Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    What would you rather have?

    A great pair of speakers and mediocre associated equipment, or a good pair of speakers but great associated equipment?

    Give me the latter!

  2. #2
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Simplistic answer: the former ...

    Quote Originally Posted by bturk667
    A great pair of speakers and mediocre associated equipment, or a good pair of speakers but great associated equipment?

    Give me the latter!
    ... But you need a great degree of balance.

  3. #3
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Both

    But I like the amp, preamp and everything else to be as good as possible. I have a lot more money in the front end equipment than I do in speakers and I get the most from my speakers this way. This equipment will drive any speaker system that I might care to own and do it very well so if I ever decide to upgrade in speakers, the option is always open. Doing it the way that I have makes an upgrade seem less important.
    Bill

  4. #4
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332

    Need more specifics

    Quote Originally Posted by bturk667
    A great pair of speakers and mediocre associated equipment, or a good pair of speakers but great associated equipment?

    Give me the latter!
    Are you talking amplification when you say associated equipment or ALL other gear, including front ends? What's "mediocre", "good" and "great"? It makes a difference. If a "good" pair of speakers is, say, Paradigm Studio 100's and I can pair them with a Wyetech Labs amp and preamp, that's one thing. If I can have Wilson Audio speakers but have to accept a Pioneer receiver, that's another. As the other poster said, there needs to be a balance or this question becomes silly. I think it's ridiculous to use Krell on a Cerwin-Vega but I also think it's silly to use a cheap receiver on a pair of Kharmas.

    I've often said that the speakers are the most important because that's been my experience. If you handed me $2000 and asked me to build you the best sounding system I could with the money, the majority of it would be put on the speakers. If I did it the other way around, you would never ask me to help you again! Now if you gave me $50,000, the reverse might be true as the best speakers I've ever heard only cost $7500 while I could spend $16K on the best amplification I've ever heard. And I'd also get you VPI's top of the line TNT turntable

    Anyway, do you see my point? You might try asking this question again with a little more specificity.

  5. #5
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Well, we mostly agree

    While I'm not a Cerwin Vega fan and I'm sure you're not either. If you did like them or owned them I think you would agree that they would sound alot better with a Krell that had enough power for them than they would with a Pioneer receiver. The right amp with the right power will make a speaker sound as good as it possibly can, which sometimes, will still not be good enough.

  6. #6
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    While I'm not a Cerwin Vega fan and I'm sure you're not either. If you did like them or owned them I think you would agree that they would sound alot better with a Krell that had enough power for them than they would with a Pioneer receiver. The right amp with the right power will make a speaker sound as good as it possibly can, which sometimes, will still not be good enough.
    While I can't say for sure, my strong hunch is that nothing could make CV's sound good. If a speaker is bad, it's bad. That said, I'm sure there are plenty of mediocre speakers that could be optimized by the best amplification. But what I'm saying is that if I owned such speakers, I wouldn't buy the best amp. I'd buy the best speakers I could afford first and then upgrade my amp later.

  7. #7
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    Yeah, thanks for paticipating...

    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor
    ... But you need a great degree of balance.
    NOT!!

  8. #8
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    Only kidding. nt.

    Quote Originally Posted by bturk667
    NOT!!
    ......

  9. #9
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    Try not to complicate things.

    associated equipment is the remaining components that make up a system. Can't listen to speakers otherwise.

    I think we all know what bad, good, and very good equipment is.

    What percentage of money you spend on each component is not what I asked. Each person must come up with their own formula. I just asked what would you rather have.

  10. #10
    Forum Regular thepogue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hayes, Va
    Posts
    490

    great speakers for me...

    good amps and great amps i always have to work hard to hear the differences...good solid cd players and great players...i almost never hear...pre's the same way but great speakers...well speak for themselfs!
    • Mark Levinson No. 27
    • Musical Fidelity 308cr
    • Martin Logan Prodigy's
    • Ariel Acoustics 10-T
    • Rega Planet CD
    • CJ Premier 9 DAC
    • Linn LP12 - Basik Plus - Valhalla
    • Benz Micro Cart.
    • Akai GX 747 Reel to Reel
    • Straight Wire Virtuoso Interconnects

  11. #11
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    277

    That depends, it is kind of looking at the whole

    thing backwards.

    I've always fell in love with speakers first, then found the electronics to optimize their performance. It has always made sense to me that way since it is the speakers that will make the most difference, the rest is just "bringing it home to Papa". But it isn't that simple.

    There is a line that most people will not cross. It is in a different place for every individual. For most people, the line is going to be well above Cerwin Vega, Bose, or KLH. At that point electronics really don't matter that much. Ditto the Wilsons with the Pioneer receiver. Such examples are fun for their silliness, but extremes never really exist, and would never work.

    Now, not to say extremes can't be fun once the "line" has been crossed. Have you ever heard a pair of Acoustic Energy Aegis Ones on a pair of Krell 650 monos with the big pre/CD player with CAST? $40,000 in electronics driving a $300 pair of speakers. It was wonderful, but I didn't have $40,300 to spend that day.

    So, to answer your question, it would all hinge on the speakers, but I can't do it your way...it doesn't make any sense. But, speakers should be the first choice, unless your are upgrading a system where the speakers have become the weak link, or the room changed and the old speakers are not working in it.
    Space

    The preceding comments have not been subjected to double blind testing, and so must just be taken as casual observations and not given the weight of actual scientific data to be used to prove a case in a court of law or scientific journal. The comments represent my humble opinion which will range in the readers perspective to vary from Gospel to heresy. So let it be.

  12. #12
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    [QUOTE=bturk667]"associated equipment is the remaining components that make up a system. Can't listen to speakers otherwise."

    Well, then I'd rather have topnotch associated equipment! It would be much cheaper to buy just the topnotch speakers than everything else.

    "I think we all know what bad, good, and very good equipment is. "

    LOL! Hardly! Getting audio nuts to agree on much of anything when it comes to gear is nearly impossible. Some people think Bose is very good. Some think Wilson Audio is bad.

    "What percentage of money you spend on each component is not what I asked. Each person must come up with their own formula. I just asked what would you rather have."

    Well, since you didn't ask what would sound better but what I'd rather have, I'll go with the answer above. If I had the turntable/arm/cartridge, CDP, amplification, CD recorder, cassette deck, phono stage I wanted, I'd take that over speakers. That way I'd have to come up with less money to complete the system. If you had asked what would sound better, the answer is great speakers and less than great associated gear, at least most of the time. Too many variables to make a completely accurate pronouncement either way. Sorry if I'm making something that appears simple into something complex but the fact is that it's too vague to be simple. Your question leaves too much room for argument.

  13. #13
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    O.K., how about this...

    Quote Originally Posted by spacedeckman
    thing backwards.

    I've always fell in love with speakers first, then found the electronics to optimize their performance. It has always made sense to me that way since it is the speakers that will make the most difference, the rest is just "bringing it home to Papa". But it isn't that simple.


    What good is a great pair of speakers whose performance is not optimized? How do we optimize their performance? Well, as you said, ELECTRONICS, that's how. Otherwise, it seems to me, that your not only wasting your money but your wasting what might be in regards to your speaker's perofrmance and sound quality!


    .

    So, to answer your question, it would all hinge on the speakers, but I can't do it your way...it doesn't make any sense. But, speakers should be the first choice, unless your are upgrading a system where the speakers have become the weak link, or the room changed and the old speakers are not working in it.
    I believe it makes perfect sense. But I figured most people would vote for speakers, very typical!

  14. #14
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    277

    At lower prices, speakers are far more critical

    There are speakers that are standouts at what I consider very low prices. The AE Aegis One, Triangle Titus, and a few others. With one of those choices, very high end electronics will make a difference and could be considered justified.

    The problem gets to be with system budget. If you are trying to do HT for $1000-1200 or less, the speakers become the huge priority in the budget, but, it is my position that if you have to drop down to a mass market receiver to do it, then you have to get more creative on the speaker front, or stage the system over multiple purchases since the compromises are too great for me to deal with.

    Now with $1500-2500 for a 2 channel purchase, your question actually can get to be kind of interesting. At the lower price end of the spectrum, I would be concerned with getting the better electronics and finding a pair of speakers that worked well. At the upper level, I would be more inclined to start with the speakers first since I know I will have the money for electronics that will pass muster. I could more than likely revert to the original $1500 system electronics if I found speakers I just "had to have". But, the likely scenario there would be an upgrade across the board since you have the budget to "get over the line" on both sides.

    But, I know I would be happy with a speaker like the Aegis One with some good electronics for a very long time. Or that little Quad, or the Titus, or there's that....
    Space

    The preceding comments have not been subjected to double blind testing, and so must just be taken as casual observations and not given the weight of actual scientific data to be used to prove a case in a court of law or scientific journal. The comments represent my humble opinion which will range in the readers perspective to vary from Gospel to heresy. So let it be.

