What makes an expensive speaker expensive


When one plunks down $10,000 $50,000 and more for a speaker you’re paying for awesome sound, perhaps an elegant or outlandish style, some prestige ... but what makes the price what it is?

Are the materials in a $95,000 set of speakers really that expensive? Or are you paying a designer who has determined he can make more by selling a few at a really high price as compared to a lot at a low price?

And at what point do you stop using price as a gauge to the quality? Would you be surprised to see $30,000 speakers "outperform" $150,000 speakers?

Too much time on my hands today I guess.
128x128jimspov

Showing 37 responses by ctsooner

Great topic.  Some folks don't want to hear the truth, but marketing is a huge reason so many speakers cost over 60k.  Folks like to make big cabinets and there are people with plenty to spend, who want the biggest and the best.  They feel that both walk side by side.  Most of us who listen don't believe that.  Too many of the 100k plus speakers just aren't as coherent or musical as many of their little brothers/or sisters IMHO.  Many shop owners I've spoken with have said the same thing.  The larger the cabinet, the more problems you incur.  That's why so many feel the monitors are the best at getting out of the way of the mid bass on up.  

As for R&D, of course that factors in, however the problem then occurs that if the R&D was a lot of wasted money, the price/value proposition may not be there either.  Maybe it just took that long and so many iterations to get it right, but to what expense in the end?  I have never liked (X brand) speakers (one of the most well known brands) for my tastes, but the owner and now his son are great marketers.  Not saying they don't make a nice speaker, but I personally can't listen for long periods of time and yes, I've heard them at their best many times in many places from the the 250k-15K and all were run on the best amps the store sells.  I had a lengthy conversation with a dealer that I've known and done business with since he opened in the 70's.  We were talking about X brand and why they cost so much.  He laughed and said that the replacement costs of all the drivers in their 50k speaker wouldn't cost the owner more than 1k to replace/repair.  They have off the shelf tweeters that only use a slight mod and the other cones are poly and paper.  Not the cheapest drivers, but not expensive and easy to get if you are a DIY'r.  The cost is in the cabinets.  The R&D and cabinets are the cost along with a ton of high end marketing.  Even the cost to produce the cabinets isn't outrageous, but the demand is there and the cost is in line with demand.

This is just one example, however so many of the expensive speakers are priced that way, because too many folks feel that if it's that expensive, it must be great.

To get a top paint job, or a top veneer job is very expensive.  We are going to pay for the cabinet and finish and the larger the speaker, but more costly.  That doesn't make it a better sounding speaker though.  

Most of the speakers I've heard in the high end of the spectrum are nice, but most aren't great by any means and they could be.  Why do they sell us a speaker that has paper or poly cones at that price? 

When I was looking for new speakers after many many years using various Proac's, I did some homework.  Vandersteen was one speaker that wasn't on my radar as they looked generic and I didn't see why they were so expensive.  I visited a local Proac dealer as I thought I'd just get their new D series speaker and be done with it.  I hadn't liked most of the speakers I was hearing and I had auditioned well over 20 different brands (various models) and that also includes many of the 'garage' brands that sell from people's homes.  There's a long story as to why Vandersteen, but the more I dug, the more I realized that his speakers were packed with not just R&D, but technology.  His drivers are very expensive to make. The carbon ones specifically.  He used room EQ for his bass and has built in subs.  If integrated properly, I love built in subs with room eq.  Cabinets inside a cabinet isn't cheap either and the finishes are as good as it gets, but I was able to chose nearly whatever veneer I wanted.  Being a woodworker for fun, I love to play with veneer.  

I think most of us on here really appreciate all of these things and are willing to pay for them IF the speakers sound great to our ears.  There are a few top named companies who do spend a lot to make a pair of speakers, however I feel that way too many don't.  Heck, most of us could build a pair of speakers that cost 25k off the shelf and with some reading and help, make them sound decent.  To me there are some price points that make sense if you have the cash.

I've heard speakers at 14k that blow me away.  A few have dedicated subs with eq and dig really deep and still keep a smaller footprint with a beautifully finished cabinet.  At 30K things open up big time depending on your tastes, however I've heard too many speakers at the 14k-20k range that better many of the speakers that cost more.  

at 50k-70k you can get some of the best sounding speakers you can possibly get.  Any speaker will have compromises regardless of price.  I just haven't heard big differences in sound from the 70k on up range than you can get at 50-70k.  Vandersteen isn't the only brand I like either.  There are others out there that are very nice and also use a lot of technology in their drivers as well as their cabinets.  You don't always get what you pay for.  Personally I just couldn't ever justify spending over 7k on a speaker that used paper and poly drivers or even off the shelf ones that use just a little modification.  

As for the market, it's a strange one in that the more expensive gear is and has been where the money is.  It does sell very well and is keeping many manufacturers in business.  Many have had to go from the 5k and down range and open up the 5k- unlimited range in order to grown.
Syntax, the thing is that not all products have 'cheap fluid'.  I brought up Vandersteen because I am intimately familiar with the tech, R&D, product costs etc...  I also look at the points a manufacturer gets when selling wholesale.  I won't go into that part of things, but a few of the top lines don't have large margins and their products won't be carried because of this.  That's reality and not always carrying the best products.  Everyone needs to make money of course.  I just hate it when we are gouged for no good reason other than greed.  The market is what he market is and if you can fetch 100k or more for a speaker, then so be it. The market is there, but much of the time we will get as good or even better sound for much much less when we look at the other brand.  That's my reality.  I'll pay what I am able for what is fair.  That's why I got the Vandy Treo's and why now, I'm going to sell those and get the Quatro's.  For my money, the Quatro is the sweet spot in his line.  All the technology from the 7 mk2's has made it's way to the Quatro for only 14k.  That's a ton of money, no doubt, but when set up properly it's just sings.  Big room eq'd bass and the carbon driver just sounds correct.  It's also one of the few dynamic speakers I've heard that sounds like a point source.  That is so hard to achieve and most designers try to.  It's an expensive speaker to build no doubt.
There are lots of great ideas and truths on this thread.  Yes to the poster asking me about all of us hearing differently.  I think it was Markel, who said of course. That's just a given in anything audio.  That's why so many of us like different brands.  Fremmer and many others love Wilson. They get them as a very very special cost, but wouldn't own them if they didn't like them.  I know many designers of cables amps etc... as well as reviewers who own and use Vandersteen's (mostly the 5 CT's) for their own personal use let alone reviews or for their products.  Honestly, I have heard Wilson and Vandersteen more than any other brands and it makes sense as they have been around forever and are at the opposite ends of the spectrum.  

I can tell you that in any component you have business costs built in.  That's just common sense and a must.  There are many reason's some will buy speakers in the six figure market.  Many have been posted already.  I personally feel that most of these speakers have left me wanting more and or scratching my head asking HOW and WHY.  Tidal is one of the few I've heard in this range that sound awesome, but then I hear the Vandersteen 7's the next week and realize that I'm getting even more musically involving sound and a bit tighter bass for half the cost.  Again, even if you like another speaker, I'd say that you can get better sound than most of the 100k + speakers for much less if you really search and listen.  JMHO
Bottom line is there is a strong market for these speakers.  Many who can't afford them are jealous and will say their X cost speakers are as good or better, but I've rarely found that to be true. Some companies do over charge based on cost of production (all costs from utilities to R&D are in the final price), however many do not. I know how much it costs Vandersteen to make their higher end speakers and they are very expensive to produce. I am sure that some of the brands using esoteric drivers are the same.  it's incrementally better and in some cases wildly better.  If I had the money, I'm sure I'd be running the Vandersteen 7 mk 2's.  No doubt in my mind. It's the best sound I've heard.  I used to love the older Avalon's, but their value will go steadily down like Thiels and others who have changed hands recently.  The irony is that I loved the older Avalons and even Sonus Faber and now I don't.  Things change, but it's no different than the auto industry.  They have to have safety items and the costs of both R&D AND newer materials along with THEIR R&D drive the cost of vehicles just like speakers using high end caps and carbon fiber drivers or even ceramics/diamonds etc... can become very expensive to produce, plus what many don't realize is the cost involved in matching drivers and crossovers to make sure both speakers are within tolerances isn't cheap either. Again, all manufacturers have a sweet spot in their lines that represent best value.  The highest end speakers in the lines are not best value and are obviously not priced that way, but they are worth it to many who DO hear a difference and to THEM it's worth it as they have it.  I take NOTHING away from those folks and they actually help support great speaker technology and R&D trickling down to our favorite speakers that are attainable for many of us.

The reverse snobbery is amazing to me to be honest.  It really just hit me.
Marty, not sure why the 2k ones do it for you over the 10k ones.  Maybe there is something major missing in the more expensive three you have or you have the smaller system in an area where you listen more often.  Personally, I've owned and still do a few different systems in different rooms in my house.  Whenever I can listen to my major system with the Vandy Treo's, I"m all in.  It's the one that I connect with and love to listen to for hours and hours.  That's just me.

