Bose

from: https://rivperformance.editboard.com/audio-electronics-f7/front-door-speakers-t1275-75.htm

AA wrote:

quote: "i disagree with AA on ONLY amping the fronts.

ideally, every speaker in your car should be amped. You need a 4 channel amp, so you can turn the power down on the 6x9's so they dont overpower the front speakers."

Not that you're wrong, but there are many ways to enjoy music. I look at it differently than a lot of people. Maybe if I explain where I'm coming from, it will make better sense. Ideally, you should have NO rear speakers at all.

Everyone has an idea in their head of what perfect music sounds like. Some people think it's a THX certified home theater, some enjoy 150dB bass notes, some people like the raw, electronic sound of a recording room... but for me, truly good-sounding music is convincingly real and transparent... like there are no speakers, just instruments and voices on the dashboard. Not surprisingly, it has been shown that for very realistic sound reproduction, having a fewer number of speakers can be better than having too many.

The point I'm trying to make is that when you're listening to real music, it comes from in front of you. It comes from only a few point sources (instruments and vocal cords). To reproduce good sound, you need only use a small number of high quality speakers. You don't need extra tweeters on the A-pillar, you don't need a center channel, and you don't even need 6x9"s in the rear. The main reason I power my rears with the stock head is that I almost always have them turned off.

.[/i]

first, BOSE systems kick ass. I wish I could afford one.

your point is taken, and you are right....sound only from the front is the "ideal" sound. Im a musician, and Im so anal about music I know exactly what you are talking about.

in another thread, I said the perfect setup for me is 1 set of components in the front doors and one sub....my friend had this setup and it sounded like a concert. I go for that sound, a live concert. Loud, full, and clean. That being said, the price tag for those systems starts at thousands.That is an entire different thread. Very few go this far in car stereos. Even tuning and simply mounting those systems correctly can get very technical. Making a 3 speaker system sound great takes some experience.

I think we're on the same channel, Dreww.

I agree, never heard a Bose system I didn't like. Yet they get pelted by the hi-fi community because of one simple thing: they don't publish specs. They just sound good. The hi-fi nerds can't justify liking something they can't compare to their "reference" systems. But for the average consumer, Bose wins because they know how to impress people with sound, not specs.

You're right that it's not easy to make simple systems sound outstanding. Like engines, they need to be tuned. But you'd be surprised what can be done with a stock head, 5-band para EQ, variable x-over, a $400 component set with 50W/side, and an 8" sub with 200W. This is basically my system. It borrows the concepts from those simple, high-end systems, but uses mid-priced equipment. I bought fewer pieces of equipment, so could spend a little more on quality. All used off of ebay. Got about $3k worth for less than $1k.

Yeah i think the specs arent all that significant. Ive heard speakers with higher specs that dont sound a s good as some other... Bose gives you a full balanced sound with no audio range left out... Yeah 2.1s sound very good if tuned right... but if not they can sound empty. and unbalanced very easily... Oh and another thing with speaker specs is if it says something like 10-31000hz its bogus because you can only hear between 20hz and 20000hz. so although that maybe the frequency range , they just use that as a selling point and theres no guarantee that its gonna sound better than a speaker with a more limited range...

quote: "Oh and another thing with speaker specs is if it says something like 10-31000hz its bogus because you can only hear between 20hz and 20000hz."

Sometimes the extended frequency range specs do matter. What you have to look for is the +/- dB output tolerance of the response. A speaker that can produce "10-30kHz" is no big deal. Most speakers can do this. But at the extreme high and low ends the output is so low that it can't be heard. The response will also likely not be flat and balanced.

Now, a speaker that states "10-30kHz +/- 3 dB" is something very different. This is truly awesome performance, because it holds flat from one end to the other. In almost all cases, it takes a group of 2 or more speakers to handle a band this wide.

And the audible 20-20kHz rule isn't exactly true. It's just a standard that's "good enough" for high fidelity. In the '60s, hi-fi was defined as 30-15kHz, and before that, it was 50-15kHz. Nowadays, THX certification requires the speaker play flat down to 20Hz, which means it has to play lower, and the room also amplifies bass at these frequencies. I've heard a 15Hz tone before. It's audible if played loud enough. Men typically hear lower frequencies (20Hz and below) than women. Women and children can hear higher (20kHz and above) than men. Experiments have shown that subsonic frequencies in the 5-15Hz have effects on people, whether they hear them or not. Earth quakes create waves in this range. Do you think you could hear an earthquake?

Having said that, you rarely see 10-20kHz +/- 3 dB on a speaker's spec sheet. Such a rating would require massive power, and would cost a lot of money. But in a car, cabin gain makes it easy to get really low in the bass. Most any sub can get down to 15 or 20Hz with the proper enclosure. The highs are a bit different, but since I'm a guy, I can't hear that high anyway!

AA wrote:

Those are all good names. I've owned every one of them, and had great results. Other good names to consider: a/d/s (old), AudioControl, Rockford Fosgate (old), US amps, Clarion, Nakamichi, SAS/Bazooka, HiFonics, Adire, Audiomobile, DD/Digital Designs, Crystal, ID/Image Dynamics, Phoenix Gold, Xtant, Zapco, Lanzar (old), Focal, Diamond Audio, Rainbow, Dynaudio, and PPI/Precision Power.

OMG, the new RF crap is exactly that, crap.
my old RF amp was flawless, the newer model, sent to the shop over 5 times! and their customer services refused to replace it with a new model. Can we say lemon.

I spent more in shipping and returning than I did on the amp itself.

from: https://rivperformance.editboard.com/racing-kill-stories-f10/short-run-with-a-350z-last-night-t2476-15.htm#27156

AA wrote:

...speaker manufacturers have figured out how to make lots of good sound come from smaller, more powerful speakers. Amps likewise are smaller and lighter, and making gobs of power. And it's been shown over and over that simpler is better. You don't need a dozen sound processors to have a good quality system.

Aww, don't tell me you like Bose! You know what they say: No highs, No lows - it must be Bose!

Shintsu wrote:

AA wrote:

...speaker manufacturers have figured out how to make lots of good sound come from smaller, more powerful speakers. Amps likewise are smaller and lighter, and making gobs of power. And it's been shown over and over that simpler is better. You don't need a dozen sound processors to have a good quality system.

Aww, don't tell me you like Bose! You know what they say: No highs, No lows - it must be Bose!

my dad has a bose system in his caddy and i think it sounds really good. not great but it is an eleven year old setup.

Bose is ok for car audio, in fact it makes sense there. I'm referring to their home audio equipment which is overpriced and overrated.

Shintsu wrote:

Bose is ok for car audio, in fact it makes sense there. I'm referring to their home audio equipment which is overpriced and overrated.

In that case i agree... the movement in home theater sounds tends to be empty i think , its small speakers with a sub which unless your sitting at a perfect distance can either give too much high or low , and no midrange detail. theyre designed to sound dramatic but not much else.

I wasn't referring to Bose, but I have nothing against them. For a company to sell high-end audio gear for 40+ years without providing power or response specs, this says a lot to me. It's like selling a car that's just "awesome", so buy it. The audiophiles mostly rip on Bose because they can't compare numbers, but they sound good to the consume, and they sound good to me.

I was referring to modern 8-10" subs that equal the 12-15" subs from 10 years ago, and they do so in an enclosure 1/4 the size. Also, mid/high speakers are able to play wider ranges now, so you don't have the need for 3, 4 or 5 way systems, multi amps and crossovers and all that. Now you put in a 2-way component set, a single 10" and you're good. Amps are much smaller, put out more power, and include the sound processing built-in. Head units now do what outboard signal processors used to do. Fewer components = less weight.

Eh, I've heard Bose and they don't compare to my Polk R50s. Then again, I'm mostly a stereo kinda guy. I don't much care about surround sound which is one of the things Bose seems to focus on. Bose speakers just don't image well enough, maybe good for the undiscerning ear but not for me.

You should hear some of Bose's full size stereo speakers from 10-20 years ago. Way ahead of their time. They were among the first to consider that reflections add to the direct imaging of the stereo experience, and built this into their line. They face criticism because many people like to look at numbers instead of listen to music.

But that's exactly what I like about Bose, their approach, which isn't locked inside of the 2-speaker stereo "box". While everyone else is trying to make better boxes according to the same formula used for 100 years, Bose tries new things, and they test relying on ears instead of electronic equipment. It took an MIT grad to understand that THD% and power ratings are meaningless because humans can't hear them under certain (most) musical conditions.

There was the legendary 901, which used multiple drivers to do what musical instruments do: reproduce all frequencies from one source, but in multiple directions. Your best 3-way tower can't do that; neither can a satellite/sub system. Those reproduce from multiple sources in one direction. With all the bad press the 901s got, Stereophile said: "the system produced a more realistic resemblance of natural ambiance than any other speaker system." How bad do you think the 901s sounded? They are only about $1300, and are still selling today. There were speakers out there costing $10k or more, but a leading hi-fi mag said the Bose sounded best. Good enough for me.

