One way to determine what the BEST speaker is!

[GreenJelly]

At a local dealer, I was supprised to see him look into a book that gave prices and resell values on all of the speakers (and maybe Audio Equipment) available. It was kinda like thoose old baseball card priceguides.

My idea is that it would be easy to find the best speakers currently made, by going into the book and finding out the ratio between New and Used price. In a free market, the highest quality speaker should resell for the most, assuming that the market is filled with semi-qualified individuals (which I expect are the $1500+ system price range buyers).

It would be great to find out these ratios.

[Clint DeBoer]

That's not really true for audio, especially with the highly-marketed 'form over function' brands.

[KrisJ]

That's not really true for audio, especially with the highly-marketed 'form over function' brands.

blasphemy!

$$$$$$ = best!

:rolleyes:

[GreenJelly]

I dont think form over function brands will have high ratios. Just like cars, they dont sell well if they just look good. The high sellers are the ones that dont require maintenance and that perform to the buyers expectations.

BMW, Subaru, Hyundai, and Honda are great examples of this.

[Johnd]

Not remotely a fair analogy. Audio equipment is now technology driven, except for speakers. DVI, HDMI, Audessey, High-Definition etc. One could argue my 5803 was dated six months after I bought it. It does not have all the bells and whistles of the 5805, let alone the 5805CI. It's a keeper though, especially as paired up with my 'digms!

[KrisJ]

I dont think form over function brands will have high ratios. Just like cars, they dont sell well if they just look good.


:rolleyes:

little cubes, flat wall mount speakers, and coked-out super model thin floorstanders are all the rage these days and just about every major speaker maker has jumped on board. 99% of the time, the form over function speaker will cost more, yet offer performance far below that of a conventially designed loudspeaker from the same brand.

Also supply/demand has a lot to do with price, both new and used. A rare or not widely available or mass produced item often carries a hefty price tag. Brand image also plays a huge factor, look at BOSE.

[VicAjax]

My idea is that it would be easy to find the best speakers currently made, by going into the book and finding out the ratio between New and Used price. In a free market, the highest quality speaker should resell for the most, assuming that the market is filled with semi-qualified individuals (which I expect are the $1500+ system price range buyers).

a scientific hypothesis needs only one controverting datum to falsify it: BOSE.

[GreenJelly]

Yes, BOSE is like Rolex... it is a status symbol... but that is a criteria for some people as a claim to the best and as such would be reflexed in the resell value. If the ratio is low, then obvious the Rolex isnt respected any more.

And supply/demand is exactly why this method of speaker quality determination is valid. The only issue is that new speakers will be higher ratios (due to artifical low supply because of people wanting Used 1 month old speakers), so the manufacture date should also be included.

As far as type of speakers, be it satalites etc, that is also part of value. And though I hate them, and most people on this site totally oppose them, many people just wont budge on speaker size. So if your dead set on buying a satalite system, which ones should we recommend as the cream of the crop?

Well this model will help us make a determination, even though we can rant and rave and recommend and plead for a change in heart.

[Seth=L]

I have had stuff that ain't worth spit, but they sound good. I had a Fisher integrated amp, it was worth $20, it was a monster. It had a 700 watt input power and could create tremedous output.

[GreenJelly]

I have had stuff that ain't worth spit, but they sound good. I had a Fisher integrated amp, it was worth $20, it was a monster. It had a 700 watt input power and could create tremedous output.

I know nothing of this amp, but Im assuming you bought it used and that it was a very old model.

Mike

[markw]

In a free market, the highest quality speaker should resell for the most, assuming that the market is filled with semi-qualified individuals (which I expect are the $1500+ system price range buyers).If you check around ebay and such, you will notice that Bose commands an amazingly high resale value. ...so much for that theory. :rolleyes:

[Johnd]

The "best speaker" is that which sounds best to your ears, on your system, in your environment. Resale price has nothing to do with it.

[Seth=L]

Yes the amp is very old, but it does sound very good even without a high resale value. Most speakers don't have a very high resale value anyway, at least in contrast to their MSRP.

