People are all over the place on this forum. Ethan has over $10K invested in room treatments for a system that has a $150.00 Pioneer receiver driving it and speaker cables that come from Lowes next to the lampshade isle. Nicholas has $3K speakers lashed up with speaker cables that cost $20K. Talk about extremes... And let me say right now that I understand the $150 Pioneer receiver measures perfect and therefore sounds perfect and that in a blind test I couldn't tell it apart from high-end gear and it makes perfect sense to spend over $10K in room treatments for a $150.00 receiver. I get it. Really.
Source first?
- Thread starter caesar
- Start date
.I think we have to be careful here. What Ethan has is studio monitors. I have such a system in my Den. It is extremely precise and images far better than most systems I have heard. But it would not be my choice for far field listening. The little bi-amped speakers are clear and sound very nice but they are made for a different use. They are kind of like headphones but out in the open. Mine by the way are NHT and with the sub I think came out to $1,200 or such.
Just like we don't compare headphone costs to speakers, we should not evaluate near field systems/studio monitors against typical gear people buy for their listening rooms.
I think we have to be careful here. What Ethan has is studio monitors. I have such a system in my Den. It is extremely precise and images far better than most systems I have heard. But it would not be my choice for far field listening. The little bi-amped speakers are clear and sound very nice but they are made for a different use. They are kind of like headphones but out in the open. Mine by the way are NHT and with the sub I think came out to $1,200 or such.
Just like we don't compare headphone costs to speakers, we should not evaluate near field systems/studio monitors against typical gear people buy for their listening rooms.
I've yet to hear any studio monitor that didn't make my ears bleed Amir. They're usually dynamic but that's the best I can say about them
The little Ushers he has with the Diamond tweeters that he originally had lashed up with $20K of cables are only $3+ speakers, not $30K.Think you missed a zero for Nick's speakers
Last edited:
I'm doing this the first time out of curiosity, to see how mine matches with others.
Speakers: 10%
Electronics: 55% (line, phono and power amp)
Source: 28% (TT, Cart, Tonearm)
Cables: 7%
Speakers: 10%
Electronics: 55% (line, phono and power amp)
Source: 28% (TT, Cart, Tonearm)
Cables: 7%
Your ears bleed easier than mine MylesI've yet to hear any studio monitor that didn't make my ears bleed Amir. They're usually dynamic but that's the best I can say about them
. In your testing, did you sit 2-3 feet from them?
Your ears bleed easier than mine Myles
At the console.
OK, I have done a rather quick estimate of the breakdown of my system. But in my case it is a very complicated system set up for both up to 7 channel playback as well as 2 channel.
7 speakers plus 2 subwoofers - 35%
5 Power Amps, Linestage Preamp, and Pre/Pro - 13%
Turntable, Tonearm, Cartridge, and Phono Pre - 22%
Digital including CD/DVD-A/SACD playback; Blu-ray Playback; DAC - 5%
Tuner - 0.6%
Racks, Platforms, Subtraps, Speaker Stands, Isolation/Tweaks - 6%
Power Conditioners and Isolation Transformers - 5%
Wire, Oulets, Outlet Covers - ICs, Coax, HDMI, Power Cords, special Romex, Outlets & Covers - 11%
Acoustic Room Treatments - 2%
Rich
7 speakers plus 2 subwoofers - 35%
5 Power Amps, Linestage Preamp, and Pre/Pro - 13%
Turntable, Tonearm, Cartridge, and Phono Pre - 22%
Digital including CD/DVD-A/SACD playback; Blu-ray Playback; DAC - 5%
Tuner - 0.6%
Racks, Platforms, Subtraps, Speaker Stands, Isolation/Tweaks - 6%
Power Conditioners and Isolation Transformers - 5%
Wire, Oulets, Outlet Covers - ICs, Coax, HDMI, Power Cords, special Romex, Outlets & Covers - 11%
Acoustic Room Treatments - 2%
Rich
Last edited:
Myles-I believe he owns the Ushers which are the speakers he had connected with $20K cables. He is reviewing the Sashas. To my knowledge, he doesn't own them. And Amir-I didn't know that Ethan's 5.1 system is in the same room as his studio. His post makes it sound like it is a different system in a different room.
That's like saying eating the shrimp just caught on a shrimping boat makes you sick, but if you have it a few days later with Creole seasoning in a restaurant doesn't!
I think we have to be careful here. What Ethan has is studio monitors. I have such a system in my Den. It is extremely precise and images far better than most systems I have heard. But it would not be my choice for far field listening. The little bi-amped speakers are clear and sound very nice but they are made for a different use. They are kind of like headphones but out in the open. Mine by the way are NHT and with the sub I think came out to $1,200 or such.
I don't know your NHTs, Amir, but nearfield monitors aren't that different from any other speaker of similar size/range at normal listening distances. They are not typically narrower in dispersion than speakers built for domestic use, and many of them have more than enough power to fill a room. They are often used in the nearfield, but are not limited to it. In a reasonably well-treated room, their precision, clarity and superior imaging will hold up just fine from a chair a few yards away.
Tim
The Ushers and the Wilson Sashas are both reviewer-owned gear. Both pairs of speakers were driven by the AudioQuest Wild Wood, very short lengths, just 4 ft., connected to Odyssey Kismet monoblock. I'm really happy with a digital source, a Vista laptop, running through the Audiophilleo 1 S/PDIF USB interface.
The in the Usher system, cabling is 57% of the total; in the Sasha system, it's 39%. Changing the Kismets with the new D'Agostino Momentum amplifiers, $42K, changes the cabling plant to be 36% or 28% respectively. So there's not really any way to escape cabling being a significant part of the budget. And the Sashas/Momentum have not outrun, so to speak, the cabling plant.
See reviews over at www.6moons.com for the Audiophilleo and the Kismets. Review of the Sashas, being done with colleague Ed Kramer, will be up in a few days, also at www.6moons.com.
Budget:
1. Source, well, basically nothing. Even a $130 Alix network client will be fine.
2. Audiophilleo 1 S/PDIF processor is $900 (plugs directly in to the DAC, no cable)
3 Speakers, $3K or $30K, depending
4. AudioQuest Wild Wood, $7K
5. AudioQuest Sky analog interconnect, $11K
6. Odyssey Kismet monoblocks, $5K
7. Weiss DAC 202, $7K
8. Audio Magic Oracle power conditioner, $8K
9. Audio Magic Liquid Conductor power cables, $15K
Now, what constitutes the "source", well, it would be the computer (free), the Audiophilleo 1 and the Weiss, makes $8K.
My continuing observations are that some of the best, relatively inexpensive speakers with excellent cabling will sound much, much better (meaning, more transparent) than really expensive speakers with mediocre cabling. The budget speaker approach gives better value at lower risk, so to speak.
My "problem" is that many a well-heeled gear collector will have trophy speakers, and they're sooooo good that all I can hear are the less-than-lovely qualities of the cabling! What to do? Transparency to the source cuts both ways, and in speakers, bigger is most definitely not automatically better.
Expensive speakers (Sashas) with excellent cabling (Wild Wood) sound even better, but of course you're spending $37K total compated to $10K for the Wild Wood and Ushers, almost 4 times the price.
The in the Usher system, cabling is 57% of the total; in the Sasha system, it's 39%. Changing the Kismets with the new D'Agostino Momentum amplifiers, $42K, changes the cabling plant to be 36% or 28% respectively. So there's not really any way to escape cabling being a significant part of the budget. And the Sashas/Momentum have not outrun, so to speak, the cabling plant.
See reviews over at www.6moons.com for the Audiophilleo and the Kismets. Review of the Sashas, being done with colleague Ed Kramer, will be up in a few days, also at www.6moons.com.
Budget:
1. Source, well, basically nothing. Even a $130 Alix network client will be fine.
2. Audiophilleo 1 S/PDIF processor is $900 (plugs directly in to the DAC, no cable)
3 Speakers, $3K or $30K, depending
4. AudioQuest Wild Wood, $7K
5. AudioQuest Sky analog interconnect, $11K
6. Odyssey Kismet monoblocks, $5K
7. Weiss DAC 202, $7K
8. Audio Magic Oracle power conditioner, $8K
9. Audio Magic Liquid Conductor power cables, $15K
Now, what constitutes the "source", well, it would be the computer (free), the Audiophilleo 1 and the Weiss, makes $8K.
My continuing observations are that some of the best, relatively inexpensive speakers with excellent cabling will sound much, much better (meaning, more transparent) than really expensive speakers with mediocre cabling. The budget speaker approach gives better value at lower risk, so to speak.
My "problem" is that many a well-heeled gear collector will have trophy speakers, and they're sooooo good that all I can hear are the less-than-lovely qualities of the cabling! What to do? Transparency to the source cuts both ways, and in speakers, bigger is most definitely not automatically better.
Expensive speakers (Sashas) with excellent cabling (Wild Wood) sound even better, but of course you're spending $37K total compated to $10K for the Wild Wood and Ushers, almost 4 times the price.
Last edited:
Beside the NHTs, I also have Genelecs. In the smaller monitor size, they sound great in near field. But when put in the larger space, they just don't work as well as say, a large planar speaker.
I also find the sound and experience different when you listen to them in near field mode vs out in the open.
Of course, there are larger units with bigger drivers and much more power that can do a very good job. I am mainly speaking here of the bookshelf units.
I also find the sound and experience different when you listen to them in near field mode vs out in the open.
Of course, there are larger units with bigger drivers and much more power that can do a very good job. I am mainly speaking here of the bookshelf units.
Fair enough. I think that's true of any small speaker, pro or domestic -- they will sound better, closer, in a smaller room. Some of them will amaze you in a nearfield set up.
Tim
Another aspect I think that makes % very difficult to quantify in a pre-planned % based purchasing model is that it can fluctuate greatly depending when you look to purchase.
This means that a % for component could be halved or increase by over 50% depending when you look to buy due to new technology and products that come available and meet your preferences.
As an example.
There are many who love the Magico M5 and happy to purchase that, also there is probably a reasonable portion of those who would also been fine with the Magico Q5, which is quite a bit of saving.
So depending when you purchase, the % for the speaker component could be skewed quite a lot and break the set values.
Another example is the new Sophia 3 Wilson Audio, from what I understand there are quite a few when taking preference into consideration are happy with this model as much as the Sasha, however if the model 3 had not arrived they would had purchased the Sasha.
So for these people this skews the % again and comes down to timing of the purchase.
Same applies also to amps-preamps-sources.
There maybe those who instead of purchasing say the Ref 5 ARC would had gone for the anniversary model that is double the price.
Or the other direction such as myself who if I had not waited would had missed out on new technology in the Devialet integrated, that saved me over 50% (this was not a primary factor affecting purchase decision, preference was) in equivalent seperates that I was about to purchase.
So it seems to me that preplanned and defined % are hard or next to impossible to state when one consideres just how much prices fluctuate due to new technology and new models that can severely affect prices both up and down, especially when considering preferences.
Cheers
Orb
This means that a % for component could be halved or increase by over 50% depending when you look to buy due to new technology and products that come available and meet your preferences.
As an example.
There are many who love the Magico M5 and happy to purchase that, also there is probably a reasonable portion of those who would also been fine with the Magico Q5, which is quite a bit of saving.
So depending when you purchase, the % for the speaker component could be skewed quite a lot and break the set values.
Another example is the new Sophia 3 Wilson Audio, from what I understand there are quite a few when taking preference into consideration are happy with this model as much as the Sasha, however if the model 3 had not arrived they would had purchased the Sasha.
So for these people this skews the % again and comes down to timing of the purchase.
Same applies also to amps-preamps-sources.
There maybe those who instead of purchasing say the Ref 5 ARC would had gone for the anniversary model that is double the price.
Or the other direction such as myself who if I had not waited would had missed out on new technology in the Devialet integrated, that saved me over 50% (this was not a primary factor affecting purchase decision, preference was) in equivalent seperates that I was about to purchase.
So it seems to me that preplanned and defined % are hard or next to impossible to state when one consideres just how much prices fluctuate due to new technology and new models that can severely affect prices both up and down, especially when considering preferences.
Cheers
Orb
Maybe
but the % ratio is presented as advising users on how much to spend, and there are many examples where technology/products are released that would break it.As an example say if your told as in the article to spend 40% on say speaker.
In the M5 depending how much you had already spent this could break that, or even the Q5 could by undercutting.
The point is it is not really practical to use set %, because each year or even month a product that a potential audiophile is interested in does not conform.
Hence my example of the Ref 5 and under 6 months later the Anniversary (an audiophile could still be auditioning when the Anniversary is released as it is rare to buy a product without extensive diverse listening), then within 1 month of myself about to put down what would be a balanced % proportion on a new preamp was again broken by being able to purchase a digital integrated that was power-pre-dac at 50% LESS than the preamp and power amp combo (and again quite a bit more lower when taking DAC into consideration).
In that 1 month delay I had undecut the % spent between my various components quite severely and now if I said how much I spent it would look distorted and wrong, using set % guidelines would mean I would never had considered the digital integrated I did end up purchasing using preference-functionality-ergonomics.
If I spend 10k on a preamp 10k on a power amp, then choosing the Sophia3 or the Sasha again would show a reasonably distorted % depending upon choice.
I could had chosen the Sophia3 over the Sasha not due to price but because of preference and from what I understand there seems to be a fair few doing this because of performance-ergonomics-practicality and price was never in the equation.
Or what about if I had purchased the Sophia 3, then going by fixed % it would be skewed if a person was going to purchase an ARC Ref5 but just before they did the Anniversary is released and they purchase this due to preference, again there are those who will do this without price being a factor.
However the anniversary is double the price of the Ref5 and so again breaks the % ratio.
My point is this, in the real world of audio where one buys with the primary factor on preference-functionality-ergonomics, over that of price, can break the % rule outlined by some journalists and for a fair few I bet does, and this is then further compounded that even in the space of 6 months to a year a comparable product that a person would purchase (same type of audio component or could be different as most audiophiles by one component to upgrade at a time) instead could be 50% less or more and if following the guidelines not be considered.
I can see why a structure is ideal, but I would hope there was some common sense with those spending reasonable sums on audio gear, would seem a bit reckless to just buy products without a basic understanding of what the performance-functionality the product has to offer in relation to products on the market and importantly integration within an audio system.
I do agree the fixed % ratio can make sense if your looking to purchase the audio system as a tool and not worried achieving the ideal personal preference or hobby and just want to play music back well (like a high performance-quality ipod)
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
Orb-my head hurts trying to follow your logic. While this whole percentage thread was mildly entertaining, I don't know if anyone thinks about percentages when they buy gear. I doubt most do-I know I don't. It certainly isn't anything to get worked up over and fret that maybe you screwed up when you bought a certain component because now your percentages are out of whack according to Robert Harley. Big deal. Buy whatever you can afford and enjoy it.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |