The breakup of budget in a (and my) system

[Dank_Vapours]

Hello whathifi,

So my system is described in my signature and I was hoping for your input on what the percentage break down of a budget should be on the various categories.

In my case I have a slight apprehension that my love of Tannoy, limited to 2nd hand 90s hardware due to budget, is limiting my system: Considering that I've spent three or four times as much on my DAC/amp as I have my speakers.

That's not to say I'm unhappy with the sound, but is it recommended to spend rather more on speakers than other components?

Thanks for your input in advance!

 

[wilro15]

There aren't really any rules, my amp is also worth a lot more than my speakers but I like the sound. I suppose if you were to start completely from scratch you might split up your funds more evenly.

 

[Glacialpath]

See if a shop will let you try some speakers that match the price tag of your kit and see if they make a big enough difference. In theory they should give you a better sound stage but you might think your current speakers sound better because you are used to them. I'm sure with a small deposit a Hi-Fi store might come to some arrangement with you as they know it's better for you to hear them in your listening space and not on a completely different set up in their shop.

 

[Dank_Vapours]

Thanks for your input guys, come September I may have say... £500-£800 to try and balance the parts of my set up, considering that the m3i RRP used to be £1000. I have a good relationship with my local Richer Sounds so I'm hoping they'd be happy to negotiate. I'm open to suggestions from you guys, though I realise a home demo really is desirable.

Having said that, I was able to acquire my MF m3i 2nd hand for £425, my CA DM plus for £200 and my Tannoy 638s for about £140, all rather considerable savings on their RRP! As such, what are your guys thoughts on taking the plunge on eBay items?

There's very little information about my Tannoy 638s, so I'd really appreciate peoples thoughts on what would be a suitable replacement. As far as I can tell, they're pretty deep-voiced, maybe slightly harsh treble at high volumes, but far far superior to the Mercury M4i (which I thought sounded closed in) and (to my ear at least) in some areas the Q-Acoustics 2050i. Do people feel that speaker technology has moved on sufficiently since 1994 to make a £1000 set of 2014 superior to a £1000 set of 1994 (£1736 accounting for inflation)?

Some spec on the Tannoys:

http://www.hifidatabase.com/Detailed/Tannoy_638_Profile_3360.php

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TANNOY-638-HIGH-END-AUDIOPHILE-LOUDSPEAKERS-STUNNING-SOUND-COST-1000-NEW-/390678921580

I realise I'm asking a lot of odd questions here, but I'm a young 20 year old who's trying to learn as much as I can about the Hi-Fi world and about equipment that existed before I was born :O

 

[Crossie]

I would tend to spend more on speakers as I believe that is where the greatest gains can be made in sound quality.

 

[Dank_Vapours]

When demo-ing speaker systems with a friend, I did notice that sound characteristics changed dramatically with the same amp/source. Prior to that experience, I really had underestimated the difference they make. I have to agree Crossie, though I must say there was a hell of a difference between my m3i and my A&R cambridge a60 from the 1980s :rofl: . I have no golden ear though, between the DacMagic XS and the DacMagic Plus and the Dac in my Nexus 5.... not much difference I could hear -.-

To elaborate a bit: I've heard Tannoy 611 mk1/2 and Tannoy 638s (very similar, with the 638s just having a deeper bass capability) with my Musical Fidelity m3i, as well as Tannoy Mercury V4i (which weren't to my taste at all) and the Q Acoustics 2050i (a pleasant surprise, but no better than the Tannoys imho). Naim Arivas (very nice with the rega amp/turntable it was paired with). CA Aero 2s (Very nice in mids/treble, and has since had its (good) bookshelf bass reinforced with a sub, heard with CA 350a and 851a).

