Does Technology Trump Quality?

Douglas,
Sorry,but I really have no idea what you are trying to say in your analogy of the speakers.I can,however, answer the question.For me,a quality sound will always win out.IMHO,technology is useless if it doesn't produce good sound.

Uh... I think I get it, but the initial response works for me.

I'm all about owning things which have great builds, technology and esthetics. BUT...

If a thing or even several things fall into the budgetary constraints, the one (s) which provide the biggest grin factor, toe tapping, and knee bobbing usually win.

I'm just buying them, not disecting them. how many space age bit and pieces inside of them matters not to me. In fact I could care less. Well, within reason of course.

It truly is given the electrical needs of the spakers are being met, it's their size, look and sound.

Numbers only serve to get them onto or off of one's own short list of viable speaker candidates.

Naturally, that's just my two cents worth.. Maybe some folks work all this out on a slide rule or PC of sorts these days, but i'd bet a lot that in spite of all the integers being sliced and diced about in the developmental stages of speaker erection, size, looks, and sound, are the determiners... well... and price too... even for the builder. Or should I say especially for the designer.

You will never regret buying quality. Fads come and go as far as design, construction and technology. There are many great speakers that have been built in the last 30 yrs that are still very relevent today. Many would compete and perhaps excel compared with todays so called newer technology. Speakers last a long long time when treated properly. Buy based upon what your ears tell you. Listen to as many as possible with your gear. Buy the speakers you want now (don't skimp) and enjoy them for as long as you can. Good luck in your search!

Excellent thoughts, and I concur with you all on the principle of "buy quality"! That is why this question is such a conundrum!

I am not setting aside the principle that quality is the ultimate goal. I pursued wholeheartedly the "maximum sound" I could afford in one speaker for many years. The problem was that no matter what the "best" speaker I could afford, it did not have the means to satisfy all my desires! I longed to hear speakers of differing technology, hence differing sound which is an issue beyond quality. It was the inability of one speaker to meet all these desires to hear radically different presentations which prompted me to struggle with the question I have posed.

I would suggest there are some audiophiles like me, who sought out the best quality, but found out that it was insufficient to satisfy them. The reason, I feel, is that there was an inherent desire to hear a wider variety of presentations of the music. Without that desire being met it doesn't matter how good the solitary speaker is.

I hope this clarifies the discussion point. I'm not trying to force all audiophiles into this principle, but for me I need to have a wider palate of sound than just one speaker can generate. Obviously, when one is buying two versus one speakers the ultimate price/quality likely will be influenced, but that is where for me the "game" of getting ultimate performance from one's dollar is taken to a higher level. After living with excellent sound one certainly is not going to settle for anything less. The other option is to pony up more to "invest" into the rig to obtain the same level of excellence when one speaker was used.

Tom, I'm not currently searching for any speaker. Thankfully! Actually, I'm at the end of about a three year search for two very differing high quality speakers at my price point. It was in part this search and my experiences which prompted this discussion point.

What I have set up in my question is a seemingly "no win" situation, one which I found myself in, and had to answer. :)

I really don't get the point of the question other then question of weather your an audio nut or gadget geek.

I myself could not care less about the implementation in comparison to results achieved. But the comparison made here also makes little sense as the cost differential is so great.

But for arguments sake, I'll try to validate the argument with the following comparison.

DeVore Fidelity Gibbon 9 or Paradigm Studio 100 v.5

The DeVore is minute in stature compared to the Studio and from a technological standpoint appears to have less development. The DeVore on the other hand has strong praise for its sound quality and appears to a quality over technological quantity product as compared to the Paradigm.

But you would be incredibly foolish to think that technology and quality is not synonymous. Revel Studio 2 or Salon 2 are a technological tour de force with excellent quality. While Sonus Faber lines achieve a significant level of their performance on the basis of excellent quality and technologically, but somewhat less as compared to the Revel.

As for more technology based designs. The Gallo 3.1 comes to mind as and interesting example. The CDT tweeter is phenomenally wide in dispersion but I can say that the integration of the range of drivers in the speaker is not perfect. You can certainly consider it a technological compromise.