Speaker priority: high or low???

Nrchy, no, Im sorry, I mistyped. It's Jim Croft, who worked for Carver. He is also a Harbeth user. Somewhere above I got the impression that amps v. speakers was the main point of the thread, but I see in your original post you did ask about other components. I think many reasonable people think that the source is equally or maybe even more important than speakers.

What are speakers going to add? That's just the point. Speakers add frequency response variations and distortion, including material colorations in dynamic drivers, while amps can be made to transmit a perfectly flat low distortion signal.

Some people reason from sound empirical evidence, e.g., repeatable and verifiable tests and measurements, and listening by ears trained over decades of playing musical instruments, listening to live performances, and in-depth auditioning of hi-fi components.

Others form their conclusions from reading ad copy in the guise of mass market reviews or listening to salespeople or other consumer goods fans as ignorant of relevant facts as they are.

Nrchy,
You wrote earlier today: "What are the speakers going to add to the music that was not retrieved from the source or translated to the speakers? I just don't get it."

Are you playing Devil's Advocate and trying to stir the pot, or do you REALLY "just don't get it."? As Unsound explained, speakers commit both sins of omission and sins of commission. A sin of omission is a "forgivable" transgression. For example a speaker may do a credible, or even an outstanding job reproducing the midrange and the top end as well as the mid-bass but may have no information under, say 50 Hz. On the other hand a speaker may "add" colorations and distortions which make it difficult to tell the difference between a guitar and a dobro, a guitar and a lute, a violin and a viola, etc. A speaker may be "tilted up" in the upper midrange and present an aggravating, ultimately unlistenable signal which causes listener fatigue.

I trust that you mispoke yourself when using the phrase/concept of what does a speaker add. It implies that the upstream components ADD something to the signal. (And that ADDING someting to the signal is a good thing!) The designer's goal and the music lovers bliss is a component that does NOT add ANYTHING to the signal. A component that reproduces the original source with sufficient accuracy to look good on a graph and, more importantly, to "suspend disbelief" of the music lover and transport music lover......to the music is what we look for.

Hey, I've got a topic for debate - How many audiophiles does it take to screw a 'question' into the ground?

I also know no one who would buy a $10K amp for their $250 speakers. That was not the point; was just using extremes to make mine and Stehno's. I am amazed it got such a huge response.

Interesting though that I do know folks who try to buy high dollar speakers to go with their hifi receiver. It is fun to listen to them try to convince themselves that it sounds good.

Karls,

As usual, your post is very well written and well thought-out. I enjoy your posts quite a bit.

Something you wrote made my one eyebrow go up:

"There is a reason that full-range electrostatics sound so good, and it is that they avoid most of the problems I just mentioned. Of course, they have a whole new set of problems, most of which revolve around unsolvable room interactions, which is why most people don't put up with them."

Could you elaborate on the "unsolvable room problems" of full-range electrostats? I confess to being biased in favor of full-range dipoles, so I'm curious to know what your observations are.

Thanks!

Duke