However, I guess the speakers that have had the single greatest "WTF?" effect were Monitor Audios' BX2s. Paired with a CA Azure 851a, their clarity and detail in the treble/mids was incredible, but at the time I felt that the distinctness of cymbals/vocals detracted from the music as a whole, as it was too attention grabbing, but in the time since I've hoped to find something with that clarity, but with real weight behind the mids/bass (which the Tannoys certainly provide). Perhaps I'm rambling, but any thoughts on this ladies and gents? Demo the BX6s perhaps?

 

[VOE]

I would tend to spend more on speakers as I believe that is where the greatest gains can be made in sound quality.

A high quality source first, then amps and lastly speakers. In stark contrast to the above opinion I've found that speakers make the least difference for the money (see my post re: Neat Motive SX1 v MA RX6 elsewhere) compared to improvements closer to the musical source where significant gains can be achieved. Rubbish in > rubbish out etc. I've always believed this because it has been proven with the various pieces of kit I've owned over the past 30 years.

I should perhaps qualify this by adding that the improvements in sources has been typically achieved by spending an average of £1000 more on each with the CDP getting the largest boost of nearly £2000 recently. Despite what some might say not all digital sources sound the same. In theory they should if they were all perfect but........The other thing to remember is that all CDP have an analogue stage. This is probably where most differences lie. I have heard a dozen or so CDP's at the £2-2,500 price point and no two sound identical. Many years ago I did compare £350 players with £700 and £1000 players and there was a huge difference between them. If spending an extra £1000 on a pair of speakers barely reveals any differences of note with more expensive gear, what can it do with a cheaper and limiting source and / or amplifiers?

 

[the record spot]

You can get the excellent Tannoy DC6 for £199 in Richer Sounds on a VIP deal now. They won't last long at that price. And they'll deliver the audio goods too, great range of speakers.

 

[BigH]

I would tend to spend more on speakers as I believe that is where the greatest gains can be made in sound quality.

A high quality source first, then amps and lastly speakers. In stark contrast to the above opinion I've found that speakers make the least difference for the money (see my post re: Neat Motive SX1 v MA RX6 elsewhere) compared to improvements closer to the musical source where significant gains can be achieved. Rubbish in > rubbish out etc. I've always believed this because it has been proven with the various pieces of kit I've owned over the past 30 years.

I should perhaps qualify this by adding that the improvements in sources has been typically achieved by spending an average of £1000 more on each with the CDP getting the largest boost of nearly £2000 recently. Despite what some might say not all digital sources sound the same. In theory they should if they were all perfect but........The other thing to remember is that all CDP have an analogue stage. This is probably where most differences lie. I have heard a dozen or so CDP's at the £2-2,500 price point and no two sound identical. Many years ago I did compare £350 players with £700 and £1000 players and there was a huge difference between them. If spending an extra £1000 on a pair of speakers barely reveals any differences of note with more expensive gear, what can it do with a cheaper and limiting source and / or amplifiers?

Depends what you mean by difference? I have heard many cdps in the the price range of £500-£1000 and I did not hear much difference, yes there are differences, same with similar powered amps but speakers yes to me they all sound different. Some were dull, some were bright, some were too bassy, boomy, some lacked a bit of bass, some were not integrated and so on. But I would spend more on speakers because cheap cabinets and drivers are not a good thing. For vinyl yes spend more on front end but cds I don't agree.

So If I were you I would have some demos and see what you think. Richers is not the best place for demos though.

 

[matt49]

A high quality source first, then amps and lastly speakers. In stark contrast to the above opinion I've found that speakers make the least difference for the money (see my post re: Neat Motive SX1 v MA RX6 elsewhere) compared to improvements closer to the musical source where significant gains can be achieved. Rubbish in > rubbish out etc. I've always believed this because it has been proven with the various pieces of kit I've owned over the past 30 years.

I should perhaps qualify this by adding that the improvements in sources has been typically achieved by spending an average of £1000 more on each with the CDP getting the largest boost of nearly £2000 recently. Despite what some might say not all digital sources sound the same. In theory they should if they were all perfect but........The other thing to remember is that all CDP have an analogue stage. This is probably where most differences lie. I have heard a dozen or so CDP's at the £2-2,500 price point and no two sound identical. Many years ago I did compare £350 players with £700 and £1000 players and there was a huge difference between them. If spending an extra £1000 on a pair of speakers barely reveals any differences of note with more expensive gear, what can it do with a cheaper and limiting source and / or amplifiers?

The "rubbish in, rubbish out" slogan applied to a certain extent to analog systems, but it doesn't apply to digital systems to anything like the same degree.

By contrast, the reason why some people argue for spending more on speakers is that the highest levels of distortion in the audio chain occur in the speakers, and therefore it’s the speakers that will give the best return on investment in terms of lower distortion.

Here are some distortion figures for a system comprising DAC, amp and speakers:

Speakers: 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion (45Hz - 100kHz, 90dB, 1m): <1%

Integrated amp and DAC: Total harmonic distortion plus noise at full power: 0.00025%

OK, the figures aren’t strictly comparable, but if the playing field were made more level the figures for the speakers would be worse than they are here. For instance, our speakers only have distortion quoted down to 45Hz, even though the speakers’ -6dB point is 25Hz. This is because including the LF distortion in the overall figure would push the distortion figure up by a long way.

By contrast, the problem with the distortion figures for the electronics is that they're so low as to be barely measurable, let alone audible.

In fact, whereas electronics manufacturers generally give distortion figures, most speaker manufacturers won’t, because they don’t look good.

Anyway, this very rough comparison suggest that there’s going to be at least 400 times more distortion in the speakers than in the amp and DAC combined, and in all likelihood the situation is even bleaker for the speakers.

So what is this system?

Well, the DAC plus amp is the Devialet 400 and it costs £11,000.

The speakers are the mighty B&W 800Ds at £18,000.

This is a well matched system, with ample power (400W per channel) to drive the B&Ws. And the quality of the electronics in our amp + DAC is easily a match for the speakers: spending more on better electronics, in particular a DAC, will get you no benefit in terms of lower distortion or improved SQ (which isn't to say it might not give you something you personally prefer).

So, allowing for this being a rather simplistic and crude comparison and at an extreme price point, still the argument stands: the speakers are where the vast majority of the distortion is happening, and every extra pound you spend on speakers gives you a greater reduction in distortion than every extra pound you spend on electronics.

Matt

 

[lindsayt]

Buying from ebay is a great idea. Don't restrict your search to UK ebay only. Include searches on other countries ebays, including Germany and USA. Be aware of possible voltage differences for US amps and sources. Also, check out other 2nd hand avenues: hi-fi forum classifieds, pawn shops, car boot sales etc.

When buying 2nd hand you can throw all the rules about spending proportions completely out the window. As 2nd hand prices can bear little resemblance to the initial selling price (adjusted for inflation). Combined with new selling prices already not bearing a huge amount of relationship to the manufacturing costs, due to different companies having different overheads and different pricing strategies. Plus you also get huge variations in designer ability so that manufacturing costs do not bear a direct relationship to sound quality.

Hosting a bake-off or visiting other peoples bake-offs are a great way to learn more about hi-fi and to guide you in your next purchases. You don't need golden ears to pick the best hi-fi for you. If any differences are worth spending money on, they will make themselves all too apparent when you listen to the kit in a comparative demo.

I don't think that speakers have particularly moved on from 1964, never mind 1994.

 

[VOE]

I don't think that speakers have particularly moved on from 1964, never mind 1994.

Agreed. In fact there is no point in spending more than £300 on any speakers as they all sound exactly the same! :rofl: >)

 

[VOE]

I appreciate Matt's point about distortion but I'm sceptical that the average pair of ears can sctually even detect the levels of distortion referred to.

I don't buy any equipment based on a technical specification sheet - if I did I'd still own my Yamaha integrated from 1982!

