|
Post by garbulky on Sept 24, 2018 15:24:55 GMT -5
OK, gentlemen - judging from the responses, I haven't phrased my question accurately. Let me try again... At this point in time, in what price range are the greatest speaker values per dollar found? This should be a mostly objective question. And above that "price-point of diminishing returns," is the improvement in sound worth the extra money? - this is a mostly subjective question. And yes, this IS where you should express your opinion. Imo the real issue is that there is no easy way to define a price point of diminishing returns. There are some speakers that are priced at high prices which offer little improvement on the dollar. But that's not necessarily true of all speakers. So one can't say oh when you get to $10k it's really about the finish. Also at what point does one consider something a diminishing return? I know my MIL would consider everything above a TV speaker a price point of diminishing returns. An extreme case I know, but it matters. Some people are happy just to have a little bass. While some couldn't care less about the bass and care about say a very delicate mid range. etc. For instance I'm all about an incredible soundstage that puts the recording instruments AND the recording venue into my living room. While others would be perfectly happy knowing that some stuff comes from the far right and left sides ocassionally. So understandably my diminishing returns will come at a different performance objective than somebody elses. My friend had a diminishing level of $150 which was a soundbar he purchased. (And yes he has heard some good systems when he said this). I think he has changed his mind since then. But for some time that was his criteria.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 24, 2018 15:47:07 GMT -5
OK, gentlemen - judging from the responses, I haven't phrased my question accurately. Let me try again... At this point in time, in what price range are the greatest speaker values per dollar found? This should be a mostly objective question. And above that "price-point of diminishing returns," is the improvement in sound worth the extra money? - this is a mostly subjective question. And yes, this IS where you should express your opinion. Objectively, then about $20 is where diminishing returns starts. You can get some small computer speakers for roughly $20 at Walmart. For your $20 you can hear the music, discern the tune, recognize the artist, tell the difference between a guitar and the drums, sing along to the words, and have a good time doing so (unless you are an audiophile snob). That's by far the largest chunk of what the music listening experience is about. If one can do all those things, I'd say it's at least 90% of the chunk, if not more. So it's only the last 10% to be gained by spending more to get better quality. Actually, I think all of it is subjective. It depends how picky you are about it. There is no magic number that says below this sounds like crap and above this sounds awesome, and in this range is the best value. I will say this, the vast majority of people on earth are perfectly happy with speakers costing less than $500.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2018 15:55:22 GMT -5
Best imaging speakers I ever heard were $65,000 B&W Nautilus, but were those 8 250 watt monoblocks some of it? I could never own them because of room size, even if they were gifted (but I might try). I also heard $10,000 electrostatics I didn't like at all and wouldn't pay $1k for them. I liked my JBL L100 & AR3a, at the time were expensive for me. Two things I would consider today- Room acoustics & treatments first. "Average" speakers sound so much better in a treated room. Ya, technology has closed the gap between affordable & pricey for most Audio fans. Next is DIY offerings are so cost effective if you have the tools & space to build them. I'm will be choosing my next pair soon. Without being at the audio store recently, I'm considering Monitor Audio Gold 300 or build something 3-way. Some speakers can be improved by better xover components.
