2. speakers
  3. 166005-136265

Speakers The single most critical component

I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>>
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system. 
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me  , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires  some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter)  in  the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity. 
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity  single drivers. 
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style  aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs. 
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic. 
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
 a  kt88 in brand X will sound  close to brand Y. 
So amplification takes a  distant 2nd place in critical component.  No need to break the bank buying amp A vs  a  lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all  tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound  close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is  only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
 the Shanling
only a  miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17. 
Now as for  best source  , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds. 
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy. 
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where  the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity  voicing  issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker  you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years, 
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances. 
To sum up, a  ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver. 
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity. 

mozartfan
mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
Just typed in Voxativ audiogon's search engine
seems there already exists atopic on Voxativ, 
There you can read the commenst, which backs up   conclusions i;'ve arrived at independently, although no actual live experience,  all my hunches are confirmed in the comments comming from those who own /auditioned the Voxativ.
It is the battle of the Dinasuars vs Full range/TI Horns in the early 21st Century, My guess the war will be over come 2030-2040. 
There will not be any production of 93less db/under, traditional box/xover designs. 
All maket speakers will be Full range/Compression Tweets. 100% come 2040
You can get glimpes of this zeitgeist now, witness box/xover designs sitting on audiogon/ebay month after month. No one wants them even at half price. 
I'm lucky if I get cents on the $ for my Thors listed. 
Whereas try to find a  high fidelity used FR. Don't exist, folks do not sell  when they know its the speaker they;'ve been searching for all their life long

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/anybody-listen-voxativ?highlight=voxativ
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
12,994 posts
 
So is (yet more) verbiage about "embeddings," which at this point is approaching a religion.
You say the samething than me about the room/speakers, which is ok and then you insult me with a completely stupid affirmation: the working " embeddings" controls of the 3 dimensions linked to any sudio system would be a RELIGION ?

Why being wrong with a false comparison and why not insulting me directly?

Distinguishing some factors: electrical one, mechanical one and acoustical one with a concept or a word is not creating a religion....Especially when here this distinction has never been made clearly....My embeddings controls are not "tweaks" only...Then i needed a word linked to a clear concept...

Being annoyed with someone dont EXCUSE abuse of rethoric or comparisons...

Be a man and say it directly like in one of your past post you said i wrote too much.... This is fair....

But i dont like at all "dislike" of someone hidden under absurd affirmation about him....Like you jusat did...

I speak directly here to people, not indirectly to anyone about some people.... Do you understand what i means?

Try my method, read or not a post and forget it if you dont like it; if you spot something wrong or something with which you are not ok say it simply and directly to the person without being irrational....

An embedding controls cannot be a religion, especially if it is free of money and only a concept easy to grasp....

I hate nobody here at all, i speak to all, I SAY directly what i think with the more possible rationality....I try.... I am not perfect for sure...
alvinnir2's avatar
alvinnir2
112 posts
 
Audio has changed so much over the last 55 years that I have been an audiophile. Much has improved in all types of gear, speakers, amps etc, but back then most households had a crappy console stereo. You were an audiophile if you owned some Dynaco tube gear and you were on the top of the heap if you had MacIntosh or Marantz tube gear. Over the top "lifestyle statement" gear didn’t exist. Gear was there to serve the music and generally the more you paid the better it was.

I digress. Back then it was the speaker that mattered the most. Many of them were easy to implements and easy to drive and the general rule of the day was to buy a decent source (meaning) turntable, integrated amp/receiver and then spend the most you could afford on your speakers. Spending the proportionately largest amount of $$ on speakers within your budget generally yielded the best sonic bank for your buck. There were no $10,000 MC cartridges, and $15,000 speaker cables to distract you. If have the big bucks to spend then sure, get the best of everything but if you are working on a budget then you need to be thoughtful. 

I still think this holds true to some extent. As long as your source and amplification are of good quality, you will have a better initial outcome allocating the most you can to your speakers. Speakers are difficult. They require woodworking, crossovers, nuts and bolts and magnets and transducers and..... They cost a lot ship. Geez. What a nightmare compared to a bunch of stuff on a circuit board in a box.With so much complexity, it is likely that there is a more linear correlation between cost and performance in speakers than most other components. At least that's what I found. You need to go much further up the food chain to reach the point of diminishing returns, so to speak.

Of course all parts of your system matter but to prove my point, any day I’d probably enjoy a  system with $5000 speakers driven by a decent $1000 integrated  amp and $1000 CD/streamer than $2000 speakers driven by a $2500 amp and $2500 cd/streamer/vinyl source. That’s my point.

highend666
352 posts
 
Small Room    Vivid Audio KAYA S12 Mini Monitors 
 
                                              Big Room    Vivid Audio KAYA 90
jjss49's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
jjss49
6,612 posts
 
leaving aside all these 146-sentence run-on posts... isn’t it obvious?

the speakers are the actual electro mechanical transducers that actually deliver the music to the ears of the listener in the room...

if that ain’t right, all efforts up the chain are not going to yield the desired results

nuff said


More to discover