Does Technology Trump Quality?

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.

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.

Doug, I think I see what you are getting at, but I would not express it in terms of whether technology trumps quality or vice versa. If I understand correctly, you are saying that all speakers within your price range have shortcomings that are significant to you (and that's probably true in any price range), and so the question is should you get two sets of lesser speakers whose limitations will be complementary, or should you get one set of better speakers and accept its limitations in the interests of better overall sound.

For most people I would think that having two sets of speakers to be used in their main system is a non-starter, due to physical practicalities. And I think most people who could manage both alternatives would go for the single set of better speakers.

But I have another idea. Buy a single set of speakers that are as good as possible for all around use, and a good pair of headphones that are based on the desired alternate technology. For instance, dynamic speakers and electrostatic headphones (such as the Stax's). That obviously won't be the solution for everyone, but it has worked nicely for me!

Happy 2010!

-- Al

I'm not sure what your asking, but, I'll give it a go. It depends. Some classic cars, watches etc., have much better build quality but don't perform as well as more modern less well built versions. On the other hand some modern versions with more recent technology might not perform quite as good, but come at much more affordable (by current standards) prices. Again, it depends, each comparison is different.

Interesting,

I too like different technologies and have heard very good examples of several types. I currently have a pair of large dynamic speakers, the NSR Sonata D3's in my large room powered by the Wyred4Sound STI-500 Class D integrated amp. In my smaller room I have a pair of Magneplanar speakers powered by a VTL ST-85 amp that I'm currently enjoying in its triode mode (killer on vocals). My feeling is that one must try to match the speaker/amp to the room.

One of my audio friends has a nice pair of Quad 57's with Marantz 8B amp and is putting together a JBL Hartsfield for a mono, corner-horn system. I can't wait to hear it!

If it sounds good, I could care less about the tech. I enjoy reading and learning about the technical part, but that is just the icing on the cake.