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

I had a neighbor that was an audiophile and a cat person, he could have really used those covers.

I am cheating here since the high end speaker I wanted was the baby brother to the Yamaha NS5000, the Yamaha NS3000, and I have not heard it. The NS5000 I have heard and thought it was great.

My son (or maybe the wife) recently put a hole in the driver of my circa 2012 KEF LS50. So I got the $1500 LS50 Meta to replace it, since I always want to have a LS50 around. I loved the sound of the LS50 Meta so much that I cancelled the plans to buy the $9K Yamaha NS3000. This was for a small room with KEF KC62 sub.

I explain this phenomena by the fact that the LS50 Meta sounded so fine.

@steve59 This is how I plan on saving my Blades from kids (and wife).

Kef Blade 2 Meta Speaker Dust Covers | DigitalDeckCovers

When the grandkids are over

When is a car with square wheels preferable to a car with round ones? - on a square road))

Without being able to hear them I took a chance on tekton. Only thing I can say is I have no regrets about that decision. They are not pretty but as an audiophile I only care about the sound.

There will always be people who equate the $$ cost of the speaker to the quality of the speaker and overlook other factors.

Also there will be people that put measurements above everything else. They will always equate good sound with good measurements.

There will always be people who think that THEY THEMSELVES are as good at deciding how to make a good speaker than speaker engineers and designers (Peter Snell, Richard Vandersteen, Omar Bose, Jim Theil, Matt Polk, etc.)

I say just buy what makes you happy and learn to live with someone who chooses a different path, a different speaker. If you really think you can't tolerate all the bad speakers in the world, just make a pair of your own.

22 years ago I was on a mission to find the best quality tower speaker design I could find for $10K or less. I listened to a lot of speakers and for the money I didn't hear anything that matched the overall balance, dynamics, transparency, soundstage and ease of listening than a pair of Hales T-5's. They were floor models, so I bought them at a fantastic discount. They were worth 3X what I paid for them and blew away speakers costing 2X as much.

@analogj 

You reminded me of the time I was at a show where the same manufacturer was exhibiting 2 large floorstanding models.

The cheaper model was about £3k and it's bigger brother was nearer £10k.

The bigger speakers clearly had more weight, authority and scale but somehow something essential had been lost in translation.

The larger speaker just sounded monochrome in comparison - and for me, nothing else could compensate for that.

No amount of scale, power handling, image size can make up for a dilution of instrument timbre.

Nothing.

The cheaper model sounded like music and the larger one sounded like a demonstration.

i just moved & downsized from my Acoustic Research AR-92 to a speaker i bought based solely on a review by Andrew Robinson, XTZ Spirit 4 - since i'm in a new listening room, i don't really know how they should sound - my experience so far is that vocals (M & F) sound superb, as do piano & acoustic guitar - however, when there are too many 'sources', it sounds muddled to me, like it can't reproduce too many voices or instruments at the same time - i would love to have someone test them for me on his/her own system (yes, i realize everything matters - but, i just want to know if the speakers are ok) and then i can make adjustments as needed - i live in Foley, AL and i have not found a hi-fi shop or anything like it - i would appreciate any input or comments - thanks, Mark

I was listening to two different floorstanders, I forgot which models. One retailed under $3000, the other $1000,  both used. The former had detail, frequency extension, etc., but sounded buttoned up, almost inert. The latter didn't have the precision, but it sounded more generous, more engaging. I preferred the latter. 

I think that the crux of what I am trying to say about the Harbeth sound is that the way the speakers are designed excludes the possibility of neutrality and "natural" sound.

I dont dislike Harbeth speakers I just object to the adjectives often used to describe their sound. With respect, I think that this extra sauce is what Harbeth owners like but I dont think that it is as true to the source as other speaker designs.

@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.

In my systems I have rarely if ever experienced a speaker at 1/3 the cost trumping another. However, in others' systems I have. As others have already mentioned much has to do with room placement, personal preference, room treatment application (or lack thereof) and system synergy. What's also key is the components' quality, or more specifically lack of quality. More expensive speakers in general will be more revealing, fleshing out weaknesses in gear so it may sound more fatiguing, may exhibit loose bass, etc. making the less expensive speaker preferred. Less expensive speakers commonly have "sins of omission", which may be a good thing depending on your system.  

Explanation is simple. The guy who made the cheap speaker was a lot smarter than the other guy.

@ataudioamp.

