Why buy cheap speakers??

I am on the "buy what you want, that works for you" camp. I am not bothered seeing cables that cost 10 times the speakers system set up. That's what the owner wants.

However my take is a little different in terms of cables that cost a considerable amount for me compared to the cost of the speakers and I hope that I am not hijacking this thread.

When I am into SS and electrostats, I can justify the cables I bought at that time in regards to performance ratio (Synergistic Research, MIT, Nordost, Purist Audio, Acoustic Zen, Kimber etc. from what I can remember)and most were in the $2000 or less price point. Same is true when I went planars with SS or tube (mostly PP) amps.

What I cannot figure out are two experiences I have recently with two systems I own.

With SS, I have the Orion Plus as speakers. No considerable change or improvement with high end cables (IC's, speakers) or power cords. Secondly, SET base set up with low power amps (100 dB sensitivity speakers) using AC heaters with minimal hum (around 3.2 mV at volume pot fully open at least). These two set ups I have made me sell my cables for good. I am using just DIY Mogami's with Switchcraft RCA's for IC's and Kimber 8TC clone speaker wires I bought from an audio show, all coppers.

The Orions have active crossovers, while the SET system uses low power to drive the transducers. Both are now "audiophile approved IC's and speaker cables" free.

Any ideas as to why guys? I had looked into a scope either with freq gen, test tone generator, or actual analog signal and try to compare waveforms just before the driver and I cannot see anything that jumps out telling me that it is a factor.

regards,

Yep, either it works together and sounds good or not. There are no cost ratio rules worth banking on.

I am not a believer in the source-first paradigm. My perceptions as my system evolved over the years have been that speakers (and the speaker/room match) are the primary determinant of both overall system accuracy and of how enjoyable my listening experiences are.

I don't think it's possible to define a general guideline as to what percentage of total system cost should be allocated to speakers, because as has been mentioned above the cost of the speakers will be heavily influenced by what compromise in bass extension is acceptable to the particular individual, and also by the peak volume levels that are required to support the room size, the listening distance, and the kinds of music that are listened to.

As for speakers first or source components first, consider that what really comes first in the chain is the recording itself. And I think that just about all of us will agree that the quality of most recordings leaves a lot to be desired (putting it mildly). My initial expectation as my system improved was that poor to mediocre recordings would become less enjoyable to listen to, with their "warts" being resolved more clearly. But in fact I found that the opposite happened, because nearly all recordings seem to get at least something right (say, some parts of the mid-range), and as my system improved my attention would be drawn by the increased realism to what was right about the recordings, not to what was wrong.

But inaccurate speakers, or at least speakers with significant additive colorations, for me ruin every recording, good or bad.

And I would view the speaker vs. source component question as being comparable to speaker vs. source material, albeit obviously to a different degree.

YMMV, but fwiw that's been my perception.

Regards,
-- Al

"as my system improved my attention would be drawn by the increased realism to what was right about the recordings, not to what was wrong."

Me too.

Front to back... source to speakers.

Great speakers can not make up for any lack or loss of signal info which occurs due to source errors or degredation along the transmission pathways. ... they may reveal these errors though.

I became a 'true believerr' in the "It's what is up front that counts" camp quite by accident. Later, by practice. I auditioned a pair of $7K Speakers incorporating a good preamp, source, and my Krell amp. Even used front to back Audience cables and Chang pc. Nice. Nothing to jump up and down about but pretty nice. I declined to buy the speakers following the preview, intimating that the sound I heard did not correlate to the price I'd have to pay for that 'sound'.

I was taken into another room... A whole different setup for the most part, same cables and pc, and half as expensive speakers... $3.5K.... and 220 wpc less. it was comprised of the top Shanlin SACD/CD player, tube preamp and tube monos. Dollarwise, that front end was well over double the previous one, and the sound was stunning. Vastly superior. No question about it.

Following that eye & ear opening experience I bought an updated version of the same preamp, and have improved IMHO on the source, parraleled the monos and improved upon the speakers, cabling, and conditioning. Every source change out has again elevated performance of the system on the whole.

I've got 5 pair of speakers on hand, ranging from a few hundred dollars to over six grand per pair, a few amps, and various cables... regardless the spekers being used with my gear, the better the source, pre, and amp, the better the sound. Period.

That being said, the amp + speaker match becomes more and more integral as your system escalates... and/or the speakers own impedance curves stray from lineiarity.