The fact is that I buy based on what my ears tell me. I look for musicality, detail, high quality resolution, timing, attack, rhythm/pace etc. When I hear a bass guitar appear that previously was inaudible I know the kit is better. When I can hear individual voices making up a vocal quartet that previously sounded like a single voice, I know it's got better. When I can feel a kick drum as well as hear it and can make out the brushwork clearly on a snare drum where previously is was just a smeary mess or a limp attack, I know it's got better. When trumpets sound like a piece of brass being waved around with air being pushed through it instead of a flat photograph, I know it's got better.

When the soundstage opens up further and there is greater space and air with real "presence", I also say it has got better. To answer the question about digital being the same across the board, I'd say it isn't. I have heard budget CDP's and even a few costing more than a terraced house in some parts of the North of England and please let me assure everyone they do not all sound the same. I couldn't even begin to comtemplate affording the best CDP out there. What I own currently is a compromise based on budget, not because I accept that all digital is the same, otherwise I'd still own my Marantz CDP from 1986.

Some of the things I have experienced first-hand with newer and better digital as well as analogue sources I doubt I could have done with speakers alone. After all if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet, how do you suppose any speaker could sort that out? Surely all a great pair of speakers could do would be to show up the mess more clearly.

Please remember the magazine this forum is attached to has reviewed very expensive digital gear and awarded products 5 stars. Would you challenge these reviewers and maintain that they are also clueless if they can't recognise the simple fact that in your opinion all digital sources sound more or less identical?

 

[BigH]

Please remember the magazine this forum is attached to has reviewed very expensive digital gear and awarded products 5 stars. Would you challenge these reviewers and maintain that they are also clueless if they can't recognise the simple fact that in your opinion all digital sources sound more or less identical?

Having seen their cables reviews yes I probably would. HiFi mags promote equipment, do you think they would slag off hifi gear in reviews? How many bad reviews are there? How many 1 stars, how many 2 stars how many 3 stars, in fact there are more 5 stars than all the 3 stars and below put together.

 

[matt49]

Some of the things I have experienced first-hand with newer and better digital as well as analogue sources I doubt I could have done with speakers alone. After all if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet, how do you suppose any speaker could sort that out? Surely all a great pair of speakers could do would be to show up the mess more clearly.

My point is that it's generally not the digital front end that's doing the messing up. If you stand back have have a think about the audio chain, in any digital system the problem is much more likely to be somewhere else, i.e. somewhere in the electronic chain running from the analog output of the DAC, through the pre and power amps (perhaps injection of RF or distortion or crosstalk) or more likely in the inability of the power amp to control the speakers or much more likely in speaker distortion itself.

Please remember the magazine this forum is attached to has reviewed very expensive digital gear and awarded products 5 stars. Would you challenge these reviewers and maintain that they are also clueless if they can't recognise the simple fact that in your opinion all digital sources sound more or less identical?

This has been suggested many times. I'm not saying I believe it's the case, but on the basis of the evidence I also wouldn't want to rule it out.

:O

Matt

 

[matt49]

Having seen their cables reviews yes I probably would. HiFi mags promote equipment, do you think they would slag off hifi gear in reviews? How many bad reviews are there? How many 1 stars, how many 2 stars how many 3 stars, in fact there are more 5 stars than all the 3 stars and below put together.

In fairness to WHF, the mag's job is to be a buying guide. No buying guide is going to waste its (expensive) pages slagging off rubbish. The mag would go bust within months.

Matt

 

[VOE]

"if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet"[/b]

The thing is, Matt, that it was the CDP causing it because all other equipment in the system remained exactly the same. Therefore by a process of elimination......

 

[matt49]

"if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet"[/b]

The thing is, Matt, that it was the CDP causing it because all other equipment in the system remained exactly the same. Therefore by a process of elimination......

Well, I'm not going to dispute your subjective experience, except to say that my own points in a quite different direction.

And I'm not going to say there might not be some rogue cases in which poorly designed or implemented CDPs sound bad.

My argument is about general likelihood, not singular cases. In general, in digital systems the area where the least loss of fidelity occurs is in the retrieval of digital data.

Matt

 

[BigH]

"if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet"[/b]

The thing is, Matt, that it was the CDP causing it because all other equipment in the system remained exactly the same. Therefore by a process of elimination......

So if you spend so much on a cdp and the amp and speakers muck it all up what is the point. Really bettween £500 to £1000 I found little difference, saying all speakers are similar is clearly wrong to me. About 75% of speakers I could not have lived with.

 

[Glacialpath]

Thanks for your input guys, come September I may have say... £500-£800 to try and balance the parts of my set up, considering that the m3i RRP used to be £1000. I have a good relationship with my local Richer Sounds so I'm hoping they'd be happy to negotiate. I'm open to suggestions from you guys, though I realise a home demo really is desirable.

Having said that, I was able to acquire my MF m3i 2nd hand for £425, my CA DM plus for £200 and my Tannoy 638s for about £140, all rather considerable savings on their RRP! As such, what are your guys thoughts on taking the plunge on eBay items?

There's very little information about my Tannoy 638s, so I'd really appreciate peoples thoughts on what would be a suitable replacement. As far as I can tell, they're pretty deep-voiced, maybe slightly harsh treble at high volumes, but far far superior to the Mercury M4i (which I thought sounded closed in) and (to my ear at least) in some areas the Q-Acoustics 2050i. Do people feel that speaker technology has moved on sufficiently since 1994 to make a £1000 set of 2014 superior to a £1000 set of 1994 (£1736 accounting for inflation)?

Some spec on the Tannoys:

http://www.hifidatabase.com/Detailed/Tannoy_638_Profile_3360.php

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TANNOY-638-HIGH-END-AUDIOPHILE-LOUDSPEAKERS-STUNNING-SOUND-COST-1000-NEW-/390678921580

I realise I'm asking a lot of odd questions here, but I'm a young 20 year old who's trying to learn as much as I can about the Hi-Fi world and about equipment that existed before I was born :O

It takes time to learn about Hi-Fi's If you are a bit of a spunge though when it comes to learning then you'll pick it up really quiick.

Most of the kit you see in my signature is from ebay. Most of it also came with the original boxes. It deffinitely ok to use ebay. Just be paciant, ask lots of questions, Where has the item been stored/used? How offten? and so on. Always go for items with multiple (clear) pictures and if the show any scratches if they are small and don't bother you then go for it.

If it's high end gear you are looking at then the seller should know what they are talking about and have looked after anything they are selling. Of course always use Paypal unles you are piking the item up in which case it's up to you. Test the item first before buying even though you've won it in an auction, the seeller shouldn't mind. You may want to ask to do this before the pack the item for you to take away.

In my experience the harshness you hear from the speakers at higher volumes could be to do with the interconnects used in the system. A lot of people will disagree but I used to find my system sounded hard on the ears at high volume and wondered how people listened to music/movies at such volumes. Now I have the interconnects I use on my system and I can turn up much louder than before getting more sound in the sound stage and it doesn't hurt my ears.

If you go and try some speakers try a Chord Company VEE 3 plug interconnect in the set up and see if that reduces the harshness. If you hear no difference then thats fine and it's just the speakers.

 

[VOE]

"if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet"[/b]

The thing is, Matt, that it was the CDP causing it because all other equipment in the system remained exactly the same. Therefore by a process of elimination......

So if you spend so much on a cdp and the amp and speakers muck it all up what is the point. Really bettween £500 to £1000 I found little difference, saying all speakers are similar is clearly wrong to me. About 75% of speakers I could not have lived with.

If you see my comments elsewhere you'll note that it is my contention that any halfway decent speaker should not muck it up. It is possible to make a £650 speaker really sing with decent source and amps. There are quite a few people who make their dislike of one brand abundantly clear for whatever reason. I've said that one model of speaker from that particular brand sounds marvelous with my system. If the basics are right, any decent speaker will show off (to varying degrees admittedly) the attributes of the kit further upstream.

