What would you rather have?

[bturk667]

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

Give me the latter!

[Feanor]

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.

[jbangelfish]

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

[bturk667]

... But you need a great degree of balance.

NOT!!

[bturk667]

NOT!!

......

[DMK]

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.

[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.

[DMK]

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.

[bturk667]

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.

[thepogue]

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!

[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.

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.

[bturk667]

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!

[DMK]

[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.