Not always. Speakers, like all other components, are subject to the law of diminishing returns. If you want what high enders think are the ultimate speakers, you will have to spend gobs of money. In some circles, quoting $50,000, $75,000 or even $100,000 for a pair means state-of-the-art. Anything less and they think you are missing something. The ultimate integrated insult/putdown being to call anything mid-fi. So with a price point in shallow orbit, this leaves an awfull lot of room to for such mid-fi speakers as Vandersteen 5s, Thiel CS 7.2, Magneplaner 3.6, and the list goes on. Speakers happen to be the most difficult component to design and build, the most prone to likes and dislikes in the litener and the one having to contend with interfacing with the room in which they will operate. If cost is not a consideration for you, you can disregard all mention of bang for the buck etc. If, on the other hand, you, like most, have a budget, then you will have to live with a certain degree of compromise. Believe me, if you take cost into the equation, you will realise how precious little return you normally get even by doubling or tripling your initial investment. Get the best you can afford of a size that fits your room and enjoy the music. Naysayers say nay, no matter what.
Are more expensive speakers better?
Recently, I found out an interesting thing while reviewing audiogon threads. Many people were not satisfied with their current speakers and were trying to "upgrade" their system, seeking other people's opinions/advices/recommendations. And most people used the phrases like "best bang for the buck" or "at that price range". Does that mean more expentive speakers are better?
- ...
- 48 posts total
- 48 posts total