laid back, warm, forward, etc

Hi.
Could you describe to me what is forward, laid back , and warm sound? Is the so called lifeless or boring sound belongs to any of them? Which of the three characteristics can be considered as very listenable and envolving.
Thanks

All depends on your personal taste.

2 extremes as a example...

Klipsch Horn vs. Lowthers driver

One is fast and agressive and the other slow and dull

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dongrod

Hi.
Could you describe to me what is forward, laid back , and warm sound? Is the so called lifeless or boring sound belongs to any of them? Which of the three characteristics can be considered as very listenable and envolving.
Thanks

---

"Forward": A perceived higher response in the mid- and upper-mid-range: it especially affects vocals but also string insturments like the violin. Some people like this, usually pop or rock lovers.

"Laid back": Not "forward"; also lacking perceive accentuation of high frequencies and/or "harsh" upper-mids and highs . Many people prefer this perceived balance, especially jazz and classical fans.

"Warm": A perceived increase in low-mid and upper-base frequencies: affects male vocals, instruments like the piano on lower notes, etc.. Some people like this provide the bass remains reasonably controlled or "tight".

Great, now can we also get some definitions for "bright", "harsh", "cold", "soft","neutral", etc.
This would be a great thread topic to pin full time, or add a definition section somewhere...
Even some examples of amps that are typically described as such.

I would add that people should keep in mind that one person's "Forward" is another person's "Laid back"...it's all relative. Furthermore, I do believe that your own hearing, gear, room, and preferences will also affect your perception of these traits.

I myself prefer amps that are typically on the neutral - to - bright side of the spectrum, as "warm" sounds muffled and hollow to me...But I don't like boom and sizzle...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Great, now can we also get some definitions for "bright", "harsh", "cold", "soft","neutral", etc....

---

What the heck does "musical" mean to anybody but the speaker? It's notable the tube and vinyl lovers use the term a lot.

Musical means "not digital"...it implies my expensive gear is better than yours, because it's mine!!!
Bwa ha ha.

Kex and F, you two nailed this thing on the head. I swear, for every person that claims B&W's are bright and aggressive, there's another behind him stating they have that "laid back British sound". It's all in the ears of the listener. My favorite term is one used by Brit mags quite a lot; "pace." I still haven't figured that one out :rolleyes:.

That's odd, ya see, I would describe most B&W's I hear to be neutral, and maybe some of the sub $1300 models a tad light on the detail but with excellent midrange...but what do I know.

I've seen "pace" used too...And I'm still not sure what "Fast" means. Even "Tight" seems to be used an aweful lot...and what exactly is a "sweet" sound?

We should lobby ISO to come up with a new certification, ISO 9074, Audiophile Adjectives.
As in, this NAD receiver is ISO certified to sound "Warm".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

That's odd, ya see, I would describe most B&W's I hear to be neutral, and maybe some of the sub $1300 models a tad light on the detail but with excellent midrange...but what do I know.

I've seen "pace" used too...And I'm still not sure what "Fast" means. Even "Tight" seems to be used an aweful lot...and what exactly is a "sweet" sound?

We should lobby ISO to come up with a new certification, ISO 9074, Audiophile Adjectives.
As in, this NAD receiver is ISO certified to sound "Warm".

---

You're too funny KC...

You wouldn't describe B&W's as neutral if you heard them running from a "British-sounding" amp... ;). They are so bright to me, without the help of really warm wiring and or tube equipment.

Warm wiring???
Is that like trying to turn on your system without the key?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Warm wiring???
Is that like trying to turn on your system without the key?

---

You know, I mean, like a heating element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

Kex and F, you two nailed this thing on the head. I swear, for every person that claims B&W's are bright and aggressive, there's another behind him stating they have that "laid back British sound". It's all in the ears of the listener. My favorite term is one used by Brit mags quite a lot; "pace." I still haven't figured that one out :rolleyes:.

---

Apparently it means "Pace, Rythm, and Timing". I've never quite figured out what these have to do with speakers.

RGA seems to though, AN fan that he is; maybe he can explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texlle

You wouldn't describe B&W's as neutral if you heard them running from a "British-sounding" amp... ;). They are so bright to me, without the help of really warm wiring and or tube equipment.

---

I've had my main B&W's plugged into numerous amps and they have indeed sounded "bright." However, that wasn't the speaker. It was the amp. The more revealing a speaker becomes, the less tolerant it is of upstream equipment. System synergy is key to any rig transcending from merely good to WOW! Currently, they are driven by a hybrid class A digital amp and don't exhibit the slightest bit of glare or shimmer in the upper regions. I've always been a fan of tube amps, particulary products from ARC, BAT, and VAC (maybe I just like the acronyms ;)), but I doubt I'll ever replace my PSA.

I have a Cambridge Audio amp powering Mission Argonauts as I type this and I wouldn't say it was "bright" or aggressive at all. In fact, my speakers are inherently aggressive and connecting them to a bright sounding amp would have been akin to throwing gasoline on the fire. I've also heard Arcam amps and consider them to be pretty neutral in color. I'd be careful about labeling everything from Britain as bright.

As far as "really warm wiring", I'm not even going to touch that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

I've had my main B&W's plugged into numerous amps and they have indeed sounded "bright." However, that wasn't the speaker. It was the amp. The more revealing a speaker becomes, the less tolerant it is of upstream equipment. System synergy is key to any rig transcending from merely good to WOW! Currently, they are driven by a hybrid class A digital amp and don't exhibit the slightest bit of glare or shimmer in the upper regions. I've always been a fan of tube amps, particulary products from ARC, BAT, and VAC (maybe I just like the acronyms ;)), but I doubt I'll ever replace my PSA.

I have a Cambridge Audio amp powering Mission Argonauts as I type this and I wouldn't say it was "bright" or aggressive at all. In fact, my speakers are inherently aggressive and connecting them to a bright sounding amp would have been akin to throwing gasoline on the fire. I've also heard Arcam amps and consider them to be pretty neutral in color. I'd be careful about labeling everything from Britain as bright.

As far as "really warm wiring", I'm not even going to touch that.

---

Speakers & amps form a system. For my own part, the Musical Fidelity A3cr amp that I was using with my maggies was just a tad too bright for them, but the same amp is amazing with my Gallos. The PS Audio HCA2 amp is clearly better with the maggies, but I don't like it any better with the gallos.

The real ass-kicker of synergy was when my buddy bought my old PS Audio 200c and hooked it up to his older B&W Matrix IIIs. He was driving them originally with a pretty good HK receiver, but after hooking them up to the PS Audio amp it was like he bought a new pair of speakers. At the risk of adding more words into the lingo; The speakers had much more authority, slam, and a feeling of effortlessness, especially when played at volume. 400wpc of American iron was all those English speakers needed.

We've warmed those wires a few times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Warm wiring???
Is that like trying to turn on your system without the key?

---

.....what word would you deem more suitable? Thick? You know what I mean..

Really the terms mean little outside of a relative context - I don;t think it's at all dificult to understand any of the temrs relative to other speakers being discussed. Provided the person reading has an idea of what the person has listened to.

Using the left hemisphere of your brain ( the analytical side) to describe the experience of the right hemisphere of your brain is highly problematic. You are trying to put into words what it is you are hearing. Castle speakers I would describe as laid back or overly polite - both terms i use to mean they lack dynamics - so while nice on small ensemble or solo strings they don;t do much when you put on rock recordings - most all Panel speakers suffer a similar issue for me.

Warm I would assiociate to a speaker that sounds a bit bloomy in the bass(an overextended bass line that seems to drag ever so slightly). Again relative to another speaker where the bass note seems very quick to end before the next note - for speakers a bit of box resonance adds to a speaker's warmth. Some tube gear. On the other hand the more egregious SS grain which is easily heard when using quality speakers - is considerably displeasing and in just about every SS amp at ebvery price point - the best SS amps I've heard are 50-60 watts or less. But with certain speakers a 150 watt Bryston/Krell can work.

Prat is yet another attempt to put a criteria to what it is we're hearing - since all of the measurements that are currently available are so woefully lacking at indicating whether somehting sounds good then it's not wonder they try defining what they're hearing rather than deciphering graphs which make truly lousy speakers look goodon paper.

Frankly i would not buy into a lot of the terms - they're attempts to describe sound - but most are not really on the same page.

The theme is relativity. In fact so is the term High End, Hi-fi, mid fi low end etc. If all you've ever heard in your life is AM radio on a stock truck radio then that;s your baseline - you hear a Bose and suddenly the Bose is HIGH END. then you hear a B&W and the Bose suddenly becomes garbage and the B&W is high end - and so it goes. And even then not everyone will agree.

Thank you guys.
One more thing. Do you consider NAD receivers as warm? Is a warm receiver sounds best with a warm speaker also, or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dongrod

Thank you guys.
One more thing. Do you consider NAD receivers as warm? Is a warm receiver sounds best with a warm speaker also, or what?

---

That's based on my own experience with the NAD C270 power amp. But it's the "warmth" of the NAD combined with a speaker that is "warm" could be just too much of a good (?) thing.

Typicallly people look for a "warm" amp to balance "cool" or "analytic" speakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dongrod

Thank you guys.
One more thing. Do you consider NAD receivers as warm? Is a warm receiver sounds best with a warm speaker also, or what?

---

I don;t think you want to be playing the buying game in this manner - most everyone does it and the magazine propogate this stuff - and I myself have done it. If your buying a speaker which needs to be FIXED then get rid of the speaker - Very very few speakers I would want to own because i'd know I'd be looking for some tone control to fix it (many tube amps and cables are expensive tone controls)

What you need to do is find the best system --- as a system --- somewhere that is the best you've ever heard - don't worry about price.

Then find out the parts in that system - For me it was from one brand so that helps a lot but most people probably will go to dealers where this is not the case and you'll need to write it down. Now if that system is way out of your price range that's ok - most companies have scaled down versions of that sound so ask them to put a system together from those companies that fit your budget.

For instance I can't afford the best system I've ever heard so I'm attempting to alot a budget to get the scaled down version (You need to be extremely careful of course becuase not every company keeps the spirit of their best gear down into their lower lines - JBL apparently makes some very good products but based off the cheap Northridge series you wonder. (so you still need to listen in your price range).

NAD I don't find to be warm - in fact I find them totally inconsistant as they contract out designers quite often it seems. So the design team that made the 320Bee didn;t make any of their other amplifiers - the 320Bee's I heard had serious sound quality issues. The 370 is if anything lean and has an analytical unrefined presentation(though it's very good power for the money). I would not however call it warm - the 270 perhaps.

Some companies that get big have different people designing different things - the top of the line mega buck B&W speaker for instance was not designed by B&W.

Quad has contracted out to Audio Note to help them design and build amplifiers(They have their hands in other pots too) - Audio Note in turn has gone to Rega for tone arms, NAD has also gone to Rega for their turntables. And then when you get into the heavy mass market stuff the you'll see virtually the same parts and design if not the exact same units. My Pioneer Laser Disc player had several clones - Pioneer made Hitachi Laserdisc players (different colour and the Hitachi label but what you bought was a Pioneer) - Hitachi in turn made all Sony VCRs some years ago and and Sony of course was always about 50% more money. JVC was everywhere for a while as well. And most players were using one of tewo DAC chips one from Sanyo. Arcam uses Sony transports and this goes on and on.

moral = listening practice and spend the time doing it. Buying this week's rave product is nest year's upgrade or gathers dust.

Okey. Now, could you guys help me categorize the following speaker models as warm, laid back, forward, analytic, etc:

B&W 600s3 series =
Paradigm monitor series =
Monitor Audio bronze series =
PSB Image series =
Tannoy Mercury series =
Tannoy Fusion series =
Polk Audio RTi series =

You may wonder why these brands. As far as I know, these are the only available in my country. And those are the only series I can afford.

Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texlle

.....what word would you deem more suitable? Thick? You know what I mean..

---

Sorry, guy, just funnin' wit' ya... could you perhaps provide examples of the cables you believe are "warm" or "thick" so I can go listen to these tone controlling cables?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

....
NAD I don't find to be warm - in fact I find them totally inconsistant as they contract out designers quite often it seems. ... The 370 is if anything lean and has an analytical unrefined presentation(though it's very good power for the money). I would not however call it warm - the 270 perhaps.
...

---

The final result always depend on the combination of equipment.

I auditioned a 372 before I bought my 270; they were both driving my MMGs. They sounded very, very similar. I found they both were "warm" in the mid and upper bass; (see my definition: this is what "warm" refers to per me).

But I agree that these models are relatively "unrefined". Certainly neither had the detail or transparency of units I auditioned before I upgraded. I listen at greatest length to Monarchy SM-70 Pros, (class 'A' monoblocks), and Bel Canto eVo2i, (class 'T' digital integrated). I settled on the Bel Canto which is definitely not "warm" but quite neutral throughout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

- the top of the line mega buck B&W speaker for instance was not designed by B&W.

---

If B&W didn't design the Nautilus, who did?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

Sorry, guy, just funnin' wit' ya... could you perhaps provide examples of the cables you believe are "warm" or "thick" so I can go listen to these tone controlling cables?

---

Well, lemme put it to you this way, go listen to a modest stereo setup, B&W 602's, NAD integrated, Parasound cd player...something like that. Connect the speakers with some Monster XP cable on the spool. Listen... Then, take those off, and reconnect with some cable by Transparent or even MIT. Listen again.. You can't argue that it doesn't sound warmer...

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by texlle

Well, lemme put it to you this way, go listen to a modest stereo setup, B&W 602's, NAD integrated, Parasound cd player...something like that. Connect the speakers with some Monster XP cable on the spool. Listen... Then, take those off, and reconnect with some cable by Transparent or even MIT. Listen again.. You can't argue that it doesn't sound warmer...

;)

---

that's an exotic experiment :D , Rather get some good OFC speaker cable of different gauges but equivalent lengths, as you progress through the each gauge size you will not a difference in warmth :p .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by topspeed

If B&W didn't design the Nautilus, who did?

---

B&W hired an engineering team to build the model Nautilus (snail or shell shaped speaker). Don't get me wrong it's a great speaker - but it was and is their statement product - don't expect that in their 801 - the N801 isn't nearly as good but then it's not really nearly as expensive.

IMO B&W has for the last while (really since they brought out the CM line) seemigly began to up the marketing and visuals of the product increased the pricing significantly and began to skimp on quality and sound quality. The 700 series has improved over the CDM line in one area and took hits in several other areas - it's like they're treating one area and not really looking at the big picture - so the CDM is less refined so is the 602S3 - but put on Madonna or Gloria Estefan's Latin music or something with a bit of drive and the 705 and 703 would be murdered by the CDM or 600 series. Sure the 602's tweeter isn;t as smooth but music is not isolated bits - it's a whole - the 602's bass and drive will more than counter a smoother top end of the 705 - ie the 602 and the CDM 1NT and 2 SE are way more fun to listen to to me. (others of course like the 705 better no doubt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

B&W hired an engineering team to build the model Nautilus (snail or shell shaped speaker).

---

Enquiring minds want to know?

I can no longer find the link - this was on a forum about 6 months to a year ago(and I forget the name of the organization (they were not speaker makers interestingly) - but I visit several forums and i didn't save the link in my favorites because I didn't think it was that important. So if you wish by all means ignore my comment. Might have been a thread on AA but I tried to search - B&W is discussed too much to go through every thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RGA

I can no longer find the link - this was on a forum about 6 months to a year ago(and I forget the name of the organization (they were not speaker makers interestingly) - but I visit several forums and i didn't save the link in my favorites because I didn't think it was that important. So if you wish by all means ignore my comment. Might have been a thread on AA but I tried to search - B&W is discussed too much to go through every thread.

---

But it was debunked. Here's some hard proof for you;

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/...del%20Nautilus

The Nautilus is one of the most radical, and difficult to build speakers in the world. The technology they incorporate is not something that a company other than a world class speaker manufacturer could design. It's absurd to think that a company with little knowledge of speaker manufacturing could begin to understand what it takes to make a speaker like this.

As much as I like the Nautlius, I feel it necessary to point out that a large component of the DIY community have successfully cloned the Nautilus design, and some have even taken it further.
While it is a great speaker, don't get carried away with the level of technology and sophistication.
Just because it looks awesome, doesn't mean Eienstein built it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

As much as I like the Nautlius, I feel it necessary to point out that a large component of the DIY community have successfully cloned the Nautilus design, and some have even taken it further.
While it is a great speaker, don't get carried away with the level of technology and sophistication.
Just because it looks awesome, doesn't mean Eienstein built it.