  15. #15
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    Bturk, it's the way people think now

    I agree with you and I think many people build their stereo backwards. What your speakers do depends completely on what is in front of them with the source being the first and most important factor (CD, LP or whatever) junk will sound like junk no matter what you play it on. From there, it depends on your cartridge and tonearm and tt, your CD player (although many inexpensive CD players perform fairly well), tape deck or whatever comes in contact with the source. Skimp here and you will hear it. Next in line your preamp which is another very important piece and I feel this is where most receivers fail, that combined with low power or poor power supplies. From there to the amp which I consider as important as anything in the system, skimp here and all speakers will sound sub-par.
    I look at it as each piece from the speakers forward should be able to outperform the piece that comes behind it. If you do this, you should never miss anything. I really believe that if you build a system this way, you will get the most from whatever speakers that you use. By all means buy your favorite speakers but without the needed quality and power in front of them, you might as well have bought lesser speakers as well because you'll never get the most out of them.
    I have been entertained with a variety of older speakers and have never spent alot of money on them. Would I like something new and expensive in regard to speakers? Very likely so but I could listen to the AR9's for a very long time without feeling cheated. They may have their shortcomings as nearly all speaker systems have something that makes them less than perfect but in most respects, they will outperform nearly anything made today and do it without the use of a subwoofer. The new speakers that will outperform them will run into thousands of dollars and I'm sure that they are great, as they should be.
    Some of these guys seem to think it's a joke but I can't count how many people I've read about with quite a lot of money in great speakers only to power them with some receiver, thinking they've reached nirvana.
    I will never go back to receivers as long as I live. I still have not heard one that I would care to own. If there are good ones being made, that's fine, I have no desire for any of them.
    Bill

  16. #16
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    583

    jbangelfish, the funny thing is...

    most people equate percentage of money spent on their components as somehow showing their significants to a system, and to it's sound. I never mentioned money as a factor. Why, well because there are many components that one can buy used or demoed that are very reasonable, but that sound and perform superbly. Also, I have heard many fairly inexpensive components that are damn good.

    I just never understood how a person could buy good speakers(probably a high percentage of his funds) and then buy not only cheap, but poor performing and sounding electronics. As if, it's o.k. the speakers are all that really matter, and that somehow they won't sound that different, or better.

    What I will concede is that in my experience, the more you spend on speakers, generally the better they not only sound but perform. This however does not mean I would spend, say, 50% to 70% of my budget on them. On the contrary, the lower my budget the lower of a percentage I would spend on speakers. My system cost me @$5000; my speakers cost me $1000. And if I do say so myself, it sounds great!

    So again, give me a good pair of speakers and good too great electronics over a great pair of speakers and mediocre electronics.
    Remember, different isn't always better, but it is different.
    Keep things as simple as possible, but not too simple.
    Let your ears decide for you!

  17. #17
    DMK
    DMK is offline
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    332
    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    I really believe that if you build a system this way, you will get the most from whatever speakers that you use. By all means buy your favorite speakers but without the needed quality and power in front of them, you might as well have bought lesser speakers as well because you'll never get the most out of them.
    Bill
    This is inarguable. It's why one should optimize ALL parts of their system. There may be people out there that have $5000 speakers and use $100 CDP's and $200 receivers. As a result, they are not getting the most out of their speakers. But in my experience, you get more out of a topnotch pair of speakers and a step or two down in electronics than the other way around. Again, it's optimization of the entire system. Speakers in particular have come a long, long way over the last 10-15 years. I'll never understand the people above but I'll also never understand sticking $5000 into electronics only to drive a pair of $500 speakers, particularly when we all seem to be in agreement that speakers are the single biggest determinant of the final sound.

  18. #18
    Shostakovich fan Feanor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    8,127

    Is distortion additive or multiplicative?

    Quote Originally Posted by jbangelfish
    I agree with you and I think many people build their stereo backwards. What your speakers do depends completely on what is in front of them with the source being the first and most important factor ... I look at it as each piece from the speakers forward should be able to outperform the piece that comes behind it. ...
    If a component multiplies the distortion of the preceeding component by its own, then your argument is the valid one. On the other hand if the downstream component merely adds its distortion to the preceeding, then you argument is, essentially, invalid.

    From the latter perspective, most people will concede that speakers have more distortion than any other, single component, hence would be the most critical.

  19. #19
    Forum Regular
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Roscoe IL
    Posts
    210

    It does multiply it.

    Sometimes by great numbers. I think of it more as a capability of a component than an actual distortion number. As long as everything gets better as I go forward in my system, I still believe that I am getting the most from it that I can.
    Speakers have the most distortion and the biggest signature of a systems' sound characteristics. There is no denying this, so find the ones you like and give them the best that you can. If you don't get ridiculous in the amount that you spend on speakers, you may find yourself putting alot more money in what drives them.
    A good solid amplifier can make a huge difference in how a system performs and the same could be said of any other component in the system. Which one is singly the most important becomes difficult but I will always put a very strong emphasis on the amp. I consider all of the components to be very nearly equal in importance. They are all extremely important to get the most from your system. The speakers merely give the sonic signature that appeals to you. Skimp on everything else and they will surely dissappoint you.
    Bill

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •