$$$ MSRP balance in your Hi-Fi setup

[capt.chaos]

speakers $12,500
pre/power $7,500
cd $5,500
tuner $2,800
tt/cart/stage $10,000
dac $1,000
music server $2,500
power $2,000
cables $2,200

total msrp $46,000

 

[Pandovski]

total msrp $32,200

speakers $12,500 38.9%
tt/cart/stage $10,000 31%
pre/power $7,500 23.2%
cables $2,200 6.9%

 

[Pandovski]

Got it. I'll swap out the SuperZeroes on my desk for a pair of Duntech Sovereigns right away. Now where is that $15,000 I had stuffed in my jeans pocket last week?

Cheers,

Otto

You don't seem overly ambitious at all!!!

More speakers, less amp. More data, less wank!

 

[bluesky]

All I know is:

Good vintage stereo system will cost you about $4500 USD when it's all said and done.

Or you can say you will spend $3500 for a nice complete system, with reliable great sounding gear, and in the process throw away (lose) an extra $1000 in getting gear that just didn't function right or last very long, trial and error, that's the vintage world. The $1000 loss is a small price to lose for the final result of having a really fine 'Stable' vintage stereo.

Or...you may get really lucky and get all great stable gear right away. If so...you can do it for $3500+/-.

It really a depends on what speakers you want. That will be the major expense.

For me, speakers are 65% of the sound of the system. Most folks say 70%. The amp has a lot to do with the 'depth' of sound. New CD players sound great. And a really fine vintage TT with a $400 cart!! or equalivant. And a tuner, and TT rack, and quality speaker cables and interconnects. Speaker stands and TT accessories.

$4000! For a quality vintage rig.

But it can be done cheaper with outstanding sonic results.

Just have to get the 'right gear together' that 'works well together'. That's one of the secrets, maybe the major one.

1988 was a good year for stable amps. Got one 1987 and one 1989 amp and they are bullet proof. So far. Bought the 1989 amp new, great amp.

 

[ofajen]

You don't seem overly ambitious at all!!!

More speakers, less amp. More data, less wank!

The trick will be getting them on the desktop on either side of the laptop. I'm not sure the ceiling is high enough next to the windows to let the Duntechs sit at desk height. Plus I may have to reinforce the desk a good bit so that it doesn't collapse under all the weight. Also, I may have to install some kind of a suspension cable to hold them angling down towards my ears since they will be aiming way above my head if they are sitting flat on the desk. I could lay them on their sides, but I'd need a desk about 18 feet long and that wouldn't fit in my room.

Now that I think of it, maybe mini-monitors really are necessary in this application and my current speakers are the proper choice, even though they didn't cost six times what the amp did? Imagine that.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Pandovski]

The trick will be getting them on the desktop on either side of the laptop. I'm not sure the ceiling is high enough next to the windows to let the Duntechs sit at desk height. Plus I may have to reinforce the desk a good bit so that it doesn't collapse under all the weight. Also, I may have to install some kind of a suspension cable to hold them angling down towards my ears since they will be aiming way above my head if they are sitting flat on the desk. I could lay them on their sides, but I'd need a desk about 18 feet long and that wouldn't fit in my room.

Now that I think of it, maybe mini-monitors really are necessary in this application and my current speakers are the proper choice, even though they didn't cost six times what the amp did? Imagine that.

Cheers,

Otto

How about laying them on the side and you can host wedding receptions using the Duntechs as tables.

According to the GR your amp is the overkill in price. You don't need Duntechs, just better speakers than those you got for the money difference gained by buying a cheaper amp. If your using speakers for NFL why use amp at all? Get studio grade active monitors. Adams and Genelec are excellent speakers for such occasion. The sound quality will blow you away. :thmbsp:

Cheerio

 

[Tim64]

Oh come on.. you build EVERYTHING. I'd be interested in yours if only for components cost ratios :yes:



I tend to agree with your buddy's train of thought. I'm not about to place a speaker value on the sound of my AKGs or Grados, or even Bose cans, but I do completely feel that with headphones you get much better fidelity for less money then you do with speakers.

Just my preference.

I agree, even my cheap TDK closed back headphones sound pretty good, they sound way better than my Rad Shack NOVA 40 headphones.

 

[stish]

When all is said and done, I'm barely qualified to know how to spend my money. I certainly don't know how to spend anyone else's.

 

[ofajen]

According to the GR your amp is the overkill in price. You don't need Duntechs, just better speakers than those you got for the money difference gained by buying a cheaper amp.

The DH-200 amp is sunk cost, bought for $300 in 1981 and built from a kit. It works wonderfully, and the NHTs do take some power. I could sell the amp for maybe $100, but it might take a while. Really nothing to gain there by swapping out a high-functioning, depreciated amp (or high-functioning, depreciated speakers, for that matter). If anything, I'd add an NHT sealed sub or make a sealed sub.