I don't own Wilsons.A 70hz. sine wave is about 14 feet long.If you have large dynamic drivers in a small room that can't be brought out in the room boundaries to minimize reflections, EQ is a band aid at most.What I'm saying is people i know who made their room sound better a lot of times went with smaller speakers.This improved sound stage, imaging, and overall low frequency integration with the room. Proper crossover design is the  #1 priority to make a speaker sound it's best in any room. EQ is needed when this not realized.

@audition__audio 

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. 

The entire thin-walled concept as devised by the BBC research department in the 1970s seeks to remove audible resonances from the all important midrange.

Harbeth claims that their lossy cabinets help to lower these resonances into the bass regions and below the threshold of hearing.

It is a particularly audacious claim given that so many others seek to do the opposite, namely increase stiffness and mass to their cabinets in order to attempt to physically suppress these resonances.

Yet it's also a claim that's never been refuted in almost half a century.

Can 2 diametrically opposed ways of trying to do the same thing both be right?

In  this case I would guess it depends upon whatever priority the designer deigns is the most important - the purest midrange or the hardest bass slam?

@pcrhkr Your reference to the Ultralinear 100s brings back memories.

It was said that if you removed them from the carton and set them next to it and a big gust of wind came up, the speakers would blow away and the cartons would remain in place.

Industry Nickname: Ultrasloppy 100s

My own story:

I worked for a dealer and had a pair of these sitting on the highest shelf. We had a mishap and one of them fell off the edge of a shelf and landed squarely on top of a Pioneer HPM200. Being quite upset (it was my fault) I rushed over to check out the damage and discovered a totally disenintegrated Ultralinear 100 and a PIoneer HPM200 without a scratch. True story.

Yes other speakers sound anemic because I think you like all of the information being added by the Harbeth. Again this is what I hear which is precisely what I expect given Shaw's design decisions. As you say to each his own and it should be no other way. 

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. 

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. 

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.

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. 

@tmaker - A smaller speaker offer better placement flexibility. Often large speakers work just fine, unless they are relying on distance for integration of drivers (I am looking at your Wilson). If you are overpowering a room at low frequencies, that is what EQ is for.

Sometimes i wonder that when buying speakers, we should leave our eyes at home and just bring our ears.The biggest mistake I've seen is too large a speaker for a given space to operate. A quality 2-way stand mount in a smaller room will almost always outperform a larger full range speaker.they will not overpower the room and image way better.Great imaging is the most important quality of a great sound IMO.

I remember back in the 1980s several speakers come to mind that were very reasonable cost that sounded better than many higher priced speakers.

1. Ultralinier 100s. (El cheapo components.)

2. Advent speakers.

3. Radio Shack Minimus 7

Now. My DIY speakers. :)

@flyfish77 

+1 NHT bookshelf.  The original SuperOne was my first bookshelf speakers in my audiophile journey 20 years ago.  The bottom end is down to 56 hz so I pair it with a AR subwoofer.  With Harmon Kardon AVR 25ii, the combo gives a "quasi" full-range down to 35 hz range.  The bass notes are weighty but a bit laid back.  Then NHT came up with SB1 to replace your SuperZero and SB2 to replace my SuperOne, with a better bass extension down to 51 hz.  In 2002, NHT released the mighty SB3 with the bass extension down all the way to 39 hz.  With the hype from reviewers around that time including Stereophile, SB3 starts getting my attention but I was not on a quest for it due to the limited availability in the used market.  This year I was finally able to locate one pair from local area and, boy, I fell in love with its intoxicated midrange and mighty bass (for its size) and starts building a second system in my bedroom.  Paired it with Parasound A23, the bass from this close box digs deep, nimble and uncolored as said in Stereophile.  I even retire AR sub.

Sorry for being rambling but the point I try to make is a budget, nearly vintage pair of speakers could perform really well in a cozy or midium sized space.  With carefully matched gears and well thought out positions, they could potentially be on par with modern bookshelf speakers 10 times higher in price.  I did a 10-songs  recording of various genres of music to demonstrate that and hope you enjoy it.  The audio gain level for video recording using iPhone 13 is a bit low in the beginning.  I do apologize for that.  If you know how to adjust the gain level in iphone recording, please let me know.

For my office setup, I owned (consecutively) both version 1 and version 2 of the venerable KEF LS50 wireless speakers. Was happy with them at first but after a while they began to grate and sound fatiguing. Sold both and bought a pair of LSA Signature 50s, $600 (one fourth the price of the KEFs). Much nicer. Of course the LSAs don’t have built-in amplifiers and DACs but they don’t need anything fancy to sing, just a decent little desktop amp.

My Tekton Moabs, $4,500, sound better than any other pair of speakers I’ve tried in my listening room, including ones costing two and three times as much.

