Proportion of expenses


How should one apportion their expenses on a stereo system, particularly at different levels of expense? For instance if you have 100,000 to spend should you spend 40% on the speakers 20% on the source 20% on the preamp and 20% on the amp or should it be some other combination (yes I'm making this up - not making a recommendation)?

It might be interesting to see at various price points. Like 10,000, 20,000, 50,000,100,000, 300,000 and unlimited. In some ways the question gets at what component is most important in different price ranges, in other ways it gets at the fact that the price/performance ratio is different among components.

A related question is where do you start in designing a system you want to build. Do you start with speakers and build back or source and build forward? Do you match precisely or get the best you can afford?

I was just curious.
Ag insider logo xs@2xnab2

I think its silly to even attempt to build a system by allocating a percentage of funds to each component and then trying to stick to that number.

A great system is only as good as its weakest link! Therefore you want to select components that work well together and not by their price tags.

Put me in the camp though that believes in selecting the speakers first and they must be heard by the intended user.  Then select an amp that that will properly drive them.  I have seen too many people buy an amp only to find out later that it cannot adequately drive a pair of speakers that they auditioned and fell in love with.   

Nab2 - I agree with the other posters feedback, but would also like to add...
As you move up in the price range the "ratios" can change dramatically.

e.g. - I have a pair of speakers in my AV system that are around 18% of the whole system - but on my 2-channel system they represent around 35% of the total system cost.

Factor in an individuals personal brand preferences and/or their desire to have the latest technological advances and you will get ratios that are all over the map.

It can also change based on how much "hi-fi Knowledge" a person has to begin with or acquired over the years they have been involved in this "obsession".

As an example of this - if you would have told me 30 years ago that I’d be spending as much as I have on cables - I would have said you were insane - but here I am :-)

The variables are many and in many ways the question in your OP is as difficult to answer as that age old question...

How Long Is A Piece Of String?


Regards...
Good thoughts above. The speaker/amp interaction is perhaps the most critical, and since speakers do vary much more in their presentation than amps, I’d suggest starting with speakers and then choosing an amp based on their demands/requirements. There are certain electrical interactions that are very important; read through posts by members almarg and atmasphere to understand some of them. If I were starting from scratch, I would work upstream, then. There are interactions between amp and pre-amp that are also critical to getting a wide, smooth frequency response based on their input and output impedance. With respect to pre-amp, if you will have more than one source, then source switching is of course necessary. If you will have only one source (for example from a digital to analog converter (DAC) or multiple digital sources through a multi-input DAC, then you can use a simple passive volume control or passive pre-amp. An excellent passive is MUCH less expensive than an excellent active pre-amp.  However, with passives, componenet matching is critical, so read up on that, if it’s an option. IMO, if you are going primarily or exclusively digital, you’re in a good position right now to maximize your investment. High quality high resolution DACs right now can be had very inexpensively, and can be driven from digital files ripped to a computer.

If you are going analog, then that is an area that requires, IMO, more direct guidance. Give us some more information in the areas noted by the posters above (room size, musical preferences, approx. budget) and we can start to get more specific.

Finally, a very good way to get started is to go to one of the shows that are out there; Rocky Mtn Audiofest, Capitol, THE, Newport, etc. Take a tour around to get some idea of what impressed you, then go back to those rooms and ask questions.
As a start, I found "The Complete Guide To High End Audio" Fifth Edition by Robert Harley very helpful as an overall guide to your questions. It is available as an iBook on iTunes. I refer to it from time to time.

It has a section devoted to cost allocations which is very useful.

The book has been the best investment I've made in Hi-Fi to date.

I favor the notion of selecting the speakers first, because they truly limit what your system can do, there is great variation in their sonic portrayal and you need a speaker that works for you - - and the speaker/room interaction is critical to success.  It is really good to get really good at dialing speakers in to their optimal location within a room, so you will want to study and practice up on that.  Jim Smith has built a fine business based upon his experience and skill at just this.

I fully agree with Swampwalker:  once you select the right speakers for you and your room, then the speaker/amp interaction is the next thing to get right.  Matching the load of the speaker to the drive capability of the amp is key, and then you also need an amp that matches the sonic palette the way you like.

And, yes, I also think the preamp is "the heart of the system".  And who can argue that if the source cannot deliver it, nothing downstream can make up for that, so....

Oh, and I have allocated ~25% on the cables in my system; certainly not by plan, but by happenstance from comparing various options in my system and finding that they often make as much of a difference as a solid component upgrade.  I would never have predicted to end up in that circumstance, but I am happy that I did, given the results.

In the end, everything matters - - but I do think starting with the speakers in the room makes the best sense (certainly has for me).