# What is the most important component in your audio system?



## HionHiFi

In my system, the speakers are the most important component. It's where, as one member here put, the rubber meets the road. They are litmus test for an audio system. If when the music is fired up, the speakers don't perform to your liking, nothing can make it better; not a better preamplifier, amplifier, cables, nor sources. What is the most important component in your audio system?


----------



## KalaniP

That's easy: The music/movie that I'm trying to play through it. 

(followed by the speakers and receiver combined... the best speakers in the world can't do justice, or perhaps can't even make any sound, without an amp... and the best amp in the world is useless without some sort of speakers)


----------



## tonyvdb

This question is like asking what came first "the chicken or the egg"? 
You are correct to a point but there are many factors that make a system sound or look good. 
A good receiver/amp will also make or break a system as you can have the best speaker in the world but if the receiver or amp or even the source is not up to par it wont preform in the best possible way.
The chain is only as good as its weakest link.


----------



## megageek

I would look at this from a dollar perspective. Look at What component of your system would give you the greatest 'bang for buck' value, and that would be the most important component to get or upgrade. I would say speakers every time. Considering speakers are probably the safest component to buy second hand (theyre not realy complicated inside so less to go wrong), its safe to assume you can get great speakers for a relatively small cost. On the other hand, if you bought a typical $600-$800 reciever with hdmi's, 7.1 and a decent power rating, i dont think a $3000 reviever is going to sound much better (all things being equal). The same can be said for projectors too. So 'bang for buck' is where its at for me!


----------



## kwadzilla

I my perspective is that the amp and speaker must have the right synergy. You can't have an inefficient speaker driven by a one way SET in a large room.

I've always thought you get the best bang for your dollar with treating the room. Put $10K worth of gear in a bare room and it will likely not sound as good as $5k worth of gear in a room with a modest $1k of treatments. If you fully treat that same room from top to bottom, you can outperform many $$$ systems.

My 2 pennies.


----------



## KalaniP

kwadzilla said:


> I my perspective is that the amp and speaker must have the right synergy. You can't have an inefficient speaker driven by a one way SET in a large room.
> 
> I've always thought you get the best bang for your dollar with treating the room. Put $10K worth of gear in a bare room and it will likely not sound as good as $5k worth of gear in a room with a modest $1k of treatments. If you fully treat that same room from top to bottom, you can outperform many $$$ systems.
> 
> My 2 pennies.


Depends on where you are drawing the line, budget-wise. Take a budget of $1k worth of gear (or half that), and the situation changes, I would think. Treatments can be very inexpensive (esp if DIY) but there's only so much they can help a cheap HTIB in a large room (for instance).

Speakers and amps need to reach a certain point of performance before room treatments start to make more of a difference than spending more to upgrade to a halfway decent amp and speakers instead... IMO.


----------



## GranteedEV

kwadzilla said:


> I've always thought you get the best bang for your dollar with treating the room. Put $10K worth of gear in a bare room and it will likely not sound as good as $5k worth of gear in a room with a modest $1k of treatments. If you fully treat that same room from top to bottom, you can outperform many $$$ systems.


You're both correct, and incorrect. 

Correct, in that the speaker and its interaction with the room, dominate roughly 90% of what we hear.

However, room treatments are not always necessary, and in some cases may not even be desirable. For home theater i'm sure there's some serious value in getting a nice low RT60 near 200 etc but with music as the primary goal i'd argue that room treatments, while they can be beneficial, can be foregone with a speaker optimized for room interaction.

If you look at the Soundfield prototype speakers for example, they have some factors that are arguably very important in the room/speaker interaction.

-First, they use a coaxial midrange. A coaxial by nature has no out of phase off-axis lobing leading to any unwanted off axis results that cause reflection colorations

-Second, they use a 12" coax rather than a small one. A large driver like this 

1) narrows its dispersion to a point where by roughly 1.2khz, it isn't really interacting early with the room, but still has wide dispersion across the seating positions
2) guides the tweeter dispersion so that it too, does not interact early with the room.

