.

and therein lies the crux of the issue -'perceived value'. The way we process and appreciate sound is highly subjective. If someone, for whatever reason , enjoys listening to a particular setup (speakers, amps, music etc combo) more than another, and is willing to pay more for that experience, why should another try to deny him of it. Even if his perceived values are influenced by non-auditory sources or even placebo effect, is he not entitled to his own? Even if he cant distinguish them in a blind test, that he would not in reality listen to them 'blindly' (i.e.he would have bought them and be aware of what he bought), is he not entitled to his perception? Most times, I think people are simply trying to impose their perceived values on others, while in my opinion, there may be popular trends and opinions, but at the end, each should be entitled to his own.

The only objective measure would be accuracy of reproduction, which I believe is measurable to a good extent, but that does not equate to a perceived pleasantness. Different people my enjoy different levels and forms of inaccuracy to different extents, and none should claim his/her perception is superior to another. This is true with regards to things whose evaluation depend on subjective human perceptions like hearing or tasting.

I personally dont see myself spending up to $5k on speakers, simply because my perception of the value of good audio is well below that. I would rather spend the money on other stuff that have more perceived value to me.

Best post in thread.
post #134 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_777 View Post

I'm in almost complete agreement with you. Yes, there are many audio products that are grossly over-priced...and some of those include speakers. Never meant to imply otherwise. My point was that given more resources (funding...it is the same thing, since you can use money to buy resources), you can usually improve the performance of a system. The degree of increase in performance/marginal dollar will vary of course, but it should be there...if you're trying to improve the performance. I think your POV and that of others is that in some cases in audio, OEMS are not making an earnest effort to improve their products while asking higher prices. I won't deny that happens.

We're on the same page. Not everyone is trying to increase performance, they're trying to sell stuff. Not the same thing. Money can't always buy resources...some people can't be bought.
post #135 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrEastSide View Post

Personally, I think the placebo affect comes into play with speakers more than any other item in the world. It costs more, so I must hear a difference.

Speaker sound quality comes almost entirely from flat on-axis response, monotonic directivity, and bass extension.

Provided that the makers accommodate the unit-to-unit sensitivity variations which sometimes go with less expensive drivers and properly work around the high-Q resonances in rigid driver cones (a 4th order acoustic low-pass which ideally keeps the third harmonic out of the driver's pass-band plus a notch filter too) there's _very_ little added by more expensive drivers.

Speakers with matching driver sizes, baffle dimensions, and cross-over points + slopes should and do sound about the same.

Speakers with radically different but similarly monotonic directivity also sound very close when kept below their output level limits.

Quote:


That said, I have pretty decent hearing and I've heard countless speakers and really, I don't notice a huge difference in most.

Most aren't that different, suffer from the same design flaws as similar speakers, and sound about the same as those other speakers.

You need to broaden your horizons and hear designs which are actually different - the wave guide + large mid-woofer design popularized by Earl Geddes and Audio Kinesis; Siegfried Linkwitz's Pluto which approximates a point source; small (3-4") full-range drivers on narrow baffles with a back-horn to get some bass; acoustically small dipoles like the NaO Note and Linkwitz Orion (the later has broadening directivity crossing to the tweeters with compensation in the form of a shelving low-pass filter), are all different in a good way.

The RAAL Requisite Eternity (tries for uniform horizontal polar response and narrowing vertical directivity) is good but not quite right.

Large full-range drivers (the 8" Fostex at $200/pair, Lowther to $4K/pair with field coil motors, Feastrex field coils at $40K/pair) share the same polar response issues which aren't good.
post #136 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

Like the way you generalize by cherry picking tiny portions of what is actually a compilation of dozens of researchers. Hmmm...
That and the failure to comprehend basics, conflation, etc.
Interesting.

generalized? Cherry picked? dozens of reserachers?
I stated clearly the paper I was referencing was Loudspeaker measurements and their relatiOnship to listener preferences
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20120530/5276.pdf
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20120530/5270.pdf

The paper is by the same author (Toole) of the book DS-21 referred me to and addressed the same topic. To me, its a primary and appropriate reference

I have simply showed why it is dubious to use such studies as basis for generalizations (like DS-21 seems to be doing) on correlation of measurements to subjective perception . If you have counter sources or more reliable studies from any of the dozen researchers (as if that validates the result), please provide them and I will gladly read them but there is no need to be snidely about it.
post #137 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Eckhardt View Post

Speakers with matching driver sizes, baffle dimensions, and cross-over points + slopes should and do sound about the same.

Oh, you're one of "those." I mostly agree, but I wouldn't say they sound the same, but rather very similar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

An excellent but perhaps less know example would be the Eureka-Archimedes project (KEF/EC). Tons more.
Apparently all "dubious" in nature to the sadly informed.

cheers,

AJ

Thanks for the references, AJ; I'm off to search them out.
post #138 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJinFLA View Post

They have and are seen as synonymous with Toole. But it goes way beyond them and involves decades of research by dozens and dozens of researchers.
An excellent but perhaps less know example would be the Eureka-Archimedes project (KEF/EC). Tons more.
Apparently all "dubious" in nature to the sadly informed.

cheers,

AJ

It is very simple - you cannot generalize the preferences of 28 select people from a particular profession as a basis for the entire world population.

If you feel there are other sources and/or references (like the Eureka-Archimedes project) that would validate your point, please present their methodology and results for evaluation (and not just list names). I personally am always willing to learn and accept it if I am shown to be wrong. On the other hand, referencing the time, reputation, or number of researchers, doesnt make the results any more credible or general imo.

I dont know what your background is, but I doubt you have much experience in research, given the way you want to interpret results of psychoacoustic studies in absolutes outside of the underlying methodology. The appropriate approach requires you consider the context and methodology of the study in relation to the general context that you want to extend the results to.
post #139 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by russ_777 View Post

I understand your last point and agree. After all, I sometimes refer to audiophile cables as "the C word".

I would disagree that most speakers have virtually zero distortion. they typically have 10 - 1000 times more distortion at some frequencies and volumes than most other components in the signal chain. In some cases that's what you get when you buy uber expensive speakers, less distortion. I can only suggest that you go to an audio show and listen to some of the more expensive systems and see what you think..

I wasn't suggesting that most speakers have virtually no distortion, I would imagine that's physically impossible. But to have a speaker with inaudible distortion isn't a stretch, and all I'm saying is when you get there and your speakers are physically set up to the MLP for good imaging and sound staging and maybe EQ'd for bass accuracy, then what? And isn't that the crux of this thread, what $$ does it take to get you there, and is there any point going beyond it?

I don't really have a desire to go to audio shows and check out more expensive gear because I'd never buy it. I can't hear a single thing wrong with my system and even if there is something there, well, ignorance is bliss. It took me years and a ton of buying & selling to trade up to get to this point, but it was a fun venture.

The marketer's of high-end gear know all too well that I'm not their target and that most "audiophiles" remain in constant search or upgrade mode, and I'd venture suffer from an audio gear version of "penis envy".

In the big scheme of things I think that's why the uber high-end market exists, more so than because of some quest to provide audio nirvana for the consumer. (Well, that and to appease the rich guy who walks into the store and says "give me the best you got" and plunks down his black Amex card whithout having a clue.)

So again, I am of the camp that more money does not automatically equate to better performance.
post #140 of 438
This is a brief description on the Archimedes project that I found.

ARCHIMEDES is a psychoacoustics research project, funded under the European EUREKA scheme. Three partners share the work involved: The Acoustics Laboratory of The Technical University of Denmark; Bang and Olufsen of Denmark; and KEF Electronics of England. Its primary object is to quantify the influence of listening room acoustics on the timbre of reproduced sound. For simulation of the acoustics of a standard listening room, an electroacoustic setup has been built in an anechoic chamber. The setup is based on a computer model of the listening room, and it consists of a number of loudspeakers positioned on an imaginary sphere surrounding the position of the test subject. The setup has been designed for the highest degree of flexibility. This includes the possibility of simulation of directivity characteristics of normal domestic loudspeakers and absorption coefficients of the surfaces of the listening room. This paper is a presentation of the system, with special emphasis on the psychoacoustical background of the design. This will include a discussion of choice of experimental procedure, test stimuli, and test subjects as well as purpose built loudspeakers and the DSP system.

Not sure how the results of the study are any more relevant to buttressing/countering any points made earlier as I dont remember anyone questioning the importance of room acoustics.

A relevant reference would pertain to the importance of a smooth off axis response to perceived auditory preference in a real room (or a proven accurate representation) under normal listening conditions. If there were such studies under the Archimedes project, please share.
post #141 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by saprano View Post

Knowing you're mostly paying for the cabinet and dealer mark up, is there really a point? The drivers and crossovers in some of these brands cost nowhere near as much. And price does't equal peformance. l've heard some $2000 speakers that sound way better than more exspensive ones.

Basically as i learn more about speakers i decided that i don't think i'll ever spend 5 to 10k on them.

Or there always used.

Am i alone (or wrong) in this thinking?

Yes, price doesn't often equal performance; however, there are speakers in the $5K-$10K range that do have some audible advantages.
post #142 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by toslat View Post

This is a brief description on the Archimedes project that I found.

