2. speakers
  3. 124200-79517

What makes an expensive speaker expensive

When one plunks down $10,000 $50,000 and more for a speaker you’re paying for awesome sound, perhaps an elegant or outlandish style, some prestige ... but what makes the price what it is?

Are the materials in a $95,000 set of speakers really that expensive? Or are you paying a designer who has determined he can make more by selling a few at a really high price as compared to a lot at a low price?

And at what point do you stop using price as a gauge to the quality? Would you be surprised to see $30,000 speakers "outperform" $150,000 speakers?

Too much time on my hands today I guess.
128x128jimspov
ctsooner's avatar
ctsooner
2,480 posts
 
Tom, sorry forgot to answer.  
1) Wilson margin allows a much better price than Vandersteen could.

2) MF has in many reviews including the Quatro Fabric review mentioned not needing a speaker that images in fact said the Quatro out imaged his Wilsons.

3)Has said he believes a speaker can have TMI so the paper cones being low resolution is not a deal breaker.

4)Speakers with powered sub-woofer are not the best tool for a reviewer especially when reviewing amplifiers.

5) listens very loud and likes a big sound for his love rock and roll.

Hope this answers your questions about why he used Wilson's.  I also know of MANY within the industry from reviewers to other manufacturer's who swear by Vandersteens (Quatro's on up) and pay for them without getting a large discount.  Plenty of people listen and enjoy a huge sound and don't care about things that  time aligned speaker can provide.  If you love Wilson's, then that's awesome.  Plenty of folks love Bose too (not not saying Wilson's sound like Bose).  We are so lucky to have the choices that we have now days.  
tomcy6's avatar
tomcy6
2,615 posts
 

OK.  No argument that Vandersteen makes great speakers. 

Can we agree that Wilson also makes great speakers and is not merely the beneficiary of good advertising and stupid buyers?

I'm sure Fremer could come up with a list of reasons why he prefers the Wilsons beyond the items mentioned in his review of the Martens..

ctsooner's avatar
ctsooner
2,480 posts
 
I'm not saying they don't make good speakers.  They just aren't my cup of tea and never have been.  That's all.  I've had the discussion with someone from Wilson on two occasions and they laughed.  One agreed with me as to what I don't like.  They have done the best job of the old time speaker companies in advertising.  That's a real positive and I'm giving them a ton of credit for it.  I wish Richard and others had done the same thing as I feel that this industry could have grown bigger than it has.  I see that Alon is doing a great job advertising also. I think that these post fit into this thread because it shows where some of your money goes into their overhead.  My second favorite speaker/system that I've heard (I LOVE Vandersteens new AMP.  that thing makes the 7's a powered speaker, but not internally.  When you can build the amp around a specific speaker you can really make it sound better than other amps I feel.)  are both made by Tidal.  I have heard their system twice in my life and was really impressed.  Again, it was also with their own amplification along with analog and the Aurender W20 server.  Perfectly set up room too. What a treat that was.  That's even using their black diamond tweeter that isn't quite pistonic, in movement, but they've done a great job voicing them I feel (again, for MY ears).  

I've also never and would never call the buyer of a component stupid....at least not in person or online, lol.  j/k.  I'm just glad we are all passionate for what we like and are willing to post about it and argue about it.  Healthy, all of it IMHO.  I try to be respectful to all and sometimes I'm not in the way I post, but I don't mean ill will towards folks.  

When I make a post about paper woofers breaking up at 250HZ, it's proven and it has to effect the quality of the sound.  That's just physics and no way around it.  That said, some companies who use paper cones can try to do other things to lessen the effect, but to me it's very noticeable.  that does mean I can't listen to hard rock and not enjoy it.  Mikey Fremer had a great ear and loves him some hard pounding LOUD rock.  Nothing wrong there at all and it's a big reason he loves his Wilson's.  Again, that's awesome for him and others.  I'm just happy that we all have wonderful choices that make us all happy.  Wilson's are beautiful to look at and I can listen to rock on them, but I'd never be able to live with them.  Plenty of you guys have them and are happy.  All is positive.  
erik_squires
16,512 posts
 
The real answer, is in the slide from Focal. Modernity, brand, perceived advancement. All of these contribute to what consumers perceive as value. I’m sure there’s more. However, there’s no real connection between cost or quality of the parts and the perception of the value of the finished product. That is an entirely subjective thing which good product managers milk for all they can.

What I can say is that most of the high end speakers come in around 20 to 30 times the driver cost for a single speaker. Mind you, I used the term "most" so for sure there are outliers. However as an investor, builder you want to be on the top of that range. For _most_ that is the math they seem to use.  The latest Sterephile has yet another example of this, the Marten Coltrane 3.  On the upper end of that range, and like the Sony AR1, has a very lukewarm review.  The review, like the AR1 concludes they are worth their price. Hah.  
inna
7,781 posts
 
Well, I guess latest smartphones that sell for $800 cost no more than $50 to make. Most things are way overpriced, but then again many people are overpaid or simply make money by doing virtually nothing. Sad but not really surprising. For some $100k is almost a pocket change, and there is quite a number of people like that.
More to discover