Well I listened to the YG Acoustics Vantage and the Elsinore speakers by Joe Rasmussen in the same day within two hours of one another. To my surprise, the YG Acoustics did not do what the Elsinore's do. The Elsinore's we're just simply better to my ears. Bigger sounding, more holographic, clearer detail throughout the mid-range and highs...
There are a lot of variables involved like amplifiers, preamp etc. Also different rooms. And maybe a selective pair of ears. But the fact that a DIY design is good enough to make you think for a bit... I think they are certainly worth less than a tenth of the price.
There are a lot of variables involved like amplifiers, preamp etc. Also different rooms. And maybe a selective pair of ears. But the fact that a DIY design is good enough to make you think for a bit... I think they are certainly worth less than a tenth of the price.
Interesting thread I've been following without posting till now. Wading in...
There are so many levels of performance & expectations in audio that it's really impossible to answer the OP's query in a straightforward way. There is no simple answer. Hence nearly 400 posts of varied discussion without real consensus. 😀
I suspect if the very best meticulously engineered expensive speakers & the smartest budget speakers are excluded, we can say yes, the best DIYers can do as well, often for less $ but with great effort and time. We mostly work alone, even if we get advice & learn from great forums like this one. If you are exceptionally brilliant, highly capable & own & mastered a huge array of tools, perhaps you can match the work of a large company dedicated to nothing but loudspeaker design & manufacture for decades. Most of us don't fit this description.
There is a pair of used Vandersteen 2e in good condition advertised right now for CA$1000 or USD700. The seller might accept less. I cannot imagine anyone here working from scratch (ie, design + execution) can match them for that kind of $. Or even 2x or 3x that.
If DIY is just execution (build), then copying well-designed speakers widely lauded & well-documented could match or exceed commercial offerings -- but again, not in the bargain sector but higher up, perhaps starting as high as $2000. Ditto well designed kits published by the likes of SBA, Seas, the Germans outfits mentioned earlier.
-----------------
Underlying my comments & this entire discussion is a gorilla in the room that isn't much discussed, even here: Audio's Circle of Confusion. A term coined by Floyd Toole. In essence, the distortions in the recordings we use to evaluate loudspeakers cannot be easily separated from those produced by the loudspeaker. So are we really evaluating the fidelity of speakers? Or their ability to make varied recordings sound good? The two are not the same.
The article I linked goes back to 2009, but afaik, it is just as relevant today.
We all use various recordings to assess loudspeakers, and more than likely, we choose recordings that sound better with our loudspeakers or, inversely, make them sound better. People ask me whether my speakers favor certain types of music, and my standard answer is that they don't know what kind of music is being played, they don't care, and it's simply about converting the electrical signal flowing into them into sounds as faithfully as possible. This answer isn't complete because the parameters that govern the recordings which produce that signal flow varies so greatly.
One of the most repeated comments/questions about a loudspeaker is not about how it sounds with "good" recordings but how it handles bad recordings. More often than not, loudspeakers that reveal inadequacies in the recording (or in some case, the media) are derided as unforgiving, too revealing, etc. How can a truly accurate loudspeaker NOT reveal such inadequacies or not sound bad with such recordings?
I guess what I am saying is that the entire audio industry is deeply flawed as a result of this circle of confusion, and as dedicated audio consumers or speaker builders, we are forced to choose between something that sounds pretty good with most recordings but is inherently not truly accurate, and something that's far more accurate but reveals the flaws and inadequacies of some of our favorite music recordings. I usually favor the latter. Not everyone does.
In contrast, the movie/video industry seems to have done audio properly. I am not knowledgeable about it, but there appear to be quite detailed requirements for both theatres & for HT playback, and the recording side has to follow standards for correct playback through the defined playback systems. This seems far in advance of the music-only audio industry.
There are so many levels of performance & expectations in audio that it's really impossible to answer the OP's query in a straightforward way. There is no simple answer. Hence nearly 400 posts of varied discussion without real consensus. 😀
I suspect if the very best meticulously engineered expensive speakers & the smartest budget speakers are excluded, we can say yes, the best DIYers can do as well, often for less $ but with great effort and time. We mostly work alone, even if we get advice & learn from great forums like this one. If you are exceptionally brilliant, highly capable & own & mastered a huge array of tools, perhaps you can match the work of a large company dedicated to nothing but loudspeaker design & manufacture for decades. Most of us don't fit this description.
There is a pair of used Vandersteen 2e in good condition advertised right now for CA$1000 or USD700. The seller might accept less. I cannot imagine anyone here working from scratch (ie, design + execution) can match them for that kind of $. Or even 2x or 3x that.
If DIY is just execution (build), then copying well-designed speakers widely lauded & well-documented could match or exceed commercial offerings -- but again, not in the bargain sector but higher up, perhaps starting as high as $2000. Ditto well designed kits published by the likes of SBA, Seas, the Germans outfits mentioned earlier.
-----------------
Underlying my comments & this entire discussion is a gorilla in the room that isn't much discussed, even here: Audio's Circle of Confusion. A term coined by Floyd Toole. In essence, the distortions in the recordings we use to evaluate loudspeakers cannot be easily separated from those produced by the loudspeaker. So are we really evaluating the fidelity of speakers? Or their ability to make varied recordings sound good? The two are not the same.
The article I linked goes back to 2009, but afaik, it is just as relevant today.
We all use various recordings to assess loudspeakers, and more than likely, we choose recordings that sound better with our loudspeakers or, inversely, make them sound better. People ask me whether my speakers favor certain types of music, and my standard answer is that they don't know what kind of music is being played, they don't care, and it's simply about converting the electrical signal flowing into them into sounds as faithfully as possible. This answer isn't complete because the parameters that govern the recordings which produce that signal flow varies so greatly.
One of the most repeated comments/questions about a loudspeaker is not about how it sounds with "good" recordings but how it handles bad recordings. More often than not, loudspeakers that reveal inadequacies in the recording (or in some case, the media) are derided as unforgiving, too revealing, etc. How can a truly accurate loudspeaker NOT reveal such inadequacies or not sound bad with such recordings?
I guess what I am saying is that the entire audio industry is deeply flawed as a result of this circle of confusion, and as dedicated audio consumers or speaker builders, we are forced to choose between something that sounds pretty good with most recordings but is inherently not truly accurate, and something that's far more accurate but reveals the flaws and inadequacies of some of our favorite music recordings. I usually favor the latter. Not everyone does.
In contrast, the movie/video industry seems to have done audio properly. I am not knowledgeable about it, but there appear to be quite detailed requirements for both theatres & for HT playback, and the recording side has to follow standards for correct playback through the defined playback systems. This seems far in advance of the music-only audio industry.
2 cents: commercial loudspeakers (other than so-called "high-end" maybe) mainly cater to the scientifically/statistically "valid" Harman average random room/placement/toe-in/seating/taste/genre of many decades ago.... How well that matches an individual's situation and needs, who knows?
I prefer minimalist-mic'ed recordings of Early/Classical Music so the audiomix problem isn't nearly as important. But the bar can be set higher for coherence, tonality, articulation, imaging depth, transcient fidelity etc.
(When I was a student I could try to buy nearly every Early/Chamber Music release; nowadays I cannot hope to sample them all despite the convenience.)
I prefer minimalist-mic'ed recordings of Early/Classical Music so the audiomix problem isn't nearly as important. But the bar can be set higher for coherence, tonality, articulation, imaging depth, transcient fidelity etc.
(When I was a student I could try to buy nearly every Early/Chamber Music release; nowadays I cannot hope to sample them all despite the convenience.)