.. a lot of manufactures have *almost* made this claim, but here is one that actually DOES make this truly absurd claim:
http://www.ygacoustics.com/
(Note: Look at any recent issue of stereophile with this manufacturer's advertisement - the exact quote is: "The best loudspeaker on Earth. Period." It does however encompass the loudspeaker under review plus the extra subs.)
And here is the review that sparked this post:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/ygacoustics_anat_main_module.htm
So I thought I'd pick this WAY overpriced design apart.
Well first the manufacturer bases his claim on superior measured performance:
"In Yoav’s mind, the best speaker is the most accurate -- the one that colors the signal the least."
"Furthermore, Yoav believes that to arrive at this ideal is it imperative not just to rely on measurements but to live by them."
"Yoav believes that if you know what you’re measuring and you’re doing your measurements properly, then you can have objective data that tells you everything you need to know about designing speakers. Yes, everything."
"In terms of those measurements, what Yoav wants to see is flat-as-a-pancake on-axis frequency response, exceptionally controlled dispersion, and, perhaps trickiest of all, perfect driver-to-driver phase relationships at all frequencies."
"Yoav claims +/-0.7dB deviation from the upper bass to 20kHz (because this is a smallish speaker, deep bass is missing), and with less than 0.2dB difference from speaker to speaker."
..and fortunately soundstage does some modest measuring to peruse:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/yg_anat_ref_main_module/
First thing to note is the price.. Just how much does it cost for a solid baffle of titanium and a milled box of aluminum? Don't know, but it can't be cheap. By comparison the drivers are FAR less expensive (though certainly not inexpensive), and crossover components are not mentioned as being "exotic" like duelands (which would drive the price insanely high for 4th order design). Still, figuring a dealer markup of about 50 percent, 14 grand seems more than a little pricey irrespective of quality for such a "small" bandwidth limited monitor loudspeaker.
The next thing to look at is freq. linearity:
First thing I look to is the lower to mid midrange (80Hz to 400 Hz) at 2 meters (measured)..
Its quite flat, and it most certainly has about 6.5 db of baffle step compensation. Thats very good.
Next we look at that linearity deviation around 500-700 Hz. From a low value to a peak value (depending on the horizontal axis), there is a maximum deviation of 3 db (or +/-1.5 db). Well this certainly isn't as claimed in the review (+/-.7 db) - BUT it is a vary narrow passband and might only be excited with a few recordings.
Then we look at the top band to see horizontal near off-axis response.
From about 9 kHz it isn't good. Even at a marginal 30 degrees off-axis its down about 12 db. Looking at Chart 2's in room measurement averaged over 15 degrees, (which is p!ss little), the response is down at least 3 db at 15 kHz. Yes, this will result in a loss of what is commonly referred to as "air", BUT only for those that can hear it.
In a similar "vein", (but somewhat more sophisticated analysis), next we should look at the averaged in-room response at other freq.s specifically looking for a deviation in linearity. Again looking at Chart 2, notice that there is about a -1.5 db "trough" centered at 1.5 kHz. That WILL be audible, but not necessarily problematic for most. In FACT it could be argued (and has) that this is an enviable trait (BBC compensation curve #2). HOWEVER, take a look at what the speaker is like horizontally off-axis at 45, 60, and 75 degrees. In reality the 15 degree in room average just isn't "cutting it", and it will result in a further depression in this freq. region. Just how much is unknown, but my guess is that you can add at least another db or two to the figure when averaging over 30 degrees. Frankly, at a minimum I'd like to see it averaged 45 degrees (..note that we hear in time and spl VERY accurately just above 1.5 kHz, all of which means that we hear VERY well far off-axis horizontally near this passband).
..And finally (with respect to freq. linearity), note that the response off-axis horizontally at 45 degrees or more results in a fairly "downward" sloping response higher in freq.. While the in-room average has already been discussed, we next need to consider "image" skew as it relates to the in-room average. OK.. just what the hell is "image skew"? Image skew is a shifting of image placement depending on the on and off-axis horizontal response of the loudspeaker from about 1 kHz to about 9 kHz. Now, provided the listener is centered between the loudspeakers, it generally isn't something you would perceive as a "skewing" of the image. Its probable though that you would hear it in another function - soundstage size (to an extent), and imaging within and beyond the boundaries of the loudspeakers. Note that the way this loudspeaker is designed, flat on-axis and with a "falling" response off axis as freq.s increase in this 1-9 kHz region, that at best you will only have imaging *to* the speakers themselves, NOT beyond their boundaries. While this is a recording dependent phenomena, some *normal* recordings will have imaging outside the boundaries of the speakers when properly reproduced. (..note that this is different than phase shifting image placement in the "mid" midrange from processing like "Q" sound, etc. - which can also achieve the same effect.) Additionally, the soundstage will be reduced in width, significantly so, and will likely only extend marginally past the imaging boundary limits of the speakers. (Note though that ultra low freq. sound effects the soundstage dimensions even more, though its a moot point here because the speaker as reviewed isn't designed for this.)
