Why pay so much for super high end?

Hi gdhal,

More channels than four seems to me like the manufacturers’ pushing 1080p TVs to those that already owned 720p with screen sizes 50" and under. If you sit the proper distance from the two different resolution 50" TVs of the same quality otherwise, you will not see any improvement in the picture unless the you have eyesight like an eagle.

The 1080’s improved resolution is visible with 60" and larger TVs, but they put crappy motion processors in the standard (affordable) TVs to meet competitive average-consumer price points so you live with a picture with higher-definition motion slur ( the worst) unless you buy the best. The old Panasonic 720p plasma’s kill the newer 1080p sets for blacks, depth, and natural picture rendition unless you go to the ultra-expensive Oled sets. Same with multi-channel audio vs 2 channel IMO.

I sold my Martin Logan Stage center channel speaker and mono Marantz MA700 center channel amp after trying just my two-channel system with my processor in "phantom center" mode along with 2 rear channels. The continuity of motion, tone, and height is much better to my ears. Much more realistic sound in every way than trying to integrate a center channel above or below my screen.

I run the L/R out of the processor to my hi-end 2-channel preamp’s balanced inputs via long XLR ICs and set the preamp’s volume at unity gain, so those two channels get the best possible source quality. Of course, the processor is not in the loop for two-channel music listening, which is 99% of the time for me. I confess that when I do use the processor for movies or multi-channel music, I set the processor to "Pure Audio" mode, bypassing the Audyssey room correction and any other circuitry possible inside the processor. Possible and preferable because my room and my 2-channel rig are right.

Best to you gdhal,
Dave

MB, I have to say it again, twice in the same thread. "Seldom have I heard of a more logical, compelling solution". I salute you.

" This is obserd. "I don’t have time"? Figuring most of you are paid $100 an hour or less with designs in hand, in a couple of hours you can basically earn $10,000 an hour being a speaker builder saving yourself tons of money.

And you guys are all defending these mark ups? Why? What do you owe them? Many people don’t realize they’re just buying 3rd party drivers and a moderately easily (with the knowledge in hand) designed cabinet and crossovers. I didn’t know that and when I found out I was pissed. I never stopped to think about it. People are commenting on mark ups aren’t taking in to account that while you need a lot of knowledge to design crossovers and cabinets, you need beyond amateur skill to replicate it. beyond amateur.

So go on saying you "don’t have time" or "every other industry marks up" which is ridiculous rebuttals. Keep feeding this crooked industry the one that I’ve grown to hate with a serious passion."

You do a lot of talking. Now put your money where your mouth is. I'll give you 2 weeks to build a speaker that sounds as good as a pair of $2500 Vandersteen Model 2's.  You can have a max budget of $5000. That's 2x full list price. The only requirements are that the speakers need to be time and phase correct like the Vandersteen's, and they have to measure at least as well. Mere child's play for someone with your verbal skills.

Do that and I'll reimburse you for the cost of materials up to 5k, and give you an additional 25k. You can show us all how easy it is to make 10k an hour. I pay cash and have no problem coming up with the money.

What I don't want, is a ridiculous debate. Either take me up on my offer and build the speakers, or not. Its up to you. I won't waste anymore time responding to your BS claims when I can have meaningful conversations the other members here. They have something real to contribute. 

This thread has seemingly strayed off topic, nevertheless, I’ll add my opinion. "Music", as performed by a band with live instruments, sounds best and can be more accurately reproduced with 2 channel stereo. "Noise" as in everything other than "music" such as movies with helicopters, bomb blasts, etc. can be more accurately reproduced with "surround" sound. Curious with surround sound though is where does it end? The original surround sound was 5.1. Latest technology is 22.1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22.2_surround_sound I suppose theoretically there is infinite dimension to where sound could emanate from. This is one reason why the Grateful Dead knew what they were doing from, among other things, a sound reproduction perspective.
https://www.google.com/search?q=wall+of+sound+grateful+dead&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&a...

