"The Ultra High-End Speaker."


My entire relatively simple high end audio system retails for approx. $70,000, with my speakers alone retailing for approx. $24,000 (Revel Salon 2 speakers).  I've been around high-end audio for over 40 years.  I attend audio shows and visit local and non-local high-end audio shops on a regular basis.  I get to hears a lot of high-end audio speakers and gear all the time.  That said, I honestly believe, along with others who've visited my home and have listened to my system, that my system (speakers) produce that ultra high-end, reference quality sound.  Others would suggest that, when it comes to speakers, that the "Ultra High-End" sound can only be achieved by megabuck speakers costing 50K, 100K, 250k and beyond.  I do not believe that ultra high-end ("Sound Quality") is excusive to those speakers costing a king's ransom.  And, I think my own system is am example of what can be achieved at a lower (not for most people) price point.  I absolutely believe in the law of diminishing returns, especially when it comes to high-end speakers.  What's your definition, idea of, what you consider to be, a "Ultra High-End Speaker, and at what price point does the ultra high-end start?????            

kennymacc

Here’s an example. In a smaller room it is hard to fault the sound quality of a pair of tiny kef ls50 metas plus a good quality sub. But that is only within their limits which is mainly how loud they can go without distortion.

So for around 3K properly setup in a smaller room you can basically have all there is to have up to say 85-90db SPL or so.

Now some might want to go louder and some may just not care for the sound. But the sound is without question technically very high end.

As the room size gets larger so will the cost of best possible sound. But a pair of $32k Kef Blade metas can do the job in most any room found  in most people’s houses.  

 

Mahgister-what makes you think you are the only 1 that knows certain things?
 
Where did i say that i am the only one to know ?
I just thank Lavigne for his post because he knows and many others here knows too... But many dont ...They must learn by some that we can enjoy good sound at low cost if we STUDY and EXPERIMENT ... Many here brag about costly components merely then i gave another perspective ... Acoustic panels dont replace dedicated acoustic room either most of the times ... Sorry ...
 
 
For most of us that spend tens of thousands of dollars on gear, don’t you think these same people know how to treat their room? The room is a must to do right first.
 
Spending thousand dollars in component has nothing to do with acoustics ... And acoustics knowledge dont reduce to room acoustic treatment ... And room treatment dont reduce to passive materials treatment ...
 
A good treated room can cost many thousands of dollars. But the thing is, even if you spend tens of thousands building your room with all the acoustic treatments with the right dimensions, a cheap stereo will still sound cheap.
 
My dedicated acoustic room cost me nothing because i made it myself not with only absorbing and reflective and diffusive surface in the right balance but i used also one hundred resonators mechanically tuned and others devices of my own ...my hobby was learning acoustic by hand ... Then once more you confuse knowledge with money ... And for what reason my Mission Cyrus speakers must be cheap sound and my Sansui amplifier cheap sound too ? They must sound "cheap"? There exist no concept of "cheap" sound in acoustic .. Even if my gear is modest , it is basically good gear and it is enough to experiment with ...My goal was learning not bragging about my gear ...
 
But this same room will allow your better equipment like the Revels the OP has, to sound their best. It would be foolish to spend thousands on the room if you have cheap equipment, but at the same time, it would be foolish if you didn’t do this if you have good quality equipment, like the Revels.
 
What is your point ? the fact that my speakers cannot rival the Revel speakers does not means that my sound quality is condemned to be "cheap" even in a dedicated room ... A minimal satiosfaction threshold was my goal not the TOP OPTIMAL one whcho for sure will cost  much more money than what i have ...
 
All my post was there to motivate people to be creative at peanuts cost ... If they own a dedicated room for sure ... Nobody can experiment much in a living room ...
 
Then you have no point against my posts and associating a good sound with price tag is the summum of ignorance because it is NOT EVEN WRONG in many case ...If you feel that i know better than you feel free to feel it but my goal was not to patronize you but to speak about my experience .... I never brag about my system price tag and i NEVER associate good acoustic experience with a big amount of money ... I advocated for acoustic experiments at no cost ... What is your problem with my knowledge ?
 
And i dont have a "cheap" soundfield experience by the way at all , and my active modified speakers are low cost and my headphone low cost too ...
Guess why ?
 
 
 

In a larger scale commercial application the cost of great sound goes way up proportionally beyond anything found in a persons home.

For example:

https://venuesnow.com/las-vegas-sphere-unveils-audio-system/

 

World’s most advanced!

 

My point being:  There's a number of super high quality moderately priced speakers out there like mine that perform at such high levels of proficiency and produce such astonishingly superb sound quality that, inch for inch, pound for pound, one has to question the need to spend more.  My beloved Revel Salon 2 speakers are a prime example of that.  Yes, I've heard a number of moderately priced speakers just like mine, where pure sound quality is concerned, can go toe-to-toe with any of the megabuck, ultra high-end, cost no object, speakers costing multiples of their retail price.  Were a lot of the ultra high-end speakers really have a distinct advantage is with their size and "Scale."  Just one mans opinion.       

I have heard a number of rooms built from the ground up as audio rooms with full blown complete room treatment.  Even with such rooms, subjective impression of the rooms vary greatly.  Most of such rooms were, to me, disappointing—too dry and analytical sounding with bleached out harmonics.  
 

The best was a $250,000 room designed by an acoustic architect.  That room did not look like it was treated because most treatment was hidden behind the wall coverings, including the truly giant bass traps in all four corners.  The front wall had a very large convex wood diffusor that looked like room decoration, not treatment.  But, even this room, which I liked, got mixed reviews.  Two of my friends did not like the sound and both are audio professionals.  So much of good sound IS subjective.