What's your vote for where the Law of Diminishing returns starts for tower speakers?

[ahofer]

But if we strictly keep it to new and current - I'd agee, $2K buys you a hella lot of speaker, and spending more is almost purely for aesthetics and bragging rights.

At least in the case of speakers they are actually *audibly* different for the extra money.

 

[DanielT]

We have to get to a consensus though (not very optimistic about it but still) about what a tower speaker is.
Cause surely something with a 1" tweeter and and 5" midbass is not, is just an elongated bookshelf only it has a cabinet instead of a base (yes,the cabinet can help but miracles don't happen) .

A little OT for the topic of the thread but I'll write anyway:

A stupid design if you ask me. What are the advantages of tower speakers? They should be big enough so you don't need a subwoofer and/or that they have high sensitivity (relatively to bookshelf speakers). You don't get any of that with a small two-way tower speaker that has a let's say 5" bass driver. Also, the disadvantage of tower vs bookshelf is that with a tower the tweeter height is fixed. With bookshelf speakers you get speaker stands that are customized as needed regarding height.

A slightly better solution for higher SPL and sensitivity is a narrow (if we're talking small) 2.5 way tower. But really I think it should be a fairly large bass driver, in fairly large boxes, in a three way combo to be considered a good tower speaker. For example like this:

By the way are you happy with them @Mart68 ?

Here's a quote from Mart68,#26 that fits well with what I mentioned above about small towers.

Hoffman's Iron Law states that with any speaker system you can only have two of the three options below:

1) Small Size
2) High efficiency
3) Low bass

Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15

I thinking of commissioning a build of this TG loudspeaker http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-3WC-15.htm Cost will be around £5K GBP What does the panel think? Are there alternatives I should consider? For various reasons I'm only looking at passive not active speakers. Any input is...

audiosciencereview.com

 

[2Sunny]

A little OT for the topic of the thread but I'll write anyway:

A stupid design if you ask me. What are the advantages of tower speakers? They should be big enough so you don't need a subwoofer and/or that they have high sensitivity (relatively to bookshelf speakers). You don't get any of that with a small two-way tower speaker that has a let's say 5" bass driver. Also, the disadvantage of tower vs bookshelf is that with a tower the tweeter height is fixed. With bookshelf speakers you get speaker stands that are customized as needed regarding height.

A slightly better solution for higher SPL and sensitivity is a narrow (if we're talking small) 2.5 way tower. But really I think it should be a fairly large bass driver, in fairly large boxes, in a three way combo to be considered a good tower speaker. For example like this:

By the way are you happy with them @Mart68 ?

Here's a quote from Mart68,#26 that fits well with what I mentioned above about small towers.

Hoffman's Iron Law states that with any speaker system you can only have two of the three options below:

1) Small Size
2) High efficiency
3) Low bass

Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15

I thinking of commissioning a build of this TG loudspeaker http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/Faital-3WC-15.htm Cost will be around £5K GBP What does the panel think? Are there alternatives I should consider? For various reasons I'm only looking at passive not active speakers. Any input is...

audiosciencereview.com

I have to admit that I feel like I've been drinking from the proverbial firehose of late when it comes to speaker education, but to your point I just received Revel M16 speakers the other day and since the towers aren't here yet I decided to put them on top of my Klipsch and connect them up to my HT. I have a subwoofer in the system as I assume everyone does if they are setting up a HT and I can say hands down I can't tell any difference from using the Klipsch towers versus using the Revel M16s AND I paid $998 for the M16s - less than $1k. So add me to the list of folks that agrees - assuming you are using a sub for everything below 80Hz I see no reason to buy tower speakers. From a science point just look at the F208s compared to the M16s

 

[DanielT]