When I say reverse snobbery, it really is when folks make blanket statements that spending over X amount isn't worth it or it's  a waste etc..  The bottom line is that if folks want to spend that and feel that it is worth it, then it is if they can afford it.  I can't afford speakers over 15k and even then it's a STRETCH.  That doesn't mean that I feel anything over that is a waste.  My favorite speakers I've ever heard in a system are the Vandersteen 7 mk2's.  I've heard a lot of the 100k plus speakers set up the way the dealer or manufacturer wanted them set up.  They just haven't done it for me, but there are thousands who love them or they wouldn't be produced.  Conversely, it is snobbery when someone says you can't get great sound unless you spend X amount.  I fell in love with a system that consisted of a Rotel integrated amp with a Vandersteen 2 that was set up properly.  It was running with an Ayre Codex DAC/headphone amp.  

I'm also into personal audio and have a few pair of IEM's as well as headphones.  They all give me different things and are easy to collect.   I can say that in personal audio, you can get dynamic and wonderfully sounding music for very little if you want to.  You can also get unbelievable sound if you want to spend more money just like in speakers.  I do feel snobbery goes both ways just like it can in anything else.  That's not a negative as we are just passionate folks (as long as we are still respectful.  I try to be, but probably don't always succeed).
Marty, great response, thanks.  I assumed that it was something like that where you felt it did somethings you LOVED.  It's all about the emotion to me also.  That's what the Vandersteen line does for me and why I keep listening for other speakers to beat them and they just don't.  It's funny as I was reading John Atkinson's review on www.stereophile.com on the Vandersteen 7 mk2 along with Vandersteen's new high pass amp that matches.  He said that even at that price they give you more than you expect, but that he has to go back to listening to systems he can afford, but hated to give them up.  Kind of sums up all of audio for 99% of us.  We are fortunate to find manufacturers who know what trade offs they can go with at the various price points.  For me it's Vandersteen and nothing that my older systems have done can come close to bringing me into the music and for once I can finally just sit and listen all day and not realize how much time has passed.  I have always loved listening, but it hasn't been like this since I first started with my first system (although even at 9 yo, I was upgrading that system within the month).  It's what we do and why we post on forums with strangers and meet new friends while doing it.  

Meer, that's dead on IRT Canadian companies.  That's why I respect so many of the other brands for doing what they've done without all of that free R&D help.  just shows what great minds are into audio.

What most folks don't realize is that the mark up on high end speakers will range from 50% for a Wilson to only 33% for some other top brands.  Folks don't always realize how much money some of these folks have to pay for their components since they aren't buying huge numbers at a time.  Some of the caps alone can cost these guys over$100 each (or more).  That adds a lot of money to a speaker when you figure they need at least one or more per speaker and they will use the business model of marking it up 100%.  That alone has just added $400 to the cost of a speaker.  That's why you often see 'special' 'signature' additions costing so much.  When I found out what Vandersteen is putting into his crossovers, I then realized who much we don't see in a speaker.  In a really good speaker there are so many 'hidden' costs that we don't see and that's in addition to the overhead a company has to go along with the R&D we've all been talking about.  

Yes, these folks can make a nice living, but only if they are smart business people who give you more than you expect for the money as each of their price points.  Very few companies have been able to pull that off.  That's why you only have a handful of companies who have been around since the 80's or earlier who are still around and most of those don't even have the same owner and have changed their sound so greatly that their loyal customers don't even like the new offerings. 
Audioman. I agree with much of what you have posted. I have even posted earlier that the Wilson drivers and crossovers are very inexpensive in the scheme of things. They dress is up and spend money on paint and cabinets but so do others like VANDERSTEEN and some others. I was sold on the Vandys a few years ago for the sound but didn't understand why the Treos cost 8k or so. Then I found out what the cost of the drivers was as well as the double cabinets and the crossover parts and all of a sudden when you add r&d, too veneer and overhead plus some profit and I got it. That's why his 1,2&3 are still such great values. The cabinets do add thousands when done properly. Not all manufacturers are marking things up Judy because they can. Richard was working on the 9's as there is a demand for 125k speakers that have large cabinets but he couldn't get the bass to integrate properly and rather than take it to market he dropped the idea at least until better components come out that would make it work the way he wanted them to. I wish others followed suit. For those who have heard some companies 100k plus offerings, you often like the same company's 60k offering much better as there is often better coherency and integration. My buddy just got a lower prices pair of Dynaudios as he didn't even like their 100k pair.   We had a long conversation about this very topic. This has become a fun thread. Thanks for letting me play. 
Guys, some products will be made in China.  As long as the company controls the manufacturing, the quality can be fine.  That said, I personally don't think I have anything in my system that is made outside the US from cables, to all digital to phone and electronics.  TV I can't help.

