Not necessarily. Stuff like wilson, genesis, kharma, alon (ugh), revel and others tend to be absurd for the sake of it. I read an article about a brainstorming session to price high end products. Even at $40K it would have been high. The manufacturer decided it would sell better at the magic arbitrary number of $100k. I once compared my modest ATC scm-12 to wilson watts (just the top of the watt/puppy). Here we have speakers at least 10x the cost apart. The scm-12 involved me, the focal-tioxid equipped wilson sounded hard and etched, not my bag. I have an article from watchdog (audio perfectionist) that describes how the watt/puppy wasn't just designed to impress rich folks, it was also made to impress reviewers. The focal tweeter "went off like a fire alarm" at 19khz. A speaker that cost $22K that measures poorly and sounds less impressive than a $1,000 speaker. Note that wilson moved on the beryllium tweeters. At least that gives them edge for the $10k-$12K dealer markup. Not my cup o tea though.
Companies like salk, vmps, bryston, magnepan, mccormack, Thiel, vandersteen, vonsweikert, AVA, nottingham, VPI, B&W, Clearaudio and a HOST of others offer what I call fairly (understandably or justifiably) priced high end. That is partly because they are engineered. They each make products that sound purely musical, win awards and kick the snot out of a lot of those overinflated products. If a company pours it's soul into R&D and HONESTLY engineers (like Richard Dunlavy, Richard Vandersteen, D'Appolito, Nelson Pass, Brian Cheney, John Curl etc) I can understand a certain expense, especially when you get a product adorned in expensive touches (milled chassis, gold plating , marble etc) Ever heard of Hamilton? They use the diaural crossover gimmick and sold a few $14K mini monitors. $14k? GMAFB.
This may sound crazy, but I listen with my ears alone. That excludes eyes, wallet, or genitals. I appreciate fine work and eye candy. But the bottom line is that there are plenty of products that don't cost as much as a house in Nebraska that sound as -good often better- than these cost-is no-object ego inflation devices. On this very board, we have Salk, VMPS, and PLC speakers that offer that level of sound refinement, and manage to do it without the ponzi-scheme prices. They all have technology and drivers that don't usually find their way into sub $12,000 speakers, let alone $2,000 speakers. I have said it before and I'll say it again: these companies only need to formulate some kind of pretentious model name for their speakers, add a shiny corian cabinet and charge $40K-$100K and they will be in the running. Lucky for us, they give us pure performance that also measures well at an affordable price.
FWIW: I have heard genesis, infinity (remember the irs-III?) Kharma, wilson, krell (speakers, eeew) revel and other snob-approved cost unlimited high end speakers that made me walk out of the room. Yet I have heard displays of the products in the second paragraph and wanted to listen all day. But I don't have a 6-figure income, and I have no one to impress. Therefore I am forced to be objective vs price-oriented. The facts as I see them are that high price is not always attached to superior sound.
How would you feel if Jim Salk decided to go through a dealer network instead of direct? Would you be put off by the possibility of a 60 - 80 percent price increase across the board? Would you feel the same way regarding the value of his products? Or would his custom woodwork push the speakers into the "snob appeal" product grouping?
BTW - you might want to double check some of the articles you are taking as fact. The WATT was designed first and foremost as a portable near-field recording monitor, with a utilitarian finish to match, and picked up much of its bling after a few years. So the author of whatever article you are citing may just be wrong (imagine that,an author with a possible agenda, whooda thunk?) Given its pedigree, there is a reason the WATT sounded overly detailed and perhaps a bit bright - it was designed that way. (From what I remember, that 19k peak was a very narrow spike from the tweeter resonance. Are you telling me it's audible?) Even the first puppy was very utilitarian. Yes, now Wilson obsesses over the finish of his products, so what? So does Jim Salk!
Okay, so you can't afford the ultra expensive stuff. And maybe you've found lower priced gear that you feel is sonically superior; good for you. But why the indignant attitude? And no, you aren't being objective. By pissing all over the expensive gear you have thrown objectivity out the door. You are being just as snobbish and just as arrogant as those you are railing against. The only difference is you are cloaking it under the guise of humilty.
