Are modern speakers all just overpriced regurgitations?

[coonmanx]

Right now I am listening to the Who "Live at Leeds" in my bedroom. Amp is an MCS 3872. Speakers are Scott 166. I am not sure when these speakers were made but I am guessing early to mid 80s. They have a 6.5" treated paper woofer and the Philips tweeter which I love.

Now these particular speakers are not going to dig down that much into the low bass region but that is OK with me since I live in an apartment and really don't feel like pissing off neighbors. My Speakerlab 1's, however, can go lower with their 8" woofers.

But here is the thing. I am not using any room correction or anything like that. I do have a small amount of EQ applied using the 5 band EQ on the MCS 3872. And the sound is very good. The imaging and soundstage is there and the sound is wonderful.

I paid about $150 for these speakers. Got them off of Ebay. I also recently saw another pair on Ebay and I was actually thinking about getting them and then sending them in to Amir for testing. However, they sold. Oh well. But the point is that when I see bookshelf speakers going for $1000 or more a pair I have to ask "What is the point?" if I already have a pair that is vintage and still sounds as good as they do. I get that they might be using some new woofer material or whatever. But I have my doubts that they are really building a better mousetrap. Not that these new speakers might sound very good, but did they suddenly reinvent the wheel and they will give me an audio orgasm? I doubt it...

Are speakers these days so expensive because they just don't sell that many?

 

[alex-z]

What other speakers have you heard in the same room as a point of comparison?

I ask because something genuinely well designed like a KEF R3 is going to be immediately and noticeably better. More controlled horizontal and vertical dispersion, better cabinet and port damping, lower distortion drivers, computer optimized crossover, etc.

Subjectively you might decide they aren't worth $1400, but you can make that same argument against any luxury good. A $250K car might not deliver 10x the experience of a $25K car but if you want that upper echelon of performance you end up subsidizing the engineering and production.

 

[Verig]

. Not that these new speakers might sound very good, but did they suddenly reinvent the wheel and they will give me an audio orgasm? I doubt it...

How about just try? Basic speaker design has improved markedly (simulations and measurements) and so have the drivers since Scotts. Or skip the new stuff and buy something used from early 2010, plenty of affordable great speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

In answer to your question no. At least some modern speakers are genuine improvements. If you like what you have then I don't see a complaint. No one says you have to buy another speaker.

 

[amper42]

Or just be happy with what you have and don't try to get others to agree with this speaker premise. In the long run if you are totally satisfied that's all that matters! Cheers

 

[GXAlan]

I am on the other side of the fence. Even if the speakers today are better, no reason to upgrade if you are happy. Newer speakers can measure and sound better, but as you point out, it may not change the emotional response to the music if the beat or lyrics are what make it work.

Professional violinists or pianists don’t need their music to sound real with the highest fidelity to enjoy the music, because their brain is wired to appreciate the “interpretation” of a particular piece which is conveyed even though a smartphone.

The fact that you EQ’d to taste is part of the secret. Modern speakers may need less EQ and may be more CONSISTENTLY good across people and rooms. It will have lower distortion by measurements but if you are not listening loudly, the distortion may be well below threshold of audibility. If you notice here, most speakers are fine at 86 dB and struggle only as you get higher.

86 dB is already pretty loud.

 

[Timcognito]

Right now I am listening to the Who "Live at Leeds" in my bedroom. Amp is an MCS 3872. Speakers are Scott 166. I am not sure when these speakers were made but I am guessing early to mid 80s. They have a 6.5" treated paper woofer and the Philips tweeter which I love.

Now these particular speakers are not going to dig down that much into the low bass region but that is OK with me since I live in an apartment and really don't feel like pissing off neighbors. My Speakerlab 1's, however, can go lower with their 8" woofers.

But here is the thing. I am not using any room correction or anything like that. I do have a small amount of EQ applied using the 5 band EQ on the MCS 3872. And the sound is very good. The imaging and soundstage is there and the sound is wonderful.

I paid about $150 for these speakers. Got them off of Ebay. I also recently saw another pair on Ebay and I was actually thinking about getting them and then sending them in to Amir for testing. However, they sold. Oh well. But the point is that when I see bookshelf speakers going for $1000 or more a pair I have to ask "What is the point?" if I already have a pair that is vintage and still sounds as good as they do. I get that they might be using some new woofer material or whatever. But I have my doubts that they are really building a better mousetrap. Not that these new speakers might sound very good, but did they suddenly reinvent the wheel and they will give me an audio orgasm? I doubt it...

Are speakers these days so expensive because they just don't sell that many?

Have you gone out and listened to any new speakers or are you just happy with yours? ASR may not be the best place to visit because it is about new and high performance audio based on objective measurements. The measurements set the standards as subjective listening varies from listener to listener.

 

[Curupira]

But the point is that when I see bookshelf speakers going for $1000 or more a pair I have to ask "What is the point?"

There's no universal answer to this question. You have to consider a ton of factors and not only through a savvy consumer perspective.

On the consumer side, everyone has different expectations and standards for quality. For someone, 10% THD on the bass is unacceptable. For others, it's barely noticeable; also on the consumer side, information is not universal, willingness to pay is very much a factor in defining market price (in microeconomics, it's called consumer surplus), so something that is expensive to you might not be for someone else with different standards or expectations; this is further aggravated when designing a luxury product (remember, not everyone is an utilitarian like you seem to be from your own example).

On the manufacturers side, aside from economic surpluses, market price and advancements in technology to aggregate to standards or even create new ones, there is one very important thing in defining price which is economies of scale. A boutique item made in a garage by an old audiophile manufacturer will cost thousands of dollars not only because he can charge for that (i.e, because he's scamming people), but rather because the production costs for him are exponentially higher than those of a big company like JBL, he has to buy parts by their individual prices rather than wholesale, or even has to design his own drivers and crossover circuit, while also having to worry about his enterprise accounting and working capital. All this goes into the price, and not for "performance" reasons.

 

[Verig]

About $1000 speakers today. $250 in 1978 is $1200 today so for example many turntables really were not cheap, normal "good" range in $200-300. Nor were good speakers.

 

[tomtoo]

You are in that lucky position to enjoy what you have. And its all about joy. So be happy.

 

[DVDdoug]

Basic speaker design has improved markedly

I'd say the opposite. We still mostly have 2 or 3-way ported or sealed designs, and as long as speakers aren't electrically, physically, or environmentally abused (and as long as they don't have rot-prone foam surrounds) they can "last forever".

(simulations and measurements)

Right! It's a lot easier to build a good speaker with less trial-and-error. In the past there were lots of bad ported speakers and "bass reflex" got a bad reputation.

Active speakers have a potential advantage in-that EQ can be built-in to flatten and extend frequency response. But of course, that doesn't mean every active speaker is better than every passive speaker.

With home theater the style-trend is toward smaller main speaker and a subwoofer. Most people don't want 5 or more large full-range speakers in their living room, and even if they have a dedicated home theater, space is usually limited. And, a subwoofer is required for home theater or you lose the "point one" LFE channel.

Another factor might be that consumers are more-exposed to good sound than in the analog days. It might be harder to sell a "bad" speaker these days. Similarly, factory car stereos used to be a joke and you need an aftermarket system to get good sound. But nowadays they are pretty good and some very-good. Consumers have higher expectations.

 

[Curvature]

In answer to your question no. At least some modern speakers are genuine improvements. If you like what you have then I don't see a complaint. No one says you have to buy another speaker.

Everyone knows that being an audiophile means that you are compelled to upgrade.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Right now I am listening to the Who "Live at Leeds" in my bedroom. Amp is an MCS 3872. Speakers are Scott 166. I am not sure when these speakers were made but I am guessing early to mid 80s. They have a 6.5" treated paper woofer and the Philips tweeter which I love.

Now these particular speakers are not going to dig down that much into the low bass region but that is OK with me since I live in an apartment and really don't feel like pissing off neighbors. My Speakerlab 1's, however, can go lower with their 8" woofers.

But here is the thing. I am not using any room correction or anything like that. I do have a small amount of EQ applied using the 5 band EQ on the MCS 3872. And the sound is very good. The imaging and soundstage is there and the sound is wonderful.

I paid about $150 for these speakers. Got them off of Ebay. I also recently saw another pair on Ebay and I was actually thinking about getting them and then sending them in to Amir for testing. However, they sold. Oh well. But the point is that when I see bookshelf speakers going for $1000 or more a pair I have to ask "What is the point?" if I already have a pair that is vintage and still sounds as good as they do. I get that they might be using some new woofer material or whatever. But I have my doubts that they are really building a better mousetrap. Not that these new speakers might sound very good, but did they suddenly reinvent the wheel and they will give me an audio orgasm? I doubt it...

