Robert Harley recommends spending 40% on the source in his latest book.
<snip>
Do you guys believe in this old adage? What percentage of your system's total cost have you actually spent on your source? For the record, I'm also in the same range as Harley.
caesar, in his book to which you make reference, does Harley define source in the same way that Mike Lavigne and I just did, or is he including the software?
Mike, I'm in complete agreement with you. And I think everyone readily recognizes the value and need for good software, be it tape, vinyl, or digital.
So I suppose it is again worth returning to the original post for an answer to one question:
caesar, in his book to which you make reference, does Harley define source in the same way that Mike Lavigne and I just did, or is he including the software?
I think both you and Mr. Lavigne are correct. The source gear is what Mr. Lavigne has put between the "software" and the preamp. (software-->source gear-->preamp).
I skimmed through the book - my first read was a speed read - and he specifically mentions it in the LP playback chapter. He defines the LP playback as anything that can recover information from the LP so that it will be available to be played back later in the chain. The story used to illustrate this is of Ivor Tieferbrun of Linn audio peddling his LP12 turntable and showing to whomever would listen that his turntable was able to extract much more than most from the LP grooves.
On a closer read, Harley specifically mentions the 40% figure for audiophiles who have a large # of LPs in their collection. However, having heard many superb (and unfortunately highly priced) CD players over the last few months, I can attest to the fact that digital now sounds superb. I totally agree with the old adage - garbage in, garbage out, and am looking to upgrade my source.
So is it fair to say then:
For many the purchase threshold/ceiling for a component is probably more associated with if it is perceived to be overpriced in terms of sound quality/performance or engineering and build, combined with how much at the time we can afford to spend (or put on credit ).
I find this thread interesting, and I think it has become a bit confused due to not being able to agree on what the word “source” means in context of describing expenditures for an audio system. However, not being able to agree on something as simple as the definition of source shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone on this forum as we seldom seem to agree on anything.
I feel strongly that when Robert Harley was talking about how much money to allocate to the “source,” he was referring to whatever device you are primarily using to decode music. Of course, all music formats are sources, but your investment in them should not be confused with how much of your budget was allocated to the source that plays back your music investment. And having said that, I totally agree with everyone who commented that if your music format source is of low quality, it really doesn’t matter how much you spent anywhere else in your playback chain. As Myles said, “crap in, crap out.”
I think some other valid points were made here too regarding price points where the ratio should change for where you allocate your money. I agree that if you have a very modest budget, the majority of your money should be spent on the speakers as they will have the greatest impact on the sound quality. MikeL also made a very good point that as the amount of money you have poured into your system increases, the notion of having a great pair of speakers fed by inferior source components will drag down the whole system.
I do feel strongly that if you lose information at the source, it can’t be recovered downstream regardless of how great your components are. The better your source is, the more information you recover from your recording and it will sound more realistic. Can you really affix a ratio to this that makes sense in all budgets? I don’t know and I really don’t care about ratios. All I know is that I want the best source components that I can afford at a given point in time. Honestly, I have never really thought about the ratios that exist in my own system.
Another point I want to make that someone did touch on is the listening room. Ratios for allocating your budget to buy a stereo system do not take into account money that needs to be spent on the room that the stereo will be used in. It just seems to be assumed that the room is already up to snuff. I think we can all agree (and I emphasize think) that an incredibly expensive system set up in a bad sounding room will never sound good. Lucky are those among us that have dedicated stereo rooms whose room treatments are unfettered by their wives (and I count myself among the lucky ones).
In summary, I wouldn’t get hung up about ratios. There are two obvious things you need before you assemble any stereo system; a good sounding room and source material to play back. Once you have those two things, I would want to buy source components that can maximize the amount of information retrieval for the money you have available to spend.
I've thought about this, and my breakdown can only go as far as dividing up to major components: digital source, TT analog source+phono, preamp, amp, speakers. I have spent about 15%, 20%, 15%, 20%, %15, and the rest in signal cables, analog tuner, power cables, R2R, etc. If that totals to ~40% (including the R2R and tuner) for "source" as defined by others, then fine.
I think the whole notion of percentages is silly, and overlooks the inherent value of each component. I chose my system based on the quality I wanted for each component. Good wire costs pennies per foot so that's all I spent. Good speakers cost more, so that's what I spent. A good projector costs a lot too, so that's what I spent. But a perfectly good receiver can be had for 1/10th the cost of an expensive model, so I didn't spend a lot on that.