-Third, they use an 18" open baffle woofer. This creates a "dipole null" off axis response. Whereas typical speakers are omnidirectional and so suffer from many oddly excited bass modes/nodes in the midbass (100hz-400hz etc) these excite less modes in the vertical and horizontal directions perpendicular to the speaker. As such they're more sensitive to speaker aiming compared to typical speakers but they're also less prone to big peaks and dips in the midbass as the only modes being excited are those parallel to the speaker axis. Since the optimal bass orientation may not jive with the imaging orientation, this part of the speaker is separately rotatable. 

Fourth, they roll in a sealed 12" subwoofer. In conjunction with the above 18" dipole driver, a cardioid response is created in the roughly 40hz-100hz region. A cardioid, again, excites the room in an arguably optimal way in that particular frequency response region. It's not quite "multiple subs" good but it's good enough that arguably bass traps aren't likely to be necessary for subjectively accurate music reproduction. Below 40hz the shift towards purely monopole bass is acceptable as room modes barely dominate if at all. 

So this speaker is designed not to be used in a treated room, but to be well placed in a typical room.










It minimizes the early reflections above 1khz and many of the extreme bass modes below 500hz that we find offensive, but the untreated, typical room maximizes delayed reflections that we find engaging. Would it still sound better in a treated room? I dunno. It might sound better and it might even sound worse. Some prefer "stereo" imaging over "lifelike" imaging so that's one factor in invidiual preference.


----------



## HionHiFi

tonyvdb said:


> This question is like asking what came first "the chicken or the egg"?
> You are correct to a point but there are many factors that make a system sound or look good.
> A good receiver/amp will also make or break a system as you can have the best speaker in the world but if the receiver or amp or even the source is not up to par it wont preform in the best possible way.
> The chain is only as good as its weakest link.


It is a bit of a chicken and egg question isn't it. If anyone hasn't already, the Nuforce Audio take on the amp first approach is interesting. 

The good thing about technology these days is that it has allowed electronics, lets say a receiver to be very similar at there given price levels. If you have a properly designed amp, let's say a nice Mark Levinson against an Adcom, so long as they are level matched, at low to medium volume where both amps are linear, none distorting and operating within their rail voltage specs, they will essentially sound the same. The differences show up when they are pushed. The Adcom becomes none linear, distortion creeps in and the amp is pushed outside its rated specs. 

No system is bigger than it's component parts. Everything matters.


----------



## HionHiFi

kwadzilla said:


> I my perspective is that the amp and speaker must have the right synergy. You can't have an inefficient speaker driven by a one way SET in a large room.
> 
> I've always thought you get the best bang for your dollar with treating the room. Put $10K worth of gear in a bare room and it will likely not sound as good as $5k worth of gear in a room with a modest $1k of treatments. If you fully treat that same room from top to bottom, you can outperform many $$$ systems.
> 
> My 2 pennies.


I agree. Room acoustics have a larger part to play than most people will admit. I understand myself because room treatments aren't as fun or rewarding to purchase as a shiny new piece of audio equipment, so we give them less respect. 

Another reason room treatments are easy to implement is due to the spouse. It's easier to place a little black box on a rack than to enter into a negotiation with your other half on installing room treatments. It is for these reasons that some don't even entertain the idea. 

In every situation, room acoustics are as important as the any other component in the system. In some cases, more so.


----------



## HionHiFi

KalaniP said:


> Depends on where you are drawing the line, budget-wise. Take a budget of $1k worth of gear (or half that), and the situation changes, I would think. Treatments can be very inexpensive (esp if DIY) but there's only so much they can help a cheap HTIB in a large room (for instance).
> 
> Speakers and amps need to reach a certain point of performance before room treatments start to make more of a difference than spending more to upgrade to a halfway decent amp and speakers instead... IMO.