Bose pretty much pioneered the micro-satellite/subwoofer systems for the mass home theater market. Lots of copies of this principle sold and is still selling. It's not my favorite approach, but it works for a lot of people. Bose also made probably the best-sounding table radio ever, the Wave Radio. I am still amazed at how loud one of these can get for it's size.

For the record, I don't own any Bose products, but I think they sound really good. If not, they could be installed wrong. The direct/reflecting idea needs walls to work correctly.

Sorry but to my ears, Bose sucks. Keep that trash in cars and out of the home. I don't care if the don't publish specs, they don't compare to the sound my speakers have anyway. I've listened to them and I'd take mine over them any day.

Bose uses cheap vinyl imitation wood, it's all fake trash. Not even the expensive Bose is real wood. When you start paying some money or you buy vintage audio, it's real wood not this cheap pressed particle board. Sure, old Bose is much better than the new stuff but you need special equipment to get those thinks sounding right and you had to have them in a particular room at a particular angle etc etc. They were more complicated than the average speaker setup.

Bose also uses paper cones. Wow, real high tech there. Yep, more advanced than all the other high end audio which uses that crappy kevlar . How many of you even have an audio setup in your home? I'm not talking the surround for the movies and the subwoofer - I'm talking about pure stereo just for listening to music. To imagine that the singer is right in front of you. I've got surround on my PC via Logitech Z-5500s and an M-Audio Revolution sound card. These are THX certified speakers which is truly a hard to attain rating and most of my movies are actually watched on this.

I'm not claiming to be the know-it-all audiophile, I've only gotten into home audio about six months ago when I lucked into my equipment. I was given a receiver (Technics SA-EX140) by a relative of my dad's who passed away, my dad let me have his nice CD player (Technics SL-P770), and I lucked into my first pair of speakers which were KLH T-5 Mains for $100 at a pawn shop. This was all I had and about four months ago my dad came across a nice classic turntable (Pioneer PL-71) which I had been wanting to get for some time at a great price (It's in nearly perfect shape except the plastic cover which is cracked a little). A few weeks ago I found these Polk Audio R50 speakers which went for $640 new on PA's website for $100. They still had the box and manuals and they're in like new shape.

Still, I would like to get an amp/preamp combo and get rid of the receiver as I really prefer the vintage audio over this cheap crap like you can buy at Best Buy like Insignia (Yuck!). I've also noticed a lot of the Sony stuff is super cheap now (quality wise). Sony's audio equipment has always been on the lower end but this new stuff is particularly bad. My dad used to sell home audio equipment in the 80's and 90's and knows everything there is and he is who I'm learning from. Slowly but surely I'm becoming an audiophile!

I'd love to have this amp or especially this amp but I'm not spending that much!

Well, if you don't like Bose, you don't like Bose. Not much is going to change your mind. But the reasons you state for holding your opinion can just as easily be used to show how other brands are deficient. I personally don't have a home stereo right now, because I don't have the right room, but I'm working on it. I agree that home theater and classic stereo are two completely different animals that should remain different and separate. For either, I believe in designing from the foundation up.

I do have an interest in hi-fi, and have played with car stereo for many years. This has crossed over into the home stereo realm. I've read about 10 books on loudspeaker and system theory, and have built about a dozen subwoofer enclosures of different variety. I've also designed a pair of stereo towers for home, and I have the drivers, the amplification, but haven't put it all together yet. Not sure if I will ever get to it.

About the cheap wood that Bose uses: MDF. It's a bit better than particle board. Lots of very good speakers are made of MDF plus a thick, quality veneer. MDF has very good acoustical properties, as good or even better than many hard woods. It's a good material to use for building an acoustically correct enclosure while keeping costs down.

Paper cones. Ever notice that there still is a large selection of paper coned drivers out there? It's not real high tech, but craft pulp has one of the most ideal stiffness to mass ratios, with almost no coloration to the sound. It's basically treated wood, a natural material with wonderful sonic properties. The reason they're still using it is, there's almost nothing you can use that's quite as efficient and sounds as good. They've tried metal, plastic, many "high-tech" materials, but paper never went away. In order to use these new materials, you have to blend or weave fibers together - to form a mesh - gluing layers together - like a kind of synthetic paper.