Now we would ordinarily start looking at linear distortion relating to time - i.e. cumulative spectral decay. Unfortunately the publication has nothing on this. (..and its VERY important, but not necessarily as you might think HOW its important. Yeah, thats a cryptic statement, but it would take a while to explain, and again we don't have any measurements here for this loudspeaker.)
Next lets take a look at phase, not as it relates to freq. or time, but just phase itself. There is a 90 degree phase rotation from 1.2 kHz to 2.2 kHz. Call me nutty, but this does not come anywhere close to "perfect driver-to-driver phase relationships at all frequencies". Of course the designer could have been referencing phase as it relates to freq. linearity.. so who knows? Anyway, altering phase in this manner usually imparts a more forward character to imaging and soundstage dimensions, a slightly more "dynamic"/"energetic"/"lively"/"hyped" sound. (..Strangely though, a good waveguide/horn loaded driver often has the same "hyped" sound as a phase "challenged" loudspeaker in this passband.) Conversely, a speaker with less phase rotation in this region can sometimes sound more "distant" and "natural". All things considered, I'd expect this loudspeaker to be a bit more "forward" than absolute neutrality would suggest. (Note that the phase rotation at the lower mid to upper midbass, while "non-linear" is similar to what all loudspeakers experience and as such is almost certainly off-set for in any given recording - because its mastered on loudspeakers with a similar rotation.) The impedance peak at 70 Hz is the in-box resonance of the drivers. They won't behave in a linear manner here, but in truth the passband is very narrow for this non-linear behavior (60-80 Hz). On the other hand this is in the upper bass and as such IS in the "fundamental" range - and will (to some degree) be audible on most recordings.
Finally (in this "linear" look at performance), lets look at impedance. Specifically again in the 1 kHz region. Obviously no zobel filters were applied. While this may make no difference for an amplifier with a very low output impedance amplifier, it most certainly WILL make a difference for amplifers with higher output impedances. That really, is more of a cautionary tale for users though, not really a limitation in base performance.
After all that we should REALLY take a look at NON-Linear behavior:
Looking at both charts of Chart 3..
Umm, there is more than 1% distortion at 450 Hz and 7 kHz at a distance of 2 meters. THATS NOT EVEN GOOD. Worse, with not much more input power at the same distance results in more than 5% distortion in those problem areas. (..that is IF I'm reading their charts correctly, If however you divide the value in half it still has some problems at higher input levels..) Now I'll be the first to proclaim that while non-linear distortion IS audible with a test tone, it generally isn't "noticeable" with music - even at these levels (depending on the order of that distortion). HOWEVER, this dude is staking his reputation on measured performance making the absurd claim of "the best loudspeaker on Earth", and frankly there are several DIY designs that are a LOT better than this (..and cost a whole hell of a lot less).
Well, are the loudspeakers worth their price? I certainly don't think so, BUT it is a question of value and thats more than a little subjective - so what do you think?
http://www.ygacoustics.com/
(Note: Look at any recent issue of stereophile with this manufacturer's advertisement - the exact quote is: "The best loudspeaker on Earth. Period." It does however encompass the loudspeaker under review plus the extra subs.)
And here is the review that sparked this post:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/ygacoustics_anat_main_module.htm
So I thought I'd pick this WAY overpriced design apart.
Well first the manufacturer bases his claim on superior measured performance:
"In Yoav’s mind, the best speaker is the most accurate -- the one that colors the signal the least."
"Furthermore, Yoav believes that to arrive at this ideal is it imperative not just to rely on measurements but to live by them."
"Yoav believes that if you know what you’re measuring and you’re doing your measurements properly, then you can have objective data that tells you everything you need to know about designing speakers. Yes, everything."
