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
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,
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.

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

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

Post removed