What makes an expensive speaker expensive

So what makes an Expensive speaker Expensive?  Well, I'll chime in, but I'm sure that I won't solve a thing and will offend someone. Many of you know that I've built a lot of speakers and through the years, I've been inside of a lot of speakers.  Most of what I'll say is accurate, but a bit conjecture and some just opinion.

First, the first thing that makes a good speaker good is understanding the parts used, knowing what response curves sound like, how crossover frequencies change everything because 1 driver may sound better at a given frequency so the crossover point is changed to have one part handle the frequency... a few 2 ways come to mind where the tweeter sounded better at 2k than the woofer, so even though the woofer could go out farther, the designer still crossed lower to use the better sounding tweeter in the upper mid frequencies.

Next what crossover slopes sound like and how the frequency crossed at and the slope affect phasing and time alignment.

Next cabinet design in conjunction with the drivers to get the drivers with the flattest response and time alignment necessary and to hear the speakers rather than the box. 

So in short,  the design is first and for most, regardless of cost.

My initial reaction toward most speakers until I hear them is skepticism. I have opened so many very expensive speakers, scratched my head and wondered "how can someone in good consciousness charge this for such a speaker". 

I have also looked at speakers and have seen Diamond or Beryllium parts,  maybe aluminum or magnesium, individual drivers that are so very expensive that I new that most likely that I wouldn't have the opportunity to build with these parts myself and  then knowing how hard it is to take the peaks out of some of these very expensive parts and I hear them and hear music and accuracy....

My weakness is cabinetry.  I can make a cabinet that in the end will make a nice sounding speaker, but when I see some of the beauty and artistic work in some of these speakers,  I wonder just how much I would charge for a speaker made like that. 

Sometimes, you have a designer that is truly a master craftsman in his driver selection and crossover work that those speakers automatically take them to the next level in pricing,  then I see others that add the artwork in their cabinetry and I understand why they charge a premium. 

Now, all that said,  I truly believe that it is possible to design and deliver....lets say a $5,000 + speaker that can compete at a very high level and depending on the associated equipment could yes sound better than some multi-mega buck speakers. 

And my last comment would be,   $50,000 + speakers?  I'm not sure any speaker is worth that,  but I don't blame anyone for making a buck,  its the people that are willing to pay that keep those few in business.  Hey, they may be worth $50,000 or $150,000 to an individual and if they can afford it and aren't bankrupting their family to own them,  more power to you......... and enjoy. 

I hope this helps someone,  Tim

Hi All,

    Tubes 444,  while I agree with your assessment,  right off the top of my head, I can think of 10 or 12 quality  current driver manufactures.

Tim

I just realized that I did not answer the last question from the op...

No,  I would not be surprised to find that a $10,000 speaker could outperform a few $100,000 to $150,000 speakers, much less a $30,000 speaker.  Its all taste.... the Accuton ceramic drivers are very detailed, but not at all everyone's cup of tea,  just as the Raal ribbon,  again very detailed,  but many people prefer a good ole soft dome. Quality of parts is radically important, but in the end, its all in the execution. 

I've read this thread,  its  been an interesting read. Building speakers for so many years,  I've experimented with many cone materials.... a lot of what has been said about cone break up on paper cones is valid to a degree, but in so many ways, quite far off....

Everyone knows that paper is ground up wood pulp in some form or fashion.  Thin paper resonates at a higher frequency than heavy paper and does show break up quite easily, but through the years many things have been done to help solve this... One is layers,  a layer of paper over the next helps dampen the first layer and each layers adds dampening... Next, as paper is made,  the binding material will also change the frequency that the paper resonates at and its breakup frequency... Not entirely, but basically,  the stiffer the material,  the higher frequency that it resonates. So a heavy stiff cone, won't break up anything like a thinner cone. One process that has been used for years is to paint a dampening coat on paper. I have used a couple of types of latex.  I have also blended latex with other materials,  i.e.  glues, epoxies, silicone mixtures and other things, which helps to stiffen paper as well as dampen the cones all at once. A stiff material can extend the frequency response of a cone,  while a softer material will simply dampen the cone and help control break up and change the frequency roll off.

 Sure, this is an elementary explanation, but it holds true... Paper has been around for along time and I'd be quite surprised if it went away anytime soon. 

