Digital only stereo related, cost question

[Peter Bomberg]

For those of you who's main system is 2 channel and digital only (streaming and local flac files)  have more than 50K of gear what % of your budget went where?

 

I am curious if your cost is 50% speakers and 40% electronics + 10% cables or ??? mine looks lobsided with 70% main speakers and subs, 20% electronics and 10% cables.

[dericchan1]

Went through the math last year after I compiled my main system.

Room acoustics - 23.5% (including audiolense, measurement mic…)

cabling - power cords, interconnects...... 2.5%

Power related - dedicated line 20A, power conditioning /surge protectors ...... 5.5%

Speakers and subs - 40%

Gear - DAC, preamp, power amp - 25% (Thanks to Hqplayer, spent $0 on streamer for qobuz)

Tweaks - tubes, USB isolation ...... - 3.5%

[jcbenten]

My system is nowhere near $50K...but if I am building one for that budget:

 

80% Active Speakers

15% Analog TT system (TT + preamp, etc)

5% Streamer/Cables/etc...

 

KISS system...

[Newton John]

Entirely by coincidence yesterday, I happened to hear a passive system costing nearly £130,000.

 

The split was electronics 86%, loudspeakers 13% and cables 1%.

 

It sounded absolutely superb.

[botrytis]

 

Just saying - no right or wrong here - the result to the owner is the big key.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

Just saying - no right or wrong here - the result to the owner is the big key.

Yes!

 

We all have read about these percentages, and what they "should" be, and we all have our own experience with them. The more systems I hear and own, the more I learn that for myself, the percentages are meaningless. They also get thrown out of whack when components are upgraded at different times. 

 

I remember a system I had in middle school. $32/ea. Kenwood speakers and Technics receiver and CD player. Huge distortion at high volumes. A cousin told me I needed better speakers (a greater percentage spent on speakers). In the long run, I was able to test a different, much more powerful and better designed, receiver from Yamaha. It made those inexpensive Kenwood speakers sing! Pushed them hard and made the room smell like the MDF of which they were made :~)

[botrytis]

9 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Yes!

 

We all have read about these percentages, and what they "should" be, and we all have our own experience with them. The more systems I hear and own, the more I learn that for myself, the percentages are meaningless. They also get thrown out of whack when components are upgraded at different times. 

 

I remember a system I had in middle school. $32/ea. Kenwood speakers and Technics receiver and CD player. Huge distortion at high volumes. A cousin told me I needed better speakers (a greater percentage spent on speakers). In the long run, I was able to test a different, much more powerful and better designed, receiver from Yamaha. It made those inexpensive Kenwood speakers sing! Pushed them hard and made the room smell like the MDF of which they were made :~)

 

More than likely chip board but same adhesive. :D In the 70's, most speakers where chip board.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 minutes ago, botrytis said:

 

More than likely chip board but same adhesive. :D In the 70's, most speakers where chip board.

Could be!

 

This was 1990.

[MarcelNL]

In the groovy 70-ies Philips was only dreaming about Compact Disc

[botrytis]

The cheaper speakers in 1990 were still chip board - depending on where the speakers were from.

[The Computer Audiophile]

6 minutes ago, botrytis said:

The cheaper speakers in 1990 were still chip board - depending on where the speakers were from.

A long gone consumer electronics store. I’m sure chip board was holding these together :~)

[PeterG]

On 1/16/2024 at 8:46 AM, jcbenten said:

My system is nowhere near $50K...but if I as building one for that budget:

 

80% Active Speakers

15% Analog TT system (TT + preamp, etc)

5% Streamer/Cables/etc...

 

KISS system...

 

I did not realize you could spend $40K on active speakers.  The most expensive I've seen are the B&Ws for about $5K.  Maybe B&O for $10-20K?  But with B&O you are paying a hefty premium for design, so I would not call those audiophile.  Please advise

[DuckToller]

On 1/16/2024 at 2:46 PM, jcbenten said:

KISS system...

Thats how Lady Gloria likes it ;-)

[The Computer Audiophile]

4 minutes ago, PeterG said:

I did not realize you could spend $40K on active speakers.

Here's a pair for $73k

 

https://tmraudio.com/brand-partner/atc-scm300aslt-floorstanding-active-speakers-pair/

[Kal Rubinson]

1 hour ago, PeterG said:

I did not realize you could spend $40K on active speakers.  The most expensive I've seen are the B&Ws for about $5K.  Maybe B&O for $10-20K?  But with B&O you are paying a hefty premium for design, so I would not call those audiophile.  Please advise

I would not call these $90K B&Os "audiophile" either.  They do not succumb to audiophile foibles but are based on solid engineering and acoustical science.  https://www.stereophile.com/content/bang-olufsen-beolab-90-loudspeaker

 

[botrytis]

15 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I would not call these $90K B&Os "audiophile" either.  They do not succumb to audiophile foibles but are based on solid engineering and acoustical science.  https://www.stereophile.com/content/bang-olufsen-beolab-90-loudspeaker

 

They honestly have a great sound. 