ARCHIMEDES is a psychoacoustics research project, funded under the European EUREKA scheme. Three partners share the work involved: The Acoustics Laboratory of The Technical University of Denmark; Bang and Olufsen of Denmark; and KEF Electronics of England. Its primary object is to quantify the influence of listening room acoustics on the timbre of reproduced sound. For simulation of the acoustics of a standard listening room, an electroacoustic setup has been built in an anechoic chamber. The setup is based on a computer model of the listening room, and it consists of a number of loudspeakers positioned on an imaginary sphere surrounding the position of the test subject. The setup has been designed for the highest degree of flexibility. This includes the possibility of simulation of directivity characteristics of normal domestic loudspeakers and absorption coefficients of the surfaces of the listening room. This paper is a presentation of the system, with special emphasis on the psychoacoustical background of the design. This will include a discussion of choice of experimental procedure, test stimuli, and test subjects as well as purpose built loudspeakers and the DSP system.

Not sure how the results of the study are any more relevant to buttressing/countering any points made earlier as I dont remember anyone questioning the importance of room acoustics.

A relevant reference would pertain to the importance of a smooth off axis response to perceived auditory preference in a real room (or a proven accurate representation) under normal listening conditions. If there were such studies under the Archimedes project, please share.

There were such studies performed by Harman, specifically Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, and not just the white paper you referenced earlier in the thread. Toole's book gives dozens of references, many consisting of larger sample sizes.

Do you have a link to the white paper from the Archimedes Project? Thanks in advance.
post #143 of 438
How much should one spend on dinnerware?
post #144 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

How much should one spend on dinnerware?

One should buy many sets to compare at lower prices (selling as you go) rather than buying one quality expensive set
post #145 of 438
Thanks Randy! How much should one spend on an engagement ring?
post #146 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Thanks Randy! How much should one spend on an engagement ring?

Haha. That depends on whether one wants to go with several wives with lower expectations or one very hot wife with great expectations.
post #147 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

Thanks Randy! How much should one spend on an engagement ring?

1/3 of your speaker budget.
post #148 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

There were such studies performed by Harman, specifically Floyd Toole and Sean Olive, and not just the white paper you referenced earlier in the thread. Toole's book gives dozens of references, many consisting of larger sample sizes.

Do you have a link to the white paper from the Archimedes Project? Thanks in advance.

Unfortunately I have not found any paper on the results of the studies. All I have seen so far are on the setup and methodology.

On the other hand, I did get my hands on a copy of Toole's Sound reproduction, and I still cannot comprehend why someone feels such should be sweepingly generalized, as the test setup and methodology consistently suffer from several flaws that limit their applicability. Even the author was cautious of making sweeping remarks.

That those studies are aimed at correlating certain objective measured data to subjective perception inherently biases their result because the set of causes considered is limited, coloring the reverse mapping. This is why people that try to generalize such models struggle to grasp the fact that someone can prefer one speaker to another even though it measures worse than the other.

IMO, such studies should only be extended (still with caution) as far as saying 'among these measured data, the on-axis and off-axis smoothness are likely the more important' but should not be generalized to 'the on-axis and off-axis smoothness are the most important', which, while possible, is still unsubstantiated.
post #149 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by toslat View Post

Unfortunately I have not found any paper on the results of the studies. All I have seen so far are on the setup and methodology.

On the other hand, I did get my hands on a copy of Toole's Sound reproduction, and I still cannot comprehend why someone feels such should be sweepingly generalized, as the test setup and methodology consistently suffer from several flaws that limit their applicability. Even the author was cautious of making sweeping remarks.

That those studies are aimed at correlating certain objective measured data to subjective perception inherently biases their result because the set of causes considered is limited, coloring the reverse mapping. This is why people that try to generalize such models struggle to grasp the fact that someone can prefer one speaker to another even though it measures worse than the other.

IMO, such studies should only be extended (still with caution) as far as saying 'among these measured data, the on-axis and off-axis smoothness are likely the more important' but should not be generalized to 'the on-axis and off-axis smoothness are the most important', which, while possible, is still unsubstantiated.

At least they try to eliminate sight (and suggestion) bias which is well demonstrated by Penn and Teller in hilarious fashion. Most subjective reports are just anecdotal which are pretty much worthless IMO. You may give them as much weight as you care to.
post #150 of 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad Horstkotte View Post

Why spend $80k on a car?

Why spend $1K on a bike?

$5K on a camera?

$100 on blue jeans?

$10K on a couch?

Answer: some people have a lot of money, and it's gonna get spent on something.

To say it better, it is a status symbol. "Hey man, look at my 20K dollar speakers", WOW really, you must be rich.
However, I would love to have a set of Salk Soundscapes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Why pay $5000+ for speakers?