Speakers Don’t Matter As Much As We Think They Do?


When discussing how best to invest money into your system, it’s very common to hear people say, “Spend as much as you can afford on speakers, and then worry about the other gear because speakers have the largest effect on the sound.”

Now it’s never a bad idea to have good speakers and while I somewhat followed that advice early on, as my system has evolved it seems that I am not currently following that advice, and yet I am getting absolutely fantastic sound. For example as a percentage of my total system cost, my speakers cost 15%. If you include the subwoofers, that price is about 35%.

Early on I was worried I would outgrow my speakers and I’d hit their limit which would restrict sonic improvement potential as I upgraded other gear but that hasn’t been the case. With each component upgrade, things keep sounding better and better. The upper limit to speakers’ potential seems to be a lot higher than previously thought as I continue to improve upon the signal I send them and continue to improve system synergy. If you send a really high quality signal to a pair of speakers and get synergy right, they will reward you in spades and punch well above their apparent weight class.

One thing that may be working in my favor is that I’ve had these speakers since the early days of building my system so literally everything down to the last cable has been tuned to work in synergy with these speakers. Had I upgraded my speakers mid way through, I would have undone a lot of the work that went into the system in terms of synergy.

Has anyone else had a similar experience with their speakers? Does anyone have any extreme percentages in terms of speaker cost to system cost like 5% or 95% and what has been your experience?

128x128mkgus

Showing 2 responses by infection

Had I upgraded my speakers mid way through, I would have undone a lot of the work that went into the system in terms of synergy.

You can't be sure about that. 



So, yes, many listeners will be happy with speakers that represent a relatively small percentage of total system cost. While others would find those speakers incapable of handling the dynamic peaks of some of their recordings, at their preferred listening volumes, and/or incapable of providing the deep bass extension they prefer. And for a given level of sonic quality, in the latter case preferred speakers will tend to represent a much greater percentage of system cost than in the former case.

I agree. 
It boggles my mind why anyone would pay $250K for a Wilson.


Have you heard speakers in this price range as part of a relative system?