I now have a pair of Raidhos on the way, a hair over $100,000, that impressed me greatly at two different audio shows. Those may finally outclass the Tektons, but it still might not be night and day. We’ll see (hear).

@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).

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. 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. 

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.

Never happened to me; only so called engineers" here about tend to think they can always build it better & cheaper signed- the inspector

@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 were you shocked by the number of parts or their love of non air core inductors?

I checked on images of Harbeth crossovers and was shocked. I dont care about the quality of the parts so much as the design itself. Check out some of the crossovers on Thiel speakers. 

I think I am about to test the OP’s theory out soon with this speaker.

SIERRA-2EX PAIR - Ascend Acoustics

I was planning to replace my 10-year-old KEF LS50’s with a bookshelf speaker around $10K USD. However, the speaker listed above has a driver that I love on my headphones, and I have gear that would work with that driver on bookshelf’s. It is not a cost issue but a sonic issue on this choice.

Nope, I understood you and do not agree. Less revealing does not blunt anything. it will make it worse. That is called distortion. If there is a shelving in the frequency response that has nothing to do with cost, that is a design decision. Cheap speakers can have as much high frequency extension as an expensive one in audible frequencies.

What you describe is Philelore. Not real, but often repeated. You simply have a speaker with a shelved frequency response. It has nothing to do with more distortion (or less). A distorting speaker will make a distorted poor recording that much worse.

i must comment that one member here misunderstood my meaning, i was not talking about speakers which put out bona-fide distortion, i was talking about less-revealing speakers esp. in the treble range. many poor recordings have obnoxiousness in the treble range, and a less-revealing speaker will tend to blunt or obscure those treble failings. ONLY in that limited respect do such speakers "sound better" on the vast universe of mediocre recordings out there [like the ones i have found at flea markets and garage sales and goodwill stores since the 70s], only a minority of recordings are "audiophile-approved" and i suspect this commenter is not familiar with the mediocre [worn or poorly made] recordings i have and like a lot, as well as my experience in listening to those particular recordings with a 50 year old set of inexpensive speakers in a non-audiophile-approved room.  similarly, a speaker that images in a substandard way will not as eagerly remind its listener of a flawed/poorly made stereo recording, it will tend to make lopsided stereo mixes less obvious. these recordings NEVER sounded better to my ears on fancier equipment, their flaws were made too obvious to me. 

The video / audio comparison is flawed and similar. The similarity is just like audio, once you reach a certain resolution (assuming equal viewing distance), then there is no improvement. Where it breaks down is that increased video resolution means increased bandwidth. We often don't like increase bandwidth because we can see flaws, i.e. poor skin complexion, that may be hidden in a lower bandwidth image. For audio, we tend not to dislike full bandwidth, though in similar fashion, if there is excessive high frequency energy, i.e. cymbal crashes, we may prefer a subdued version to the real one. A cheap speaker versus an expensive one does not work that way. I can guy a cheap speaker that easily does 20KHz without dropoff.

Distortion? No one likes distortion in video, whether optical or at the signal level. Think of blocking artifacts from compression. That is distortion. We don't like it because it is unnatural. Unless we are listening to music that has inherent distortion, electric guitar and other things were we associate distortion as art, what evidence is there we like distortion??  I looked. I cannot find any. More phile lore. I may have to trademark that "Philelore".   No, a distorted speaker just sounds bad. It never makes a bad recording sound good. It usually makes it sound worse.  I cannot say I have ever enjoyed a bad recording more on a cheap speaker or system. I have enjoyed a bad recording more by using an equalizer. A more expensive speaker is not a gurantee of better frequency response once it is in your room.

@m669326

To take an extreme case, a $200 speaker will very rarely sound better to the ttypical ears compared to a $2000 speaker. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but that’s my sense of things.

Mine too.

I generally agree about a calibration point but I do remember one occasion back in the 1990s when I auditioned quite a few speakers and none of them were doing it for me.

I was getting quite frustrated with the situation, the dealers and even myself (was this just me?).

I felt considerable sympathy towards the staff too. It wasn’t their fault that so many of the well reviewed designs of the day just sounded plain wrong to my ears.

As I was about to give up one of the sales staff suggested I give a listen to the bookshelf Rega Kytes (originals)... and suddenly - that was it!

Those small boxes produced a coherent sound that had no time anomalies and could communicate better than speakers costed which many times more.

I enjoyed those speakers for many years.

Eventually a friend introduced me to jazz, mainly Davis and Coltrane, and at that point I realised that the Kytes couldn’t do it full justice and began looking for speakers that could, as well as not losing the wonderful communication skills of the Rega’s.

