Speaker priority: high or low???

I've been around the hi-end biz for 20 years now, and easily say that THE SPEAKERS ARE INDEED THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE ELECTONICS CHAIN IN REPECT TO SOUND QUALITY!
You buy the speakers first, then add the gear to match them! Anything else is backwards!
I've heard many many ultra hi end tweeky systems with poor speaker chioces, which sound poor. But you can get a fantastic speaker to sound at least very good with very low end gear conversely!
If you don't have the speaker, the sound will never excel.
Sooooooo many people, for some reason, fixate on the gear, and think of the speakers as an after-thought!..this is backwards. You find the speaker that's right for your situation, then compliment the gear.
I laugh when people tell me they bought this cool receiver, dvd player, and power conditioner, and then they say "now I need some speakers to go with em!!!
....to all who doubt that the speakers aren't number one on the gear chain, just spend the next 20 years of your life in the audio video business, and then you'll know...

Foreverhifi, that doesn't make any sense! You mean to tell me I can use a cheap CDP or TT, get only a portion of the signal off of the CD or LP. Then use inferior quality electronics to transfer the signal the source did not retrieve from the CD or LP but have it sound better when it gets to the speakers than a good CDP or TT that retrieves more of the signal and tranports it to average speakers.
It seems fairly easy to understand that a good CD or LP played on a good TT or CDP will recover more of the signal and transfer it through better electronics (which will degrade the signal less) to an average pair of speakers providing better sound quality.
Speakers will never sound better than the signal provided to them. The idea of good speakers reproducing an inferior quality signal sounding great is impossible unless the listener has lowered thier standards to a great degree.
I would much rather own great electronics and average speakers than great speakers and average electronics. The former system will always sound better than the latter.

Spent plenty of time in the audio business, and I totally disagree with speakers being the most important part in the chain. Maybe they are the most important part of the mid-fi business chain, but not the audio system chain.

I think the proof is in the pudding when David Wilson demo'd his new Sophias on a $600 parasound amp to awe of the crowd---the crowd thought it was the spectral 360s, when it was the parasound under the table cloth really driving the speakers.

I say speakers. I ran a trainload of electronics through my Boston Acoustics without noticing any real change. The last front end I got for the Bostons was a Sony ES that sounded a lot like the other players that preceded. I got it because over a hundred audio reviewers five starred it, and my previous one had broken.

Then I got a speaker that was a whole lot more revealing than the Bostons. In short order, I found out what crap all my five star equipment was. Out went the Sony right away. Next was the B&K, then the Bryston. I tried tubes, and found much better synergy.

Since then, I have upped the ante on the speaker twice, and both times I had to scramble to find electronics to match the speakers' demands, both physical, and aesthetic.

I still have some of the old stuff. Recently, I plugged in an Onkyo five disc changer. It sounded lovely on my Boston A 150 speakers. On my new speakers, it was like I had smothered the things.

Had I bought the great speakers first, I would have saved myself a lot of time and expense.