You are wrong about speakers

psaudio.com
This theoretical physicist is up in arms over Paul's stance that speakers are the most important elements in the stereo chain. If you want to learn more, grab a copy of Paul's new book, The Audiophile's Guide. www.amazon.com...

[@dank.6942]

A $300 CD player is far closer to a $3000 CD player than speakers at those same 2 prices are to each other.

[@Bannockburn111]

Excepting that price doesn't necessarily equate to quality, I agree. 😃

[@poserwanabe]

That's an excellent comment 👍

[@mattbonaccio3522]

Have you ever had the chance to look at the insides of a $3000 CD player? I'd argue that you could get a *better* CD player for $300 if you buy a lightly used one vs a new one at $3000..

[@FooBar89]

Matt Bonaccio is the $3000 CD player a $300 player with PS Audio tag? 😂

[@FooBar89]

Fat Rat I know they don’t

[@yvesboutin5604]

The loudspeakers being the greatest source of distortion in an audio system, it is only logical to pay attention and invest money so they won't degrade the signal sent to them.

[@geocarey]

The hardest job in creating good sound is in turning an electrical signal into pressure waves in the air. It is asking a lot of mechanical, inertial devices to do that job. On the other hand, even cheap amplifiers can do a reasonable job of simply increasing the amplitude of the signal. I have never been able to afford top quality equipment, and over 50 years went through all sorts of combinations, from a home made quadraphonic amp to loudspeaker cabinets with different drive units in left and right. Aaaargh! When I finally had enough money to buy some decent speakers, the sound quality jumped up a mile. Replacing the amplifiers made a much smaller difference. I agree with Paul - if you can, get decent speakers first.

[@zappedguy]

I totally agree!

[@AlistairMaxwell77]

this is the key reason . its the hardest job , its the most critical to our human brain . when you think of all the mechanical , physical and electronic variables that goes into making a box with vibrating circles sound like a completely different object of size , space , composition its quite impressive we can do what we can do .

[@marcusfred4480]

Absolutely. The speakers are the final thing delivering the sound to your ears. And like you said, they have the hardest job in the system in accurately trying to convert the signal from the amp.

[@gardenphoto]

TOTALLY DISAGREE! If you can, buy equally "decent" recordings and speakers simultaneously; any other road only leads to unthinkable frustration and the awful realization that NEGLIGENT EQUIPMENT CHOICES KILL GOOD MUSIC! Mike D.

[@gigar9000]

I agree with you Paul. I hooked up a $1000 DAC to a pair Logitech. Still sounds like crap. Hooked up my $1000 active speakers to the analog out of my PC. Sounds wonderful.

[@sean_heisler]

BOOM! Great example.

[@peaceandrelaxationwithgodscrea]

How about playing an 8 track player playing through a really expensive speakers. Its not going to sound good. Source is number 1 for me

[@linkeddevices]

check this out kzbin.info/www/bejne/pWbOg6l7etWKf6M it's one topping mx3 versus two topping MX3s running a split optical signal where one MX3 is playing the left with nothing plugged into the right output and the other driving the right speaker and nothing connected to the right channel as if the two stereo amps are mono blocks. I was shocked by the gains. it sounds like a thousand dollar power amp for the price of two 40 watt mini amps also what's crazy is that those 3001SEs EGGs which can be fetched for like 150 a pair depending on the condition sound way better and even bigger than the Q350s, only lacking in low end from about 70 to 50 by 3db but with a sub crossed over at 60hz, the 3001SEs manage to blow the Q350s away doing anything within the range they are capable of in common better. they sound like a more natural LSx I discovered them on a whim at a local hi fi shop and I can't get over how impressive they are.

[@nostro1001]

@@sean_heisler nope...the example by gigar is not good. Of course crap speakers in the first place will always sound just like that. I don't think anybody would suggest otherwise. How about if you're on a budget and you had a pair of those entry level speakers by Elac or Klipsch for example fed through a good amp. They would likely better most older speakers double the price even without a good amp. However, give them a good amp and they totally punch way above their weight. This is exactly why the modern train of thought suggests better amps, as the range of 'entry' level speakers is that good you really need to spend significantly more to get appreciable gains. Sure, in the old days 'entry' level speakers were dodgy at best. Through modern technology, design and production, this simply isn't the case anymore. Cheers.

[@carlosoliveira-rc2xt]

Some speakers scale up and others don't.

[@BaxterRoss]

The real advantage of starting with speakers is that you can clearly hear the next upgrade!

[@adamk4716]

Exactly. Tell that physicist

[@ryanfitzpatrick3256]

I think you smacked the nail squarely on the head.

[@ptbfrch]

Could not agree more.

[@simrae1]

In a hifi system, the speaker has the greatest influence on the character of your system - this is where you have the greatest opportunity to tune the sound to your taste and listening environment. Improving the rest of the system improves the overall sound quality, whilst still maintaining the original character created by the speakers.

[@KingOath]

Simon Rae That’s right. But the sad thing is, A lot of these so called “Audiophiles” don’t seem to care about character, it’s just a never ending quest for “accurate reproduction”. These people do not understand music or the music industry. To hell with perfect reproduction, I want my music to sound good. I don’t want to hear every mistake made by the artist, recording team and mastering engineer. I don’t want to hear the flaws in the equipment used in the production. I want a system that makes everything sound great, no matter how much “colour” it needs to add to achieve that

[@marcsullivan7987]

Well...and the room, of course

[@morbidmanmusic]

The room matters more.

[@m.9243]

Paul is true to his conviction IMHO. Being an electronics manufacturer for years he could have easily say the opposite (source and electronics first), in an attempt to boost his business. The fact that he argues the case for the speakers, (when so far) PS Audio hasn't had any for sale, speaks volumes about his honesty on the subject. I wonder how many speaker manufacturers would encourage audiophiles to spend more on electronics before they consider speakers?

[@musicman8270]

They have an expensive line of speakers coming out soon.

[@m.9243]

@@musicman8270 Yes Billy, I know. He has been saying this though ages ago. Well before they have had any thoughts of manufacturing speakers. Got to give credit where credit is due!

[@OhMyGodMuffins]

Me (a Rotel owner): oof! Didn't see that coming.

[@billdunn8542]

OhMyGodMuffins nothing wrong with Rotel, when used with appropriate associated equipment.

[@manganzon81]

Same here. I have a Rotel 1582 mk2 Class A/B 200 Watt Stereo amp paired with Focal Aria 948's. Sounds incredible!

[@OhMyGodMuffins]

@@manganzon81 hahaha no way! That's my exact set up! What do you use as your Source/Preamp?

[@Bannockburn111]

Possibly Paul is talking about his experience with older Rotel units? I don't know since I've never had any experience with Rotel.

[@jeffhunter4395]

Ya, easy there Paul ha ha.I'm running a Rotel cd player and a Rotel power amp.

