Speaker priority: high or low???

I say speakers. I ran a trainload of electronics through my Boston Acoustics without noticing any real change. The last front end I got for the Bostons was a Sony ES that sounded a lot like the other players that preceded. I got it because over a hundred audio reviewers five starred it, and my previous one had broken.

Then I got a speaker that was a whole lot more revealing than the Bostons. In short order, I found out what crap all my five star equipment was. Out went the Sony right away. Next was the B&K, then the Bryston. I tried tubes, and found much better synergy.

Since then, I have upped the ante on the speaker twice, and both times I had to scramble to find electronics to match the speakers' demands, both physical, and aesthetic.

I still have some of the old stuff. Recently, I plugged in an Onkyo five disc changer. It sounded lovely on my Boston A 150 speakers. On my new speakers, it was like I had smothered the things.

Had I bought the great speakers first, I would have saved myself a lot of time and expense.

I have heard or read about a stereophile article from the 70's that described a blind test, where no one could (to any statistically valid degree) pick out the finest electronics from "a consumer grade pioneer receiver". I haven't read the article myself, but its intriguing. I'd also like to think that I could pick out the difference in a blind test....

That said, there's clearly no doubt in the vast differences in speaker quality. My vote's for speakers being the most significant contribution to your overall sound "output".

I believe synergy is the key. No matter how good the electronics ,if you put a crap speaker in front you get crap sound.The same goes for electronics it will work either way!A quality system from front to back is the only way to go regardless of price.I want make a compromise for any part of the system.It's all or nothing for me!

Gmood1 I don't think anyone ever suggested using products in their system that are disproportional to the rest of the system in regard to quality. I think the amount of money usually spent on speakers in relation to the rest of the system is foolish. The whole point is getting the music off of the CD or LP, and speakers have nothing to do with this.

I'm not suggesting using $250 speakers on a $30,000 system but speakers have nothing to do with obtaining the original signal. I would much rather hear a superior signal through average speakers than an average signal through superior speakers.

Keithr your example though valid was one of an unreasonable extreme. Who would use $500 worth of electronics to drive $30,000+ worth of speakers? Wilson speakers are so good they probably would sound good with radio shack junk driving them, but don't be fooled into thinking they would be reproducing what actually is present on the CD or LP being played.

No speaker will reproduce what does not get to it from the source.

Nrchy, I have heard $16,000 cd players fronting some unassuming speakers, and a $900 cd player pumping spectacular speakers. Need I tell you which was infinitely better?

Most speakers are too dull to transmit the "bit more" of a first rate front end. The hundred and fifty five star happy reviewers of the inexpensive Sony ES didn't think they were being short changed.

I didn't either, until I got a resolving speaker.