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
timlub
2,041 posts
 

Hi ctsooner, Well, Ok,  in many perspectives, you are making the point of the entire thread... materials like ceramic and diamond coated drivers, Kevlar or magnesium, etc are very expensive, but that isn't where you where going with paper, you have been simply insinuating that paper breaks up and isn't worthy of a high end speaker.  I'll end my portion of it here, you are welcome to the last word. 

Notch filters can be used on any type of cone material. You can't take a measurement that tells you that one speaker is more detailed than another.  In general, a stiffer cone offers a more detailed sound than a pliable cone so yes,  if you don't properly treat paper,  it will not be as detailed as a stiff high dollar material,  but I have coated paper cones with the likes of wood glues and epoxy and ended up with a very stiff, very detailed sounding paper cone.  Yes,  the break up was dealt with,  so within my crossover frequency,  there was NO cone break up.

I have zero arguments that many of todays materials make GREAT sounding speakers,  my real argument is just the idea of discounting paper drivers as so far down the ladder when in fact,  you can come up with some very musical and enjoyable speakers at a fraction of the cost of the exotic material drivers. Again,  that is a big portion of the point of this thread.

I have 3 pair of speakers in the works.... one heavy treated poly cones... similar to a Dyn 6 inch and Scan Speak Dome... Another,  I have a pair of ESS Heil Air Motion tweeters from the late 70's, making a high sensitivity 12 inch 3 way out of using a treated pro paper mid and poly 12 inch and lastly an 8 inch 3 way using a 5 1/2 aluminum mid and ribbon tweeter.... So, no, I'm not stuck on paper at all. I just thought that your general state against paper was way too general.... Again,  I do agree with much that you said,  I felt that there was clarification needed to keep it accurate.

Tim

charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Good discussion here and insightful comments from Tim. I don’t get the sense that anyone is "married" to paper cones at all. Rather they simply identify the natural tonality and sound quality that they can provide. Carbon Fiber, ceramic, aluminum, poly plastics etc. Each has its strengths and thus proponents as well as inevitable short comings. None of these materials are without some intrinsic  flaw, yet each can be used successfully with high level implementation.

Tradeoffs abound and choices must be made. Some would choose natural tone over ultra micro detail and some will choose the converse.
Charles,
phusis's avatar
phusis
1,221 posts
 
Paper cones are often treated, or even composites, and from this a variety of diaphragms emerges that may all be called "paper cones," but that does not follow the typical shortcomings of paper cones equally. Even if they did, what is truly gained in a discussion of sound by making reference to their mechanical properties as a basis to support our sonic impressions? All we have in listening to reproduced music through our stereo’s is what we hear, and to me that’s the reference first and foremost that should put into question theory; not the other way round. That is to say: the aspect of pistonic behavior of a cone not made of paper and its claimed advantages into "micro details" (and ultimately its superiority in musical reproduction as a whole) compared to the break-up behavior of a paper cone (or its varieties) can be moot for several reasons, in that our ears may tell us differently. It appears to be more of a marketing ploy to single out one aspect as all-important than to be humble (and less outspoken) on the challenge of implementation.

ctsooner's avatar
ctsooner
2,480 posts
 
Marketing ploy?  Seriously?  No it's not a marketing ploy at all.  It's just an agree to disagree. I just pointed out that no matter how you treat it, it's still going to break up.  Even a big name maker of paper coned drivers admits this.  To many, like the few posters who are opposing some of what I say (or even all of it) I'll never change your minds and that's cool.  Just stating some facts about paper cones, but as many have said, you can still make a nice speaker from them.  I'm talking about full out assault on speakers and when you are playing in that league I'm saying there are better choices available now that don't break up, so why not use a better material to make a better driver.  Yes, they will be very expensive and that's why so many speakers are so expensive now.  That's the original post.  When I see the most well known speaker company using paper cones in their woofers and that the cost to replace these drivers just isn't that expensive, it makes me think they can probably do much better and not charge so much.  That's how we all got started on paper cones (yes, I stated they break up regardless of how you treat them) argument.  I stand by the fact that with break up, it won't let you get the last bit of detail from the driver and that's where the emotion lies.  Many top speaker designers will tell you that.  That's what we are paying for in all of our systems.  That's where much of the incremental sound increases lie...The micro detail.  To those of you who are designing speakers, I think it's awesome.  I just feel that you can probably make a better sounding speaker using better drivers than paper coned ones regardless of what stiffener you use and how you play with a crossover.  Again, I can't and won't change your minds, just like you won't change mine.  I've heard so many top end speakers over the years and honestly have never warmed up to any of the paper coned ones for a variety of reasons.  I never even realized it until I had a long discussion with one of the largest named speaker designers about what speakers I like and don't and why.  He then pointed out many things, but said that every paper coned speaker we discussed were on my no way I could own them list.  Again, I do respect you guys and feel that this is one of the first true discussions I've read on this board.

Are any of you builders selling your speakers commercially?  I'd love to see their designs etc...  Thanks.  Pete
timlub
2,041 posts
 

Hi Pete,  thanks for posting your name... So,  If Someone isn't selling a design commercially then???  Send Your un named Largest named Designer this thread. Get his response. Hmmm,  do you really expect anyone to give you their designs.  I'd be glad to give you a few designs,  but unfortunately I haven't been working manufacturing  speakers for some 30 plus years. I have also rubbed shoulders with some of the best names in the industry.  If they are old enough, they may even remember me. So does that make the facts that I quoted any better or worst than your opinion? And again,  I have never posted that paper is better, only that there are very satisfying drivers out there made of paper.  You've been posting here for a few years and made a bunch of strong points on many many threads, But,   I'm sorry brother, Not sure why you continue to push this,  but we are all on solid ground.... I'd love to build with ceramic drivers,   just haven't been able to justify the price for the parts,  but your points have all been listened to.  Maybe we should start a thread on how designers deal with voice coil issues.  Its can be a huge issue,  I haven't seen that thread yet. Roy, John or Peter.... If your out there,  comments from someone as respected as you guys would go along way. 

Sorry for the bit of sarcasm, Tim

More to discover