Ok this will be a good thread.

TWL, I agree with your statement about good arguements about held opinions to be helpful in gaining more knowledge. I suspect, however, that we are going to continue to disagree on this one - too bad that you had to bring up the digital vs analogue comparison, though.
Still, I think that we are both striving to reproduce (or perhaps create) musical moments with our audio systems, but since we start from different premises, we use different means to achieve them.

Salut, Bob P.

Bob- Twl's reference to digital IMO serves as an example only -- I used it in my post for, probably, the same reasons.

IMO, the goal we all have is to achieve balance between components' capabilities in a way that no component reveals annoying weaknesses in another...

In this respect, the changes that analogue upgrades/setting up bring about usually are (IME) more immediately perceptible downstream -- hence the use of this example. To the point where changes are subjectively perceived as being more & more subtle -- let's say that we have made improvements to the point where we reached the limits of the downstream system...

Ultimately, however, speakers are our "primary communication source" with the system, as you correctly point out. So, practically, we can only improve the system to the limits of what these speakers tell us (or don't)-- or, improve upon the speakers... Which MIGHT bring us back to the drawing board, looking for amps to drive said new and better speakers. Etc.

OTOH, I agree that many speakers manage mid-range reasonably well (Twl) and would add that, most speakers err considerably (as you note) when it comes to reproducing info on both extremes -- especially the upper highs. Sigh.

At this point, I've come to believe that the "most important part" is clearly system dependant. However, if I were to set up a system FROM SCRATCH, I would now look at the two ends of the chain first...

twl, yes, we are talking about bottlnecks. I think your position, "source is more importaant" holds more water, so to speak, when couched in the top-to-bottom context, i.e. logically, how can anything be important downstream if there is not sufficient water going downstream? Yes, this is a valid argument, and it is the case in many mid-level systems (this assuming that sources in beginning systems are relegated out of necessity, along with all others in that chain, to the point that strict positions on this issue are reasonably untenable), and it may sound true logically, but it may not hold true, experiencially, in higher level systems - as an argument that is.

And this gets back to my point - that no one here seems willing to address - that as the curve of learning increases, what is most "important" changes as a general rule. Here, twl, I'll prove it to you:

At the similar risk of ruining my chances for a career in the diplomatic corp., :0), the reason you cited analog/digital dichotomies, is the same reason that supports this position; namely, an analog system, and yes gentlemen even at the highest reaches, is superior objectively in harmonic depth and spatial continuity and superior subjectively in terms of increasing the mind's receptivity to the message ("Musicality") when compared to a digital system. In analog systems at the highest present reaches, harmonic and spatial nuance become most "important" because they are the qualities left to strive for; the other components are now ready to tranalate those qualities that analog is capable. In a digital system, these final qualities are still screened at the source, and so an analog devotee - and let's face it, twl, that's where you are coming from, the context for your observations - will say that the source is most important. And, here's the important point, in your context, at your symmetry of observation, you are correct. But for the digital devotee, at his symmetry of observation he is correct; people who have all digital systems will hear a greater "importance" in speakers. And, in fact, in such level systems a speaker may very well be the most important component; because, since the digital source is not translating said qualities to analog's degree, the speaker is to be focused upon as the most "important" source of change (and you will note that this allegiance increases as system spatial/harmonic/musicality decreases, i.e. with all SS/digital systems, and on a decreasing scale towards beginner systems, which is why I said way back when that speakers are most important in beginner systems).

The problem you have, twl, and I surely respect your restraint and evident maturity and poise, is that you are not willing to say what you believe (!). We all are socialized, in our post-post modern world, towards an egalitarianism that, in its attempts at radically respect all others, engenders an assumption into everything it says; namely, an assumption through ommission. In this case, the failure to state expilicitly that hierarchies exist on this curve.

Simply put, twl, you think the source is most important because you are more advanced. And, no, I don't mean just with equipment, because their choices are simply a reflection of the mind that chose them (and for thos knee-jerk radical cultural relativists out there, this is mind related to musical receptivity, not awareness/compassion, although twl seems like a nice guy to me...). You are more advanced in your ability to be receptive to the musical message, and this reflects your choices of gear, its synergical makeup, and your position that the source is most important.

And the second problem for you is a second misplaced assumption; namely, that you can make your argument in the first place (assuming that you make it to persuade/teach - and don't tell me you are not a teacher, twl, I'll hit you ten times with a bamboo stick!). Why do/can I say this? Because knowledge is state-specific, meaning that the knowledge you have at your level can not be translated/transferred/tranmutated, :0), to lower levels; you understand lower levels, but they do not understand you, in logical/language terms. Its like a guy in a plane: at one altitude (one symmetry of observation) the coast appears crooked, but higher it becomes more strait. Both observations are correct at their given symmetries, but the higher has seen and knows both. It is not that one is wrong, one is right, but sliding symmetries of observation.