I think the research points us to a different answer. NRC research, Harman Research and more than a few speaker, and audio manufacturers have shown, and written at length about the interaction of the room and the sound waves. Room acoustics have a large part to play in the final sonic signature of the room - irrespective of the audio system or it's price. The room is a known factor and the physics that govern it are unchanged regardless of the little black boxes we install within it. Looking at it from this perspective, you can see that the cheapest audio system will benefit from a decent sounding room. 

Another verification for this is the proliferation of room correction software included in nearly every major receiver (YPAO, Audyessy, Pioneer's Room Correction, and others).


----------



## HionHiFi

GranteedEV said:


> You're both correct, and incorrect.
> 
> Correct, in that the speaker and its interaction with the room, dominate roughly 90% of what we hear.
> 
> However, room treatments are not always necessary, and in some cases may not even be desirable. For home theater i'm sure there's some serious value in getting a nice low RT60 near 200 etc but with music as the primary goal i'd argue that room treatments, while they can be beneficial, can be foregone with a speaker optimized for room interaction.
> 
> If you look at the Soundfield prototype speakers for example, they have some factors that are arguably very important in the room/speaker interaction.
> 
> -First, they use a coaxial midrange. A coaxial by nature has no out of phase off-axis lobing leading to any unwanted off axis results that cause reflection colorations
> 
> -Second, they use a 12" coax rather than a small one. A large driver like this
> 
> 1) narrows its dispersion to a point where by roughly 1.2khz, it isn't really interacting early with the room, but still has wide dispersion across the seating positions
> 2) guides the tweeter dispersion so that it too, does not interact early with the room.
> 
> -Third, they use an 18" open baffle woofer. This creates a "dipole null" off axis response. Whereas typical speakers are omnidirectional and so suffer from many oddly excited bass modes/nodes in the midbass (100hz-400hz etc) these excite less modes in the vertical and horizontal directions perpendicular to the speaker. As such they're more sensitive to speaker aiming compared to typical speakers but they're also less prone to big peaks and dips in the midbass as the only modes being excited are those parallel to the speaker axis. Since the optimal bass orientation may not jive with the imaging orientation, this part of the speaker is separately rotatable.
> 
> Fourth, they roll in a sealed 12" subwoofer. In conjunction with the above 18" dipole driver, a cardioid response is created in the roughly 40hz-100hz region. A cardioid, again, excites the room in an arguably optimal way in that particular frequency response region. It's not quite "multiple subs" good but it's good enough that arguably bass traps aren't likely to be necessary for subjectively accurate music reproduction. Below 40hz the shift towards purely monopole bass is acceptable as room modes barely dominate if at all.
> 
> So this speaker is designed not to be used in a treated room, but to be well placed in a typical room.
> 
> It minimizes the early reflections above 1khz and many of the extreme bass modes below 500hz that we find offensive, but the untreated, typical room maximizes delayed reflections that we find engaging. Would it still sound better in a treated room? I dunno. It might sound better and it might even sound worse. Some prefer "stereo" imaging over "lifelike" imaging so that's one factor in invidiual preference.


Nice speakers. Are they your creation? 

I'm reminded of an article I read from an audio reviewer some time ago. His premise was that live music doesn't have the pin point imaging audiophiles covet, sound comes from every direction. Why then should we audiophiles seek out pin point accuracy, it's not true to the source.

I think it was the late John Potis that lamented that people ask him all the time, "Do you get tired of all that artificial soundstage?" (or something like that) His reply was that live music is everywhere. If the goal is to reproduce the live event in the home shouldn't we be focused on putting sound everywhere too?

My primary speakers are Ohm Walsh 5's. For those who don't know, they are an omni- polar, almost single driver speaker. They are room friendly and are easy to place because of their radiation pattern. Where I have a choose I lean toward omni-polar speakers.


