2. speakers
  3. 127087-89852

Why pay so much for super high end?

Most speakers costing $50,000+ use Seas, Scan Speak or Accuton.

In DIY forums most speakers designed use bargain drivers and usually are only 2.0 designs not bookshelf or center speakers to complete a surround system.

I’d love to have a Scan Speak 11 speaker system for atmos with 3 way bookshelves, center and floorstanders.

Why aren’t the designs out there and why are you guys pissing away all your money.

Personally I won’t get an upgrade from my speakers unless it’s of this caliber and neither can I afford nor want to donate money to these thieves.

A 3rd party 11 speaker atmos scan Speak system would be nice but I’m not spending $250,000.

Why on earth aren’t there designs out there for this and why do you all piss away your money?

I don’t get why hi fi isn’t all DIY even honest factory direct companies mark up 300%.

Unless you pull in $1+ million a year and don’t have any time I don’t get it.

Are you guys lazy?

Someone easily could design a great crossover and cabinets for everyone and the days of paying over $3,500 for a pair of loud speakers if you got some time or know a friend who could build cabinets would be over. I know of people who could design cabinets that rival $100,000 speakers and cost less than 1% than that.  Someone with some experience could easily design a diamond, beryllium and soft dome and various versions for various tastes.

I don’t get it. Speakers are so simple.  Crossovers cabinets and drivers.

You guys just throw your money away I don’t understand it why?


funaudiofun

Showing 9 responses by douglas_schroeder

douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
Logic on a par with Darwinian theory. :(
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
bcgator, thanks for bringing up the topic. I appreciate your thoughts. You are correct; I normally would not respond to such a thread. I have found that it is often a waste of time to challenge someone who is so delcarative. My rude post was due to a different motivation, and I anticipated a response which would allow me to state why I made such a flatly derisive comment. So, thank you for challenging me and giving me the opportunity to explain...

You're right, normally I would not bother to join in a thread like this. I also normally would attempt not to make such a dismissive, offensive remark. I prefer to discuss and enjoin in friendly debates rather than belittle. I'm glad that you felt it was out of character for me, because it WAS out of character, intentionally so. I thought it a good opportunity to demonstrate how rude it is to without justification condemn someone else's worldview while engaged in a discussion of audio. We have a regular occurrence here where individuals feel they need to slam religion and faith when discussing audio. Some regularly offend and marginalize people of faith. It often takes the form of using a thread on the topic of skepticism of an audio product and turning it toward skepticism and dismissal of faith/religion. 

After decades of study on the topic I have concluded that Darwinism is poor science, but I am well aware of the fact that my post had no pertinence to the discussion and that it was likely offensive to many. In the same way inflammatory comments deriding religion/faith in other threads usually have no pertinence to audio, and offends many. I believe it is brought into the discussion for purposes of marginalizing others and belittling their worldview. 

Often when I see pitifully poor logic the thought, "Just like Darwinian theory," enters my mind. So, my post was not bereft of any connection to the OP.  I saw it as an opportunity to let people feel how it is when someone rudely dispenses with another's worldview without pertinence to the topic at hand. If people were offended, maybe they will stop to consider in the future how inconsiderate it is to take a blindside swipe at others just because you can.  


douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

Shadorne, I appreciate your thoughtful, respectful reply, which is what should happen on this site, not rude dismissal. :)

We will be at odds on this topic, and I do not see the article you referenced as very strong evidence for the idea that creatures have the capacity to morph over time. Research conducted in labs for decades on tens of thousands of generations of fruit flies, for example, attempting directed, forced change to the DNA shows that DNA is extremely stubbornly resistive to change, not amenable to change. Imo, the search for a mechanism to drive DNA change via viruses is a desperate one to save a failing theory.

As you linked to a resource, I'll share one as well. A good introductory book on Intelligent Design is "It Couldn't Just Happen" by Lawrence O Richards. It shows some of the phenomenal challenges scientifically which stand against Darwinism.

