Is there a sub $10k speaker that would beat or equal all $20k+ speakers in a blind test?

[EERecordist]

As always just curios what the general feeling is here on ASR on this highly controversial topic. For those who vote yes I'd also be curios to know what speaker or speakers you are thinking about. At the moment I personally have a belief that an Ascend Acoustics ELX Ribbon tower could equal any more expensive speaker in a blind test. If you voted for option 3 I'd love to hear your thoughts on why you think blind tests are not helpful and more importantly if there is any way you see to create a blind test that WAS helpful.

There are some assumptions that I could not include in the question.

1) I'm talking about speakers intended for normal rooms say roughly less than 500 sq ft.
2) I'm assuming bass response is negated with either a filter or using a sub.

In professional near- and mid-field speakers, there is a sweet spot at $5000 each plus sub if you like. The room is a bigger factor than the speaker above a certain point and in far-field. Sometimes you see more expensive tower speakers in mastering suites which usually have terrible rooms emulating the typical consumer room.

Take a look at the ASR Spinoramas for speakers with ribbon drivers.

There are really only a few companies that can do the R&D to make the drivers and then build a complete accurate speaker. Many of the boutique speaker makers don't have the capital to afford test equipment, anechoic rooms, or even the capital to manage their supply chain. That is reflected in the price.

 

[Miniyouuuu]

Iconic brands have been absorbed by large corporations for mass scaling economy. Otherwise luxury brands wouldn't have money to invest in R&D.
Rolls Royce and Bentley where the epiphany for car luxury. They broke and later, due to the investment of VW and BWM they could afford newer platforms and newer technology.

Those are the current audio corporations:

Samsung / Harman International have JBL, Harman Kardon, AKG, Mark Levinson, Arcam, Revel, Bowers & Wilkins, Denon, Marantz, Polk Audio, Definitive Technology, Classé, HEOS, Boston Acoustics,

Bose Corporation has Bose, McIntosh, Sonus faber, Audio Research, Wadia, Sumiko and Pryma

IAG has Wharfedale, Audiolab, QUAD, Mission, Castle, Luxman and LEAK.

Lenbrook Group has NAD, PSB speakers, Bluesound and USA distribution of DALI, Roksan, Tivoli Audio

Gentex Corporation has Klipsch, Martin Logan, Onkyo, Integra, Pioneer, Jamo and Energy

Japanese large brands:
Sony, Yamaha, Panasonic & Technics, JVC-Kenwood, Rotel

And more independant brands:
Accuphase, Focal & Naim, Esoteric & TEAC, KEF, Dynaudio, Q Acoustic, Rega, SVS...

Ultra luxury brands (Wilson Audio, Estelon, Vitus, Magico, Goldmund, Avantgarde...) have the risk of abnormal prices if they want to invest in R&D. Otherwise they propose eye-catching / showy designs with no other interest but been luxury decoration objects.

 

[Oddball]

I would agree that on large scale, deep pockets are required for R&D, especially in the current market.

There are though a few market leaders from independent houses that are apparently doing well. Could be just the niche AVP markets, but Trinnov and Storm are killing it and have been pushing the limits of high-end HT for years. They literally own the market for 20ch and upwards processors and there is nothing more advanced from any of the big brands. Actually some of the big brands like JBL (and others) are taking their design into their highest end products.

 

[test1223]

I have already tested Revel F35s, F36s, F226s and Ascends ELXs against each other in my home and found that I can not hear the tiniest of difference. They all sound great to me. (I used Erin's recommendations on what to listen for). What I'm dying to find out is if people who claim they can tell the difference really can. I will not be taking possession of the Blades, but instead will have them sent to a manufacturer who has the ability to perform a proper blind test, and I will be most interested to see the results. Obviously such results will not prove anything either way, but they will provide evidence either in support of or against my theory and I find that very interesting and feel incredibly lucky that I can indulge such silly curiosity.

View attachment 458601

If the picture is your actual listening set up you definitely should change the positioning of your electronics. You better put nothing in the middle in between the stereo speakers.

There should be no object within a radius of about 2m around both speakers and no object within the stereo triangle.

Bad room acoustics mask some of the benefits of better loudspeakers.

Which electronics are you using? It seems like an AV Receiver? Some of these even measures not good at all.

Fast switching is essential to better spot the differences.

 

[Barrelhouse Solly]

The problem is simple and the answer is yes. Some $20K gear isn't worth the money. Some much cheaper gear can go way beyond its weight class. This is true in general.

 

[Groove01]

Having a Masters in Physics from MIT certainly helps been a speaker designer.
Been pragmatic about it on top of that also helps very much.

Those certainly don’t hurt - lol.

 

[Westsounds]

Yes, the difference is cost alone.

 

[JonfromCB]

I kinda' agree with that. Measurements mostly indicate a speaker's potential. It's the room they are in that we hear. Expensive good sounding speakers poorly placed in a bad room won't sound so great. We all see and hear expensive speakers with compromised placement in a living room environment/room all of the time. Physics is physics. Mediocre speakers perfectly placed will sound better than expensive speakers with compromised placement in living room environment most of the time. Dang those Dolby placement guidelines and a poor sounding room! I'll bet If I upgrade my speakers I can improve my system....Not.