Why most users here HATE all very expensive speakers?

[GroeneLeeuw]

The BS talk about Dire Straits is very much on the same level as the one about Yacht Rock

 

[Audionaut]

I personally being drawn to mechanical "steam punk" type designs

Yes, that would actually be a perfect fit

Enjoy keeping that contraption dust free...

You need a special beard to do that ...

 

[ElJaimito]

Hello,

from my experience on ASR, almost no very expensive speaker receives broadly positive recognition. A recent example is the new flagship model from Wilson Audio, which is extremely costly. I understand that many people here prefer to rely on measurements or “proof” on paper to validate a speaker’s performance and only a few manufacturers provide such data.

But even brands with a generally good reputation in this community, such as JBL or Genelec, often receive more negative feedback when it comes to their higher-end or flagship models. Their measurements are frequently scrutinized in great detail, sometimes to the point where every possible flaw is highlighted. At the same time, actual listening tests (which could put these measurements into a more meaningful context) are often avoided or dismissed.

There are many threads where not a single participant has heard the speaker in question, yet dozens of people still offer negative judgments.

This makes me wonder why that is the case. Of course, there are expensive speakers that do not perform well, and sometimes this can indeed be identified through the standard measurements. However, there are also exceptional speakers that are very costly but deliver phenomenal sound quality at least in some categories like sound stage, live like dynamics or... To truly appreciate their capabilities, it is necessary to listen to them in person and experience what they can do!

My somewhat critical assumption is that many people here may have limited experience listening to a wide range of state-of-the-art loudspeakers, and possibly also limited exposure to the sound of real instruments. Only a small number seem to regularly visit dealers, manufacturers, or live acoustic concerts to explore different approaches to audio reproduction.

Nevertheless, many participants appear very confident in judging speakers—often in a negative way.

I don’t intend to offend anyone with these remarks. However, I do feel that this approach may lead people in the wrong direction and prevent them from ever experiencing great sound.

Best regards
Thomas

I don't hate expensive speakers, I just can't afford/justify them. Though I would never buy an audiophile-targetted product, I'm thinking studio monitors here.

 

[GroeneLeeuw]

This kind of "expensive" speakers is like going to a car dealer seeking a family car and the dealer says "I have a few F1 and WRC Rally cars you need to see!, you gonna love them!!!"

 

[BlueTunes]

Early on in my audio engineer career, I was hired by a band to do their sound and lights. I'm not all that interested in theatrical lighting, so I focused on the sound rather than the lights. The band manager tried to set me straight re what my priorities should be, telling me that "People listen with their eyes, think with their dicks, and fuck with their wallets." , intending to get the point across that I was hired first to be the lighting guy, and sound was a distant second.

My tenure with that band didn't last very long, but I'll always remember that sage advice.

Great quote.

 

[BlueTunes]

this has to be a ragebait thread

Depending on your perspective, it's a rage-bate forum.

 

[wadude]

I don't hate expensive speakers, I just can't afford/justify them. Though I would never buy an audiophile-targetted product, I'm thinking studio monitors here.

ASR has been helpful in determining which audiophile-targeted products are best for me.

 

[MayI]

this has to be a ragebait thread

Hyperbolic came to my mind

 

[Spkrdctr]

The bottom line is super expensive speakers don't come with tube connectors! Then there are the cheesy resistors and the cheap thin wire inductors. LOL Well, I know you all knew this but I had to say it out loud. LOL

 

[test1223]

So, is it just a matter of dynamics? You can buy PA speakers for $10,000 and have dynamics and sound pressure levels that will blow away any high-end speaker.
You can cut them to 80 Hz with four subwoofers costing $3,000 each and have power, dynamics, and zero distortion that will make you pale.
Do you have any other strings to your bow?

I assume you may be arguing in bad faith, but I’ll respond anyway.

If you genuinely believe that dynamics are the only relevant factor, then take a good PA speaker and compare it to a high-quality hi-fi speaker. Better yet, visit a dealer with a PA speaker and listen to some high-end systems yourself. It’s not just about more dynamics — it’s about achieving higher dynamics without increased dynamic compression, resonances, distortion, and other issues caused by the enclosure and driver design.

PA speakers are typically designed to be lightweight, durable, and relatively affordable, often relying on airflow for cooling to prevent damage under continuous high output. High-end hi-fi speakers, on the other hand, are expensive largely due to the cabinet construction. Minimizing resonances requires substantial mass and rigidity, which leads to larger and heavier enclosures. On top of that, low production volumes, R&D costs, and general business expenses significantly increase the price per unit.

Here on ASR, most expensive speakers tend to be portrayed as some kind of rip-off, which I find rather dismissive. In this environment, high-end speakers can hardly “win.” If measurements are published, every flaw is scrutinized — which is fair — but their strengths are often not given equal attention. Since no speaker is completely without flaws, this creates a one-sided narrative. As a result, many manufacturers choose not to publish detailed measurements at all, which then leads to further speculation about poor performance.

Hyperbolic came to my mind

Honestly, I can’t think of any objective measurements or even subjective evaluations — such as properly conducted blind tests — that would convince the majority here that a very expensive speaker could truly be among the best available. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario where this is the case?

 

[wadude]

Early on in my audio engineer career, I was hired by a band to do their sound and lights. I'm not all that interested in theatrical lighting, so I focused on the sound rather than the lights. The band manager tried to set me straight re what my priorities should be, telling me that "People listen with their eyes, think with their dicks, and fuck with their wallets." , intending to get the point across that I was hired first to be the lighting guy, and sound was a distant second.

My tenure with that band didn't last very long, but I'll always remember that sage advice.

People?

 

[Talisman]

.

Not only do I believe it, I'm certain of it; I'm quite tired of hearing all this flattery to justify inflated prices and exotic designs that are passed off as technological innovation. In most cases, they're none of those things, and they don't do anything that a high-end professional speaker doesn't do better for 1/100th the price.
If they want to prove they have the best quality and the most "precise" sound, they should show the measurements that every serious professional speaker shows, then we'll talk about it later. Otherwise, we're just discussing mythology and magic due to the absurd price and bizarre shape.

 

[MayI]

Honestly, I can’t think of any objective measurements or even subjective evaluations — such as properly conducted blind tests — that would convince the majority here that a very expensive speaker could truly be among the best available. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario where this is the case?

Halfway joking, I found your use of term "hate" a bit hyperbolic. More seriously, your title is a Begging the Question fallacy.
Your use of Wilson as an example didn't help matters either. It will neither measure nor blind listening test well. But that's not the point of its astronomical price.

 

[Purité Audio]

I assume you may be arguing in bad faith, but I’ll respond anyway.

If you genuinely believe that dynamics are the only relevant factor, then take a good PA speaker and compare it to a high-quality hi-fi speaker. Better yet, visit a dealer with a PA speaker and listen to some high-end systems yourself. It’s not just about more dynamics — it’s about achieving higher dynamics without increased dynamic compression, resonances, distortion, and other issues caused by the enclosure and driver design.

PA speakers are typically designed to be lightweight, durable, and relatively affordable, often relying on airflow for cooling to prevent damage under continuous high output. High-end hi-fi speakers, on the other hand, are expensive largely due to the cabinet construction. Minimizing resonances requires substantial mass and rigidity, which leads to larger and heavier enclosures. On top of that, low production volumes, R&D costs, and general business expenses significantly increase the price per unit.

Here on ASR, most expensive speakers tend to be portrayed as some kind of rip-off, which I find rather dismissive. In this environment, high-end speakers can hardly “win.” If measurements are published, every flaw is scrutinized — which is fair — but their strengths are often not given equal attention. Since no speaker is completely without flaws, this creates a one-sided narrative. As a result, many manufacturers choose not to publish detailed measurements at all, which then leads to further speculation about poor performance.


Honestly, I can’t think of any objective measurements or even subjective evaluations — such as properly conducted blind tests — that would convince the majority here that a very expensive speaker could truly be among the best available. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario where this is the case?

Exactly what are the ‘strengths’ of expensive yet poor measuring loudspeakers?
Keith

 

[test1223]

Exactly what are the ‘strengths’ of expensive yet poor measuring loudspeakers?
Keith

As a result, many manufacturers choose not to publish detailed measurements at all, which then leads to further speculation about poor performance.

Since no speaker is completely without flaws,

If measurements are published, every flaw is scrutinized — which is fair — but their strengths are often not given equal attention.

 

[Dialectic]

Honestly, I can’t think of any objective measurements or even subjective evaluations — such as properly conducted blind tests — that would convince the majority here that a very expensive speaker could truly be among the best available. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario where this is the case?

If the Harman mechanical arm could accommodate the latest Wilson monstrosity or the new giant Magicos, we could do the test.

The Magicos would probably do okay, and the Wilsons would do terribly. Please stop dreaming up excuses for the pretender with the braided beard.

 

[test1223]

If the Harman mechanical arm could accommodate the latest Wilson monstrosity or the new giant Magicos, we could do the test.

The Magicos would probably do okay, and the Wilsons would do terribly. Please stop dreaming up excuses for the pretender with the braided beard.

Yes, that would be great. I am no particular fan of Wilsons audio in specific, but I think they will not perform as poorly as many think here. Have a look at the remarks from the test of Wilson Audio TuneTot here. Which is the smalest and "cheapest" Wilson speaker. It will of cause vary significatly with the choise of music and room acoustics.

