What makes an expensive speaker expensive

When I said I'd love to see your designs, I meant the speakers that you are building, not the designs.  Not an engineer.  I can read a schematic, but not building anything anymore, lol.  The one great thing about our hobby is that all the folks like to get to know each other and that includes the manufacturers etc...  I always felt that was a nice thing.  I'm made a lot of close personal friends as well as close enemies in audio (and sports where I'm much more involved).  

I usually put that sound is subjective and I believe I have said that in this thread.  The only thing that I have said that is fact is the break up of paper drivers.  I do agree that things can and are done to make them better.  There is distortion everywhere in audio and some of it sounds fine.  Yes, folks get their emotion from audio in different ways.  I do believe that. I've learned to listen differently over the years as have most folks as we hear new and different things (not always better, lol).  Personally I can listen to an Audio Note system and enjoy what I hear just like I do FM radio or a CD in the car.   Personally (personally), I wouldn't want that system in my home as it lacks so many things for me.  Even some of their dealers I've gotten to know say similar things.  

As for detail, to me if the 'detail' is actually distortion, or a tipped up tweeter (we all know a few high end manufacturer's tip the highs 1 or 2db to make them sound more 'open' than that's not for me.  I know a couple of these companies who do this, sell the crap out of their speakers.  Folks rave and rave and buy them like candy.  Even their very expensive ones.  

I probably am posting too much for this thread and I get that, but It's more of a discussion over beers than an argument.  Richard's speakers are not the only ones I enjoy and can live with.  I typically can't handle ribbons or even many of the panels out there as they aren't set up properly, are run with the wrong front ends and amps and seem way too 'hot' for my tastes.  Again, my tastes and no one else's.  

I didn't love the older Vandersteen's. Was going to get a pair of 2's in the 90's after my first stint on active duty (Navy), but went to a store in RI who carried them and was talked into a pair of Proac Superpowers.  It's only recently since he went to carbon fiber that I have fallen in love with his speakers.  I did love the older Avalons and they too were first order cross over and time and phase aligned I believe. Also love Charlie Hansen's speakers years ago.  

I'm sure you guys all have your favorites as we all do.  Again, it's all good stuff here and I do really like this thread and how it's evolved.  Wish others liked it as much and posted, lol.

"It's more of a discussion over beers than an argument "
Agree completely with this sentiment.  Just exchanging points of view,  that's what these forums are meant for. 
Charles, 

I think the quality-price issue also arises at entry level. For example,  consider the Vandersteen Classics (specifically 1ci) and Totem Arros. They're about the same price and both are well regarded in the forums. The Vandersteen's have survived longer, so they can be said to have stood the test of time.

Yet the Vandersteen's don't have expensive parts as far as I can tell. The Arros do - the interlocking cabinet, the veneer both inside and out, the crossover and the borosilicate  damping.

On the other hand, the Vandersteen's don't need most of the expensive materials because they've done away with the cabinet. (Hard not to be impressed with the application of  Occam's Razor).

Vandersteen's claim to fame is their first order crossover providing time and phase accuracy. Yet the Totem Arro's also claim to be phase coherent (which I thought wasn't possible with a 2nd order crossover?).

How is the price similarity explained? I guess because the sound quality is on an equal plane

The "exotic" cone materials mentioned break up as well, perhaps not as prominently in their used audio band, but beyond that could be another story, and one that requires its measures. Certainly what matters here is the nature of their break ups. The tonal qualities, as highlighted by charles1dad, is also affected through the use of different cone materials - surely an important parameter? The associated use of typically butyl rubber surrounds for such (usually midrange) drivers also comes to mind, a material which high damping properties to my ears can quench some of the "life" of the sound. It's not only the use of cone material and surround ditto (and T/S data), but the sheer radiation area of the cone is also of significance. I've never quite fancied the sound of smaller mids drivers below 6" as I often find them to lack substance and fullness. As Mr. Ebaen says in his review of the WLM Diva's:

"10-inch paper cones with hard cloth surrounds simply sound different than 5-inch Beryllium or ceramic cones that are hung off loose butyl rubber. The former are more natural, relaxed and full to my ears. In turn, they're not as overtly 'resolved'. The sharpness and leanness often associated with accuracy is missing.   

[...]

It's a speaker that will tweak certain people because it lacks what they consider prerequisites for a hi-end worthy design - narrow baffles, small midrange drivers, exotic diaphragms, famous tweeters. WLM gets by with apparently lesser ingredients. Still and to my ears, the end result is a more inviting, tastier dish. What that really says about current high-end hifi sensibilities you may ponder yourself in some spare time. "

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/wlm/divamonitor_4.html

Indeed I'd go so far to say that a +12" driver, with paper cone and cloth surround, is a necessity for the required energy in the lower mids and upper bass, but I gather that's another story.