2. speakers
  3. 119417-6600

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
asamel
8 posts
 
The most important aspect is to tell your wife that the cost is no more than 50% of what it actually is.  If you can get away with 10% she's a keeper.
wolf_garcia
6,695 posts
 
I agree with most of this stuff…although too damn lazy to read all of it…but somewhat disagree with the "different musics place different demands on equipment" idea, at least when recommending system choices. All well recorded music is by its nature dynamic, including chamber music, and a good system should be able to play all of it well within its power and speaker driver limits. It’s really a matter of loudness dynamics capability, which is a given…but if somebody chooses a rig for good sound reproduction it should play everything equally well within those limits, or be selling (buying?) yourself short. Chamber music can kick ass. As far as what proportion of cash goes to what item, remember that good speakers can sound great paired with great sounding other rig parts, and vice versa. A lot of my gear is bought "previously owned" so somebody else took the depreciation risk…do that.
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,792 posts
 

"a good system should be able to play all of it (music) well within its power and speaker driver limits". Well of course---"should be" is right! And if one has enough dough, the choice between, say, maximum SPL and amount of bass, versus, for instance, inner detail, micro dynamics, and transparency may not need to be made. There are loudspeakers that DO excel in all those regards, but at what price? Unless I'm mistaken, most of us have to settle for loudspeakers which do NOT excel equally well in all parameters, therefore requiring most to prioritize in the matter of speaker capabilities.

"within its power and speaker driver limits" is a huge qualification! If one doesn't think the music of AC/DC requires a different balance of capabilities than does Chamber Music, so be it; my experience is different. I love AC/DC, but I'm sure not going to play their music on my Quad 57's!---that's what my Eminent Technology LFT-8b's are for. But I find the Quad unequalled for Chamber, Bluegrass, Singer/Songwriter---heck, all acoustic music played at moderate SPL. I listen to J.S. Bach's Concerto for Orchestra and Harpsichord (one, two, three, and four!) and similar music on them, and they allow me to keep all the harpsichords separated, to follow the delicate thread of each as they wind their way through the sound of the orchestra, around and across each other. Very difficult for some loudspeakers to do, loudspeakers which do things the Quads are incapable of doing. Things that AC/DC music requires. Horses for courses, as they say.

ebm
9,311 posts
 
My goal is to sound  as close to Carnegie Hall as possible regardless of cost within reason.

mapman's avatar
mapman
22,203 posts
 
Ebm you are not alone.  👍
More to discover