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
 
By sunday this topic will have over ~~~~3,000~~~ views, 
Just waiting on the box/xover fanatics to bring on some better, more substance  aginst FR and for xover/box tradtional style speakers,
At this point in this topic, I wish to thank all the members here for keeping things civil, respectful   as honorable gentlemen and scholars .
~~~just wish we had more participation , I know there are some of you here that are side lining on us, and wish you would jump in  this converstaion. 

pesky_wabbit's avatar
pesky_wabbit
1,183 posts
 
@herman, I would have thought it obvious that
"the single most critical component."
would be the one that was the weakest in the chain, and that the OP was arguing that speakers had greatest potential to fulfil that criterion.

Agreed, cheap digital has come a long way, but it was important for it come a long way - the source was, and is the most important thing to get right. Cost is not an issue here: just because you can get a source that satisfies you for $100 doesn‘t make it any lesser in importance. It may cost you considerably more to acquire an agreeable analogue front end.
pesky_wabbit's avatar
pesky_wabbit
1,183 posts
 
@mozartfan there are a couple of assumptions you make I must cordially disagree with. You dismiss SS out of hand. I argue it’s all in the implementation rather than the devices used or the topology adopted. There‘s good and bad in both camps.

All well designed tube amps sound very close. Except some are just more transparent than others, some have more of a spark of life in their music making, some are just plain more involving to listen to. Moreover, SET’s don’t sound like PP’s. I own an ARC VSi60 and a Leben CS600, both well respected PP‘s, but quite different sounding.

I also appear to discern greater differences between digital sources than you.have personally outlined.
mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
@ Pesky wabbit

Of course I ran some opinions which may not be always true, but in general, with most of my classical cds (LPs might vary nuances to a  greater degree) Richard Gray's modded Dyanco ST70 el34 sounded very VERY close to the Defy7 kt88
At least from faint memory.
The 3 diigital sources, the Shanling did show up a  winner, but onlya  nuance superior to the Cayin. 
I might even go so far as to say a  well designed ss amplification may be acceptable if pair with full range/TI compression. And thats a  huge break  from my idea that the only way to experience living music is via tubes.

Thats how much important I am placing on the speakers as the main critical compoent in a system. 
So if we are talking FR/TI compression tweet, it really  might not even  matter which amplification one is employing.
And if we could have Richard Gray set up a  massive blind test, with all sorts of dif amplification, , sources, both digital, phono, ahhh tell ya what, throw in some cables, wires boutique caps, etc on the xovers and inside amps, 
Might take a week to complete this **whole system shoot out**, Then have Richard tally his results,, trust me, alot of old audiophiles mightm, in fact will be very UN-PLEASANTLY surprised at their voting. 
These  shootouts are slippery. 
Richard has staged such events , only with  a  few **mystery*  amplifiers,  resulting in a  few participants steaming mad that he has been **duped/tricked*
Both with amplifiers and speakers. 
**The RG Experiment* would have most of us here on audiogon, scratching our heads, as to how we could ever get so many of our long held, cherished, rock-solid opinions/ideas, stubborn views on equipment and brand names, so so ~~~~ wrong~~~. Leaving scratching our heads. 
This is the end result of this ~~~RG Complete Shootout~~~
Voxativ would come out the clean, clear winner of all and every component involved.  That is to say a  much higher %age would vote Vox as winner in the speaker category. 
At least everyone would get the speaker votes right. 
caveat here: provided we have honest UN-biased participants. 
Good luck with that.
mozartfan OP
2,143 posts
 
already @ 2900+ views, going to bust 4k views come sunday, ALOTTT of folks are very curious as to how this discussion shootout is going to end. 
Will the box/xover traditional style speakers which Troels Gravesen is building going to be left standing? To play just one more day.
There is not even 1 box/xover/trad speaker in existence that would tempt me to give up my FR/TI Horn  dream. 
The A/B test with Seas, which he Excel are the best drivers in the world, vs the single 6.5 Diatone. 
My Thors will never ever be heard by these ears ever again. can't/won;'t happen. 
Seas Exel Thors are the worlds finest **OLD  tradition** drivers made today. 
Best of  The Old vs The Best of the New shootout. 
Seas really dropped the ball, not pursuing FR way back  when they 1st developed the Exotic FR @ $800 each. 
What happened? Did the Seas engineers ears go deaf. 
Anyone at seas could have heard their old tech drivers were just that, **dated  dinasaurs** next to their Exotic FR. 
Now they are wayyyy behind the curve as is ScanSpeak, Both will go defunct in comming years, Voxativ will push both in the graves.
RIP
More to discover