Speakers The single most critical component


I know we've been over this Q hundreds of X's over the past 20 years here on audion, You can find dozen of topics dealing with this Q <which is the ,,,,most important component...>>
well time for yet 1 more topic dealing with this,, perhaps unanswered, un-resolved issue.
I'm bringing up the old hachet due to my recent experience acutally hearinga FR in my system. 
Let me tell you, there is not even 1 traditional/conventioanl/xover design <The Boxed Type>> in the world that could convince me  , there is something that will beat out FR (caveat, FR requires  some sort of high sens =sensitivity, tweeter)  in  the Boxy world of speakers.
That is to say, FR + Compression Horn is the future of 21st Century high fidelity. 
One lab has already brought us these ~~~SHF~~~ aka SuperHighFidelity  single drivers. 
The code word here is ~~SHF~~~ which can not never be employed when describing xover/trad/conventioanl style  aka The Box designs. db level under 91 are _<<IN-EFFICIENT>> , = dysfunctional, out dated, old school , = Dinasaurs. 
For amps, I only consider tube amps (PP and SET) as ~~SHF~~~ I can not include ss amps in this topic. 
IMHO all well made tube amps sound very close,
 a  kt88 in brand X will sound  close to brand Y. 
So amplification takes a  distant 2nd place in critical component.  No need to break the bank buying amp A vs  a  lower priced kt88 amp B
CD players, nearly all  tube DAC's , tube cdp-ers sound  close. No need to braek the bank over X vs Y.
My Jadis DAC is  only miniscule gain over the Shanling,
 the Shanling
only a  miniscule gain over the Cayin CD17. 
Now as for  best source  , phonograph is the ideal playback medium vs cds. 
I have some LP's now , but my main collection are classical cds, most not on LP version. Cables , I did note some gains employing silver/copper wiring throughout my entire system including inside the Defy.
Tweak worthy.
New Mundorf caps in all componets, tweak worthy. 
Yet the main central component remaisn the speakers.
Here is where  the entire audio resolution either rises to Nirvana or falls to <<distortion/muddy waters,/pollution/anti-fidelity  voicing  issues.
Your system's fidelity is ultimately dependent on what speaker  you have chosen to employ.
Forget all you've learned over the years, 
The new mantra is <,The speaker is key component>
All else is just extra tweaks/nuances. 
To sum up, a  ~~SHF~~ driver will match even the top of line Wilson weighing in at hundreds of lbs priced $$$$$$$ overa single FR driver. 
FR beats out any/all xover box design speakers. Mostly due to that key specification ~~db level~~~ which is everything in speaker design and thus in resolution/fidelity. 

mozartfan
Post removed 
Mahgister, you really needed to just say this:

FIVE this fact that some speaker sound already good in some room contradict absolutely not what i speak about...
Sounding already good and working at their peak S.Q. potential is not the same thing......
I am very pleased to say that you are right when you are...

Then in this case i am with you...

Enjoy your tea....

And had a good day....

😊
@ maghister:
" And no passive material treatment can do it only by itself in a room under 20 feet....Sorry..."

"20 feet" do you have any data to back this up? Your throwing numbers out there and imo you exagerate.

lets list the top 10 arguably best studio in the world or you know, some very well respected studio.

Abbey road 1 and 2
Conway Recording Studio
Village Recording Studio
Sound Factory
Sunset sound
Chicago Recording Company Studio 4
Circle Studios, Birmingham
East West
Manifold

NONE use active treatment. Why? Cause Passive treatment works perfectly, without any drawbacks (apart from visually)

- Passive treatment gives SOTA performance... even in relatively small rooms.
- Active treatment with DSP/EQ colours the sound, that cannot be avoided. that is undebatable. 
- Passive Tuned helmholtz resonator will work just as well as active subs cancellation methods or active helmholtz resonator and will avoid all this EQ nonsense.


" My 50 vintage bucks speakers sound like SOME not so good 15,000 bucks"

but your 50$ vintage speakers doesnt come close to the best 15000$ speakers out there. 





Yup DSP is not the answer for any but the lazy or misinformed. Having said this DSP is getting better and may at some time in the future be ready for prime time. All DSP is not created equal as well. 


Sorry but how many of these studios used JBL speakers back in the day? Most know what speakers the BBC used and they are preferable to JBLs but not SOTA. 
"20 feet" do you have any data to back this up? Your throwing numbers out there and imo you exagerate.
You are not wrong here in your remark.....

I have not calculated the exact size where controls of the timing early and late reflections will be more difficult.... And less rewarding and easy... A great hall is not a 13 feet room....

My room is 13 feet square and it is easy to use reverberation from the back for example to create a listener envelopment experience...
And easy to use reflection from the first reflection points for the better ...

And for the skeptic my sound is not unnatural at all.....I say that because the general saying to always  absorb reflections in general is simplistic... We must use our ears to know what to do in a specific room....


I did that by listenings experiments...

20 feet seems to me a good approximation separating big room and small one....But i had not calculated this scientifically with the many variables involved...

In a small room using all acoustical passive and active controls is rewarding at no cost....

I read somewhere that my 13 feet room is supposed to de difficult....

I experience the opposite...

It is because people usually use only passive material treatment ( balance between reflections,diffusions,and absorbing surfaces)

I used also a grid of resonators to control not only bass nodes but all the way up and control the timing and differentiate each wavefront of each speaker differently for each ear ...This give me a 3-d filling the room if the recording make it possible...Most classic recording are good...

My results are more amazing than anything i could dream of and no upgrade is on my future...

It is why i wrote this:

« acoustic is the sleeping princess and the future queen, the gear is the 7 working dwarves»

Most people here claim the opposite...The upgrading frustration confirm to me that i am right....people dont know how to install or embed their audio system... They read specs sheet thinking that only electronic compatibility is enough...

Perhaps the gear over some amount of money play a more important role, for those who can afford 100,000 bucks system perhaps and even in this case i listened harsh unnatural sound quality coming from many costly system in youtube ... Then acoustic for me is the key.....

My 500 bucks system is enough to make me smile...

Audiophile experience is linked to basic common sense and science especially psychoacoustic...