[Nuglets]

I think a Rolex is much more of a status symbol than Bose, unless "ignorant" is the status. At least Rolex is a watch and functions very well as one. Bose doesn't function very well as a Home Theater system. When somebody buys a Rolex at least they aren't under the impression that the watch does something that it doesn't.

[majorloser]

I would say Bang & Olufsen is more of a design and luxury status symbol like a Rolex watch.

Bose would be more like a Swatch ;)

(or maybe a counterfeit Rolex)

[Sleestack]

I think a Rolex is much more of a status symbol than Bose, unless "ignorant" is the status. At least Rolex is a watch and functions very well as one. Bose doesn't function very well as a Home Theater system. When somebody buys a Rolex at least they aren't under the impression that the watch does something that it doesn't.


Actually, rolexes suck as watches as far as accuracy goes. a digital timex isbetter for that. I have several rolexes and wear a solid gold Rolex Daytona every day. It loses an average of 5 minutes a day. That being said, I love the way they look so that's what I wear. I don't think of it as a status symbol, but many do.

[Jack Hammer]

Actually, rolexes suck as watches as far as accuracy goes. a digital timex isbetter for that. I have several rolexes and wear a solid gold Rolex Daytona every day. It loses an average of 5 minutes a day. That being said, I love the way they look so that's what I wear. I don't think of it as a status symbol, but many do.
You sure you've got a Rolex, and not a Roiex?:eek: One of my friends bought one of those, and it never kept time either;) Then there's the RoLeX, and the Rolecs, not to mention the Rolek...

[Sleestack]

You sure you've got a Rolex, and not a Roiex?:eek: One of my friends bought one of those, and it never kept time either;) Then there's the RoLeX, and the Rolecs, not to mention the Rolek...

Trust me, it's a Rolex and came with the accompanying $20K price tag. Our family has 2 jewelers, both of whom are authorized Rolex dealers. We have multiple Rolexes in the house and they all stink at keeping accurate time. Anyone who knows watches knows that you do not buy a Rolex for accuracy.

[Johnd]

Talk about a hijack!

I thought this thread was about ways to determine "what the BEST speaker is!" :rolleyes:

[gmichael]

If you hold a Rolex close to your ear, you can hear it say Bose between tics.

[ChrisJam]

Bose would be more like a Swatch ;)

Ooo--don't diss my Swatch watches!! :)

For many years I had to dress up for work. Then I went out on my own. I had to dress up many times, but could do dress-casual most days. Now I can do what I like. Unless there's a compelling reason for me to wear a suit, I don't. (And the compelling times are few and far between, thank goodness.)

My girlfriend is French, and she and I travel to France about every year or year-and-a-half, on average. Through my gf and these trips, I discovered that I enjoy funny socks and funny wristwatches. I have many pairs of Achille socks, and many pairs have a funny motif that are perfect with jeans or casual pants. Swatch? Now we're talking! My favorite watch is a Swatch I got around 1999 called "Le Moutin Noir" (The Black Sheep)." It's gray overall, with lots of funky-looking white sheep on it. Waaaaay around the band is one black sheep that gives the watch its name.

I must have three or four fun Swatches now. I also have an M&M candy watch, and a couple other super-casual, fun, plastic watches. I guess I'm in my second childhood. That's OK--I'm old enough. :p

I also have two watches I could wear with suits, and one all-arounder that can be casual or dressy, especially since I got a nice leather band for it.

But back to my Swatches: They're far, FAR better than anything Bose!! :D

Chris

[GreenJelly]

I think a Rolex is much more of a status symbol than Bose, unless "ignorant" is the status. At least Rolex is a watch and functions very well as one. Bose doesn't function very well as a Home Theater system. When somebody buys a Rolex at least they aren't under the impression that the watch does something that it doesn't.

$15,000 for keeping time? Come now...

[Seth=L]

I wouldn't buy a Rolex if I was a billionair, there is no point to spending that much on a watch, especially when it could be spent on quality A/V equipement.:D

[GreenJelly]

I wouldn't buy a Rolex if I was a billionair, there is no point to spending that much on a watch, especially when it could be spent on quality A/V equipement.:D

If I had a Rolex I would sell it.