[@markwilson913]

the never ending story it never ends upgrading if you love music your never happy deep down and always want more

[@chadbarker2316]

You must have a great sense of humor to deal with some of the comments you get . Good video. I agree with you 100%

[@giannislarch]

Hello to everyone! It's the first time i am writing here, although i am watching the channel long time ago. First of all, congratulation Mr Paul McGowan, for the way you present the topics , the knowledge, your humor and the explanation you are using so almost anyone can understand! Regarding the title, i believe ...everything in the hi-fi chain is equal important, the source, the amp, the cables we use and of course the speakers and the space! We must have a good, clean, informative, rich sound from the beginning and manage to transfer it until the end!! It is wrong in my opinion to overrate or underestimate one device over anther. And regarding the budget, it is more wise , to spread it across them! One very important thing, it is also the Matching of them. The synergy of our equipment is very important for the final result! Of course, ....we cannot cover this huge topic in a few lines..so..see you in another episode, until then, enjoy... explore, be happy! Thanks a lot!

[@gianpaologliori3604]

The “GIGA” argument only worked in the pre mature digital era. Cheap turntables are bad and in those days a good system was Linn Lp12 with a modest amp and speakers. Now you can combine a raspberry pi with a Schitt DAC or similar for $150 and use it to stream Tidal and you have a very decent source deserving of $1k + speakers. Either way though, I’ve found the amplifier makes a surprising difference. A mediocre amp can really kill a system.

[@1pcfred]

With an amplifier all you need is the power to create the amount of sound pressure you want. No one can hear the distortion that modern amplifiers make. You can't hear less than 2% distortion. Modern amplifiers are at least 10 times cleaner than that.

[@johnholmes912]

a linn tt will still blow modern digital gear out of sight

[@zappedguy]

Back in the early 70s, during my Navy days, I wanted the best sounding equipment I could afford. I listened to virtually every speaker brand available to me at the time. Speaker sound quality was my top priority followed by build quality. I still own and love the two pairs of identical speakers I bought so many years ago. (I was one of the few adopters of quadraphonic sound at the time). I still use my antique amplifiers and decoders, and the sound is still great as ever. That was the era of what I call the Watt Wars. People would buy an amp based on how many watts it supposedly put out, not realizing that "music power output" was not the same as RMS output. My speakers are very efficient and it was recommended to not apply more than 60 watts RMS to them. Even so, they can output impressive low frequencies along with remarkable clarity at all frequencies, with half the watts. I once used them for a stage production driving all 4 of them with a stereo amp rated at 35 watts per channel. The production featured a rocket blast off. Amp full volume, bass temporarily cranked to max. for the launch; babies and little kids cried and an elderly lady leaped out of her seat and jumped up and down with excitement. (Each one contains a 15 inch woofer, a couple of midrange, and a couple of tweeters. ) I agree that the weakest link in the system is the speaker, so it deserves the highest priority. The amplifier needs to be chosen to provide the ideal power for the speakers chosen. The music source should be the next consideration. However, a cheap portable mp3 player can sound great if the speakers are great. In the end, it is the quality of what you hear that is important. I have loved good sound for 60 years and listen to all genres of music. The speakers do make the biggest difference!

[@TheBuccleuch]

I’ve heard it put this way: look for the best quality (usually, but doesn’t always mean the most $$$) and spend your best money in those components that convert the energy and thus information from one medium to another, because that’s where the most can go wrong. That means loudspeakers (electrical > mechanical) and the phono cartridge (mechanical > electrical). Then put your good money into the in-between components that will serve those ends to get the best out of them.

[@xlerb_again_to_music7908]

Absolutely right IMHO. The transducers are key, because that's the difficult bit.

[@1pcfred]

Screw records. It is 2020 now for crying out loud.

[@savvassidiropoulos5952]

In the days of turntables being "The Source", things were different and a good investment on the turntable and cartridge was essential. Same as a good pair of loudspeakers. Nowadays, when a decent, $200 CD player sounds pretty decent, it's more important to invest to a good pair of loudspeakers because the loudspeakers are the part of the chain with most compromises. You have given the answer before. Engineering is all about compromises and in a basic system (CD/amplifier/loudspeaker), the transducers and overall design of the loudspeaker contain most of the compromises. Back in 1981, I purchased my first CD player. A Denon unit. I also purchased a couple of Denon produced CDs. I auditioned the unit using these CDs in a studio of a brick and mortar shop, listening through a pair of B&W 801 loudspeakers. I was totally amazed at the clarity and robustness of the sound. Brought the CD player home and hooked it up to my modest Luxman amplifier and crappy loudspeakers (Avid) and was disgusted. Well, even misfortunes have a good outcome sometimes and that triggered my lifelong interest in loudspeaker design and turned into a nice hobby. The electronics portion of a system is the easier to design and build at a price. Loudspeakers are much more difficult. Transducers in general. I can hardly hear the difference between different CD players but definitely can hear the difference between phono cartridges and loudspeakers. I can identify even which digital versions of LPs were made using a Stanton 681EEE-S and an Ortofon MC20MKII. Totally different sound. And I can hear the significant difference between a pair of KEF 105 and 107 that I own. An amplifier really needs to be crappy to sound bad within it's limits. Same with a CD player - and I can identify a couple of modern DVD/CD players that really sound bad because they were built to a very very low price point. Garbage in garbage out really is true. Same in audio, same in data processing. But it's a shame to destroy everything at the very last step. Especially when it's the hardest and most expensive to get right.

[@gryphongryph]

Totally agree, great post.

[@nadeemnabi7044]

Agreed, nice 👍

[@shardsofcontent4829]

I’ve chased the audio rainbow for a long time, and my most profound realization is that it’s all an illusion anyway. The moments of most enjoyment and the moments of greatest frustration are unrelated to the gear. Reproduced sound never sounds quite like the real thing, so just enjoy the music. (this from the guy who has 3 of every component and still wants to believe there is a magic place of perfect reproduction)

[@gyrgrls]

A profound statement, and so very true it is. The worst HiFi component is the human ear. Sure, the mind, psyche and brain can compensate to a degree, but we all gravitate toward enjoyment of what we are accustomed to hearing. And a very good speaker will do a very poor job of masking imperfections elsewhere in the chain, _until the listener gets used to it_ . Paul cites camera equipment in his "budget" analogy. In photography, there is a plethora of gearheads and equipment snobs, who will happily explain away their budgets and fabricate excuses for doing so, but it all boils down to technique, implementation, and finally, perception, regardless of equipment costs, ratings, and reviews. Even with live orchestral or acoustic folk performances, we must deal with set, setting, and acoustics, which will ultimately determine mood. There is no way around it - not even with millions of dollars to spend on equipment.

[@nman2563]

Not at all. Some equipment sucks the life out of music. Others make every song a joy to listen to. I too have chased the audio rainbow and found that simply throwing money at the problem does not give you what you want, and most equipment disappoints me. However I have found a few gems from $15 to $several thousand that give me great joy whenever I listen to them. Perfect reproduction is the illusion because no music is recorded to a universal reference.

[@Stan_the_Belgian]

I agree to a degree. I once bought cheap speakers for my kitchen, as I don't use it that often so I thought, why not, some cheap 100euro speakers. It ANNOYED the crap out of me. Voices too bright, no low end, flat, it was just poop. Then I bought some slightly more expensive Infinity speakers, more powerfull amp, and the difference was night and day. Good speakers you don't notice, bad speakers you do. My wife doesn't care so much, but I get annoyed easily when hearing a song (or movie, whatever) through a crap system and missing just parts of the song. Like those bluetooth speakers. All of a sudden there is no bass anymore, mids are boosted and the highs are muffled, or there seems to be a gap between drivers. Same with a subwoofer, you miss it when you are used to hearing content with a sub. I won't notice a big difference to be honest between a 2000 EUR speaker and 10.000 EUR, except on high volume or very specific content, but don't waste your time and life listening to crap speakers.