[jcbenten]

2 hours ago, PeterG said:

 

I did not realize you could spend $40K on active speakers.  The most expensive I've seen are the B&Ws for about $5K.  Maybe B&O for $10-20K?  But with B&O you are paying a hefty premium for design, so I would not call those audiophile.  Please advise

One blurb, 12 of the world's most expensive loudspeakers | What Hi-Fi? (whathifi.com), had these up to $16,000,000 ....CAT – CALIFORNIA AUDIO TECHNOLOGY (calaudiotech.com)

 

[PeterG]

14 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I would not call these $90K B&Os "audiophile" either.  They do not succumb to audiophile foibles but are based on solid engineering and acoustical science.  https://www.stereophile.com/content/bang-olufsen-beolab-90-loudspeaker

 

 

They are gorgeous!  And I would not be at all surprised if they sound great.  When I use the term audiophile, I mean a person who is primarily interested in great sound.  But I do not mean to be classist about it--I think audiophile systems are available for just a few thousand dollars from NAD, Schiit, B&W, used gear, etc; and there are certainly expensive systems that sound meh

 

On the B&O's--if you're telling me that they perform at about the same level as Wilsons or Magicos that I might drop $80-100K on, then I stand corrected, and acknowledge them as audiophile. 

 

But if you're telling me they sound only as good as, say, Wilson Sashas that I might buy for $50K, and the other $40K is for their style,  I would say they sound amazing, but that's not really an audiophile product as much as it is a lifestyle product.

 

 

[PeterG]

4 minutes ago, jcbenten said:

One blurb, 12 of the world's most expensive loudspeakers | What Hi-Fi? (whathifi.com), had these up to $16,000,000 ....CAT – CALIFORNIA AUDIO TECHNOLOGY (calaudiotech.com)

 

 

I assume the ATCs that Chris cited are great, based on having heard other ATCs and their excellent reputation, and I'll go either way on the B&Os depending on the answer to my question above.

 

But it's hard to know from the CAT website whether these guys are audiophile or just really high service/price.  I do like that they will travel to my yacht or plane 

 

 

[Kal Rubinson]

6 minutes ago, PeterG said:

On the B&O's--if you're telling me that they perform at about the same level as Wilsons or Magicos that I might drop $80-100K on, then I stand corrected, and acknowledge them as audiophile. 

I cannot argue directly with that point because I have heard the Wilsons and Magicos only at dealers and shows and I have heard the B&Os only at B&O and in my own home.  That said, I definitely preferred the B&Os and, if I were considering a purchase at that level, I would certainly gravitate towards them.

 

[PeterG]

2 minutes ago, Kal Rubinson said:

I cannot argue directly with that point because I have heard the Wilsons and Magicos only at dealers and shows and I have heard the B&Os only at B&O and in my own home.  That said, I definitely preferred the B&Os and, if I were considering a purchase at that level, I would certainly gravitate towards them.

 

 

That's good enough for me!  Definitely an audiophile product.  Thanks

[jcbenten]

3 minutes ago, PeterG said:

 

I assume the ATCs that Chris cited are great, based on having heard other ATCs and their excellent reputation, and I'll go either way on the B&Os depending on the answer to my question above.

 

But it's hard to know from the CAT website whether these guys are audiophile or just really high service/price.  I do like that they will travel to my yacht or plane 

 

 

Years ago I went to a Home & Garden show and one of the vendors had a pair of large bookshelf speakers by CAT...looked like PA speakers.  They were not playing so have no idea of their sound.  Looked them up and that speaker went for $20K...I stopped looking.

 

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Formulas for how to split your money between HiFi components, and the related concept of how much to spend in absolute terms, are fraught with problems, scientifically speaking.

 

As a science fanboy I realize that like so many other areas, theories and hypotheses abound but definitive (scientific) conclusions do not follow - instead replaced with belief systems based on many factors.

 

On what components you spend your money will be strongly influenced by those belief systems - and your tendency to find confirmation in the evidence you seek and opinions proffered

[Audiophile Neuroscience]

Just now, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

Formulas for how to split your money between HiFi components, and the related concept of how much to spend in absolute terms, are fraught with problems, scientifically speaking.

 

As a science fanboy I realize that like so many other areas, theories and hypotheses abound but definitive (scientific) conclusions do not follow - instead replaced with belief systems based on many factors.

 

On what components you spend your money will be strongly influenced by those belief systems - and your tendency to find confirmation in the evidence you seek and opinions proffered

 

I am aware that, if there is a 'classic' popular wisdom, your formula in the OP is about right - "buy the best speakers you can as they influence the sound the most" and so tilt your budget accordingly.

 

FWIW, even for someone where whatever belief system remains constant, the split of how the money is divided between components will change per system and over time.

 

As an impression rather than a generalization , at a certain level of speaker excellence it will be the electronics that needs attention to remove last remnants of a signature sound ie  if overall neutrality is the goal as opposed to compensating one coloration for another

 

My experience, FWIW, is that once you get into many or most very expensive speakers, better electronics just continue to make them sound better.

 

 

[semente]

Digital Source - 28% (wi-fi extender, switch, computer, software, DAS, endpoint, DAC)

Amplification - 11% (bespoke transistor integrated)

Speakers - 60% (3-way floorstanders)

Cables - 1% (digital, analogue)

Total - $8,550

[GregWormald]

On 1/19/2024 at 7:14 AM, PeterG said:

I did not realize you could spend $40K on active speakers.  The most expensive I've seen are the B&Ws for about $5K.  Maybe B&O for $10-20K?  But with B&O you are paying a hefty premium for design, so I would not call those audiophile.  Please advise

I'd be really surprised if there wasn't a good selection of active speaker systems above $40K.

 

The current retail on my SGR MT3.3 actives is $110K here in Australia. (They haven't yet made the web site which still shows the previous 3.2 model.)