Cheap vs expensive monitors - big difference, or over-hyped?

I heard somewhere that in speaker land (and especially in hi-fi) that you have to apply the Pareto principle.
It states that if you take the price of the best as 100% then:
  • a speaker that's 90% as good will cost 1/10th of the price
  • a speaker that's 80% as good will cost 1/20th of the price.
This gives this kind of curve:
View attachment 77603

So the trick is to look where the curve bends up - around 90-95% if you're looking for the best value for your money.
I did this with my hi-fi speakers.
I chose the B&W 600 series.
They were around 2000€ for a pair vs 30,000€ for the most expensive ones.

According to this principle, it would be around 2000$-3000$ per pair.
I wouldn't use $18k as "best", that's just where I am now.

inverting your math, there are speakers out there over $200k a pair I can still grow into. Thanks, I think?

using my speakers as an example, ATC SCM 100s, I don't know of a $900/pair with a 12" woofer that is 80% as good. Nor a $1,800/pair that is 90% as good. So, maybe I already hit the sweet spot?

another way to look at this is pricing within a single product line. Most manufacturers have a constant amount of "fluff" across a line. So, in theory, most of the increased cost up the line is for better components. What is different across brands is the brand value you pay. B&W has a premium price, for example.
 
I heard somewhere that in speaker land (and especially in hi-fi) that you have to apply the Pareto principle.
It states that if you take the price of the best as 100% then:
  • a speaker that's 90% as good will cost 1/10th of the price
  • a speaker that's 80% as good will cost 1/20th of the price.
This gives this kind of curve:
View attachment 77603

So the trick is to look where the curve bends up - around 90-95% if you're looking for the best value for your money.
I did this with my hi-fi speakers.
I chose the B&W 600 series.
They were around 2000€ for a pair vs 30,000€ for the most expensive ones.

According to this principle, it would be around 2000$-3000$ per pair.
Thats a nice logical approach, but if some yahoo goes to market with a pair that is 100K, then you need to spend 10K.

Obviously this boundary case shows that your approach is wrong.

Have you ever read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? These two guys are on the road on motorcycles. (one smart guy, the narrator, and his friend who isn't as smart.)

The smart guy needs to make a handlebar shim, so he cuts a piece from a beer can. Works great.

His friend has a problem with this approach and would rather order a shim from the BMW motorcycle dealer, (which he will need to wait six months for and pay $50.) The BMW branded shim is just a thin piece of metal, in the same shape as the one cut from the beer can. Works exactly the same way. You can't see it once its installed so there is no visual difference.

But the guy who buys the part from the dealership needs to spend the $50 so he gets the "feeling" that its right.

Plenty of examples where price absolutely does not correlate with function. Some people just need the "feeling" that they are doing it the right way. Your pareto example is a trick someone devised so you can feel like you are getting 90% of the function for 10% of the price. Has nothing to do with reality.
 
Thats a nice logical approach, but if some yahoo goes to market with a pair that is 100K, then you need to spend 10K.
Obviously this boundary case shows that your approach is wrong.
This is excluding the yahoos ;)
But you can never tell.
Price is determined by a lot of factors and in an ideal world it would reflect the quality.
But in a world where companies are run by accountants it's far from so.
The so called yahoos price their so high products so that people would think it has to be premium quality.
There are plenty of examples of this in all branches but the hi-fi world is one where the yahoos can run amok.
Plenty of idiots willing to pay tens of thousands for the next big thing.

I was thinking more about comparing against what are widely accepted word class speakers for instance.
That's also why I gave the example of my B&W's.
Of course the Nautilus speakers were exceptionally good.
But I used the example to show that the 600 series were good enough for me and fit the curve somewhat.
And I would probably benefit more from treating my room than spending more on speakers.
I never said it would give me exactly 90% of the quality for 10% of the price.
I wouldn't use it as a way to calculate the price/quality. It isn't exact science or math.
Also the price is just a random number. Could be more, could be less.
It's just an example to show that, as someone else stated, for a little increase in quality, you pay a huge amount more.
So, again, the trick is to find the sweet spot.
For me anyway.
There are always people who are convinced you have to pay top dollar to get the best quality.

Your example of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a good one - still need to read that one.
But it hardly applies to choosing a speaker either since I'm not quite sure how one could go about making one for the fraction of the price of a professional speaker.
 
I’d recommend getting reference 4 with mic and use it with decent monitors. Currently using the with budget presonus Eris 3.5 and couldn’t be happier.
But can the reference 4 be active while playing live with your Axe? my understanding was that the latency added for the signal processing doesnt even allow for „live signals“...?
 
Monitors can last a very long time. I would factor that into how much you are willing to spend. Also I agree that room is equally important. If you buy really expensive monitors and listen to them in a small untreated room it's like trying to race a Ferrari in a parking lot.
 
I heard somewhere that in speaker land (and especially in hi-fi) that you have to apply the Pareto principle.
It states that if you take the price of the best as 100% then:
  • a speaker that's 90% as good will cost 1/10th of the price
  • a speaker that's 80% as good will cost 1/20th of the price.
This gives this kind of curve:
View attachment 77603

So the trick is to look where the curve bends up - around 90-95% if you're looking for the best value for your money.
I did this with my hi-fi speakers.
I chose the B&W 600 series.
They were around 2000€ for a pair vs 30,000€ for the most expensive ones.

According to this principle, it would be around 2000$-3000$ per pair.
Sounds about right, maybe a little low, but consistent with my deciding on Neumann KH310’s after lots of research. Something that doesn’t get mentioned much when discussing monitors for guitarists using modelers is that you will likely be monitoring not only your guitar, but also mixes with other instruments which will benefit from critical listening. I bring my KH310’s to the studio I work at, which has been very instructive for myself and my engineer. I know what they sound like in a properly treated control room and in my house, which is minimally treated.

Also agree with the person who said that good monitors last a long time, it’s an investment that will serve you for many years if you choose well. Cliff is right, don’t skimp on monitors...
 
But can the reference 4 be active while playing live with your Axe? my understanding was that the latency added for the signal processing doesnt even allow for „live signals“...?

Yes it can, you could load the vst in a daw or use it like I’ve been doing. fractal > spdif > claret. Latency will depend on how fast your interface is and the reference 4 has a low latency mode.
 
Back
Top Bottom