[@jimtekkit]

I'd definitely agree that there is no "ultimate" sound. It's never that simple as chasing sound quality. An analogy is that audio is very much like eating food. Everyone knows when the food they order tastes terrible, okay, good and perfect. But enjoyment doesn't always correlate with how great the food tastes, it's a combination of many circumstantial things like atmosphere and even personal cravings. The food doesn't have to taste perfect in order to be enjoyable. So trying to isolate and maximize that single variable can end up just being a fool's errand. If the noise floor of my amp output is ~2dB higher because I didn't spend hundreds of dollars on power filtering gear then it's not like I'm going to die from lack of music enjoyment. Personally I find the real lack of music enjoyment comes from being obsessed with placebo-level details.

[@maxhirsch7035]

Only half agree with the statement above- I've had transcendent moments listening to my car radio, but at this point in my life, having much better gear/setup than I used to have provides all kinds of subtle pleasure (and many times, even greater excitement) than listening to recordings on my gear way back when- and that's DESPITE some contrary influence of 'hedonic treadmill" over time. BTW, art reproductions in a book and photos of old trips of mine are not the real thing, either, but they can truly inspire me- especially if they're better quality reproductions.

[@honeyken316]

Paul, you were trapped into the situation of arguing a point. It is easier to just dismiss the controversy by recognizing that the chain is only as good as the weakest link. A sound system is only as good as the poorest performing component.

[@peaceandrelaxationwithgodscrea]

Well said

[@Nihilist13]

How do we know what the "poorest performing component" might be?

[@nara4420]

@@Nihilist13 look at the data-sheet. I guess all components will have a better frequency-response than the the speakers and do lower distortion. A non-linearity of 3dB is not so bad for a speaker, but that woud be a desaster for an amp. Also 0.3% distortion is not bad for a speaker but very bad fo an amp ... usually the speakers are the weakest link in the chain, or the room causes the most degradation - which is also some kind of speaker-related (placement ..).

[@honeyken316]

@@Nihilist13 Well that is done by the age old process of elimination.

[@kohnfutner9637]

My room.

[@firstgeargreg]

I agree with Paul. Here's why. One can't hear the source, can't hear the interconnects, pre and power amps. In the end you can only hear the speakers. The rest will fall into place as trial and error will decide what drives those awesome speakers.

[@G3rain1]

I think the most succinct way of putting it is that of all the components in the chain the speaker has the most potential to degrade the signal, so best to make sure that's as good as it can be.

[@jasonsouliere703]

On budget: I have the very first pair of speakers I’ve ever owned (sentimental value) I have killed (or they have just died from dried caps etc) many more receivers/ integrated amps than I’ve owned speakers. Paul is right. Get the best pair of speakers your money can buy and upgrade upstream components as your budget or wife will allow. Far FAR easier to walk into the house with a brand new dac under my arm than a pair of 3-foot tall floor speakers and stands. Those speakers will serve you well regardless of the signal. When you can afford to, upgrade the garbage. Piece by piece, under your arms.

[@Ranger4564]

The egg came first, a genetic mutation, from a different species, leading to the hatching of a chicken. The chicken definitely did not mutate from a predecessor as a living entity, the egg definitely came first. Next question? O.O

[@dodibenabba1378]

That's a theory not a law...

[@Ranger4564]

@@dodibenabba1378 When you find a creature which has morphed while it's alive, then come back to me and point me to it. You don't have to believe in evolution to accept what I stated, you just have to see that change occurs by birth. If a chicken was not created from a new type of egg, how did the chicken appear?

[@chiefgoldlotus]

i should have read the previous comments, i would have seen you beat me to it. i guess i should have assumed someone had (fist bump)

[@ilovecops6255]

Digital Audio Tapes wer enot a success and repalced by USb sticks and Linux. They use Firewire becuae they go up to 100 feets. NOT USB 3,0!

[@ChrisSmith-gt6lg]

To get more chickens you need a rooster. Where did the rooster come from?

[@stephens2r338]

Totally agree with you Paul. Start with the best speaker you can afford that fits your room. Saying that many years ago there was a moment when I have no speakers for my 100k+ system. So tried a pair of cheap Kef coda 7 (250usd) speakers on it just for fun. I was amazed how good they sounded

[@maxhirsch7035]

I've had similar experiences- hearing speakers of mine worth 5% of my overall system punching way above their typical weight when briefly switched into my primary system and supported by much greater upstream gear.

[@leendertpeters]

I agree with the letter that was sent in. Always invest in the best possible source, because all downstream components benefit from that. A superb source can give you fun for years because slowly upgrading interconnects/amps/cables/speakers will reveal its brilliance over time. Oh well... That's the way I play around and base knowledge on during the comparing of components as well.

[@kevenharvey9711]

In other words, speakers have the worst margin of error and you'll get the most out of your money by focusing on them. Perfection is impossible and trying to achieve it is pointless. Next best thing is to try to get as close to it as possible and choosing components that overall will give you the best results, and it's unlikely that any of the individual components will be the best you can get, diminishing returns and all that.

[@michaelevans6374]

Years ago I built race cars. People would always ask me what to get first. My response was almost always: 1- Good brakes , do you can stop from high speeds. 2- Good suspension and tires. 3- Good differential. 4- Transmission. 5- Engine. Too many people want to start with a powerful engine. They don't realize all the good the little things do. Without brakes, you die. Without good tires. You just spin you wheels. Without suspension, you fly off the track. A powerful engine can destroy a cheap driveline. This, as in life, first enjoy the basics. You might

[@jeremyhughes6485]

The most common fallacy in audio is the source is the most important therefore it deserves the biggest budget. The reality is that the distortion of a cheap digital source is generally at least an order of magnitude better than the very best speakers. Speakers matter most because they are almost always the weakest link. The room is probably the second most important aspect of great sound.

[@sharadhsrivastava293]

Paul I agree with you wholeheartedly! I would spend between 60-70% on speakers, 25-35% on electronics and the balance on cables, room improvement etc. I have been doing this for over 30 years and I am quite happy with the results. You could be driving a Mercedes or a BMW that was customised especially for you, but if your tyres are bald, it just wouldn't give you the same pleasure (not that you would spend 65% of your budget on tyres, but those are still the final point of contact with the ground, similarly the speakers are the final interface with your ears)! It's like the proverbial "last mile connectivity" that makes all the difference!

[@ecyfoto]

I’m a photographer and always recommend buying the best lenses you can for your first serious camera. You can always upgrade your camera and see just how good your glass is. Yes, speakers are your primary then the upstream stuff.

[@weatheranddarkness]

But if you switch to a body with a different mount, then you have a lot of expensive glass you can't use. I like that there are finally some ways around that these days at least, p mount adapters etc.

[@ericstefko4852]

Paul you nailed it. The delta between a good and bad speaker is greater than a good or bad source.

