As @prof said,
"I would submit that the OP is stating something rather obvious to the majority, if not all, the members here.
I doubt anyone here is operating on some simple minded "higher price = better performance" belief. Who among us hasn’t had the experience of hearing some very expensive gear at a show, a shop, or somewhere else, that left us totally unimpressed and happier with our less expensive system at home? It’s an experience commonly shared among audiophiles.
Most of us decide what we want by giving it a listen. If we like it, and can’t find anything we like better cheaper, and we can afford it, we buy it."
Wise words.
Of course no one would deny that there is some correlation between price and performance, but one that extends indefinitely? Debates have long raged over the merits of vintage gear versus modern, and they will continue as today’s modern becomes tomorrow’s vintage. However one fact is undeniable - namely that budget gear performance is at all time high. Today’s entry level turntables, amps and speakers have never sounded better, but can we really say the same for products higher up the price bracket? Have they also improved dramatically?
What say we ask the owners of vintage JBL’s, Tannoys, Klipsch’s, MBLs, Bowers and Wilkins Nautilus, Quad ESLs, BBC LS3/5’s, Thiel’s etc etc?
Do today’s design render them obsolete? I think not.
So just who is it that’s perpetuating the higher cost better performance myth?
I would say that it’s (most - with a few honourable exceptions) reviewers, manufacturers and dealers who constantly imply that this is the case.
Everyone else on here knows better, right?
|
@sthlm78,
"Performance vs price is exponential, in lower price range , there is a linear relationship between price and performance ( mostly below 3000$) but after that you pay extra for something else."
Nothing to argue with in that statement, and not a word to edit.
|
@ivan_nosnibor ,
"Take your "list" of each subjective element:
"PRAT
Bass extension
Airiness
Dynamics
Lack of coloration
Coherence
Timbre
Tonal color
Sound staging
Presence
Imaging
Micro dynamics
Depth
Control
Lack of sibilance
...and, no doubt, many more...feel free to add..."
Great list!
Can I add transient response?
Overhang (especially bass) is still a common problem faced by many box loudspeakers / and dome tweeters. |
Reality check - the greatest variable in replay sound quality is not the electronic equipment used. Discernible improvements stopped decades ago and current CD players, DACs, cables, amplifiers, Hi-Res streams etc show little demonstrable variation between the most and least costliest.
Nor is it the room, though reflected sound will always have some effect.
It's not even in the performance of loudspeakers which can vary greatly in performance mainly due to the mechanical nature of their operation.
The greatest variable in fact lies in the equipment that we all use to listen - our perception apparatus.
This unfortunately is influenced by a seemingly endless amount of influencing factors - heat, cold, hunger, pain, various degrees of emotional disturbances, some of them obsessive in nature. Some of them may be deemed as displacement activities as some of us afflicted are no doubt aware.
Hence, on a good or bad day perceived system performance can oscillate between both compelling and dull. The whole thing entirely down to our underlying mood.
This is something certainly worth considering before embarking upon the next quest for a so called upgrade. |
Yes, for most of us it's an alien world the wealthy live in. Perhaps they don't have the time or inclination to use any other criteria other than price to determine quality.
So doubling the price for certain niche goods such as a preamplifier could work wonders for the seller.
As they say, some people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.
|
@kenjit , you present some interesting arguments.
"There is no such thing as a good or bad designer."
You can’t mean that, surely?
"There are no standards to meet so thats exactly what youd expect."
Yes, the lack of standard testing criteria does nothing to lessen the confusion.
"As long as they sell more speakers, thats all that matters."
Whether we like it or not loudspeaker manufacturing is a business, a highly competitive one at that. Money matters. However there are still some excellent kit designs such as Siegfried Linkwitz’s out there which promise great value.
"They all use different approaches and end up with different results."
Different approaches address different priorities. Open baffles and panels seek to eradicate cabinet issues, sealed boxes aim for accurate bass. Large speakers attempt bandwidth, etc
"I dare them to explain why they dont publish their distortion and response measurements which are independently verified."
I guess because they are only too aware that none of their designs approach anything like perfection. They know exactly where the weaknesses lie and its a question of trying to hide them better with tiny incremental technological advances.
"In conclusion, audiophiles have no clue how to decide whether what they’re hearing is good, bad, accurate, or imaginary."
"Price is not an indication."
Unfortunately, without clear reference points there is a lot of truth in these last two statements.
|
@boxer12, I agree that the human voice and unamplified music could be used as reference points given the proviso that they were recorded with as little ’enhancement’ as possible.
I used to think that the recording industry practices were somewhat confusing until I read Greg Milner’s book ’Perfecting Sound Forever’ (a great read all the way from the wax cylinder to pro tools). Then I had to accept that barely anything spewn out by the recording industry was what it seemed.
Futzing around with recorded sound began is almost as old as tape recording itself. Even those beloved early rock and roll recordings had various techniques applied to enhance the sound. Their saving grace was that since multi tracking had not been invented they were able to use the entire width of the tape (mono).
The vast majority of commercial recordings are not reliable if you are looking to hear ’natural’ sound. However if you are able to record familiar speech or music for yourself and burn it to CD that might be a great way to establish a usable reference point.
A rerun of the old 1950s Gilbert Briggs live versus recorded sound playback would be a very interesting way of comparing (high end) loudspeakers. today.
|
@soix , yes some of them are spookily good. I’ll never forget hearing this 50s Jazz combo doing big band via vinyl - it was like something out of Poltergeist. Never experienced better imagery.
Mind you the speakers were pretty special too - the Avantgarde Trios! This was at a West London show around 2003 (Novotel rings a bell). Exhilarating experience but with a downside too as we a wondered how were we going to afford them, and afford to move into a house big enough to house them.
|
@verdantaudio, Good post! Yes, it's been long known that drivers are far less important than their implementation. Box loudspeakers have forever been challenged by those pesky unwanted resonances which can play havoc with driver performance. Some try to push these resonances higher, and some try to push them lower - but to eradicate them is impossible, at least in a box loudspeaker. Transmission lines and open baffles, horns etc remain popular as a consequence. Some of us seem to be more sensitive than others to the dreaded MDF midrange veil. Hence the wide variety of cabinet materials found in use today. For many, Baltic Birch plywood when used carefully, remains the least damaging for midrange textures. Has anyone, other than Harbeth and their proprietary thin-walled construction, managed to eradicate this midrange veil whilst using MDF? It's difficult to think of many names. It's great to see a designer acknowledge this issue and I can only wish you well in your endeavours. Can I ask why the name Verdant? https://verdantaudio.com/collections/verdant-audio-speakers |
@kenjit , you're right they are different but they are also related. The cause is the same - cone movement. No music, no resonance issues, no standing wave back pressure.
The question remains as to what is the best cabinet material and where do you want put the resonances. It's obvious that Verdant Audio have had a good look at this issue.
|
@lonemountain, I would like to think the same about driver importance. However there's plenty of evidence stacking up that driver performance and quality has almost stood still for the past 70 years or so. Many feel that the performance of far too many a cone loudspeaker driver today can be bettered by some going back to the 1950s. Shock horror! The improvements, be as they are, are mainly due to improved crossover and cabinet designs. This seemingly heretical view seems to have been confirmed by the conclusions reached by one ardent tester over on diyAudio a few years back. https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/295941-world-midranges-shocking-results-conclusions.html?s... |