---

I want to see the DIY guys who built the mold for one of these. I'm sure if I did, I would post it up for all to see.

Cloning other peoples tech is one thing, but to design a speaker like this took B&W five years. I'm pretty certain it wasn't as easy as sticking a Seas in a snail shell.

ROFLMAO.
My bad...not the snail speakers, the Nautilus 800 series...should have read more of this thread.
Thanks for knocking me back a grade or two on this, Geoff!

I tend to belive the snail design cabinet was actually accomplished rather quickly with the assistance of computer design tools...everything else, the tweaking, production/assembly process, etc, is what probably took so long. Quite often determining the most cost effective method of manufacture, and procurement or design of parts for mass production is the longest part of the development stage.

To save some face, I can say Organic Cabinet design has it's own little cliq in the DIY world. I've seen some impressive nohr clones and that Vassen egg shaped clone. Actually MCM, a guy who frequents the ar.com diy board has done some good organic shaped work too...

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...amp=1070388961

I've even heard of attempts at the snail using CNC machinery etc.
And yes, cloning is often much easier than designing. FYI, I haven't heard any of these, so they might sound like crap?

I'll try to find a link to the Statue of Liberty speakers some guy built too.

Regardless the speaker sounds excellent - but sticking a SEAS woofer in a box can work - I think the AN E/SEC is a better sounding speaker than than the Model Nautilus - of course that may be due to the fact that the AN E/SEC can be driven by SETs while the Nautilus is forced to be stuck with Solid State amplification.

Though I'd be happy to own the Nautilus. A lot of designers of products however can move from what they WERE doing into speaker design - Monster cable had some nuclear physicist as their designer. I don;t really see where you debunked it. B&W clearly is building the speaker - but that doesn't mean they didn;t hire an external design team to come in and design this platform as contractors and then leave.

I only wish the other Nautilus series came up to something resmbling this level of sound quality - they don't IMO.

the AN E/SEC vs. the Nautilus...hmm, that'd be a tough one...I'd take the AN E/SEC too I think.
Though I'd love to own either.

I'd put Dr. D'Appolito's SEAS Custom Thor T-Lines up with them too, though...in a heartbeat.
And you could buy a Ferrari for the cost a pair of all 3.

I'll say this about B&W...I cannot think of any other speaker company that is so competitive in just about ever price category available. Most companies seem to have real strengths at a certain level of price/performance, B&W just seems to be good at everything IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

ROFLMAO.
My bad...not the snail speakers, the Nautilus 800 series...should have read more of this thread.
Thanks for knocking me back a grade or two on this, Geoff!

I tend to belive the snail design cabinet was actually accomplished rather quickly with the assistance of computer design tools...everything else, the tweaking, production/assembly process, etc, is what probably took so long. Quite often determining the most cost effective method of manufacture, and procurement or design of parts for mass production is the longest part of the development stage.

To save some face, I can say Organic Cabinet design has it's own little cliq in the DIY world. I've seen some impressive nohr clones and that Vassen egg shaped clone. Actually MCM, a guy who frequents the ar.com diy board has done some good organic shaped work too...

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...amp=1070388961

I've even heard of attempts at the snail using CNC machinery etc.
And yes, cloning is often much easier than designing. FYI, I haven't heard any of these, so they might sound like crap?

I'll try to find a link to the Statue of Liberty speakers some guy built too.

---

And I could easily make the snail mold on my big 5 axis gantry mill, but it would cost about $150k for programming & machine time with about 18 weeks lead time. A little less if you can provide me a CATIA solid model. When you take this into account, and the fact that all the other components of this speaker had to be designed, manufactured, tested, and most likely revised, it could easily strech out to several years before a good working prototype is complete. My guess is that they have at least a cool million into R&D in these before anyone ever even got to hear one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

To save some face, I can say Organic Cabinet design has it's own little cliq in the DIY world. I've seen some impressive nohr clones and that Vassen egg shaped clone. Actually MCM, a guy who frequents the ar.com diy board has done some good organic shaped work too...

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attac...amp=1070388961

I've even heard of attempts at the snail using CNC machinery etc.
And yes, cloning is often much easier than designing. FYI, I haven't heard any of these, so they might sound like crap?

I'll try to find a link to the Statue of Liberty speakers some guy built too.