[@1061shrink1061]

As many others here have already stated, these days in 2020, digital front end equipment has become so reliable and consistent, that it doesn't take a huge amount of money to get a measurably perfect source. I'd argue that less than $1k gets you a source component capable of revealing more than most loudspeakers will resolve. In fact the writer of the letter shoots his own argument in the foot. If the goal of each downstream component is to do as little harm to the original signal as possible, then surely that follows that the only way to get the best out a source is to run a higher quality amplifier, and the only way to get the best out that high quality amplifier, is to run even higher quality speakers. Speakers have by far the hardest job to do in any component. They're the last link in a chain that turns electrical signals, back into sound waves. Their interface with the room, and listener are absolutely vital to what you hear at the end. I'd suggest that The price balance should remain speakers first, amp second and source third. Plenty great sounding cheap sources these days. So assuming you're driving decent speakers, you need an amplifier that can control them unconditionally. Stable amplification with enough power, enough current to deal with awkward impedances and huge phase shifts is vital to getting the speakers to perform at their best. My speakers are by a huge margin the best thing in my system. Then the amplifier, and then I'm just plugging a computer into a USB dac for the source. This solution gives me all the resolution and detail I could ask for and I can be fairly sure i'm getting pretty much most of what the source has to offer. Inverse solution would mean crazy high end source, being played through speakers completely incapable of resolving the detail. Pointless.

[@ptbfrch]

I had a bit of an accidental experience to support Paul's argument, where I used to use a pair of Dynaudio EMIT-10 bookshelf speakers, and after carefully working on speaker placement, I could have lived happily ever after. I wanted to build a pair of speakers, though, so I put together a pair of GR Research XLS Encore, which with all the upgrades have a comparable price tag to the Dynaudios. I was not prepared for the amount of difference in sound quality I would experience, the Encores are a BIG step up from the Dynaudios but they also change the sound signature to such an extent that the cartridge I had been in love with now sounded a bit too polite and tame. I changed back to the cartridge I had replaced, and I could now hear more of its overall quality, for a combined far superior experience (to my ears). Had I designed my system around the new cartridge, I probably would never have been able to hear what I now hear, which is intense clarity with speed and dynamics, yet sweet and textured in the details and imaging. I thought I had great speakers (for my budget), but little did I know. Get those amazing speakers, and build on it. Try to maybe have good electronics and source on loan for the experience of finding those speakers, so you know what their potential is.

[@martyjewell5683]

Sage advice, Paul. I've always felt that the bigger outlay in an audio system should go to speakers. IF, if you want the most elaborate components maybe save your lunch money and get all components in one shot. I used to advise friends (in the 1970's) that wanted to upgrade speakers, but keep the same amp, to invest in very good headphones to see what accurate wide range sound is. With phones like Koss/Pro4AAA, Pro4X or AKG-240 you would get a better idea of what to listen for when shopping for your expensive speakers.

[@rndm4642]

Buy the best *used* speakers you can afford, is what I say. You might be amazed at what you can get for $500 to $1k. Speakers haven’t changed much over the years. Good speakers remain good speakers.

[@donalddeorio2237]

Infinity Il 10s are a great sounding, smooth speaker that can be had for under $150 and will be the equal of most under 1k speakers. Kudos to used gear also purchased used Marantz AV 7005 preamp for $350

[@JoeJ-8282]

Yep! I totally agree with you there! Best piece of advice in these comments!

[@rndm4642]

JoeJ8282 yes sir! I run PSB Stratus Gold i. Excellent condition. Paid $500. Look at the old reviews (at least I did). They were world beaters at the time.

[@JoeJ-8282]

@@rndm4642 Oh yes! I definitely remember the PSB speakers, especially the Stratus Gold towers, as I wanted a pair of them myself when they came out, but of course I couldn't ever afford them being a "low budget" (or actually basically a NO budget) audiophile! Lol!... You are extremely lucky to have found a pair of those awesome sounding speakers used! Great find man! All I have in my system is a pair of Polk Audio SDA2 towers from the 80's that I found at my local Saver's thriftstore for $40/pair. Not quite up to the same level of "high-end" as those PSBs that you have, but Polk Audio was a pretty decent brand also, comparable probably to Infinity or the like, and especially considering the price I paid for them, I think I did pretty well! I certainly enjoy listening to music on my system, and it totally blows away most of the newer audio equipment like all of those bullshit "soundbars" and "portable bluetooth speakers" and the like that everyone seems to be using nowadays, especially among anything that the average person can actually afford!

[@djsd-1292]

I picked up some advent maestros for quite cheap and only had to replace the fuses. Maybe not hifi.. but they sound brilliant, soundstage is wide, bass is great with power behind them. 150w rms and apparently 750 peak but I’m not sure. They do go loud though, and do so stably for their age. The midrange is luscious, just pulls you right in. Imo the best bang for buck in audio currently is vintage. A lot of the time it’s cheap and you won’t find anything close to the performance of $100-$500 vintage monkey coffins in the modern consumer grade market for those prices. You do need a keen eye, as just because something has survived the test of time doesn’t mean it’s good. But lots of interesting stuff out there for a good price. My system walks all over lots of $500+ modern surround/sound bar setups I’ve heard.

[@thisisnev]

And the faults with the Rotel are...? Remember that law of diminishing returns, guys - that Rotel is at least 90% as good as anything we own!

[@thisisnev]

@Larry Niles Oh, hush with the snobbery.

[@thisisnev]

@behexen250 I've done quite a lot of listening over half a century, thanks, and I plan on doing a lot more. Remember that a lot of people are focused on price because they have tight budgets, and also that "optimal sound quality" can easily become a wild goose chase. It's all about getting the best sound you can afford, and if you can't afford thousands then a Rotel ain't bad! :¬)

[@icristian6707]

The neverending pursuit of "best/better"

[@byrong1561]

Although there is objective weight to his argument, when it comes to actually spending your hard earned cash, I wholeheartedly agree you should start with the speakers. I purchased a pair of Kef Reference speakers (which I could't really afford) well over 20 years ago and I have never had an inclination to upgrade them. I initially used them with a turntable, then a CD player and then a DAT player. I have a streamer now and have swapped out DACs and amplifiers and added a sub, but the speakers remain. In a nutshell, those beautiful floor standing speakers are my reference point for all things audio. They are also one of my most valued earthly possessions.

[@asmg5014]

Byron G Exactly! Me too... In 1991, I upgraded to a pair of Kef Ref 107.2s and you know the rest😊

[@byrong1561]

@@asmg5014 I am sure there are many other speakers that are credible and worthy of a listen, but I just love the sound of Kefs and I dont see that changing. I suspect you are the same. Happy listening !

[@terrybeavan4264]

I've got a set of KEF C55's myself, bought new around 1989, a bit humble in this company probably but at $800 for the pair that was a LOT of money for a guy right out of college and paying off student loans on his first real job, but I love them, I still enjoy 'em to this day and cannot imagine parting with them! The other pieces have evolved many times over the years and I find myself in a weird place where I'm happy with what I have, and in the end those speakers did go from the most expensive to cheapest part of my system!

[@jaegervand2112]

Great sources are pretty cheap these days. Decent amplification is more expensive, but good full range speakers and acoustic treatment is not cheap. Your statement was true back in the day and is even more true today.

