2. speakers
  3. 154749-122613

Speakers Don’t Matter As Much As We Think They Do?

When discussing how best to invest money into your system, it’s very common to hear people say, “Spend as much as you can afford on speakers, and then worry about the other gear because speakers have the largest effect on the sound.”

Now it’s never a bad idea to have good speakers and while I somewhat followed that advice early on, as my system has evolved it seems that I am not currently following that advice, and yet I am getting absolutely fantastic sound. For example as a percentage of my total system cost, my speakers cost 15%. If you include the subwoofers, that price is about 35%.

Early on I was worried I would outgrow my speakers and I’d hit their limit which would restrict sonic improvement potential as I upgraded other gear but that hasn’t been the case. With each component upgrade, things keep sounding better and better. The upper limit to speakers’ potential seems to be a lot higher than previously thought as I continue to improve upon the signal I send them and continue to improve system synergy. If you send a really high quality signal to a pair of speakers and get synergy right, they will reward you in spades and punch well above their apparent weight class.

One thing that may be working in my favor is that I’ve had these speakers since the early days of building my system so literally everything down to the last cable has been tuned to work in synergy with these speakers. Had I upgraded my speakers mid way through, I would have undone a lot of the work that went into the system in terms of synergy.

Has anyone else had a similar experience with their speakers? Does anyone have any extreme percentages in terms of speaker cost to system cost like 5% or 95% and what has been your experience?

128x128mkgus
naimfan
166 posts
 
I've had a pair of Linn Helix 2 speakers, with the ku-stone stands, since about 2005 (the speakers themselves date to the mid 1990s).  They've been good enough that I haven't wanted to change them out, until I moved to a townhouse that they just can't load well enough.  So I'm finally replacing them with a pair of Monitor Audio Gold 300s. 

I think you hit on the critical aspect - the need to build a system that works well together.  I remember the days when the reductio ad absurdum folks suggested (tongue in cheek, one hopes!) that the best way to build a system was with a Linn LP-12 and an AM radio and then to upgrade from there.  That's obviously absurd. 

But I do generally agree with the concept that the better your source(s), the higher the ceiling for the sound of a system.  We used to do a demo where we'd play PSB 300 speakers ($300/pair in the mid-1990s; stand mounts) with a Naim CDS-82-250 and then dare people to guess how much they cost - most guessed around 3k, thinking they were the ProAc Response 2.  The challenge I now have is upgrading my source - it's an  Exposure 3010S2 CD player, which is terrific, but it's going to be very difficult/expensive to upgrade it in a meaningful way that still synergizes with the rest of my system. 

At the other extreme, I don't think it makes sense to put, say, a $8k speaker with a NAD or Denon or Marantz or whatever receiver - I think you're going to leave a LOT of that speaker's performance in the box, so to speak. 
uncle_monkey's avatar
uncle_monkey
56 posts
 
I think the bad advice is to over-buy a speaker you can't drive adequately from the get-go. For instance, I've seen a lot of balking at the suggestion one spend $2k on power for a $500 pair of Elac Uni-Fi's. But there's nothing worse than a pair of under-driven speakers. And those little suckers positively sing with a decent amount of current behind them, as Elac demonstrates at show after show.


I don't think I was ever really happy with my system until I finally settled on speakers I knew I loved (Thiel) and dedicated building around them. There was some trial and error (amp & cable combos), but when I finally nailed it - well I haven't bought anything new (except cartridges) for 15 years. I also have no doubt had I kept my old Maggies or B&W's I'd have arrived at a totally different solution. I find it interesting that a lot of people in the Thiel owner forum arrived at similar amplification choices (BAT)! Not a coincidence.


The other key component, probably more than anything you "plug in" is the room. We see so many people with tile floors, bare walls, speakers right up against the wall flanking a TV with a turntable about 10" from one of the speakers. Youtube is full of people showing off their systems like this. One I saw the guy literally had the entire rear wall mirrored. Even on YT/tablet you could hear how awful it was!


I've just moved to a new place for the second time in a year. I was about to downsize my speakers in the townhouse. Now, I've got to decide where I'm setting up, and spend my budget to get the room right before I buy anything new.




douglas_schroeder
3,281 posts
 

All speakers are capable of the changes the OP discusses. He has done nothing exceptional. To actually move up, he must seek a superior transducer. 

millercarbon stated, "Where you put the speakers matters more than which speakers, so why anyone obsesses and fixates on the speakers themselves is beyond me. Yet they do." 

As stated, that comment disregards fundamental performance differences between speaker models, speaker brands and genres of speakers. I disagree entirely.  :(







almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 

IMO a major reason for the divergence of viewpoints which tends to exist on this question is that for a given level of sonic quality the cost of a speaker tends to be dramatically affected by two things: (1) The maximum volume the speaker can cleanly produce, and (2) The deep bass extension it can provide. And different listeners tend to have very different requirements and preferences in those regards.

For example, over the years I’ve seen many members here comment that the peaks of the music they listen to are never louder than perhaps 90 db or so at their listening position, and in many cases a good deal less than that. On the other hand, though, quite a few classical symphonic recordings in my collection, that have been well engineered with little or no dynamic compression, can produce peak SPLs at my 12 foot listening distance in the area of 100 to 105 db, **while being listened to at average levels in the mid-70s.** Which means that each speaker must be able to cleanly produce levels approaching 110 db at the usual 1 meter measuring distance. Many speakers, certainly including most small speakers, simply cannot handle that kind of dynamic range while also providing quality sonics.

And of course different listeners will tend to have differing preferences regarding deep bass extension, and regarding the use of subwoofers to supplement it.

So, yes, many listeners will be happy with speakers that represent a relatively small percentage of total system cost. While others would find those speakers incapable of handling the dynamic peaks of some of their recordings, at their preferred listening volumes, and/or incapable of providing the deep bass extension they prefer. And for a given level of sonic quality, in the latter case preferred speakers will tend to represent a much greater percentage of system cost than in the former case.

Regards,

--Al

erik_squires
16,416 posts
 
I do believe that being happy with any speaker is the room. Too often listeners hear a great experience at a dealer, come home, don’t have it, and then are sold power cables, amps, etc, to try and reach the nirvana which was always the room to begin with.

A good room is transformative, and can make a lot of speakers sound really great. A mediocre or poor sounding room requires you to chase synergy forever.

In general, given the same speaker type, I'll take a mediocre speaker and a great room than the opposite.
More to discover