I imagine this started with audio dealers who needed a way to justify selling people overpriced wire. If you tell a customer to spend $2,000 on wire for their expensive system, many would roll their eyes. But if you relate that $2,000 to a much larger $20,000 total system cost, ten percent seems less ridiculous. (Even though it is ridiculous IMO.)
A *perfectly* good receiver makes senses in the context of a cheap system with cheap speaker cables. Why pay more when you can't hear the difference anyway right? It also makes perfect sense to buy the cheapest CD player you can because they are all just decoding ones and zeros anyway and doing it perfectly by the way. I think you are on to something here Ethan.
Many of these posts, however genuine in their belief they may be, are running contrary to the original thread start. The question (to me) was simple...is the source (hardware) first in the chain of importance. Can we reply accordingly?
I imagine this started with audio dealers who needed a way to justify selling people overpriced wire. If you tell a customer to spend $2,000 on wire for their expensive system, many would roll their eyes. But if you relate that $2,000 to a much larger $20,000 total system cost, ten percent seems less ridiculous. (Even though it is ridiculous IMO.)
You are right Ethan. The first time I heard the percentage pitch was for audio cables in 1980s. "You want to spend 5 to 10% on wires." I don't recall in that era people talking about other percentages.
I think I answered your question in my first post John. The source is always super important. However, if you can only afford a really cheap stereo, I would spend more on the speakers than the source because at cheap levels, the speakers will be more important than what cheap source is feeding them in determing sound quality. The reality is that all stereos represent a chain and the old saw about a chain is only as strong as its weakest link is oh so true. Ideally, all of the links are of equal strength.
The reality is that all stereos represent a chain and the old saw about a chain is only as strong as its weakest link is oh so true. Ideally, all of the links are of equal strength.
I agree totally with mep on this one. I was reading a review by Alan Sircom recently and he had a funny term for a system biased heavily on one component. He called it a "mullet system". I couldn't help but think of McGuyver and how his head always looked lopsided whatever angle he was shot from. No offense to members sporting mullets
Speakers: 6%
Electronics (amps, preamp, two phono sections): 41%
Turntable (table/arm/two cartridges/table base): 14%
R2R (transport/two tape preamps): 7%
Digital (transport/DAC): 5%
Cables: 19%
Accessories: SRA equipment rack and equipment bases, other isolation devices, etc): 8%
I only listed the one set of cables using since as a reviewer have several different brands around the house for reviewing purposes. Hope that helps for data collection purposes BTW, never thought about percentages when buying the system!
Your present system may reflect this ... I can understand that.. It could be that your speakers are good and shine with the best electronics ... But if one has to build a system from scratch I would have adviced to go for a different rating .. maybe 50% on speakers and room treatment ... with cables going lower than 5% ...much lower ...
Your present system may reflect this ... I can understand that.. It could be that your speakers are good and shine with the best electronics ... But if one has to build a system from scratch I would have adviced to go for a different rating .. maybe 50% on speakers and room treatment ... with cables going lower than 5% ...much lower ...
Frantz: the numbers reflect the fact that I've yet to realize everything my present speakers are capable of. Everytime I change something upstream (and a new set of vibration devices that I just got in really emphasize this!), the speakers just continue to sound better and better.
And personally, I haven't found another speaker right now, with the possible exception of the Wilson Sashas that tickles my fancy and I can afford (though I'd love to give a listen to the newer Sonus Fabers, Vienna Acoustics or Evolution speakers in my system). And there's just something that electrostatics do that other speakers can't touch. It's this magic that makes them sound closer to real music for me than other speakers. Other audiophile's MMV and that's why there's so many speakers on the market.
OTOH, if and when I do decide to upgrade my speakers, then I'll have a system up to the task.
I can understand your love of 'stat and maybe planar in general... Moving away from these is difficult .. I hear you .. I repeat that for a person getting into the hobby I would emphasize speakers and amps capable of driving the speakers ( a very important aspect of system building, component matching), the rest especially cables ... you already know my position on these ...
I think there should be a ten to one /ratio on amp preamp to speakers. $10k for every $1k in speakers. Obviously that curve would level off as it approached $100k. There is no need to spend more than $5k on a digital front end. You could do it for a thousand. With the right digital front end you could eliminate the preamp. A vinyl front end is a wild card. You have to dump a ton in the arm/ cart tt/phono cable. I don't think much of cables.
You have to spend a fortune on music. Then I have to give Ethan $10k+ for foam rubber to treat my room.
I think I'll just go listen to my car radio/cd.
).