Those Kytes cost £200 back then, so maybe they’d be around £400 today, but they sounded better to me than many much more expensive designs.

I’m fact, when it comes to the midrange, I’m not sure if I’ve heard anything much better since.

@emrofsemanon

Good point. Resolution can indeed be a double edged sword. Imagine watching a grainy scratchy black and white movie through the latest 4k TVs without it being remastered or upscaled.

You might be better off with something like 720p or even lower resolution.

I bet most young people today would have difficulty understanding how many of us were perfectly happy watching television on 19 inch black and white screens once upon a time.

As televisions got better - 405 to 625 lines and the introduction of colour, so did the recording side.

It had to.

@emrofsemanon I have never found a less capable system to make music more enjoyable. That's just some bizarre phile lore that gets bandied about.

nobody here seems to have accentuated one salient issue- the world of audio recordings is not all "audiophile-approved." the majority of surviving recordings are decidedly of sub-par audio quality, and even sub-par musical quality, and if you listen to these through a less ruthlessly revealing speaker system/total audio system with mainly "sins of omission," you stand a good chance of not being able to clearly hear the aforementioned audible sins, thereby allowing for a greater amount of relative enjoyment of a greater number of recordings then less sullied by the [now] glossed-over sins of commission on a mediocre record.

I love Google experts. So much fun. A Kippel system at 100K does what far more expensive systems used to do, but it does it far better. A big turntable can increase the price. No longer a need for multimillion dollar anechoic chambers any more. All an large acoustic camera gives you is speed. Much of the cost is the anechoic chamber they are often in. You can use smaller ones for wavefront studies

There was a time when Dolby did not exist. No Bose. Heck not even Magico. Fortunately they didn’t go in with loser attitude. Dolby of late has created far more fundamental IP around audio than Matsushita has. Heard of Sonos? They could gave said we are too small and gave up. They didn’t and know are one of the largest sellers of audio products in the world

You seemed to completely lacked the comprehension of what I said about leveraging others expertise, MFG, and cost structures. There is still much room for innovation. Look at Kii or Dutch and Dutch. How about the Purifi woofer from a small company with some of the lowest distortion in it’s class.

You are not an entrepreneur. It is okay. Not everyone is.

@theaudioamp in the entire history of audio, no one spent more money on research than Matsushitsu (they maintained 3 institutes and hundreds of engineers, conductors, masters) ...
100K? - this is baby talk ... for example, the austic camera of the VEF factory (Latvia) cost around $ 10 million ...
or this Dynaudio

this market is monstrously overheated - my advice to you is to quit it))) It is unlikely that you will be able to create a Stradivari violin for the price of a sandwich ... there are a lot of people who want it (and these are smart guys)

Large manufacturers often don’t have an industries best people. The best people don’t like bureaucracy. There is no need for hand made either. As well using contract MFG you often access better cost supply chains. Have you seen how much human touching is involved in high end B&W speaker MFG. With speakers you have independent driver companies so you may have as much tech access as anyone else. The worlds best speaker testing system is $100K only. The largest barriers are mainly marketing. Large volume will always drive costs down, but volume requires a beast on the sales and support end. Then we have that volume usually appeals to glitz not necessarily accuracy.

@theaudioamp why do you need it? - Are you a manufacturer ? ... don't reinvent the wheel! .. here, as in any production process - the better the components, the intellectual capabilities of engineers - the higher the result (this is the general temperature in the hospital - with the exception of frankly illiterate products) ... A small manufacturer is not able to compete with a major professional ... only if he is more professional and his goods are "handmade" (but then the price will be higher than mass production) .

@serjio can you make a knowledgeable statement wrt to volume mfg, markup and resale? How about the cost for a fancy product look but contributes nothing to sound? What about adding really expensive parts like ultra expensive caps and wire that provides limited or no improvement yet significantly increases cost.

Inexpensive drivers have relatively low distortion at low volume levels. It’s possible to make a relatively inexpensive speaker with good dispersion and somewhat flat response. Don't push it too hard and it can sound okay. Most expensive speakers do use better quality drivers that allows playing louder with low distortion. There is no guarantee it will have a flat response or good dispersion. Usually more expensive speakers control mechanical resonances better but no guarantee. No guarantee on a lot of things. Some of these companies seem to have seat of pants approaches to design.

Not quite the same thing, but when I auditioned GoldenEar Triton 1’s they sounded much better than speakers costing much more. 
 

I think we should just buy what we like 😄

It all depends upon the room and how the speakers integrate into the rest of the system.  With the right components, inexpensive speakers can sound really good.