Is the distributor the only one who sells these amps or does he sell them via B&M and or online stores?  If so, what he's done is back door them and ruined his product for the future.  It's a terrible business practice and one that partly got Dan D let go at Krell.  It's ruined so many top lines in the past.  I only will deal with reputable companies in audio as I concern myself with the future value of my products as I do sell eventually.  Not a slam at you at all, so please don't take it that way.  We customers are always trying to get a great value etc.... The markup on some great lines is only in the 30% range so they don't have that much room to move at all.  Personally I like that as I feel I'm getting value for my money and I know that no one is getting it for less than I am.  

Devaluing someone's product just isn't good business sense on their part.  I just never understood that personally.  Again, not a slam against you, just against any dealer or distributor who devalues their products.  If it's only worth 7,500, then just offer them at 8k if you feel you need to sell them for less.  JMHO and not preaching.  Thanks.

You should be biased or it's time for a new pair of speakers, lol.  Once you get to a certain price point, there is not diminishing return.  It become all about what someone is willing and can pay.  This is why the companies can do so much R&D and we are all rewarded with the trickle down tec (if you don't have the TOL from your manufacturer).  

Even if I don't personally love someone's components, I do love hearing folks push what they own are want to own.  That's part of what has always made this fun for me.  Nice post thanks
I think most would agree that you can get some great sound for under say 5k or 10k, but you can get better to much better sound if you can afford to. Bass....clean and true is what costs the most.  Once you start adding built in subs and carbon fiber or other exotic materials, plus the labor as well as the R&D, then the price goes up accordingly.  Many companies will just set a price point that is way more than the speaker is worth or costs to make just because they can. They will market the heck out of them until they get a cult following.  Then they just use that to market and grow their base.  Great business if you can get away with it and there are plenty of companies who do this.  I think the real test though are the ones who have been around for ages and ages and have a great rep for giving you more than you expect in whatever your price range is.  There are a handful out there still who continue to do this, even as they hand the keys over to their kids.  I personally love to support those companies be it speakers or electronics.  JMHO
true, it depends on the speaker and it's design.  I asked Richard Vandersteen about this yesterday and he said that another reason a speaker can go from 600k to 100k is the amount sold.  If you have a speaker that you design and you will only be able to sell a handful, then you have to make up the R&D, overhead and marketing costs on fewer speakers, so the price will go up accordingly.  He had much more to say, but this was one of the big things I took away.

Watts, everything is involved.  All the the topics we covered so far are a huge part of it.  Yes, market price matters, however what Richard said about going from 600k to 100k is a huge determinant.  If a manufacturer wants to do R&D that they will trickle down to their other lower lines, then they can make the assumption that at 600k, they'll sell only 3 for the year, but if they go 100k, then they can sell 50 for the year.  That would be what you are talking about I assume?  The market at 600k will relate to 3 sales and that's what the market allows, but at 100k for the same thing (economy of scale) then you sell 50.

I roughly know the cost of the drivers of Vandersteen speakers and I can promise you that it's nowhere near 20X the cost of them. I totally agree on many other of the top manufacturer's.  I've pointed that out about Wilson in earlier posts I'm sure.  The other thing that no one thinks about is speaker matching.  Many top line producers have to find drivers that match within certain specs and then they have all those other drivers that they need to make up the cost of.  There are various ways to do so, however part of it is the cost of making speaker A.  Ton's of reasons and many should cost what they do.  Not saying the sound quality is worth it by any means.  I haven't like most of the TOL speakers from so many makers.  Some just sound bigger, but not better.  There really is no blanket reason as each maker has their own reasons.  I know many manufacturers and have for years and most don't really care about following anyone else's graphs.  They just care to make music the way they feel is best for the majority of buyers out there.  Not saying they don't do what they can to get a great review, but honestly, it's nearly impossible to get a poor one these days.

Tom, sorry forgot to answer.  
1) Wilson margin allows a much better price than Vandersteen could.

2) MF has in many reviews including the Quatro Fabric review mentioned not needing a speaker that images in fact said the Quatro out imaged his Wilsons.

3)Has said he believes a speaker can have TMI so the paper cones being low resolution is not a deal breaker.

4)Speakers with powered sub-woofer are not the best tool for a reviewer especially when reviewing amplifiers.

5) listens very loud and likes a big sound for his love rock and roll.

