Buying Hi-Fi Components - Allocation of Budgeted Amount to each Separate

I'd say equally spread, if pushed I'd go for better speakers and ease back on the CD.

But decisions about 3*£100 items would be different from 3*£1000 items!

I would put significantly more for speakers (say 50-60%), then amp (20-30%) and the least for Cd player(10-20%) (assuming you must have a Cd player, becasue if not I would consider a streamer instead e.g. squeezebox touch or many recent others).

in my opinion speakers have the most effect on sound plus age slower (i.e. worth investing in) as opposed to sources which age quicker with formats and also at our digital times are all rather close in performance. the lower the total budget, the more true this is.

if budget allows, consider active speakers as this can get you a fully optimised speaker/amp design (and therefore performance) and will reduce box count.

my pennies

If you were new to hi-fi I'd certainly spread the money evenly.  But as you progress through your hi-fi journey you naturally tend to look at what the system is doing right and wrong.  And as the 'Diminishing Returns' thread you started pointed towards the fact that you can get a very good sound at a decent price, I feel it's more of a question of how much you are prepared to pay for the kind of sound you want.  I've happily mixed and matched hi-end and cheap components, even across different eras.  So I'd like to think that after you start a system, there are no rules as such.  I guess the biggest rule, is how much you have available to spend in the first place?

There are no rules or meaningful guidelines really.

I have learnt that - if the electronics are of a decent standard - you can spend a suprising amount on loudspeakers and still get an excellent sound.

A case in point.  (A £450 Marantz 'all-in-one' unit driving PMC GB1 speakers that would now cost over £1600 brand new.)

Quote...

"That’s a pair of speakers selling for over £1500, yet the Marantz system proved more than capable of both driving them and making them sound rather special. A brief listen to the system with the smaller DB1s suggested these would also be a suitable pairing, and represent a useful saving, but it’s a tribute to the capabilities of the little Marantz system that it’s far from outclassed by speakers this good."

What can be said about the old rules now?  Rules like 'spend equal amounts' or 'spend more on the source' seem to have become subverted nowadays.

In the January issue, WHF partnered the Rega Brio 3 amplifier (about £250) with the £250 RP1 turntable and the £700 Rega RS3 loudspeakers and judged the result a 5 star system. 

A certain designer and manufacturer of very high quality, hand-built speakers (Harbeth) urges his customers to buy 'competent' amplifiers (with tone controls in this instance) to drive his loudspeakers, rather than high priced 'exotica'.

A well respected reviewer (from another magazine) experienced excellent results when partnering the Cambridge Audio 650A & 650C (amp & CD player worth about £350 each) with £1000 loudspeakers. (You can find the reviews on Cambridge Audio's website.)

I think these few examples show that there are no rules about allocation of funds.

I suppose if your going to spend more on one component than the other then providing that price justifies an increase in quality... you can always upgrade the cheaper item later.

Seems backwards but my electronics were twice the amount of my speakers, but I feel like I'm getting the best out of them (my speakers) that way.

IMO it will partly depend on your circumstances.  Having upgraded the same three components myself over the past couple of months I ended up going roughly:

Amp 35%

CDP 35%

speakers (+ stands)  30%

BUT my priorities were a good SQ at generally moderate to low listening levels.  Crucially, if I were to move to a larger place and/or could afford to play at much higher volumes, I'm confident my amp/CD combo would keep me very happy, but I would probably want to "upgrade" the speakers.  Or to look at it another way, the equivalent floorstanders to my standmount speakers (i.e. they share the very same drivers) cost more.  (And/or I would invest in a sub, which automatically increases the overall spend on speakers.)

From my limited experience, the speakers were the link in the chain which provided the greatest potential variation in sound quality and characteristics but there's also an argument that without a decent signal to begin with you can't make it any better, hence the "weakest link in the chain" argument but as I say, your cirumstances might cause you to veer from this one way or another.

I'd say: it depends.

If you're not too fussy about buying brand new, nor cosmetic condition, nor size.

If sound quality is your main priority.

Then £500 is all you need to spend to get speakers that are as good as it gets. Spending more than that gets you different. Not better, but different. Speakers with different compromises. Worse in some ways better in others.

£500 can get you Quad elctrostatics with their world class midrange. Or a pair of horns for dynamics and good general clarity. Or a pair of large sealed boxes for bass. Or £2500 can get you some active ATC 50's which some people really like - these come with power amps inside the speaker cabinets for a fuss free solution.

Amps. You can get a good ss amplifier for under £100. If your speakers aren't too demanding they'll sound fine. Or you can go up to £2000 for a really good solid state or valve amplifier.

CD players? I've been to bake offs where people have got really good sound from a PC / Laptop / Mac and a sub-£250 DAC.

My rule of thumb is that there is no direct link between how much a hi-fi component costs and how good it will sound.

there will always be different opinions here

my own experience is that it is budget dependent - if i had £1k for all three (amp, cd, speakers) i would probably edge a tiny bit more of that split into the speakers

however double the budget to £2k and i would go for a more even split as i personally found once i got towards £700-£800 speakers the next level up to £1200 ish wasnt that much of an improvement and was better spent on the source and amplifier

Pretty much like Chebby, there aren't any rules about splitting equally. However, if your budget is a fixed one then it's probably sensible to break it into equal segments.

The point about no rules is my set-up: The Leema's original cost was about £1,250 but I'm using a £400 CDP and £600 speakers and it sounds impressive 'as is'. The other example is one of the other members has confessed - some time back - that he heard a Rega amp on £5k and £7k speakers and was a revelation.

i'd spend as much of the budget as possible on speakers, whilst allowing enough for an amp that will drive them ok, and a cheap cdp or dac, like the vdac..

I also think the split can be budget dependant.

With £600 to spend, I would go fairly equal...maybe a fraction more on speakers (taken from the CD budget)

For a Mid-Price system maybe: Source 25%; Amp 35%; Speakers 40%

For High End systems: This is where things get interesting. With the advent of high quality streamers from the likes of Linn, Naim and Olive, a spend of £1800 can happily live in high end systems, up to say £30k. This means it only takes up 5% (£30k budget) - 10% (£15k budget)

This is good, as it leaves more money to spend on the amp, which is vital to control those high end speakers.

Now, taking what's left after buying the source, I would split the balance - Amp 45% / Speakers 55%

Nb My own system is split - Source 12%; Amp 40%; Speakers 48%

Utter  nonsense. To say that a class-leading £10k speaker is merely good in a different areas from a class-leading £500 speaker is madness.

Show me where. £10k last time I looked (ie just now). 

Good post re high end systems, there's definitely a point with digital sources where you can get pretty much all the data to your amplification, it's then a question of what your amps and speakers can do with it.

FWIW I'd find it difficult to come up with percentages. There needs to be some sort of proportion, so less than 10 or 15% in one area would be pushing it IMO. But otherwise it's about the system working well together. I feel that altho my speakers are my cheapest main component they're good enough to cope. Equally, I've confidence that my source and amps could do justice to much costlier speakers, if the synergy was there

I've heard Mark Levinson CD (£12k) + ML pre + monoblocks (about £30k) driving Kef Muon (£100k). The Linn Majik DS (£1850) was then plugged in, and sounded every bit as good as the ML CD player - and it wasn't just me that thought so!

That's 1.3% spent on the source - not that you would do this outside of a demo, but it was interesting none the less.

I've also heard Majik DS (£1850) vs Akurate (£4.5k) vs Klimax (£11k). The differences were marked but unless you had very expensive amp + speakers then the difference could well be better spent in other areas....IMO

Officially jealous  

Agreed.