What if there were no more new speaker models?

@emergingsoul Maybe the better question is do we really need to see improvements in amplifiers?

This is a hobby which is typically based on wants not need. So no, we don’t need anything. 

And like all hobbies one uses a portion of their disposable income which varies with each individual.

What purpose would it serve to stop innovation? I do not see any benefit.

Maybe what the OP is really asking, is what’s currently available enough to satisfy? Yes for some, but nobody can answer for everyone. 

Throughout my life I have assembled and optimized a system, and then stopped and enjoyed if for 5 to 10 years. Keeping up on the technology, but just enjoying my system. Also, recovering financially. 

Then the urge would come to me and I would upgrade my system... one piece at a time... choosing carefully and investing 2x or more, so at the end I had a much better system. 

I now own the best system I have ever heard and am happier than with any previous system. It is as close to perfect as I have heard. 

So, lets say in anther five years from now I decided to upgrade. I would start my research from the ground up. Each brand name would have to reprove itself that at that price level it would be the right choice and synergistic with my grand design. 

I noticed my answer about my upgrade cycles does not intersect with your question at any point. So, I guess my answer is no. 

On the other hand. There is a  constant influx of new materials and subcomponents and philosophies of what perfect sound is and how to achieve it, so continued progress is being made towards reproducing the real thing... or a more sonically spectacular version of the real thing if you are into that. But that doesn't seems to say that a company standing still will get left behind. 

They better invent new amplification device and return to analogue recording. The combination of that would be a real progress.

I would think that designing great speakers is more difficult than designing great amplifiers. It is a fine art, not unlike building an instrument.

in my world there is still at least 100 experiences that I have yet to see. So, the idea of no new experiences is far off in the grand scheme of things. Am still trying to find a hole that a rabbit hasn’t corrupted. 

@ghdprentice 

Clearly live music is probably not something we want to completely reproduce because most stuff is ultimately and necessarily processed in studios anyway. And even live performances probably need lots of tonal work before they’re ready for your hi-fi system.

Basically at the end of the day, we only are able to hear an accurate rendition of an engineers efforts to fiddle with things on his large console before sending it to be mass produced. And of course this all follows the material he has to work with as reproduced by all the various recording equipment throughout the studio or throughout a live performance.

At the end of the day it’s about capturing sound waves from a live performance or through electronic efforts in a studio. Or maybe they’re still recording actual instruments inside a studio these days. And then once you’ve captured it, an engineer has to fiddle with it so he can send it on its way to be mass produced.

No doubt a very simpletons way to few things. 

Oh, and then once it’s been mass produced it goes through a hi-fi system to be interpreted by additional engineers who create all these mystery boxes and pressurized enclosures they put drivers to reveal all those efforts that took place before you get to hear it sitting across the room. And then it passes into your ear and through the miracle of evolution your brain receives and processes all these pressurized amplitudes in a manner that excites your brain so that you can feel pleasure.  Caveman were not so lucky, except to be able to distinguish sound variations to all those threats in order to survive.  Standing and walking upright was very difficult and then we had to react to all the sounds that were heard on the open fields and in the forests.