I have had NHT Super Zero 2.1 speakers in my secondary system for around twelve years. Over this time, I have made upgrades to the my system that have made these $100 speakers sound better and and better.

The NHT speakers are the Front and Center speakers in a 5.1 Yamaha AVR system with a sub woofer.  The speakers are perfect for the room because they are small and can be mounted on the top of the wall on mounts that are aimed slightly down.  These acoustic suspension speakers sound great despite being mounted almost flush to the wall.

As I have progressed from streaming via an Apple TV/Apple Music via Airplay to Roon through Airplay to an Orchard Audio Pecan Pie streamer/DAC as a Roon Endpoint, the two channel sound quality kept improving.

Recently, my old sub woofer died and I replaced it with an SVS 3000 Micro sub woofer.  Between fine tuning the programmable sub woofer and changing crossover setting to the SVS recommended 120 Hz, the sound quality for music increased significantly.  The SQ on my secondary system has gotten much closer to the sound quality of my much more expensive primary 2 channel system.

The point of all of this is that in my case, inexpensive speakers that are well suited to the room can be tweaked to sound really good.  The Siuper Zero's might be the least expensive component in my system, but they do not hold back the sound at all.

I think there is a calibration point below which a speaker cannot compete with something more expensive. To take an extreme case, a $200 speaker will very rarely sound better to the ttypical ears compared to a $2000 speaker. Perhaps I’m mistaken, but that’s my sense of things. So at what point is the cut off? Is a pair of $800 speakers likely to be able to sound better to any given individual than something that cost four times as much? I think it depends on one’s ears and whether one is in a used or new market. At any rate, when I am considering purchases like speakers I try to start off looking just beyond what I consider to be the calibration point and then go upward as necessary to find something I like. 

Outstanding posts!

If I recall correctly,the Dahlquist DQ-10 used a $5 Motorola piezo as a "super tweeter". Not many of us will dispute the legitimacy of this speaker as one of the most impactful speakers of our time. Genius has a way of leap frogging price barriers. You may remember a young man who built a 700 watt power amp inside a Folgers coffee can years ago? Then there are those occasions where all the stars line up, and gifted hands (and, minds) are given the freedom to operate without limitations. This is where the ground trembles (sometimes, literally) in my view, and the "state of the art" takes a giant leap forward.

A couple more comments on "budget speakers":

As a modder/hot rodder of hifi gear, we learned pretty early that the raw drivers are not necessarily the weakest link in the chain. When things are removed/replaced that "make things sound worse" the sonic results can be stunning. When the audio signal is presented in very good shape to the tensil leads on the raw drivers, "audiophile characteristics" suddenly appear, and the magic happens. Very consistently.

@fsonicsmith Well done with the Advent and B&W mods. My guess is that they retained the sonic "personality" that you loved about them, but are now infinitely more musical. Money well spent.

John

Years ago I had Mirage M1si speakers driven by a Krell KSA-250 amp and in my very open room it sounded great. After my move to a smaller house (divorce) I sold it all and ended up with a simple NAD receiver and Triangle Titus XS stand mount speakers. Strange as it may seem the NAD/Triangle sound was pretty amazing. A little bright that I tamed with positioning and wall covers but overall it was good. I still have the Triangles stored in my closet as they have been replaced but it was a good transition to a great sounding speaker on a budget. 

We used to be small time commercial bee keepers.  I realized at some point that if i wanted to make any money the honey had to cost a lot.  

So, we did very nice packaging and branding (i used to be in marketing) and sold it at the most expensive market around.  When we negotiated the price I said that I wanted to be the most expensive honey on the shelf and have the standard mark up. 

Since most beekeepers are horrible marketers our honey sold like crazy with hundreds of jars selling out in hours.  We charged wholsale more than the others we're charging retail.  Another outlet we did custom branding for sold our honey for double what others were getting retail. 

When people evaluate for quality price is a huge part of what they use to determine quality.  

With speakers the elephant in the room is usually the room. You play the cards your dealt in that department but nobody really likes to talk about it because it's too complicated to talk about and too individual. Fixing a room isn't as fun as unboxing expensive new speakers and discussing them. 

At this point in history for most rooms good sound is pretty darn cheap. New components are designed using maths unimaginable in the near past. Speaker and amp design isn't rocket science. Setting snake oil aside you can have an excellent sounding system for very short money these days. 

The used market is also affordable unless you need to have the same vintage piece that everyone else must have. 

Confirmation bias is so strong in audio that it's basically inseparable. If you managed to realize that a cheaper speaker can sound very good, you're one the few. Congratulations.