[vcoheda]

a recent article in Hi-Fi magazine argues that your system in terms of money spent per components should resemble an equilateral triangle. in general, to get a balanced system, equal attention should be given to each part of the set up - with one part being the items that reproduce the sound and the other the ones that deliver or influence it. this means that 50 percent of your expenditures should be spent on source, amp, speakers (headphones) and the other 50 on power, support, and cables. any other division is going to be either top heavy or bottom heavy and out of sync. you are either not going to get the most from your audio components or your audio components won't be good enough to give you the best music for your money.

basically, you want this

and not this

not a new concept but the article takes you through a setup of good quality but with all entry level associated gear or "tweaks" and upgrades each one, which in order of importance it lists as power and then support/isolation and then cables (which ideally should be of matching brands), noting the improvements as the system becomes more balanced heard along the way.

he notes how he has heard many expensive systems which sounded bad because all effort/money was spent on the electronics and little attention was paid to power, support, cables, and other less expensive systems which sounded far better because of symmetry. he also sees a common fault of people who are not entirely happy with their system to upgrade the "main" components instead of addressing the other factors and of course the result - further disappointment - is the same.

of course, this article assumes that there is a difference among power units/conditioners, support racks and isolation devices, and cables and that going up the chain if smartly done translates to real and tangible improvements in sound quality. a good article overall.

 

[jaduffy007]

Thanks for the heads up on this HiFi article. Good to see this understanding getting the attention it deserves.

I used to be a tweek-oholic....using stuff like Shun Mook Audio's Mpingo products. Those would truly make the skeptics die from laughter.

 

[bigshot]

There's no proper proportion for how much to spend on a system. Money doesn't buy good sound. Careful planning and proper priorities do.

First and foremost, always keep focused on the music. That's what really matters. Spend more on software than you do on hardware. You aren't listening to wires, you're listening to music.

The best place to spend your money is on speakers and headphones. More money there equates to better sound more than anywhere else.

Next focus your energy on room acoustics and equalization. This can take a lot of work, but the best equipment sounds no better than the worst in a lousy room with unbalanced response. There's no "magic box" you can buy that can do this for you. You have to do the research and put in the effort.

Spend just enough money on electronics to get the features you want. Spend just enough on an amp to be able to power your speakers efficiently. Don't waste money on piddly stuff that would be better spent on getting really well recorded and well performed music. A great sounding CD will improve the sound of every stereo... much more than a fancy wire will.

Last piece of advice... Stereo magazines and salesmen in stereo stores aren't your friend. They pretend to be and suck up to you, but they have only one use for you. The magazines belong to the equipment manufacturers. They just want to sell advertising. In fact, most of their articles are written from information provided by the manufacturers.

For solid advice, look for people with experience that know what they're talking about. People who explain how to solve problems in basic English. People who aren't trying to sell anything. Getting good sound is just plain common sense and the application of basic acoustic principles. It doesn't require a degree in electrical engineering or magical chicken bleeding. Look for folks who make sense. If someone starts talking a bunch of flowery poetry about sound, or goes into incomprehensible tech speak, they don't have anything to offer you. They're just trying to buffalo you. Look for people who give you solid advice you can use.

See ya
Steve

 

[Penchum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif It doesn't require a degree in electrical engineering or magical chicken bleeding. See ya Steve

Steve, when you said this, I laughed and splatted coffee on my monitor!

 

[Sarchi]

Oh please. My BS-o-meter just bounced off the redline.

 

[Penchum]

I've been looking at that equilateral triangle and thinking about it for a while now. Whether they are right or wrong, doesn't it also represent the best sales possibilities, to make the most profit?

 

[Chu]

Am I the only one a little confused about why you're using a triangle here?

I really have issues with this logic though. It makes the assumption that (a) cost is directly proportional to quality and (b) cost:quality is an unyielding ratio. I really would like to see any serious justification of that.

A trivial counterexample -- Grado's cost about twice as much in Europe as the US after exchange rate and dealer markup. Does that mean their Grado's are twice as good as ours?

 

[Sarchi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chu /img/forum/go_quote.gif Am I the only one a little confused about why you're using a triangle here? I really have issues with this logic though. It makes the assumption that (a) cost is directly proportional to quality and (b) cost:quality is an unyielding ratio. I really would like to see any serious justification of that.

C'mon, look at the ads in the magazine and you have the answer....they want readers to spend equal money with the holy triad based on some suit's market categorization. We've heard it all before.

 

[ZarakiSan]

Let's say you purchase a pair of speakers at 400 total (Low-end), a 400 dollar amp, and you use a 400 CD player as well.

Would those components need interconnects of 600 dollars, speaker cable worth another 400 (That's the same as the speakers) and a $200 power brick?

NO. WAY. I call bull here as well, this just doesn't make any sense. It's simple that the margins on cables and such are so extraordinarily high (It could cost mroe to make $200 cables than $2000, who'd know the difference? Certainly not the audiophiles!) that he claims this is right. He's trying to make money, just like us all. Lying is a small thing to do.

 

[nick20]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Money doesn't buy good sound

Yes it does. You need money to get a good setup. You need money to get good quality music. I could go on-and-on, but I won't.

 

[Uncle Erik]

I don't agree at all. There is no direct correlation between price and quality. Extremely high quality gear can be made simply. It is more about the design and workmanship than the price tag.

The price threshold for good sound continues to drop. The $300-$400 CD players are excellent today and the prices for good DACs continue to fall. Storage on computers is cheaper than ever, and so are music server computers.

Further, the secondhand market for amps, speakers and other components is the best place to buy. You can pick up well made equipment for 50% of retail or less. Don't buy into the hype that you need the latest n' greatest minor tweak over the 2006 system. You can get an older model still capable of excellent performance.

The best example of this is the Quad ESL-57. 50 years old and still better than most gear. Even the K-1000 came out in 1990. Newer doesn't always equal better.

As for the cabling, it may or may not change the sound. We can't agree on that and I accept that people hear a difference while I do not. However, we can all agree on the price tag. The prices are high.

Among other things, I am an accountant. I've looked at the costs of the raw materials, manufacturing, etc. and plugged in educated guesses for overhead and R&D. Even overstating the overhead and R&D, the profit margins on cables are off the charts. We can go back and forth on the sound and science, but every cable sale puts a whopping profit in someone's pocket.

That profit doesn't just go off to a trust account somewhere. It goes back into driving the demand. Advertising isn't just print ads, either. These days, you can never be sure when you're being marketed to. Draw your own conclusions.

But the numbers don't lie. Cables have a massive markup and are, without question, the most profitable audio item on the market. People make a lot of money from them. What would you do to keep the cash flowing?

 

[chesebert]

the cable profit is insane..I think that's a known fact. I wouldn't disagree with the idea that cable should probably be on the back burner until you got most of your other stuff out of the way or you see a good deal

 

[LawnGnome]

This seems best only from a marketing position.

From what I have seen from them before, they seem to be in the manufacturers pocket when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Chu]

I think the audiophile press in general is completely advertising driven, but that's another topic.

 

[Arainach]

I have to agree, this article seems like it was written by the marketing division of some cable company somewhere.

I'd say more like 25% Speakers/Headphones, 20% Amplification, 20% Source, 30% Media, 5% Cables. But that's just me.