% Spend on Hi-Fi components

Christopher_M posted:

^^ Allante, What are the benefits of tri-amping when compared with using a single NAP250?

Sorry for diversion.

Chris

See what you started Chris!

But I think you Lads, got it!

I'm upgrading to Active Dusty Briks! 

The Briks are unique, as they allow you to Bi-Amp, then Tri-Amp, on the Path to Active Briks!

Back to the OPs Thread!

Allante93!

Allante93 posted:

Christopher_M posted:

^^ Allante, What are the benefits of tri-amping when compared with using a single NAP250?

Sorry for diversion.

Chris

See what you started Chris!

But I think you Lads, got it!

I'm upgrading to Active Dusty Briks! 

The Briks are unique, as they allow you to Bi-Amp, then Tri-Amp, on the Path to Active Briks!

Back to the OPs Thread!

Allante93!

You've not answered my question about your bare CDX2 into a heavily amped set!

lyndon posted:

Convention wisdom was always source first, so something like

source 40%

amp 30%

speakers 20%

cables etc 10%

as you move higher up the ladder this kind of goes out the window a little bit as anyone using a full statement amp at  approx £180,000 would imply a £240,000 turntable or cd playet

lyndon

 

Outdated thinking. The cost per unit of quality in digital source has plummeted and will eventually reach "perfection for nothing". 

Kevin Richardson posted:

lyndon posted:

Convention wisdom was always source first, so something like

source 40%

amp 30%

speakers 20%

cables etc 10%

as you move higher up the ladder this kind of goes out the window a little bit as anyone using a full statement amp at  approx £180,000 would imply a £240,000 turntable or cd playet

lyndon

 

Outdated thinking. The cost per unit of quality in digital source has plummeted and will eventually reach "perfection for nothing". 

If the fabled Statement Streamer ever appears, you may have to eat your words!

I am currently "upgrading" my source bit by bit, (pardon the pun), by getting replacement HR downloads in 24/96 or 24/192 for older CD rips of my NAS stored albums. The difference can be stunning. It's true that sometimes the HR download is a bit of a disappointment, but mostly it's a step forward. Definitely it's a cheap upgrade to your source. Modern recordings done even in 24/48, like Marc Ford or Neil Cowley Trio are also heaps better than the CD rips. If I look at my current spend, at around $25 AUD per album, and now having around 300 HD downloads my system spend is neatly $25,000 AUD:-

HR Downloads                $7500     30%  There's a lot of Mahler in that from Linn   

Source NAS + 1/2 NAC N172      $3000     12%  I go with HH's idea that 1/2 of the streamer/preamp is source

Amp 1/2 NAC N172 + NAP200   $6000      24%

Speakers S400's         $8000      32%

Cable Std SNAIC & NAC5          $  500        2%

Yes the S400's would do better with more. I'm about to start mucking around with the NAS, software, switches, Ethernet architecture and interconnect cables. And the plan is to progressively add a 272/XPS/250 so as to turn my mullet hifi into a marvelous music machine. It's pretty good right now, but not jaw dropping. So my % spend will change. No intention to change the dollars spent on the speakers at this stage.  If I went with a turntable, would probably go nuts with the best spec LP12 I could afford.

Timmo1341 posted:

I'm now totally confused - haven't understood a word of the last half a dozen posts!!

Well if I were running multiple power amps into passive filters, I would call that bi-amping or tri-amping. Running multiple amps downstream of an active crossover is going active. I had dreamed of an active system again, I've been through five so far, but coming to the view that a superior power amp passive is better that inferior power amps active. But there is something about good active that still calls me. Your % spend on amplification  goes batshit crazy though!

ChrisSU posted:

Kevin Richardson posted:

lyndon posted:

Convention wisdom was always source first, so something like

source 40%

amp 30%

speakers 20%

cables etc 10%

as you move higher up the ladder this kind of goes out the window a little bit as anyone using a full statement amp at  approx £180,000 would imply a £240,000 turntable or cd playet

lyndon

 

Outdated thinking. The cost per unit of quality in digital source has plummeted and will eventually reach "perfection for nothing". 

If the fabled Statement Streamer ever appears, you may have to eat your words!

I highly doubt any streamer is going approach 240K£. What is the world market for such a device? 10?

I think of the kit more as buiding blocks these days. 272:250DR:S400 (& XPSDR) all about equally priced.

Which is nice.

G

Back in the late 70s / early 80s when I got my first Naim system, the LP12 with Ekos must have cost about £2,000. My Naim amps cost about £1,000 and my Kans and stands £300. So the source was over half. Cables cost about £5 a metre for NacA4. 

These days, with a streaming preamp it's harder to decide on what's what. So simply, the 272/XPSDR/250DR costs about £11,000 including the FM tuner module. The speakers cost £2,000 but would be £8,000 or so if made today. In theory the speakers are perhaps too good for the electronics and perhaps the system is something of a mullet, but   it works jolly well in practice. 