Are speakers these days so expensive because they just don't sell that many?

The problem with your question is that we can’t use your personal subjective impressions as an objective measure

 

[MarkS]

What other speakers have you heard in the same room as a point of comparison?

I ask because something genuinely well designed like a KEF R3 is going to be immediately and noticeably better.

Your confidence is much too high. A while back there was a thread here from someone who'd replaced Sonos speakers with high-end Genelecs and was struggling to hear a meaningful difference.

My experience is that my brain believes that whatever speakers I currently have are "correct" and anything different is "wrong", until my brain retrains itself.

More controlled horizontal and vertical dispersion, better cabinet and port damping, lower distortion drivers, computer optimized crossover, etc.

All of which have (I claim) pretty minimal effects on the sound. Dispersion per se is not relevant, what is relevant is the direct/reflected sound ratio as a function of frequency in the listener's room, and this is at least partly a matter of taste. And a "bad" speaker might get this serendipitously better than a "good" speaker in a given room for a given listener. Damping can reduce distortion but not necessarily audibly. The whole KEF "meta" thing is largely marketing: per published results in their own white papers, the slightly reduced distortion is almost certainly inaudible. And we can't do A/B comparisons to check because they also changed the frequency response slightly when they went meta.

 

[Koeitje]

Well designed modern speakers are far superior to pretty much any 30 year old speaker based on the data I've seen. In many cases its pretty much a night and day difference. There are some older speakers that hold up remarkably well, but even those get outclassed by their modern counter parts. But akk that doesn't mean you can't enjoy older speakers, there is room for nostalgia.

Your confidence is much too high. A while back there was a thread here from someone who'd replaced Sonos speakers with high-end Genelecs and was struggling to hear a meaningful difference.

Sonos speakers actually follow modern design principles fairly well. They are far from the worst speakers you can buy (and better than most vintage hifi speakers). Makes sense, because they want speakers that sound good to the vast majority of people and don't cater to those who want wooly bass or boosted treble (like some "audiophile" brands do).

 

[rank]

Recently a friend of mine bought speakers for his home cinema to replace his Magnean MG III A which he sold due to lack of space. His choice fell on the Fenton brand. He took two towers and 2 bookshelves. Less than $200 for the 4. Only problem : he had to pay the deluxe model for the smaller ones in order to have binding posts to connect his banana plugs (it was the same for his Onkyo receiver).
I find the sound very good.Not necessary to spend a lot of money to listen to music or watch movies !

 

[Curvature]

Your confidence is much too high. A while back there was a thread here from someone who'd replaced Sonos speakers with high-end Genelecs and was struggling to hear a meaningful difference.

You misunderstand.

Sonos speakers are very well engineered. The fact that they are a mass-market brand doesn't mean they are comparable to a traditional monkey coffin.

There is also training and skill involved (in listening).

But the point makes sense overall. At a certain level of competence, for normal two channel stereo, you can't expect revelations.

 

[mhardy6647]

No, they're not.
Even the ones that are -- kinda, sorta -- regurgitations umm, let's say reboots -- really aren't.
then:

now:

Even the ones from Klipsch.
then:

now:

 

[kemmler3D]

A while back there was a thread here from someone who'd replaced Sonos speakers with high-end Genelecs and was struggling to hear a meaningful difference.

This is because Sonos speakers are actually technically good in many aspects... for casual listening in an untreated room, and based on the measurements, you actually wouldn't expect a dramatic difference. The assumption that Sonos speakers aren't objectively performant (to an extent) is an understandable one, but wrong.

FWIW even like 10 years ago, the Sonos Play 5 was one of the flattest speakers I could find in the consumer price tiers, it wasn't really even close.

 

[Koeitje]

No, they're not.
Even the ones that are -- kinda, sorta -- regurgitations umm, let's say reboots -- really aren't.
then:
View attachment 377530
now:

View attachment 377526

Even the ones from Klipsch.
then:

View attachment 377528

now:

View attachment 377527

And most of these reboots can't match fresh modern designs in terms of performance. Trying to match the looks of these older designs can severely hamper performance. Some of these are better than others, but even the best can't beat a design more focused on performance.