The whole point was is that it doesn’t take all that much time or effort to build high quality speakers that someone has designed for you. Either that or you have a friend who can build you cabinets because most Americans do. Making a crossover is incredibly easy and soldering is actually pretty fun. Building cabinets is actually fun too for a lot of people.

Time is not an exscuse. That’s just a random thought you guys come up with on a spot because I don’t know you’re afraid you’re wasting your money?

If you have time to listen to your speakers AND rant and rave with me on Audiogon you got some time to build some cabinets and crossovers. It takes a day or two. And if someone designed a sophisticated enough cabinet and crossover for you, which is entirely in the realm of reality, you could get $100,000+ speakers for a couple of grand. You could build Focal Grand Utopia BEs if someone with some experience took some time to make designs for just a fraction of the price probably save $170,000 off their $180,000 price.  

And this isn’t a constant hobby that requires constant attention. You build them in one or two days and you’re done.

This is obserd. "I don’t have time"? Figuring most of you are paid $100 an hour or less with designs in hand, in a couple of hours you can basically earn $10,000 an hour being a speaker builder saving yourself tons of money.

And you guys are all defending these mark ups? Why? What do you owe them? Many people don’t realize they’re just buying 3rd party drivers and a moderately easily (with the knowledge in hand) designed cabinet and crossovers. I didn’t know that and when I found out I was pissed. I never stopped to think about it. People are commenting on mark ups aren’t taking in to account that while you need a lot of knowledge to design crossovers and cabinets, you need beyond amateur skill to replicate it. beyond amateur.


So go on saying you "don’t have time" or "every other industry marks up" which is ridiculous rebuttals. Keep feeding this crooked industry the one that I’ve grown to hate with a serious passion.

davt, seldom have I heard of a more logical, compelling solution to a serious problem. I salute you.

mbl, you state, "if you have an instrument play live ..."

I think that’s the point of difference, mbl. I don’t often listen to a single instrument or any other small source of music; usually it’s a group of musicians who can be playing substantial instruments. That group extends over space. A few square inches of speaker is no substitute for 30 square feet of sound board, for example.

To reproduce this sound requires square feet of speaker, extended over some significant space.

" Well mbl, I don't have a performance in my music room, ever. Even a string quartet with continuo would be a little tight.

With my system, I try to simulate a concert, with the listener (me) positioned in the middle of the dress circle. That means performers in front, and reflections from the sides and back. I don't think that two speakers do that as well as six. I explained how I do it. YMMD."

You'll have to bear with me because I'm not the best at explaining things. The reason I used a live performance as an example was to show, at least to me, that a 2 channel system seems to be better equipped to replicate the performance than a surround system. Your quote above shows where we differ. With surround, you try to replicate side and rear reflections with information coming from speakers. My opinion is that if you have an instrument play live, it will use the acoustics of the room. If you then set up a 2 channel system so that the instrument is at the same spot in the room as the live instrument, why not let the recording use the same characteristics of the room, just like what happens live? 

I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to start an argument here. This is just how I see the issue, and if others are getting results using other methods, that's perfectly fine. It would be foolish for anyone to do things any other way than what works best for them.

Good question from the original poster. I like to buy the expensive speakers for health reasons. I started to have some real lung/respiratory issues from burning piles of my money in a bonfire in the middle of the living room floor. I found that if I bought expensive stereo speakers from thieves I have less smoke in the house and breath easier. The only real problem is that with less money smoke my health improved and my medical costs went down. I fixed that by starting to smoke 3 packs a day at $10 a pack. So, it all works out. 

Got it Terry.  I have friends that spend the same amount of money on a mid-fi surround system with a crappy sub that a good hi-end starter system would have cost and then ask me for advice because they quickly begin to notice the issues with muffled, chesty, boxy, or overly-bright vocals on their cheap center channel, discontinuous motion from left-to-right and front-to-rear, one-note muddy bass from the sub, etc. and want a miracle cure.  My advice always is: get the room and the front L/R right and then, if you have funds remaining, consider judiciously adding channels of like quality.  Of course, it is too late for them at that point.

No argument from me, DL. I am suggesting that top notch 6 channel is better than top notch 2 channel, and by that I mean the same electronics driving the same speakers.