Hope this answers your questions about why he used Wilson's.  I also know of MANY within the industry from reviewers to other manufacturer's who swear by Vandersteens (Quatro's on up) and pay for them without getting a large discount.  Plenty of people listen and enjoy a huge sound and don't care about things that  time aligned speaker can provide.  If you love Wilson's, then that's awesome.  Plenty of folks love Bose too (not not saying Wilson's sound like Bose).  We are so lucky to have the choices that we have now days.  
I'm not saying they don't make good speakers.  They just aren't my cup of tea and never have been.  That's all.  I've had the discussion with someone from Wilson on two occasions and they laughed.  One agreed with me as to what I don't like.  They have done the best job of the old time speaker companies in advertising.  That's a real positive and I'm giving them a ton of credit for it.  I wish Richard and others had done the same thing as I feel that this industry could have grown bigger than it has.  I see that Alon is doing a great job advertising also. I think that these post fit into this thread because it shows where some of your money goes into their overhead.  My second favorite speaker/system that I've heard (I LOVE Vandersteens new AMP.  that thing makes the 7's a powered speaker, but not internally.  When you can build the amp around a specific speaker you can really make it sound better than other amps I feel.)  are both made by Tidal.  I have heard their system twice in my life and was really impressed.  Again, it was also with their own amplification along with analog and the Aurender W20 server.  Perfectly set up room too. What a treat that was.  That's even using their black diamond tweeter that isn't quite pistonic, in movement, but they've done a great job voicing them I feel (again, for MY ears).  

I've also never and would never call the buyer of a component stupid....at least not in person or online, lol.  j/k.  I'm just glad we are all passionate for what we like and are willing to post about it and argue about it.  Healthy, all of it IMHO.  I try to be respectful to all and sometimes I'm not in the way I post, but I don't mean ill will towards folks.  

When I make a post about paper woofers breaking up at 250HZ, it's proven and it has to effect the quality of the sound.  That's just physics and no way around it.  That said, some companies who use paper cones can try to do other things to lessen the effect, but to me it's very noticeable.  that does mean I can't listen to hard rock and not enjoy it.  Mikey Fremer had a great ear and loves him some hard pounding LOUD rock.  Nothing wrong there at all and it's a big reason he loves his Wilson's.  Again, that's awesome for him and others.  I'm just happy that we all have wonderful choices that make us all happy.  Wilson's are beautiful to look at and I can listen to rock on them, but I'd never be able to live with them.  Plenty of you guys have them and are happy.  All is positive.  
Lot's of ideas and in the end every company is very different.  Many companies are not that expensive to make, but they are large structures and priced accordingly.  Some give you a LOT of high quality components and hand made drivers with tons of R&D.  I know of two companies like this and both sound GREAT to me.  Every company has a different way to price.  The other thing I've mentioned earlier is that every company has a different points for the dealers.  I've heard numbers from 30% to over 50%.  That's HUGE.  When you hear of a dealer or manufacture selling for steep discounts, those are obviously the ones at or near 50% I would assume.  When you get a company where you can't get much if anything off, then they are probably much closer to the 30% profit margin to the dealer.  There is no right or wrong answer to this question, but it's a great thing to discuss and think about.
Personally even if I had that kind of money, I'd never spend it.  The best speakers I've ever heard in a system are the Tidal (the big ones at well over 100k) and the Vandersteen 7 Mk 2's at 62k.  The only reason I can say the Vandy's to me are a great value is that they sound better (to me) than anything over their cost AND for only 15k more (or so) you can now get their dedicated high pass matching subs to make even bigger sound in your room if that's what you feel you need.  That's still only 77k total.  To me, that's paying off a huge chunk of my mortgage so that's never happening, lol.  For folks who can afford it, I'm very happy for them and don't blame them one bit for spending what they want.  They earned, or stole it so....;)
Erik, I thought we had discussed that earlier in this thread.  Maybe not.  Yes of course it's what people will pay. I would say that most speakers costing X amount are priced up from what a companies normal pricing is.  I will say that we do pay for R&D.  You have to as that's part of the pricing as you know.  Do we pay a premium on top of costs with normal retail channels?  of course we do.  Each company has a different way to pricing obviously.
Paper cones can sound very good, but that does not change the fact that they are in total break-up at nearly all frequencies and therefore not an accurate diaphragm to excite the air in the room. Subsequently, the ear drum can't preserve an instrument's waveform. Most people think Bose speakers sound great and are totally adequate, but those who listen know they are not

It's a personal thing and I get that.  I won't be able to change your mind and that's cool. It's what makes the hobby part fun.  Most of the major and respected designers are working hard finding newer materials to make a pure pistonic moving driver.  
I personally can and will never be able to afford a speaker over 25K, however making that statement that nothing is worth it is dead wrong.  It's proven to be wrong as we live in a society where folks control the market.  Plenty of folks are purchasing these and feel they are worth it, so they must be.  Maybe to you they are overpriced and maybe to you over 50k isn't worth it, but the market sure thinks they are and personally I am happy as the trickle down has helped speakers in MY price range of under 15k sound THAT much better.  

This is a discussion as to why speakers cost what they do not if they are worth it or not.  

I would tend to agree with ricred1.  Some folks may not be in the US and understand the free market system though.  I full understand that part of the equation, but I'd think if you were on a board like this, you would understand it.  
Charles, I too love SET's, but only from the lower mids on up.  That's why I fell in love with Vandersteen's new amp on the 7's.  I've heard plenty of great reference amps on that speaker, but his just blows me away.  He too loves the sound of the SET amps in the mids.  Just so real and palpable to many of our ears, but the bass isn't quite impactful, so doing a hybrid made sense. I know he'll have a smaller amp eventually if he follows his normal business practice and I'll have to give it a whirl, that's for sure.  SET's can make speakers that normally fry my ears, listenable.  Some folks don't get it though and again I appreciate that POV. lol.
I have had this discussion recently with a lot of my audio friends.  I asked them about paper cones and the cost of speakers that use them.  It's funny, but to a person, they feel that some of the top name companies who are still using paper in drivers that are not costly, are just charging a lot due to their name.  I brought up the fact that the cases can be expensive.  I'm personally on the side of not loving paper as I hear the distortion they have as they break up a ton.  I fully respect folks who love them, but they aren't for me.  I tried to take up the cause of the cost of a specific brand that utilize soft domes and paper drivers.  Even a couple of dealers I'm friends with have joked about the true cost of the drivers in the 50k plus speakers.  The bottom line is that there is a market for speakers that are costly or the companies would probably just go under and thats not happening in most cases.  We all like different sounds and there are plenty of companies who give us all what we want.  
Darn, I'm sorry, but it won't let me edit a post that's over 30 minutes old. I forgot to answer you on the drivers.  Their drivers come from ScanSpeak, but they don't have part numbers as they are not standard models. All of them are custom or use custom components made by Vandersteen like baskets and cones.
ohlala
They vary depending on which speaker. The range is from $136.00 to $2700.00, but that is the cost for rebuild. New drivers are not priced out. 

Paper cones are always in break-up at all frequencies, but because of the cone profile and the fact they are paper, it is smoothed. A lay way to know if a driver is pistonic is if the frequency curve rolls off at the same rate the voice coil inductance increases with frequency. Single layer carbon fiber, woven kevlar, poly and paper have very low frequency break-up modes. The shape of a cone is primarily to smooth and spread out the break-up modes for smooth response, but does not eliminate break-up. Early articles done by Celestial, when metal tweeters first came out, compared them with soft domes which break-up at approximately 8K.

I just wanted to get you an answer, but this really has gone too far off course for this thread.  Sorry for the hijack. I will stay on topic.  Again, sorry all.
This really  is a great thread.  I understand that so many of you love the paper cones.  Again we all hear differently and we also listen differently.  Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup.  One can make a very pleasant sounding speaker with paper cones for sure, but it would not give you the micro information that gives you the goose bumps!

The feeling and emotions of the music is in the micro information. 

Smoothed and damped does not eliminate the breakup distortion, it just minimizes the harshness of it.  At the same time, it damps information someone may have spent 10's of thousand's on the front end of the system to get. Metal cone drivers use the crossover to notch the breakup peak out, but it does not eliminate the breakup. Many believe it is still audible, just less so. This is a very well defined breakup and the driver is pistonic below this breakup frequency forcing the designer to use steep slope crossovers which have their own ringing to add to the soup. Hi-End audio is all about resolution and is why some people spend huge amounts of money on the front end of a system regardless of the vinyl/digital argument.  I realize that many of you are married to paper cones and enjoy the 'smoothness' of them.  The fact remains that they still have more distortion than a true pistonic driver.  That's supported by measurements and to many of us, we hear much more detail in these types of speakers than in paper coned drivers regardless of what you have done to them in order to try and minimize the break up.  The fact remains that you aren't able to, you can just try and work around it.  

This is why the newer materials that are offered to designers are making this hobby a blast.  So many great designs can now flourish with carbon fiber, better made capacitors and resistors.  Just so many great advances in audio right now and more to come.  Even the diamond coating crowd is trying to make a more pistonic cone.  Tidal speakers use diamond coated  tweeters and the black ceramic in their 200k plus speakers and to me, they are nearly in the Vandersteen 7 mk 2 camp at almost 4X the cost.  
Marketing ploy?  Seriously?  No it's not a marketing ploy at all.  It's just an agree to disagree. I just pointed out that no matter how you treat it, it's still going to break up.  Even a big name maker of paper coned drivers admits this.  To many, like the few posters who are opposing some of what I say (or even all of it) I'll never change your minds and that's cool.  Just stating some facts about paper cones, but as many have said, you can still make a nice speaker from them.  I'm talking about full out assault on speakers and when you are playing in that league I'm saying there are better choices available now that don't break up, so why not use a better material to make a better driver.  Yes, they will be very expensive and that's why so many speakers are so expensive now.  That's the original post.  When I see the most well known speaker company using paper cones in their woofers and that the cost to replace these drivers just isn't that expensive, it makes me think they can probably do much better and not charge so much.  That's how we all got started on paper cones (yes, I stated they break up regardless of how you treat them) argument.  I stand by the fact that with break up, it won't let you get the last bit of detail from the driver and that's where the emotion lies.  Many top speaker designers will tell you that.  That's what we are paying for in all of our systems.  That's where much of the incremental sound increases lie...The micro detail.  To those of you who are designing speakers, I think it's awesome.  I just feel that you can probably make a better sounding speaker using better drivers than paper coned ones regardless of what stiffener you use and how you play with a crossover.  Again, I can't and won't change your minds, just like you won't change mine.  I've heard so many top end speakers over the years and honestly have never warmed up to any of the paper coned ones for a variety of reasons.  I never even realized it until I had a long discussion with one of the largest named speaker designers about what speakers I like and don't and why.  He then pointed out many things, but said that every paper coned speaker we discussed were on my no way I could own them list.  Again, I do respect you guys and feel that this is one of the first true discussions I've read on this board.

Are any of you builders selling your speakers commercially?  I'd love to see their designs etc...  Thanks.  Pete
When I said I'd love to see your designs, I meant the speakers that you are building, not the designs.  Not an engineer.  I can read a schematic, but not building anything anymore, lol.  The one great thing about our hobby is that all the folks like to get to know each other and that includes the manufacturers etc...  I always felt that was a nice thing.  I'm made a lot of close personal friends as well as close enemies in audio (and sports where I'm much more involved).  

I usually put that sound is subjective and I believe I have said that in this thread.  The only thing that I have said that is fact is the break up of paper drivers.  I do agree that things can and are done to make them better.  There is distortion everywhere in audio and some of it sounds fine.  Yes, folks get their emotion from audio in different ways.  I do believe that. I've learned to listen differently over the years as have most folks as we hear new and different things (not always better, lol).  Personally I can listen to an Audio Note system and enjoy what I hear just like I do FM radio or a CD in the car.   Personally (personally), I wouldn't want that system in my home as it lacks so many things for me.  Even some of their dealers I've gotten to know say similar things.  

As for detail, to me if the 'detail' is actually distortion, or a tipped up tweeter (we all know a few high end manufacturer's tip the highs 1 or 2db to make them sound more 'open' than that's not for me.  I know a couple of these companies who do this, sell the crap out of their speakers.  Folks rave and rave and buy them like candy.  Even their very expensive ones.  

I probably am posting too much for this thread and I get that, but It's more of a discussion over beers than an argument.  Richard's speakers are not the only ones I enjoy and can live with.  I typically can't handle ribbons or even many of the panels out there as they aren't set up properly, are run with the wrong front ends and amps and seem way too 'hot' for my tastes.  Again, my tastes and no one else's.  

I didn't love the older Vandersteen's. Was going to get a pair of 2's in the 90's after my first stint on active duty (Navy), but went to a store in RI who carried them and was talked into a pair of Proac Superpowers.  It's only recently since he went to carbon fiber that I have fallen in love with his speakers.  I did love the older Avalons and they too were first order cross over and time and phase aligned I believe. Also love Charlie Hansen's speakers years ago.  

I'm sure you guys all have your favorites as we all do.  Again, it's all good stuff here and I do really like this thread and how it's evolved.  Wish others liked it as much and posted, lol.
Jim, let me take a stab at the Vandy 1's vs Totem.  For this price range Richard is using pretty expensive parts under those covers.  That's been his whole deal starting with the 2's many years ago.  The cones and drivers are derived from his more expensive speakers since he came out with Treo's on up.  The 1's also got better drivers and keep getting them as he keeps upgrading.  He also does a ton of listening and choses the best sounding boards and components for the price of the speakers.  