 

[BigH]

"if the CDP messes up the distinct voices making a quartet"[/b]

The thing is, Matt, that it was the CDP causing it because all other equipment in the system remained exactly the same. Therefore by a process of elimination......

So if you spend so much on a cdp and the amp and speakers muck it all up what is the point. Really bettween £500 to £1000 I found little difference, saying all speakers are similar is clearly wrong to me. About 75% of speakers I could not have lived with.

If you see my comments elsewhere you'll note that it is my contention that any halfway decent speaker should not muck it up. It is possible to make a £650 speaker really sing with decent source and amps. There are quite a few people who make their dislike of one brand abundantly clear for whatever reason. I've said that one model of speaker from that particular brand sounds marvelous with my system. If the basics are right, any decent speaker will show off (to varying degrees admittedly) the attributes of the kit further upstream.

But you are just going on trying Neats in your system which may not be suiable for them, just like your MAs won't be good with some other amps. Many people don't like MAs, so its just your opinion.

Why buy Quads amps when they get fairly poor reviews?

 

[matt49]

If you see my comments elsewhere you'll note that it is my contention that any halfway decent speaker should not muck it up. It is possible to make a £650 speaker really sing with decent source and amps. There are quite a few people who make their dislike of one brand abundantly clear for whatever reason. I've said that one model of speaker from that particular brand sounds marvelous with my system. If the basics are right, any decent speaker will show off (to varying degrees admittedly) the attributes of the kit further upstream.

OK, so let's go back to the Devialet and B&W system I mentioned earlier.

You're saying that a pair of the new B&W 683 S2s (£1150: I've stretched your budget a bit, because I'm generous) will give such a good result with the Devialet that upgrading to the 800Ds would give no meaningful improvement?

(Note: I'm not saying that expensive stuff is necessarily and always better, just that within any manufacturer's range, the more expensive speakers will perform better than the less expensive ones more often than they don't, assuming of course that you have a good enough amp to drive them and they're suitable for your room.)

Matt

 

[VOE]

If you see my comments elsewhere you'll note that it is my contention that any halfway decent speaker should not muck it up. It is possible to make a £650 speaker really sing with decent source and amps. There are quite a few people who make their dislike of one brand abundantly clear for whatever reason. I've said that one model of speaker from that particular brand sounds marvelous with my system. If the basics are right, any decent speaker will show off (to varying degrees admittedly) the attributes of the kit further upstream.

OK, so let's go back to the Devialet and B&W system I mentioned earlier.

You're saying that a pair of the new B&W 683 S2s (£1150: I've stretched your budget a bit, because I'm generous) will give such a good result with the Devialet that upgrading to the 800Ds would give no meaningful improvement?

(Note: I'm not saying that expensive stuff is necessarily and always better, just that within any manufacturer's range, the more expensive speakers will perform better than the less expensive ones more often than they don't, assuming of course that you have a good enough amp to drive them and they're suitable for your room.)

Matt

No, I'm not saying that, because I too am extremely generous. My point is that getting the source "right" first is key, then the amps and lastly the speakers. If you already have the source/amps, then blow whatever you like on the speakers if it suits and you get a meaningful benefit from it. Pound for pound or pound for sound, I believe you get more from the system if you compromise the speaker budget and get better equipment upstream. If you've already satisfied yourself with that then go for it with the speakers. The OP was asking about the breakup of a budget.

 

[Vladimir]

I don't think that speakers have particularly moved on from 1964, never mind 1994.

Ferrofluid cooling, titanium/berilium/ceramic/diamond tweeters, metal/kevlar cones for LF and MF drivers, larger motors with stiffer and lighter components, neodymium magnets etc. How about Laurence Dickie's Nautilus and Giya or even MBL speakers? Active speakers? Active DSP crossovers?

Surely some of this counts as progress.