Two great speakers with an equally great amp and front end in an acoustically treated room will always have a more natural and musical soundstage (among other things) than a 3+ speaker system with mediocre speakers and componentry.

]Those that have a top-notch two channel system/room and/or a top-notch 3+ channel system are invited to agree or argue.   

Well mbl, I don't have a performance in my music room, ever. Even a string quartet with continuo would be a little tight.

With my system, I try to simulate a concert, with the listener (me) positioned in the middle of the dress circle. That means performers in front, and reflections from the sides and back. I don't think that two speakers do that as well as six. I explained how I do it. YMMD.

@mb1audio I kind of had this discussion in a thread with Kal Rubenstein of Stereophile.

To my ears the biggest benefit to multi-channel sound is the addition of the center channel. It fixes a problem of your head blocking certain frequencies. Have you ever noticed that a violin will sound bright on the sides, but duller near the center? This is exactly that problem. I don't really care about surround content though. :)  Try listening with headphones and you'll hear this problem goes away.

If you have an Oppo or similar try Neo6 music mode.

As I recall, a lot of the early classical "stereo" recordings were actually 3 channel, so there's some interesting reading to do on the attitudes and recording practices as well.

" Speakers project sound through drivers pointed someplace (remedies for this notwithstanding for this particular rant) while instruments project sound all over the place and vary infinitely in output, let alone direction. "

I don't see that much of a difference. If you stand behind a pair of speakers you can still hear them just like you can stand behind someone playing an instrument. In either case, if you want the best sound, you need be in front. 

Also, I assume you're talking about traditional box speakers. Bipolar speakers, like my old Mirage M1's will most likely project more sound from behind than is realistic.

" Stand in the middle of my listening room and play guitar, then play my speakers playing that guitar (I can and have recorded live "house concerts" in my listening room using expensive and arguably accurate mics). Utterly different, both good, and both musical."

I understand what you're saying, but I think you missed the point I was trying to make. If you were to switch back and forth between someone playing a live instrument and a recording, would stereo be a better choice, or surround? We all know that no one is going to mistake a live instrument for reproduced. I just don't see where surround would be a better choice. 

As somebody who plays instruments and runs live sound for small venue shows, I beg to differ on some points bandied about here (are they being bandied? I'm not sure but whatEVER). Speakers project sound through drivers pointed someplace (remedies for this notwithstanding for this particular rant) while instruments project sound all over the place and vary infinitely in output, let alone direction. Stand in the middle of my listening room and play guitar, then play my speakers playing that guitar (I can and have recorded live "house concerts" in my listening room using expensive and arguably accurate mics). Utterly different, both good, and both musical. Since I can't get Vijay Iyer to play in my house, or fit an entire orchestra in here, my system does the job well enough for me to really enjoy this stuff anyway.

" Begin with a good two channel system, like ESL's. Double the Left and Right speakers, mounting them at an angle dictated by your room. Right angles are a good place to start. Right away one hears something like an MBL with clean, fast bass.

Now add two more ESL's in the back, for surround. Best is to blend the Right and Left signals, but that's not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is a volume control. Set the volume control to the highest level which cannot be discerned in the listening position. That provides the concert hall ambiance without the source confusion."

As it stands, I'm pretty happy with my current system. I've had several pairs of ESL's so I'm familiar with how they sound. The issue I have with surround, is that I don't think its necessary.

This is how I see it. If you play a recording of an instrument on a 2 channel system (piano, sax, whatever), your system puts the image between the speakers. Now, lets say you have someone play the same instrument live in your listening room. They would be placed in the same spot where your stereo put the image. We all know the room will have an impact on SQ. Whatever effect the room has on the live instrument, it should have on the reproduced instrument. If you now through surround into the mix, you're forcing a different type of interaction than what you had with the live instrument. Unless I'm missing something, it would appear that surround takes you further away from the recording, than closer to it.  

Well put, guys...all y'all....