I would never wear something that brags to everyone that you have money. I prefer to live a modest life. If I did have allot of money I would buy fast cars. Though I would love to drive them occassionally on the street, I would use them for track days mostly.

Though a Ferrari isnt really the best track car, and I just would have to have one for when I got to the corner store.

[Seth=L]

If I were rich, I would have an Aston Martin

http://members.fortunecity.com/freecarwallpapers/images/aston_martin_vanquish_01.jpg

Drooooooolll....:D

[Nuglets]

$15,000 for keeping time? Come now...

I don't have 15k to spend on a watch either(in fact I never even wear a watch), but if I did I think it would make a far better status symbol than a Bose Home Theater system. :D

[Sleestack]

If I were rich, I would have an Aston Martin

http://members.fortunecity.com/freecarwallpapers/images/aston_martin_vanquish_01.jpg

Drooooooolll....:D

Good taste. DB9 is my obsession.

[Sleestack]

I wouldn't buy a Rolex if I was a billionair, there is no point to spending that much on a watch, especially when it could be spent on quality A/V equipement.:D


If you were a billionaire.... say even 1/2 of that.... you wouldn't need to think about one in lieu of the other. You could just buy everything you want.

[Sleestack]

If I had a Rolex I would sell it.

I would never wear something that brags to everyone that you have money. I prefer to live a modest life. If I did have allot of money I would buy fast cars. Though I would love to drive them occassionally on the street, I would use them for track days mostly.

Though a Ferrari isnt really the best track car, and I just would have to have one for when I got to the corner store.


Some rolexes only cost about $3K. Some cost $300K. If you like the way it looks why would you change the way you live your life to avoid the possibility that someone might think you are bragging about your wealth? That seems rather silly.

[Sleestack]

Ooo--don't diss my Swatch watches!! :)

For many years I had to dress up for work. Then I went out on my own. I had to dress up many times, but could do dress-casual most days. Now I can do what I like. Unless there's a compelling reason for me to wear a suit, I don't. (And the compelling times are few and far between, thank goodness.)

My girlfriend is French, and she and I travel to France about every year or year-and-a-half, on average. Through my gf and these trips, I discovered that I enjoy funny socks and funny wristwatches. I have many pairs of Achille socks, and many pairs have a funny motif that are perfect with jeans or casual pants. Swatch? Now we're talking! My favorite watch is a Swatch I got around 1999 called "Le Moutin Noir" (The Black Sheep)." It's gray overall, with lots of funky-looking white sheep on it. Waaaaay around the band is one black sheep that gives the watch its name.

I must have three or four fun Swatches now. I also have an M&M candy watch, and a couple other super-casual, fun, plastic watches. I guess I'm in my second childhood. That's OK--I'm old enough. :p

I also have two watches I could wear with suits, and one all-arounder that can be casual or dressy, especially since I got a nice leather band for it.

But back to my Swatches: They're far, FAR better than anything Bose!! :D

Chris

My sister, who lives in the Swiss Alps, collected Swatches and never opened many of them.
She sold one for close to $10K.

[Seth=L]

Some rolexes only cost about $3K. Some cost $300K. If you like the way it looks why would you change the way you live your life to avoid the possibility that someone might think you are bragging about your wealth? That seems rather silly.
I think the point is this, who needs a $300k watch or even a $3k watch. Even if I was bloody rich I would still say to myself, "why does this cost so much?"

Why do you think I pick the Aston Martin, because it is a high performance vehicle that doesn't cost 1/4 million dollars, it is a smart buy for someone who is loaded and wants to go fast.

[Buckle-meister]

I have several rolexes and wear a solid gold Rolex Daytona every day. It loses an average of 5 minutes a day.

Five?! :eek: As in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?! :eek: I find that very hard to believe. I mean, you can buy an el-cheapo analogue watch that'll never generate that order of magnitude of innacuracy. No maker of time pieces, and certainly not Rolex would release something so clearly pathetic in performing what is after all its principal function in my opinion. Sounds like you got a dud to me. :p

Talk about a hijack!

You're not kidding! :D

[Johnd]

And it goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

Oh nevermind, that's Timex, not Rolex. :)

[Sleestack]

Five?! :eek: As in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5?! :eek: I find that very hard to believe. I mean, you can buy an el-cheapo analogue watch that'll never generate that order of magnitude of innacuracy. No maker of time pieces, and certainly not Rolex would release something so clearly pathetic in performing what is after all its principal function in my opinion. Sounds like you got a dud to me. :p



You're not kidding! :D

The Daytona, has more functions than the typical Rolex. As such, it is known to have more problems and lose more time. Mine is losing 5 minutes a day b/c it needs a cleaning badly. Rolexes need to be professionally cleaned every 5 -7 years or they start losing time. Their automatic mechanism is very sensitive to dirt and proper lubrication. Some get more severe than 5 minutes a day. I guess this stuff isn't common knowledge, but it is a reality of Rolex ownership.

And yes, a $5 watch will keep better time.

[Buckle-meister]

Sleestack,

I just noticed 'Aberdeen power supply' in your signature. What's with the 'Aberdeen' bit? :confused:

[caupina]

The best speaker is whichever sounds good to you, doesn't matter what brand. I believe that taste is such a personal and subjective thing. If I look at the speakers specs and value, both are just indicators of how good (or bad) they are, but what really should matter is how they sound to me.
I own Bose (floor standing speakers) and I like them even though they get a very bad rap in audiophile forums, but that hasn't changed their sound a bit.

[MichaelJHuman]

A $5 quartz or digital watch might keep better time :)

Mechanical watches (as I believe the standard Rolex is,) are inaccurate compared to quartz watches. Which is why, I guess, accurate mechanical watches are expensive.

[GreenJelly]

But a ratio or a rating of value would help people like me recommend certain speakers to listen too.

There is also the equipment that is hard to value, which is the speakers sold in noisy chain stores. Since we cant listen and compair them in a good environment, we can only say... "Well I have these and they are nice"

I prefer to say "I like these over these, these and these. Id recommend listening to These and These Speakers"

[Sheep]

Listening to it.

If you don't care about the sound, why are you buying speakers? Any wife will like NO box over a pretty one.

SheepStar

[Sleestack]

Sleestack,

I just noticed 'Aberdeen power supply' in your signature. What's with the 'Aberdeen' bit? :confused:

aberdeencomponents/mauimods... He works closely with TACT and primarily serves the TACT community and does custom work for some people. He has worked on all my TACT gear and some other components.

[Buckle-meister]

aberdeencomponents/mauimods... He works closely with TACT and primarily serves the TACT community and does custom work for some people.

What I was meaning was: has Aberdeen got anything to do with the city on the northeast coast of Scotland?

[Sleestack]

What I was meaning was: has Aberdeen got anything to do with the city on the northeast coast of Scotland?

No idea. I doubt it. He's Jersey boy... New Jersey.

[majorloser]

Could just be a reference to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, MD. It's where the US Army plays with things that go "boom".

[Seth=L]

I want to play with things that go "boom".:(

[ToxicFrog]

I would agree with you, but only if all consumers were intelligent, informed, price conscious, and had the same definition of best. Take high-end cars for example. Some people are willing to pay top dollar for a car like a Bentley, because of its history or image. Others may spend the same amount of money for a Ferrari or Porsche, because of its performance. Which is better? Depends on your tastes. Likewise, their resale value is dictated by the same perception. If more individuals seek performance, then Ferrari will retain its value better. If more seek "class," then the Bentley. Again, which is better? The theory is further denounced by the fact that the class of speakers it is being applied to is at the very top, like the cars. Where the consumers are grossly wealthy, perhaps not too experienced to determine which speaker is "best," and may be inclined to seek form over function (if rich people weren't concerned about this, they wouldn't be purchasing a Ferrari in the first place, since they can get something else that performs better than a Ferrari in most all aspects for less). In that $ bracket, it's not about the best, it's about the image, the hype, the perception. But your system is definitely a factor in determining a speaker set.

