Ratio of SOURCE:AMPS:SPEAKER?

joerand posted:

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.

I’d suggest that this is actually a perfect example of source - or in this case source and amp - first. You already had the electronics sorted and then you carefully chose speakers to match your room and work with the existing electronics you were happy with. That is very probably why you are so happy with the overall system.

The other extreme - speakers first - where you decide on some speakers, very often expensive and challenging to drive - and then trawl around for electronics, is where it usually goes wrong. It’s the tail wagging the dog. 

Consciousmess posted:

 I also read many forum members using comparatively cheap speakers with top flight sources and amplification.

 

Which is precisely what you do: £40,000 of amplification into £6,000 speakers. That should tell you whether the ratio works. And it puts you in a great place should you want to try some £20,000 speakers to see if the extra cost is worthwhile. It’s a far better place than having those £20,000 speakers and a £6,000 amplifier. 

I think this whole concept is full of muddled thinking.

The cost of a good vinyl source is much higher than a comparable DAC based source. A sensible ratio will be wildly different depending the medium you choose. If you are willing to feed a DAC from a PC (say) then the optimal spend may well be  much more on the amp and speakers than the DAC.

I also happen to think that find speakers that you like is the hardest part - they need to work with your room and your (and/or your partner's) aesthetic taste as well as your ears. If money was not a huge constraint then I think it would be perfectly sensible to find some speakers that you like then identify amps that will drive it then your preferred source. If your speakers and amps work well together in your room then you should have pretty much a free hand in selecting a source.

Since I have a NAC272 which is both a 'source' and a preamp, combining the NAC272+XPS DR + Power amp, the ratio for my setup is 40% Source + amplification vs 50% speaker..

I have not included by LP12 source in the above, nor cables, or rack in this ratio... also the calculation is using the original new price I paid (without any discounted/trade-in).

I used to follow the 'source first' strategy for a long time and with my previous speakers, the ratio would have been 70:30 for the same electronics : speaker.

However got dissatisfied  with these speakers - I started to notice a bass boom that I could not get rid off no matter where I positioned them and this was starting to make me unhappy with the sound of my system - when looking for replacement speakers, I worked to find a speaker that not only sounded better but also was not too room dominant... in the end the speakers I finally got were more than I originally budgeted, however they sound really great and the system as whole is a major step up from what I had before... from the speakers I shot listed, these were one of the more demanding in terms of power requirement - but the improvements were very dramatic step forward..

With this experience, I would say that speakers should be given more consideration in terms of the funding ratio - especially when using digital sources.... Where analogue is the main source (such as with a turntable or tuner), I feel that spending more, in general gives a better sound quality...  

Hello

I am in the process of putting this together.  The order was a little dependent upon what was available at the time and the rebirth of my interest and knowledge in digital audio.

1.  Speakers, Apogee Scintillas, because I was the founder of the company $6000

2.  Krell KSA-80B, as it is one of the few amps to drive the One Ohm Beast $2995

3.  Naim CD5XS $2495

4.  DAC V1, as I use it as a volume control, no preamp $1900

5.  NAT05 FM Tuner, for background music $800

6.  ND5 or NDX, in the market for one, $3000 allocated

7.  Rack, Fraim or Symposium Foundation, in the market for used, $2500

8.  Naim cables included with the above

9.  I will probably pick up another KSA-80B when I see one

So to answer the question:  Source/amp/speakers/rack/cables:

2495+1900+800+3000(tbd)/2995/6000/2500(tbd)/cables included with component

or:  8195/2995/6000/2500/included; but this is 3 sources CD/Tuner/Streamer or in order of expected quality, Streamer/CD/FM

bailyhill

Considering the “source first” question,  my base system (using the normalised new values at time of purchase), with a ratio of 43:21:36, now appears as source first (in fact the DAC, as main source component, is approximately the same value as the speakers). But as I also pointed out, I was very happy with my system when it was 18:29:53, with same amp and speakers. The improved DAC gave quite a distinct step up, and is fantastic, but I cannot imagine that I would have been happy or content had I instead had the better DAC but with speakers having a new value of just £1250 (ratio 62:29:9). In other words whilst I have ended up source first (just) in terms of value, it has not been that along the way, but what I have had has worked well and sounded great (of coursecto my ears).

On the subject of speaker choice, nterestingly I found both of my old IMF speakers sounded good in all rooms - one in 5 rooms, the other in 4, just one odd-shaped room giving placement difficulties until assessed with REW - and it is the room not the speaker that caused that, current speakers requiring much the same position. Maybe some designs are far more room dependent than others - or maybe those rooms have been mainly sufficiently similar.

"Maybe some designs are far more room dependent than others - or maybe those rooms have been mainly sufficiently similar."

Could be that or just a matter of taste.

My experience was that treble response that was insightful, exciting and engaging in a fairly "damp" room became hard and wearing in room with lots of hard surfaces (lots of windows, hard floors, etc.).

4 : 4 : 3

I also question the purpose of this debate unless it is, as HH says, because people like calculating percentages and ratios. The source first weighting doesn’t appear to apply in the Naim family, at least not in the 500 series. Assuming ND555/555PS, NAC552, NAP500, the source is just half the cost of the amplification. What budget should this suggest for speakers, I wonder? £20-40k? That’s a scary prospect.

BTW I’m not by any means trying to argue the need for a price increase for the ND555!!

In my view, the cost of any component in a system comes down to what sounds best to you and how much you are prepared to spend... when starting off with the brand new installation, then maybe rough guidance on how to allocate funding to each component makes good useful guide, but after that as one goes through upgrading/replacing/consolidating any specific component(s), then the decision to purchase should be based on the improvement that the specific component brings - be it more expensive or less expensive than the item being replaced.... (i.e. I recall changing a CD player with model cheaper than the one I already had because it sounded better... I guess the advantage of improving technologies in the digital world..... )

But what if someone acquired Sonus Faber Aidas at £120,000?

Would they embarrass a 500 system?

For the first time in years I went to the Bristol show and there were quite a few 1-box systems used with what I thought were disproportionately expensive speakers. To my surprise they sounded pretty good.  It is posssible however that alternative combinations for the same money could have sounded better. Whilst source first is still a reliable approach, especially if you going to upgrade, some digital source components at reasonable prices have challenged this approach.

Years ago, when source first was the be all and end all, the advice seemed to be to buy an LP12 and then not to worry if you couldn't afford an amp and speakers - you would have a great base on which to build on and in the meantime you could watch your records rotating!

A nice solution if you lived in a flat with paper thin walls.

BN

Innocent Bystander posted:

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.

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).

 

 

This has turned into a Mensa test

I think some are guilty of forgetting that they are blessed with a small to medium sized room to fill with sound.

As an example HHs room looks like those Sl2s were made for it, others have much larger rooms to fill.  Large quality speakers don't come cheap and with appropriate system matching doesn't necessarily mean a monster system behind it.

Source first is about the quality of the source and the consideration that went into choosing it. Not the cost or the order you select components in.

It might happen to be that more expensive = better, but this is not always true.

Source components have really come along. To that end I think a ratio like 1:2:1 on a system from 1990 means something totally different to a system built on 2018 components.

47% : 51% : 2%

Primary source : amplification : speakers

All prices new UK retail, not what I actually paid. Racks, cables etc. not included.

45%:45%:10%

based on a mixture of new and preloved, cables (mostly standard naim) and rack (quadraspire) excluded

30/40/40 - yes I know also went over budget *L*

Actually very little idea,as numerous trades/swaps and mix of new and old skew everything, also just spent a bundle upgrading and servicing lp 12 how do those $$ fit in. Despite all the talk of source first, the largest change to the sound is usually with different speakers.

3:3:1 at the moment but hoping on 3:3:3 soon enough.