Lower that by an order of magnitude. Genelecs are some of the most common studio monitors and they are way less than that. A pair of JBL 308ps for $700 is the point of diminishing returns for accurate reproduction.
Only reason to spend more is aesthetics, features, and SPL (fair enough).
Most of the budget in high end production facilities goes into room design and acoustics.
1. Studio monitors are chosen for their flat response curve over a given range not because they: a) accurately cover a large frequency range including bass, b) have exceptional clarity and ultra low distortion.
2. Bookshelf speakers can get really good but they ultimately require subwoofers to cover lower frequencies and that requires not only a good subwoofer with excellent clarity.
3. The vast, vast majority of studios master audio to sound good on a wide range of devices ranging from smartphone speakers to earbuds to $50 soundbars. And ultimately with the "loudness wars" still in full swing, dynamic range compression is widely used.
I don't disagree with you that room treatment is of paramount importance. But there is a very, very noticeable difference hearing a good recording over a pair of floorstanding full range speakers with excellent tweeters+woofers and a decent amp. My point a good setup including subwoofer+crossovers+bookshelf speakers that hits the point of diminishing returns tends to approach the $10-15k mark including amp.
Some things are a total waste of money. Fancy power cables, super-expensive amps with zero measurements to justify the cost. Snake oil stuff like special ethernet cables, etc.
But speakers, as the highest distortion element of the audio chain, absolutely improve noticeably even up to $10-15k or so. I purchased some GoldenEar Triton One.R speakers a few years ago and they still blow people's minds when they listen to them. Everything from the bass to the treble are crystal clear yet not fatiguing.
> absolutely improve noticeably even up to $10-15k
Except, they don't. The only reason to buy a 15k speaker is to gain a higher SPL before distortion kicks in, or you want some cool feature or aesthetics.
For a home user just seeking good (accurate) music reproduction, there is not much point to spending more than a couple grand on a 2.1 system.
Beyond that, you are best to spend money on EQ, then room treatments and extra subs to try and sort out the low end (the most challenging aspect of music reproduction).
> there is not much point to spending more than a couple grand on a 2.1 system.
Well, that's a personal choice right? Improvements are noticeable up to the point I mentioned. But is it worth it? Nobody can possibly answer that for you.
There are actually some streaming services offering atmos and high-res audio, so the market is actually quite interesting right now if you have the budget for the equipment. A top of the line experience will cost you a bit north of $1000 per channel assuming you dont get too picky with the speakers, do would be 7+2 -> 9K for a full blown domestic system. The audiophile crowd is buying 2 channel dac systems at a third of that value, just because.
> . 3. The vast, vast majority of studios master audio to sound good on a wide range of devices ranging from smartphone speakers to earbuds to $50 soundbars.
Great. So I really don't need the expensive stuff then. It will actually be a distortion of what the engineer intended
You don't need the super-expensive stuff anyways. But you're obviously not going to get full frequency range (especially bass) on smartphone speakers.
Additionally, a few genres (notably some jazz and Western classical) as well as select recordings here and there actually do not have "loudness war" issues and might actually have good dynamics. For these, it's nice to have a system that can handle, say, the full blown volume swings of a Romantic-era symphony.
You can probably fulfill these requirements with a system far under $15K. :)
I actually was under the impression that the audiophile market (at least the stereotypical) was fairly "dead"; it was more of a thing in, say, the 1970s-1980s phenomenon (with a follow-up in the late 1990s with the home theater boom) when the gap between consumer electronics and hi-end electronics was a lot bigger, and there was a lot less technical information out there (so mythology over things like cables and flowery descriptions of sound were more rampant).
Only reason to spend more is aesthetics, features, and SPL (fair enough).
Most of the budget in high end production facilities goes into room design and acoustics.