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Pandovski]

The DH-200 amp is sunk cost, bought for $300 in 1981 and built from a kit. It works wonderfully, and the NHTs do take some power. I could sell the amp for maybe $100, but it might take a while. Really nothing to gain there by swapping out a high-functioning, depreciated amp (or high-functioning, depreciated speakers, for that matter). If anything, I'd add an NHT sealed sub or make a sealed sub.

Cheers,

Otto

That amp with inflation adjusted costs $730 MSRP today's money. It should match with 3000$ speakers today's money or 1200$ speakers 1981 money.

How much did the NHT cost MSRP?

 

[ofajen]

That amp with inflation adjusted costs $730 MSRP today's money. It should match with 3000$ speakers today's money or 1200$ speakers 1981 money.

You are correct that the amp can work well with larger and/or more expensive speakers. OTOH, it also matches up very well with the NHTs which are fairly inefficient, but benefit from a capable amp of up to 150 watts and have excellent imaging to keep pace with the quality of sound from the amp. They are a dynamic duo here in the office!

Cheers,

Otto

 

[Brett a]

I'm revisiting my figures from post 91 this time figuring the distribution of value as my system with a single source. Essentially, what is the value of the signal path when playing an LP compared to the value of the signal path when spinning a CD.

This is what I came up with:

Actual full-system value $11,350

LP system total: $9,750

1. Turntable setup ('table, cart and phono amp) - 35%
2. Speakers - 26%
3. Cables - 22%
4. Amplification - 17%

CD system total: $7,800

1. Speakers - 33%
2. Cables - 27%
3. CD player - 19%
4. Amplification - 21%

Next, I'll go back and remove the value of my $800 preamp jumpers (I didn't pay anything near that BTW). They kinda' skew the percentages.

 

[Pandovski]

There is another old school or should I say Golden Era (70s) philosophy of Hi-Fi system building which I noticed audiophiles practicing. I can't say its a written study so I will pitch it as it is IMO.

Money wise ones budget should go higher in the finesse components (for fine tuning) and less for the "cinder blocks".

Cinder blocks are speakers and amplification. You can fine tune speakers with stands and spikes, damping, subwoofer, recapping and you can fine tune a pre/power amp with matching. But the story ends there.

Fine tuning happens with the source which always is a TT and cables. The things you can do to a source if its mechanical more than electronically are endless it seems. Sky is the limit with turntables. The more you invest the better they get. Even when you pass the audible differences you can still keep improving them regardless.

CDs not so much because electronics are fairly cheap or affordable and if you want to do serious improvements, the mechanism is the place to go, followed by power, then DAC/clock, analogue stage and finally shielding. The audible improvements are so minute (exclude the DIY imaginary placebo effect) one wonders why bother especially today with pure Hi-Res digital running a mock of CDPs.

The power of cabling as fine tuning is the effect of cherry on top. They are considered as an all rounder for fine tuning every component to YOUR HEARING PREFERENCES. Sometimes audibly, sometimes imaginary (self criticism is needed) but the saying HiFi components wont work without cables applies. Cabling is more about audible personal preferences than actual system performance it seems. And as we all know the final 5% of everything are usually the most expensive ones. To me it seems the 80s gave the first serious consideration to cabling in Hi-Fi but I've read articles proposing it from the 70s. YMMV OFC

Just to please all camps, some consider buying anything but lamp cord and stock wiring to be utter foolishness.

So the Golden Era Hi-Fi system building ratio should go as:

1) Source 50%
2) Cables 25%
3) Amplification 15%
4) Speakers 10%

Your feedback on this is welcomed. :thmbsp:

 

[bluesky]

For me it went something like this for a Vintage Sansui system:

Speakers: 30% (2 pair)
Amp and tuner: 25% (got 'real lucky' on the amp and amp price, otherwise this percentage would be much higher.)
New CD player: 15%
TT and Cart: 20%
Rack and speaker stands: 6% (got lucky on the NOS TT rack.)
Cables: 4% (got darn lucky on the cables too.)

Also this doesn't include the $1000 in losses in buying faulty gear that ended up a total loss one way or the other. I don't mind that, it's the end result that counts. That's the vintage game. When buying vintage...there is going to be losses, at least there was for me. Maybe I just didn't do it the right way from the start. But what's the right way?? You just do the best you can do. If there is one thing I learned with vintage...there will be losses until you get it right.

I don't really know if you can really convert yesterdays dollars to todays dollars due to technology, etc, but I also like to think that way sometimes. Sometimes the older technology was better, gear hand made and made to last, quality transformers, quality circuit designs, etc. I would like to think that my speakers are worth $4000 in today's dollars, but it just isn't so. But they sure weren't cheap back in 1970...$1000 a pair.

