How to divide a budget between components


Hello All,

I recently read through an interesting thread on AG in the speaker section on the best way to allocate one's budget for a system (the consensus was to put about half towards the speakers and the remainder towards everything else).

So on that note, what is the best way to allocate one's non-speaker budget? There seems to be a growing number of improved components to buy that are supposed to make a big difference. Where would a person's money be best spent? Below are some items to possibly consider for a components budget. For this example, the components budget would be $10K (keeps the math easy) and the speakers would be worth around $15k. I know the allocation would vary on more factors (such as music preference, digital vs analogue focus, etc) but I'm wondering as a general overall rule what has worked best?

Amplifier
Pre-amp
Turn table
Turn table cartridge
CD player
DAC
Surge protection
Speaker cables
Power cables
Equipment racks/tables
Room treatments
(Are there any I missed?)
xerotrace
My percentage costs have shifted throughout the 5 years in this hobby, but as it stands now, 1/3 in cables and room treatments, 1/3 in electronics and 1/3 in speakers.

I personally believe more $ should be spent on room treatments than most people, myself included, spend. Speaker placement, room selection within your home and room treatments play a big role.

I think a person can only obtain a mid-fi sound without room treatments or so so electronics driving very nice speakers. I have found that high quality electronics and some room treatments can make most speakers sound pretty good.

It's interesting to think that many listeners have only heard 50% of what their speakers are capable of and I believe this is part of the reason why some of us suffer from upgradiatis.
Paraneer, Linn philosophy or not, if you are going to use a vinyl source, it is wisest to spend as much retrieving as much information from the source as possible. Otherwise, you run the risk of spending lots of money trying to tune the rig with silly priced cables.
Noromance, I can hear quite an audible difference with cables. I lose quite a bit of detail swapping between monster speaker cable and blue jeans rca's vs. my signal cable silver resolution speaker cables and rca's. Not sure if you consider them to be "silly priced cables" but they definitely make a difference.

I think its kind of silly to understand that the source is very important because you can't replace a signal down stream that was lost right of the gate on the source, but that you don't believe that the cables transferring the signal are of major importance... Preserve as much of the original recording by using a high quality source then throw it out the window because you have crappy interconnects?
Of course you can hear a difference. I use I use OCC copper cable... home made. cheap. Trust me, these wires with a goid source is better than an okay source with a expensive cables. Obviously... cost no object.. get both but all things bwing equal...
Paraneer, Linn philosophy or not, if you are going to use a vinyl source, it is wisest to spend as much retrieving as much information from the source as possible. Otherwise, you run the risk of spending lots of money trying to tune the rig with silly priced cables.
Never said anything about silly priced cables. What always amused me about the Linn philosophy is to feed such a pristine signal from an overpriced analog front end only to have it degraded by going through subpar amps and speakers.

Again, its about proper balance to achieve system synergy. And to do this, one must identify the weak link. It would be pretty easy to identify the weak link in a system feeding a signal from a $6500 vinyl source into a pair of $1500 speakers. But were all entitled to our opinions and if this works for you, that's great! Enjoy the music brother!