THX certification is great - if you have everything certified. This means building your own theater. But no one does this. A true, completely THX certified system would run you $30k on the low side. Still, people buy THX equipment because it makes them feel like they have something official. It's like buying a Bentley key chain. Talk about marketing hype. There's no way in hell that any multimedia speaker system for $500 is going to meet real THX certification. It's just a way to say "this is better than everything else because one guy gave it his stamp of approval". It's worse than what Bose does. At least Bose doesn't make everyone believe their product is "certified awesome". Instead they have obtained their rep from selling product the consumer prefers.

Be careful with vintage audio. it's like vintage cars. You get the fuzzy feeling from warm tubes, but the solid state stuff is more reliable, it makes more power, and it actually sounds better in most cases. There's crap out there, and there's some truly great vintage gear, but you will pay for it. For the same money, the new stuff is better. However, I can understand the desire to have a pair of McIntosh monoblocks sitting on the floor, glowing at night.

But Bose isn't competing in the audiophile market, and stereo buffs can't understand that. It's like they're uncomfortable with a decent sounding set of speakers invading their turf. Mass consumers can't enjoy true hi-fi, so Bose is bad. For what they are, and how they're priced, I can see the appeal. Not for me, but I respect what they've done, and what they're doing.

THX doesn't just stamp their name on anything. Home audio equipment that's been THX certified is very rare. I did once see a JVC receiver at a pawn shop that was THX certified and it was a beast. Weighed a ton and I think they were asking $200. Wasn't a bad price but at the time I had no speakers or anything, I was looking to buy something to start me off.

These speakers are THX certfied, they pass the THX test correctly. Then again, for computer speakers these are almost the most expensive ones (I paid around $300 on sale for these). Home audio THX certification is the same but since components are all manufactured by different companies, getting it exactly set up requires lots of careful positioning and purchasing lots of expensive equipment that has passed THX certifications.

Still, paper is not good quality sound. Most speakers that aren't cheap low quality are made of some kind of fiber material. Nice speakers like B&Ws use high quality materials and none of that cheap paper crap. Here's a link to their gallery on their top end speaker (Note specifically the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th pictures) which if I may say so myself is beautiful. Here's another link to their cheaper line - again they all use kevlar. DCM also uses kevlar (Link).

All I'm saying, paper is the lowest quality of speaker cone material. It's cheap and easy to make. Yes, paper cones now are much better than they once were but the newer materials are higher quality. Have you actually pushed on a paper cone vs a fiber or kevlar cone? The kevlars have a much more quality feel to them. You could go a totally different route like Martin Logan with their electrostatic speakers. Really there is so much out there, it's all a matter of what company you look at. I have no brand preference when it comes to speakers but I despise Cerwin Vegas - they don't image well at all, they're just boomy. I just can't see how people like speakers that don't image at all.

Well I'm talking about paper midrange drivers. For subs, they make a little less sense. But subs don't require the material have a good sonic character, they just need to be stiff and strong to take the abuse of low freq reproduction. Poly or aluminum will work for that.

But midrange gets complex, and paper has proven very well for mids over the years. Car audio is largely responsible for the new materials you see in home audio. The mobile environment demands materials that can stand up to UV exposure, moisture, and temperature extremes. Home audio doesn't so much. But they know when you put your hand on the cone, you'll think it sounds better than paper would. And they're right, people buy into it, just like they buy into paying $900 for a pair of speaker wires. Can't blame the marketing team.

There's nothing wrong with Kevlar or Carbon Fibre, but they could be a bit overkill, imo. MB Quart was the original and most award winning speaker manufacturer for car audio back in the early to mid 90's. All paper. Sounded perfect. Made by Germans even. You'd think they knew about other materials, right? Why did they go with paper? Because it was right for the application, that's why. These speakers weren't cheap, either.

Here's a pair of $8000 speakers using mids made partly of paper, partly of carbon fiber:

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/silverline_lafolia.htm

Why do you think they put paper in the most crucial driver in the system? Again, application. Carbon Fibre is strong, but paper has great sonic character.

Another example, a $12,000 home theater system:

http://www.hometheatersound.com/equipment/vonschweikert_vr35_system.htm

Once again, paper for all the midrange drivers. Midrange drivers are the most important part of a speaker's sound quality, and this time they went with pure paper. To quote the reviewer:

"The midrange was about as tonally neutral as I’ve heard from a design anywhere near this price range, truly accomplishing its objective of sounding like virtual reality."

Why isn't this professional listener bitching about paper being cheap? Kevlar costs more and feels better. What does the professional know that we don't?