Boom- I'm leaning toward $6k as my limit.for commercial speaker pair, but they would need to knock my socks off. Beautiful is great but sound is the objective and appearance is part of commercial high cost. Emo T1, T2 are not beautiful but if they sounded great, I'd bite.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 24, 2018 15:58:47 GMT -5
Gotta disagree about your saying the price range in which the greatest speaker value per dollar is found, is "mostly objective." If so, then there would be no need for a poll in the first place. There are too many variables, such as the actual cost of the speakers (different manufacturers have different markup percentages), your own financial situation, your listening preferences, the type of cabinet and its associated cost, etc. Even if you say granted, those things matter but "generally speaking" which range offers the greatest value, there are always going to be a ton of exceptions. And audiophile forums are where people love to go chasing after exceptions. Hi monkumonku - Yes and no - Value for the dollar to YOU, may depend on your budget. But value for the dollar, objectively, has NOTHING to do with what you can afford (or not). What speakers work in your room matters greatly to YOU, but we can still agree that some specific speakers (despite the fact that they don't work in YOUR room), are still fantastic values for the dollar. Similarly, even though some speakers may not have the specific sound that matches your preferences, we can still agree that those speakers may offer great value for the money spent. So I'd argue that "value for the money" can, and probably should be semi-objective. So I'm looking for a consensus (which I may not ever find), on "where is the point of diminishing returns" in speaker pricing. I think we all DO agree that after a certain price-point, the amount of improvement (if any) declines exponentially while the price of the speakers increases exponentially. Where is the "sweet spot" above which extra expenditure causes ever declining performance? This is NOT to argue at all with Mr. Yohn's contention that (on a personal basis) you should buy what you LIKE - not what seems to be the best value. But a Lounge full of experts should be able to agree (?) that above some price point, you're getting ever less for the money you spend. Cordially - Boom
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,351
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 24, 2018 16:07:13 GMT -5
To answer the question another way: "value" changes depending on a person's financial status. What has the most "value" to me might not be to you and vice versa. So again, price is moot to a question like this. Find what you like, buy what you can afford, and strive to be happy regardless of the price. If spending $50K is easy for you then do it. If spending $500 is difficult for you, then do that. What if spending either is easy..😁🤔 Then buy what you like.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,351
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 24, 2018 16:08:31 GMT -5
Gotta disagree about your saying the price range in which the greatest speaker value per dollar is found, is "mostly objective." If so, then there would be no need for a poll in the first place. There are too many variables, such as the actual cost of the speakers (different manufacturers have different markup percentages), your own financial situation, your listening preferences, the type of cabinet and its associated cost, etc. Even if you say granted, those things matter but "generally speaking" which range offers the greatest value, there are always going to be a ton of exceptions. And audiophile forums are where people love to go chasing after exceptions. Hi monkumonku - Yes and no - Value for the dollar to YOU, may depend on your budget. But value for the dollar, objectively, has NOTHING to do with what you can afford (or not). What speakers work in your room matters greatly to YOU, but we can still agree that some specific speakers (despite the fact that they don't work in YOUR room), are still fantastic values for the dollar. Similarly, even though some speakers may not have the specific sound that matches your preferences, we can still agree that those speakers may offer great value for the money spent. So I'd argue that "value for the money" can, and probably should be semi-objective. So I'm looking for a consensus (which I may not ever find), on "where is the point of diminishing returns" in speaker pricing. I think we all DO agree that after a certain price-point, the amount of improvement (if any) declines exponentially while the price of the speakers increases exponentially. Where is the "sweet spot" above which extra expenditure causes ever declining performance? This is NOT to argue at all with Mr. Yohn's contention that (on a personal basis) you should buy what you LIKE - not what seems to be the best value. But a Lounge full of experts should be able to agree (?) that above some price point, you're getting ever less for the money you spend. Cordially - Boom There is no such thing as "value for the dollar objectively." That is impossible when we are discussing a purely subjective issue such as audio.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 24, 2018 16:44:27 GMT -5
