An audiophile dilemma

Rok2id, you said, at the beginning of this thread:

"Are those high end (and very expensive) speakers really better than the JBL's?

"All things considered, NO! The media we are playing was not recorded by God. None of it sounds live. So why spend a lot of your hard earned money trying to reproduce imperfections mo better! I am considering JBL myself. I have owned JBLs model: L-150 and 4311 and LX-44. loved them all."

And my response to that is what I said -- have you ever actually *heard* a great loudspeaker? Because I can assure you, what they do isn't just a matter of reproducing imperfections better. And while I could describe in great detail what they do better, it shouldn't be necessary, because it's so obvious to anyone who listens.

'And my response to that is what I said -- have you ever actually *heard* a great loudspeaker'

That's a impossible question to answer. First, there would have to be widespread agreement on a 'great' speaker, and as I have said on many occasions, I have not detected any widespread agreement about anything, on this site. Please take this oppoutunity and list a few speakers you consider great.

I think my Polk Lsi15's are great speakers. (git that sneer off yo face!) :)

Rok2id, you are a frequent contributor to this site. If you cannot figure out what are commonly considered great speaker, then there is little hope for you ever moving past you preconceptions.

Onhwy61
I have read a lot of posts where any number of speakers have a cheering section and loyal fans. They all think their speaker is a great speaker.

My problem is this:
This is a mature industry. The design principles that consitute a state of the art speaker should be well known to all engineers. Which to me means, all speakers should look similar and have a lot of common features and design cues. If one speaker costs $1,000 and another cost $20,000, then that difference in price should be readily apparent and obvious to any audiophile. This is not the case.
For instance, why does a Vandersteen, which I am sure is a fine speaker, cost tens times what my Polks cost? Do they know something Polk does not know? Do the components cost more on the Vandy? How much can a driver or crossover cost? Do they drive the price up by $12,000 dollars? The Vandys 'sound' better? WHY?
It should be a science. Not magic. In spite of all that I would try a lot of them if it wasn't for the high cost. Lastly I live in an Audio desert, so I will never hear the top of the line stuff. BTW, of all the speakers I have owned, I never heard any of them before purchase. No regrets so far.
Cheers.

For instance, why does a Vandersteen, which I am sure is a fine speaker, cost tens times what my Polks cost?

I can't answer on the price differential you mention & I have no idea which Polks you use & which Vander you are referring to, BUT, between a floorstanding Polk (9? It has 6 drivers, reflex loaded) & a Van 5, I must admit the Vand was much-much better for music.

* better high frequency, the V seemed to go much higher;
* better timbre, the Polk sounding shrill on a specific FR (upper violin notes);
* Van had bass extension and resolution vs the Polk stopping at midbass;
* far better resolution overall;
* the fee of dynamic impact was quite good on the Polks;
* Generally speaking, with the Vand I had musical coherency that I didn't have with the Polk. The Vand reproduced a coherent simulation of an orchestra, the Polk sounded small & tinny by comparison;
* Note, I listen to classical i.e. natural un-amplified instruments, so results could differ with other music.

AFAIK Polk is a very serious company, so the speakers I heard were probably designed for HT use rather than to play Mahler.

(The thing is, I'm one of the few people in the world who don't actually like the Vandy. Admittedly, they produce good speakers & value for money as these things go.)