Finally, let's look at raw drivers. For midrange, one of the best in the business is ScanSpeak, handcrafted in Denmark. The northern Europeans are responsible for some of the best-sounding loudspeakers ever. ScanSpeak is a common choice for designers of multi-thousand dollar systems.

ScanSpeak's best mid, the Relevator Series 4.5" - $218 each

Description:

"Revelator drivers, whether tweeters or subwoofers, consistently demonstrate why this brand has been celebrated as providing the best sounding line of electro dynamic transducers in the world. Because they are hand-built with the utmost attention paid to quality at any cost, ScanSpeak drivers are literally “the best that money can buy”. As a result, they are targeted at high-end audiophile applications."

ScanSpeak's other offering is the Classic Series 4.5" mid - $175 ea

Description:

"The Classic series consists of all the highly regarded transducers that have been appraised and loved by so many ScanSpeak customers over the years. The goal has been to assemble all the diamonds, developed over the years, speakers that fully live up to the heritage of the brand."

One of the above is made of paper, one is Kevlar. Care to guess which is which?

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=917
http://www.madisound.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=919

Stock Bose sound systems in cars is generally the best you will find. My brother has a Bose sound system in a 97 maxima, and the rear 6x9's or so had built in amplifiers. If turned all the way up, it sounded like it had 10" subs with a component system.

But home equipment.... I have to agree, sucks for overall performance. I have a 6.1 surround sound with like an 8" sub. Running off a Denon Reciever (excellent). It has good directional sound for movies and video games, but the sub sucks and there arent really any highs or lows. But Im sure an equalizer could make a world of difference.

Im a die hard fan of JBL. You just can't go wrong. I also like Blaupunkt.

Eww, Equilizer! I despise them, they alter the purity of a sound and that's just no good. It should sound the way it is meant to with no modification on any part of the any audio equipment. If you need to do that, that is an area your speakers or setup lack in.

You can throw all those reviews at me all you want. My Polks tweeters are made of that soft dome material and it's certainly not paper. Mids and highs should not be paper, plain and simple. If I'm paying a lot for a speaker, it's not going to have paper in it. You can buy it - I won't. Go look at a Goodwill or a discount store and see the speakers in there - THAT is what paper is to me. Cheap utter rubbish of the lowest caliber and quality. Some setups can use paper, but for Bose that's a weakness.

People like Bose because their speakers are small and sound bigger than they are. Because so many wives of audiophiles bitch about how big speakers are. Well guess what? Too bad! My speakers are going to be as big and gigantic as I want them and they'll go wherever I feel like. I'm not going to cave in like so many guys do.

You brought up a point I hadn't considered. Bose lets us guys enjoy good sound while keeping the wives and girlfriends happy. That's not bad, that's smart.

EQ isn't bad if you don't use too much. No speaker system is perfectly flat, and then room accustics can change the sound even further. Then you have to consider tht everyone's ears are different. You need some EQ to fine tune if you don't want to let speaker placement rule your world (giant towers 4 ft out from the wall... yeah right. Not really practical in most homes).

Shintsu wrote:

My speakers are going to be as big and gigantic as I want them and they'll go wherever I feel like. I'm not going to cave in like so many guys do.

I can imagine you having a set of 20 different 6 1/2" speakers in a cloud around your TV, and subs covering the floor

Amp that s*** yo!

AA wrote:

You brought up a point I hadn't considered. Bose lets us guys enjoy good sound while keeping the wives and girlfriends happy. That's not bad, that's smart.

EQ isn't bad if you don't use too much. No speaker system is perfectly flat, and then room accustics can change the sound even further. Then you have to consider tht everyone's ears are different. You need some EQ to fine tune if you don't want to let speaker placement rule your world (giant towers 4 ft out from the wall... yeah right. Not really practical in most homes).

Equalizers are impure though. You should adapt the room and everything else for the speakers, not the speakers for the room. It's easier that way but it distorts the reality of the sound and in doing so throws the imaging off. I know an older guy who is a pure audiophile and he also hates equalizers but he's a lot more esoteric. He thinks CD's are no good and prefers vinyl, hates equalizers, like traditional tube amps only, stuff like that. He's a small but very high end audio dealer and he's had some ultra rare stuff. I've learned a bit from him, so surely that is influencing my views but I think for the better.

IBx1 wrote:

I can imagine you having a set of 20 different 6 1/2" speakers in a cloud around your TV, and subs covering the floor

Amp that s*** yo!

I forget which speakers (Carver perhaps?) but they're about 7 feet tall and they're wide at the bottom and narrow at the top. Something like that I what I'm talking about!

