Why would one have $5K+ gear into $100 Speakers

I've got approx. $6k of Naim electronics at the moment, and I'd love to hear how they sound through a pair of Dayton B652 Air's (with the ribbon tweeter), which go for $50 -- less than the price of a handful of new CD's. I am tempted ...

 

I have a couple pairs of Elac speakers in my home theater which I intend to slide into my stereo. There wouldn't be much rationale for pairing entry level speakers with somewhat hi-end electronics, cords, cables, interconnects, power line conditioning, etc beyond hearing what they were capable of. It would probably be most enlightening to do that and then begin "downgrading" components to learn where that point is where the speakers aren't the weak spot. Ha. The sort of thing audio "journalists" should be doing!

 

50%?? Oh dear. Garbage in,garbage out.

 

Well, if we had $10,000 to spend on a two channel component system with a single, digital front end, then does it make sense to drop $5,000 on speakers? It could. For example, if someone was going to upgrade actively. Say, every couple years. If it's a system which will be used as is for 10 years, then I don't know. I'd say at least 10% and maybe even as much as 20% would go for power line related purchases and interconnects and speaker cables. That's going to cut into the speaker allocation. No way I'd recommend going cheap on the pre-amp. Good lord, how many systems die before the signal even gets to the power amp!

 

If you've got a quality source, but a pair of cheap & cheerful speakers, the result will likely be quite musical; albeit 'missing' a bit of information.

But, if the source is crap, the high-quality speakers at the other end will never let you forget it!

Source First.

(I agree that the preamp is also important, and should be considered along with source.)

 

Flat Earth here, to some degree.

I was subject to Naim/Linn propaganda and whilst I didn't have to go that route, I've heard many speaker with LP12 front end, which produced music much better than sticking an inferior deck and amp before my Linn Sara 9s.

 

Fair.

I also tend to believe that some expensive speakers are more forgiving than others. If you start with the speakers I have and stick a few hundred in everything else in front of them, then there's going to be a massive disappointment. I'm not sure what design qualities would make other speakers in that price range work out with relatively compromised electronics, but I'd wager that if mine are on one extreme end, then there are others at the opposite.

The lesson I've learned over several years is that when every upgrade results in an astonishing leap in sound quality, then there's too much being left on the table. So, clearly, in my experience, biting off more than one can chew (by going too far on speakers at expense of all else) is best avoided.

 

Is it pride sometimes? Is it sometimes boasting? Or, for the cats who list gear in their sigs, is it sometimes excitement about listing the latest acquisition in their quest for musical nirvana?

Anyway, it’s evident that you know all these things about equipment profiles - that any given profile can range from completely detailed to completely sketchy - so the answer to the question in your OP is, it’s impossible to know.

 

Sigs listing are convenient for everyone. I wouldn't assume any more or less than just that.

I'm waiting for someone to boast about their new pre-amp, for example. Gotta have the same effect of pulling that new Porsche 911 Carrera 4S up to the valet when there's a long line of people gawking.

The core concern deals with driving cheap speakers with pricey gear, which is a valid topic. I was told by a typical home theater guy that he knew all he needed to know about me since my multi channel pre-amp and power amp were too expensive relative to the cost (quality) of the speakers. I didn't bother to explain the rationale. This sort wouldn't appreciate the result either, I suspect.

 

If you connect a hi-end system to pc speakers will you be satisfied? No garbage in, but gargage out. Minimum 50% on loudpeakers.

 

Maybe said person only buys used, and is waiting for a very specific speaker to show up on the market?

-does not have a credit card?

-likes those speakers?

-had triplets a month before he was going to drop 150K on a new pair?

I used a 25 year old set of speakers worth a couple bills into a 2k amp with a 20K turntable...so what. Someone once said something about that to me.

Sometimes when your upgrading and dropping 5K or so, you can only afford one upgrade for a few paychecks.

 

ditto...

I honestly think if you look at music expenditures as cost ratios (50 speakers, 40 amp, whatever) prior to purchasing equipment your missing the point.

You really just need to be demo'ing equipment, learning, and listening to others setup systems. Drive your OWN independent opinion by what you hear and what works well with your setup and how you want it to evolve. Then you decide your budget for the piece...

Case in point, I was perfectly happy with my LP12 into my rogue CM2-I was a good year away from buying a phono pre. I knew what my first, second, and third choices were based on what I had heard with my components. One day I walk into my friendly hi-fi dealer and he says "hey, I have a nice used linn uphorik at less than 50% of retail". No brainer for me.

Oh no...if I break the ratio/formula the hi-fi police will come.

 

Wharfedale Diamond would blow away $79 speakers.

 

Of course, everyone's mileage may vary. In my own practice, I tend towards 'balance' in component expenditures (i.e., very approximately, 1/3 source, 1/3 amp, 1/3 speakers.) Currently my speakers are maybe 1/4 or less, of the total; but I'm confident they give me good measure of the signal that source and amp provides.

 

Why do you laugh at the idea of Synergy? Haven't you ever heard a mega-buck system which sounded like crap, and/or a modest system which sounded much better than it had any right to sound? In the first scenario there is/was no synergy. But in the second scenario there is/was. Simple as that.

 

A mega-buck system can "sound like crap" for many, many reasons which have little or nothing to do with component "synergy". Likewise, a modest system can sound fantastic for many, many reasons which have little or nothing to do with the components getting along well.