Ascribing percentages seems something of a pointlessly geeky exercise to me - what matters is what works. It's been interesting to note the rise of the speaker over recent years. While I'll admit to potential mulletisation I'm unconvinced by the idea of running the type of speakers that some are running off a 250. I tried nSats with a 552/300 once and it really shows what a good amp and small speakers can do. If I hadn't got my SL2s I'd probably get something like the new ProAc Tablette, which look rather wonderful. 

Relative prices between components have changed a lot because of both market forces and production technology.

To illustrate, in the 80's we would take the UK pound retail price inc VAT of a Naim product, (or Linn, B&W etc) and quadruple it to get a rough AUD price. So a NAP250 Chrome bumper circa 1985 was I recall 1400 pounds, (if someone knows the actual feel free), and the Australian price was $5995. Now a NAP 250 DR is 3680 pounds and $8000 AUD. What's changed is both taxation, (VAT gone up, sales tax in Aus gone, GST replacement is lower), more efficient import and distribution, (in both countries), and Naim have gotten much more efficient at making those little black boxes. Relative to the 80's the current amp is a lot cheaper in real terms. And light years better. I believe my NAP200 slays an old Chrome bumper 250, even one that's been recapped. As for a CB 250 against a 250DR, I haven't heard but I imagine it's greater again. You pay less and get much more.

Same things apply with speakers, but the performance yield for manufacture is not as great. Driver tech continues to improve, but boxes haven't become down in real terms as much as electronics.

And as discussed earlier, turntables are mechanical, and because of vastly decreased production, probably as expensive if not more so than before, in real terms. And then there's streamers, which is a leapfrog technology. An NDS with 555 is around 14,000 pounds/$30,000AUD. Not a figure to be sneezed at but a top turntable with an esoteric cartridge and phono stage will make that look modest.

Which makes the old rules, (which were never actually that fixed anyway), a bit daft.

Rather than being indicative of anything to do with the system, spend on the music itself is more a function of an individual's range and extent of musical taste, length of time collecting, preference now for owning or online streaming, and predilection for collecting per se. As for higher resolution copies, that depends on whether they are available and whether indeed they sound better, the latter by no means inevitably the case.  Therefore whilst seeing the amount spent on music might be interesting, it doesn't seem to me to fit as part of consideration of proportion of spend on parts of a hifi system.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Back in the late 70s / early 80s when I got my first Naim system, the LP12 with Ekos must have cost about £2,000. My Naim amps cost about £1,000 and my Kans and stands £300. So the source was over half. Cables cost about £5 a metre for NacA4. 

These days, with a streaming preamp it's harder to decide on what's what. So simply, the 272/XPSDR/250DR costs about £11,000 including the FM tuner module. The speakers cost £2,000 but would be £8,000 or so if made today. In theory the speakers are perhaps too good for the electronics and perhaps the system is something of a mullet, but   it works jolly well in practice. 

Ascribing percentages seems something of a pointlessly geeky exercise to me - what matters is what works. It's been interesting to note the rise of the speaker over recent years. While I'll admit to potential mulletisation I'm unconvinced by the idea of running the type of speakers that some are running off a 250. I tried nSats with a 552/300 once and it really shows what a good amp and small speakers can do. If I hadn't got my SL2s I'd probably get something like the new ProAc Tablette, which look rather wonderful. 

Provided whatever amp is being used is capable of adequate control and, more importantly, they sound good, I don't understand why you should be unconvinced. My ProAcs, which I presume are amongst those speakers to which you refer, sound exquisite being driven by the 250. I confess to finding all the talk of 'mullet' systems rather patronising. As those who've read my earlier posts, I was fully prepared to buy the 300DR until hearing it in my lounge. In my case cheaper certainly equated to better. 

I'm not sure why you find talk of mullets patronising - it's simply an accepted term for systems that are short at the front and long at the back, which a 272 and £13,000 speakers certainly is. It's not how I would spend my money, but it's academic because I have neither the wallet nor the room to accommodate such speakers. But mullets are becoming more fashionable, with 272s fronting Sopra 3s as another example. If I had £17,000 of hard cash to spend on a power amp and some speakers, I'd be looking at a 300DR and something like a Kudos S20. With the £6,000 spare I'd get a pair of SL din to XLRs and some SL speaker cables. Well actually I wouldn't get the S20, I'd keep the SL2s, but I'm using new speakers as a comparator. 

For anyone to whom bass is an important part of music, removal or curtailment of the bass in the interest of presenting some other part of the spectrum better may simply reduce enjoyment of much of the music they like. For such people, having speakers that can 'do' decent bass can be very important, as much as or maybe even more so than any other part of the system. Others who don't appreciate the bass, or who simply don't like it, obviously won't understand (and are lucky in that their speakers can be cheaper and smaller!). Because it is getting the bass to perform well that tends to contribute much towards the cost (and to some extent size) of speakers, the desire for decent bass tends to dictate a mullet system, at least until or unless one has the resources to bring other things up to a similar level. 

For me, being such a person, from the mid 1970s the equivalent value of my speakers (which have changed twice in that time) has always been by far the most significant component - and never a regret along the way. I'd be more likely to find a system I'd enjoy by running a Mojo into speakers worth £8.5k than Dave into £400 speakers. Long live mullets!

Okay I'm probably alone here - the biggest misconception is that you can configure hi-fi system based on a mantra of source first or speaker first.  The key is synergy through the chain all the way to room/speaker integration.

I went to an Iron Maiden concert about 18 months ago and the amount of mullets on parade was impressive, ( unlike Iron Maiden). 

Many years ago when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, Mr Tiefenbrun, standing in my sho stated that tri amped active Isobariks driven with a Rega RP3 would sound worse than an LP12/Ittok/Asak driving a Nad 3020 and small bookshelves.

So being a card carrying flat earther, we set it up. In my lounge. Every time I swapped things around, conclusion was the same. The mullet won out.

Still, I would rather have a great little one, than a great big one.

perhaps my music muscles are not relaxed enough to enjoy or accommodate.   

Timmo1341 posted:

In a moment of reflection on this year's upgrade, I've been playing around with the figures which reveal:

Source (N272 + 555PS)        34%

Amp (250DR).                        12%

Speakers (ProAc K6).             40%

Cables, rack etc.                     14%

 

What do others think?

Tim

I think you have achieved your  goals, nice Balanced System, No Forum members would debate that.

Now, the second goal, interesting it is!

The hidden agenda lies within your Support & Cabling.

That's what makes this thread interesting, it goes against conventional wisdom.

Conventional wisdom suggest 10% on Cabling alone. You're at 14%.

I take it you're not sporting Naim's Support System, or Naim's $1.5K SL IC, which you could get away with your 272!

If you were, that 14% would increase drastically!

Times are changing, back in the day, 3% on Cabling Alone was fine. Heck, way back in the Spring of 2015, 10% may have been over the top!

NDS>552>500>SL2>Fraim

STANDARD NAIM IC & NAC A5

But if one partakes in these Luxe Interconnects, and Speaker Cabling, you can throw conventional wisdom out the window.

"Ascribing percentages seems something of a pointlessly geeky exercise to me - what matters is what works."

The percentages are within line:

S1& 552 territory, but 272!

So, the OP is speaking to a large Audience, who have chosen to Drink the Kool Aid.

Including myself, After I Activate my Dusty Briks!

The weakest Link, The IC!

@ HH, thanks for the info. Naim's Speakers can't be Bi- Amped Passively, like My Briks!

Richard followed your lead, after my misleading comment praising the Active Club!

Allante93!

And what about us baldies that take these references to haircuts personally.     Big beard with a bald head is only acceptable if your an eccentric.   A moustache with bald head is insane. About the only look en vogue is with big glasses and big shirt collars.

although the hairs that seem to be proliferating from within my ears, does that count ?

Hungryhalibut posted:

I'm not sure why you find talk of mullets patronising - it's simply an accepted term for systems that are short at the front and long at the back, which a 272 and £13,000 speakers certainly is. It's not how I would spend my money, but it's academic because I have neither the wallet nor the room to accommodate such speakers. But mullets are becoming more fashionable, with 272s fronting Sopra 3s as another example. If I had £17,000 of hard cash to spend on a power amp and some speakers, I'd be looking at a 300DR and something like a Kudos S20. With the £6,000 spare I'd get a pair of SL din to XLRs and some SL speaker cables. Well actually I wouldn't get the S20, I'd keep the SL2s, but I'm using new speakers as a comparator. 

I love my so-called mullet system and the best part is my front end is temporary and my whole system was cashed out so no loans owed for this mullet

Hungryhalibut posted:

I'm not sure why you find talk of mullets patronising - it's simply an accepted term for systems that are short at the front and long at the back, which a 272 and £13,000 speakers certainly is. It's not how I would spend my money, but it's academic because I have neither the wallet nor the room to accommodate such speakers. But mullets are becoming more fashionable, with 272s fronting Sopra 3s as another example. If I had £17,000 of hard cash to spend on a power amp and some speakers, I'd be looking at a 300DR and something like a Kudos S20. With the £6,000 spare I'd get a pair of SL din to XLRs and some SL speaker cables. Well actually I wouldn't get the S20, I'd keep the SL2s, but I'm using new speakers as a comparator. 

If I had £17K to spend on a power amp and speakers I'd buy a configuration that best suited my room and get cabling to match afterwards.  In the right room Sopra 3s and a 250DR might well be just fine.

A new topic " what %s of your hifi  are on credit or cash?"

We already got the data from Malaka..

Spill out! 

Emre posted:

A new topic " what %s of your hifi  are on credit or cash?"

Having a hifi on credit is like rocking the bald and moustache look.

Emre posted:

A new topic " what %s of your hifi  are on credit or cash?"

We already got the data from Malaka..

Spill out! 

that's a real question to ask Emre,

I really thought about this, it would be too difficult to work it out! In 1986 my Pink Triangle was £300 second hand, how much would it cost today? Upgrades done to it over the past 8 years or so? How do i quantify it?  Quite easy if you purchase your system in one go. 

In 1986 my take home pay was about £60/week!