Twl, you can huff-and-puff all day about "source-more-important", and you are correct from where you are, but all lower levels of observation will hear argument through a prism that hears "lower level is wrong." And their defense from this orientation (and if you look back closely, you can see this is a defense, not an challenge to your position...) IS valid, from ITS symmetry of observation. That position is partial, and in their own exclusivity, they are mistaken, but I have a question for you: are you similarly mistaken in the exclusivity of your position?

How can you teach from exclusivity as an originating orientation?

You do not need to negate all levels below your own to perfect your own; that is the next level. That is how you can teach even more.

Whoever speaks that speaker has the most complicated load curve complexity I dare to place a microphone next to speaker.
The turntable cartridge follows right-after.
CD-players are linear and by default have realy no such complexity as cartridge, microphone or speaker.

Asa, as always, you pose some most difficult questions, and I have come to expect this.

I once had a calculus teacher that always gave problems on the test, that included material we hadn't been taught. Everyone failed the tests, but he then graded it on a curve, judging by our abilities to use our previously learned information to approach the problems. Nobody got the answers correct, but he was evaluating our insight into the problems, not looking for the answer. In some ways, I find your approach to be similar. It is always interesting.

Regarding your question about "exclusivity as an originating oriention", that is an interesting question, isn't it? Can we be exlusive, or must we be all inclusive, and are they, in fact, the same? I would, of course, say that they are the same, but at different degrees of focus. To relate to your airplane analogy above, the man on the ground is not even seen by the man in the plane,and the ground appears to be almost stationary to the man in the plane. The man on the ground sees the airplane as moving very slow. In both cases, the actual relative speeds are the much higher, but the points-of-view make things appear different. So this is a case of relative point of view, is it not?

And as we know from quantum physics, the relationship of the observer is a factor in the evidential manifestation of the event. Much like Von Schroedinger's cat. Is it still alive in the box, or dead? The current school of thought is, that it exists merely as a probability wave until the observation is made, at which time there is a manifestation of a single point on the probability wave(for that given relative point of view).

As such, we may look at this phenomenon as a continuum, with events manifesting as observation points, or we may look at it as observation points occurring out of a continuum. Like the particle and wave theories. When we view a particle, we know little of its wave behavior. When we view a wave, we know little of its particle behavior.

It's point of view.

So, now that I have prefaced this with some background for my statements, I do say that exclusivity can be taught as an originating orientation, and still not be ignorant of the inclusivity of the overall context.

To put an eastern philosophical slant on this, one cannot take a step without putting his foot down somewhere. While it can be known that all ways are possible, one way must be chosen in order to move from your spot. One hand clapping is a koan, but two hands clapping is an event. The first is an example of the wave, and the second is an example of an observable event. They are not mutually exclusive, but exist in different ways. The all, and the one. The "all" is inclusive, and the "one" is exclusive. Are they apart? Are they separate? No, they are not, but they are used in different ways.

To go back to science for a minute, movement is defined on a vector. When movement is desired(taking a step), it is possible to take a step an all directions, but only one at a time. When the one step is taken, the direction is an event. That is exclusive. Prior to the step, all directions were possible. That is inclusive. The same, yet different.

Now, for teaching to take place, there must be a defined vector, because without it, there is only "all". "All" can also be defined as "nothing" because the probability wave of "all" is continuous until an event is defined along that wave somewhere. When a student needs to move(on a vector) from his current state, to another state(higher learning), a step must be made, thus defining the direction of the vector. His teacher evaluates the direction of the vector, to show him whether his step was closer or further from the teacher's instruction. So, there is a constant interaction of inclusivity(all), and exclusivity(one) in the learning process. The consecutive steps toward the desired goal along a particular vector can be called learning. It is a process of selecting certain points(events) from the changing probability waves(contiunuum), to effect the desired result.

So I do say that exclusivity as an orientation, is consistent with the teaching approach, inasmuch as the exclusivity is an inherent part of the inclusivity that it is "plucked" from. The consecutive selections of these events from the continuum, that can be called the "learning process" is actually forming a wave of its own, with events selected from other waves, and is only possible by a sentient being,that is capable of effecting his own changes on the ultimate continuum of existence/non-existence.

Please don't get out the bamboo stick.