"In terms of those measurements, what Yoav wants to see is flat-as-a-pancake on-axis frequency response, exceptionally controlled dispersion, and, perhaps trickiest of all, perfect driver-to-driver phase relationships at all frequencies."
"Yoav claims +/-0.7dB deviation from the upper bass to 20kHz (because this is a smallish speaker, deep bass is missing), and with less than 0.2dB difference from speaker to speaker."
..and fortunately soundstage does some modest measuring to peruse:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/yg_anat_ref_main_module/
First thing to note is the price.. Just how much does it cost for a solid baffle of titanium and a milled box of aluminum? Don't know, but it can't be cheap. By comparison the drivers are FAR less expensive (though certainly not inexpensive), and crossover components are not mentioned as being "exotic" like duelands (which would drive the price insanely high for 4th order design). Still, figuring a dealer markup of about 50 percent, 14 grand seems more than a little pricey irrespective of quality for such a "small" bandwidth limited monitor loudspeaker.
The next thing to look at is freq. linearity:
First thing I look to is the lower to mid midrange (80Hz to 400 Hz) at 2 meters (measured)..
Its quite flat, and it most certainly has about 6.5 db of baffle step compensation. Thats very good.
Next we look at that linearity deviation around 500-700 Hz. From a low value to a peak value (depending on the horizontal axis), there is a maximum deviation of 3 db (or +/-1.5 db). Well this certainly isn't as claimed in the review (+/-.7 db) - BUT it is a vary narrow passband and might only be excited with a few recordings.
Then we look at the top band to see horizontal near off-axis response.
From about 9 kHz it isn't good. Even at a marginal 30 degrees off-axis its down about 12 db. Looking at Chart 2's in room measurement averaged over 15 degrees, (which is p!ss little), the response is down at least 3 db at 15 kHz. Yes, this will result in a loss of what is commonly referred to as "air", BUT only for those that can hear it.
In a similar "vein", (but somewhat more sophisticated analysis), next we should look at the averaged in-room response at other freq.s specifically looking for a deviation in linearity. Again looking at Chart 2, notice that there is about a -1.5 db "trough" centered at 1.5 kHz. That WILL be audible, but not necessarily problematic for most. In FACT it could be argued (and has) that this is an enviable trait (BBC compensation curve #2). HOWEVER, take a look at what the speaker is like horizontally off-axis at 45, 60, and 75 degrees. In reality the 15 degree in room average just isn't "cutting it", and it will result in a further depression in this freq. region. Just how much is unknown, but my guess is that you can add at least another db or two to the figure when averaging over 30 degrees. Frankly, at a minimum I'd like to see it averaged 45 degrees (..note that we hear in time and spl VERY accurately just above 1.5 kHz, all of which means that we hear VERY well far off-axis horizontally near this passband).
..And finally (with respect to freq. linearity), note that the response off-axis horizontally at 45 degrees or more results in a fairly "downward" sloping response higher in freq.. While the in-room average has already been discussed, we next need to consider "image" skew as it relates to the in-room average. OK.. just what the hell is "image skew"? Image skew is a shifting of image placement depending on the on and off-axis horizontal response of the loudspeaker from about 1 kHz to about 9 kHz. Now, provided the listener is centered between the loudspeakers, it generally isn't something you would perceive as a "skewing" of the image. Its probable though that you would hear it in another function - soundstage size (to an extent), and imaging within and beyond the boundaries of the loudspeakers. Note that the way this loudspeaker is designed, flat on-axis and with a "falling" response off axis as freq.s increase in this 1-9 kHz region, that at best you will only have imaging *to* the speakers themselves, NOT beyond their boundaries. While this is a recording dependent phenomena, some *normal* recordings will have imaging outside the boundaries of the speakers when properly reproduced. (..note that this is different than phase shifting image placement in the "mid" midrange from processing like "Q" sound, etc. - which can also achieve the same effect.) Additionally, the soundstage will be reduced in width, significantly so, and will likely only extend marginally past the imaging boundary limits of the speakers. (Note though that ultra low freq. sound effects the soundstage dimensions even more, though its a moot point here because the speaker as reviewed isn't designed for this.)
Now we would ordinarily start looking at linear distortion relating to time - i.e. cumulative spectral decay. Unfortunately the publication has nothing on this. (..and its VERY important, but not necessarily as you might think HOW its important. Yeah, thats a cryptic statement, but it would take a while to explain, and again we don't have any measurements here for this loudspeaker.)
