Well, first thing you need to know, is that when it comes to audio, specs don’t mean anything. So really what you have to do is to listen to them.

What I could say from the specs, is that considering their size, which is small, they probably won’t sound very good, especially when it comes to low frequencies. Audio is like photography: it obeys to the laws of physics, and some truths will remain as such. One of which is: it needs to be big. (Both for lenses and speakers). In the audio field, this could become a bit less relevant with some new generations of electroacoustic loudspeakers.

For this price tag, you could find decent audiophile speakers. Don’t forget though, that good speakers also need good amp and good cables.

[...] ISO50 – The Blog of Scott Hansen » Davone Ray Speakers [...]

If they only have a woofer and a tweeter the sound quality will probably suffer, as there is no speaker that can correctly cover such a large chunk of the spectrum (you also need a midrange speaker).

Specs are pretty poor, with a pretty high low frequency and a cutoff point that leaves the so important midrange (voices, etc) in the hands of the tweeter which is not only underpowered but doesn’t have the frequency response to render them accurately. Also disappointing is the fact they don’t provide you with a frequency response curve.

The shape is a big problem too. It’s very hard to design a proper rectangular speaker, and close to impossible with a weird shape like that. It’s probably form over function and their sound is probably unimpressive.

If I were to guess it has boomy bass, shrieking high notes and an absolute lack of midbass, that sweet area which old speakers render best.

My tip is stay away from them and get some cheap old speakers (some that used to be around 2000-4000€ a pair back in the ’80s), maybe some McIntosh.

Not entirely sure where the reviews above sourced their technical knowledge from…

Yes, the specifications given are of very little use. The sensitivity rating tells us nothing about the sound output except for how much power is required to drive them. The frequency range given is of hardly any relevance as there is no deviance in dB, i.e. a more useful reference would be, say 40Hz-20KHz +- 3dB. That would at least tell us how much the response varied over the spectrum – how flat it was. Basically the speaker could be said to reproduce 38Hz when run flat out, but the sound would be at a much lower level than a similar amplitude signal produced at, say 200Hz.

As for the comments about the driver sizes. A perfectly excellent sound can be generated with a similar sized tweeter and smaller woofer cone of 5″, perhaps even smaller. There is a lot more to speaker design than the size of the drivers themselves. To make a point, some of the best studio monitors on the market today have drivers of just over 6″. A driver this size is perfectly capable of producing bass frequencies that extend close to the limits of that which the human ear can discern.

With regards to the shape, if the manufacturer has done their job properly, then they will have optimised the drivers for the enclosure. It is perfectly possible to achieve a decent sound from an enclosure of this shape.

Bottom line is, if these were truly decent speakers, the manufacturer would have gone out of their way to provide a full specification. Seeing there is a lack of this, chances are the sound quality will be very much middle of the road and not suitable for someone requiring an accurate reference.

The best way to learn any more about these speakers would be to locate some and compare them to a trusted point of reference. As for personal taste, that is down to the individual but design aside a much higher quality sound would almost definitely be achievable at a much lower price tag.

Yeah, I’d echo others sentiments………Most speakers built to look good aren’t going to sound very good, with the exception IMO of the Marten design Form Series….

ONce you get into high end audio, you can spend more than that on one cable!

This is on the more extreme end, but you get the gist; http://audiofederation.com/dealership/prices/marten/index.htm

umm i think i will stick to my logitech zx 2300 computer speakers, they are like $120 and sound wayyy better than most.

i think the wood grain has got you trippin… im sure not everyone who reads this blog lives in a minimal swedish apartment therapy flat.

they probably sound good though…

Anything that would look good next to an Eames lounge chair gets my vote for product of the year.

Even if they sounded great you’d have to be a shmuck to buy some computer speakers for six grand.

The Bose Companion 3 speakers sound great for around $250 and have a pretty slick design. I can’t stand most of Logitech’s designs.

An Eames lounger really deserves something more period appropriate. ;)

http://rasenkan.blog.so-net.ne.jp/blog/_images/blog/rasenkan/206999.jpg

…this would make a nice front-end pairing:

http://www.stereophile.com/thefifthelement/the_fifth_element_60/

Don’t know anything about audio acoustics, and I’m terrible at not splurging, but all I want to say is I miss the days when fancy cutting edge gadgets came with wood paneling

If I had a spare 6 grand I’d buy the Eames Lounger, an iPod and a decent set of headphones and some chocolate if there’s any change.

The speakers are beautifully designed. If I had it “like that”, I’d splurge! Why not!!

@Rich

I agree. a decent pair of cans, a nice chair and an iPod.

If you can’t make 200 people get down with a set of speakers t’ain’t worth it!