How odd. First
@lowkeyoperations responds to one of my posts about tests and measurements by saying ...
your definition of “best” is similarly self determined. You might more accurately call it “flattest measuring” or maybe “highest preference score”.
The term “best” could justifyably be defined to include sales figures, social impact and numerous other factors.
... which seems to denigrate tests and measurements. At least that's the way I read it.
Then, when
@coonmanx asks ...
Are my Speakerlab 1's an "advanced design" because they measure flat? Are they an "advanced design" because they have both good imaging and dispersion?
...
@lowkeyoperations replies ...
I guess it depends on how flat they actually measure.
... which is an answer that uses tests and measurements as a discriminating factor.
We can't have it both ways. Either we use science-and-engineering based criteria to judge what is "advanced", or we use something else, such as the ambiguous criteria that
@lowkeyoperations mentioned here ...
The term “best” could justifyably be defined to include sales figures, social impact and numerous other factors.
... which to my mind seem worthless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OP has clarified:
Second order crossovers have been around for a long time.
Speakers that measure flat have been around for a long time.
Both acoustic suspension and ported speakers have been around for a long time.
Dome tweeters have been around for a long time.
Bookshelf speakers have been around for a long time.
Even ribbon panel speakers (Magnepan) have been around for a long time.
Some of this stuff has been around for 40 or 50 years.
I will give my grumpy-old-fart view:
1) Advanced materials cause price rise ... IMO, even more than advanced designs.
Some years back, a speaker driver manufacturer commented that advances in adhesives was one of the factors that drove the costs - and performance - of his product.
Widespread use of advanced materials for dome drivers (such as beryllium) drive costs up.
There have been steady advances in cone materials, most noticeably from the initial use of polypropylene forward, that have increased prices due to both higher costs compared to treated paper, and patented/proprietary formulations.
And in mentioning paper cones ... there have been improvements in coatings for paper cones, also. Advances in treatments for paper can (and usually do) take more steps in manufacturing and time between curing phases, so that increases costs.
There have been advances in casework. Rounded, tapered and asymmetrical cabinets add enormously to the cost of a speaker compared to plain rectilinear boxes. Again, it's just my opinion, but I think this advanced casework contributes a great deal to the improvement (or advancement) of the final product we see on the market.
2) Advanced testing causes price rise.
Laser interferometry, new anechoic chambers, the use of FFT ... all of which have a price for investment as well as a price for use in terms of time ... have a cost that must be passed on to the customer. Their use, however, has resulted in products that are both more refined as well as more consistent.
One of the laudable factors in Canadian speaker manufacture was the decision to allow the use of the NRC anechoic chamber (as recounted
here). Again, this advantage had a price.
Other manufacturers built their own anechoic chambers, but these, too, has investment costs that needed to be recovered.
3) One of the things we are seeing is the point of diminishing returns. I remember when a loudspeaker that specified its bandwidth as " ... + or - 3 dB ...) was considered good. Those designs are still with us today, but there are also much more accurate designs. Some are passive, but others are active, which adds greatly to the costs.
That last little improvement to be eked out is not easy, not common and not cheap. It's like fast cars; the truly cutting-edge models out-price their slower competitors by leaps and bounds.
4) And finally ... yes, some products are limited-production models, and as such, the company needs to price them exorbitantly to recoup costs. They may be advanced, and they may not be advanced, but either way, exclusivity has a cost, and it's usually quite high.
Sometimes I look at the finishes on high-end products, and I shudder. I was once into woodworking, and the thought of producing some of those finishes scares me.
So yes, all the basic things mentioned (above) have been around for a long time. Refinement of those basics, however, doesn't come cheap. Add long-term inflation, the tendency for some buyers to pay more for trendy products and the tendency of many people to equate higher price with higher performance, and you've got the answer right in front of you.
At least IMO you do.
Jim
