Speaker priority: high or low???

Nrchy,
You wrote earlier today: "What are the speakers going to add to the music that was not retrieved from the source or translated to the speakers? I just don't get it."

Are you playing Devil's Advocate and trying to stir the pot, or do you REALLY "just don't get it."? As Unsound explained, speakers commit both sins of omission and sins of commission. A sin of omission is a "forgivable" transgression. For example a speaker may do a credible, or even an outstanding job reproducing the midrange and the top end as well as the mid-bass but may have no information under, say 50 Hz. On the other hand a speaker may "add" colorations and distortions which make it difficult to tell the difference between a guitar and a dobro, a guitar and a lute, a violin and a viola, etc. A speaker may be "tilted up" in the upper midrange and present an aggravating, ultimately unlistenable signal which causes listener fatigue.

I trust that you mispoke yourself when using the phrase/concept of what does a speaker add. It implies that the upstream components ADD something to the signal. (And that ADDING someting to the signal is a good thing!) The designer's goal and the music lovers bliss is a component that does NOT add ANYTHING to the signal. A component that reproduces the original source with sufficient accuracy to look good on a graph and, more importantly, to "suspend disbelief" of the music lover and transport music lover......to the music is what we look for.

Hey, I've got a topic for debate - How many audiophiles does it take to screw a 'question' into the ground?

I also know no one who would buy a $10K amp for their $250 speakers. That was not the point; was just using extremes to make mine and Stehno's. I am amazed it got such a huge response.

Interesting though that I do know folks who try to buy high dollar speakers to go with their hifi receiver. It is fun to listen to them try to convince themselves that it sounds good.

Karls,

As usual, your post is very well written and well thought-out. I enjoy your posts quite a bit.

Something you wrote made my one eyebrow go up:

"There is a reason that full-range electrostatics sound so good, and it is that they avoid most of the problems I just mentioned. Of course, they have a whole new set of problems, most of which revolve around unsolvable room interactions, which is why most people don't put up with them."

Could you elaborate on the "unsolvable room problems" of full-range electrostats? I confess to being biased in favor of full-range dipoles, so I'm curious to know what your observations are.

Thanks!

Duke

Cloudgif, if I may jump in here and address your point of "adding" things to the music, my point(and I think Nate's as well) is that the speakers cannot add any more to the musical signal that will create more music. They can add colorations and distortion, and other things, and subtract things also. But they cannot make the musical signal have more integrity and truthfulness, than the signal that they are fed. The best that they can do, is to faithfully reproduce it perfectly, which is almost never the case. But some do an admirable job within their design limitations. Some speakers do a better job than others, and this is where the argument for better speakers is appropriate. But they cannot overcome an earlier loss in the signal chain, no matter how good they are. Therefore, in the order of importance, the earlier components rate higher. You must first get the signal to the speaker in an accurate form, preserving as much of the source info as possible, and amplifiying it properly for your speakers to use. If the proper signal gets to the speakers, and they don't do what they are supposed to do, then it is time for new speakers.