For comparison, I switched back and forth a dozen times with Revel M106 speaker ($2,000). The Revel had a smaller halo and sounded more focused than the TuneTot. It had none of the brilliance of the Tunetot but his was a dual edged sword in that the TuneTot constantly gave the impression of a more detailed, and "audiophile" high frequency notes that were very nicely delineated. TuneTot also had deeper and cleaner bass response than the M106. Overall, I preferred the TuneTot over Revel.

I briefly compared the TuneTot to my Revel Salon 2 ($23,000). Revel did not have the exaggerated spatial qualities of the high frequencies that TuneTot had but overall presented a much more balanced tonality and of course, much more bass impact. Its midrange was so smooth and nice. Still, I was amazed how the TuneTot did not sound small compared to it whereas the M106 did.

As I already said:

At the same time, actual listening tests (which could put these measurements into a more meaningful context) are often avoided or dismissed.

I can only strongly agree to this statement.

Interpreting spin data CORRECTLY requires quite some knowledge about acoustics and knowing what your room does.
Let's face it, there might be a handful of members that can. The rest just looks for 'imperfections', looks at the price and concludes if it is worth it.
There is no room for 'taste' nor how it might really sound where it is placed and how.

 

[ahofer]

If the Harman mechanical arm could accommodate the latest Wilson monstrosity or the new giant Magicos, we could do the test.

The Magicos would probably do okay, and the Wilsons would do terribly. Please stop dreaming up excuses for the pretender with the braided beard.

I think both objective measurements and a properly designed blind test would go quite far here. Those are the favored benchmarks. I don’t know why @test1223 doesn’t think they would carry a lot of weight. The KEF blades are very expensive and crazy looking, but widely admired here.

Now it’s conceivable that a blind test might favor a less linear/even dispersion presentation. That would trigger quite some discussion. But it would be based on sound, not cost, status, or visual impression.

And it would still be compared to the next cheapest solution, and people would ask if the difference was worth it. One advantage of these huge speakers is they can energize large spaces and work at long listening distances.

 

[Dialectic]

Yes, that would be great. I am no particular fan of Wilsons audio in specific, but I think they will not perform as poorly as many think here. Have a look at the remarks from the test of Wilson Audio TuneTot here. Which is the smalest and "cheapest" Wilson speaker. It will of cause vary significatly with the choise of music and room acoustics.



As I already said:

I can only strongly agree to this statement.

With all respect due to our host, and as he made clear in the review, he preferred the little Wilson speakers in a brief sighted comparison. If the Wilson were used in blind tests, in mono, with a sufficient sample size, they would ultimately fare badly, worse than the small Revel loudspeakers that sounded "small" (my KEF LS50s also sound small to me, so I think I know what Amir meant). The inadequate directivity at the bottom of the tweeter band is a characteristic of a lot of high-end speakers, including speakers that Harman tested in its voluminous blind tests of trained listeners (and also including some speakers I formerly owned). This characteristic makes high frequencies splash off reflective walls, resulting in a sense of "air," but it also makes the speakers' in-room behavior unpredictable.

All this stuff is well understood....

 

[Buckchester]

Hello,

from my experience on ASR, almost no very expensive speaker receives broadly positive recognition. A recent example is the new flagship model from Wilson Audio, which is extremely costly. I understand that many people here prefer to rely on measurements or “proof” on paper to validate a speaker’s performance and only a few manufacturers provide such data.

But even brands with a generally good reputation in this community, such as JBL or Genelec, often receive more negative feedback when it comes to their higher-end or flagship models. Their measurements are frequently scrutinized in great detail, sometimes to the point where every possible flaw is highlighted. At the same time, actual listening tests (which could put these measurements into a more meaningful context) are often avoided or dismissed.

There are many threads where not a single participant has heard the speaker in question, yet dozens of people still offer negative judgments.

This makes me wonder why that is the case. Of course, there are expensive speakers that do not perform well, and sometimes this can indeed be identified through the standard measurements. However, there are also exceptional speakers that are very costly but deliver phenomenal sound quality at least in some categories like sound stage, live like dynamics or... To truly appreciate their capabilities, it is necessary to listen to them in person and experience what they can do!

My somewhat critical assumption is that many people here may have limited experience listening to a wide range of state-of-the-art loudspeakers, and possibly also limited exposure to the sound of real instruments. Only a small number seem to regularly visit dealers, manufacturers, or live acoustic concerts to explore different approaches to audio reproduction.

Nevertheless, many participants appear very confident in judging speakers—often in a negative way.

I don’t intend to offend anyone with these remarks. However, I do feel that this approach may lead people in the wrong direction and prevent them from ever experiencing great sound.

Best regards
Thomas

You’re making a lot of generalizations. But as an example, that new Wilson speaker costs a million bucks. A MILLION! That is ludicrous. Even if it was objectively the best sounding speaker ever made, it would still deserve to be ridiculed.

Let’s be real. 10-20k is expensive for a speaker. You shouldn’t have to pay more than that to get world class sound.