There is no such thing as "value for the dollar objectively." That is impossible when we are discussing a purely subjective issue such as audio. And I must politely disagree. If one set of speakers has wildly varying frequency response, then it is objectively "worse" than another that measures flatter. If one set of speakers (Apogees) has impedance that drops below one ohm for a significantly-wide section of its frequency response, and is thus incompatible with the majority of amplifiers on the market, then it is objectively "worst" than a speaker that has a more benign impedance curve. If a set of speakers (Magico Ultimate V.3 horn-loaded speakers) must have a special room constructed for it, then it lacks usability for the majority of listeners. Despite the fact that LISTENING is subjective, the accuracy, and usability of a pair of speakers is not. These two things are directly correlated to value for the dollar.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,351
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 24, 2018 17:05:56 GMT -5
There is no such thing as "value for the dollar objectively." That is impossible when we are discussing a purely subjective issue such as audio. And I must politely disagree. If one set of speakers has wildly varying frequency response, then it is objectively "worse" than another that measures flatter. If one set of speakers (Apogees) has impedance that drops below one ohm for a significantly-wide section of its frequency response, and is thus incompatible with the majority of amplifiers on the market, then it is objectively "worst" than a speaker that has a more benign impedance curve. If a set of speakers (Magico Ultimate V.3 horn-loaded speakers) must have a special room constructed for it, then it lacks usability for the majority of listeners. Despite the fact that LISTENING is subjective, the accuracy, and usability of a pair of speakers is not. These two things are directly correlated to value for the dollar. You are confusing so many topics in this... I know it seems logical to you but come on... 1) Impedance rating of all speakers is just an averaged number that has very little relationship to actual performance. Tell me how many consumers even know what the hell you are on about discussing "impedance curve"? If you choose a set of mainstream speakers they will have a nominal rating, which is generally 4, 6 or 8 ohms. Nearly any mainstream solid state amplifier will handle them. 2) Apogees? Magico? I thought you were discussing mainstream products, which these are not. If a speaker system drops to one ohm for any meaningful part of the FR curve then it is a pretty poorly designed loudspeaker... and if you bought that and it caused your amp to trip on overload, then it would not be "optimal" would it? But again, no non-enthusiast is likely to know this, nor are they likely to consider Apogee or Magico. 3) Practicality is not objective. What is practical to you may not be to me. I have a good friend in New Jersey who did, indee3d, construct a dedicated listening room onto his house costing over $150K just because the loudspeakers he wanted to use required it. For him, that was practical. For me, it would not be. 4) Some people like the sound of speakers with limited FR curves. Look at Cain and Cain, or anything using a Lowther driver. No bass, no highs, but they are loved and considered to be among the best sounding speakers in the world by some. Accuracy? Based on what? FR? Measured how? You cannot remove subjectivity from the equation, I don't care how much twisted logic you employ. It's like asking "What is the objectively best breakfast cereal?" Gah.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,351
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 24, 2018 17:44:03 GMT -5
One more question, Boomzilla Your thread invokes "high end" speakers, yet the price points you list won't touch the high end. So again, if you want to be "objective," AND discuss "high end," your numbers need another zero.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Sept 24, 2018 17:44:29 GMT -5
There is no such thing as "value for the dollar objectively." That is impossible when we are discussing a purely subjective issue such as audio. +1. Hey hey hey, something we can agree on. It's ALL subjective.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 24, 2018 17:51:13 GMT -5
Gotta disagree about your saying the price range in which the greatest speaker value per dollar is found, is "mostly objective." If so, then there would be no need for a poll in the first place. There are too many variables, such as the actual cost of the speakers (different manufacturers have different markup percentages), your own financial situation, your listening preferences, the type of cabinet and its associated cost, etc. Even if you say granted, those things matter but "generally speaking" which range offers the greatest value, there are always going to be a ton of exceptions. And audiophile forums are where people love to go chasing after exceptions. Hi monkumonku - Yes and no - Value for the dollar to YOU, may depend on your budget. But value for the dollar, objectively, has NOTHING to do with what you can afford (or not). What speakers work in your room matters greatly to YOU, but we can still agree that some specific speakers (despite the fact that they