Ratio of SOURCE:AMPS:SPEAKER?

7:11:3

But what are you trying to prove with this?

I assume you're looking at monetary value? Skewed in my case as I've bought a mix of s/h and new, and I have two different sources. I own an integrated with a built-in phono stage. Difficult for me to delineate discrete values into source: amp: speaker bins. Plus, if you haven't spent for proper racking in the first place, all else is questionable. Racking and cabling ought to be worthy considerations of a quality system.

And how do you work it out for Uniti items? I have an office system with a UQ2 into speakers that cost 10% the cost of the UQ2. But does a Unit become 1:1 ratio on source and amp or what?

The forum advice can not replace the wisdom of a good dealer

If looking at an entry level system, then spending a budget ratio of 20% each on speakers, source, amp, rack, and cables is a sensible guideline. If you're deep into high end gear, the same ratio loses VFM.

Typical of this forum that the first responses start to nitpick …

The OP is trying to get a "feel" of the main components ratios of members; yes this may be a little simplistic, yes there are lots of other parts of a system that make the whole (some of them unquantifiable) … but give the OP a chance … and it would be interesting to lots of the rest of us too !

Obviously the unit for the ratio is monetary … what else is there …

My approx ratio  for source/amp/speakers is 3:3:4

... or more accurately - 29:28:41

For those of you interested in the rack and cables of systems,

my ratio for source/amp/speakers/rack/cables is 3:2:4:1:0

or more accurately is 25:24:37:10:4

so make of that what you will … but I enjoy it

Allan

Allan Milne posted:

 

Typical of this forum that the first responses start to nitpick …

Hmmm not sure I see any nitpicking until now. Just request for clarification.

I like to keep things simple, so I just have 1 source, 1 amp and 2 speakers. 

Using Allan’s criteria:

24 : 22 : 40 : 0 : 14

I personally would put less emphasis (expense) on speakers and more on source and pre. In a previous thread I mentioned garbage in, garbage out. So, source and pre, 70% split roughly equally. Power and speakers would share the rest. Of course these figures are arbitrary. You need a good dealer, present them with your budget and thoughts, seek their advice, set up an audition. The audition will prove where the bulk of the money needs to be spent. Believe your and your partners ears, I've found a second pair of ears, my wife's, to be invaluable, although take note of any points and observations that the dealer makes. Rich 

3:4 (in used prices)

Unitiqute into a pair of neat elite. Who needs a source anyway

analogmusic posted:

The forum advice can not replace the wisdom of a good dealer

I’m not sure the OP is looking for advice, rather a survey to see what others do.

Rich 1 posted:

I personally would put less emphasis (expense) on speakers and more on source and pre. In a previous thread I mentioned garbage in, garbage out. So, source and pre, 70% split roughly equally. Power and speakers would share the rest. Of course these figures are arbitrary. You need a good dealer, present them with your budget and thoughts, seek their advice, set up an audition. The audition will prove where the bulk of the money needs to be spent. Believe your and your partners ears, I've found a second pair of ears, my wife's, to be invaluable, although take note of any points and observations that the dealer makes. Rich 

And in another thread the counter atgument has been presented...!

However, you are right in that anyone choosing a system needs to hear the options, especially when starting out - though that also needs to take into account any future goal if relevant, and preferences regarding upgrade step size.

It rather depends on what the price of a new pair of NBLs would be 14 years after they stopped making them. Assuming they'd have doubled in price in that time and including phonostage with the source. 5:8:3, if using actual spend 5:10:1.

I accept your point Innocent, acceptable digital Nas sources could be around £2-300 + da converter either separately or built in to amplification. If you go cd or analogue route that could be considerably more. A quick bit of maths on my own system, around £12000 over 2 years completing Feb 2018.

Core + NAC-N272 £5000, 41.6 %

NAP250 DR £3700, 30.8%

PMC 20 24 £3300, 27. 5%

After a number of auditions, even if I'd not changed my old power amp I would have still wanted the 272 at least, the Core is the icing on the cake. Rich 

Deleting and reposting my original with amendments, primarily using percentages for easier comparison.

As a monetary ratio, it depends on whether items are assessed i) as purchased, ii) as purchased but normalised for inflation between years if bought at different times, iii) new value at time of buying if bought secondhand, iv) as iii) normalised as ii), or v) current new value of same product or manufacturer’s nearest equivalent if no longer in production. I assume iv) or v) as these give the most meaningful proportion of value to someone looking at systems.

I have just the one source. In the figures I have taken the source in its entirety as DAC plus renderer/music store. All ratios are source:amp:speakers, of course only approximate, but note there is no preamp as my Dave DAC has no need. Make of it what you will!