To be fair (and believe me, I do try...in my way), if you can afford The Quest, your predilections and tastes, carry on.  'State of the Art' is up to those who can appreciate it and afford it.  Bluntly, I can't the latter.  The bulk of my time, energy, and what it generates goes into the business that my spouse and I own.  I tinker in what spare time I can steal with what interests and amuses me on what perhaps might be viewed as Quixotic, making what one acquaintance called 'steampunk speakers'....which I thought was rather apt.  Considering that they sprung from 'cast-offs', this 'n that, a small investment of capital, and a larger investment of time, study, and thought....

Like a parent with a child with 'difficulties', I'm still rather proud of them.  Even with their known and obvious flaws and shortcomings, They Work.  With some selections and a tad of eq, I'd bet I could make some of you pause, if only for the moment.  Working on improving them beats hanging out in a bar,  watching sports that don't appeal, or attending 'functions' with people I have nothing in common with.  I 'hang out' Here because we Do have something in common in a general way, the love of music of various sorts, and the reproduction of it in a fashion that agrees with our tastes.

mb1audio, if you don't like surround, OK.  If class A is your thing and D stands for Dull, Dumb, or a Disaster, cool.  If that cart in your TT costs more than my entire system, well...that's your call and your cash and go forth.  IMHO 'extremism' in audio beats the 'ell out of a lot of other 'tastes' that seem to be prevalent of late.  Y'all can fill in that blank with what may bother you personally...

Do what you want to do.  I do.  I realize that one's posts arise from their opinions and observations, their tastes and preferences, and their situations.  Some may consider me some odd version of a troll, and that's fine.  I don't come around to pester or make fur fly for the frivolity of it.  I lurk mostly, getting some 'education', and noting that price still doesn't guarantee  'perfection', pretty baubles can still be ultimately be polished rocks, and hopes still get dashed...although that realization can sometimes take awhile to dawn.

Please do carry on. *S*  I'll just step back into the shadows again....and watch the show.... ;)

@bigkidz 

I absolutely agree with you about components. Every cap has a sonic signature, and so does every resistor. Active devices more so. Building the best is an expensive proposition, and few people have ever heard an amp, say, with all VAR resistors and polystyrene caps for power supply auxiliaries. But when you hear it, you don't want to go back.

MB, the only place I have heard multichannel done right is in my system. That's not bragging, because it's quite easy to do, and I'll tell you how.

Begin with a good two channel system, like ESL's. Double the Left and Right speakers, mounting them at an angle dictated by your room. Right angles are a good place to start. Right away one hears something like an MBL with clean, fast bass.

Now add two more ESL's in the back, for surround. Best is to blend the Right and Left signals, but that's not absolutely necessary. What is necessary is a volume control. Set the volume control to the highest level which cannot be discerned in the listening position. That provides the concert hall ambiance without the source confusion.

" Mb1 you can adjust or not to personal preference but I was talking about flat response to 20 hz.  If response is flat level will be heard as lower.   A boost is needed to make it sound flat.   Check out the audio frequency spectrum chart that shows sensitivity of the ear at various frequencies.    System may measure flat but in that case what our ears hear is not. "

That's what I thought you meant, and I believe you're right. I could be mistaken, but I think bo is saying something similar regarding his comments on bass. If some type of correction isn't done in the low frequencies, I can see where this could be an issue at low volumes. Powered subs set up properly can go a long way in this regard. I wouldn't consider myself an expert in this area, but from what I can see, subs are best used with full range speakers. 

I own a pair of Wilson Audio Duette 2's that cost $23k.  Don't ask me why I bought them I just did.  Before I did I was really looking at Tekton Pendragon for $2k.  I think there are plenty of boutique speaker makers out there that you can find and produce sound that could rival the high end.  Before it is all said and done I can see myself buying a set of Tekton speakers an selling the Wilson's.  It is crazy to think that a pair of speakers cost more than an automobile.

Mb1 you can adjust or not to personal preference but I was talking about flat response to 20 hz.  If response is flat level will be heard as lower.   A boost is needed to make it sound flat.   Check out the audio frequency spectrum chart that shows sensitivity of the ear at various frequencies.    System may measure flat but in that case what our ears hear is not.    

