Value is complicated.
Let's start with this basic premise:
All speakers, regardless of cost, have some compromise somewhere.
A loudspeaker is something converts an electrical signal into sound. Along the way it must almost inevitably distort that sound one way or another. It also has to interface with a room, which will further distort that sound.
The cheaper you go, the more compromises are made, of course. Lower max SPL, worse room interactivity, less accurate frequency response (which can mean less resolution, unnatural reproduction, exaggerated bass or/and treble, the list goes on.)
Basically when we buy loudspeakers we have to gather a collection of distortions which most bother us or affect our perception in our final listening space - and look towards speakers with the best set of compromises. Subjectivists will word this as "which speakers sound the best to you". Objectivists will word this as "speakers that measure the least bad". Others still will word this as "Speakers which measure good and simultaneously sound good". It's all really code for "which compromises can with live with and which can we not live with".
I could write forever about what you should do when auditioning or what you should do when reading reviews. No problem. And if you want me to, I sure will. But for now, I'll toss out a few loudspeaker suggestions:
Affordable Accuracy by Philharmonic Audio
JBL LSR305
EMP e55ti
Wavecrest Audio
Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 se
KEF Q100 / 300
Take a look at those. Anything about them look appealing? They're my current "handful" of high-value, affordable products. Doesn't mean they're gonna be anyone's of course, although due to their generally accurate measurements, they do get their fair share of discussion on AH. Doesn't mean that there isn't higher performance to be had at higher cost, either.
Re: Polk. As with anything out there - you'll find fans. At the low price points they hit, they have plenty of owners who may or may not be all that "invested" in audio as a hobby. But personally, they're not my go-to speaker line as they choose compromises which I don't respond well to.
You mentioned you're willing to pay x amount only if it performs comparably to 4x that amount. But what does that mean? Does that mean if there's competition at the price point, or if something at 4X the price point is terrible, then it's got value? it's complicated like that because speakers are not a standardized mass-manufactured thing where it's just a matter of checkmarks on a list. There's certainly a law of diminishing returns, but for some people, the set of compromises causes them to go $50,000 / pair towers. For others, that's a lot to shell out and they're lower down on that diminishing returns curve, and still shelling out $9,000. Further down at around, maybe, $2500 / pair you've got people who contend you can't do much
significantly better and you can do
significantly worse. But that's
their position based on
their needs and
their setup. At the bottom of the diminishing returns curve is people who can't justify dedicated speakers at all, and are satisfied with the tinny speakers built into their flat panel display (ALSO known as women).
How do you define where you yourself fall? Do you want great speakers because they give you better speach, more music immersion, powerful dynamics WRT explosives and gunshots, or do you want surround speakers for ambience? Are you just trying to build a sound system for the sake of "completing" your HT, or are there audible issues in source material which you can identify and are unsatisfied with?
To answer the question
"How do you know speaker purchase is good value?" I say: I don't know, but I feel because it:
1) Natural to listen to (I.E. with vocals we don't get excessive sssssibilance beyond the recording itself, no chestu-ness on male vocals, no sense of "cringe" on female vocals, no sense of "shout")
2) Disappears (when you close your eyes, the sound emanating from that speaker, even in mono, comes from the general area around the speaker, not obviously from each individual driver on the front)
3) Measures within +/- 2db between 100hz and 8khz
4) Extends low enough to mate nicely with a subwoofer (for a ported speaker, that's around 60hz, for a sealed speaker, around 100)
5) Displays smooth off-axis behaviour (we can talk measurements or we can talk walking around the room and listening for changes in tonality - your call)
6) Quality internals (decent against a knock-test, system is over-driven
gracefully)
7) long term, any upgraditis is because you want "more of this, except better" not, "something different".
With respect to Bose, you can cross it off your list. No one serious about sound messes with it.
Re: CNET
Their resident audio reviewer is
dubious in my personal opinion. I would not personally trust any of his reviews very much. I honestly have no clue how he landed the job there.
Re: Subwoofers
Epik is out of business due to poor parts quality. Kaput. Here at Audioholics, Josh Ricci does a lot of subwoofer testing. They're all measured and put to the test. I recommend reading the reviews here as it's all standardized with empirical testing. My main advice is to purchase multiples, even if you have to sacrifice the output of a single or the extension.
Feel free to ask more questions.