There must be thousands and thousands of combinations of amp, pre-amp, DAC, speakers, speaker cables, interconnects, power cords, line conditioners, room sizes, acoustic treatments, and so on. I just think it's funny that so many believe they've stumbled onto a special combination.

Now then, it can definitely be said that very inefficient speakers won't perform well with low output SET amplification. So, that's along the lines of what I think of as poor synergy.

 

In the early '80s I bought very good speakers (Yamaha NS1000Ms) on the end of a Sansui 217 MkII and a Dual 505. I was a beginner and just loved the Yamahas.

I went through 3 turntable upgrades, three cartridge upgrades, 2 preamps and 3 power amps, plus a couple of speaker cable upgrades before I was starting to get the measure of the speakers. And I say "starting to get the measure". Those speakers were very revealing. None of it sounded "bad" - but each upgrade was a significant step forward.

I think I would have done it in a different sequence had I known what I know now. I would not go so far as the crazy UK magazine (HiFi Answers) recommendation of Linn Kans on a Sondek-Ittok-Supex-Naim. But I think that you can buy speakers that are too "good" for what you have.

Possibly less relevant in a digital age, but maybe not.

 

To me, synergy is simply a way to say that the components work well together. E.g. no impedance mismatches, a good room, etc. If something sounds wrong there is probably a technical reason for it. Which is pretty much what you're saying.

That said, components can be voiced to have a certain sound, and if you combine a speaker with a certain set of strengths with a source and amp that has similar strengths then one can certainly call that synergy. Kind of like pairing Naim, Linn, and say Neat speakers for a system that emphasizes the pace in music.

 

Uh oh, I’m in trouble, the speakers for my bedroom setup were $5,500, but the integrated amp driving them only set me back $300!

 

I think you will be ok.

 

If $5K speakers are in your bedroom, what crazy expensive gear is in your listening room?

 

Might not be any of your business but you are asking here where nobody would know better. If you really want to know ask the person directly they can tell you off or they may well answer the question.

The person may have plenty of other non listed gear that gets swapped around. Perhaps he even likes the speakers. By the way what are they because for 79 there isn't much you can buy and on the other hand you can seriously waste 5K in overpriced garbage in no time at all.

 

That's true about PC speakers but if we assume a certain level of speaker (maybe $300) I think source first makes a lot of sense.

Even the best speakers measure relatively poorly and so even if one puts a great deal of their budget here there will be compromise. On top of that there is room interaction to think about, and that's independent of how much one invests in their speakers. You can get a lot out of affordable (not cheap speakers) if you get their set up right.

Putting more money into a source means getting a turntable that is better built and more resistant to damaging vibrations, not to mention the gains one gets with a better cart and phono stage.

Or, one can get a better DAC or CD player. The gains are less than with better vinyl playback I'd assume but then again I hear all the time how much better DACs keep getting, so who knows.

But either way I think there is a lot of logic in creating the best possible signal for your speakers to be fed. And then set them up well so that they can realize their potential.

Ultimately though, isn't this kind of an interim approach? I think most of us believe that some sort of balance is appropriate. My current set up is:

Source: 35%
Amp: 43%
Speakers: 22%

While the speakers are relatively low $ wise, they are very well made, sound great, and are a great match for my amp and room. Dollar allocation is just one part of what we must all consider. Now, if I include my sub then I'd have a fuller range system and the speaker figure would logically increase...but seeing as I'm not running it atm I will leave it out.

 

Not that long ago I spent a few years experimenting with using vintage "bookshelf speakers" in my main system These speakers were of the sealed box / acoustic suspension type design. None of them cost more than $200 a pair. Some I found locally such as a little pair of Allison Acoustic speakers while others came from eBay such as the Snell Type K's that I used for a few years. I had a lot of fun with these speakers even though the amount of money I had spent on my components was far, far greater than the cost of the speakers.

Never before have I had the same kind of problem with speakers that I do in the room where my system is located in our current home. Given the restrictions I put on placement of the speakers (I don't want them pulled out more than a couple of feet into the room), as well as my listening position (same story), the sealed designs seemingly worked far better than almost any set of ported or vented speakers I tried. Before my sub-$200 speaker phase, I went through an incredible number of far more expensive speakers that many others have raved about over the years. On average, each set of newer speakers cost around 10 times the amount of money that I was spending on a set of vintage speakers. While I gained some resolution with the newer designs, the vintage sealed designs provided a better interaction with my listening space which was a tradeoff I was willing to make. Then I finally found a pair of new speakers that i really liked and they worked well with my personal requirements mentioned above. So I bought them. But I purchased them because of what they bought to my listening experience, not because they fit into some sort of appropriate cost formula.

After all was said and done I ended up liking a few of those inexpensive vintage speakers enough to hang on to them. The small set of Allison's for example now remain as part of a system that I set up for my wife in her office. The Snells on the other hand are now tucked away in storage should I ever decide to fire them up again just for fun.

I realize that my system is rather modest compared to a seemingly large number of systems around here. But I'm very happy with the sound I'm getting from my system. Mine is a mix of gear that is primarily British in origin. Anyone digging for esoteric gems is going to be disappointed. So I certainly don't list my system details to be bragging by any means. Rather I do so to be as informative as I can. People can see what particular combination gear I'm using should they be interested. So if for example I make specific mention of one of my components in a post then others can look to see what else I'm pairing those components with should they be curious for any variety of reasons. It wouldn't bother me to receive questions from others as to why I use the gear that I do. Others views on this might vary of course.