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 $$ on speakers within your budget generally yielded the best sonic bank for your buck. There were no $10,000 MC cartridges, and $15,000 speaker cables to distract you. If have the big bucks to spend then sure, get the best of everything but if you are working on a budget then you need to be thoughtful.
I still think this holds true to some extent. As long as your source and amplification are of good quality, you will have a better initial outcome allocating the most you can to your speakers. Speakers are difficult. They require woodworking, crossovers, nuts and bolts and magnets and transducers and..... They cost a lot ship. Geez. What a nightmare compared to a bunch of stuff on a circuit board in a box.With so much complexity, it is likely that there is a more linear correlation between cost and performance in speakers than most other components. At least that's what I found. You need to go much further up the food chain to reach the point of diminishing returns, so to speak.
Of course all parts of your system matter but to prove my point, any day I’d probably enjoy a system with $5000 speakers driven by a decent $1000 integrated amp and $1000 CD/streamer than $2000 speakers driven by a $2500 amp and $2500 cd/streamer/vinyl source. That’s my point.
I digress. Back then it was the speaker that mattered the most. Many of them were easy to implements and easy to drive and the general rule of the day was to buy a decent source (meaning) turntable, integrated amp/receiver and then spend the most you could afford on your speakers. Spending the proportionately largest amount of $$ 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.
