Why do folks spend more on electronics than on speakers?

@mulveling 

+1

@mulveling

+1

😊

$$ are not as significant as sound signature of a speaker.

Also, specifically, what a speaker is capable of delivering.

For example, a nice pair of ESS Quad 57s at around $6K are a destination speaker for many. Or a pair of excellent $7K monitors. 
For larger scale, a pair of $30K big floorstanders. It all comes down to if a speaker sounds like music to the individual.

However, a speaker is limited to what it is being “feed”.

The source then the electronics which amplify.

IMO, the most important and most vital are the two transducers. In my analog only system, the cartridge and the speakers. And those two are most responsible for the ultimate SQ. Again, the $$ are not as central as what sounds good to you.

G.I.G.O.

noromance +1

**** Source first. You can’t retrieve what you’ve lost no matter what speaker you use. ****

And, the same idea applies to the next step in the chain, electronics. Of course, this assumes that there are no major issues with how the speaker in question interfaces with your room acoustics, or issues with electronic compatibility.

IMO, this is one of the most important truisms of successful system building. Any component further down the line has the potential to make a positive contribution to the final sound, or to make matters worse; even (especially) when that component is of superior quality in absolute terms. The more transparent that the next component further down the line is, the better that it will reveal the problems with the component(s) that preceded it. I know some will disagree, but in my experience and generally speaking, there are more speakers available at reasonable (for me) prices that are sonically satisfying and that approach what is ultimately possible in the ways that matter to me, than there are electronics that I can say the same for. This is why some spend more on electronics than on speakers. The key is a balanced approach.