Next lets take a look at phase, not as it relates to freq. or time, but just phase itself. There is a 90 degree phase rotation from 1.2 kHz to 2.2 kHz. Call me nutty, but this does not come anywhere close to "perfect driver-to-driver phase relationships at all frequencies". Of course the designer could have been referencing phase as it relates to freq. linearity.. so who knows? Anyway, altering phase in this manner usually imparts a more forward character to imaging and soundstage dimensions, a slightly more "dynamic"/"energetic"/"lively"/"hyped" sound. (..Strangely though, a good waveguide/horn loaded driver often has the same "hyped" sound as a phase "challenged" loudspeaker in this passband.) Conversely, a speaker with less phase rotation in this region can sometimes sound more "distant" and "natural". All things considered, I'd expect this loudspeaker to be a bit more "forward" than absolute neutrality would suggest. (Note that the phase rotation at the lower mid to upper midbass, while "non-linear" is similar to what all loudspeakers experience and as such is almost certainly off-set for in any given recording - because its mastered on loudspeakers with a similar rotation.) The impedance peak at 70 Hz is the in-box resonance of the drivers. They won't behave in a linear manner here, but in truth the passband is very narrow for this non-linear behavior (60-80 Hz). On the other hand this is in the upper bass and as such IS in the "fundamental" range - and will (to some degree) be audible on most recordings.
Finally (in this "linear" look at performance), lets look at impedance. Specifically again in the 1 kHz region. Obviously no zobel filters were applied. While this may make no difference for an amplifier with a very low output impedance amplifier, it most certainly WILL make a difference for amplifers with higher output impedances. That really, is more of a cautionary tale for users though, not really a limitation in base performance.
After all that we should REALLY take a look at NON-Linear behavior:
Looking at both charts of Chart 3..
Umm, there is more than 1% distortion at 450 Hz and 7 kHz at a distance of 2 meters. THATS NOT EVEN GOOD. Worse, with not much more input power at the same distance results in more than 5% distortion in those problem areas. (..that is IF I'm reading their charts correctly, If however you divide the value in half it still has some problems at higher input levels..) Now I'll be the first to proclaim that while non-linear distortion IS audible with a test tone, it generally isn't "noticeable" with music - even at these levels (depending on the order of that distortion). HOWEVER, this dude is staking his reputation on measured performance making the absurd claim of "the best loudspeaker on Earth", and frankly there are several DIY designs that are a LOT better than this (..and cost a whole hell of a lot less).
Well, are the loudspeakers worth their price? I certainly don't think so, BUT it is a question of value and thats more than a little subjective - so what do you think?
Tenson said:
😀
..are you talking about that joke of a loudspeaker using a cheap car coaxial loudspeaker? 😉
(Scott, not intended as a serious rebuttal, but an interested query, if you may...🙂)
I dunno what you're complaining about. Compared to Wilson Audio (anythings), Karmas or Lumenwhites, they measure ruler flat... And, if they're the actual measurements (not 1/3-octave averaged or whatever) then they would be the flattest I've ever seen.
Not saying that they would be my cup of tea, but from the review, they sound as if they're fairly accurate in soundstaging and neutral in tone. Without having heard them I couldn't comment any more.
Why the rant? Are you offended by 5-figure prices for speakers? There are many more that are much higher priced, and that don't seem to come even close to these in terms of 'accuracy' (take that term for what you may...🙂).
Possibly the makers advertising spiel? They come a lot closer than "perfect sound forever", and they have left themselves open to the sort of criticism that is being levelled here. So I say good on 'em! I'd be interested in seeing any published set of measurements that are better though. And I would be interested in hearing them anyway.
I dunno what you're complaining about. Compared to Wilson Audio (anythings), Karmas or Lumenwhites, they measure ruler flat... And, if they're the actual measurements (not 1/3-octave averaged or whatever) then they would be the flattest I've ever seen.
Not saying that they would be my cup of tea, but from the review, they sound as if they're fairly accurate in soundstaging and neutral in tone. Without having heard them I couldn't comment any more.
Why the rant? Are you offended by 5-figure prices for speakers? There are many more that are much higher priced, and that don't seem to come even close to these in terms of 'accuracy' (take that term for what you may...🙂).