---

These guys are pushing the limits with the readily available tech.

Guys like Anthony Gallo started out like this; hey the guy even sold his car to finance his obsession! My PS Audio gear, while now one of the major movers & shakers in the industry, started out as a couple of guys burning thier fingers soldering up DIY Phono Stages by hand. While I wouldn't own any of the stuff if it didn't kick ass, the fact that these guys started out as obsessed DIY tinkerers says a lot about what it take to make a statment in this industry.

The best part about the DIY thing, is that it really teaches you alot about what you're paying for in a speaker. Especially for the non-exotic speakers. It's definitely NOT rocket-science, and it becomes funny when you read decade old ideas being heralded as breakthrough technology (ahem...Bose).
I think the DIY thing could easily be the next "big thing" in Home Theatre/Audio gear. Reason being, for the most part, DIY offers an absolutely incredible value to most people. By most people, I mean those of us who will never justify spending more than $8000 on a pair of speakers.

More and more kits are being made available using the same or better drivers (or drivers that proprietary drivers built in-house by companies have copied and bastardized) crossover components, and better cabinetry than you find in alot of speakers.

Problem is, like anything else in audio, the diminishing returns rule still applies. The widely available speaker and sub kits are excellent starters. I'd fell comfortable saying that a decent DIY sub kit would cost you double commercially to reach that level of performance, and speaker kits are usually performing at a level 1/3 or 1/4 their commercial counterparts...higher if you can build your own cabinets and crossovers. Case in point, AR.Com's own DIY's by Ed Frias. These things smoke my Studio 40's and Wharfedale Emerald 93's. And they were built for about 1/4 or 1/5th the price. If I bought pre-fab enclosures, they would have been a bit uglier, and would have been built at only 1/3 the price...but that's splitting hairs...and there are kits out there that are better, I'm sure.

But like anything, you hit a plateau. That is, Kits seem to stop being offered around the $1500 range...at this point you have to build your own cabinets, and crossovers. This forces people to learn and invest a lot of time, and money in tools, or be happy with what they have. If someone doesn't have a workshop already, the value is probably diminished.

The internet has really replaced the old Radio Shack magazines, and local DIY clubs/seminars that existed until the 90's. I've learned more about speakers in the last year than I did the previous 12 years (my length of time owning decent equipment).

I've seen some guys build speakers that are absolutely incredible...some have invested over 10K into them...but in order for these guys to sell them commercially, they'd almost have to charge 50K or so to compensate for the time, materials, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

I've seen some guys build speakers that are absolutely incredible...some have invested over 10K into them...but in order for these guys to sell them commercially, they'd almost have to charge 50K or so to compensate for the time, materials, etc...

---

I suppose therein lies the rub..when one begins to move away from traditional cabinets and drivers, the costs of DIYconstruction rises considerably as the ability to mass produce such materials reduces costs quite considerably. The last time I did a comparison of speakers, the biggest weakness that the traditional speakers had was their cabinet, I was shocked at the cabinet resonances that I was able to excite with the right tones and music and their deleterious effects on the sound. By accident, I noticed that I have moved more exotic designs, while I have heard a couple of traditional designs that I like..it will cost mucho $$$ to build something like the Gallo Reference 3 or the ELAC 330 as a DIY design :D

Well, labor/time compensation is a huge component of cost in speakers too. When looking at a competent commercial speaker of say, $2000, many people probably don't have have $2000 to spend, but have $500 to spend and 20-40 hours of time, especially if they enjoy working on the project...I know I did. Pressumably audio-enthusiasts have time available for the hobby (or why be into audio at all?).
I really applaud designers like Adire, Audax and Audio Note who have moved back to offering speakers in kit form in order to deliver the same performance in a more cost-effective package. Designing a kit easy enough for the average person to assemble takes a bit of work...the instructions have to be adequate, you have to assume the tools (ie: soldering equipment, saws, etc) that an average person would have access too.
There's no denying that computers have really taken the DIY speaker world well out of the 1980's into a more advanced state, too. Today people can download software to quickly design cabinets and crossovers that will customize their systems in a fraction of the time the old pen-and-paper-trial-and-error method could. Same with figuring out how one driver will work with another.
And the DIY hobby is one place where the internet is actually being used to its potential.