I have to admit that I feel like I've been drinking from the proverbial firehose of late when it comes to speaker education, but to your point I just received Revel M16 speakers the other day and since the towers aren't here yet I decided to put them on top of my Klipsch and connect them up to my HT. I have a subwoofer in the system as I assume everyone does if they are setting up a HT and I can say hands down I can't tell any difference from using the Klipsch towers versus using the Revel M16s AND I paid $998 for the M16s - less than $1k. So add me to the list of folks that agrees - assuming you are using a sub for everything below 80Hz I see no reason to buy tower speakers. From a science point just look at the F208s compared to the M16s

View attachment 438230

A well-integrated subwoofer-bookshelf speaker combo is sonically superb. Of course, a good subwoofer and good speakers are needed, plus it can still require a lot of fiddling to get them to blend together well. In many cases, it probably gives you more good sound for the money than just towers with the same budget.

The advantage of the aforementioned Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15, Mart68's speakers, is high sensitivity and high power handling compared to yours (which are good) Revel M16. So it depends a bit on what you want.
Plus, since we're mixing money in this thread. You said: Revel M16s AND I paid $998 for the M16s - less than $1k. How much did your subwoofer cost?
Mart68 estimated that his Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15 cost $6400.

Anyway. You would most likely choose your revel-sub combo over Marts68 Troels speakers. And Mart68 would most likely choose his Troels over your Revel-sub combo. Nothing wrong with that. You both choose what you want.

Edit:
Actually. The obvious, that goes without saying (which I do now anyway) is that people have their interests that they are willing to spend so much money on. Level of interest/hobby wallet comes into play. And people can also have several hobbies but only one wallet for everything.

 

[traind]

@2Sunny - The speakers Mr. Toole is speaking about are likely the Infinity IL60. They can be had for ~$300-500 on the used market. The challenge with the IL60 is the powered subwoofers (likely failing point)... So to me, the ones I am after (purely for academic reasons) are the IL40 (same as the IL60, less subwoofer).

To put into context of this thread, if we include the used market, PODR can be as low as $500. But if we strictly keep it to new and current - I'd agee, $2K buys you a hella lot of speaker, and spending more is almost purely for aesthetics and bragging rights.

I believe the point of diminishing returns is likely lower than 2k but I ascribe to diminishing returns meaning less improvement per dollar spent, not no additional improvement at all.

I do find the declaration that "spending more than 2k is almost purely for bragging rights and aesthetics" to be far overstated. I really wonder if Floyd Toole would agree with that statement? I don't actually think that's quite what he said in the youtube video that was quoted. If he would agree, how would he justify working for Harman for so long... designing many, many speakers that were priced far, far above 2k? Did he and his colleagues ever mention that additional spend was purely for aesthetics? If that was true and they failed to mention it, what does that say?

Most speaker companies with good reputations have mutiple product lines that ascend in price. I am guessing their engineers and designers truly believe that the higher priced models offer performance advantages that are real even if they would agree that a lower priced design offers more bang for the buck. The lead guy at Kef has stated the Blades are essentially the best they know how to make. Do they offer 4 times the objective performance of the R11 metas? Of course not. But are they better? You are essentially saying they are not, they just have a fancy design. Or am.I missing something or taking you out of context?

Btw, Perlisten have stated in an interview that beyond db, you get only a small additional quality gain going from their R7t to their S7t. And it's a big jump in price. But their R7t is 10k, so not cheap. I thought that was a pretty candid comment from one of their lead.guys.

 

[eddantes]

I believe the point of diminishing returns is likely lower than 2k but I ascribe to diminishing returns meaning less improvement per dollar spent, not no additional improvement at all.

I do find the declaration that "spending more than 2k is almost purely for bragging rights and aesthetics" to be far overstated. I really wonder if Floyd Toole would agree with that statement? I don't actually think that's quite what he said in the youtube video that was quoted. If he would agree, how would he justify working for Harman for so long... designing many, many speakers that were priced far, far above 2k? Did he and his colleagues ever mention that additional spend was purely for aesthetics? If that was true and they failed to mention it, what does that say?

