Source first?

caesar

Well-Known Member
May 30, 2010
4,290
767
1,698
Robert Harley recommends spending 40% on the source in his latest book. Having recently heard the Scarlatti, I understand where he is coming from.

The ironic thing is that since he is a digital guru, you would think he would try to live up to what he writes about. But he is not even close. His MIT cables cost more than the Meridian CD player he uses. His speakers are the Wilson Alexandrias. And he likes Pass XA 100 amps and Audio Research monoblocks. That Meridian CD player is "only" $20K. By my crude calculations, his digital source is 8-10% of his system cost. If any guy should be using the Scarlatti, it is him.

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.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
I don't think ratios make sense for digital transports. As far as I am concerned, that is a PC server and it costs what it costs, regardless of what else you put after it. In that sense, the cost can be 100% in the case of listening to the PC directly or very little if you load up a lot of hardware after it.
 

Gregadd

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
10,517
1,774
1,850
Metro DC
There is a dichotomy. cost versus influence. While speakers may influence 50% of the sound that does not mean necessarily they should dictate 50% of the money. you might have a speaker that's an easy load or amp that's a bargain. As usual it's a crap shoot.
 

Johnny Vinyl

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 16, 2010
8,570
51
38
Calgary, AB
When I look at my total system cost, I have 35% invested in the source, 40% invested in the speakers, 20% invested in the amplification and 5% in cabling. If I were to somehow win a large sum of money, I don't think those numbers would change much.

John
 

tony ky ma

Industry Expert
Aug 21, 2010
630
5
930
Whitby Ontario Canada
I am a diy guy so I don't agree the way in counting the ratio for money vs quality of brand name made products , they have so many costs are not for quality, in the other hand electronic components will be different, the cost mainly come from material in different qualities so more you pay more you can get. of cause source can change everything in repro sound but I believe that the best sounding source is record your own master tape with pro gears not a CD player
tony ma
 

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,467
11,363
4,410
seeing this thread title; i thought for a minute about how that relates to my experience. i concluded i'm maybe the poster child for 'source first'...and maybe even 'source and software' first. then again; i've made as big a commitment to a proper room and room-speaker integration as anyone, so maybe i'm not purely 'source first'.

i'm not sure 'cost' is a good way to gauge degree of emphasis. but it is one way to look at it.

my sources;

3 tt's, one very expensive, the other two quite expensive. 4 expensive arms, 5 cartridges, 3 of them expensive.

4 phono stages; 2 inside the dart preamp, and 2 stand-alone.

3 tape decks; 2 very expensive.

one expensive digital dac/player, and a reasonably priced server.

lots of software for each source. and i listen to all the sources all the time.

likely 60%+ of the total value of my gear including cables is for sources. now if you add my room project and power grid to the total it would be quite different.

yeah; i'm a source first guy. more importantly; i'm enjoying the music the most when the room/gear/system fades into the background and it's just the source and the software occupying my attention.
 
Last edited:

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
I've been saying I'm a source guy for months but keep getting beaten over the head and told I'm a moron.
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,308
1,425
1,820
Manila, Philippines
I too put Source and Loudspeaker/Room on equal footing. Cartridges alone cost as much as my loudspeakers. Like Mike I have a purpose built room. So throw the room into the equation, not just treatments but the room itself and RH's formula doesn't apply.
 

Phelonious Ponk

New Member
Jun 30, 2010
8,677
23
0
My source is a MacBook Pro, and only half of its functionality is playing music. How do I count it? Either way it doesn't get close to 40%. I think transducers are where the lion's share of the money should go if you're hoping to get your money's worth.

Tim
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
I'm a speakers first and build backwards guy. At a given price point, differences between speakers are usually much easier to discern than sources. And they're the only component that interacts with your room. Particularly for digital, I think 9 out of 10 times you do better with a 5K speaker plus 1K source, than the reverse.