[@jeremyhughes6485]

Paul is 100% correct. The listening room is also very important.

[@f430ferrari5]

What I like about Paul is at least he takes a position and explains why. He doesn’t leave you hanging with it could be this or that. He even goes through the dilemma we all go through. There are many factors to consider with all of this. Room size, seating placement, how long you will live at a certain place, how loud you like to listen to music, and music genre preference all factor in. Is system supposed to double as home theatre, etc. Is the system just for you or is it to entertain guests also and used for house parties. Our “dream” systems have dedicated rooms for each scenario but most of us don’t have this kind of money to have separate systems for each occasion. With all this being said I don’t think this is a “two” stage situation of “source” and “speakers”. It’s really 3: 1. Source - CD, tape deck, turntable, computer, etc. 2. Amplifier/Receiver 3. Speakers To me the most important is 2. Invest in a good amp and preamp. I never understood why folks spend so much on speakers then use a “receiver” or even integrated amp. The next is speakers and last is Source. This gives you the best bang for the buck. Please note that the above allows for the most convenient steps to upgrade. Introducing a new source is easy. Unplug old source and plug in new. Speakers are easy too. Disconnect old and connect new. The middle unit which is the amp/preamp is the hardest. You have to disconnect all sources and speakers! Pain in the a$$!

[@justkiddin1980]

Paul, You are right! A cousin of mine had a system with B&W 801 matrix3, with the sony ta-n80 es and the pre amplifier that comes with that..he later upgraded to two ta-n80's...He was thinking of selling the speakers..And i told him not to, because i thought they had more in them..And i was right! He later upgraded to a krell ksa i dont know the number but a beast of a amplifier and a chorus pre amplifier...And the speakers sounded like never before, they really came alive and we could experience a whole new level of music..

[@brucermarino]

Interesting discussion again, Paul. As a philosophy professor with a passion for the hard sciences and speaker design and construction, I think the issue is centered on the concept of diminishing economic returns. The range of sonic quality is much greater in speakers than in electronics and, especially cables. Even turntables generally have less variability. Consequently, money invested in speakers have greater results up to a point. It comes down to how one should invest ones money over time. So, well said to everyone!

[@loudspeakerchefOriginal]

The reason you spend more on speakers is because speakers are the weakest link in the chain. A $100 cd player vs $1000 cd player will sound versy close, but going from $100 to $1000 speaker can make a huge difference. Since speaker are much more costly to produce, getting a speaker of similar class to the elexctronics equipment will cost much more. Amplifiers are the second weakest link. And dont waste much money on cables but invest it into your amplifier and speaker instead, you will get much more bang for the buck investing it in those two items.

[@mattbonaccio3522]

Hmmm. Can I agree with both ends??? Certainly, having good speakers is important. After all, they're what you actually hear. You can't hear the electrons flowing through your amplifier, but you sure do hear the vibrations of the speaker cones. On the flip side, my experience has been that some of the biggest changes in what I've heard from my stereo came from changing source components. I've since concluded that speakers should be the priority -- they must be good enough. However, it is difficult to evaluate "good enough." Many times, I've heard that "cheap" or "bad" speakers can really sing with good electronics. So maybe speakers aren't quite as important as we think. Also, I've found that, when it comes to source components, it's the pre- preamplification that matters, not so much the signal source itself. In my experience, DAC chips and phono cartridges themselves don't sound very different, but what follows them -- the I/V stage if necessary, and then buffering/amplification in the case of DACs, and the phono preamp/RIAA equalization in the case of a cartridge -- is absolutely CRUCIAL. The preamp is probably the next most important, with the power amp in last place. With the caveat: It must be a good match for the speakers. Of course better is better, but that's not the point of the discussion, eh? Well that's enough rambling. I think the point is, provided you've got an amp that is satisfactory for you speakers of choice, the speakers and the sources should be optimized. The other in-between stuff is cool and fun to play with but not as important. Just my $0.02.

[@bernardkinghorn1317]

I'm with you Paul. I've always said, " five dollar speakers, Five dollar sound"

[@billgregson169]

My first 20 or so years experience had been a cycle of great speakers that I loved to bits, followed by ever increasing disappointment as they mercilessly exposed the weakness of the signal with which they were being fed. Had a real wake-up call when I first heard an LP12 (when they were all the rage) because I just didn't want to believe what I'd just heard. But after a couple of weeks I had no choice but to take out a bank loan to buy one and just loved it. I remember a few years later planning to spend around 500 pounds on a CD player (when they started to become cool) but by mistake heard what a Lingo power supply did to the sound of my turntable. Made no logical sense. Big heavy turntable rotated by a small motor using a rubber band - how could a power supply make any difference at all? Trouble is my feet could tell the difference because they just wanted to move around and dance with the Lingo! So never did get the CD player but did get the Lingo. A few years ago got a DAC which I can honestly say is the first time ever I've had a source that's never ever disappointed me and finally rid me of the desire to upgrade as I'm totally happy just to listen (5 years and counting). Thing is if I do the arithmetic, I've still put (roughly) 60% into speakers and 40% into everything else on my current system. So where does this get me? Enlightened? I wish, but I think I've just talked myself into supporting the idea of getting things balanced. Most important of all has just been to listen, listen and listen some more. So grateful to all the dealers who have been so patient with me and that have allowed me to take all kinds of expensive kit home for a week or two at a time so I could really come to terms with what I like and what works best together for me - and totally happy to pay their needed profit margin to keep them in business. Sorry - this got longer than I intended. Great video - thanks for making it!

[@systemera2902]

I wish there were more companies like Paul and PS Audio. Companies that place quality before profit and market share.

[@QoraxAudio]

When it comes to the letter, my first reaction was like: although true, it doesn't matter whether the speakers or the source are the best component. A system is only as good as its weakest link, not as good as its best link.

[@Acoustic_Theory]

The signal chain or "stream" begins at the original musical performance, travels through the microphone, console preamp, outboard processing gear, back into the console, to the ADC, to the recording, to the mastering suite, to the next recording, to the CD you hold in your hand, to the transport, to the DAC, to the preamp, to the power amp, to the speaker, out into your room, and then finally arrives at your ear. Each of those things adds some tiny amount of distortion to the signal - some change that wasn't part of the original sound. Now, when the downstream speaker is poor, it doesn't mean you truly have "nothing" or "nada" - it just means that the contribution of the speaker to coloration, distortion, time smear, and so forth will be so much greater than any of the upstream components that changes in the upstream components will nearly be inaudible. You hear the sum of all distortion, due to superposition of transfer functions. The speaker does not negate the upstream distortion, it just contributes the largest proportion of what ends up in the final output, so that the upstream distortion contribution becomes negligible. And your ear does not separate out distortion contributed by the amp, the DAC, the preamp, the speaker, or even the mastering suite - you just hear all of it, and by changing or eliminating parts of the system you can start to determine the magnitude of the contribution of each part of the signal chain to the overall distortion you hear. So if the speaker is the largest contributor to the distortion you hear, then you can make the biggest reduction in the distortion you hear by improving the speaker's performance (lowering its distortion) by an amount that is significant in proportion to the rest of the signal chain. It's all about proportion.

