When a budget speaker is preferred to a high end one...

@ghdprentice wrote:

This had definitely never happened to me. I research the daylights out of stuff… and speakers typically audition many. I take audio purchases very seriously.

So do I. Have heard my fair share of speakers over the last some 4 decades, and one thing is clear: design and overall implementation matters the very most, and adhering to physics. Expensive parts (and looks) only goes so far, and they don’t guarantee better sonic results - sometimes they even make them worse.

Proper design implementation in a speaker doesn’t come without cost, nor do designs that dictate size with the extra material cost here, but what takes expense to sometimes astronomical levels is luxury cabinetry and expensive drive units and XO parts - without them being strictly necessary from a sonic perspective, if you ask me. Not to mention acoustic treatment for highly and non-controlled dispersive speakers (as they’re most), which can be very expensive as pre-developed and -assembled products.

Peter Snell used almost dirt cheap drivers in his original speaker designs, but they sounded great and were highly respected among audiophiles. He understood the importance of design parameters, close tolerances and implementation as that which really matters, and it paid off. Bob Smith of the now sadly discontinued S.P. Technology speaker range (known for their relatively large dome tweeter-loaded waveguides) had a similar outset; why use a (much) more expensive Scan-Speak Revelator dome tweeter when a cheaper SB Acoustics variant with low fs and the right parameters overall was equally, or even a better fit in the used waveguide? WLM Audio speakers is another example: their previous, great sounding Diva model sported a relatively cheap 10" Eminence coaxial driver, and it easily held on to (also with its own unique qualities) times more expensive exotic driver-fitted high-end speakers, not only to my ears.

Not trying to say very good sounding speakers (given proper acoustical and setup conditions and all that jazz) can avoid being sometimes expensive, for obvious reasons, but such a well designed and -implemented speaker could easily be regarded as relative "budget" compared to an all-out über-luxury ditto with expensive everything from cabinetry and drivers to XO, and still hold its own sonically. As such I’ve heard quite a few relatively "budget" speakers that equaled, or even bettered much more expensive high-end luxury items.

@fsonicsmith wrote:

I don't know if you are agreeing with most of what I said in this thread or not and don't care, great post.

Thank you. 

Like the old adage that a good photographer can get far better results with a cheap camera than a novice can achieve with an exotically expensive camera, an experienced listener can do amazing things with optimally placing any well designed loudspeaker if the supporting components are in place and assuming reasonable compatibility between amp and speaker.

We're definitely in agreement here :) That analogy however comes as a more easily quantifiable scenario on the one side with the "exotically expensive camera" being very likely the objectively better one (but it actually only strengthens your point), which I don't necessarily find to be the case with speakers fitted with expensive drivers, cross-overs, terminals and what not compared to alternatives with cheaper components and less luxurious cabinet finishing; it's all about the implementation of the overall design, system set-up, acoustics and physics. 

By todays standards, I don't think Peter Snell could sell a Type A. But then again, there is certain brand that defies all the odds...

It's certainly a more "technocratic" market today with audiophiles now inclined to scoff at cheap or somewhat scruffy looking drivers because of a paradigm shift and that it's an easy marketing trick and selling point luring in potential buyers with expensive componentry, irrespective really of perceived sonics. It's not necessarily to indicate more expensive drivers (and cross-overs) can't have sonic advantages in certain areas and be well implemented, but it's no guarantee either. Same with finishing and a sad current tendency of lacquer galore to make stuff look "exclusive." Whatever became of oiled real wood finishes that actually looks, smells and feels like real wood? 

Harbeth speakers may be one of the brands to counter the current tendency with their thin paneled (but wisely dampened) cabinets walls, cross-overs that don't look like much (there it is again..), and drive units that don't sport huge magnets or large diameter voice coils. In light of their sonic presentation I don't really care about that. To my ears they sound very good, not least tonally, with very natural sounding voices and commendable coherency. If one likes how they sound why not leave it at that? Seems to me they'll deliver decades of trouble free performance. 

