What does a 65,000 speaker sound like?

Originally Posted by goatwuss

"After 5-10K, I figure you're chasing the last 1% of true neutrality. At 1K, you can get 95% of that, maybe more. Is it really worth it to keep chasing what's essentially impossible - 100% accuracy?"

avr5700 - I'm not trying to pick on you - this is a common misconception among audio-novices, and is completely and utterly not true.

The breakdown as far as I see it - with the goal of reproducing orchestral music as well as possible given the limitations of today's technology

for about $1k, if you do your homework, you can get a pair of speakers that gets the midrange mostly right. OK tone, no major frequency issues... You're never going to get tight-defined bass down to even 35hz for $1k. For playing pop music, this can fine for people who are not too picky. But - there is no $1k speaker on the market that can do orchestral music with severe severe consequences. No real dynamic range, no real tone of acoustic instruments. You are 20% there

For $5k to $10k you can get to about 80% there on the first "audiophile" level. There are some speakers in this range that can extend to 30hz pretty well (extremely important for orchestral realism) and these will be much better in the midrange than the $1k speakers - but still not there for the most part. Every $5 to $10k speaker has a major, limitied comprimise, just depending what it is. B&W 800 series for example - spotty midrange and disjointed highs,
Magnepan 3.6 - diffuse imaging, lack of dynamic range
martin logan - poor bass driver integration, irregular shaped (too big) images

Then the $30k - $100k speakers probably get you around another 15% there (up to 95%) with designs such as the Wilson MAXX (finally now have the dynamic range for thunderous timpani and attack of huge string sections to sound real), Avantgarde trio, sound labs ultimate, etc. This 15% is VERY important, and easily as important as the $1k speaker -> $5k speaker difference. Now we are finally starting to sound like real, live orchestral music - and not a box with some vibrating drivers.

To get the last 5% - the only way is custom built horns - and I really doubt there are more than 10-20 of these installations in the US, if even that. Again, this last 5% is of utmost importance, and anyone, audiophile or not, will instantly know when it is there because the music will finally now be able to convey true tone, attack and dynamic of a Steinway grand, will be able to communicate the message of the conductor with the performance, and will be able to make the listener truly "get it." Each good acoustic musician opens a window into themselves with their music - and it takes the best stereos to be able to see through this window - as opposed to just hearing sounds coming out of drivers that resembles music.

So - Just be aware that there is a whole world of possibility out there and this is the reason why people go "all out" with these installations and in search of audio nirvana. This is not about some trivial and elusive "chasing the last 1%," it is about being able to receive the musical and emotional messages of acoustic instruments - and there are 0 $1000 speakers that can even scratch this surface.

Originally Posted by zero the hero

I think the average listener, like me, will have an extremely hard time believing that.

Originally Posted by DthDlr01

for 65,000 dollars i can get Aerosmith AND Bon Jovi to play in my backyard....hows that for making it sound like your right there...

I think the average listener, like me, will have an extremely hard time believing that.

Originally Posted by goatwuss

zero the hero - It has nothing to do with "belief," you can believe whatever you want to believe. What I am talking about, is realistic stereo reproduction of large scale classical music. Though this does apply to acoustic jazz, chamber music, and other acoustic music.

Do you attend live performances of Mahler symphonies, Beethoven symphonies, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov concertos, etc? If so - do you have something to say about properly reproducing them in stereo installations?

Is it really worth it to keep chasing what's essentially impossible - 100% accuracy?

Originally Posted by Goatwuss


"After 5-10K, I figure you're chasing the last 1% of true neutrality. At 1K, you can get 95% of that, maybe more. Is it really worth it to keep chasing what's essentially impossible - 100% accuracy?"

avr5700 - I'm not trying to pick on you - this is a common misconception among audio-novices, and is completely and utterly not true.

The breakdown as far as I see it - with the goal of reproducing orchestral music as well as possible given the limitations of today's technology

for about $1k, if you do your homework, you can get a pair of speakers that gets the midrange mostly right. OK tone, no major frequency issues... You're never going to get tight-defined bass down to even 35hz for $1k. For playing pop music, this can fine for people who are not too picky. But - there is no $1k speaker on the market that can do orchestral music with severe severe consequences. No real dynamic range, no real tone of acoustic instruments. You are 20% there

For $5k to $10k you can get to about 80% there on the first "audiophile" level. There are some speakers in this range that can extend to 30hz pretty well (extremely important for orchestral realism) and these will be much better in the midrange than the $1k speakers - but still not there for the most part. Every $5 to $10k speaker has a major, limitied comprimise, just depending what it is. B&W 800 series for example - spotty midrange and disjointed highs,
Magnepan 3.6 - diffuse imaging, lack of dynamic range
martin logan - poor bass driver integration, irregular shaped (too big) images

Then the $30k - $100k speakers probably get you around another 15% there (up to 95%) with designs such as the Wilson MAXX (finally now have the dynamic range for thunderous timpani and attack of huge string sections to sound real), Avantgarde trio, sound labs ultimate, etc. This 15% is VERY important, and easily as important as the $1k speaker -> $5k speaker difference. Now we are finally starting to sound like real, live orchestral music - and not a box with some vibrating drivers.

To get the last 5% - the only way is custom built horns - and I really doubt there are more than 10-20 of these installations in the US, if even that. Again, this last 5% is of utmost importance, and anyone, audiophile or not, will instantly know when it is there because the music will finally now be able to convey true tone, attack and dynamic of a Steinway grand, will be able to communicate the message of the conductor with the performance, and will be able to make the listener truly "get it." Each good acoustic musician opens a window into themselves with their music - and it takes the best stereos to be able to see through this window - as opposed to just hearing sounds coming out of drivers that resembles music.

So - Just be aware that there is a whole world of possibility out there and this is the reason why people go "all out" with these installations and in search of audio nirvana. This is not about some trivial and elusive "chasing the last 1%," it is about being able to receive the musical and emotional messages of acoustic instruments - and there are 0 $1000 speakers that can even scratch this surface.

Originally Posted by Soransis

I don't think many of us could tell the difference between $1k and $2k speakers, however a jump from $1k to $5k I think we could tell that SOMETHING is different in the sounds. Maybe not exactly able to say exactly what it is, but know that its different in a way. Very feasible statements, just hard to understand how as a non audiophile.

Originally Posted by mconno

$65K for a pair of speakers when the room they play in has as much influence as any other single factor on how they will sound......

Originally Posted by Tex-amp

If someone is buying $65 speakers you can bet they are addressing the room too.

I do think it's odd, though, that people spend $65K on a pair of stereo speakers when the music being played on them was probably mixed/mastered on speakers costing no more than $15K--and probably substanitally less than that.

Originally Posted by Tex-amp

If someone is buying $65 speakers you can bet they are addressing the room too.

Originally Posted by armystud0911

If you spent $65,000 on your speakers, you might as well plan on some other high end componants as well, such as...
$15,000 CD transport
$35,000 D/A converter
$10,000 on power treatment/cables
$30,000 on preamp
$55,000 on power amplifier
$20,000 on speaker cables
$25,000 on turntable (if you want one)
$15,000 on acoustic treatments
$10,000 for someone to hook it up for you and show you how it all works

Having the best sound system ever engineered - Priceless.

Originally Posted by crackyflipside

I think those are the MOST ridiculous things that 'audiophiles' spend their money on. Power treatment... as in a line-conditioner is pretty stupid. You would get much better performance by getting a gigantic transformer... if I was a ridiculously rich dude, I would do this.

Buy a Solid State Transformer with more power capabilities than my house. Amplifiers for each channel with buttloads of wattage so the speakers only eat up about 10% of amplifier. Each channel has its own circuit from the transformer. Each speaker is wired with the largest wire guage it could accept. Have my room designed by an acoustics engineer to be as close to perfect as the room can allow.

Originally Posted by mderka

Isn't it ironic that most people who are really into music are musicians and pretty much 99.99% of musicians are broke and couldn't afford speakers for $650/pair let alone 65k.