----------



## KalaniP

HionHiFi said:


> I think the research points us to a different answer. NRC research, Harman Research and more than a few speaker, and audio manufacturers have shown, and written at length about the interaction of the room and the sound waves. Room acoustics have a large part to play in the final sonic signature of the room - irrespective of the audio system or it's price. The room is a known factor and the physics that govern it are unchanged regardless of the little black boxes we install within it. Looking at it from this perspective, you can see that the cheapest audio system will benefit from a decent sounding room.
> 
> Another verification for this is the proliferation of room correction software included in nearly every major receiver (YPAO, Audyessy, Pioneer's Room Correction, and others).


Good point about the room correction software. That said, that's not the same thing as room treatments.

Also, I still maintain that given $1k and a plain room with a boom box, your going to benefit more from spending that money on a decent amp (which may very well include room EQ) and speakers than spending that same $1k on room treatments for the boom box.

Change the starting point and the budget, and I'll be the first to agree that room treatments have the potential to offer a bigger dollar-for-dollar benefit than blowing it on speakers and amps, but my whole point was that at the lower extremes the same rules do not apply in the same way, so it's not a 100% certain solution in EVERY situation.


----------



## HionHiFi

KalaniP said:


> Good point about the room correction software. That said, that's not the same thing as room treatments.
> 
> Also, I still maintain that given $1k and a plain room with a boom box, your going to benefit more from spending that money on a decent amp (which may very well include room EQ) and speakers than spending that same $1k on room treatments for the boom box.
> 
> Change the starting point and the budget, and I'll be the first to agree that room treatments have the potential to offer a bigger dollar-for-dollar benefit than blowing it on speakers and amps, but my whole point was that at the lower extremes the same rules do not apply in the same way, so it's not a 100% certain solution in EVERY situation.


Certainly, room correction software isn't the same as physical room treatments. It does still confirm the premise, which is that manufacturers know their is something wrong is most every room. Whether you use software or physical treatments to make it better, the problem is the same. Most rooms have issues.


----------



## HionHiFi

KalaniP said:


> Also, I still maintain that given $1k and a plain room with a boom box, your going to benefit more from spending that money on a decent amp (which may very well include room EQ) and speakers than spending that same $1k on room treatments for the boom box.
> 
> Change the starting point and the budget, and I'll be the first to agree that room treatments have the potential to offer a bigger dollar-for-dollar benefit than blowing it on speakers and amps, but my whole point was that at the lower extremes the same rules do not apply in the same way, so it's not a 100% certain solution in EVERY situation.


I'll concede that if your using your boom box analogy, yes it would be better to upgrade the components first before room treatments.


----------



## GranteedEV

> I'm reminded of an article I read from an audio reviewer some time ago. His premise was that live music doesn't have the pin point imaging audiophiles covet, sound comes from every direction. Why then should we audiophiles seek out pin point accuracy, it's not true to the source.


It's complex.

It's safe to say that there are many speakers out there.
The majority of them are a mess. 

Let's start with the concept of flat frequency response.  That's gonna lead to an accurate portrayal of the signal, correct?

Here is the on-axis frequency response of a $68,000 audiophile speaker.










As you can see, while it's not an outstanding measurement, it does maintain +/- 3db tolerance so it's an acceptable loudspeaker by industry standards. Yes, many audiophile speakers have their own subjective voicings as that sells product more than accuracy. 

The problem is not that the on-axis is poor (though it isn't great). It's that, when placed into a room, we do hear the reflections. Now delayed reflections are the "room sonic signature". A ton of research shows a wide indifference towards room sonic signature. While ideally we still want a neutral room, it's true that we not only adjust to room sonic signature, but we enjoy the ambience. The problem is that not all reflections are delayed. Early reflections (which can be considered anything in the first 20ms though some say 15ms) are those reflections that arrive at our ears early. The first 5ms of that is especially offensive and forms initial timbral perception. The next few ms form our overall perception of timbral balance. So it's safe to say reflections off the side walls, ceiling, and floor are most certainly heard indistinctly - they're early! Some choose to reduce their amplitude (as you saw with the speaker I pointed out above) while most speakers don't really do a thing about them. Most perceptual research shows that while vertical reflections in the majority of homes are so early they come into that 5ms window and are very dissimilar from the axial response. So I would say that with the majority of speakers, treating vertical reflection points is recommended. Earlier horizontal reflections on the other hand can actually contribute to clarity/definition IF they mimic the axial response to an extent. 

