Vote

It's pretty easy to do when you barter for the rest of you equipment!

You are what you eat! I believe this applies to speakers as well. So feed 'em a good-quality signal and even moderately good speakers can sound wonderful.

My first high-end product was the speakers, Apogee Centaur Minors, which i used with mass market components until i could afford Krells. Guess what? i have always been happy with them, through all the upgrades, just got better! Now, they are probably the "weakest link", but, maybe not for my small room, not anxious to exchange them yet!

In my current system (all of which I have purchased), the speakers are around 20% of the total. Good speakers cannot repair the damage done upstream by poor source and amplificaton components.

My speakers (Audio Artistry Dvorak) are the single most important element in my system. They allow the good qualities of the equipment ahead of them to shine through, and leave room for even better stuff to come.

NEXT TIME I'LL SPEND MORE 60-70%?

I initially thought that I should spend the most on speakers until I did just that---and found the sound to be less than satisfactory. I prefer cheaper speakers with great electronics to the converse.

I've got $1500 speakers in a $14k system and I wouldn't change a thing!

Although I understand the importance of the front-end (garbage in garbage out) my system is currently weighted toward the back-end. This was not planed, it's just how the upgrade path has taken me so far. Now I can clearly see the differences between front-ends which before had eluded me. This has been both a blessing and a curse because now I can't rest with my current front-end but I'm thankful that there are still higher sonic peaks to strive for in this hobby/quest.

HOW ABOUT UPDATING YOUR WEB PAGE, IT'S 24 JULY AND YOU HAVEN'T UPDATED THE PAGE SINCE 10 JUNE. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT. I THINK YOU SITE IS GREAT, BUT KEEP ME COMING BACK FOR NEW NEWS, NOT THE SAME OLD STUFF!

Unfortunately, it seems like my speakers are the last part to catch up to my Class A system. It seems to me that it is probably that way for many people, as one buys awesome speakers only when you have the appropriate source material to play through them. They say that a system is only as good as its weakest link, so it made sense to me to concentrate on every piece from the source to the speakers before I concentrated on the final production. Now I feel like I am ready to play with the rest of you big boys!

The speakers are IT! To paraphrase Bill Cosby, they had the sound last, so they are RESPONSIBLE! In the phono days, I'd reserve a bit extra for a good cartridge, but with CD and DVD . . .

about 50%. it should be higher but $ is an issue. most of the speakers funds are in the sub ($1400)

I was able to purchase a pair of Spendor SP 1's for a very reasonable price. I am quite sure I would need to spend a lot of money to actually do bdtter than the Spendors.

This percentage varies to some degree- depending on which component I replaced most recently. Also, it depends on whether or not you consider cabling to be "equipment" or not.

DIY speakers save hugely on cost. I don't think you save so much on the other bits.

The rule of thumb? Ivor would be turning in his grave (if he were dead)

With upgrading, the percentage is always varying.

Where Audiophiles Fit In the World

My system is ridiculously underfunded, so my first thought is that it may not be representative. However, in the massive upgrade that I carry around in my head at all times, the ratio is about the same: 30%. If I were to mentally tinker with the envisaged system, the ratio probably would approach 20% as I thought of more and more accessories to buy. The speaker-cost-to-total-cost ratio is an interesting number. It seems to be our vote as to the relative contribution of the speaker to the overall sound. It is maximizing the utility of each component within a given total budget constraint, as the economists say.

If I had my druthers I would not have invested nearly as much in the speaker and a whole lot more into the source. Stupid me, I guess. Instead of wisely buying good sound, I, like an idiot, went for really loud. Now I am really disapointed with the results. If only . . . Now I have NO money for further upgrades. ;-(

this was possible only because my speakers asy d.i.y.

Percent of total cost isn't the best way to see this---the more input sources you get, the lower the percentage will be. Maybe speaker cost vs. amplifier cost would be more useful?

30% got me started. That's gonna change, though, to about 50%. Then it will all match out.

My answer of 20% or less is misleading, I spent $550 in 1972 for my speakers. They have out lasted my electronics, I have replaced everthing in the past year except the speakers. They still sound better now with new electronics. They are Bose 901's.

I bought Thiel CS2 2s, which were a bargain for their quality and allowed more money for other components.

About 20%. The only items that I've purchased new have been my phono cartridge, cables, and speakers (Paradigm Reference Studio 60s, which you should review!). I was able to purchase $7000 worth of gear (amp, preamp, turntable, CD player) for less than $3000 by buying used equipment. Still, the speakers are probably my most modest component, both performance- and price-wise (at $1100 list). However, they were not a price-driven purchase; they do many things very right, and represent an outstanding value. They are my first "high-end" speakers, in system Ver.1.0.

I just purchased a pair of Dunlavy SCIV A"S to go along with an ARAGON 8008BB,8008X3,THETA CASABLANCA and JADE,transport

The multiplication of program sources (soon to include DVD?) should drive this down. But; I'm not l Linnie.

The 30% figure is because I'm including the cost of a Velodyne F-1800 Mk.II subwoofer, which made the system full-range (ML SL3s).