It's very difficult for a small company to set the right retail price by properly balancing inventory, sales volume, distributor  terms, and a myriad of internal costs.  There are probably as many good, small companies buried in the audio graveyard for charging too little as those who charged too much. DIYers don't have these nightmares to worry about, and they're not supporting family and employees.

That said, it's probably a safe bet that some cable purveyors will burn in hell, but then a class of audiophile probably demands they exist to address the needs created by obsession, paranoia and exclusivity.  

High-end audio is kinda like poker--exciting, calculating, and fun until the cost to bet gets so high that we fold an walk away.

Ok fine you can do it with a subwoofer and adjust it as needed flat or otherwise.  So can anyone else.   It's a perfectly fine way to do it.    Your original assertion is still not correct though.  

" Human ears do not hear it as such in that ear frequency response drops off at its extremes (remember loudness buttons and equalizers?) but if everything in the system needed is up to snuff to do it absolutely no doubt it does."

I'm not sure what you mean by up to snuff. Are you fixing the roll off at the extremes with some type of processing? If so, it seems like the system would have to be adjusted for each person.

With S.A.P.-measurement I can get a subwoofer in phase with the speaker. But it is even more than that. You can use it to a much higher frequency. The energy is so much more perceivable.

I auditoned many big speakers in my life, when you play at low volume you miss the realism in the low frequencies. That is why they often play loud.

With a subwoofer with S.A.P. you go to u much higher level of realism. The energy of a double bass is not only what becomes fully free from the speakers. It is of each string you can feel the energy.

This level we never auditioned even with sets of over 500.000 euro. It is not about the money. It is being created by accuracy and timing.

My Pl-500 starts at 22hz, but with a PLW-15 (16hz) with S.A.P.-measurment you go to a different level and league in sound realism.

When I listen full range to my Pl-500 (8ohm) and my Pass (700 watts by 8ohm) you never will reach the level in realism in the lowest octaves. Especially at low freq. These days I seldom sell stereo without a subwoofer with S.A.P.

By using professional lasers and working at 0.5mm precision you reach a new level in timing and integration. Even in height the energy differs a lot more.

The stunning part of the Pl-500 is the diversity in the whole frequency. We compared it with the Wilson Audio Sasha. It was not a match, it outperforms it in each part. I hope to arrange blind shootouts in 2017 with many highend loudspeakers. Audio is all about shootout and may the best win.

When you listen your beloved music and instruments are played at the right height it brings you into another league. This league was not there with the Sasha. With the other Wilson Audio demos showed us the same level of diversity in height. It was very limited.

We have plans of giving demos using a big curtain. And also using conservatory students. The reason is that in real I can let people hear diversity and intimate focus of an instrument and voice.

In the last 6 months I have done a lot of research in diversity in sound. Now I can create a much higher level of diversity in the whole frequency response. Beside this we can create a stunning level in intimate sound with the best blacklevel you ever auditioned.

bo,

Human ears do not hear it as such in that ear frequency response drops off at its extremes (remember loudness buttons and equalizers?) but if everything in the system needed is up to snuff to do it absolutely no doubt it does.

Ears have less issues when volume is louder.

So its either your ears that are hearing that or the system your are measuring otherwise is not up to snuff to do it or else your measurements are in error.

bo1972You really think the speaker starts at 20hz at very low volume?

Oh yes, even below 20 Hz. Well below. Yes, you can measure it.

It can be proven with measuring, it is not that difficult......

You really think the speaker starts at 20hz at very low volume?

@mapman I think "bo" has really lost it this time!

say what?

People forget that when a speaker can start at let's say; 20hz, it only can reach this at a very high level of volume.

When you don't play loud, it will never reach 20hz even if a speaker is able to go this low.

When you use a subwoofer, it is possible to reach a much lower frequency at a lower volume level.

Let's say you spend $30,000 on speakers... that will get you a full frequency range of sound, as well as some other things.

Then you decide to upgrade - what would you get at the next level above that?

Till 2010 most tests I did were in stereo. But in 2010 I started with acoustic measurement. And also tests in surround.

