Buying used vs new speakers from a technology perspective

Computer aided design might give you a flatter frequency response and better dispersion, as opposed to merely listening by ear, but in reality very little has changed.

If things had greatly improved then no one would be listening to old speakers any more than anyone is still using first gen cordless brick phones.

What was the last major across-the-board technical improvement?

I can’t think of any. Boxes are still boxes, cones are still cones, aren’t they?

Look at Harbeth for example, renowned speakers, but still only refinements of the ones that Dudley Hardwood was building 40 years ago. Same for Spendor, Tannoy, Bowers and Wilkins, JBL etc.

Maybe the Kef Metamaterial Absorption Technology (MAT) as used in the LS50 Metas, or maybe not?

We shall see.

In any case, because of inflation, a top $10k speaker from 2008 would still beat most $5k speakers from today, though it would be surprising if they could fetch $5k.

@yoyoyaya ,

"There has probably been a bigger improvement in more affordable speakers over the decades as improved materials and techniques from higher end speakers trickles down. The Kef LS50 is a good case in point where the driver technology is much better now than it was than when the Uni-Q was introduced several decades ago."

I'd say so too. There's some excellent designs out there for under $2k.

Let's not also forget that $2k might well have been nearer to $1k back in 2008. I can't remember anything as good as speakers like the Q Acoustics Concept 50 back then going for £1k.

On the other hand, speakers like the Harbeth M40 seem to be frozen in price terms. I'm not sure what they cost new back in 2008, but you're unlikely to find one used for under £5k today.

Perhaps we need a depreciation chart for used Hi-Fi like they do with used cars?