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
@mijostyn --

The problem with the vast majority of speakers including everything Mr Mozartfan is talking about is, they sound like speakers. The very best speakers disappear. Unfortunately, the very best speaker I know of does poorly with tube amplifiers with the exception of Atma-Sphere amps. Solid state amps as a rule tolerate difficult and reactive loads better. The best loudspeakers will appreciate better gear up stream but excepting the amplifier you can get away nicely with less expensive equipment. Unfortunately, the cheapest speaker I have heard that disappeared was $30K. On the other hand I have listened to $250K loudspeakers that sounded like loudspeakers.

Let me guess: those 8’ iteration of the Sound Lab 645’s retail for $30k? I feel rather confident that setting the bar at the top with those speakers will actually have a substantial basis as something that delivers on that "promise," though I don’t understand why you’d skimp out on the subs? ;) Partially kidding; I’d have proposed vertically aligned, flanking bass columns with higher driver count (i.e.: more displacement) to seal the deal, so to speak, but it would seem your current solution is a rather capable one.

Many can’t afford the luxury of a binary approach offered by a main speaker system like yours, and will instead have to make settlement with a solution that more pragmatically dictates the speakers, in conjunction with their interaction with the acoustics, as the (by far) most coloring part of the chain. Indeed, though: sheer displacement and headroom are your friends and among the vital parameters to attain, and yet that demand sees limited following.
~~~ Relentless,  Avenging, Controversial, The Adversary~~
WEll it was a  lobgggg time a  comming,
All dinasaurs are fated to perish.

With that we will try to place this speaker shootout in a  clearer perspective.
We need to list the negatives and positives of each design.
Xover Traditional/conventional/= The Popular vote
all their goods and evils.
Then we list the pluses and minuses of FR/Wide band  single point source drivers.
OK   so lets begin
Lets have 3  weaknesses concerning xover speakers we've all been listening to since the AR's came out in 1975, or Seas A25's, 1960's. .
Then we list the  3 best things we love about the xover things we find difficult to give up. 

Then someone  who knows more about FR than I do, can list the 3 positive and 3 negatives of this  design. 
In this super competitive world, I think this is a fair challenge. 
Consider this contest like the Speaker Olympics. 
Gold is the winner, and  silver ,,,well thats the loser. 



To quote someone:
The 10 most important components of a hifi system.
1 thru 8 - The Speakers
9. The room
10. Everything else.
Hear a pair of ATC SCM100 ASL active monitors in full song and your life will never be the same again. With their pro line you can just go off the scale. Voxativ are an archaic overpriced irrelevance