[GreenJelly]

I think given this original_price/used_price value, then we could use some of our brains and think about things like the age of the speaker, the brand of the speaker, and the price range of the speakers.

We must assume that the consumer is somewhat intelligent, even though at times we see so much stupidity in the world. If we dont assume that the consumer is intelligent, then we would conclude that a free market would fail, and it doesnt.

Notice I used the word "Best" in the title... I even UCased it... Why? Because this is a word that encompasses opinion, desires, prestige, marketing etc.

As we all must conclude, that every consumer will listen to any speaker and come away with a different opinion of the experiance. Some consumers just have to look at the speaker to buy it, while others have to take them out for a short spin. Others study the speakers, read reviews, and listen for hours.

All of these people are valid in judging overall quality of a speaker.

Notice I said quality, and not SOUND quality. See, we audioholics are extremists. We will do ANYTHING for great sound, and usually spend lots of money and time listening to speakers. We dont care about how much space our speakers take up... hell we can always move the coach, or sit on the floor... We spend hours covering our walls with FOAM so that we may listen to them a bit better. We take out morgages on our homes for our speakers. We do all sorts of things that other people would find INSANE!

Yet this is our idea of quality... Is it invalid that a person may judge quality as if they dont see their speakers EVEN if he is ignorant to the fact that he is loosing huge portions of sound... Or is the opinion of QUALITY that of brand loyalty, or band name purchasing invalid?

Everyone has a idea of Quality, and by studing these ratio's we can use these to make better purchases. Just like stock prices, I am looking for the under priced over valued speakers and electronics in my price range.

If I could find a GREAT 20 year amp, that is cheap and extremely powerfull and great sounding for under a few hundred... I would jump on it without a second thought. But I look at ebays used audio equipment; I get LOST, in a see of products from years past. I have no idea of value, and have no way to judge or even start to look for a good purchase.

Ofcourse if I see Mcintosh for $20, and they work (or dont) Im going to buy them so fast your head will spin. But outside that, things get dicy.

Notice I always give recommendations of speakers between $500-$1000 on this site. This is where I know my stuff, and Ive studied most speakers in this range. I dont talk about more expensive speakers, cause I havent spent time listening to tons of them. I dont waste salesmens time If I am not going to buy something.

All this concludes that the book value of used speakers, when compaired to its original price, and a understanding of what value added it provides can produce results that would make recommending speakers to people easier. This would make speakers and sound equipment a commodity, that can be traded and explained. Dealers could seek out stocks of used equipment because of some knowledge that they a higher value then the set price. We as consumers would ultimately win, with knowledge of the best used items availalbe based on a price/value rating.

[JoeE SP9]

NAD, Adcom, Hafler and Bryston are a few of the products that are 20 year amps. If you want gear like that ebay is the wrong place to look. www.audiogon.com is the place to buy 20 year amps or any really good gear. Bryston gear has a twenty year guaranty. Audio research services and upgrades every product they have ever made. MacIntosh gear works damn near forever and has a very high resale value. There is plenty of audio gear that will last damn near forever. You just have to get away from the typical Japanese receiver. Those receivers are worth diddly next year. A used Adcom GFA-545 sells for $200 now and in the foreseeable future. That's for a 100WPC power amp that will drive virtually any load. My ESL's are more than ten years old and I have no reason to replace them. I haven't heard anything that sounds better to me other than newer ESL's from Inner Sound ($10K+) and Martin Logan ($10K+). If you spend any substantial amount on speakers without listening to them first don't complain if you're not satisfied. Studying speakers means nothing. Only listening counts. Only the ears of the actual buyer matter. :cool:
BTW, the average consumer is driven by advertising not quality. How else would Bose be able to afford their ad campaigns. If you or any one else buys a speaker on looks alone you deserve what you get.:D

[Nick250]

BTW, the average consumer is driven by advertising not quality. How else would Bose be able to afford their ad campaigns. If you or any one else buys a speaker on looks alone you deserve what you get.:D

Audio is indeed prime territory of the Barnum Effect. Old PT would be proud.