Possibly the makers advertising spiel? They come a lot closer than "perfect sound forever", and they have left themselves open to the sort of criticism that is being levelled here. So I say good on 'em! I'd be interested in seeing any published set of measurements that are better though. And I would be interested in hearing them anyway.
It's the second time a post this within a short period. I am NOT plugging them or the manufacturer. Where's my interest in that? The "I'd be interested in seeing any published set of measurements that are better though" motivated me. I have too limited knowledge and there are too many graphs for me to say which one is better. But this is pretty damn good:
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/501/index6.html
http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/501/index6.html
It’s a silly claim and no one should make it. They do measure very well though, apart from that THD+N that is average at best. But then again it was at 2m and it’s a small speaker. The fast falling off-axis above 9KHz is an issue IMO but others would claim it helps control overly live rooms.
phn said:
Hi phn,
I overlaid the 2 (ignore the scale on the side, it's not correct for both) after adjusting for size. The Stereophile one is in blue. It has more lively 'peaks' and 'dips' - but as I said in my previous post, I'm not sure if the measurements have been smoothed for the "Best Loudspeaker". I know they have been 'adjusted' in the Stereophile, but I don't think JA smooths them very much...
Tenson, it is a silly claim. But I don't think that the THD+N is average. Check the latest Quads (in Stereophile, I think) for amazing claims against incredible distortion...
Attachments
I'm a huge fan of measurements but think they only tell half of the story. The Quad ESL-989s and Wilson Maxx2 speakers are the two best speakers I've ever heard but they don't measure well. The Quad's high frequency response drops off very quickly (particularly only slightly off-axis), and the Wilson's have have a fairly big hole in the midrange which wasn't noticeable to me. John Atkinson of Stereophile concluded his measurements of the Quad by saying
The same measurement issue occurs with all other audio products. Consider the tube amp compared to a transistor-based amp...
.
The same measurement issue occurs with all other audio products. Consider the tube amp compared to a transistor-based amp...
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
ScottG said:
I believe you read the first distortion chart correctly, but not the second one. The difference between response and distortion is 41 dB in the first graph, which is about 1% (-41 dB / 20 = -2.05. 10^-2.05 = 0.009, or 0.9%). For the second graph the difference is 36 dB, or about 1.6% distortion.
Nevertheless, that value is a problem even though it's in a fairly narrow range, which would tend to minimize adverse effects. On the other hand, I begin to wonder about damped resonances whenever I see narrowband distortion peaks. A set of CSD curves could be instructive.
holdent said:
The Wilson midrange hole is mitigated in large part by the off-axis response, plus the bass hump helps seduce the listener into liking the thing. That does seem to be a common thread in Stereophile reviews: large speakers with +3 dB below 90 Hz garner kudos almost every time so long as the peak isn't narrow enough to generate one-note bass.
The Quad measurements show the on-axis response hole to be filled in off the vertical axis, so in-room energy (not plotted in the Stereophile review) would tend to be flatter than the anechoic response might indicate. It's also a dipole, which has nulls at +- 90 degrees off-axis, so that might help with high frequency beaming causing a lack of HF room energy. Note the speaker also has the mid-bass "Stereophile hump".
Long story short, on-axis response is only part of the story. An important one, yes, because of the Haas precedence effect, but not the whole tale.
Cheers,
Francois.
Lots of tests under different conditions are necessary to know the whole story. What manufacturers normally present are the best looking results, and not for real evaluation of performance. But I do think that a speaker at that price should come with a quite complete technical report.
Cloth Ears said:
It isn't intended as a rant, and in fact they DO measure well in many respects. The only serious complaint I can level against them is the exorbitant price.
The thing is.. go back and look at AJ's "reply" - its instructive of what I was trying to imply.. which is:
1. They most certainly are not the "best loudspeaker on the Earth" (but any reasonable person would assume that, so its something of a non-plus).
2. Beyond the pricey cabinet, there isn't one single aspect that couldn't be done better by DIY'ers, and at a MUCH lower cost. (and oh yes, even the cabinet can be better with cement/concrete.)
