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 naimfan

I've had a pair of Linn Helix 2 speakers, with the ku-stone stands, since about 2005 (the speakers themselves date to the mid 1990s).  They've been good enough that I haven't wanted to change them out, until I moved to a townhouse that they just can't load well enough.  So I'm finally replacing them with a pair of Monitor Audio Gold 300s. 

I think you hit on the critical aspect - the need to build a system that works well together.  I remember the days when the reductio ad absurdum folks suggested (tongue in cheek, one hopes!) that the best way to build a system was with a Linn LP-12 and an AM radio and then to upgrade from there.  That's obviously absurd. 

But I do generally agree with the concept that the better your source(s), the higher the ceiling for the sound of a system.  We used to do a demo where we'd play PSB 300 speakers ($300/pair in the mid-1990s; stand mounts) with a Naim CDS-82-250 and then dare people to guess how much they cost - most guessed around 3k, thinking they were the ProAc Response 2.  The challenge I now have is upgrading my source - it's an  Exposure 3010S2 CD player, which is terrific, but it's going to be very difficult/expensive to upgrade it in a meaningful way that still synergizes with the rest of my system. 

At the other extreme, I don't think it makes sense to put, say, a $8k speaker with a NAD or Denon or Marantz or whatever receiver - I think you're going to leave a LOT of that speaker's performance in the box, so to speak. 
I think Erik is exactly correct - if the speaker/room combination does not work, the speaker is not going to sound its best. 

Room correction is far from the norm even today, and effective tuning remains the province of very expensive equipment.  Can it work?  Yes - I heard a Linn demonstration that was nothing short of remarkable.  But we're a long way from being able to reasonably tune (however it's done) speakers to where the room is irrelevant.