Monitors that compete with quality floorstanders??

I think there is some heavy-duty "marketing" going on with Sjofn's specs. A standmounter with a 5.5" driver and a small-moderate sized cabinet is not going to do 28Hz on the bottom. It may have a very impressive low end, but I find that specification very suspect. So, if someone feels it might be able to compete with a floorstander on the bottom end, give it a listen first. Admittedly, I haven't heard the speaker, but I'd like to see a little more accuracy in the way things are rated. It kind of reminds me of the little home theatre in a box systems bragging about having 1500W (probably rated one channel driven at a lower impedance for a nanosecond at 20% distortion multiplied by the number of channels).

No longer in production but the cliffhanger audio bulldogs are good performers.

"I think there is some heavy-duty "marketing" going on with Sjofn's specs. A standmounter with a 5.5" driver and a small-moderate sized cabinet is not going to do 28Hz on the bottom."

The claimed low-end extension is dependent on the speakers being placed as recommended for optimal boundary reinforcement. The designer has tailored the low-frequency response of the system to be the approximate inverse of the anticipated boundary reinforcement, so that when placed as recommended, the net result is extension instead of boom. I use a similar approach in some of my designs, and call it "room gain complementary tuning". Taking advantage of boundary reinforcement is about as close as it gets to a free lunch.

Duke
dealer/manufacturer/admires the Clue from afar

I have to agree with Soix about Totem. I have been enamoured with the brand for more years than I should have. My target speaker was Totem's "Hawk" speaker a short floorstander with outstanding soundstaging and to a like degree imagining. The next model up, "The Forrest" was never in my price range used or new. As far as their monitors, like the Mani-2 Signatures are excellent speakers, but grossly overpriced, and therefore overpriced used. I have e-mailed Vince Bruzzi several times over the years asking why his speaker were expensive and got the same rap every time about mil. spec driver components, and especially crossovers network OK, touché but..... I had a similar argument with Alan Perkins when he was the Audio Physic rep, as to why the original Virgo speaker, and other models cost almost 30% percent more than other similar designed speakers of notable brands. His argument was excellent sound quality can not be measured in dollars. He claimed the same theory guided him to buy, a Volvo, not a Honda Accord.

That is horseshit, and designers, reps, and manufacturers who take this position know it. Is it the same attitude as the grocery shopper who chooses a generic brand over a name brand to save money??. Obviously, buying a high end speaker system, is not like buying a box of cereal or clothes detergent But as I argued before, where does product 'VALUE" cross WITH PRODUCT PRICING. Yes, plenty of expensive R&D go into creating a great audio product, but when a manufacturer tries to recoup his development and manufacturing costs by literally gouging the customer, that is unfair, and just stupid ass business practice on the part of the manufacturer.

We may have younger members on AG who dismiss ( or ignore) the fact that 40 years ago, manufacturers, like Dynaco and Advent could not turn out their speakers fast enough. Millions of A-25's and Large Advents were sold, as well as Infinity's model 2000. Price always seemed to legitimately match the value of the speaker, that is, the sound it produced. Can we say that is the case with some speakers today???

When YG introduced the model: The "Carmel" about 4 years ago. it retailed for $18,000. The reviews were spectacular, especially the one in TAS which concluded that this design was doing something special and great to produce the level of sound quality. I heard the speaker at a local dealer in Honolulu, and it was excellent, bringing CD and vinyl to a new level of musicality. I happened to jokingly say to the owner of the shop,..."where does $5000 of musical satisfaction begin and end, and when does $10,000 of musical satisfaction kick in, and the REMAINING $8000 of its retail value, what will that add to the customer's enjoyment. Even the dealer had to laugh, as I was "benchmarking" performance levels based on price increments.

I am sure there are memebers foaming at the mouth at what I jokingly commented to the owner of the shop; however, I have to reaffirm that price should reflect the value of the sound provided by a speaker system. Using the barometer of long term musical satisfaction, or product development costs does seem to me a viable way to determine MSRP. Thank you to all who have responded!!!

To NoNoise, I checked out the Atomhn website. Nice speakers. The Sirocco is reasonably priced at $1495.00 but the other monitor called the "Grinell"(?) is $3995.00. If you heard both on the same day, tell me where and how you thought value, (that is, musical satisfaction) legitimately reflected price.

I am sure we both, and other members could clearly discern the differences between this speaker, the Reference 3A DeCapo, and the much scorned and lowly Sjorn's "The Clue"

Thanks for your recommendation