Ok this will be a good thread.


What in your opinion is the most important part of a good 2 channel system. Or what has the biggest impact on overall sound. For example if you feel Speakers are most important, or Preamp, Amp, Source. I am not looking for a ss vs. tube debate, just what do you feel is most important.

I will start:
I feel speakers are the most important part. I know lots of you are going to say electronics, but keep it to one part, like Preamp, Amp, etc.
Steve
musiqlovr
Eagle i do like this question about comparing digital
source to speakers. Let me share you my experience on
this because i have 2 system at home, I will respect
every opinion you have.My experience tell me that when
i went to my friend house the first time it was the
wadia 860 source andra speaker, sounds very good but
my cec transport $1700, and my msb $350 combination
it almost equaled the sound, at times the cec will do
things that i like better.I guest the the sound on wadia
is good, but i dont find it involving compare to the cec
and msb combination. Probably my cec and msb are matching
well. I dont know. Thats why Robert Harley is right,
expensive wont automatically perform better. Thenks to
all of you,it give a lot a happiness when i read thread.
While my "source" cost more than my speakers in my own system, the reasons for placing speakers highest on the chain are born out not only by my experiences. It is also supported by accomplished designers of audio componenets, some of whom I have the luck of knowing, who have had the greatest struggles designing really accurate speakers. Of course you can't have crap in the chain and get there. But if you have speakers that are "voiced" with a particular frequency drop out, you can't get there with the source, either.

Of course, one would need to know what music really sounds like. You are more likely to know that by going to your local symphony rather than your local hifi shop.

Charlie
Danvetc is correct. I use what works with high standards, regardless of price. I found a relatively inexpensive CDP that does everything I expect from listening to live performances. I bought my speakers for little more, but are sublime. Then I had to shell out the big bucks for an amp that can power 1 ohm. I suppose I was in a rare field where I knew exactly what speaker I would use. The amp followed out of necessity. The CDP is just plain great. It is a hold over from a less expensive system.
TWL, if I can hear differences among all speakers, but can't tell differences among CDP's, is it because the speakers are more important for a good system or is it because the speakers aren't good enough to resolve the differences among the CDPs? The answer to that question(no matter which) proves that it is the speaker that is the most important element. If it isn't good enough, then one can't appreciate how good the source is - good stuff in, garbage out.
OK folks,
If you hook-up cheap headphones some Coby stuff or so with descent headphone amp let's say Grado and start swaping CD-players or analogue setups the difference will be much more audiable than if you would change speakers for a pocket CD-player.

There is a point where for a particular room there can't be better speaker and amp and anything invested onto these components will just produce no positive result.

And here we have a debate or arguments what goes first egg or chicken. Everything is variable and needs multi-variable understanding.

I would draw the following curve(s) and describe them by words:
1st point. Let's say I have $100 pocket CD-player,Nad 50W/ch receiver and starting with Boston Acoustic speakers.
2nd point. I upgrade speakers to B&W CDM1 and somewhat shure that it would be better upgrade rather than investing to a new CD-player or amp(meaning and always meaning smaller investment for a better sound)
3rd point. That's where the curve might split or at least take a different direction where non-speaker investment will be more appropriate than spending on speaker?...
4th point. ...might bring you either back to the 2nd or realy towards non-speaker upgrade i.e to the 3rd point.

The so called importance curve of the system components can be represented very similar to the output tube or transistor characteristic as a family of curves. The orts are Performance(vertical) as function of Money Spent(horizontal) with only ONE constant component which is ROOM.
The only exception i guess will be the source especially if it's analogue. While Speaker, Preamp, Amplifier will have the curves(parabolic forms) exactly as shown here similar to output characteristics of bipolar junction transistor are introduced:Page 4 Fig 3 the SOURCE will have a straight line (Performance = C*Money Spent where C is a room constant or let's say tangent of horizontal corner of the function) towards an infinity or the most expencive source component ever produced.

Please, note that there might be exeptions or different even improvised jumps of such curve family(just like in reality) and you might visualize just by only drowing the curve of your previous upgrades that while power amplifier can be considered as if it were an ideal match to the speakers. Thus there can be upto many speakers of a different price range that perfectly matched to the amplifier and will produce significantly larger improvement if the money spent for the amplifier.
On some point source reaches the speaker curve and that's where money spend onto the source will produce much higher results than on speakers or any other components.