What is proper ratio of money spent on amp/preamp/integrated vs speakers? 1:1?

Salk's Song3 Encores will be available to hear for a $10 admission fee
in Scottsdale Arizona Saturday June 29th 9am-4pm along with 
Spatial, Tekton, LSA, ZU, Sanders, MarkAudio-SOTA, Joseph Audio.

Really not the right way to look at it IMHO. It depends on a lot of things. I do suggest you think about your room if you haven’t already. It will make it much more speaker and tweak friendly.


I do think however maybe the real problem is that you see these all as upgrades. Sometimes it is just rock/paper / scissors with your own wallet.


What is the point? I mean, do you have an agenda, a point to get to, or are you just changing things every few months, and enjoying the excitement of the new and different?


Have you considered building something yourself for fun? :)


Best,

E

My golden ratio is

3 for speakers

1 for amplifiers (int or pre power combo)

1 for front end(digital player, or turntable)

1 for cables(IC, speakers and power) and power conditioner.

Thomas

@elizabeth your experience may differ but mine tells me that the difference between a NAD integrated and a Naim Pre/Power combo is vanishingly small once you get over the 'obvious' idea that the Naim must be superior.

Strangely enough after this upgrade the urge dissatisfaction returns and you soon forget how much better the Naim was than the NAD - and so you climb aboard the upgrade roundabout and keep improving your amps. 

Finally, years later out of curiosity you dig out your NAD integrated and compare it to your new ££££ Naim six pack/twelve box combo and your jaw drops and it's not funny.

At the last show I went to some manufacturers were driving £10k+ speakers off MacBooks and iPhones via Wi-Fi. Have a look for yourself the next time you go.

As for the Magico's, as long they have enough power to feed them without clipping I don't think they particularly care about the cost of the amplifier. The Magico's cost is not related to the cost of the amplification required to drive them. Not in any engineering way at any rate. How could it be?

Sure you can spend more on amps if you want, that's your choice - just don't kid yourself you're getting significantly better sound just because everyone says so and every dealer implies it.

One day I intend to explore the world of Valve amplification myself - some certainly sound different from transistors (less earthbound to my ears) and I can hear it. 

How much for this? how much for that” where should the bulk of the dough be spent?

one of the more ambiguous yet fundamentally inconsequential questions that seep thru the audio past time, which has very little to do with its mechanics, yet everything to do with its philosophical meanderings.

obviously the most money should be spent in generating and keeping the best signal possible, and then maintaining its integrity thru the system ‘till it meets the speakers.

… but then that is another thread for another time.

Untill someone shows me that enormously expemnsive speakers make up for paltry sources, and amps, I will rail against the notion most of the system budget needs be placed at the signal cul de sac we refer to as speakers..

therere is a line in any application or endeavor that says ‘beyond here performance will cost exponentially more’ per increment.

IMHO the best approach is to begin anywhere, and then try to improve on what is in play.

which item gets the most attention ($$$) is up to the ower.

true too, just where that road ends is up to the one that pays the cost to be the boss.

for a rule of thumb which carries no weight what so ever, take what ever amount, and divide it into thirds… quarters if you feel wires and accessories are important, and spend accordingly on source, amp, speaker and possibly cables, racks, etc.

… once all is run in,or one is significantly bored, begin hiking the upgrade trail.

when its all done,(hahahahah), look back at the accounting and see where you ended up spending how much on what?

there’s your answer.