don't work in YOUR room), are still fantastic values for the dollar. Similarly, even though some speakers may not have the specific sound that matches your preferences, we can still agree that those speakers may offer great value for the money spent. So I'd argue that "value for the money" can, and probably should be semi-object This is NOT to argue at all with Mr. Yohn's contention that (on a personal basis) you should buy what you LIKE - not what seems to be the best value. But a Lounge full of experts should be able to agree (?) that above some price point, you're getting ever less for the money you spend. Cordially - Boom Nope, cordially I still disagree. There are too many variables, both with the speakers themselves and with the listeners. That's like saying which presidential candidate offers the most for your vote, or the best value for your vote. The candidate has plenty of variables and how do you weigh the priorities? And then it depends on what your own preferences and weightings are when it comes to a candidate. Now if you still disagree, then regarding your statement: So I'm looking for a consensus (which I may not ever find), on "where is the point of diminishing returns" in speaker pricing. I think we all DO agree that after a certain price-point, the amount of improvement (if any) declines exponentially while the price of the speakers increases exponentially. Where is the "sweet spot" above which extra expenditure causes ever declining performance?If there is no consensus then that would imply there is no objective answer. I think we all have our point of diminishing returns, but that point differs among individuals and the criteria for that point also varies among individuals because different people value different things. And speakers may excel in one area but not in another and the costs of those speakers may vary considerably. So what you're really looking for is something for people to do while they are at work but don't feel like working today, especially because it is Monday.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 24, 2018 17:52:08 GMT -5
There is no such thing as "value for the dollar objectively." That is impossible when we are discussing a purely subjective issue such as audio. +1. Hey hey hey, something we can agree on. It's ALL subjective. So objectively we can say it is all subjective.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,351
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 24, 2018 17:59:18 GMT -5
+1. Hey hey hey, something we can agree on. It's ALL subjective. So objectively we can say it is all subjective. Exactly. That's about the only objective fact in a question like this.
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Sept 24, 2018 20:26:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by pknaz on Sept 24, 2018 21:05:04 GMT -5
I'd put my $1.5k DIY speakers up against anything in the commercial $4k-$10k range, I think I got my money's worth
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 24, 2018 21:28:20 GMT -5
OK - I fold on this one. It DID make sense to me when I started the thread (although I also expected it to be a hard row to hoe). At the moment, I've got four sets of tower speakers in the house (it's starting to look like a Grateful Dead concert in my living room...) and they span a more than 10x range of price points. Do the most expensive ones sound the best? Yeah, IMHO they do. But do they sound 10x as good as the less expensive contenders? I think not (but, as y'all have pointed out, you might disagree). And, in fact, the least expensive outdoes the most expensive in at least one area (the bass). Of course, if you're subwoofing, then things change, but for the naked speakers...
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Sept 24, 2018 21:30:27 GMT -5
Boomzilla Anyway to edit the poll to say live under $1000, $2000 - $4000, $5000 to $8000.00 etc? For new speakers really there are lots of gems in the $2k to $4k realm. Above that you get into some great sounding speakers with big price tags IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Sept 24, 2018 21:33:15 GMT -5
OK - I fold on this one. It DID make sense to me when I started the thread (although I also expected it to be a hard row to hoe). At the moment, I've got four sets of tower speakers in the house (it's starting to look like a Grateful Dead concert in my living room...) and they span a more than 10x range of price points. Do the most expensive ones sound the best? Yeah, IMHO they do. But do they sound 10x as good as the less expensive contenders? I think not (but, as y'all have pointed out, you might disagree). And, in fact, the least expensive outdoes the most expensive in at least one area (the bass). Of course, if you're subwoofing, then things change, but for the naked speakers... Some of those speakers that are super expensive have an art like look to them so some of it is sound and some of it is looks.
|
|
|
Post by knucklehead on Sept 24, 2018 21:38:26 GMT -5
Boom, ya got me on tower speaker pairs. I only have 3 pairs of towers. I'm a piker. Gotta get more...
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Sept 24, 2018 21:53:07 GMT -5
Boom, ya got me on tower speaker pairs. I only have 3 pairs of towers. I'm a piker. Gotta get more... Well - they aren't all mine...
|
|