I agree with both you, bro, and sir Jagner. The basis of any speaker should be the price to performance ratio. Of course those speakers that cost about 5x more SHOULD sound better, heck, they burn your pocket, your wallet and even your credit card.
Not necessarily. Hand-built speakers can be 10X more expensive than mass-produced speakers of the same material, but not always sound better, depending on what you value most.
But many exotic speakers have qualities that stand out over many entry-levels. Like better phase and time coherence between drivers, or wider bandwidth due perhaps to the use of more exotic ribbon tweets. They may have better mids and highs but often at the expense of deep bass. You'd notice that most expensive bookshelf speakers have inadequate bass responses. But in terms of mids and highs, nothing below their price range can come close. Makers of such bookshelf monitors go for optimum performance in mids and highs, knowing that the serious audiophile market will be getting subwoofers anyway.
OTH entry and mid levels make compromises or thread the middle ground so that they can generate the widest possible spectrum to appeal to the widest possible market. Their bass may go further down to 45hz and highs up to 18khz which is essentially good enough to many people. But they could suffer from non-flat responses due to inadequate crossover filtering and resonant peak controls that more expensive speakers have. Or undamped cabinetry that can load the drivers due to internal standing waves. Or have diffractive qualities that the more expensive ones have tamed due to more elaborate carpentry processes like the use of cabinet curvatures, instead of sharp edges. Or they can suffer from time and phase incoherence that the more expensive ones have corrected by aligning driver voice coils in a more elaborate cabinet design. Or they can peak at 70hz to impart SLAM that is often impressive to the general market.
My point is, many expensive speakers are without parallel in one or two areas, excellent in many respects, average or poor in other areas. Never ALL. While entry and mid levels attempt to be merely good in ALL areas, in the process, compromises are made in their design and production as well as the materials used so they can still make money at the prices they offer. You have to bear in mind that all affordable products are products of compromises for their low price. They try to be many things to many people. (Admittedly, China's cheap labor rate is making excellent speakers designed in Britain to be increasingly affordable as compared in the past when they were still made in Britain.)
But considering how inexpensive speakers like the Euros and the Diamonds sound, I'm sure you'd say your money was well spent. Heck, I'd sure love to get a pair of Martin-Logan's Prodigy or Monitor Audio's Gold series towers, but at 190 thousand? I highly doubt that the difference in performance is directly proportional to the price difference. Can anyone say that twice the difference in performance is worth the price difference that's 10 times more? I respect anybody who swears by and loves their expensive speakers, hey, I'd sure love to have speakers like yours, but if this is all one can afford, isn't it a nice thought that you get better value for your money? Just me. 
The use of Ribbon and Planar drivers will definitely up the price of any speaker. Martin Logans and MAs are nothing compared to the P3.0M B&W Nautilus or Wilson Audio which are not even using planars. Sonic superlatives are never proportionate with stratospheric prices. Even a mere almost imperceptible off-axis improvement of 1db can cost thrice the price. That's because manufacturers have always known that many audiophiles are prepared to pay a premium for incremental sonic improvements they perceive to be there based on their personal value judgement. . To hear a faint triangle that seems to float above the orchestra, they are prepared to pay 10X more than a speaker that is generally good, but can't resolve the same faint triangle. But for others who may not give a hoot about triangles, the price difference is not worth it. Serious audiophiles have different value judgements over the casual listener.
Expensive speakers are unbelievably detailed when listening to a full orchestra. These are typically your planers and electrostats like the Magnepans and Martin Logans. Their mids and highs are simply without parallel among entry and mid priced speakers. But their bass sucks, requiring an equally competent sub. That's what I mean above.
Once you're deep into the hobby, having a discerning ear can be curse on your pocket.
But sonics are not entirely the lone criteria for getting a speaker. The looks department have a lot to say. On Jazz materials, I am hard pressed to discern any sonic difference between a Sonus Faber Concertino and B&W 602 at half price. But if I can afford, I'd still get the SF because the looks alone is music to my eyes.
Cabinetry is another determinant of price. SF uses multi-sectioned real wood instead of the cheaper MDF. The craftmanship is definitely museum quality. Others would opine such efforts have nothing to do with sonics. Maybe. That's another for your value perception.
And perhaps more telling is the fact that in this hobby, price-performance is not everything. At the other extreme, social status can compel your choices. Pride of Ownership. Bragging Rights. Like Cellphones.
Little or Nothing to do with sonics at all. Just my thoughts.