[@yanrad]

A revealing pair of speakers that you trust will teach you everything you need to know about the quality of your source and your cables. If you're just starting out, getting the most reliable messenger to your ears possible is definitely the way to go. Listen to Paul, he's right.

[@Crokto]

yeah that comment is...misguided. assuming you dont have unlimited money, in which case the point is moot, it's all about putting your money where its most effective. a good source and dac is way cheaper than a speaker of similar quality. thus, you put more money towards the speaker.

[@phreakinpher]

It's like saying "You should spend more on your tires than you do on your car because GIGO, etc..." Obviously good tires are important, but they should never cost more than the car just based on manufacturing cost, etc.

[@andreasmoller9798]

If you are on a low budget, you should make the most out of the speakers and decent amp, don’t spend tons of money on cables It won’t make Much difference, dac is great i bought the dragon fly red, but unless you have floorstanders over $1000 It won’t be worth it

[@johnholmes912]

dac?//??? pah

[@dl6519]

I agree with Paul. Put your resources into addressing the "bottleneck" in your system, and typically translates into "loudspeakers". At the risk of oversimplifying, everything before the speakers is dealing with electrical energy distributed over time, which makes two degrees of freedom. The speaker has to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy, which generates acoustic energy, which varies in amplitude over time and radiates into three-dimensional space. So five degrees of freedom, and maybe six or seven depending how we view the energy transductions (electrical to mechanical, and then mechanical to acoustical). This sums to a much more complex challenge, and we haven't yet dug in room interaction or psychoacoustics (how the ear perceives all of this).

[@jackmortimer329]

Paul, I heard his statement differently. I heard that he was talking about the creation of the sound, the source. For example, if you have a garage band recorded on a cell phone, no matter what reproduction system you have, the sound will not be comparable to professionally recorded symphony music at the Rockefeller or Kennedy Center. However, from the way you understood the comment, I agree with you.

[@tomw3933]

Re: Wrong about speakers. The answer is judgement within a budget with the goal of getting the best sound now. Then the question becomes upgrades as technologies, and perhaps budget, improves. And Paul has a remarkable trade up policy!

[@genez429]

Problem is.. trying to make one end of a stick more important than the other. I once had the luxury of freely testing speakers when I worked for a hi-end store. Had happily secured for my self some used tube Mac equipment (MC275 and C20) that I had refurbished. I tried various well reviewed speakers in my room. Then: Ahhhh... one day I asked permission to take home a pair rather ordinary looking speakers. Hooked them up. Was not expecting much... and was blown away. There was no "garbage-in' in my system to begin with. But, could not know it until the right speakers were found for my system allowing the beauty of the source to shine through. It can be a wonderful day outside. But, if your windows are dirty you would not be the wiser.

[@andershammer9307]

To me an audio system is a SYSTEM and you have to find components that work well together and sound good together. A store I worked for (Opus One) took the system approach and had a good better and best system. I remember the best system had Dahlquist DQ10's and a big Kenwood receiver and a Dual turntable as a source.

[@genez429]

@@andershammer9307 I actually auditioned the Dahlquist DQ10's, and were disappointing with my Tube Mac's. Its when I took home a pair of KEF 104ab's that I was in for a pleasant shock. A friend of mine had EPI 100's ate tube Dynaco. Her's sounded excellent. Back in those days tubes were superior to solid state by quite a margin.

[@andershammer9307]

@@genez429 DQ10's sound best with an Audio Research D90 amd and SP6 on them or a pair of Kenwood L07 amps.

[@WaWoWieWa]

I think that you are absolutely right, no matter what you put at the front end, if you have crappy speakers then even with a good expensive front end it will still sounds crappy.. speakers first, after balance it out

[@normanbott]

When sources were confined to vinyl or tape then getting the best you could afford would help minimise the degradation of the medium with repeated plays. Some of my first jazz LP's were quickly destroyed by playing on a 'radiogram' auto-changer tracking at 13 grams. This was revealed when I bought my first 'hi - fi' components ! . Using Digital sources nullifies this argument. I agree with Paul because if you don't have acceptably revealing speakers then you'll never be able to hear the benefits of upgrading anything further up the chain. As Paul says many times, balance, component synergy is key. Take advice, listen to systems as a whole if you can. I appreciate that's getting harder to do these days.

[@realitykicksin8755]

The speaker has more variation in quality. It has the highest amount of “choke” on the quality. Another issue is that the quality of the source is unattainable unless someone has listened to the best system ever. In other words; physicist ... go home ... you are drunk. (Written by an engineer) Physicists focus mostly on interactions and hypothesis. Engineers focus mostly on quality of results. The world needs both.

[@grecudanalexandru]

I could listen to your arguments all day. Cheers

[@anthonyconrod]

Using the chicken and egg analogy, I think the word you are looking for, Paul, is "evolution". That's my favorite aspect of my audiophile hobby, all the gradual steps, over decades, in slowly building the "perfect" system.

[@jimw5165]

You were RIGHT! The answer to the dilemma of where to put the big bucks is simple. All one needs to do is make a crude graph of sonic performance versus $. You know the curves. Plus, later upgrading upstream components is a relatively easy task. New phono preamp may be nothing more than a switch on the turntable and some cable rewiring. But does one do with the 50 # speakers one is upgrading.

[@constantin58]

I upgraded from a Marantz to a Hegel amp and i noticed the gap between sounding ok and amazing is a lot bigger on Marantz when listening 128kbps internet radio vs local stored FLAC than it's on Hegel. I liked this trait of Hegel a lot where everything sounds great/amazing. With Hegel i don't have to chase lossless high quality audio source anymore or feel that I'm missing out. With all said, i could downgrade back from Hegel to Marantz which is 1/3 of the cost and still be happy with the sound, but i'd miss the speakers greatly if i had to downgrade to something ~1/3 of their cost

[@82ivaylo]

Did yoy try the Marantz PM11S? To my ears it's better sounding amplifier than Hegel.

[@constantin58]

@@82ivaylo i bought a nad m10 then a cambridge audio evo 150 after. It sounds good enough and everything (tv, smartphone, streaming apps...) works without any extra switching and extra remote use.

[@douglasbarnhart3102]

MY experience is very similar to Paul's (although i don't own an audio company, I'm a hobbyist), but i have another thought to add in. I believe electronics (the engineering) has gotten across the board, really good. The conversion process (electrical signal to physical motion) the loudspeaker must perform is maybe the least efficient and most impacted job in the audio chain. Rooms, and other variables greatly impact the loudspeakers job, and the environment is constantly changing (number of people in a room, decor changes, even temperature of the room). I think this is maybe why speakers deserve a bias in a budget, they may just have the hardest job out there.

[@Slammy555]

I explain to friends that the signal processing technology changes pretty frequently compared to speaker technology, so you may change your receiver several times over the lifetime of your speakers which is the justification for spending more on them.

[@jworthe]

The difference between inexpensive and hi-end speakers is enormous. The difference between a $100 and $10,000 DAC is marginal. I agree with Paul.

