Poll: What % of your system investment is in your speakers?

[Tks]

Meh never cared much for speakers seeing as I live in an apartment. And if I can't blast them, I never bothered with anything too serious.

Source is an Nvidia Shield with expanded storage with Vanatoo T1 Encore speakers. SO about $900 ?

Really like the company and featureset from the speakers. They have this Topping DX3 Pro vibe to them, with respect to featureset that is unseen for the price, and performance that follows suit.

 

[dkinric]

68% $ retail / 73% $ actually paid (including 2 subs)
Hardware components only (ie not counting cables/wiring/stands, etc which are minimal anyway)

IMO, after a certain minimal level of competence of other components, speakers define the system. Probably could have spent even less on everything else with minimal impact.

 

[Willem]

There are of course many expensive speakers that are not at all worth the money. Speakers are a product that can be manufactured at a quite small scale, and hence they invite all kinds of snake oil frauds, particularly at very elevated price levels: just make sure the cabinets are beautifully finished, but that does not have to be done in-house.
I have been amazed by the quality leaps taken by mass market manufacturers such as Wharfedale and Q-Acoustics, but the gap with really good speakers like those from Harbeth, or with the Quad electrostats, remains significant. Whether one can and wants to invest this much money is of course a very personal thing. All I can say is that over a lifetime I have not spent that much money on audio gear. I bought my first serious set (Quad ELS57 with Quad 33-303 amplification) as a student in the seventies. My current set up is their immediate successor, put together over the last decade, and hence only my second main system. The system in my study is also only the second of its kind. The first had Rogers LS3/5a speakers and orinally served as a movable system for long periods of work abroad. I later moved it to my study, and later again it served as a smaller system, when we were living in small temporary accommodation. The LS3/5as were replaced by the Harbeths only quite recently. Calculated over a lifetime, I have not spent that much compared to those who change gear every other year.

 

[PierreV]

Based on how I could mix and match my components, the system could be 10% speaker 90% rest (say LS50 + Linn combo) or 97% speaker 3% rest (say Giya G3 + any cheap integrated amp I happen to have lying around + KTB).

As far as I am concerned, at moderate to normal listening level, the speakers do indeed define the system (room aside). For example, the G3 sound like G3s with a $80 amplifier and the LS50 sound like LS50 with a $10000 driver. At higher spl, of course, the $80 amp will obviously break down very obviously and the LS50, expensively driven, will keep their composure up to the spec limits.

As far as the future is concerned, I only see eventual speakers. A transparent, fairly priced, streamer/preamp with XLR out, ideally with DSP and a pair of hypex monoblocks seems to be all I need.

 

[MRC01]

... It's just...speakers are the weakest link in the chain no doubt. But after a certain point, putting a lot of money into speakers just seems pointless to me. They're not that much better. I've heard expensive speakers in hifi studios, I just don't get the appeal.

Sorry for the humblebrag, but you can't discuss percentages without stating absolute values. I just don't think percentages make a lot of sense when it comes to speakers. There is a very hard lower floor when it comes to speaker price and quality, but once you climb that, the improvements are not that great IMHO. I would happily run KEF LS50 for retail price and a cheap (300€) amplifier if I had to.

There's a thread of truth there, as diminishing returns applies to all products including speakers. However, the curve of diminishing returns has a different shape for speakers, than it does for other stereo components: it is less bent. That is, with most components you get 99% of the available max sound quality for the first $500 spent. For speakers, the first $500 maybe gets you half-way there. If you want low (< 1%) distortion and flat/even response through the midrange, that's going to cost more. If you want clean tight bass into the bottom octave, it's going to cost spades more. If you want to achieve all that up to 105 dB SPL (you don't listen that loud, but you want the occasional dynamic peaks to be as clean as the average levels) that's going to cost more, plus the amplification to do it.

 

[Dogen]

It’s hard to say; I have a couple of systems and equipment gets swapped in and out. But starting from scratch, I’d spend at least half my budget on speakers. It’s the most variable variable, and where a system is made or broken. Assuming everything else is adequate.

 

[MRC01]

All this talk about speakers being the most important component, I agree. Yet room treatment is just as important, and makes a bigger difference than any upstream components in the system. One could easily spend as much (or almost as much) on room treatment as on the speakers. Even if you DIY the room treatment, building your own tube traps, bass traps, etc. you still need the materials to do this, and a way to measure what you're doing (say, a UMIK-1 and Room EQ Wizard).

In many cases, cheap speakers in a well tuned / treated room will sound better than great speakers in an untreated room. If I were building a budget system, I'd consider that.

PS: room treatment is always a good investment because it's the gift that keeps on giving - useful pretty much forever - always improving the sound no matter what your equipment is, even if you upgrade speakers or other parts later.

 

[Juhazi]

60-75%, but it depends...
Main set has diy active speakers, for which materials, components, pro carpenter and painter costed 6000€. AVR new 600€, used CD 300€, used record player 300€, cables 50€.
Second set (HT) with mostly diy speakers and diy sub 1000€, used AVR, stereo preamp, amps and CD, LP, new dac, all 1500€, cables 20€
Third set used speakers 300€, new car radio 100€ (at summer cabin, solar powered), cables 2€

Sorry to say that room treatment 0€. Positioning and furniture placement is free!

