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
pesky_wabbit's avatar
pesky_wabbit
1,183 posts
 
I‘m going to throw in the ‘weakest link‘ philosophy, although I have no personal attachment.

A system is only as good as its weakest link. Spending should be directed to ensure that system components are balanced in performance and that no single component becomes a bottleneck in the chain.
dletch2
455 posts
 
I think the op is arguing that it would be rare that your speakers would not be the weakest link.
mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey Pesky
Thanks for the REFOCUING of the  main  issues here.
Which can be stated as
1) can anyone provide evidence that a  low db speaker is tube friendly?
2) which other speaker design will out perform a  FR/Compression tweet with tube amplification?

Folks are  posting opinions which have nothing whatsoever to do with these 2 crucial/critical/yet unresolved questions
Neither of which has been presented to the audiophile community , at least not as clean, concise as I have.
WE are in consideration of the performance of a  tube amplification, , specifically which sytle of engineering designs will best suit the requirements of tube amplification.
Most are just ranting and raving opinions which have nothing at all to do with this critical question.
I am not going to rehash what I wrote above.
Only those who have actual experience with FR , canunderstand many  valid points i raise in my posts.
If audiophiles wish to hang on to old rusty, crusty ideas about tube amplification and speakers required, go right ahead, 
Remain in lala land. 
You are missing out on acheiving high fidelity, which is the gaol of our hobby.
My wife  suggests i wait til i have cash for the real deal, Berlin FR and pass up on the 2 chinese labs making clones of the Berlin :abs FR.
This is the road i will take, It will be some time before i can recover from the $1800 Thor upgrade disaster.
Box/xover designs are worthless trash  AFAIC
Seas, Scanspeak, Troels Gravesen are all working with old dated trash technology.
mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
I‘m going to throw in the ‘weakest link‘ philosophy, although I have no personal attachment.

~~~~~
Richard Gray loaned me his baby Gray, a modded Dyanco EL35 from the 70's. 
Closely matched the Jadis Defy7 which retailed for $9k.
 Just about any well designed tube amp will do, but as for speakers, 
Only FR will meet the requirements to voice  tube amplification. 
pesky_wabbit's avatar
pesky_wabbit
1,183 posts
 

OK I‘ll nail my colours to the mast: my primary directive is ’garbage in garbage out‘, with ’weakest link’ lurking in the background.

By that I mean that the source should always take precedence, and that a  top down hierarchy is justified. However,  in pursuit of this ideal gross imbalances in the system should not be tolerated.

Give me your best shot.


More to discover