i want better sounding speakers

Tobias, yes, it was the Wilson IPOD demo I was referring to, but I am not aware of the details. Either way it reinforces the point that Mr. Wilson was making. I do agree with your point that starting with a great source is more likely to get you to a better overall set-up at the end. In some cases it makes sense to get the best you can get at each step and that may mean not starting with the source.

it may be time to challenge conventional wisdom

Eusmani, with respect, I thought my point of view was the minority one. In other words, I believe the conventional wisdom says spend all your dough on speakers. That's what you hear in the box and mid-fi stores.

Of course if these guys even have gear on demo it's set up so that it all sounds the same anyway.

I don't know why this is the conventional "wisdom", maybe it's because when you buy speakers you get two of them, hee hee. I remember my best buddy back in 1961 telling me that speakers were responsible for 35% of the distortion in a system, cartridges the same, amps ten per cent, yada yada. So you should spend the most on cartridges and speakers. Of course today we have advanced to levels of more perfect sound and don't need cartridges any more. That leaves speakers, and the market sure seems to support a lot of them.

Breakdown of sound of a system:

Speakers - 35%
Source - 35%
Amp - 25%
Pre-amp - 20%
Cables - 10%

And this doesn't even include the room! See how confusing this hobby can get?

Tomryan, I wasn't being serious--maybe you aren't either, or maybe you are. How can numeric values be set on such a subjective issue, and anyway isn't it clear that distortion (which is how that "breakdown" was presented to me, way back when--your post doesn't even explain that much) is not the measure of a system?

I just wanted to point out that the conventional wisdom is spend it all, or most, on speakers, and that there is a more productive alternative. But any point of view can be defended (and tested in practice), that's why we say YMMV.

I would agree that "source first" is another in the class of analyses of the problem to which the above percentile list belongs. But I believe it works better than the percentile list because it makes more sense.

More sense for the hobbyist or music lover who is starting to build a system, for the reasons I mentioned above.

More sense later on too, because for me, resolution is what makes it. The best systems seem to get out of the way of the music and reveal all of what is on the disc. If that's what you want, then let the downstream gear represent any necessary compromise, and the upstream gear provide it with the most possible data to process.

I was just kinda, um, saying that, uh, you know...hmmm.

I heard a guy on T.V. a couple weeks ago say, "Well, you've got about 50% of the people thinking one way and 50% the other. Then everybody else is somewhere in the middle." Thought it applied here. All I know is my system is now working at a full 125%! Alot like those athletes who give 110%!!

Seriously, though, I recently had to sub a pair of $250.00 speakers for the Harbeths which were being repaired. The subs actually sounded damn good and I think a lot of that had to do with the Air Tight and Plinius amps I use. The system almost sounded like a million bucks! (Don't cha hate it when people exagerate? Like I've said ten million times...)