Relative component value to overall SQ.

Now, if the system budget were increased to $20,000, one could then consider a pair of Magnepan MG3.7i driven by a Sanders Magtech amp. In that case, the percentage spent on speakers would be about the same as on the ET's in the $10,000 system. Just a coincidence!

Comparing women with stereo systems is telling. What do you want women to compare you with ? Summon your imagination, this might make you think.

@inna, I didn’t consider it necessary to include the "wink" emoji ;-) in that apparently-too-subtle joke. I guess I was mistaken!

@N80, I believe that the helpfulness of the responses you receive may benefit from some clarification of the question.

I and I believe some of the others who responded earlier in the thread interpreted your asking about "relative component value to overall SQ," and "where to start and where to put initial emphasis," to have essentially no relation to how funds should be allocated. I interpreted the question as involving the relative importance of the various contributors to the overall resulting SQ. In other words, my interpretation was that you were looking for a general rule of thumb guideline as to the degree to which each contributor should be focused on, in building a system.

Yet some others seem to have interpreted the question as relating to how a given amount of funds should be allocated among the various contributors. Which is a very different question, assuming (as I most certainly do) that in audio the correlation between price and results is far less than perfect. And that interpretation appears to have been reinforced by your post today at 2:01 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

For example, my attribution of 25% to "room optimization" certainly does not mean that 25% of whatever funds may be available should be allocated for that purpose, even as a rough rule of thumb guideline.

So further clarification of the question would seem to be in order.

Regards,
-- Al