Speaker priority: high or low???

Twl,
I do not disagree with any part of your comment. We may disagree as to whether or not multi-thousand dollar digital source components produce a signal that is appreciably different (either objectively or subjectively---in a controlled test environment----) than the signal from a modestly priced digital source. Your main point that a speaker, no matter how good, is not going to "overcome an earlier loss in the signal chain" is right on. On the other hand an excpetonally transparent and quick speaker with outstanding macro & micro dynamics will reveal low level information and nuance that are present in the signal but which are not audible through a lesser speaker. Thanks for your thoughts, explinations and diplomacy.

Am I understanding this right? Speakers are less important because they can't add to the musicality of the the sound. Are you suggesting that the upstream components are adding musicality to the sound? Or is it that subtractions at the end of the stream are less important than the ones at the begining? Is this the new math? I would think the net result would be the same. Unless one has a perfect room is using digital room correction I can't help but think the the most egregious subtraction from sonic integrity is at the last link in our systems; speaker to room.

Tom and Cloudgif, I agree with both of your conclusions. Tom must have gotten home from work earlier than I. It sucks to work for a living.
Although I have to take exception to Cloudgif's comments about digital sources. Every digital source I have ever owned sounded different from the one before. Regardless of how one might argue that the pieces have nearly the same parts inside the differences are huge when it comes to sound. The point might be moot since Tom and I are firmly entrenched in the vinyl camp.
I am not as has been discussed by Squidboy suggesting we own $40,000 worth of electronics but we use $250 speakers. Which is also not what he was suggesting.
My point form the outset was that speakers are no bigger a priority than any other part of the whole and I wondered if people still went by the misguided suggestion that 50% of the cost of ones system be spent on speakers.
As I glance over my shoulder I see that I probably spent 50% of my total cost on my turntable/arm/cartridge/phono section. This, I would suggest is how 50% should be spent, but that's a whole new controversy.

Unsound, my main point was that the source item is responsible for bringing into the system whatever amount of music is going to be played. A better source item can cause more musical information to enter the system. Then, it is up to the amplification chain to preserve as much of that information as possible, while doing the job of amplifying. The speakers are to emit this information as well as possible, given their capabilities and the conditions in the room. My point was not to minimize the importance of speakers, but to point out the importance of the earlier items in the chain, in doing the job needed to make the speakers work at their best. The earlier items, after all, are the things that make the speakers do what they do. Without the earlier items, the speakers could not work at all. Of course, the amp will not work without the speakers either. But, I was not talking about simply losses in the amp chain, I was also referring to the increases of valid musical information that can only be gotten from a better source piece, by retrieving more music from whatever type of disc one might be using. This is what I was meaning by my statements. The speakers can appear to be increasing the information, but the are not really doing that. The better speaker is simply able to reproduce more, and better, of what is already there. But if the source item left the detail info on the disc, there is no hope of reproducing it.

Twl, no argument here. Well said.