The 1's are not the same crossover set up at his other speakers though. That said, for the price I think they are amazing. I heard those Totems recently here in CT and felt they were very good speakers in this price range also.  Plenty of good choices.   
Jim, I hear that from folks, but honestly, it's much larger than a foot or so.  Everyone on the couch in my house enjoys them greatly.  Like many great speakers, the sweet spot is smaller than others.  There are always tradeoffs with any speaker build.  Richard has chosen the best sound he can give you in it's price range, but that means that it won't be a sweet spot for the whole room.  I find most speakers with large sweet spots to be unfocused a bit with no true sweet spot if you would.  Again, this is a general thought as I think through my recent auditions.  I know that recently at an event for the 7s, the sweet spot was very large.  Larger than I remember it being for the mk 1's.  I also think that the Niagara 7000 made part of that difference as we all felt the sound stage was larger and more realistic than usual.  I try to always take the time to maximize the room acoustics when I'm able to.  After that I do take the time to dial in my speakers.  I've always had a sweet spot for two if you would, but the rest of the room never seems to suffer at all.  I'm the only one who ever listens critically and even then, I enjoy the music so much with the Vandersteens, that I won't have a problem with the sweet spot, but that's just me.  Most audiophiles I speak with Jim, seem to listen alone when it's critical time.  It's going to be a personal thing of course, but honestly, for the price if you want a special sounding speaker, the Vandy's will give the critical listener a great sound and that's why he has and continues to be the sales leader in these price categories.  

Not saying you are wrong, but its' one of the trade offs and none of us who have them for long periods of time seem to have that problem.  :)

Congrats Jim.  What I've noticed in the years with all good speakers are that they won't wow you necessarily, but give them time to get to know them.  Often times it's what they don't do rather than what they the opposite.  Just like some stores turn up the brightness on their TV's to wow you in the store, may speakers are made to sound more exciting in a store do they show up better in demo's, but in the long run the best choice is often the one that you listen to and enjoy and you get to know them better and better during the journey.  At first when I went from my Proac towers to the Vandersteen Treo's, I noticed a difference for the better, but I wasn't blown away.  The longer I listened, the more I realized that I was reaching for all my recordings and not just the best recorded ones.  I also was listening on average an extra couple or hours a day on days I was able to.  I started to really heard the layering difference. Kind of like when I started to learn about wines in my 20's.  It wasn't until I was told what to look for or taste that I really understood the huge but subtle differences in wines and cost.  The detail retrieval is real on the Vandersteen speakers, where on some of the competing speakers in the 1's range, it's just tipped up on top and distortion.  Too many folks hear that and think it's a 'cleaner' speaker or more open when in fact it's not.  Just isn't so.  That goes for expensive high end speakers also.   Vandersteen puts tweeters on the backs for the 5 and 7 I believe, but no one I know uses them. They keep them on off all the time. I asked Richard about this and he said that in order for him to be competitive in the market, he decided to include them as some folks feel that makes the speaker better as it has more ambiance.  It really doesn't.  It's just more waves that aren't needed in the room.

The more folks I speak with about Vandersteen in the industry, the more I realize that they privately own them for their personal listening.  Some of the largest names in audio use them for personal use when they get other stuff for free or high reduced rates.  They are often purchase and torn apart to try and recreate what he's done and it's been like that since he broke onto the scene with the 2's back in the early 80's. 

Feel free to email me about your thoughts and system.  I just like seeing folks happy with their purchases and listening.  Pete.
Ego?  yes, for some.  Most of my audio friends who can afford a speaker over 30k let's say, do it because they fall in love with the sound.  They can afford them without even noticing the debit in their accounts.  Audiophiles are of two groups usually.  One group collects gear.....some collect as much as they can and they keep sites like this going.  Others love their gear, but love the music more.  That's one of the few statements any of can make in audio that isn't really subjective.  Just ask any dealer who's been around for over 30 years and they'll say the same thing.

As for 'what's in the box', we have discussed that at length in this thread.  Too many avenues to discuss about that from scale of economy to R&D to cabinet build/finish to quality of the components in there to most importantly drivers and their implementation.  

Derrick, I do disagree with you about being able to listen at a show and then make any real subjective thoughts.  Show conditions usually stink at best.  The rooms alone are usually terrible, then you have so many in a room.  Any speaker will only sound it's best in the sweet spot and it's nearly impossible to sit in that sweet spot. I don't think many will argue with that, but many who love the shows still will say I'm wrong.  To each their own. 

Many of us have been fortunate to go listen at friends houses as well as top dealers, to many of the speakers in the market over 50k up to 250k.  The other major part of the equation is the system as a whole.  Some speakers must have specific amps to sound their best as well as cable etc...  I loved a Tidal system I listened to that probably cost north of 400k when it was all said and done.  Man did it sound awesome.  It really did, but it didn't sound better to me than a system I love that costs less than half of that.  Even half is still 200k.  For some they laugh at this thread or get upset that folks even question why they'd pay so much for audio.  Why do they own an Bugatti or other esoteric auto? Why does their house cost so much?  Why do they......its' because they can and because they can, it allows smaller companies to make a nice profit and filter down the tech to speakers in the lower price ranges that most of us play in.  I thank the manufacturers and the fellow audiophiles for helping us all out.  In the end, we are all winners.  How cool is that?