How do you determine how much to spend on speakers

I know little about digital. I guess I can see how having full range speakers hooked up to a mighty HT Denon could impress. However on a vinyl rig, where you want to hear the horsehairs snap on a bow and the tears in the voice of a treble, I would spend the most on the turntable, then amp, then speakers. Most people don't understand that you cannot get back the detail lost at the source. I have heard top flight rigs with baby Wharfedales blow away bottom heavy set-ups.

... on a vinyl rig, where you want to hear the horsehairs snap on a bow and the tears in the voice of a treble, I would spend the most on the turntable, then amp, then speakers. Most people don't understand that you cannot get back the detail lost at the source. I have heard top flight rigs with baby Wharfedales blow away bottom heavy set-ups.

That is a position that is held by a lot of audiophiles, including some who posted earlier in this thread. However while it is true that you cannot get back detail that is lost at the source, it is also true that the source cannot restore detail that is lost by the speakers, or by any other component that is downstream from the source. Therefore while both points of view are correct, neither has any relevance to how funds should be allocated. A chain is as strong as its weakest link, regardless of where in the chain that link may be located.

Regarding the last sentence in the quote, I don't question your experience, but I would suggest that the percentage of available funding that should be allocated toward speakers can be expected to vary dramatically depending on the deep bass extension that is desired by the particular listener, and on the maximum volume level of dynamic peaks that the particular listener requires the speaker to be able to handle cleanly.

Regards,
-- Al

How much to spend on speaker is same as determine how much to spend on your wedding, her ring, your house, your car, etc..
Make your own decision based on what you can afford and enjoy them. You can put together a better than audiophile system with latest electronic equipment for less than $5k easily. I have a friend who spent $180K on a mix of Japaness, British and French equipment. It sounds the worst among of all my audio club members.

Al, I understand where you are coming from. I do have a digital set up with the least spent on the source, then amp, with the most on the Speakers and sub! I use it when I need a full range sound and am willing to trade certain aspects of the reproduction over others. I guess my point is that when you want the most nuanced, beautiful sound reproduction with colorful timbre and delicacy, and with all things being equal and limited by budget, then the 3/2/1 allocation brings the most reward.

Fair enough, Noromance. Your well stated and carefully qualified last post is certainly a reasonable position.

As you appear to realize, my main reason for posting was that on many occasions over the years I have seen the fact that the source is located first in the signal path cited as rationale for its importance, and as a driver of optimal funding allocation. I believe that the first major proponent of that philosophy was Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn, during the 1970s, who of course just happened to manufacture turntables.

My basic point is simply that regardless of how much importance one may attach to the source, and regardless of how much funding should be allocated to it in any given set of circumstances, that rationale in itself, while subscribed to by many audiophiles, is logically and technically flawed and therefore does not support whatever position may be advocated.

Best regards,
-- Al