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
The Brand it is all about the Brand you are being sold on the brand and it's perceived quality.

Looks good well made and well finished all Bling, a great piece of furniture.
Must be good, it costs a small fortune right.

Have heard DIY efforts that absolutely out shine (sound wise) expensive well regarded speakers. In the Same Room.
But we are not talking sound vs value, are we.
The good DIY's cost half the price, but are nevertheless still expensive.
The biggest and most time consuming and expensive thing, is getting the finish right.
Sorry guys paying more for speakers than a Car is just no within my budget.  If it was; then OK, no problem.
Like everything out there it's worth is only dependent on  how much someone is willing to pay for it.
Good components are not cheap making a fine speaker with a superb finish is not cheap.  Lots of time goes into development, made in small quantities.
Got to pay for  all that. 

analogluvr --

[...] Paper is a great cone material and most of the speakers using paper cones always seem to sound more natural to my ears. And just because it is paper doesn't mean it's not high tech. People who have a Coral 10 that needs a recone can attest to that, it can't be done.
And as far as the folks who are saying part of the high cost is R and D, give your head a shake, there are no new developments in speaker technology!! The best speakers I have heard are still older efficient designs with paper drivers.
Just like 99% of high end audio megabuck speakers are a huge ripoff! When I go to the shows I invariably never enjoy the high dollar rooms with the megabuck SS electronics. They are very detailed and some of them are impressive sounding but they never sound like proper music to me.
And ctsooner don't take this as a slight against vandersteen, I think they are one of the few that actually do R and D and try to give you something for your money. I enjoy them and used to own a pair.

I would have to agree both on your statements regarding paper cones and the general lack of advance in speaker technology. I believe many of the older designs can be refined, but this is without changing the basics. Paper cones may break up more prominently than more modern "exotic" diaphragms, but given their natural sonic imprinting (at least to some ears) I'd wager the mode of their break-up as well as the general properties of the diaphragm has significant impact; "pistonic behavior" may come at a cost in other areas. The same in a sense seems to apply to the enclosures where most modern designs strive for an inert structural behavior (as the equivalent to pistonic ditto), contrary to older designs that may even use the cabinets as an integral part of the sonic signature. "Signature," or lack thereof, is a popular go-to phrase for newer designs, but where sought often leads to robbing the life and vibrancy of live acoustic music. Paper cones to my ears often has the more relaxed, vibrant, true-to-tone and naturally detailed (as opposed to "analytical") imprinting. More modern cones, like those of Raidho speakers, are exceptionally balanced and well-behaved, but to my ears are ever so slightly "dead" or even dull sounding. I used to own a pair of C1's, and they were wonderful in their own right, but ultimately that rather indescribable "something" was missing. Actually my first speakers were a pair of Coral 8..