@audition__audio wrote:

Well there is no denying that the best speaker for the individual is the one they like best. However, when you read some of what the Harbeth "guy" says most doesnt make much sense

Are you referring to Alan Shaw of Harbeth, and what’s the written specifics here?

Much of what Harbeth appears to do is create a sound that appeals to a certain listener. No problem with this provided that you understand that the sound coming from every Harbeth speaker, to my ears, is the antithesis of neutral or accurate.

Seems to me the term ’accurate’ has a tendency of getting patented or earmarked as that which is as well a sonic character, but I guess we could argue until Christmas without coming to an agreement here, and that’s fair. Judging by the general popularity of Harbeth speakers however that "certain listener" is plentiful, I’d say. What’s your definition of "accurate" in terms of speakers that are representative here?

As an example of "sins of omission" inaccuracy is (also) a lack of tonal authenticity and coherency, both of which I find are vital areas Harbeth speakers generally excel at. Lack of dynamics (micro and macro) and transient snap is coloration, as is lack of ease, scale and overall image size, etc. What is "designed out" of speakers, as a mantra even, could be throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the process..

Now I would rather listen to a Harbeth than say any number of other designs that are etched, rough or not organic in nature. But I dont think that creating a "house sound" is really what good loudspeaker design is about no matter ones preference. Coloration should be designed out not in. Just an opinion.

House sound to some, musical and natural to others. An area in reproduction that’s very often overlooked, to my ears, and that by its anemic nature in many "hifi" speakers seems to be equated with "accuracy," is the lower midrange to upper bass. It makes for a somewhat leaner sound that in turn accentuates detail in the upper registers as well as the lower bass, but it removes the richness and presence in the "power region," important for setting the overall tone and energy of music, that to me is much more prevalent in live music. Harbeth speakers are better than many others in this respect, which is one of the reasons why I don’t find them colored per se but instead relatively natural sounding, not to say that they’re perfect by any measure. To each their own (preferences).

@audition__audio wrote:

Yes other speakers sound anemic because I think you like all of the information being added by the Harbeth. [...]

Harbeth was really only an example of a relative minority of "hifi" speakers that reproduces named power region with a more proper richness and energy. As a said a less fulsome presentation here emphasizes upper range detail and the lower end (the "hifi" imprinting), but at the expense of a more natural, coherent and live sound - to my ears. 

Well it seems to me that Shaw has said that all amps sound the same through his speakers. To me this statement diminishes the obvious importance of other components and elevates the speaker in terms of significance. This also runs contrary to my experience. 

It's a radical statement by Mr. Shaw, indeed, and it also ties into his assessment on the importance of cables and "burn-in." He's much the engineering mind, but if Harbeth speakers in general are a relatively benign load as seen by the amp it would certainly diminish its importance (a tendency only exacerbated with active configuration sans passive XO's) - not that I'd go so far to say they all sound the same.

I do find it's freeing for a man in his position to not enter the wagon of "everything matters"-craze that can't identify more important "pillars" of core aspects in audio reproduction to focus on. 

I think Shaw is dead wrong about thin walled cabinets and energy dissipation. Sure the energy is removed but by the vibration of the cabinet which adds audible colorations. 

I would refer to poster @cd318's informative reply just above.

His crossover designs run contrary to my belief that first order crossovers are the best compromise and that complexity in this arena is a really poor idea.

My quip: if it works it works. 

I think it is also interesting that much of what Shaw proposes also reduces the cost of his product significantly which, considering the sum of its parts, I find very expensive. 

There appears to be a clear rationale at work in the service of natural sound found in Mr. Shaw's rather analogue and straight forward ways of identifying what a voice actually sounds like and how to come about reproducing it fairly authentically. Few speaker manufacturers, as I see it, are really interested in tonality and dynamics and how to take the necessary steps to get these vital aspects in sound reproduction (in a closer direction of) right. The current, or even latest decades of paradigm seems to have technology dictate design choices from a theory-laden approach (that isn't without merits) much more than designing around a pragmatic outset that would have the close attention to naturally produced sounds pave way for the designs themselves.

If Mr. Shaw can get away with a more natural sound (whoever may agree on this) at reduced material costs, he isn't at the short end of the stick I'd say.