Shintsu... In your eyes does everything have to be expensive to be good? i mean i can site plenty of examples of less expensive products that outperform higher end ones. Like my guitar for instance , Schecter C-1 classic , $700 , ive played guitars in the 2-3k dollar range that dont play as well , sound as well , or have the feeling of a solid quality instrument that mine does , not to say they were bad , but this guitar is the best i have ever played , at a price far below anything comparable too it. I noticed your dislike for the riv seems to stem from the fact that its not expensive. But I can say from my experience expensive and quality are not always one in the same. And i dont understand how you like say you like vintage audio equipment but not paper cones because they are outdated? Ive heard some setups with paper cones that sound pretty solid. Also every time i go into Bose or listen to any bose product i'm thoroughly impressed. They do a very good job of creating a natural sound , even with paper cones , i dont see what the problem is. Is a car made out of steel thats priced at 50k the same quality as one priced at 20k because its made out of steel and not something more exotic? By no means. Most guitar amps use paper cones , even high end ones...and they sound just dandy... So in theory wouldnt the best material to replicate this sound be the same one rather than another?

My aunt and uncle's house in MI has a huge home sound system, and the speakers are very weird. They're 4 large panels, like towers, that are made out of some sort of metal grate. I think they're called electrostatic speakers or something. They sound great, they go loud, and I'm sure the technology has come a long way since when I was there back in '04.

*EDIT*
Yup, found them. Electrostatic loudspeakers. These things are amazing, and they have one in each of the 4 corners for an amazing surround sound system. STEEP PRICES!!!

LINK

LINK

LINK

By the way, don't forget that the Riviera costed upwards of $40,000 when it was new. In '95, with the economy, that felt like $50,000 or $55,000 today. Still a quality product, nonetheless, although the value has dropped to less than 1/10 of it's original.

URLS CONVERTED TO LINKS. PLEASE USE BB CODE TO KEEP HYPERLINKS SHORT. THX, ADMIN.

Yep, Martin Logans are very nice! I heard a pair at Best Buy and they sounded great. This Best Buy has an entire audio room complete with lots of Elite equipment and highend stuff and I love going in there.

And yes, most expensive isn't always better but that's usually coming from the people who can't afford the more expensive. Usually like you're saying with the cars and the more expensive steel, the entire car is nicer. Almost every car, when you pay more you get more. a ZO6 is around 10-15k more than a base Vette but gains leather dash as well as a lot of other nice standard features and the extra performance and handling.

I can also use PCs, people used to say AMD was great performance for the price. That's the key point, GOOD for what you PAY. I despise AMD, Intel offers superior processors and of course they cost more. You get what you pay for. Most of those AMDs overheat and don't perform as good as the Intel chips. Obviously they're not good enough for Apple, they use Intels in all their machines. Yet you'll still have AMD fanboys who will swear their inferior product is better than the superior one, and I think this is the case with most things out there. People want to feel like they bought something cheaper that is better than something more expensive.

I was searching for a TV several months ago and I found one that I loved. It was a Sony 26" LCD that cost around $1200. Other companies had 26" LCD TVs for around $750-850 but none of their pictures looked as good as that Sony - which was the most expensive 26" I've seen. More money pays for superior technology. I ended up settling on a nice Panasonic 26" LCD which while not as perfect as the Sony is still very good and I got it cheaper due to a mislisting in their ad.

As a general rule though, you're usually paying more for something. A lot of the times you're just paying for a name though. Good example is a Lincoln Town Car. Exact same thing as a Crown vic, yet it costs about twice as much and barely offers anything different (Same motor, same transmission, same frame) just a few more features and not even much. People just recognize Lincoln as luxury and think that the Town Car is much better than a Crown Vic even though they're the same.

It's really just dependant on the situation.

My guitar isnt just better for the money... it is better period. You mention Apple products... apple products do well because of image and marketing. The i-pod for example is a very poor product imo. I know very few people that have owned one that havent had it fail for one reason or another and if you read most reviews there are cheaper mp3 players out there that outperform and outlast it. But its just cool to have an I-pod , so they charge more , like you said paying for a name. Havent you ever been to restaruant that is expensive but has had food that was worse than a less expensive place? Saying that you get what you pay for is only true in some cases , like batteries and such , but that wasnt my main point. My point is that paper speakers can sound just as good if not better than any high tech material in many cases. Like i said all guitar amps ( and pretty much any instrument amp ) uses paper speakers regardless of price , because it produces tones more natural than synthetic materials. Which is why paper speakers are a good thing.