We use Audyssey, but at a totally different way then how Audyssey uses it. Because they make different mistakes in their way of measuring.

They do have little knowledge in how instruments and voices sound and how they are projected in real. 

When you do a measurement with Audyssey you can create a better balance  with all the speakers togheter. But there are still many mistakes they made.

I work with professional lasers, at 0.5mm precision and we measure at a totally different way. The results are superior in each single aspect you judge sound for.

We call it Statement Audio Pro measurement. In both stereo and surround it is a satement. Because the level in realism and details is so much higher than any level in sound possible.

It will bring surround and cinemas to a much higher level. Most speakers in cinemas are 2 dimensional, like the amps they are using are 2 dimensional.

They call Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos 3D. It has nothing to do with 3 dimensional sound. During a show of Auro 3D I explained the Auro people that they gave a 2 dimensional demo. When I explained it in details they understood.

When a speaker and amp cannot create stagte depth and width, the sound is still 2D. When you use hight speskers this will not change it.

By using lasers and measuring much more precise I created stealth low freqency. This means that the subwoofer is in phase with the speakers and the energy is exactly were it is of the recording.

Statement Audio Pro is the only reason why I and many of my clients got interested in surround. Without S.A.P.-measurement surround can be very exhausting. This is based on the unbalance in sound.

Audio in both stereo and surround need to be used based on properties. This creates a superior level in sound and emotion. Most systems are 2 dimensional, no single person in the world will be satisfied with any kind of 2 dimensional sound after time. This is based on our emotion.

Douglas,

Darwinian theory is not poor science. It is actually very good observation and a theory formulated long before we had an understanding of DNA. However, with an understanding of DNA and viruses I think we now know today that Darwinian theory is not the complete story of evolution. We are now finding that the extensive amounts of DNA that everything carries can in certain circumstances be accessed or used - sometimes a virus can turn things on and sometimes DNA can jump from one thing to another. There is a deeper connection between all living things than Darwin realized and some of that useless DNA can be harnessed. 

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150619-there-is-alien-dna-inside-you

FYI Human DNA is very close to a banana! Looks can be highly deceiving - things are more alike than they appear and this may explain some of the more surprising things we see in nature that might not be possible in a traditional Darwinian view but suggest giant leaps!

bo1972

What do you think of multichannel/surround for audio? I see a lot of people trying it, and they like the results. For me, I haven't heard a music surround system that I liked. It doesn't sound real. In truth, I find it annoying. To be fair, I don't like surround sound in movies either. Maybe its just me.

The word ’highend’ is not based on parameters(as it should be). This means it it more based on price.

Does it garantee you a higher quality? No, it does not.

When people have no idea about how music sounds in real, you have no idea how you can create it.

When you are not able to understand what the properties are of each part in your set you don’t know why the sound and stage is what you hear.

Take a look at audio shows, distributers and shops. Most sets sounds poor, incomplete and are based on nothing. When you would have know the properties you would never have made the combination we are listening at.

In 2015 we visited the Munic Highend show. Over 90% were 2 dimensional demos. This means that the stage depth is between 0 and 1 metre maximum. This has nothing to do with highend audio.

No depth and maximum 1 metre is in real a hifi stereo parameter. But people use the word ’highend’ so they think will will believe it is highend.

The music they used was very poor in Munic. I asked many people what they were playing. Most didn’t know. So I asked; why would you play music you don’t know?

Audio and highend these days is more about surviving and money. And what it creates is that customers get less for their money.

Take a look at reviews and most do not give you a view of the ’real’ quality. Reviews have a big influence on what people buy. These days you can buy reviews.

You can ask yourself: What do you want to hear? The truth or the thing you would like to hear......

Music is all about emotion. The emotion is inside the music. You need to understand how the emotion works of us humans. Take a look again at audio shows, shops, distributers and manufacturers and you see that most demos do have diversity at all.

Diversity in sound is the main part to create and feel emotion. In the last big audio show we visited, all sets had almost no diversity. Here you see is that people have no idea how to create it.

There are always people who have the money to spend a lot of money on audio. Wheter they are rich or are prepared to pay it. But you can ask the question if they get value for the money they spend?

