An audiophile dilemma

Not sure how this got missed in this discussion, but a major factor in the preference for this speaker over that one goes back to the fact that people differ considerably as to how they prioritize the many sonic variables involved.

On a very simple level, the designer has to juggle dozens upon dozens of variables, making choices along the way. Inevitably some things get sacrificed for others. The cone material and voice coil configuration that handles extreme volume peaks well may not be the perfect choice for another sonic consideration. Super-expensive parts may help to some degree, but alone will never solve all the problems.

Hence, one very expensive "great" speaker rarely sounds like another very expensive "great" speaker.

A good example for me are the Wilson speakers. They are highly regarded, but the times I've heard them they've never impressed me as having a natural sound. I call it the "Kodachrome" effect -- in my book, the designer just couldn't resist the temptation to juice things up a bit compared to live acoustic music.

That said, I recognise that Wilson has a serious following who think they are the penultimate in speaker design. Lots of people think Wilson came up with the perfect balance in speaker design an lots of others don't.

There will never be a universal consensus as to what the perfect speaker should do. There are just too many variables in play and too many differing opinions about priorities.

Mlsstl, I agree. I tried to touch on the point when I compared the $10,000 Quads to $100,000 behemoths. There are some things the Quads can do that a big pair of Wilsons can't, and vice-versa. I don't think anything will beat the Quads for acoustical music at moderate levels, and that makes them great speakers -- but not for people who want to rock out. And if you do need high SPL's, do you go with the more colored sound of a Wilson (you aren't alone in your observation) or the accuracy of a Magico? Or do you sacrifice a bit of that level and go for the even better accuracy and imaging of a huge electrostatic like the Sound Labs?

At every level, the speaker to get is the one that best fits our needs, and these may occupy very different price points, because some attributes that some people need -- loud deep accurate bass, say -- are costlier to provide than others.

From my limited experience with pro-monitors, they put you inside the recording studio not in row C or H. That means they collapse the soundstage and don't float images in a 3D holographic way as most audiophile speakers do. Maybe mid-field monitors like the JBL-LSR6332 do a better job of creating a 3D soundstage illusion? When I demoed the ATC-SCM 11 soundstaging was their major weakness even though they excelled in many other ways.

Douglas_schroeder,
I could not agree more with your comments about investing in "the hobby".

To Rfleff: hi, in my opinion the JBL's do nothing seriously wrong. Of course the Soundlab give a sense of height with regard to soundstage because they are quite tall.
In my case, I have tried to mimic some of the characteristics of PA speaker systems, like the JBL's by adding two open baffle woofer towers fitted with three 15 inch woofers/channel.
I use a Marchand crossover to be able to drive the Soundlabs and the woofer towers in full active mode.
And yes, I can now get some of the dynamics of a real PA system, which is obvious when listening to Michael Jackson's Liberian Girl or Smooth Criminal on the Bad CD.
One last remark: nowadays high quality PA systems don't sound aggressive any longer, unlike many of yesteryear's PA systems being used in disco clubs.

Chris