Which comes first...the receiver or the speaker.

auto_pilot

Okay...I've been mulling this question for awhile now:

Which is more important the AVR or Speakers? After much consideration I think the speakers are more important. I've heard a relatively weak reciever with 1st rate speakers, and the speakers sounded great. Not the best, but good nonetheless. Could the reverse be true? Can a truly powerful, nicely processing, and dynamic receiver make marginal speakers sound better? I wouldn't think so.

Thoughts, comments, yada yada yada...:)

phuz

I think you're right.

Refefer

A lot of bad speakers can sound reasonably good with quality watts going into them. I've also heard great speakers sound like poo when driven with crappy electronics.

It's a toss up. It really depends on the speakers and it really depends on the amplifier.

I wouldn't drive a pair of LSi's or Maggies without a quality amp.

ben62670

Where are you planning to end up? Real nice speakers need an amp. Good speakers can be run from a good AVR. Let us know what you want to have for speakers. Don't do like I did upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. Get it done right the first time. It cost a lot less!

Ben

AndyGwis

tough call. I guess if I had to spend money on one thing and then not upgrade anything, I would get very nice speakers over very nice electronics (if I had to spend the majority on one thing or the other).

But, that being said, in my system I went the opposite way knowing I would likely upgrade at some point. So, I now have some very mid-fi speakers (Polk Monitors) with pretty nice electronics (B&K amp, HK 635 AVR, XA1 source).

You really need to find balance, though, between speakers and electronics. Why have a weak link when you can spend just a little more to have a nice, balanced setup?

auto_pilot

AndyGwis wrote: »

tough call. I guess if I had to spend money on one thing and then not upgrade anything, I would get very nice speakers over very nice electronics (if I had to spend the majority on one thing or the other).

But, that being said, in my system I went the opposite way knowing I would likely upgrade at some point. So, I now have some very mid-fi speakers (Polk Monitors) with pretty nice electronics (B&K amp, HK 635 AVR, XA1 source).

You really need to find balance, though, between speakers and electronics. Why have a weak link when you can spend just a little more to have a nice, balanced setup?

I agree...My AVR definately better than my speakers...My limitation was room size, and asthetics, etc. I couldn't go front towers due to my room setup. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have gone KEF. However, I want to get nice quality towers to run off my amp for purely two channel listening when size of room allows for it.

What did it for me is that I went to Magnolia HiFi and listened to a pair of Martin Logan Ribbon speakers with a Denon 2307 pushing them:eek: The transparency, soundstage, clarity, were excellent. But I don't think the Denon was truly pushing everything out there like a high end reciever could do.

AndyGwis

Well, for two channel, you may think of putting a sepate system in a separate room, if space and money allows.

I decided to focus on my 2-channel setup as I found it was just a totally different animal than HT. I also found my midfi HT to be adequate while my 2-channel taste are a little more high-brow. Couldn't afford to build a 5.1/6.1/7.1 system with high end gear, but could piece meal a very nice 2-channel rig together to satisfy my musical tastes.

auto_pilot

ben62670 wrote: »

Where are you planning to end up? Real nice speakers need an amp. Good speakers can be run from a good AVR. Let us know what you want to have for speakers. Don't do like I did upgrade, upgrade, upgrade. Get it done right the first time. It cost a lot less!

Ben

Ben...i landed on my KEFs...clarity and soundstage are good...but I was listening to my buddies Energy Take speakers driven by his Denon 3806...and I could tell I was missing a full range of sound, and sheer presence of the HT listening. The Energy's sounded forward IMO, but not bright. He has towers, and I have bookshelves...so I don't think its a fair comparison...Let a lone when it comes to pure two channel listening.

auto_pilot

AndyGwis wrote: »

Well, for two channel, you may think of putting a sepate system in a separate room, if space and money allows.

I decided to focus on my 2-channel setup as I found it was just a totally different animal than HT. I also found my midfi HT to be adequate while my 2-channel taste are a little more high-brow. Couldn't afford to build a 5.1/6.1/7.1 system with high end gear, but could piece meal a very nice 2-channel rig together to satisfy my musical tastes.

That is the danger Andy...spending another $5K on a separate rig. I can probably sell one of my kidneys to get it going I bought my AVR because its suppose to do both reasonably well. I need to listen to a good two channel system to see what I'm missing out on.

madmax

You can put a decent 2 channel system together for almost nothing. Of course over time it will tend to grow.
madmax

auto_pilot

madmax wrote: »

You can put a decent 2 channel system together for almost nothing. Of course over time it will tend to grow.
madmax

Sounds intriguing...I just need my all-in-one system to mysteriously break so I can justify an allocation for a new rig.

mantis

I think the speakers are more important but they both goo hand in hand.

The trick to getting good speakers and powering them with a lower end receiver is having 8 ohm speakers. If you get Rti series speakers, then you can run them with just about anything. If you get LSi, you will have many problems and they will sound like **** on lower end stuff.

This applies to any brand speakers you get. Just using Polks as an example. Speakers are the most important thing in the chain. If they suck, then no matter what you put behind them is not going to shine.

Dan

rskarvan

I've never heard an AVR. I listen to speakers.

wingnut4772

Speakers!