Each ’highend’ product what only can create a 2 dimensional stage will never be able to satisfy a person for a longer period of time. This is based on our emotion.

When there is almost no depth the distance between you and the music is bigger. It feels more from a distance. I have spoken to many people in the last 2 years who spend a lot of money on audio and were not happy.

They had one thing in common; They all owned a 2 dimensional system.

For many people who work in audio or have knowledge and insight in audio know how important stage depth and width is. It sets instruments and voices free in space. And brings you closer to the music.

A 3 dimensional stage has a huge impact on how we humans experience music. Beside this diversity in sound is needed to create a higher level of emotion during listening to an audio system.

Highend with a 2 dimensional stage does not make sense at all. It does not give you a view of how music is being projected in real. The same when there is no diversity. Richness in sound does not garantee you emotion in music. When the whole frequency has rather the same kind of sound, there is still no diversity.

Because diversity creates the most emotional feeling during listening.

I think ’highend’ needs to be judged on ’real’ parameters. This is the only way to give people an honest idea if it is highend or not.

Highend should be based on a quality. In real it is more based on the price. Money does not garantee you a higher quality.

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.  

What I don't understand is why people like the OP don't start a speaker company and make a fortune putting all the frauds out of business.

Skilled engineers with a penchant for audio spend lots of time and money doing research and development to deliver a product that few among us can approach with a DIY method.  Of the available gear we choose the ones which work for our ears and our budget.  We pay more this way (whether mid or hifi) but we get more as well.

Seriously Doug Schroeder, this is where you want to start an anti-Darwinism discussion? You really want to hitch your wagon to this thread, and this particular individual’s post, for that purpose? I’ve talked to you before - I strongly suspect that you're better than that.

plenty of DIY people can make anything audio and make something very special  making them for commercial sale is entirely difficult.  I know, my friends all ask me to make them audio gear.  Building something takes time and trial and error research.

You also have to have the gear (source, preamp and amp) to hear and appreciate the differences in designs.  To my ears, most of the manufactured stuff most people have listened to is nothing special.  You get different flavors from your components but not much in sound improvement (generally speaking), such as resolution, dynamics, sound stage, tone, etc.  Most people have never heard that from their system so they buy and sell components, cables, etc. to find what they think they are looking for.  For example I build a preamp with no caps in the signal path.  Every cap has a sound so what works in your system may not please someone in their system.  I don't use caps in the signal path so that is one area that most people have never experienced to explain my point. So until you have the gear where you can really hear the differences, your comparisons of higher priced gear to what you have heard or how the higher priced gear sounds can be misleading.  Happy Listening.       

Plenty of well made less expensive things are out there, and I enjoy finding those things, keeping the stuff that sounds great, and generally leaving my system alone unless something starts to bug me (maybe due to crossover cap degeneration or my imagination, I had some well regarded speakers that started to bug me…sold 'em on Ebay, bought a new-ish used pair of something that a friend owned and I had listened to and liked, and they're still playing beautifully after 4 or 5 years). Get used cables…amps that are on sale as a new model arrives…or just take the bucks you inherited from Uncle Bob and let your local Gear Salon (!) have their way with you….

he,he...very interesting thread...always entertaining.

......what is with this member and anger ? If you do not like the hobby take up knitting and find a site where you go off on your rants about the price of wool and the quality of the threads and if they make a difference. This site is getting filled up and getting old with these type of posts. Just enjoy the music and hobby and relax.    

Troll!

I spend my money how I want to.  I don't have time to develop my own speaker, build it, and test it.  I can barely assemble a shelf.

And cuz I make more per hour than I would ever get back building my own speakers.

Fun, because it's supposed to be fun. Ever tried to make your own electrostatic speakers? Get the membrane tension right, get the tension uniform, keep it that way. Lots of trial and error - too much for my taste. Then there's the electronics. Too much time to save $20,000. YMMD.

Just retired from making high end watches? Then try building a good cartridge. Not for me. YMMD.

Electronics? Turntable? Different matter, but still time consuming. That's my bag. YMMD.