 

[MRC01]

My speakers represent only about 35-40% of the total cost of my primary listening system, mainly because I've spent a lot on room treatment, which is the 2nd biggest expense after the speakers.

Some of my equipment is old, like my 25+ year old power amp and 20 year old speakers (if it ain't broke, don't fix it!). So for a realistic ranking I'm using new values, not current values on used market.

Ranking, in order of decreasing cost: Speakers, room treatment, DAC/preamp, power amp, then the other components like digital EQ, disc player, digital recorder, etc.

 

[LTig]

The numbers depend because I got some good deals. I state numbers based on what I actually payed because some gear I would have never bought for the full price (I got more than 60% rebate on the preamp). I chose to do so because it reflects how much I actually wanted to invest.

• Main system:
  • 35% for the speakers (2.1 active)
  • 16% for preamp (with DAC) and sound improvement
  • 10% for digital sources (including BDP)
  • 41% for analog sources (most of it for the TT, now 25 years old)
• Desktop system:
  • 28% for speakers (2.1 active, the sub did cost me a pizza)
  • 72% for DAC/HP-amp. I know, the RME ADI-2 fs is very expensive and regarding SQ I was totally satisfied with my old Edirol UA25, but the RME was an investment for measuring equipment.
  • 0% for digital sources (inherited CDP)

I'm not sure what I would do if the TT breaks down. With some 1300 records a new one makes sense, OTOH I use it seldom (but when I use it then for the whole evening). It may be cheaper to buy those records I love new on CD and be done with vinyl ...

 

[digicidal]

I'm not sure what I would do if the TT breaks down. With some 1300 records a new one makes sense, OTOH I use it seldom (but when I use it then for the whole evening). It may be cheaper to buy those records I love new on CD and be done with vinyl ...

I'm not sure what TT you'd be considering in that case, but considering even used market CD's will be at least $5-8 and new will be $10-15 - you're probably somewhere between $10K and $15K for the move to digital (assuming all 1300 were replaced). You can get a pretty great TT for $1K or less until you enter the more boutique models.

Now if you add in streaming options... it could be much cheaper - but then you're renting rather than owning. If you're like me that's a less attractive option for albums you frequently enjoy - but perfectly viable for the occasional craving that's outside the norm.

 

[Ron Texas]

My take on the audiophile publication ethic is moderately priced speakers and wildly expensive electronics. It kind of makes me think of photographers who buy low end bodies and pro lenses because the glass has better resale value.

 

[ahofer]

Unless you count the music collection, 75% speakers. In order of price:

Speakers
.
DAC/preamp
.
Power amp
.
.
.
Power protection
Cables and interconnects

 

[RayDunzl]

What % of your system investment is in your speakers?

100%, since that's what it took to make the speakers do something useful?

 

[Martin Takamine]

About 32% for speakers now but at the start it was 100% then I began putting together my system...integrated amp...a few CD players...a few TTs...a few phono stages...a laptop...a couple of DACs. Currently it consists of a pair of speakers, integrated amp, 2 TTs, 2 phono stages, laptop, CD changer, and DAC.

 

[BillG]

If you want clean tight bass into the bottom octave, it's going to cost spades more.

Easily accommodated for by an inexpensive subwoofer. These often appear on sale at 50% off, and if one is listening to stuff lower than they can go, which isn't most music, well, they can go listen to the thunder:

https://www.infinityspeakers.com/reference-series-home/REFERENCE+SUB+R12.html

 

[MRC01]

Bass is very difficult to get right in a speaker. Key aspects are (1) low distortion, (2) deep frequency extension, and (3) high levels. With an inexpensive subwoofer, you get 1 or maybe 2. If you want all three it ain't gonna be cheap.

 

[RayDunzl]

Ok, just the basics then, using MSRP of the devices:

 

[MRC01]

My take on the audiophile publication ethic is moderately priced speakers and wildly expensive electronics. It kind of makes me think of photographers who buy low end bodies and pro lenses because the glass has better resale value.

Yes, that's what many audiophiles & shops have recommended as long as I can remember (a few decades): spend the most money as far upstream as possible. This never made any sense to me (the photography analogy would be expensive bodies with cheap lenses, which doesnt make sense either). I think it stems from the days before digital, when spending big bucks on a turntable, cartridge & head amp was necessary to get decent sound. The difference between a $100 and $1000 turntable is easily and obviously audible. Not so with a DAC. So nowadays that advice makes even less sense, when a couple hundred bucks gets near reference quality DAC, that is more transparent than most of the mics and mic preamps used to make the recordings we listen to.

It remains a fact that most of the distortion we hear is coming from the speakers & room. That, combined with the different shape of the diminishing returns curve, says spend most of the money on the speakers & room treatment.

 

[Hugo9000]

I guess over 75% overall, because of having multiple surround setups thus lots of speakers haha.

Looking just at the two stereo setups that get the most actual use, then each of those has the speakers at around 60% of the budget.

My music collection (CDs and a fair amount of SACDs) accounts for the bulk of my spending on audio through the years. The total cost of my recordings is more than double my lifetime total spent on electronics and speakers, but it has taken me 32 years to collect these recordings. (I bought my first CD in 1987.)