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
If you calculate with the speed of sound in a room you will discover that reflected late and early waves mix in the brain with direct waves coming from the speakers under the critical treshold of 80 milliseconds...

Then nearfield listening is not immune at all from the room characteristic.... I verified this myself by many experiments listening always in the 2 positions nearfield and regular in my own room....

The scale from totally bad speakers to very top high good speakers is a LARGE scale....

The acoustical settings of a room can help and put some intermediary relatively good speakers nearer to the top S.Q. at no cost... A room must be mechanically tuned for a specific pair of speakers....I dont use electronic tuning or equalization of speakers from the room response... I prefer to use each speaker  to change the room....

Acoustic is not magic but almost.....
@mahgister  have you any experience with time aligned speakers?  Vandersteen, etc.

Thanks
@mahgister have you any experience with time aligned speakers? Vandersteen, etc.

Thanks
No not at all.... Vandersteen price are 39,000 US bucks..... 😁😁😁🙄

All my system cost 500 bucks...

I dont doubt that they are extraordinary...

Myself i use the timing of the sound waves in the room  and i use the direct sound of each speaker but with for each speaker different resonant tube and pipes near them to gives some acoustical cues for the ears that make able my brain to create a 3-d holographic space...It is a success... At peanuts costs...


I find this amusing as the antithesis of the Tiefenbrun ‘rubbush in rubbish out‘ philosophy‘.

This debate will rage for as long as audiophiles roam the planet.
Garbage in = garbage out is a red herring.. even entry level source and amps are pretty good.. therefore there is no "garbage in". There is a little bit better in, there is I like the sound of that in a little better than another in, but there is no garbage in.

Sorry, doesn‘t cut it. if you‘re going to dismiss a philosophy you‘re going to have to come up with something a little bit more convincing. I have heard a pretty good argument.

The posts on this thread thread appear to have deviated considerably from commenting specifically on the original poster’s postulate. In my opinion it would be considerably more interesting if subsequent posts were to concentrate on the issue at hand.