3. The design itself is a bit boring. It doesn't offer anything new, and in many respects is unremarkable beyond its price. (..which I'm pretty sure is AJ's comment. 😉 )
4. In context with #3 - I personally don't think they come a lot closer to "perfect sound forever". In *some* respects they are more "refined" than NUMEROUS like alternatives (measurably so), but here is an analogy: Improve a horse and carriage to the absolute best horse and carriage possible, and still the worst functioning current production car used appropriately will FAR surpass that horse and carriage in typical operation. This is something I was trying to suggest with off axis comments on this speaker in particular - that refining a flaw is still a flaw. And this leads me to my final comment:
5. Again.. lets look back at one of those statements in the review:
"Yoav believes that if you know what you’re measuring and you’re doing your measurements properly, then you can have objective data that tells you everything you need to know about designing speakers. Yes, everything."
I obviously believe that Yoav is full of cr@p (..actually myopic hubris). Yoav may well understand some of what he is measuring, but all of it and its significance? Hardly. Nor is it likely that in fact everything with significance is actually in the measurements we use today. So no - objective data (as commonly collected today) will NOT tell you everything you need to know about designing speakers. Now it probably can tell you a LOT about what is needed to design a *good* loudspeaker when compared to todays standards.
..And I can't stress this enough. Some people seem to have a predilection toward this viewpoint. Its the same "know it all" viewpoint that sustains "magazines" like the Audio Critic. (i.e. all moderately well designed low output impedance amps sound the same.. Of course if that were actually true then what the hell are people doing in these forums? ..what has Nelson Pass been doing for the better part of his professional career? etc. ..and this is FAR more controversial than the design of a loudspeaker that even the Audio Critic won't state is a "cut n' dry" process.)
But again, none of this is really a complaint - just my observations correct or not. 😉
ScottG said:
Understood. In a talk I gave on buying audio equipment, I used the '10% law' (any piece of equipment will only cost 10% of the RRP to manufacture and deliver locally) as a guide to values. So by that criteria I would suspect that it theoretically costs them $2800 to produce each pair. I'd guess that tooling for titanium is expensive, but not that expensive.
For some reason I was looking at them being $14000/pair, which seemed excessive, but not as excessive as $28000. In fact, it seemed believable by the 10% law.
Good observations...
Those measurements look very good. It would be nice to see the temporal behaviour as well though (i.e. step-response and waterfall).
Distortion is good IMO. The midrange THD peaks point to resonant peaks in the midwoofer's upper end response and disturb the picture a bit.
The off-axis drop at the upper end is unavoidable with this type of (otherwise excellent) tweeter.
It is not the perfect speaker for sure but that one doesn't exist anyway.
Regards
Charles
Distortion is good IMO. The midrange THD peaks point to resonant peaks in the midwoofer's upper end response and disturb the picture a bit.
The off-axis drop at the upper end is unavoidable with this type of (otherwise excellent) tweeter.
It is not the perfect speaker for sure but that one doesn't exist anyway.
Regards
Charles
ScottG said:
I find the use of a XT ring radiator loaded by a silver WG to stroke of genius. Big brained Einstein style.
What is measured might be 25%. Glaringly omitted is the remaining 75%. I don't particularly blame the designer. It appears to be very well excuted for the intended market, 99% who have never heard (or heard of) a coaxial dipole or other such approach that broadcast power into a room in quite different fashion. Here is where Solid Aluminum, X material, boomerang shapes, moonrock, etc. on other such window dressing (bling factor) pre-empt anything resembling innovation/small room acoustics solutions.
Which all leads to a very sleepy, comatose like feeling when casting a gaze upon such handiwork. Now where was I, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..................
cheers,
AJ
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/energy_c3.htm
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/energy_connoisseur_c3/
Nearly as flat on-axis
Better off-axis measurements
More bass
Significantly Lower distortion
$27,500 cheaper
Expensive loudspeakers are all about fashion.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/energy_connoisseur_c3/
Nearly as flat on-axis
Better off-axis measurements
More bass
Significantly Lower distortion
$27,500 cheaper
Expensive loudspeakers are all about fashion.
To some consumers the high price is part of the benifits of the component. Some people feel better about themselves because their speaker costs $14,000 per side...not because it actually sounds great. Those people are the ones that speakers like this are marketed for.
What bothers me is the elitist attutude that there can possibly be one speaker that is the best for all situations - and that this yahoo and his crack teem of markateers have designed and built it.
What bothers me is the elitist attutude that there can possibly be one speaker that is the best for all situations - and that this yahoo and his crack teem of markateers have designed and built it.
I don't think you can apply the 10% cost of retail price rule to high-end cottage industry stuff. I assure you those solid metal cabinets will cost a lot to make. Maybe $1,500 on their own.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.