Curious .. What is the compared price of your tt vs spkrs

I just wanted to add that the $350 MM cartridge that I have, it's UK price, it is, I think, at least $500 in the US.
$2k for analogue new - I don't see how it might be enough; used - I could try.

This thread is interesting. To break it down a little more:

  20% Garrard 301 TT with Windsong plinth
  32% Ortofon RS 309D tonearm incl. Vahalla 2 tonearm cable
  21% EMT JSD S75 phono cartridge
  27% Aesthetix Rhea Signature phono preamp
100% Total

I want to disagree with almarg's characterization of Linn's philosophy.  I'm not sure he has thought it through completely, or listened to systems with a poor turntable and great speakers versus the opposite(by opposite, on speakers, I'm not talking about poorly designed ones, just cheaper ones.).  A turntable that preserves the rhythm of the music can still be enjoyable to listen to, but I don't know of any speakers that could make up for a lack of rhythm, and due to that, the system will be less enjoyable to listen to.

)While it is true that the downstream components cannot correct for the shortcomings of the turntable, it is also true that the turntable cannot correct for the shortcomings of the downstream components. So while both statements are true, neither has any significance.

Agree both of these statements are true. In my opinion both statements are significant.

If anything that confirms what I have learned at this point in my journey. Your system is only as strong as your weakest link. My analog front end (table,cart, phono) cost 3.5 times more than my speakers retail. Yes this is not ideal but I am not in a permanent space so dropping $$$$ on speakers in a room that will change is something I am not ready to do.

I will say that every time I have upgraded Table, cart, phono or power amp the speakers have made a jump in performance.On the other side of the argument the speakers are probably not giving me everything the analog front end is capable.

I guess my point is a balanced system seems to be a good goal. I eventually will balance my system. I do think spending $$$$ on speakers and then low balling everything else can’t be optional. The speakers are capable of much more I promise you,.

Darkstar1, I agree completely with the chain is as strong as its weakest link philosophy, and I’ve stated exactly that in a number of past threads. And I am in essential agreement with everything else in your post.

What I was disagreeing with is the notion that a turntable has any particular likelihood of being the weak link in a system, compared to the speakers and electronics, AS A RESULT OF being first in the chain.

Mmakshak, assuming that you’ve read both of my earlier posts in this thread (the second having added clarification to the first), and assuming that both posts came across clearly to you, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. Although I recognize that there are many audiophiles who would agree with you, and that the Linn philosophy did gain significant traction over the years, after Mr. Tiefenbrun introduced it.

Mostly unrelated to all of that, but having some relevance to the original question, I would add to what has been said the thought that for a given level of quality what a speaker can cost often tends to vary dramatically depending on its maximum volume capability (or more specifically, its ability to comfortably handle high volume dynamic peaks, such as are often found in well engineered minimally compressed recordings of classical symphonic music), and also depending on the deep bass extension the speaker can provide. And the extent to which those capabilities are necessary or can be compromised will of course vary greatly from listener to listener, which is one of the reasons why the ratio of speaker cost to front end cost tends to vary so much among different listeners.

Regards,
-- Al