What makes an expensive speaker expensive

In most cases, expensive examples of products generate higher gross margins than inexpensive examples.  A Chanel handbag may feature top quality materials and use skilled manual labor which drive up costs relative to mass market handbags, but the portion of the wholesale price representing margin is higher, too.  This also applies, to cars, cameras, and wristwatches. So, there's usually some element of higher price tags that can't be assigned to "substantial" differences.  However,....

Brand equity generates a return, too.  As a rule, people will pay more for brands they want.  A Lexus ES and a Toyota Camry aren't identical, but they are very close mechanically.  The interior appointments, Lexus buying experience and brand value all increase the price of the Lexus.  When aggregated, Toyota still makes more on each ES they sell than each Camry.

Bottom line, in almost all cases, it's a combination of things, including higher mark-up.

As to the likelihood of a $30k speaker outperforming a $150k speaker, there is little question in my mind that that is exactly the case.  Line up every $30k model on the market against every $150k model (blind) and I'll guess that most listeners will prefer one of the cheaper speakers to one of the more costly models.  On average, I may prefer the more expensive guys, but I'm pretty sure that the performance variations within each price range are pretty significant.  Significant enough that I can build a case for a cheaper model on some measurable basis - bass extension, on-axis response, power response, uniformity of dispersion, etc. - that it's fair to say it outperforms the more expensive competitor.  All you need to do is to prioritize that one performance parameter where the cheaper guy is better.  And, in the real world, measurable or not, most listeners do tend to prioritize some parameters over others.

Personally, if offered my choice of any speaker, I highly doubt that I'd choose a six figure model.  

Tomcy6,

I can 100% guarantee that different people hear differently.  All you need to do is grab a few friends and run some pitch training software.  I've done it (part of a performance curriculum I took several years ago ) and you'll see fundamental differences in how different people perceive pitch and changes in pitch.

Different people also prioritize things differently, even if they're hearing the same thing.  Take two speakers that are similar, but not identical in mid-range accuracy.  The slightly more accurate speaker has less deep bass extension (or less clean max output or less high end extension, etc).  Two people that hear things identically may well have different preferences depending on what benefit they prioritize.

Unless you have a perfect speaker (and you don't) preferences will differ.

Tomcy6,

I can 100% guarantee that different people hear differently.  All you need to do is grab a few friends and run some pitch training software.  I've done it (part of a performance curriculum I took several years ago ) and you'll see fundamental differences in how different people perceive pitch and changes in pitch.

Different people also prioritize things differently, even if they're hearing the same thing.  Take two speakers that are similar, but not identical in mid-range accuracy.  The slightly more accurate speaker has less deep bass extension (or less clean max output or less high end extension, etc).  Two people that hear things identically may well have different preferences depending on what benefit they prioritize.

Unless you have a perfect speaker (and you don't) preferences will differ.

I just peeked at the speaker page at higherfi.com.   They listed 27 different models with a six figure MSRP (tho most were offered at significant discounts).  One model has a seven figure price tag.  I'd invite anyone interested to peruse them and figure out how/if they justify their price tags.  While you're pondering that, look at the variety of designs and you'll start to get a sense of how different they're likely to sound - one vs the next.

I can't say that I reached any hard conclusions, but I definitely found it an interesting exercise.

It's not always reverse snobbery.  I own three different speaker models that retail at over $10k.  While I spend time in front of each, I spend more time these days listening to a system with speakers that ran me about $2700.

Ctsooner,

The less expensive speakers are Ohm 100s with a pair of Rythmik 12" subs. This set-up features full bass extension for every recording I own, plus omnidirectional dispersion for 8 octaves. That combination of benefits outweighs the strengths of my SF Cremona M, Verity Parsifal/Encore, and Merlin VSM speakers for me these days. Those speakers will IMO outperform the Ohm/Rythmik in certain other areas, however, and I still love the particular strength of each system.

For the last five years (or so) I’ve had the Ohm/Rythmik as my main system (listening room). The other are located elsewhere in my home. This raises another issue mentioned in this thread (aesthetics). The SFs are beautiful in my living room, the Ohm/Rythmik wouldn’t work there (WAF), even if I wanted to try it. It’s just a matter of personal priorities - which may change over time.

It gets more involved than even that. The $70k MBL 101 will go louder than the Ohm/Rythmik and images more impressively (to my ear), but I don’t necessarily prefer it. I considered buying a (used) pair, but in the end didn’t pull the trigger. The band-pass woofer's bass response in that system is hard to tame IME.

Performance and price don’t remotely track - for me. Performance isn’t everything and people’s hearing, taste, and priorities differ. Even comparing (essentially) full-range, omnidirectional apples to apples, I preferred the Ohm/Rythmik to the MBL 101 (admittedly not in every way, but overall). I expect that for many listeners YMMV.