Spendor Sp2/3r2 v Spendor Classic 1/2 v Harbeth SLH5 + v Stirling LS3/6.

[57charles]

Dr Bunsen- I remember reading somewhere that the response of a speaker measured from 20 - 20k should be as flat as possible and that is why computers are used to calculate the exact values in crossovers relative to the speaker units response hence giving nothing to or taking away from sound from speaker. Surely computers are geting bigger and better all the time - why don't speakers then all sound the same if everyone uses computers? Like KEF and B &W ?
Like I mentioned earlier, I like the Spendor sound and they probably use computers as well but why do they sound diferently as well?
Finally, with regard to costings, I remember speaking to Spendor and I pointed out to them that I saw the tweeter they use in their current Classic range for $20 retail to which they retorted that THEIR version was to their spec so not exactly the same BUT I WONDER HOW MUCH MOTE THAN $20 does it cost bearing in mind self same tweeter is in the SP200 which costs £15,000?
I suppose we're paying for a flat frequency response irrespective of drive units employed but I can't stop thinking about those $20 tweeters.
Presumably as computers get more powerful so speakers will get flatter response graphs meaning they should be more accurate and then bigger boxes equals more bass - which is what I want.
Thsnk you.

[CN211276]

How much more than the 20 Dollars does it cost. Huge mark ups through to the point of sale.

[karatestu]

Finally, with regard to costings, I remember speaking to Spendor and I pointed out to them that I saw the tweeter they use in their current Classic range for $20 retail to which they retorted that THEIR version was to their spec so not exactly the same BUT I WONDER HOW MUCH MOTE THAN $20 does it cost bearing in mind self same tweeter is in the SP200 which costs £15,000?

Well they obviously would not want to admit that it is just a $20 tweeter, so probably spun you that line. If it is modified I guess they could have added ferro fluid if it did not have any to begin with.

[savvypaul]

Why the fixation with measurements? Your ears are all you need. Does it sound like real music? If you don't know, listen to live acoustic (not amplified) performances. Then listen to a wide range of speakers not just BBC types.

Yes, high-end hi-fi is a rip-off. A triumph of marketing over reality.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

Dr Bunsen- I remember reading somewhere that the response of a speaker measured from 20 - 20k should be as flat as possible and that is why computers are used to calculate the exact values in crossovers relative to the speaker units response hence giving nothing to or taking away from sound from speaker. Surely computers are geting bigger and better all the time - why don't speakers then all sound the same if everyone uses computers? Like KEF and B &W ?
Like I mentioned earlier, I like the Spendor sound and they probably use computers as well but why do they sound diferently as well?
Finally, with regard to costings, I remember speaking to Spendor and I pointed out to them that I saw the tweeter they use in their current Classic range for $20 retail to which they retorted that THEIR version was to their spec so not exactly the same BUT I WONDER HOW MUCH MOTE THAN $20 does it cost bearing in mind self same tweeter is in the SP200 which costs £15,000?
I suppose we're paying for a flat frequency response irrespective of drive units employed but I can't stop thinking about those $20 tweeters.
Presumably as computers get more powerful so speakers will get flatter response graphs meaning they should be more accurate and then bigger boxes equals more bass - which is what I want.
Thsnk you.

This post is so much bollocks I am at a loss how to reply to it.

[CN211276]

Unfortunately it is not bollocks to everyone because of the amount of misinformation which has been circulated by the vested rip off interests over decades.

[Geoff.R.G]

I remember reading somewhere that the response of a speaker measured from 20 - 20k should be as flat as possible and that is why computers are used to calculate the exact values in crossovers relative to the speaker units response hence giving nothing to or taking away from sound from speaker.

I have no idea where you got this idea but a flat frequency response from a speaker is nigh-on impossible.
It has already pointed out that the measured frequency response of a speaker bears no relation to the way music played through it sounds.
The more components in a crossover the more complex the effect it will have on the music. Ideally components should have as little musical effect as possible. The more components the more they affect the sound, some crossovers contain resonant circuits and that can't be good for musical fidelity.

Surely computers are getting bigger and better all the time - why don't speakers then all sound the same if everyone uses computers?

One important rule of computing is "garbage in, garbage out". If you feed a computer incorrect data the output will be no better than the input, it will be incorrect. Thus if the initial parameters are trying to achieve a flat response the final speaker will still be flawed. Why? Simply because there is no correlation between frequency response curve and musical ability.

Plenty of amplifiers have an essentially flat frequency response some of them produce involving music and some are completely un-engaging. Clearly there is more to an amplifier than the frequency response. Speakers are no different in this respect.

This forum is called Hi-Fi subjectivist for a reason, sound quality is SUBJECTIVE. I am an engineer and thus, by training, an objectivist but experience tells me that where sound is concerned objective measurements don't equate to what I hear. In aviation we have a test for commercial aircraft PA systems called a RASTI test. This is designed to test the PA system to ensure that announcements can be heard clearly throughout the cabin. Despite this I have often found announcements to be almost unintelligible in actual use. The test isn't useless, without it the situation would be much worse, but it still doesn't completely solve the problem.

Let me give the last word to, reputedly, Einstein "Not everything that can be counted counts, not everything that counts can be counted".

[Classicrock]

LOL. I can't see how even a computer would come up with some of the daft designs I see. I think they dream up how it looks and how much bling to add, how many drivers etc and get a computer programme to size the box. Things like diamond tweeters are surely a marketing tool rather than a function of computer aided design. Most high end speakers are as much about looking expensive as anything, so cheap drivers in a fancy cabinet with expensive finish. I doubt many have anything near a flat response as priority and if they did they would sound even worse.

[Dr Bunsen Honeydew]

I am astonished that these questions are still being asked and the bullshit promoted. I have replied so many times it is daft, how many times do I have to say the same thing.

1/ you are being ripped off
2/ they invent bullshit to help this process (called marketing)
3/ the ONLY things important for a person to understand when choosing hi-fi is - your ears, your brain (choice), your music, your room, your available finance, if you make decisions for any other reasons you are bonkers and just like wasting money.

[Geoff.R.G]

If 57Charles really believes that you can buy anything on specification alone let me offer a few examples of where it just doesn't work.

In 2014 I thought I wanted to change my car, the Jaguar XF 2.2D seemed close in specification terms to what I had and promised to burn less fuel. By the time I had owned it for a few months I had found that power and torque alone aren't enough they need to be connected to the wheels by a well chosen gear box. The XF looks great and, on paper, met my requirements but I got rid of it after 11 months.

In almost every respect the Fuji FinePix S2Pro looked to be an excellent camera and should have suited my purposes but a year after buying it I replaced it with a Nikon D2H, a 4MP camera replacing a supposedly 12MP camera. The S2 was based on a Nikon body but the D2H handled so much better than the Fuji and as a result got used a lot more.

The Akai 4000D was produced with a 1μM head gap promising excellent top end, I was given one as a 17th birthday present (and still have it) but I actually find my Teac X10 to be more engaging despite the lack of that 1μM playback head.

By all means decide what specification you think you want but go and get involved before you part with your money.