I hope this helps,  Tim

Quote:   "Breakup can be very well damped and smoothed, but the fact remains that the cone is in breakup."

If the Break up is controlled or Eliminated,  is it really in Break Up? 

In an average woofer 4 to 15 inches,  any material will have an issue.  If we design around the issues,  we can have a great sounding speaker.

Metal cones typically have a huge peak,  we use a crossover to get around that,  so why is paper different? 

In any driver, we identify any issues and design around them. 

As far as Micro Information (detail) being portrayed by other materials??? that could be true, but in the 35 years I've been doing this, I find most people find emotion of music can be conveyed in many ways and quite often, it is from a system which does not portray "micro information"....

Sorry,  not trying to start any arguments,  I prefer a detailed speaker myself,  but I've heard some fabulous all paper cone speakers. 

Same with all poly cones,  Kevlar, poly etc. etc. etc.

Tim

Hi ctsooner, Well, Ok,  in many perspectives, you are making the point of the entire thread... materials like ceramic and diamond coated drivers, Kevlar or magnesium, etc are very expensive, but that isn't where you where going with paper, you have been simply insinuating that paper breaks up and isn't worthy of a high end speaker.  I'll end my portion of it here, you are welcome to the last word. 

Notch filters can be used on any type of cone material. You can't take a measurement that tells you that one speaker is more detailed than another.  In general, a stiffer cone offers a more detailed sound than a pliable cone so yes,  if you don't properly treat paper,  it will not be as detailed as a stiff high dollar material,  but I have coated paper cones with the likes of wood glues and epoxy and ended up with a very stiff, very detailed sounding paper cone.  Yes,  the break up was dealt with,  so within my crossover frequency,  there was NO cone break up.

I have zero arguments that many of todays materials make GREAT sounding speakers,  my real argument is just the idea of discounting paper drivers as so far down the ladder when in fact,  you can come up with some very musical and enjoyable speakers at a fraction of the cost of the exotic material drivers. Again,  that is a big portion of the point of this thread.

I have 3 pair of speakers in the works.... one heavy treated poly cones... similar to a Dyn 6 inch and Scan Speak Dome... Another,  I have a pair of ESS Heil Air Motion tweeters from the late 70's, making a high sensitivity 12 inch 3 way out of using a treated pro paper mid and poly 12 inch and lastly an 8 inch 3 way using a 5 1/2 aluminum mid and ribbon tweeter.... So, no, I'm not stuck on paper at all. I just thought that your general state against paper was way too general.... Again,  I do agree with much that you said,  I felt that there was clarification needed to keep it accurate.

Tim

Hi Pete,  thanks for posting your name... So,  If Someone isn't selling a design commercially then???  Send Your un named Largest named Designer this thread. Get his response. Hmmm,  do you really expect anyone to give you their designs.  I'd be glad to give you a few designs,  but unfortunately I haven't been working manufacturing  speakers for some 30 plus years. I have also rubbed shoulders with some of the best names in the industry.  If they are old enough, they may even remember me. So does that make the facts that I quoted any better or worst than your opinion? And again,  I have never posted that paper is better, only that there are very satisfying drivers out there made of paper.  You've been posting here for a few years and made a bunch of strong points on many many threads, But,   I'm sorry brother, Not sure why you continue to push this,  but we are all on solid ground.... I'd love to build with ceramic drivers,   just haven't been able to justify the price for the parts,  but your points have all been listened to.  Maybe we should start a thread on how designers deal with voice coil issues.  Its can be a huge issue,  I haven't seen that thread yet. Roy, John or Peter.... If your out there,  comments from someone as respected as you guys would go along way. 

Sorry for the bit of sarcasm, Tim

Phasing is a whole other subject.... EVERY speaker has phase shift... Period. 6db slopes help minimize it. 12/12 slopes can be 180 degrees out of phase and the designer simply flips the positive & negative on 1 terminal bring phase back around in tolerance... But no matter what every crossover creates some sort of phase shift... it can be minimized.

Many take it that a electrical slope of 6db or 12 db creates an acoustical slope of the same degree, most of the time that is incorrect. You must account for the driver itself. My last MTM's had electrical slopes of 12/18, but the final acoustical crossover was 24db per octave. Final phasing on those speakers was maybe 20 or 25 degrees out of phase worst case depending on frequency. I consider those phase coherent.