[Hershon2000]

On a 100% scale, excluding speakers & acoustics, what % roughly contributes to the overall audio sound of CD's: CD player, DAC, cables, receiver/amp, other accessories (pads, feet, etc.), tubes (if tube player)? Should the amount of money you've put into your system, reflect this %. Feel free to add to this breakdown.

 

[Sordel]

It used to be that you were suppose to double price as you got back to the source and then spend 10% on cables and interconnects. So a mid-market system might have included a $1000 turntable, $500 amplifier, $250 speakers, $170 on cables and interconnects. That must have represented sound contribution at that point, but now the price/performance ratio on CD players is so bad that this advice needs to be rewritten.

Obviously you want to preserve as much information as possible along the way, so a decent transport and DAC look to be essential. In our case (with headphones I guess that we'd want to spend more on those proportionately than we would with speakers, so maybe 50-50 on amp and headphones.

My answer to your question (and bear in mind that I'm pretty ignorant but cover it with confidence and bluster) is that the source (including DAC)contributes about 55% of the sound quality, the amplifier contributes about 15%, the headphones contribute about 25% and the cables contribute about 5%.

That would make sense if you think that people spend, say, $300 on an iPod and would do well to invest in a cheap portable amp and cheap headphones to upgrade it. It also works when you think that no one is going to spend $1000 on headphones without spending at least $500 on an amp.

While the contribution of the source is about 55%, however, the fact that a CD player with an integrated DAC is a pretty good source yet might cost very little proportionately does mean that you shouldn't necessarily break down your budget that way: it's just a way of ensuring that proper attention is paid to the source once you've invested in the other links in the chain. What my assessment implies, I guess is that it wouldn't be crazy to spend over $2000 on a CD player and DAC to go with $1000 headphones.

 

[Garbz]

45% speakers, 30% amp, 20% source, 5% all others is how I roughly split my system. Not taking into account DIY projects.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garbz /img/forum/go_quote.gif 45% speakers, 30% amp, 20% source, 5% all others is how I roughly split my system. Not taking into account DIY projects.

That sounds about right. Although for a stereo system, I'd probably put a bit more in the source and the amp. Also, I'd put more into the source than the amps. Your speakers are only as good as the signal out of your source and most speakers scale very well with increasingly high-end sources and amps.

I reckon the sound-producing elements (eg speakers, headphones) effect the sound the most. Next would be the source and then the amp. Cables and power are the last things you should think about even though they're important. How much you spend on each is very difficult to say. It really depends on synergy of the components.

For example, my electrostatic set-up is very unbalanced money-wise, but it sounds wonderful! I'm sure it could do with a better source though.

M-Audio Audiophile USB: $150 (12%)
Stax SRM-006t Mk1: $600 (46%)
Stax SR-404: $370 (29%)
Chord Cobra 3 RCA IC: $110 (9%)
Russ Andrews PowerMax power cord: $50 (4%)
Total: $1280 (100%)

Adding a Stello DA100 ($700) would push the total to $1980 and the distribution will look like this:
Digital Source: 8%
DAC: 35%
Amp: 30%
Headphone: 19%
IC: 6%
Power cord: 3%
One could argue that the latter configuration is more balanced from a purely monetary point of view, but there is a great deal more than money IMO. Certain components may be over/underpriced, which might effect the final ratios. Take BJC ICs for example, if a large cable company (eg Transparent, Nordost, Van der Hul, Chord, Cardas, etc...) sold the exact same cable but made it look fancier, there's no doubt that the price will be much greater.

 

[Yikes]

The ratios change as the performance of the system increases, so there is no pat answer.

 

[markl]

Without considering your transducers (headphones/speakers) it's around:


50% source, 40% amp, 10% cables.


However, one of the most key attributes of how your CD will sound is how it is mastered. Most CDs today are mastered very badly (compressed and LOUD and over-EQed).

 

[braillediver]

“What affects CD audio quality most:”

The CD player. Nothing down stream will improve on an inferior source. Where a quality source will be able to deal with some inferior components downstream.

The signal at the output of the source is the reference point- whether you can use it properly and do it justice depends on the quality and synergy of the downstream components.


Mitch

 

[neergan1216]

I think Mitch is right. After some experimenting, my headphone system is at these ratios. My amp figure is so small because I got lucky and found a beat-up Marantz 1060 on ebay for $40.

Source (CD/DAC or CDP) = 75%
Headphones = 10%
Cables = 10%
Amp = 5%

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by neergan1216 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think Mitch is right. After some experimenting, my headphone system is at these ratios. My amp figure is so small because I got lucky and found a beat-up Marantz 1060 on ebay for $40. Source (CD/DAC or CDP) = 75% Headphones = 10% Cables = 10% Amp = 5%

What was the original selling price of the Marantz? It's a bit unfair to advise others based on used prices because that is not indicative of its actual performance relative to other similarly priced new components. IMO, the whole percentage of system price thing is just a vague guideline for how good a particular component should be relative to your total system price and should not be applied to used gear unless all your stuff is used.

 

[tourmaline]

Defenately source! Biggest improvements. Also some good reference interlinks gave me alot of improvements overal, but the biggest is ofcourse source. A good cable helps the good source to let you hear what the source can do and hear differences easier. The flow from top to bottom with a good cable is so much better.

 

[braillediver]

Along with all the comments- System Synergy is important. Markl uses the R10's with the HR2- for me that has always been enlightening since it's what sounds best that matters. An audio snob might think the HR2 is unworthy of driving the R10's based on some pice distribution concept. Apparently Not So.


Mitch

 

[Sleestack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, one of the most key attributes of how your CD will sound is how it is mastered. Most CDs today are mastered very badly (compressed and LOUD and over-EQed).

Bingo!

 

[NMyTree]

" What affects CD audio quality most: Cables, CD player, DAC, receiver/amp,Accessories? "

In my opinion, the quality and integrity of the recording, the quality and integrity of the mastering, and the quality and integrity of the production of the physical compact disc.

 

[braillediver]

I believe the question was: With CD in hand what affects CD playback audio quality most: Cables, CD player, DAC, receiver/amp, Accessories?

There’s nothing the end user can do about the way a CD was recorded, mastered or manufactured.


Mitch

 

[tourmaline]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braillediver /img/forum/go_quote.gif I believe the question was: With CD in hand what affects CD playback audio quality most: Cables, CD player, DAC, receiver/amp, Accessories? There’s nothing the end user can do about the way a CD was recorded, mastered or manufactured. Mitch

Bang on!