I have read numerous posts regarding the relative importance of speaker quality vs other components in a system. Quite a few audiophiles out there believe speakers are the most important link and therefore should constitute the biggest expenditure. It seems to me that your source would be the most important given it’s the origin point. Speakers should faithfully reproduce the signal originating from the source, via the amplifier. My personal experiences seem to support this notion. Of course, any system is only as good as its weakest link, but I am curious why so many seem to subscribe to this belief. Interested in your thoughts.
I 100% think that source is the most important part of the chain and where I always start. This is a change from the days before digital when, effectively, records were the only source. While everyone would invest in a great cartridge, phono preamp, and turntable, one very quickly would get to a point where a lot of money would make minimal improvement to sound. There was the belt/direct drive discussion, and certainly discussions around different cartridges, but most of it was around the same price point. Furthermore, until Original Master Recordings came about, the only possible improvement in software was either a very early or foreign pressing of a record. In those days , upgrading speakers provided the biggest bang for your buck.
With digital, there’s more room for effective improvement per dollar and myriad choices of software to play. The difference in potential fidelity between a cheap, low bit rate MP3, and a record or a 192khz/24bit PCM, MQA or DoubleDSD copy of the same Master is quite different. The DACs required can also make a significant difference in the potential fidelity of the source. So this changes the “speakers are most important “ rule of thumb. Don’t misunderstand me. There is still a point of diminishing returns with DACs and software as well, but it doesn’t necessarily happen at the lower cost like record players.
Ever since the first time I heard and liked a classic rock album at 96k/24bit of a record I loved and a CD I despised, I have always bought music on the best purely analog records and highest legitimate resolution Digital copy along with the best sounding DAC and record player I could afford. I’m so happy I did that because as I gained access to better and better amplifiers and speakers, the better it all sounded.
It wasn’t always the most expensive, either. I love my DAC and its around $500 and I’d have to spend more than $5000 to get only marginal improvements. Same with my record player. I’d have to spend more than $10,000 for only marginal better sound.
Records have now become a challenge too. Back when I bought my OMR of Abbey Road and American Beauty, an OMR almost always sounded more realistic than the OG pressings. They were a bit heavy on bass, but I didn’t mind.
These days though, MoFi and a lot of popular records are from digital masters with some (Radiohead, some U2) that sound like CDs with record noise and more hiss. And, some SACDs, BluRays,and, so-called “hi res” FLAC are from 44.1 or 48khz masters upsampled to DSD or 96/24 PCM. But, its worth the effort to have the best possible copy. It’s almost impossible, in some cases, to know what you’re buying until you buy it and play it.
Because I have the best digital recordings available and have put them on my phone, I can take my iPhone, USB3 camera adapter, USB powered DAC, plug it into any system and audition anything I might want to buy to upgrade my system and can hear what the components might bring out.
If I win the lottery, I absolutely will spend > $100,000 on a record player and >$2000 on an Oppo for surround and MQA DAC as well as pickup a few titles that are expensive so that when I spend the next hundreds of thousands on electronics and speakers, I’ll hear everything I should.
Even before spending money on the rest, the excellent source is worth it on cheap systems like the Bose in my car.
Bottom line is that source, before diminishing returns point, is best bang for the buck.