I really do enjoy my 1970 vintage speaker systems. But someday, maybe, I may get a pair of JBLs or Bozaks, no hurry and not necessary really. But if that does happen, the above figures will go way out of wack on the speaker side of the equasion.

All's well that ends well. It's all big fun when it finally all works out right and you end up with a really fine sounding stereo system.

 

[poppachubby]

Well, I only have a couple of things to add here.

Firstly, when it comes to DIY products, pricing becomes really subjective. Aside from the hard cost of materials, and variable costs of labour - DIY often has a sonic merit comparable to extremely high end, production made gear.

Take my Frugal Horns for example. This is a design so good that even the great Nelson Pass raves about it. If you Google "Ring Audio/Frugal Horn" you will read about a company which was close to releasing this design (combined with a subwoofer) for 10K EUR!!!! '

In any event, from all the listening I had done with friends and in the local shops, I had decided that $1000 was the key number for each stage. I wanted that level of fidelity which includes that "magic". Doesn't mean I wanted to pay it though. And so began my search for gear which would achieve greatness, on a dime.

I came out really, really great and it was a long road. But I don't think I could put a price tag on everything which would convey any kind of sensical formula. In my case I set a sonic bar as it were, and then researched/auditioned until I achieved it on my budget.

 

[Pandovski]

I am a big fan of the Frugel-Horns. :yes: Amazing sound for the money. But I kinda think 6" drivers are too small on the, 8" at least.

http://www.frugal-horn.com/Frugel-Horn.html
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/ringaudio/horn.html

 

[poppachubby]

I am a big fan of the Frugel-Horns. :yes: Amazing sound for the money. But I kinda think 6" drivers are too small on the, 8" at least.

Great, so you totally see my point. The Frugal Horn represents the exact thing i was trying to do when building my system. Of course, shameful as it is, the Ring Audio fiasco shows us exactly what the Frugal Horn can do when marketed to compete amongst the production world. It's sound isn't 10K EUR good, but into the several thousands for sure.

 

[Pandovski]

Great, so you totally see my point. The Frugal Horn represents the exact thing i was trying to do when building my system. Of course, shameful as it is, the Ring Audio fiasco shows us exactly what the Frugal Horn can do when marketed to compete amongst the production world. It's sound isn't 10K EUR good, but into the several thousands for sure.

The company is in Zagreb, Croatia. Not so far from where I live in Europe. Spent 2.5 years in Zagreb.

How about this for a design?

http://www.ring-audio.com/

 

[M Jarve]

Using the speakers/source/amplification/cables ratios, my system breaks down this way:

Amplification: 33.6%
Speakers: 23%
Sources: 35.6%
Cables: 7.5%
With all SRP's adjusted for inflation from the first year it was available.

But, this is not the whole story, as each source component added to the whole dilutes the percentages of the other categories. For instance, I count my CDP, turntable, tuner, tape deck, and cartridge separately, as to my mind, each is a distinct component. Additionally, does one consider something like a preamp to be an amplification component or a source component? The argument could be made either way, in my opinion, but in my own judgement it's a part of amplification.

As also applies to my case, some of my gear is DIY, in particular some of my cables and my speakers. It's pretty hard to put a price on these, as a retail equivalent of one set of my cables has an SRP of $350/set, but I was able to build my own for substantially less using largely identical materials. The same goes for my speakers, which are based on a set of Infinity QLS-3's, but have some not insignificant differences, which (based on opinion) may or may not move them up or down an equivalent notch or two.

 

[Pandovski]

Using the speakers/source/amplification/cables ratios, my system breaks down this way:

Amplification: 33.6%
Speakers: 23%
Sources: 35.6%
Cables: 7.5%
With all SRP's adjusted for inflation from the first year it was available.

But, this is not the whole story, as each source component added to the whole dilutes the percentages of the other categories. For instance, I count my CDP, turntable, tuner, tape deck, and cartridge separately, as to my mind, each is a distinct component. Additionally, does one consider something like a preamp to be an amplification component or a source component? The argument could be made either way, in my opinion, but in my own judgement it's a part of amplification.

As also applies to my case, some of my gear is DIY, in particular some of my cables and my speakers. It's pretty hard to put a price on these, as a retail equivalent of one set of my cables has an SRP of $350/set, but I was able to build my own for substantially less using largely identical materials. The same goes for my speakers, which are based on a set of Infinity QLS-3's, but have some not insignificant differences, which (based on opinion) may or may not move them up or down an equivalent notch or two.

Your speakers being DIY makes them with lower ratio in the calculation. If your certain they perform as good as the QLS 3s you based them on, use the Infinity price to have a more market equal calculation.