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

[anmpr1]

i have a theory that you could replace everything before the power amp in most audiophile systems with a 300$ ipad's headphone out and they wouldn't notice.

Anecdote: some years ago I was invited to a friend's house to listen to his new acquisitions. A pair of Roger West's electrostatic speakers driven by an expensive amp, with tweako cable and ceramic high risers to keep the cable off the floor. Source was a high end tweako CD player. I don't honestly recall the brands, other than the speakers, which were first rate.

When the owner was out of the room, and on a lark, I replaced the fancy CD player with a Panasonic portable (battery powered--maybe $100.00) player I had in my backpack. When he came in the room he was going on and on about the great sound from his set up. I told him the source was the Panasonic portable, and it sort of deflated him.

 

[MRC01]

https://www.hifinews.com/content/magnepan-magneplanar-207-loudspeaker-lab-report

I always wondered about the big ones (20.7), surprised to see that they measure worse than the 3.6. The 20.7 are so big that most rooms simply aren't big enough for them.

PS: big dipole panel speakers are difficult to measure. Dipoles interact with the room more than conventional speakers do, so you either measure near-field and apply an estimated correction for far-field, in which case your measurements are only as good as your assumptions. Or you measure far-field at the listener position which means you're measuring the room and their setup in the room as much as the speakers. So the measurements in reviews vary quite a bit. I suspect these inconsistent or mediocre measurements are why they're less popular on sites like this which have a strong emphasis on measurements. Fair enough. But they can measure well if you put the time & effort into room treatment & setup. Besides myself, I've seen others here at this site who have posted similar good measurements with dipole panels.

One might wonder, why get a speaker that is so sensitive to room setup? For me the answer is, when set up right the midrange is magically natural and realistic, listening to voices, piano, or other well recorded acoustic music. Just one man's opinion, so take it FWIW.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I always wondered about the big ones (20.7), surprised to see that they measure worse than the 3.6. The 20.7 are so big that most rooms simply aren't big enough for them.

PS: big dipole panel speakers are difficult to measure. Dipoles interact with the room more than conventional speakers do, so you either measure near-field and apply an estimated correction for far-field, in which case your measurements are only as good as your assumptions. Or you measure far-field at the listener position which means you're measuring the room and their setup in the room as much as the speakers. So the measurements in reviews vary quite a bit. I suspect these inconsistent or mediocre measurements are why they're less popular on sites like this which have a strong emphasis on measurements. Fair enough. But they can measure well if you put the time & effort into room treatment & setup. Besides myself, I've seen others here at this site who have posted similar good measurements with dipole panels.

One might wonder, why get a speaker that is so sensitive to room setup? For me the answer is, when set up right the midrange is magically natural and realistic, listening to voices, piano, or other well recorded acoustic music. Just one man's opinion, so take it FWIW.

I enjoyed Apogee Diva ribbons for years and horns too.
The problem of both is resonance but I like them

 

[MattHooper]

Not sure how I could answer this given I so often buy used equipment, and given I own so many speakers.

I'm certainly a believer in "Speakers First" in terms of the item that makes the main difference for a sound system (with cables being probably last - as in I don't give much credit to the concept of boutique audiophile cables).

Amplifiers...well...that gets a bit more complicated for me. For me one competently designed SS amp with the sufficient specs to drive a speaker should sound identical to another. But I like tube amps and that gets more complicated, and yes I spent a bunch of money way-back-when for the CJ tube amps I still use (and CJ preamp). And I did spend a more-than-is-probably-sane bundle on a turntable. So I'm betting that, even though I am in the camp of speakers being by far the most important item, my actual spending ratio is likely higher for other components than many here.

Then again, I am just completing purchase of a pair of Joseph Audio Perspective loudspeakers, by far the most I've ever spent on any piece of audio gear, so that will push my ratio spent on speakers back up again

 

[mkawa]

the line also blurs these days when so many really good loudspeakers are active and include signal processing. i have been super impressed by my axiom audio lfr880s. the basic loudspeaker design of the lfr880 is inherited from the axiom m80 that is derived from the same work at the national research council of canada that PSB and paradigm's designs are/were based on.