[@jamiermathlin]

A balanced answer to an impossible question, as perfection is not affordable for most people,

[@charlescalkins4732]

My first purchase of high end speakers were an M&K three piece system. satellites and a Sub-woofer. They sounded GREAT!!!! in the showroom. Like WOW!!! I gotta have these. Bought them. Took them home. Hooked up to a receiver I had at the time. They sounded like CRAP!!! hooked up to the receiver. So I bought Adcom separates. Hooked the speakers up. WOW!!! What a difference. I got sold on separates after that.

[@stephenfrancisvoros382]

My first set up being 5.1, with a very modest budget was a kenwood krf-v5100d-s avr with package speakers and a small subwoofer, that two speakers and subwoofer died after a couple of years, I then bought a speaker package 5.1 Accusound Reference 8.6xd 200w 8ohm 90db bookshelves, centre and a 200w Accusound Reference 8.6xd subwoofer, then atmos sound systems hit the market, I held off buying and saved, then bought my Yamaha RX-A3070, plus another matching kenwood krf-v5100d-s second hand in great condition cheap, that I used one kenwood to power side's/rear's, the other kenwood powering front's/rear's atmos, leaving 3070 to power fronts and centre, so needing more speakers for atmos, I bought 4 x matching Accusound bookshelves for the atmos, second hand in great condition still and very cheap, plus a matching subwoofer, I wanted a pair of good tower fronts, with the coin I had, I bought Polk Signature Series S60's 8ohm 300W 90db, being a good match to my accusounds, my original Accusound sub started making an odd crackling noise, under a 5 year warranty still, I sent the amp from it back, they took their time, I grew inpatient, so I found basX S12's 300w on special, for less than half price delivered, a clearance sale, so I bought 2, then around two weeks after I received them, my accusound sub amp was returned, saying they couldn't find anything wrong with it, then whilst I was checking them and setting them up back into my set up, the crackling sound was still there, so as I looked it over, I'd place my hand on front of the speaker surround with music playing, to feel it had come unstuck flapping away against speaker housing, I glued it back down and it was fine, I wish I had found it prior though, but I wouldn't of bought the basX subs, I'd blown my budget by a fair bit, but I'm extremely happy with it all, so weather you spend up on speakers first or the amp first, it doesn't really matter that much, BECAUSE at the end of the day what really counts, IS THE END RESULTS! . I will say though, if you buy good speakers up front and looked after, they'll last for ages, where as amps/avr's are always changing and being upgraded, channels, power and so on, that good speakers will always support.

[@cryotna1]

In my opinion, assuming that it takes minimum 3-5 years or more to purchase the complete system, 1. Purchase standardised (no drastic change in technology) and expensive components first - Speakers! 2. Components less prone to upgradation and reasonably expensive are the next ones to be purchased - amplifiers and cables! 3. Components that upgrade frequently and are expensive are the last to be purchased - DAC, Network streamers and other electronics 4. Finally, selecting a dealer who would allow to test the components at the place of installation before components are actually purchased.

[@ayansingh2807]

I think what Peter meant is that if you are starting to build up a system or on a limited budget then start of with a good set of speakers then slowly add on quality components as your budget allows. With today’s tech most ppl use Netflix , Bluetooth etc so these media don’t need to go through a source eg CD player phono etc , just a preamp or amp. So if you spend most of your money on speakers then you can almost immediately enjoy the benefits of quality audio.

[@jimmychua6529]

The sounds engineering of the recording, the source the speaker and the amplifier

[@nickclark6001]

45 years ago I spent a lot of money on a big heavy pair of quality 200 w floor standing speakers, I did not have much money to spare as just started earning a living, I went through the decades trying various amplifiers,30 watts , 70 watts, all was great. Now I'm old a can afford a decent amplifier, and bought a 6 year old 7 channel 180w per channel amplifier. Those 45 year old speakers are now transformed at last and working as intended ! The HF is a revelation !

[@-doggy-6670]

Through experimenting with electric guitars and amps its whole apparent when its boiled down the 2 most important decisions are speaker and pickup choices.

[@jmusicca7779]

Damn it! I just hooked up my lil rotel rx-1000 receiver i bought as a kid at a used electronics market in the 90's to some soviet era 3 way speakers haha! It's been gathering dust for over a decade and im loving the experience so far (fully understanding there are things missing from the sound, scratchy potentiometers etc. etc.) But it's still a great experience altogether!

[@keithwood4031]

I have to agree with you Paul. I put my system together back in the late 80's and the philosophy I adhered to was to spend about 40% of my budget on speakers, 30-35% on the amplifier(s) and the rest on source(s). Apart from upgrading my turntable last year (to a Rega P3) I still have my original system and it still sounds great, in fact my power amplifier is the Technics SE A50 with twin mono blocks and I recently bought a second one to finally fulfill a dream and Bi-Amp my system, which I couldn't afford to do at the time.

[@Vazhaspa]

Ok. Let's see it this way: In the first phase, I bought the best DAC I could, then went with a reasonable active speakers. The sound were good enough to enjoy. After a few years, in the second phase, I went with a powerful amplifier but a simple passive speakers. The sound expanded, of course. In the third phase I purchased the best passive speakers I could afford. In each phase, the sound improved but NOT quite dramatically. Now, that is the catch: I still use the old (cheaper) active speakers for certain music genre, and that is still good enough for enjoying music, while for more sophisticated music (say a classical music) I prefer the third phase arrangement, and sometimes (e.g. for a symphony) I let both passive and active speakers play together. No such a synergy would have been possible if I had not started with a good enough DAC as the source ...

[@HiltonBenchley]

When I was young, my parents owned a mono record player in a case (not a Dansette). The reverb (not a setting - just a by-effect) was utterly divine. I've found nothing close in 45 years.

[@shannoncold]

I agree with Paul. The perspetive of the source is different to the scientific view argued. The speakers are the source, generating the waves for us to percieve.

[@Gazdatronik]

My favorite experiment was my neighbors setup. He had an all Classé branded Amp, Preamp, and CD player. Nice stuff. He was running some kind of Monitor Audio speakers, the model number escapes me, but this was 20 years ago. So I ask him if I can substitute a few pieces of my gear in place of his own. Always open to experiments, he agreed. I returned with my tired out Marantz MR220 and my Grandma's early 1994 Panasonic 5 disc CD player. I omitted his good audio cables and the MIT terminator speaker wires, and we listen to some familiar stuff on his monitor audios. Up to a certain volume level, where it was apparent the Marantz was beginning to run out of watts, I really couldn't tell a difference.

[@royabelrh]

Same on electric guitar. Change the speaker in your amp provides the most dramatical result.

[@johnlebeau5471]

I built my first system around the speakers, scrimping on the source which meant turntable at that time. Within a year, the turntable was gone, replaced with a high quality table and my first moving coil cartridge. The transducers are the most important part of any system, and both the beginning and end are equal partners.

[@eugenerodriguezsolis7534]

Currently I am building my HI-FI around my speakers. One of the sonically largest change I have had from my speakers is the turntable and amp combo that I used. The change was night and day.

[@TheGreatTomDix]

The guy who wrote you needs to realize that in this day and age the content we hear is pretty high quality! I’m not an Apple freak, but I think we can thank them for getting us used to having devices with a pretty nice audio output!

