Excellent thoughts, and I concur with you all on the principle of "buy quality"! That is why this question is such a conundrum!
I am not setting aside the principle that quality is the ultimate goal. I pursued wholeheartedly the "maximum sound" I could afford in one speaker for many years. The problem was that no matter what the "best" speaker I could afford, it did not have the means to satisfy all my desires! I longed to hear speakers of differing technology, hence differing sound which is an issue beyond quality. It was the inability of one speaker to meet all these desires to hear radically different presentations which prompted me to struggle with the question I have posed.
I would suggest there are some audiophiles like me, who sought out the best quality, but found out that it was insufficient to satisfy them. The reason, I feel, is that there was an inherent desire to hear a wider variety of presentations of the music. Without that desire being met it doesn't matter how good the solitary speaker is.
I hope this clarifies the discussion point. I'm not trying to force all audiophiles into this principle, but for me I need to have a wider palate of sound than just one speaker can generate. Obviously, when one is buying two versus one speakers the ultimate price/quality likely will be influenced, but that is where for me the "game" of getting ultimate performance from one's dollar is taken to a higher level. After living with excellent sound one certainly is not going to settle for anything less. The other option is to pony up more to "invest" into the rig to obtain the same level of excellence when one speaker was used.
Tom, I'm not currently searching for any speaker. Thankfully! Actually, I'm at the end of about a three year search for two very differing high quality speakers at my price point. It was in part this search and my experiences which prompted this discussion point.
What I have set up in my question is a seemingly "no win" situation, one which I found myself in, and had to answer. :)
I am not setting aside the principle that quality is the ultimate goal. I pursued wholeheartedly the "maximum sound" I could afford in one speaker for many years. The problem was that no matter what the "best" speaker I could afford, it did not have the means to satisfy all my desires! I longed to hear speakers of differing technology, hence differing sound which is an issue beyond quality. It was the inability of one speaker to meet all these desires to hear radically different presentations which prompted me to struggle with the question I have posed.
I would suggest there are some audiophiles like me, who sought out the best quality, but found out that it was insufficient to satisfy them. The reason, I feel, is that there was an inherent desire to hear a wider variety of presentations of the music. Without that desire being met it doesn't matter how good the solitary speaker is.
I hope this clarifies the discussion point. I'm not trying to force all audiophiles into this principle, but for me I need to have a wider palate of sound than just one speaker can generate. Obviously, when one is buying two versus one speakers the ultimate price/quality likely will be influenced, but that is where for me the "game" of getting ultimate performance from one's dollar is taken to a higher level. After living with excellent sound one certainly is not going to settle for anything less. The other option is to pony up more to "invest" into the rig to obtain the same level of excellence when one speaker was used.
Tom, I'm not currently searching for any speaker. Thankfully! Actually, I'm at the end of about a three year search for two very differing high quality speakers at my price point. It was in part this search and my experiences which prompted this discussion point.
What I have set up in my question is a seemingly "no win" situation, one which I found myself in, and had to answer. :)