Speaker priority: high or low???


I have been reading the threads here for some time and following many of the discussions. During an interchange with another well known AudiogoNer we were commenting on peoples tastes and priorities. The discussion turned to speakers and he made the comment "many people on AudiogoN still think that speakers are the most important piece of the system." I was floored by his statement.
I'm not trying to start a fight with anyone and people can see what I have previously posted about this and other subjects, BUT are there still a lot of people that share this opinion?
Do you think the most important componant is your speakers? If not, what do you consider to be the most important? Why do you place so much emphasis on this componant?
128x128nrchy

Showing 5 responses by zaikesman

To me, the question was not, "Which component can you get away with spending the least on, speakers or amplifier, and still get acceptable sound?" To be fair, I'll state for the record that I personally feel the best price ratio concerning amps-to-speakers is in reality close to the 50/50 neighborhood in most cases, give or take 25%. I believe audiophiles in general are a little more susceptible to taking a rather perverse glee in describing systems to the unititiated, wherein $250 speakers are made magical by being hooked up to $10,000 amplifiers, than is truthfully speaking healthy or flattering to our credibility with the masses. And the first problem with such claims is that an audiophile should not even be looking to spend as little as $250 on speakers. My proposed ratio only begins to make sense for audiophiles when it regards speakers in the lowest price range they should probably be considering, roughly the $750-$1,000 neighborhood new (if you need less, well, that's why they invented Audiogon).

It is true that after reaching a certain level of speaker performance, amp differences may continue to be appreciated as one moves on up their price scale, while it's also true that after reaching a certain level of amp performance, speaker differences as one moves on up their price scale may begin to place demands on that amplifier which it isn't capable of adequately responding to. But it should be kept in mind that at the ultimate end of the price scale, it is still more difficult and costly to build a speaker which is capable of most fully and accurately responding to the input signal it's fed under any conditions, than it is to build an amplifier capable of most fully and accurately responding to the input signal it's fed under any conditions. (In other words, the amp will always be able to fill this brief more easily and closely than the speaker.) And that is why most speaker designs don't attempt to fully do so in the first place.

But getting back to the original question - Which is the most important component in a system? - Beemer is in truth absolutely right. However, if you look at the question as instead asking which single component of the system has the most *influence* over what the perceived sound of the system will be like, then I think the honest answer is, was, and probably always will be still the speakers. (That is, after the source material!)
Just a note, Paul: It is not tube amplifiers that do not have flat response within the audioband - most do, as do amps in general. It is some speakers possessing uneven or reactive electrical impedance characteristics that will display slight deviations from flat response when driven by tube amplifiers, or by some SS amplifiers that eschew high levels of loop negative feedback in their designs.
Hey, I've got a topic for debate - How many audiophiles does it take to screw a 'question' into the ground?
Not that I wouldn't rather have a balanced system all at once, but if I were starting out building my 'dream' system (whether to a particular price bracket or not), I'd buy my dream speakers first and work back through the chain. That is the only way to be systematically sure of what you will end up with. Nrchy's point about lesser source components not retrieving as much of the signal, and Paulwp's point about them more greatly distorting it, are both true as far as they go. But while the signal is traveling 'forward' from source to speaker through the system, your ears are listening 'back' through the system from speakers to source. Imagine your system as several windowpanes placed one behind the other - without having a clear window closest to you to 'view' back through, you will not be able to see (hear) well enough to make informed decisions about choices pertaining to the first layers (sources).

I've posted about this opinion of mine before, but to briefly recap: The first component is the listening room; the speakers must be chosen appropriately to the room; the amp must be chosen appropriately to the speakers (speaker cables chosen here too); the preamp should simply be as transparent, accurate, and neutral as possible (same for interconnects here) while still maintaing the level of functionality you'll need based on your number and comlexity of sources and outboard devices; with the components that must always be engaged in the chain (room, speakers, amp, preamp) then taken care of, the source components can be individually chosen for each source path knowing with a good degree of confidence that (unlike if they were chosen first) what you prefer when choosing will be what you end up with at system completion (interconnects can be chosen to fine-tune here, as well as power cords). The one great exception to this 'rule' of mine is the AC power and conditioning, which it could make sense to go full out with from the beginning, but that's not imperative. If I had to allocate funds progressively and upgrade in the future, I'd first lay the foundation with the speakers I really wanted, then the best amplification for them I could afford and still get my sources together, and then incementally upgrade the sources knowing I had the 'clear window' through which to listen to my progress and make my choices.

P.S. - Swampwalker, it's funny you should mention ML and NHT; I just went up to Philly where my brother recently moved, to by a Levinson 380S preamp from an A'gon member (the quest continues, and yes, it's slightly 'out of sequence' according to my above rant, though not entirely, but that's another story...), and my bro (not an audiophile) had SuperOnes being powered by his mid-line Sherwood receiver from a Pioneer DVD/CD source. I was quite disappointed with the pretty awful sound he was getting, since I thought the NHT's were supposed to be fairly decent (although he was apparently unconcerned, maybe even happy, it truly stank - I did what little I could tweaking his tone controls). I had fantasies of taking his speakers back down to my place and inserting them in my system to pass judgement, or of bringing up some of my idle replaced gear and wires to sub out with in his system and see what I could do. But I'm going to show valor through discretion and restraint, and leave the poor kid alone...
Good point Unsound. If I decided to drop a really large amount, say $100K, on a new system from scratch, I'd be seriously considering allocating the first big chunk to comprehensive room treatment. In fact, it wouldn't be at all crazy to my mind to take $85K of that $100K and allocate it to new construction of a purpose-built, acoustically designed and treated dedicated listening room, and then put a $15K system in it with the remainder. (Not that I have any immediate plans to put my money where my mouth is...I'm just messing around with gear waiting for the day when I'm living in a place I intend to stay, but I'll never do more than spot treatment on a trial and error basis...no $100K system 'investments' for me... :-)