[@SirVicc]

I agree, Paul. The speaker is the most important component. You can have all the best equipment in the world and whatever speaker it goes through will be the end result in what you hear. Same with guitar cabs and speakers. That is going to be the end result of what you hear. Those sine waves, however they are made, are in the end translated through the speakers. Reminds me of Formula 1 racing. They can have all the power and technology in the world, but in the end it's the suspension and tires that put the power down. Where the rubber meets the road is the end result of everything in the chain before it.

[@NathanStorer-RC]

I believe that starting with great speakers is the best way to start also. You will notice more changes throughout the lifespan of your system if your speakers are able to show them. Paul hit it on the head when he suggested that if you have crappy speakers, your not going to notice any difference on changes to the source. The best way to appreciate incremental changes to a system is to start with great speakers.

[@maxhirsch7035]

I've had speakers fronting my system worth a lot less than my sources and amplification (and so 'crappy' in comparison with the latter), and I always heard any improvements made upstream, so it depends what one defines as 'crappy.' Logically, any pair of speakers, even of modest price, that's at least moderately revealing should reveal changes upstream, just as they should reveal changes in tempo, dynamics, basic timbre, and the like between different recordings.

[@navinadv]

Well today most source is streaming and/or digital media on a local hard drive. The only time you are converting energy from one form to another is in the loudspeaker. By definition then the loudspeaker is the most “lossy” component in the chain. Hence focusing the maximum resources to ensure this lossy component is as accurate as possible makes a lot of sense.

[@DavidKowalski]

You are RIGHT about speakers, Paul! I have heard this same, faulty reasoning that is spouted in the letter you read, and it sounds reasonable in theory. Theory must be tested by experience, however. Those who have worked in the audio industry in some capacity, having the opportunity to observe "the biggest bang for the buck" have seen and heard that dollar-for-dollar, speakers make a bigger difference than any other part of one's audio system.

[@Weissman111]

I'll answer the question - the egg came first.

[@Roof_Pizza]

Yup.

[@LincolnRon]

In my opinion if you are on a budget start with a headphone system. You will be able to use your Hi Res Audio files & player with your sound system when you can afford to start buying one. Pioneer XDP-100R (portable) about $700 or a Sony HAPS1 (shelf-top) about $1,000, Sennheiser HD 800 S about $1,700 and Hi-Res Audio files usually about $2 to $5 per song and about $10 to $25 per album.

[@D800Lover]

I am more of a *_chain_* guy. All the links are close to being of equal importance. But the problem is that the links all affect the sound in their own different ways. It's down to the nature of distortion, that some kinds of distortions are more palatable than others. We may claim electronic distortion is so low compared to loudspeaker distortion, but we forget they are *_different_* in the kinds of distortions they produce. Also at certain frequencies, we are crazy sensitive to distortion and others somewhat less - and yet at frequencies where we can tolerate more distortion, like low frequencies, then here we are incredibly sensitive to dynamics. Midrange frequencies are compressed by the ear, but at low frequencies, they are not. This can be interpreted from Fletcher-Munson curves. Mids are compressed but we are sensitive to distortion, at low frequencies we are sensitive to dynamics where we hear the harmonics first which signals to the ear/brain that the fundamental is coming, and if there is a delay, that is sensed as missing.

[@janinapalmer8368]

Paul should run a matchmaker programme on FM radio ! He’s absolutely right ... you should put the greater part of your budget into the speaker systems .. no doubt about that ... the next step to go for is the source and what it is .. DSD seems to rule the roost right now, so go with it .. lastly the amp stages .. all you need is a pre amp with the same or slightly less slew rate than the power amp but they must both be of high order ( 60v /micro second ) low inter modular distortion and excellent channel separation .. low noise and negligible distortion in general ... a matching power amp with enough power reserves to drive the speakers of your choice is last

[@Roof_Pizza]

Depending on how bad your room is it is either the first or second most important variable along with your speakers.

[@freezerburn6454]

The Egg comes first in what would be called the chicken. For example the Red Shaver Chicken is linked of chicken originating in Canada. This breed comes from combining two chickens that are not Red Shaver, but since the Egg will produce a Red Shaver that is a Red Shaver Egg which will hatch and be a Red Shaver Chicken. So the first form of a Red Shaver is the Egg.

[@wannerweiposse]

My UK transmission line coffins from the eighties sound awesome, no matter what amp is hooked to them or what "crappy" mp3 you feed. Diversity in recording quality adds an extra aspect to our fascinating hobby.

[@AeJay66]

Paul's ideal makes a world of sense to me!

[@drm9979]

I am into high end SQ car audio rather than home audio but I love these videos. When I was building my system 15 years ago with high end Focal, the shop said I will never really get there until I swapped out the Head Unit. And they were right, the system was never truly great until I got the legendary Pioneer Dex P99-RS. But now, that same audio shop tells people to keep the stock HU and get a high end DSP. They claim the DSPs are so good now they can transform the output of any receiver into excellence. I do agree with what Paul and others have said, speakers first, then the receiver. But I guess in home audio, the focus is to get the receiver right and you do not need a DSP?

[@DjRjSolarStar]

I agree with you Paul. The rule of diminishing returns possesses variable rates for different system components. I believe the curve is steeper for electronics than it is for speakers. If you double the cost of a speaker, you will get perhaps a 25% improvement in sound. Double the cost of a DAC or amplifier however, and you may only get a 10% improvement. The key is to match the rate of returns between components. With ten grand, I'd use $6000 of it on speakers and the remaining for the source, DAC, amp, etc...

[@craigadam]

I have upgraded my hifi over the past 30 years and have even built my own speaker. I would agree spend the Money on speakers first, this is the biggest win in getting that feeling from the music. I even enjoy crap recordings through good speakers. I spent a year rebuilding and upgrading a Teac 500i amp, best amp I can afford.

[@garychauvin89]

I agree that the recording is the main factor effecting sound quality, but agree with Paul that speakers make the biggest difference in playback . Most quality speakers will make the most of the mediocre recorded music that you actually like while your best recorded music will sound that much better, much more than any other component.

[@xiro6]

another way to explain it is " you can get more improvement per dollar on speakers than the rest of components." Anyway, the egg was first, period. What we call chicken ( gallus domesticus), came from an egg laid down by a wild chiken, (gallus gallus), so the egg was first.its possible to argue that the wild one was also a chicken, but its a different animal, so we will have to track down the evolution tree until we get a very different animal, enough to not call it a chicken, hence the most reasonable point will be one that was born from an egg, its parents came from other different way.

[@Evil_Peter]

Speakers have more variation in sound quality for your money, but equally important is that the speakers are what you can fit to your room. You won't just go out and buy a source first and think "this source will sound good for my room". That's what you do with speakers, and if you're buying a new system it's inefficient to force yourself into any choice that has to fit in two directions. If you have the source and the amp, you must find speakers that fit with those, as well as fit with your room. Since you already have your room (few will get their system and then buy a house that suits it) I think it's better to get the speakers first, get amplification that goes well with those speakers, and then a source that match those. That way you follow a clear path where you only have to make considerations in one direction (oversimplified, I know).

[@cheungshuiyeung5081]

Paul I agree with you. If you've put your money on the best possible pair of speakers that you can afford, then with whatever upgrade you are going to do for your system will only make them sounding better. That's from my own experience. Try it and you can appreciate the argument.