however, axiom is migrating to active dsp designs. my most recent upgrade cycle put me into the omnidirectional-dipole-via-dsp lfrs and a 12" dsp driven sub with active crossover. on axis in a traditional radiator setup, it sounds as good as the m80s did on axis. off-axis, it sounds an order of magnitude better. the entire DSP stage is basically a single chip on the input stage of the paired class D amp units. (the DSP is not user programmable, so takes a lot of simplicity from that perk).

prior to DSP being easy to pack into products, both of these designs would have been impossible, or cost 10x what i paid for them (heck, look at psb and paradigm pricing compared to axiom..). but, do i count this spend as electronics? speaker? both? my answer is that it doesn't really matter. audiophiles are weird people that often take forever to understand the modern world's subtleties. i can't tear down walls and move furniture so that i am only ever sitting perfectly on axis, and i'm not going to spend a thousand dollars on MDF picture frames to haphazardly try to manage reflection off of walls either.

in another blow to audiophile orthodoxy, i replaced an entire bedroom system with a single mono amazon echo. it suits the room fine, and no, it doesn't sound like 50% of the more expensive setup, it sounds like precisely 1/13 of it, but in terms of functionally being able to listen to music, news and podcasts, it gets 100% of the way there.

i'll also note that i can't hear "the air" or "the blackness" of any of these setups. i may be able to hear air through my IEMs, but that is probably because the drivers are in a nearly sealed chamber with my eardrums, so there is a fixed quantity of air in there that i'm hearing.

 

[Martin]

I bought a lot of my stereo system second hand. At the price I paid my speakers are about 33% of my total system cost. Using MSRP that percentage rises to approximately 67%. In my home theater my speakers account for about 75% of the cost when factoring in the subwoofers.

Martin

 

[strat_80]

Here is one of my systems:

Speakers : Dennis Murphy Philharmonic-3 (Jim Salk cabinets)

Digital Source: Rega Apollo + NAD M51 DAC
Analog Source: Phase Linear PL-L8000

Preamp: Musical Fidelity A308cr

Power Amps: Monoblocks Marantz M500 ( going to be replaced by in two weeks by Hypex NC500 monoblocks from Nord)
Will see how that goes

In this system the speaker dominate as I got the other parts used. The second most expensive is the M51 DAC. If you look at list price new. A308cr is not available new.

45% = speakers in round numbers
20% = DAC
20% = Preamp
10% = poweramps
5% = Turntable

Second system:

Speakers : Dennis Murphy BMR Philharmonitor (Jim Salk cabinets)

Digital Source: Oppo 103
Analog Source: Technics SL-1210

Integrated Amp: Pathos Classic One Mk III

In this system maybe: Integrated Amp = 40% = Speakers, and Sources = 20%

Did not include cables - don't use exotic cables. Generally make my own speaker cables.

Thanks

 

[watchnerd]

If I was digital only, speakers would be closer to 50%

But having analog sources like reel-to-reel decks and a turntable (with arm, cart, SUT, etc) changes the math dramatically.

 

[LTig]

https://www.hifinews.com/content/magnepan-magneplanar-207-loudspeaker-lab-report

Wow -- that is very poor performance. You would think that pair matching could be significantly better even if in room FR is terrible.

When I replaced my Magnepan 1.6 after some 13 years of usage by the K&H O300D the first thought that entered my mind on initial listening was: I didn't know the Maggies were soooo bad.

The O300Ds are now 15 years old and - supported by a sub - sound as fantastic as ever. Just yesterday evening I spend 3 hours listening (Riverside, Weendo) and thought that it possibly could not get any better. Seems I was in the proper mood.

 

[MRC01]

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. ...

Sounds like an ideal application for headphones. I'm in the same situation in the evenings when the family is asleep. I invested in a great set of headphones, and over time it's turned out to be money well spent as it's given me many hours of musical enjoyment.

I suppose somebody with a headphone system could answer this poll thinking of headphones as speakers.

 

[LTig]

[..] I want to add one thing, however, and that is that even though electronics can be transparent for only little money, there is a level below which this cannot be achieved. From time to time we see people here asking about ultra cheap chip amps, and those are a waste of money.

FWIW: my K&H O300D use 4 TDA 7294 chips as power amps, 1 each for mid and highs, and 2 in bridge mode for the woofer. The current price is some 6 to 8 $ at Mouser. They sound fantastic.

 

[MRC01]

The opamps may seem cheap individually, even if you get expensive ones like AD 797. However, when you add the cost of power supplies, regulation, the case, knobs, etc. all the stuff you need to build a good amp, the parts alone end up costing over a hundred bucks. And that doesn't count time you'd spend designing and building it, and it assumes you get it perfect the first time which never happens. Every good amp starts with a good clean design but has some iterations of testing & refining.
All that is to say, good inexpensive amps (like JDS Atom and a few others) are actually a great value, often costing less than what it would take to build it yourself.

 

[watchnerd]

Sounds like an ideal application for headphones. I'm in the same situation in the evenings when the family is asleep. I invested in a great set of headphones, and over time it's turned out to be money well spent as it's given me many hours of musical enjoyment.

I suppose somebody with a headphone system could answer this poll thinking of headphones as speakers.

What do headphones users do for sex music?


Put a set of cans on each person and use a Y-splitter?

 

[mkawa]

The opamps may seem cheap individually, even if you get expensive ones like AD 797. However, when you add the cost of power supplies, regulation, the case, knobs, etc. all the stuff you need to build a good amp, the parts alone end up costing over a hundred bucks. And that doesn't count time you'd spend designing and building it, and it assumes you get it perfect the first time which never happens. Every good amp starts with a good clean design but has some iterations of testing & refining.
All that is to say, good inexpensive amps (like JDS Atom and a few others) are actually a great value, often costing less than what it would take to build it yourself.

a great but extreme example is JRC's MUSES0X. retail cost of any of the muses opas is 50$, while fiio's charges about 100$ for an entire amp built around a MUSES02. diy is fun and lets you experiment with new circuits and part, but it's not great otherwise.

 

[LTig]

The opamps may seem cheap individually, even if you get expensive ones like AD 797.

The TDA 7294 is a power (op) amp. It replaces a complete discrete power amp stage with all bells and whistles. You "just" need a power supply.

However, when you add the cost of power supplies, regulation, the case, knobs, etc. all the stuff you need to build a good amp, the parts alone end up costing over a hundred bucks. And that doesn't count time you'd spend designing and building it, and it assumes you get it perfect the first time which never happens. Every good amp starts with a good clean design but has some iterations of testing & refining.
All that is to say, good inexpensive amps (like JDS Atom and a few others) are actually a great value, often costing less than what it would take to build it yourself.

I totally agree with you. My posting just wanted to state that cheap integrated power amps are not necessarily bad.

 

[mkawa]

they're not bad at all these days. i have 3-4 extremely inexpensive SMSL amps that sound pretty good (q5 pro, sa-150, sa-60). i've torn them all down and beefed up various bits, but for the price, they're excellent. that said, i'm convinced they were all sold for way under real cost.

 

[watchnerd]

that said, i'm convinced they were all sold for way under real cost.

?

Why do you believe that? Are you saying SMSL is engaging in dumping to drive competitors out of business?

 

[garbulky]

If I count sources like a computer then speakers is about 20%. The most expensive part of my system is the amps coming in a little under $2000.

 

[mkawa]

?

Why do you believe that? Are you saying SMSL is engaging in dumping to drive competitors out of business?

no, and i think i mention this elsewhere, but i think that smsl is run by folks who are passionate about hifi and exceptionally good at spot market logistics. i don't think they are driven by profits.

i know folks from the keyboard space who ran small manufacturing businesses out of passion with zero profit motivation, and my impression of smsl is similar. the low volume and low prices just aren't possible otherwise. having torn down most of my smsl stuff, i just can't see how anyone could be making money off these products at these prices.

 

[Aprude51]

no, and i think i mention this elsewhere, but i think that smsl is run by folks who are passionate about hifi and exceptionally good at spot market logistics. i don't think they are driven by profits.

i know folks from the keyboard space who ran small manufacturing businesses out of passion with zero profit motivation, and my impression of smsl is similar. the low volume and low prices just aren't possible otherwise. having torn down most of my smsl stuff, i just can't see how anyone could be making money off these products at these prices.

I think you’d be surprised at how low prices can be driven on the back of low margins, an efficient supply chain, and online only selling. Our benchmarks are also skewed, because much of the enthusiast audio business is based on high margins, inefficient production, and high retail markups.

That said, I do agree that both SMLS & Topping, amongst other Chinese audio manufacturers, seem to show a real appreciation for quality audio.