Unfortunately, here is the off-axis response, normalized to the on axis response, of one such speaker:










So what your brain gets, is mixed signals :yikes:

The only solution is to greatly attenuate the reflection with broadband absorption. At some point people get very used to listening to such speakers. Most audiophiles are just ordinary people who don't go to live performances all the time. If the stereo imaging impresses them, that's there prerogative, and with many audiophile speakers it's necessary for good sound either way. So I'd argue that pinpoint ""stereo"" imaging, is a construct of what people using treatments are used to. And that's fine. Imaging is a preferential thing that depends on what you're listening to. But timbre, is an absolute and a system with violence towards timbral accuracy is in my opinion a poor system.

Personally, I feel that a good system STARTs with great speakers with good on and off axis response. After that, bass traps with most monopole speakers are a good idea. They also help reduce reflections so higher SPLs are more enjoyable. The next step is to diffuse the early reflections. In some small rooms yes you want to absorb the early reflections but in the typical living room, diffusion is a better idea in my opinion. This is NOT to correct timbre, however. It's only to enhance the sound and thus is an individual preference. 

Here's a really cool video on diffusion panels, that rather than comparing diffusion with speakers, compares diffusion with a guitar - something you can say is timbrally correct in any of the environments on account of not being a reproduction tool: 

http://www.realtraps.com/video_diffusors.htm

So again, diffusion is not about correcting, but enhancing - treatments should not be about correcting the speaker, but enhancing it. In most rooms they are not needed to correct, but can still enhance. In my experience, the only place i ever experience slap echo is in big concrete stairways... not in my living room.

Here is an example of another speaker, which is minimally affected by room effects:

http://audioartistry.com/brochures/B&W 801 vs. CBT36 Ground-Plane Measurements v8.1.pdf


----------



## tesseract

HionHiFi said:


> Nice speakers. Are they your creation?


Look here for more info. http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/49226-soundfield-audio.html



> I'm reminded of an article I read from an audio reviewer some time ago. His premise was that live music doesn't have the pin point imaging audiophiles covet, sound comes from every direction. Why then should we audiophiles seek out pin point accuracy, it's not true to the source.
> 
> I think it was the late John Potis that lamented that people ask him all the time, "Do you get tired of all that artificial soundstage?" (or something like that) His reply was that live music is everywhere. If the goal is to reproduce the live event in the home shouldn't we be focused on putting sound everywhere too?
> 
> My primary speakers are Ohm Walsh 5's. For those who don't know, they are an omni- polar, almost single driver speaker. They are room friendly and are easy to place because of their radiation pattern. Where I have a choose I lean toward omni-polar speakers.


I have many monopoles, an omnipole (X-Omni), and a constant directivity design (SHO-10). I enjoy all of them, but it is amusing to me how the omni and the constant directivity speakers present a similar wide soundstage in my room. The directivity design is able to overcome my difficult room better (open to the right, wall with windows on the left), giving the pinpoint imaging that I prefer. The X-Omni is famous for it's imaging abilities and I have heard a Ninja crossover X-Omni in another member's system. It imaged like a champ, so I know my room is not playing as well with the omni directional sound as I would like.

It is all relative, what your room can accommodate and what your tastes may be. In reply to the thread starter, the speaker/room interface will always dominate the sound, given a decent source.


----------



## kwadzilla

KalaniP said:


> Speakers and amps need to reach a certain point of performance before room treatments start to make more of a difference than spending more to upgrade to a halfway decent amp and speakers instead... IMO.


Yes, I completely agree. Of course there's only so much you can do with a system that doesn't have great resolution to begin with. I would think that most people who are somewhat serious about the performance of their system (either HT or music) will have decent gear.


----------



## rab-byte

My .02 

Quality of recording > speakers > placement > amp/reciever > room treatment/EQ> transport

If we look at ROI I would say this about sums up importance.


----------



## lcaillo

The art of making good selections of equipment at all parts of the system revolves around understanding the expectations of the end user with respect to the performance of the product in the context of the application. GranteedEV said it concisely..."it's complex." Understanding how speakers of different types interact with room acoustics, however, is one of the biggest gaps that most don't really get. It is threads like these that bring issues like this to the attention of those who might otherwise never get it. 

My opinion...speakers, room, source material, then everything else, but it is all superceded by the perception of the user.


----------



## bambino

In my opinion you need 2 pieces to the puzzle, a source and something for the sound to come through. So obviously my pick/picks would be my AVR and speakers.:T


----------



## HionHiFi

Excluding careful pre-planning almost every room has acoustic problems that are not easily dealt with using speakers or non-EQ audio equipment, in my experience. Certainly components can give you enjoyable sound, however, no matter how agreeable you are to it, the acoustic issues still exist in that space. Thus the sound will only be as good as the room allows it to be. You may be hearing what you call good sound, but it could be better with room treatments. 

At times in my audio life, I've changed components, but with some of changes I've really struggled to hearing any differences, however analyzing and then treating the room with the proper room treatment has always yielded a better 2-channel experience.


----------



## olddog

Thats a hard one:scratch: I spent 9 months shopping and auditioning for my speakers (had a budget) then I spent over a year shopping for the perfect 2 channel amp for music to use (in budget) with my Denon 2808 as a pre. Then spent another year shopping for a great sub combination that would give me the omph for movies in 5 channel and music on 2 channel-soo-I guess it all started with the Denon:rofl: I am using a set of Wharfdales main,center,surround. Then a pair of B&W 805s with a Carver M-1.0t MKII op2lddude: for 2 channel then one Mirage sub for 65 to 80Hz and a Sunfire True MKII for 20 to 65Hz. It works for me


----------



## MikeBiker

I'm having new speakers delivered tomorrow, so I'm going to say that speakers are the most important part of my audio system. The newest have to be the most important.


----------



## HionHiFi

olddog said:


> Thats a hard one:scratch: I spent 9 months shopping and auditioning for my speakers (had a budget) then I spent over a year shopping for the perfect 2 channel amp for music to use (in budget) with my Denon 2808 as a pre. Then spent another year shopping for a great sub combination that would give me the omph for movies in 5 channel and music on 2 channel-soo-I guess it all started with the Denon:rofl: I am using a set of Wharfdales main,center,surround. Then a pair of B&W 805s with a Carver M-1.0t MKII op2lddude: for 2 channel then one Mirage sub for 65 to 80Hz and a Sunfire True MKII for 20 to 65Hz. It works for me


Sometimes it takes a multifaceted approach like this to come up with the sound you like. At one time I thought about running cascading subwoofers. These days I run a Sunfire Tru Subwoofer Sig from 65Hz down. My Walsh'5's are solid down to 25Hz but my room has a nasty valley from approx 45Hz - 65Hz. Hence the reason for the Tru Sub crossedover so high.


----------



## pxj

Speakers and of course the wife for letting me spend the money for them


----------



## rab-byte

pxj said:


> Speakers and of course the wife for letting me spend the money for them


If mama ain't happy...

Truer words have not been spoken. If not for my increasingly patent wife I would have no audio.