Anyway, I did not intend to commandeer the thread or throw it off entirely. Feel free to reply and we can let it be. I invite you to open discussion with me on the topic, and we may find it an enjoyable cordial discussion in private. :)

 

douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
cdk84, I got back to you via the message system here. 
douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

prof, obviously we see things differently. I respect that, and I appreciate your reasoned reply. I consider there to be a level of respect between us. I think if you were to scan some of my posts historically you would find that interjection of that sort is not characteristic of my contributions here. I believe that in the majority of instances in the last decade where I have contributed things pertaining to religion or Intelligent Design it has been in response to what I consider marginalization or misinformation. I have attempted to abide by the protocol of the forums where audio is to be the topic, and I have also attempted to steer the conversation back onto the topic of audio. After seeing many instances of derision I decided it was time to mete out a bit of what people of a similar persuasion to me have endured for years. In fact it happens with sickening regularity. :(

We have both expressed our opinions, and I thank you for the cordiality of your reply.


randy-11, you have chosen to ridicule rather than learning through experience. I used to be that way regarding cables; I understand much of the cable skeptic, or perhaps the cheap cable, thought process. "Lots" of money is a rather nebulous, slippery descriptor, and it doesn't help your objection.  

I won't continue to draw into the discussion Darwinism, though based on your reply I could. I do not care to respond with an offensive retort, showing the marginalization that I requested not be exercised.

If you wish to discuss matters you will need to express yourself more maturely and logically. :)

douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
To balance things a bit in terms of the faith/science dichotomy which is being discussed currently, on today's news at Yahoo.com there is an article about police apprehending a man who had a gun. The gun appears to be quite old, and the reaction on the Net/comments on the article of some is that this is evidence that the man has time traveled! Now, if you were to ask me I would tell you that there is not much chance of the gun actually having been transported in time, much less less the owner of the gun. That from a creationist! ;) 

Now, I will say at the forefront of these comments that I do not accept human time travel, nor the existence of aliens for which there is little (I'm being very generous using that term "little") credible evidence. I consider it fantasy, a childish whim outside the boundaries of hard science and reality. I'm sure there are some people who might argue the "theoretical" reality of it. I'm unimpressed by such discussion, and you'll not soon change my thinking on that. I could mock people who hold such beliefs, and I do mean belief in the fullest sense of the word. But what does that accomplish? I would make me feel superior for a time, but would engender the disdain and even hate that exists too much in the world. 

My point in bringing this up? I consider it to be faith, only of a secular kind, denying reality. I observe people of a secular dint believing all manner of what I would consider to be foolish things. Humans have been "wired" for belief, it seems. Let the Darwinists credit nature, and let me credit God for that. Either way, there certainly is no lack of faith exhibited by Naturalists in the existence of a knowledge vacuum. The atheist needs to watch when pointing fingers at the creationist for their faith, for there are as many odd and incredible things believed by those who I consider to idolize science as anyone. :) 

Which brings us indirectly to aftermarket audio cables! Audiophiles such as myself might be mocked for believing in the capacity of cabling of various designs to confer sonic changes. Having conducted several interviews with manufacturers and exploring the designs which would be credited with the sonic changes I find it interesting that it is still considered a faith proposition by some.  I do not see the argument about cables as a conflict between science and faith, but rather a conflict between theory and observation, which can only be settled by observation., unless one wishes to dump observation in favor of theory. When there are such profoundly weird things believed in the quasi-scientific or socio-political realms I don't feel too badly for believing my senses in observational practice of using power cords. :) 

douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 
randy-11, have you seen my review of the Audio by Van Alstine ABX Comparator? You may find that interesting. That's my forthright contribution to my own curiosity about ABX, and a gift to the community because I took significant risk as a reviewer to put on trial, as it were, my perception that the changes I hear between cables are real. 

Somehow, I wonder if you will gleefully pick it apart, and if that's the case then so be it. I'm not interested in arguing about the work, but it will stand as is. As with my faith, so also in the experience of using aftermarket cables; I seek more than just an experience. :)

Regarding cables in your post above, you asserted, "another confounding factor is that changing cables often breaks up corrosion, which could have been done w/o using a different cable." Have you conducted blind testing to confirm your hypothesis? If not, then what makes you think it is so? I suggest belief.  :) 



douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

I see a lot of similarities to the arrogance and insolence rampant on college campuses.

douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

What might be the impact of show attendance upon a person's perception of value of a speaker? Is there a variance in show attentance which might explain the difference in perception between DIY and non-DIY?

More to discover