This statement is utter nonsense. Below are the mean preference ratings (based on trained listeners in controlled double-blind tests) and anechoic measurements of four loudspeakers from different manufacturers that cost from left to right: $500, $800, $900, and $3800 a pair. In this example, the more money you spend, the worse the sound quality and off-axis response gets - the exact opposite of what you claim.
You are under the impression, it seems, that I made some blanket claim that price is directly correlated with as a consistent rule, off axis response improvement,etc.. I never made any such statement, so I do not know why you made your above statement.
What I did say, is that a speaker with the combination of a very low resonance cabinet system, superb off axis response, etc.; is rare and expensive. You can find a good number of speakers with very poor cabinets and completely insufficient internal acoustic damping used even, that have very good off axis performance(relatively speaking). You can find many very expensive speakers with poor everything. Price ensures nothing. But when you do find a speaker with the entire combination, it is not common(thus being rare) and very costly. Take Harman. Where are Harmans low cost speakers with this combination? You have to go to the high end Revels for this complete package of performance from Harman, and not many high end speakers offer the combination of characteristics that is required for a very high performance speaker system.
Of course, if you know how to design good loudspeakers you can do this at any price point, and get much better sound (more bass, more undistorted output) at higher price points. This has more to do with the engineering/measurement/scientific capability of the manufacturer than anything else.
I expressly design speakers to the ideals that primarily, you and Toole established, as a matter of fact. Here is the off axis response set (0-90d, in 15d increments) of the last speaker I completed.
The very narrow dip/blip at 3.5kHz is a cabinet diffraction issue due to the baffle design. As you see, I try keep the flattest power response possible.
In addition to the even power response, this speaker uses a cabinet system of extreme low panel vibration amplitude response. On top 1/2, the cabinet is 3/4" MDF external, a 1/8" visco-elastic damping core constrained between the MDF and than a 1/2" layer of fiber re-enforced concrete. Additionally, bracing inside the cabinet is placed no more than about 3" from any other bracing point, in all axises. The bottom 1/2 of cabinet is 2 1/4" MDF with 3/4" steel tube bars embedded every 4" vertically in the core of the MDF. Bracing every 6" or so density inside. System divided drivers and capabilities of drivers based on statistical ratio of average music power distribution across the spectrum. Internal acoustic absorption material used is 8# Roxul (high density mineral wool board), equivalent to OC 705/703 in acoustic co-efficients. Used in thick amounts to prevent any internal cavity reflections of significance from occuring, as I find many common acoustical damping executions to still allow some appreciable cavity resonances/reflections that are not desirable.
Misguided professional audio people did this in the 1970's and 1980's by building Live End Dead Rooms (LEDE) designed to kill early reflections from bad loudspeakers (Urei 809). That silly practice went on until someone figured out it made more sense to simply use better loudspeakers.
I hate to tell you, but this still appears to be common practice (killing as many early reflections as possible as standard recommendation) from some places; Ethan Winer for example regularly promotes this; he owns the popular treatment company RealTraps. I have tried to debate with him in the past, offering perceptual research/studies from articles by you, Toole and other credible researchers, but he and many others still dismiss it.
-Chris
