The answer will be different for each speaker company. Each company will have a different profit margin they determine to be acceptable for each product line/price tier. That profit margins is first determined by what price the company believes they can sell the line at (usually determined by the target competitor price). Secondly by the cost of materials/manufacture. Then within these parameters, can they deliver an acceptable sound (in the opinion of the company). When a high end trickles down they have more pricing leverage due to brand value. When low end moves up, they may have an advantage on cost of materials/manufacture (leveraging scale). Though they face a headwind of any low price brand that tries to move up market using the same brand name. Based on the experience of my past life, price leverage determines profit margin. So trickle down is the easier business strategy. Does that mean Wilson could make a better sounding low priced speaker than Sony ... not necessarily.
Top down or bottom up? Just asking...
This is a purely theoretical question that I’m tossing out just to learn what folks might say.
Consider, say, Magico and Wilson Audio. Their top speakers are in 6 figures, but their ‘bottom’ ones go as low as 10k. Consider, say, Monitor Audio and Paradigm. Their bottom is very low 4 figures or lower; their top in the low 30s.
Now, wouldn’t it stand to reason that other things being equal a 20-30k speaker from Wilson or Magico would be better than the same from the other firms? The upper firms have all that top level technology to scale down, while MA and Para would be at the top of their game in the 20-30 range.
Obviously, there are other issues—personal taste being the most important. And room size and other components.
But ‘all things being equal’ isn’t the answer clear? What am I missing?
P.s. I am a very happy owner of MA PL100II, which I got half price used here at less than a year old. And of B and W CM9 I got 10 years ago. I’m just wondering…