Wanna take it to the next level? Buy MORE speakers!

Driver quality is far and away the biggest contributor to speaker performance, followed by cabinet construction. Crossover component quality is third at most, presuming the crossover circuit is otherwise competently designed. 

I get why some enjoy experimenting with crossover components but they are not the weak link in the majority of speakers. Most often the drivers are what are mediocre. 

+1 @helomech 

I have experimented with a stash of crossover components from GR research. 400 to 600 dollars at most (or say under a 1000 dollars)  in crossover component upgrades gets the fidelity close to max (ime) and diminishing returns hit like a wall thereafter, as you go up in price. But, a crappy driver from a manufacturer is a crappy driver and there's no fixing that...

Manufacturers have cheaped out on crossover components so badly that the illusion of crossover component quality being the main culprit exists.

If I want SPLs I have four matching Vandersteen 2 in my living room. These are driven by a single McIntosh 2200 amplifier. The rear pair are wired in reverse polarity to the front pair.

If I want laser-precise imaging and detail I have a pair of Sourcepoint 8 hooked up to the same amplifier via a switchbox.

Honestly, most of the sit down listening is done with the Sourcepoint 8. They are slightly harder and hotter sounding w/o EQ but you do get that holographic imaging with them as a 2-way dual concentric.

I also have two matching 10" Klipsch subs for that earthquake-under-my-seat effect.

…it's something.......different…

+1 @mikelavigne -  2 channel and surround are different

in my main 2channel, I barely manage to finance my Vimberg Mino D.  If I had to pay for more speakers, then sonic quality is reduced.  My Vimberg Mino D might be my end game main speakers.

in my flea watt 2 channel, I’m using the Volti Rival 100dB to explore tube magic starting with SET amps.  How can this translate to a surround system?

Both speaker manufacturers don’t offer “surround” components.

There is an alternative that I “subjectively” would be satisfied with, but it’s beyond my budget - Magico S Series.

How about additional amplifiers expenses….

Maybe someday I’ll build a quality surround system, but not at the expense of 2 channel sonics.  

When I was A boy, I had a SHARP tuner/cassete. I also lived up a mountain, where I could pick up radio signals from europe. The unit had four speaker outputs. It was called MATRIX. It was not quad, it was somthing else. The rear speakers which were mounted approx twice the distance from the fronts. Had a little reverb, giving a surround sound effect. When the BBC broadcast a live event, this was the best sound quality we could get. (no recording). It was a sensational event, bringing my mates around to revel in the sound. Theres nothing wrong about rear speakers.

This conversation imho is a waste of time.

Nevertheless……

Less is almost always better.

A quality system - cartridge, arm, table, SUT, preamp, amp, 2 speakers - set up properly in a properly treated room can give you holographic sound.

I recently discovered someone in my neck of the Hudson Valley who is obsessive about tube sound, has spent over $100K on his system, and has a basement full of thousands of tubes that he buys and sells online. He came over the other day with about 150 tubes for some tube rolling in my Beard preamp. The tubes in that amp all have at least 20 years of use on them.

I have to say: man, was I happy to find out that a Phillips made Ampex for $50 tamed Laura Nyro’s voice on New York Tendaberry way better than the Mullard for $300. But I digress.

After we settle on a set of tubes, this guy is sitting in the sweet spot, then wandering around the room. He then he says that as he was coming over, he wasn’t sure what to expect, since I had told him that I use Altec 604Cs (I think he has Wilson Puppies). He says he is astounded by the depth of the sound stage: forward, backward, and to either side of the speakers. He - like others have - volunteers the word holographic. A surround sound. It was particularly noticeable on the Belafonte at Carnegie Hall double LP, as it is on other live LPs: Sticky Fingers at the Fonda Theatre for example.

He at first says it must be the vinyl, and he will have to go out and get himself a turntable. I point out to him that he knows better, for starters, why obsess over tubes if it’s just the vinyl?

And I did it for less than half of what he spent.

Imho his room is a problem: it’s not dedicated, there’s all sorts of stuff going on in there that’s not controlled. In my room, all my walls are insulated with 6” of rock wool, the ceiling with 14”, all covered with burlap. The floors with throw rugs. Then I add pictures on the wall as and where needed to brighten up the sound.

The speakers that he was initially skeptical of do have some important features that his speakers lack. A: they are coaxial. A single point source greatly reduces phasing problems. B: they are very efficient. Efficient speakers are reputed to be more lively and dynamic.

To help with phasing issues, I have two little boxes inserted in the signal path that allows me to correct for that.

Being as insecure as most of us here at audiogon are about whether we are getting the most that we can out of our systems, after we are done rolling (he amazingly leaves an extra 4 tubes to try out for a few weeks), I ask him what he thinks, and he says the detail, the depth, the timbre, texture etc is as good as it gets, we are just dialing in that last 1 or 2 percent with the tubes to nail it.

Jon Specter may disagree: he’s replacing all the caps in the Beard next week.

All by way of saying.

TWO speakers. If the thinking behind coaxial matters, then every 1/64th of an inch matters. It’s hard enough getting two speakers positioned properly. 4? 6? 8?

Phoooougheaaaadaaaaabouuuuughditttttt!