-- Bob
 
Last edited:

Mike Lavigne

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 25, 2010
12,467
11,363
4,410
I'm a speakers first and build backwards guy. At a given price point, differences between speakers are usually much easier to discern than sources. And they're the only component that interacts with your room. Particularly for digital, I think 9 out of ten times you going to do better with a 5K speaker plus 1K source, than the reverse.

i think you make a good point; although i think that as total system investment grows, sources (and preamp/amps/cables/racks) need to occupy a greater and greater portion in a general view. at the modest level of system investment speaker performance clearly has the biggest affect on system performance. however; as the speaker performance improves with higher levels of system investment, other pieces in the system start to limit overall performance and a ratcheting effect happens. at a certain point of speaker investment, they are 'good enough' to justify the very highest performance sources. from that point it's not investment but taste that determines allocation of funds.

of course; headphone systems quickly need better sources as they get more expensive based on the same issue.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
My source is a MacBook Pro, and only half of its functionality is playing music. How do I count it? Either way it doesn't get close to 40%. I think transducers are where the lion's share of the money should go if you're hoping to get your money's worth.

Tim

Yep, crap in, crap out.
 

Ron Party

WBF Founding Member
Apr 30, 2010
2,457
13
0
Oakland, CA
It seems some members are bent on turning this thread into another analog/digital flame fest. There is a debates section of the forum for that discussion. Please feel free to start a new thread there. Please be reminded of caesar's original post and keep your posts on topic

Robert Harley recommends spending 40% on the source in his latest book. Having recently heard the Scarlatti, I understand where he is coming from.

The ironic thing is that since he is a digital guru, you would think he would try to live up to what he writes about. But he is not even close. His MIT cables cost more than the Meridian CD player he uses. His speakers are the Wilson Alexandrias. And he likes Pass XA 100 amps and Audio Research monoblocks. That Meridian CD player is "only" $20K. By my crude calculations, his digital source is 8-10% of his system cost. If any guy should be using the Scarlatti, it is him.

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. (Emphasis added.)
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
as the speaker performance improves with higher levels of system investment, other pieces in the system start to limit overall performance and a ratcheting effect happens. at a certain point of speaker investment, they are 'good enough' to justify the very highest performance sources. from that point it's not investment but taste that determines allocation of funds.

Agreed about the ratcheting effect, I've found it to be generally true with amps particularly -- improvements I didn't have listen for. But that's part of why I like to work backwards -- find an amp that mates with/drives the speaker well.

My two digital front ends (source + DAC) are roughly a tenth and twentieth of the MSRP of my speakers, and frankly, I don't think I'm missing much. To be fair, haven't had a Scarlatti or something at that cost level in my system for a direct comparison though.

-- Bob
 
Last edited:

flez007

Member Sponsor
Aug 31, 2010
2,915
36
435
Mexico City
30-30-40 is my goal (source-amp-spkrs) actually I am 40-20-40 excluding cables and AC filtering.
 

audioguy

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
2,794
73
1,635
Near Atlanta, GA but not too near!
I don't know about budget allocation but my experience suggests that the best investment of time and money would be spent in the room, speakers and their interaction.

I would much rather have a good $5000 pair of speakers set up properly in a well designed and executed listening room coupled with a relatively inexpensive source (CD or TT) than a $40,000 pair of good speakers set up improperly in a crap room with a $40,000 front end. I've heard both and the room/speaker interaction trumps (IMHO) every other component combination every time (assuming REASONABLE components).

In my SigTech days, in traveling around the US setting up and installing the SigTech product, FAR AND AWAY the majority of individuals I met with had GREAT (and expensive) gear improperly set up in not great rooms. I suspect most who post here don't fall into that category (and maybe that's why they are on this Forum).

If the room/speaker interaction is not properly dealt with, you will never hear the total value of the expensive component(s) you are using in the front end.
 

RBFC

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
5,158
46
1,225
Albuquerque, NM
www.fightingconcepts.com
Not sure I take your meaning, Miles.

Tim

An audio system is limited by the source material. No matter how good the reproduction chain is, it cannot improve upon a poor recording in a meaningful way ( I'm dismissing post-processing: DBX, surround matrices, etc. as not really improving upon a bad recording's quality). So garbage goes in to start, it'll come out well-reproduced garbage.

Lee
 

rblnr

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 3, 2010
2,151
291
1,170
NYC/NJ
An audio system is limited by the source material.

Agreed, and a constant source of frustration is that much of the pop/rock/blues I love is recorded so poorly. Getting OT here, but always on the hunt for remasters from Mofi, Rhino, et. al., but the quality of these is a hit 'n miss affair. Further OT: the recent Elvis Costello 'Armed Forces' vinyl pressing by mofi is a huge improvement on the original cd and record.

-- Bob
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing