Right through the history of what hi-fi advice they have always recommended spending the same on amplifier, cd player and speakers. This has always puzzled me since they are 3 totally different technologies and I assume manufacturers are constantly trying to improve them. Surely one or more have improved more than the others to significantly affect the recognised balance over say, the last 10 years. I would be interested on anyone's opinion on this. Has 1 of the 3 progressed more than the others
-
Is OLED burn-in a problem? We want your input on one of TV’s hottest topics!
HI-FI PROGRESS
- Thread starter BREEKO1963
- Start date
there are digital amps now
materials used in speakers have changed but not design nor theory
thats about it
materials used in speakers have changed but not design nor theory
thats about it
idc
Well-known member
- Jan 2, 2008
- 1,142
- 117
- 19,370
Traditional CDPs, amplifiers and speakers have not progressed much in the past 10 years. The 1/3rd rule of spending equal amounts on each is still a reasonably good rough guide.
However, many hifi systems are no longer traditional. CDPs are also SACD producing surround sound. Amps have got DACs in them. Speakers have gone active with amps in them and even DACs. Then CDPs are no longer the only digital sources. PCs with downloaded music and music servers streaming music are also available.
The 1/3rd rule no longer applies as clearly to non-traditional hifi. Two examples. The source is an ipod classic with an Onkyo digital dock (£350) and the speakers are active AVIs which include a DAC (£1000). My PC and DAC as the source (£600), my amp (£400) and my headphones (£50 to £230).
However, many hifi systems are no longer traditional. CDPs are also SACD producing surround sound. Amps have got DACs in them. Speakers have gone active with amps in them and even DACs. Then CDPs are no longer the only digital sources. PCs with downloaded music and music servers streaming music are also available.
The 1/3rd rule no longer applies as clearly to non-traditional hifi. Two examples. The source is an ipod classic with an Onkyo digital dock (£350) and the speakers are active AVIs which include a DAC (£1000). My PC and DAC as the source (£600), my amp (£400) and my headphones (£50 to £230).
I still go by the thirds to some degree, though with digital, I would look to spend more on the amp.
The RRPs for my gear is: £600 for the CDP, £500 for the speakers, amp is hard to say as it's over 30 years old, but to buy something like it just now that's about 40lbs in weight, puts out 85wpc and sounds like a flamin' dream, I have no idea...! In reality, this was the higher end of the Sansui scale when it came out, so I'm guessing around the £600 mark, but could be more. So probably around £2k's worth, more or less evenly split.
The RRPs for my gear is: £600 for the CDP, £500 for the speakers, amp is hard to say as it's over 30 years old, but to buy something like it just now that's about 40lbs in weight, puts out 85wpc and sounds like a flamin' dream, I have no idea...! In reality, this was the higher end of the Sansui scale when it came out, so I'm guessing around the £600 mark, but could be more. So probably around £2k's worth, more or less evenly split.
Don,t think the 3rd rule applies all the time, i got my current system about 7 years ago which is the sugden bijou, at the time i think it retailed for about 3 grand, but when bought as individually i think the cd was £1250, pre-amp £850 and amp £900, then spendor A6 at £2000, atlas hyper 3 speaker cable at about £22mtr and stratos 3 interconnects at about £200 a pair x 2. So that would be
Source with interconnects £1650 Amplification £1750 Speakers and cable £2200. Total £5600
Just wondering, 7 years on what kind of system could i get for the same money today and would it be a lot better
Source with interconnects £1650 Amplification £1750 Speakers and cable £2200. Total £5600
Just wondering, 7 years on what kind of system could i get for the same money today and would it be a lot better
since you have such a good system youd have to spend a lot more to better it
not double but not that far off id guess
not double but not that far off id guess
One off thanks for that, i,ve never compared my system to any others, don,t know if it is a good system, any comments
its an excellent system as i mentioned on the other thread mine is slightly older but i did some auditioning recently and found id have to spend so much more to improve the system i decided not to bother
interestingly thats also what the salesman said when i lugged my system in for comparison in fact he said hed never heard a couple of my test tracks sound so good
interestingly thats also what the salesman said when i lugged my system in for comparison in fact he said hed never heard a couple of my test tracks sound so good
The idea of apportioning your budget either evenly, as recommended by What Hi-Fi, or by any other formula seems arbitrary and unjustifiable.
By contrast, the source-priority approach might be simplistic, in an engineering sense, but it tends to produce good results. Since this approach is not based on relative price it would not be undermined by the best source component of the year 2020 being, say, a £50 mobile phone.
By contrast, the source-priority approach might be simplistic, in an engineering sense, but it tends to produce good results. Since this approach is not based on relative price it would not be undermined by the best source component of the year 2020 being, say, a £50 mobile phone.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram