Hi-Fi Systems And Financial Resource Allocation

[amey01]

Maybe with the right acoustical treatment ?

This is included in "the room".

 

[Jimna]

I agree with Adam 100%. My meager system sounds better than a system I heard costing more than 10x mine recently in Boulder, and all because Ive addressed the room to the max. That room sounded bad to talk in so much as amplified sound.

 

[User211]

C'mon lads - you're having a laff. My iPhone's speaker sounds rubbish whatever room it is in. It's a loudspeaker, right? Whereas my little Mark & Daniels crucify the iPhone no matter what room they are in. Extreme example, but it makes the point.

Room acoustics are important. But they ain't as important as the transducer doing the reproducing.

 

[MickeyVee]

Surprised that no one has quoted any of the sources as a percentage wise. In the end, it's really what works for you, but I found this guide reasonable.

Assuming a 2 channel system:
-Pre/Amplification:30%
-Speaker 42%
-Digital Source: 20%
-Interconnects & Cables: 8%
-from High Performance Audio systems book

AV System:
-Speakers: 50%
-AV/Receiver: 27.5%
-Source: 15%
-Interconnects & Cables: 7.5%

Another source - 2 Channel system

Pre+Amp: 40%
- Source: 13%
- Speakers: 40%
- Interconnects & cables: 7%

the above assumes digital sources.
Not bad for starter guidelines IMHO and tweak to what's most important to you..

Just for giggles, a quick run through my AV system nets me..
Speakers: 50%
AV Receiver: 24%
Source: 15%
Conditioner, Cables: 11%

Just my thoughts..

 

[Gordon]

My ratios are out to lunch!! Don't care though, it sounds good to me no matter how I divide the cash!

Gordon

 

[Rich]

Room acoustics are important. But they ain't as important as the transducer doing the reproducing.

Overall, you are correct, Justin. I do think room treatment is important, but not more important than the speakers themselves, especially dollar for dollar. Adam, the bathroom makes a point, but it is misleading because most listening rooms sound OK even without room treatment. Not great, but acceptable.

Ultimately, once you have chosen some decent speakers, you are going to get more bang for your buck putting extra money into room treatments than you will get from upgrading your choice of speaker. For instance, say your speaker budget is $13,000 and allocated to a pair of Summit X's, and you have $4,000 left over in your budget after all your other components are picked out. You are going to get a lot better sound from your system by allocating that money to room treatments than you will by allocating to upgrading to a better speaker or other component.

 

[amey01]

C'mon lads - you're having a laff. My iPhone's speaker sounds rubbish whatever room it is in. It's a loudspeaker, right? Whereas my little Mark & Daniels crucify the iPhone no matter what room they are in. Extreme example, but it makes the point.

Room acoustics are important. But they ain't as important as the transducer doing the reproducing.

That's not quite comparing apples with apples.

If you want another extreme example, how about comparing the iPhone speaker in an acoustic hall compared to your Apogees in a ship's engine room? Then what would you prefer?

I'm talking about similar equipment.

That is, change rooms (a SIMILAR room) and you will get wildly varying differences in sound.

Change loudspeakers (Ascents for Duettas for instance) and you will get substantial differences in sound, but not as wildly varying differences as the room!

All other components may in most circumstances may have less impact, but still substantial impacts depending on the other components around them.

 

[User211]

If you want another extreme example, how about comparing the iPhone speaker in an acoustic hall compared to your Apogees in a ship's engine room? Then what would you prefer?

I'm talking about similar equipment.

That is, change rooms (a SIMILAR room) and you will get wildly varying differences in sound. .

Your changing your story. Original quote:

"I'm saying that the single most important influence on the sound you hear is the room. That's right - more important than the system within it. If you doubt me, try setting up your Aps in the bathroom and tell me how satisfying it is."

Re the engine room, then engine off, undoubtedly the engine room with a pair of Duettas/Ascents. I also believe my Duettas would eat the Ascent for breakfast in similar but different room scenarios - but that is a different story.

Here's a blatant plug: quietly & enigmatically, I believe Graz's new KLM5 ribbons to have raised the performance bar of the Apogees that take it considerably. Also quietly and enigmatically, I believe some of the things he has worked on both privately and to the fortunate few who have taken the trouble to find out to have a performance standard that is nothing short of amazing. High power magnets and all alloy ribbons can only raise the bar still further. I personally can't believe what I am hearing at the moment, and I have heard A LOT of gear, as most here will know.

I am amazed about the little speaker in the iPhone, though. Within it's frequency band, it is surprisingly clear & resolved given it's tiny size.

 

[User211]

Ultimately, once you have chosen some decent speakers, you are going to get more bang for your buck putting extra money into room treatments than you will get from upgrading your choice of speaker. For instance, say your speaker budget is $13,000 and allocated to a pair of Summit X's, and you have $4,000 left over in your budget after all your other components are picked out. You are going to get a lot better sound from your system by allocating that money to room treatments than you will by allocating to upgrading to a better speaker or other component.

A good reasoned argument that I believe will ring true for many - as is well documented on these pages. But not all will concur, and I do know a number who have tried room treatments and then subsequently removed them. One size never fits all, so to speak. And different rooms/speakers will respond differently to different room treatments.

The truth, I suspect, for those who apply treatments without a solid understanding of what is happening on a technical level for that particular room, is that they may not be providing much that is actually beneficial - at least initially. The products vary in nature, and it is difficult to discern what the actual effect will be without trial and error. Many obviously feel them worthwhile after a good play, however...

 

[Rich]

One size never fits all, so to speak. And different rooms/speakers will respond differently to different room treatments.

The truth, I suspect, for those who apply treatments without a solid understanding of what is happening on a technical level for that particular room, is that they may not be providing much that is actually beneficial - at least initially. The products vary in nature, and it is difficult to discern what the actual effect will be without trial and error. Many obviously feel them worthwhile after a good play, however...

I think "proper" room treatment is always beneficial to the sound. The problem lies, as you say, in understanding the science to know what a particular room needs. This involves an understanding of acoustics, measuring the room to understand it's limitations, and some trial and error in placing acoustic treatments and doing serious auditioning to understand what works the best in that room.

People who try out room treatments without first learning about acoustics and understanding how that science applies in their room and system are less likely to experience a benefit, I would say. Also, people who don't necessarily understand how their system "should" sound may not understand what they are missing without the treatments. By that, I mean that people that have never heard deep tight bass with no modal ringing, or holographic imaging, may not realize what they can get out of their systems. Then they try a few room treatments willy-nilly and don't hear any obvious improvements. Well, those people will then never be convinced in the efficacy of treatments.

The good news is that there is plenty of good information on acoustic science available for free on the internet if one does some searching, and there is plenty of expert advice available from those like Ethan Winer and the guys at GIK that can go a long way toward helping people figure out what they need.

Truth is, it isn't much different than any other aspect of our hobby. When a newbie goes and puts together a system with whatever amps, preamps, receivers, sony cd players, cables and speakers he can find and has no clue how to select and match the components or properly position the speakers, he isn't going to end up with very good sound for the money either, and may walk away convinced that all this hi fi audio stuff is just baloney.

The higher quality your system is, the more benefit you are going to see from treating the room. Because at a certain point, your system is capable of so much better sound than your room will allow it to produce.

 

[Rich]

As for the topic of the thread, here are my "real world" numbers for my two systems (two channel only):

System 1:

Source: 37%
Speakers: 25%
Preamp: 18%
Amp: 15%
Room Treatments: 5%


System 2:

Amp: 45%
Preamp: 20%
Speakers: 20%
Source: 15%

Both systems sound excellent. Note that in neither system do the speakers make up more than 25% of the whole. I think that is because Martin Logans are so cost effective. The quality/price ratio they offer is stratospheric.

And honestly, from experimentation in my systems, I think that, after the speakers (of course), the amps make the most difference in how they sound. I can switch the preamps around (one tube and one ss) with little noticeable difference in sound. Same with the sources. But switch out the amps, and you experience some noticeable differences. This is for my systems, in my rooms, etc. Oh, and yes, the room treatments make a huge difference too, in the quality of the bass sound and in the quality of the imaging and soundstaging. The system without treatments still sounds good, it just doesn't sound jaw-dropping, the band is live in the room with me, good.

 

[RUR]

I think "proper" room treatment is always beneficial to the sound. The problem lies, as you say, in understanding the science to know what a particular room needs. This involves an understanding of acoustics, measuring the room to understand it's limitations, and some trial and error in placing acoustic treatments and doing serious auditioning to understand what works the best in that room.

People who try out room treatments without first learning about acoustics and understanding how that science applies in their room and system are less likely to experience a benefit, I would say. Also, people who don't necessarily understand how their system "should" sound may not understand what they are missing without the treatments. By that, I mean that people that have never heard deep tight bass with no modal ringing, or holographic imaging, may not realize what they can get out of their systems. Then they try a few room treatments willy-nilly and don't hear any obvious improvements. Well, those people will then never be convinced in the efficacy of treatments.

The good news is that there is plenty of good information on acoustic science available for free on the internet if one does some searching, and there is plenty of expert advice available from those like Ethan Winer and the guys at GIK that can go a long way toward helping people figure out what they need.

Well said, Rich. It baffles me that folks will spend inordinate amounts of time and money on their system, yet seem terminally averse to improving one of the two largest contributors to accurate sound reproduction.

 

[churchill]

That is, change rooms (a SIMILAR room) and you will get wildly varying differences in sound.

I agree with Adam about the room characteristics playing a major role in the sound.

Before I treated my room I couldn't listen for more then a few minutes and at low volumes as the room would overload quickly and sounded horrible. The ringing and echo was very bad. It would've been a great room for torture!

After treatments I'm able to turn up the volume without ringing, echo and room overload. Vocals are clear and don't bounce all over the room and bass is tight without room boom.

 

[User211]

I agree with Adam about the room characteristics playing a major role in the sound.

Well, I don't think I'd dispute that, since it is true. It just isn't more important than the loudspeakers themselves.

 

[User211]

Well said, Rich. It baffles me that folks will spend inordinate amounts of time and money on their system, yet seem terminally averse to improving one of the two largest contributors to accurate sound reproduction.

Well if you're ever in the South West of the UK, come round and have a listen. Then look at me in the eye and tell me with absolute certainty I need room treatments. I don't - it's a good sounding room, unlike my last one. If there was an identifiable problem I'd address it with some. But there isn't.

I was recently in a Spendor demo room which was supported by a plethora of room treatments. Did it sound good? Not particularly - average really. A bit dead to be honest. In fact I have been in a lot of dem rooms with room treatments and never been inspired enough to buy any.

But I do accept they will make a difference and will help those with unfortunate room acoustics.

 

[User211]

As for the topic of the thread, here are my "real world" numbers for my two systems (two channel only):

System 1:

Source: 37%
Speakers: 25%
Preamp: 18%
Amp: 15%
Room Treatments: 5%


System 2:

Amp: 45%
Preamp: 20%
Speakers: 20%
Source: 15%

Both systems sound excellent. Note that in neither system do the speakers make up more than 25% of the whole. I think that is because Martin Logans are so cost effective. The quality/price ratio they offer is stratospheric.

And honestly, from experimentation in my systems, I think that, after the speakers (of course), the amps make the most difference in how they sound. I can switch the preamps around (one tube and one ss) with little noticeable difference in sound. Same with the sources. But switch out the amps, and you experience some noticeable differences. This is for my systems, in my rooms, etc. Oh, and yes, the room treatments make a huge difference too, in the quality of the bass sound and in the quality of the imaging and soundstaging. The system without treatments still sounds good, it just doesn't sound jaw-dropping, the band is live in the room with me, good.

Dangerously close to a system post. All you'd need is a couple of pictures and a component list and you'd be done.

Definately agree with your amp assertions. Which is what makes amp purchases so important. To my mind, 85% on the speakers leaves too little flexibility in this area - I'm not saying it impossible to find a good match but it may well prove very hard to satisfy.