A Certain Ratio

[jc.com]

I vaguely remember, when I first became interested in HiFi (long before CD/MP3 etc. was invented) the rule of thumb was to spend something like 25-30% on your source, a similar amount on the amplifier and the remaining 40-50% on speakers.

If you look at WHF's recommended systems you find the following (yes, I did use a calculator!):

Budget: 35/34/31

Mid-range: 41/41/17

High-end: 28/47/25.

Discuss!

 

[Andrew Everard]

In the days BC - before CD - it was usually suggested that you spent by far the most on the source.

Systems using LP12s into NAD 3020s and budget speakers were far from unusual.

 

[jaxwired]

In my opinion, there is no rule that can be used effectively. It's all about system synergy and great synergy can happen with any price combination. Too many expensive products are over rated. Too many budget products punch way above their price.

 

[SteveR750]

Andrew Everard:
In the days BC - before CD - it was usually suggested that you spent by far the most on the source.

Systems using LP12s into NAD 3020s and budget speakers were far from unusual.

Aah those were the days eh!

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:
In the days BC - before CD - it was usually suggested that you spent by far the most on the source.

Systems using LP12s into NAD 3020s and budget speakers were far from unusual.

In these days where some of us are post CD is there any chance that you'll do a dac/amp/speakers matched setup?

thanks

 

[Ajani]

jc.com:I vaguely remember, when I first became interested in HiFi (long before CD/MP3 etc. was invented) the rule of thumb was to spend something like 25-30% on your source, a similar amount on the amplifier and the remaining 40-50% on speakers.

If you look at WHF's recommended systems you find the following (yes, I did use a calculator!):

Budget: 35/34/31

Mid-range: 41/41/17

High-end: 28/47/25.

Discuss!

As others have already pointed out, what you use as source makes a significant difference in any ratios (whether Turntable, CD Player or just a DAC)....

The major issue I've always had with any ratios is in regard to the speakers: Are we talking about Monitors or Towers? Since the Tower version of a speaker can cost more than double the price of the Monitor. So let's use WHF's Mid-Range Best Buy setup:

The Ratio is currently 41/41/17 using a Cyrus CD, Roksan Amp and B&W 685 Monitors... suppose I substituted the B&W 684 or better yet 683 for the 685s (assuming I have too large a room for the 685s), then the ratio changes to 33/33/33.

Now let's try another bit of math: I build a system with a 33/33/33 split on CD/Amp/Monitors, and once again decide to upgrade monitors to towers (the towers cost exactly twice the price of the monitors), then the ratio is now 25/25/50...

Ratios are fun to talk about, but not that relevant in actual buying decisions (as long as you don't get too ridiculous like spending only 3% of your total system cost on speakers - I doubt that would be good value for your money)....

 

[Frank Harvey]

I prefer 34/28/34

 

[SteveR750]

Surely you mean "42-39-56 you could say she's got it all"

 

[theadmans]

Damn - I thought this thread was going to be about one of my
favourite bands "A Certain Ratio" (ACR) - one of the leading bands on
Manchester's Factory Records.

 

[jc.com]

Ajani:

jc.com:I vaguely remember, when I first became interested in HiFi (long before CD/MP3 etc. was invented) the rule of thumb was to spend something like 25-30% on your source, a similar amount on the amplifier and the remaining 40-50% on speakers. If you look at WHF's recommended systems you find the following (yes, I did use a calculator!): Budget: 35/34/31 Mid-range: 41/41/17 High-end: 28/47/25. Discuss!

As others have already pointed out, what you use as source makes a significant difference in any ratios (whether Turntable, CD Player or just a DAC)....

The major issue I've always had with any ratios is in regard to the speakers: Are we talking about Monitors or Towers? Since the Tower version of a speaker can cost more than double the price of the Monitor. So let's use WHF's Mid-Range Best Buy setup:

The Ratio is currently 41/41/17 using a Cyrus CD, Roksan Amp and B&W 685 Monitors... suppose I substituted the B&W 684 or better yet 683 for the 685s (assuming I have too large a room for the 685s), then the ratio changes to 33/33/33.

Now let's try another bit of math: I build a system with a 33/33/33 split on CD/Amp/Monitors, and once again decide to upgrade monitors to towers (the towers cost exactly twice the price of the monitors), then the ratio is now 25/25/50...

Ratios are fun to talk about, but not that relevant in actual buying decisions (as long as you don't get too ridiculous like spending only 3% of your total system cost on speakers - I doubt that would be good value for your money)....

It's obvious that my memory isn't what it is, judging by the comments about paying more for the source, but I'm not sure it matters whether we're talking about floorstanders or otherwise as that decision should surely follow from your room/lifestyle (and probably a bit of negotiation with the missus!). I had a vague notion that the philosophy was that it's harder to make decent speakers than the other bits, so spending more on them meant the whole thing was balanced.

 

[Anonymous]

Ajani:So let's use WHF's Mid-Range Best Buy setup:The Ratio is currently 41/41/17 using a Cyrus CD, Roksan Amp and B&W 685 Monitors...

Are those speakers really that good?

My 'certain ratio' would be 32:27:40. See below for kit.

 

[Anonymous]

My ratio is about 0.9 / 74.1 / 25 and I am loving the end result. Just shows ratios mean little!

 

[link]

theadmans:
Damn - I thought this thread was going to be about one of my
favourite bands "A Certain Ratio" (ACR) - one of the leading bands on
Manchester's Factory Records.

ditto.