Most speaker companies with good reputations have mutiple product lines that ascend in price. I am guessing their engineers and designers truly believe that the higher priced models offer performance advantages that are real even if they would agree that a lower priced design offers more bang for the buck. The lead guy at Kef has stated the Blades are essentially the best they know how to make. Do they offer 4 times the objective performance of the R11 metas? Of course not. But are they better? You are essentially saying they are not, they just have a fancy design. Or am.I missing something or taking you out of context?

Btw, Perlisten have stated in an interview that beyond db, you get only a small additional quality gain going from their R7t to their S7t. And it's a big jump in price. But their R7t is 10k, so not cheap. I thought that was a pretty candid comment from one of their lead.guys.

I am saying, that >>in my opinion<< after ~$2K, the differences in audio quality are more and more insignificant, such that to normal ears, they can be ignored (to academics and perfectionists, perhaps not). Other factors such as: preference, resale, aesthetics, FOMO, exclusivity, etc. and just financial ability continue to play on. But for sheer -> "can I hear 99%++ of the artists intent?" about $2K USD ought to do it.

 

[kemmler3D]

I think it's the complete opposite:

View attachment 438123


SPL is the highest audible improvement combined with all the other sonic virtues.
And I don't mean any continuous silliness, I mean the ability to play even the highest CF tracks which once you listen too you can't forget.

Now add to this the easy integration with rooms that cuts a huge cost (it won't be perfect as mounting but still) ,solved amplification, versatile modes, etc.

Yes, I think this speaker represents a big step up from most speakers you can buy at any price. I have very little experience with >$50k speakers, but I don't know of any speakers that could realistically be used for hi-fi that cost more, so as far as I know it's the end of the road for diminishing returns. Going for higher SPL than this will only increase danger but probably not enjoyment...

 

[Alannn]

I posit that diminishing returns start at the price point of the cheapest available tower speaker, well below $1000. Especially if you allow EQ.

Even the cheapest tower speaker is going to provide a huge listening improvement compared to no speaker. The incremental gain from the next most expensive speaker is going to be tiny in comparison

@gwing has promptly posted the definitive answer. Thread should have been locked at that point.
But since thread endures, I'll add:
Where the Law of Diminishing returns starts for tower speakers? If it was up your @ss you'd know.

 

[dedobot]

A well-integrated subwoofer-bookshelf speaker combo is sonically superb. Of course, a good subwoofer and good speakers are needed, plus it can still require a lot of fiddling to get them to blend together well. In many cases, it probably gives you more good sound for the money than just towers with the same budget.

The advantage of the aforementioned Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15, Mart68's speakers, is high sensitivity and high power handling compared to yours (which are good) Revel M16. So it depends a bit on what you want.
Plus, since we're mixing money in this thread. You said: Revel M16s AND I paid $998 for the M16s - less than $1k. How much did your subwoofer cost?
Mart68 estimated that his Troels Graveson Faital-3WC-15 cost $6400.

Anyway. You would most likely choose your revel-sub combo over Marts68 Troels speakers. And Mart68 would most likely choose his Troels over your Revel-sub combo. Nothing wrong with that. You both choose what you want.

Edit:
Actually. The obvious, that goes without saying (which I do now anyway) is that people have their interests that they are willing to spend so much money on. Level of interest/hobby wallet comes into play. And people can also have several hobbies but only one wallet for everything.

I don't know why but I'm with Mart68 . From my amateour POV subs looks a workaround or even a cheat .
Back on topic - put those Faital-3WC-15 in a fancy boxes , glossy finish , remove the shopping cart wheels in favor of an good looking base, add profit and we are around $12k price point...in the best case.

 

[Mart68]

View attachment 438207
By the way are you happy with them @Mart68 ?

I am, but in many ways they are a solution from a distant age - the one I grew up in. Imagine a scaled-up Canton CT1000.

They will go stupid loud with no compression but mostly I'm at 70dB or so, they are still crisp and have satisfying bass at low levels, which is useful to me.

They're specifically what I was after and I was happy to pay to get that, so I don't think I paid for demising returns - I mean where is the commercial equivalent outside of the vintage market?

But what the wider appeal would be compared to, say, Revels and subs, I'm not sure. Only two 'serious enthusiasts' have had a listen so far. Both made happy noises but one of them I don't know him, he was really just here to collect some speakers, so he may just have been being polite.

Plus they are hard to ignore in a room. Grilles might help that, but suspect Revel/Subs might be more acceptable domestically. Also a better option if you want to expand into multi-channel.

 

[Mart68]

I don't know why but I'm with Mart68 . From my amateour POV subs looks a workaround or even a cheat .
Back on topic - put those Faital-3WC-15 in a fancy boxes , glossy finish , remove the shopping cart wheels in favor of an good looking base, add profit and we are around $12k price point...in the best case.

Funny enough one of the things that attracted me to the idea of a custom build was that I could have castors - I mean shopping trolley feet - fitted.

Allowing for economies of scale on the BOM I reckoned £10K GBP as an absolute minimum for a commercial version so you're on the mark.

 

[dedobot]

Funny enough one of the things that attracted me to the idea of a custom build was that I could have castors - I mean shopping trolley feet - fitted.

I lived a decade+ with Jamo D365 - physically almost like yours Faital-3WC-15,with wheels also. The wheels really annoyed me when they weren't symmetrical and I was constantly adjusting them. That's why I don't like wheels under speakers

 

[Heinrich]

... the marginal improvement is easily measurable ....

Tl;dr
No: please tell which is the single unit to measure "quality" in, regarding all that conflicting criteria. It has to be a scalar (one dimensional) in order to match cost in dollars at least in this respect.

Sorry for being that direct. What about science?

 

[a4eaudio]

...
No: please tell which is the single unit to measure "quality" in, regarding all that conflicting criteria. ...

What single measurement? Somehow you managed to quote me but missed the answer...in the same post.

...
To apply the concept of diminishing marginal returns, you must have a quantitative measure.
...
But if you focus on clearly quantifiable attributes - max SPL, low frequency extension (F6), THD, etc. then the marginal improvement is easily measurable and you could plot these on a graph.

IF...followed by THEN...."the marginal improvement is easily measurable".
IF...you choose SPL...THEN measuring SPL of a tower speaker is very easy and 92 dB/2.83V is better than 90 dB/2.83V and the marginal improvement is 2dB.
IF...you choose low end extension (F6)...THEN measuring F6 of a tower speaker is very easy, 35 Hz is better than 45 Hz and the marginal improvement is 10 Hz.

My point was, if the OP really wants an answer, then he has to define a quantitative measure.
If you really want an answer, then you need to define a quantitative measure. You can use the preference score if you like, the only problem being it is well know not to be a very good measure of quality, whereas SPL, low-end extension, distortion, etc. are better.

But as I've mentioned a few times, I think the thread is intended to be a fun conversation.
It is an audio forum, I feel pretty confident that no one really wants to get into economics.

 

[richard12511]

I just picked $1000 as it was the lowest option, but diminishing returns certainly start before that. I would have chosen cheaper had their been a cheaper option.

Something like an $800(on sale) JBL Studio 590 probably scores within 10-15% of a ~$10,000(dealer price) Revel F328Be if you put the two against each other in a blind shootout with 10+ people scoring 1-10. It also extends just as low, and both will play louder than you'd likely ever need in a home environment. So for more than 10x the price, you get maybe 10-15% better performance, which I'd say means it's well beyond the "start" of diminishing returns.

I'd argue that beyond something like $400(on sale) Infinity Reference 263, you start running up against serious diminishing returns. It's probably 70% as good as the best tower speakers in the world, but it's way less than 70% of the price.

 

[mcdn]

This is surely something that can be defined quite well?

There's for sure a point where there are no audible returns in any normal room from paying more. For speakers this might be:

• Standard speakers: Revel Salon2 or F328be at around USD15k/pair
• Coaxials: KEF R11 Meta at around USD10k/pair
• More esoteric designs: D&D 8C at about USD15k/pr

Basically the curve tops out around USD15k/pair. Sure you can spend more, but the returns are truly marginal. For most people these would all be "end game" speakers

At the low end there's clearly a huge improvement from USD100/pair to USD1000/pair. Bass extension, compression, distortion, frequency response, dispersion control, you name the metric, it gets better.

USD1000/pair to USD2000/pair is also a big jump in quality, but it starts to get a bit dependent on the use. Nearfield might be done by USD2000/pair, whether by Genelec, KEF, Revel, Neumann, or a host of others. Floorstanders for domestic rooms? Maybe USD4000/pair before most people stop being able to hear an improvement?

 

[thewas]

This is surely something that can be defined quite well?

There's for sure a point where there are no audible returns in any normal room from paying more. For speakers this might be:

• Standard speakers: Revel Salon2 or F328be at around USD15k/pair
• Coaxials: KEF R11 Meta at around USD10k/pair
• More esoteric designs: D&D 8C at about USD15k/pr

I don't think this point can be clearly or uniquely defined, as for example I think the improvement of a Blade 2 Meta vs R11 Meta is audible, but the changes are small and with clever choices like getting used stuff, use subwoofers and room correction someone can reach 75+% of such for few hundert buck like exemplary:

Worst measuring loudspeaker?

You know that you know it already, otherwise you would be enjoying music instead of writing pages of texts. :p Apparently owning a serious system doesn’t stop you either :p ;) Yeah sure, typical anecdotal stories where "surprisingly" never documented measurements exist, despite having...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[WillBrink]

A well-integrated subwoofer-bookshelf speaker combo is sonically superb. Of course, a good subwoofer and good speakers are needed, plus it can still require a lot of fiddling to get them to blend together well. In many cases, it probably gives you more good sound for the money than just towers with the same budget.

No doubt about that in my view.

 

[2Sunny]

Here's a question I asked in another thread, but one which I think is relevant here as well.

Looking at Spinorama graphs and especially when comparing ON AXIS performance what is the smallest dB change folks believe to be perceptible by the human ear? My online research seems to indicate that it is in the range of 3 dB minimum.

 

[Heinrich]

What single measurement? Somehow you managed to quote me but missed the answer...in the same post.

IF...followed by THEN...."the marginal improvement is easily measurable".
IF...you choose SPL...THEN measuring SPL of a tower speaker is very easy and 92 dB/2.83V is better than 90 dB/2.83V and the marginal improvement is 2dB.
IF...you choose low end extension (F6)...THEN measuring F6 of a tower speaker is very easy, 35 Hz is better than 45 Hz and the marginal improvement is 10 Hz.

My point was, if the OP really wants an answer, then he has to define a quantitative measure.
If you really want an answer, then you need to define a quantitative measure. You can use the preference score if you like, the only problem being it is well know not to be a very good measure of quality, whereas SPL, low-end extension, distortion, etc. are better.

But as I've mentioned a few times, I think the thread is intended to be a fun conversation.
It is an audio forum, I feel pretty confident that no one really wants to get into economics.

You said:
But if you focus on clearly quantifiable attributes - max SPL, low frequency extension (F6), THD, etc. then the marginal improvement is easily measurable and you could plot these on a graph.
I said:
No: please tell which is the single unit to measure "quality" in, regarding all that conflicting criteria. ...

I eventually got used to less rigorous use of terms, and short-cuts taken, when arguing logically. In this case, though, with all the bold letters, thing is, mony is a scalar, one dimensional. First of all, I didn't mean a single measurement, but a single unit to measure the final value to compare to the money, which latter is a scalar.
I think your argument is based on that misconception. More so, the scale is divided in rational segements beyond a just bad - good - better, one should be able to measure the distance between values.

We agree fully on the fun thing.