Base system:

43% : 21% : 36%  estimated as normalised new values when bought (iv),

32% : 18% : 50%  estimated as current model equivalent values (v).

55% : 17% : 28%  estimated as normalised actual purchase costs (ii).

For info my system before I changed the DAC to Dave, with which I would have happily lived indefinitely had I not unexpectedly had the funds to change:

18% : 29% : 53% estimated as normalised new values when bought (iv),

12% : 23% : 65% estimated as current model equivalent values (v).

29% : 27% : 44% estimated as normalised actual purchase costs (ii).

And my current tri-amping trial (including active XO cost with speaker cost):

31% : 31% : 28%  estimated as normalised new values when bought (iv),

26% : 32% : 42%  estimated as current model equivalent values (v).

47% : 21% : 32%  estimated as normalised actual purchase costs (ii).

My current ratios are:

Source 25%

Amps 43%

Speakers 32%

When I replace the NDS with a ND555 it will become 30:40:30

I’ve used latest prices, and allocated supports, and cables to the most appropriate components.

Dave. 

Roughly 2:2:1 normalised. I have two sources so could also be 2.5:2:1.

my personal philosophy would probably go 3:2:1. Which means I must now spend more on my LP12 

Stu

Source 12

Amp 55

Speakers 19

cables 23

racks 4

but this is an active system which’s lumps up the amps & cables

lyndon

It is curious as I recall my earliest interest in hifi arose from WhatHifi? magazine, which advised a 33:33:33 split.  I also read many forum members using comparatively cheap speakers with top flight sources and amplification.

I recall many moons ago buying a second hand 250.2 from a guy with a NAC552 and his speakers were £1500.

So the ratios you give do interest me. ????

40/30/10/10/5 and the remaining 5 on fairy dust

Rich 1 posted:

In a previous thread I mentioned garbage in, garbage out. 

Garbage in garbage out (i.e., source first). The banal approach that can lead to purity in (from a great source) and garbage out (from ill-fit speakers). So you build a system top-down, attempting to match all else to the source's output. Chase upgrades and wonder why the result is still lacking.

To me, speakers mated to a room are the key piece. I'd go for speakers that best match my room's acoustics then find a suitable amp to drive them. From there a balanced system source becomes a relatively easy choice. Now tweak with cables.

All assuming you've first and foremost sorted your racking.

I’m not sure how you’d choose speakers that match your room unless you already have a suitable amp to drive them; you’d have no idea how they’d sound when properly driven. 

I’m unsure what this thread actually demonstrates other than that people like calculating percentages and ratios. To me, source first as a general rule of thumb is a good principle, with balance and common sense being the most important. 

The system building scenarios that seem to cause their owners the biggest headaches are those where they have started with overspecified speakers - usually bought because they were a ‘bargain’ - coupled with woefully inadequate electronics, and they wonder why it sounds poor. When they realise how much the electronics will cost, and they they are unaffordable, the logic of balanced system building comes into play. 

These ‘source first’ and ‘speakers first’ mantras should not be followed slavishly: all that matters is that you end up with a system that works well in your room, makes music enjoyable to listen to and ideally gets you the best result for your money. 

It's also true that there are two buying scenarios that could not be more different. Buying a complete system versus changing an existing system.

I do believe in choosing speakers first on a new system, but as HH says, you have to hear them with something. It's not a perfect science and most people don't live in countries where home demo is even a thing. As speakers set the flavour of the system, it makes sense to me to go there first even if budget wise the source gets the most funds.

On an existing system, the whole "start with X" philosophy is meaningless since only one variable is being changed and it could be any component.

Choosing first is not the same as prioritising first. Source first and choosing speakers first are not mutually exclusive.

I'm still not sure what these ratios show other than there might be a few mullets out there but even that is hard to tell just by numbers. My system was 7:11:3 which looks like I've skimped on speakers. But listed as products I think is a perfectly evenly balanced system end-to-end.

hungryhalibut posted:

I’m not sure how you’d choose speakers that match your room unless you already have a suitable amp to drive them;

Well obviously. Everyone, presumably, has an existing system they're building from. In my case I had a 200-W amp, so I felt confident any speaker I considered would be sufficiently driven. I brought home more than a dozen speakers over several years before I found a pair that matched my room, and that's really what it was all about. Quizzically, these speakers were by far the most demanding of power among the batch.

While my response above was formulaic in the grand sense, it was not the exact route I took. Rather advice given with hindsight. Sharing my learning curve.