----------



## Earthtime:3978

Well, speakers are an essential, I hope! I am very satisfied with my Polks. The most important piece of equipment is my laserdisc player (CLD-R7G). Without it, I'm stuck in the world of compression and digital artifacts. I like options, and if it was all about blu ray and dvd I'd feel smothered. Ah, good old analog video.


----------



## TypeA

My Marantz AVR is the heart and soul of a three room, four source, five display and twelve speaker entertainment addiction, nothing is worth more than a good AVR.


----------



## tonyvdb

tonyvdb said:


> This question is like asking what came first "the chicken or the egg"?


Just to add to this comment I made, If your looking at what is the most valuable or best investment part then I would have to say the speakers. If you buy good quality speakers you will upgrade many other parts to the system over time but the speakers will remain unchanged.


----------



## jmschnur

The room


----------



## putox1051

My ears.


----------



## astrallite

By far the speakers are the most important component in my opinion. The difference between two speakers, both apparently neutral, is a huge difference. While other components might affect the sound, the loudspeakers in the end are contributing the majority of the distortion you will encounter in the system and that should be IMO the first thing addressed.


----------



## drchicago54

HionHiFi said:


> In my system, the speakers are the most important component. It's where, as one member here put, the rubber meets the road. They are litmus test for an audio system. If when the music is fired up, the speakers don't perform to your liking, nothing can make it better; not a better preamplifier, amplifier, cables, nor sources. What is the most important component in your audio system?


I just joined this forum so I am weighing late but I love these discussions. This is a chicken and egg question to some degree but I always start at the beginning of the chain and make sure that the source component is the best. Back in my vinyl days it was my VPI turntable but alas that has gone by the wayside so now it is my SACD player going through a Conrad Johnson Preamp. The speakers come last, making sure they blend well with the other components. Remember, the best speakers in the world will sound terrible with a poor source.


----------



## tesseract

Glad you could join us, drchicago54!


----------



## fishinbob

drchicago54 said:


> . Remember, the best speakers in the world will sound terrible with a poor source.


 And well they should.:whistling:


----------



## GranteedEV

drchicago54 said:


> Remember, the best speakers in the world will sound terrible with a poor source.


IMO this is true in the sense of "3D-ness" - some poor recordings will sound "flat" for lack of a better word. However they can still benefit from good speakers, as far as colorations are concerned. 

Of course, some bad recordings have their own colorations (IE microphone sibilance) that you can't do much about.


----------



## OZZIERP

My speakers still happy with my Paradigm Studio's V3.


----------



## pxj

> Remember, the best speakers in the world will sound terrible with a poor source.


and the worst speakers in the world will still sound terrible regardless of the source
:R:R


----------



## wgmontgomery

Given that the question was, "What is the most important component..." I'd have to go with speakers. I'm not discounting the room and its interactions, but I don't consider my room to be a component. >90% of distortion would come from the speakers in most systems. Just my 2¢.


----------



## 16hz lover

I've always had the opinion that 90% of your sound quality is determined by your choice of speakers, but my Cinepro amp sure made a huge change when I added it to power everything properly


----------



## JoeESP9

In this order: speakers, source, room
IMO:
Once you get your system sounding halfway decent it's time to consider treating the room as the next upgrade. Poor acoustics are why many systems sound nowhere near as good as they should. Fixing the room is the most cost effective (most bang for the buck) improvement you can make to your system. The only thing cheaper is proper speaker placement. However, if you haven't bothered getting that right you're probably not interested in room treatments.

I continue to be amazed by the truly awful system setups I see. At least half the people I visit that have a stereo or AV system have terrible speaker placement and usually equally bad choices for tone and balance. Most of the time I greatly improve their sound with a few adjustments.

What's the moral here? Get your speakers positioned properly and fix the room. Then and only then will you really hear any changes (hopefully improvements) you make to your system. Remember, a room with poor acoustics will harm the sound of even the best gear that exists. Whereas a room with good acoustics will make a moderate system sound very good and a very good system sound great.


----------

