Audio System Budgeting: What to spend where/title> <link href="itemaudio.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /> <style type="text/css">  </style></head> <body> <div align="center"> <table width="1000" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5"> <tr> <td><a href="http://www.itemaudio.co.uk"><img src="item-audio-logo.gif" alt="Item Audio" width="240" border="0" /></a></td> <td class="navs"><p> </p> <p> </p> <p><a href="faq.html">FAQs</a> | <a href="reviews.html">Reviews</a> | <a href="links.html"> Further Reading </a> | <a href="mailto:sales@itemaudio.co.uk">Sales and Enquiries</a></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2"><a href="http://www.itemaudio.com"><img src="logostrip_m.gif" alt="Audioengine, Wyred 4 Sound, Burson Audio, KingRex, Adam Audio, Antelope Audio, HiVi, Swans, Locus Cables, Audiophile Computer" border="0" /></a> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="240" height="225" valign="top"><iframe src="http://www.itemaudio.co.uk/itemaudio_menu.html" width="240" height="890" frameborder="0"></iframe> </p> </td> <td width="740" height="225" valign="top"><p class="mainhead">System Budget Pie Chart</p> <p class="copy1">There have been many attempts to quantify exactly in what proportion you should spend your budget on an audio system. However, most have allotted varying amounts to the source: nowadays for many, that means a computer. And rather confusingly for economists it would appear that simple, cheap, streamlined computers sound better than expensive, complex ones. </p> <p class="copy1">Right off the bat, we'd like to say that in 2009 there is no point spending more than £400 on a PC primarily intended for audio use. In fact, one of our favourite playback devices is a Dell Mini (£175) running Ubuntu (free) and Songbird (free). Optmising a Mac or PC for audio is more about what you spec down than up: slower, more efficient processors mean leaner power supplies and (ideally) no fans for the CPU. Fancy graphics cards and superfluous RAM only burn power, create interference and require more cooling. Simpler operating systems tend to sound better, and most of the best playback software is free. Plus, most of us already have computers. So we can effectively remove the 'digital transport' from the equation.</p> <p class="copy1">However, the Digital to Analog Converter (DAC) remains essential to turn those zeros and ones into the most musical voltage you can afford. in order of priority, then, we recommend that you divide your system budget roughly thus::</p> <p class="copy1"><img src = "http://www.itemaudio.co.uk/hifi_pie.gif" align="right"copy1">• SPEAKERS (34%)<br /> • AMPLIFICATION (27%)<br /> • ROOM TREATMENT (7%)<br /> • DIGITAL AUDIO CONVERTER (20%)<br /> • INTERCONNECTS (6%)<br /> • POWER CONDITIONING AND LEADS (5%)</p> <p class="copy1">You'll note that room treatment is considered a higher priority than some previously published guidelines. It occupies a difficult position in the rankings because it isn't necessarily expensive to make a room sound better, but much depends on the size, shape and population of the listening environment. It will probably make more of a difference to your listening pleasure than the DAC, but it may not be as expensive. Similarly with power conditioning: some homes will benefit more than others from power conditioning and shielding.</p> <p class="copy1">Though many great systems don't conforms to these guidelines, and some controversial assumptions have been made to obtain this ratio, you won't go far wrong spending the most money on the items that make the most difference.</p> <p class="copy1">The crucial synergy between speakers and amplificaiton, and how they interact with the room, dictates the timbre, tonality and dynamism of your music. If they are the heart and soul of the system, the DAC is the brains: seek out the purest information retrieval device you can afford. Though cables and power leads/conditioning are important, it's vital not to get carried away by the claims made on their behalf by enthusiastic reviews: between 5-10% of your total budget spent on interconnects is usually plenty: their effect is relatively subtle and not always well revealed by modestly priced systems. Beyond that proportion, you should seriously question whether the money is better spent on amplification or speakers. In a really insightful system, interconnects can make a more significant difference than our costings might imply, but the snake-oil effect is strong with cables: it's very rare to find a interconnect whose value is not artifically inflated and/or slathered in mystical marketing.</p> <p class="copy1"> The above also assumes all equipment is bought new. If buying used, reckon on the price of the equipment when new when dividing your budget in this way.</p> <p class="copy1">To illustrate how this might work in theory, let's consider (in round figures) how you might build a system from scratch around a £225 DAC like the <a href="http://www.itemaudio.co.uk/kingrex_ud01_se.html">KingRex UD-01 SE</a>:</p> <p class="copy1">• SPEAKERS: £385<br /> • AMPLIFICATION: £300<br /> • ROOM TREATMENT: £80<br /> • DIGITAL AUDIO CONVERTER: £225<br /> • INTERCONNECTS: £70<br /> • POWER CONDITIONING AND LEADS: £55</p> <p class="copy1">In practice, that might buy you bi-amped Tripaths, a pair of entry-level high sensitivity full range floorstanders, some DIY wall diffusers, good quality RCA interconnects and some well shielded mains cables with silver contacts. If you added the £175 <a href="http://www.itemaudio.co.uk/kingrex_psu.html">PSU</a> to the KingRex UD-01, you would not to be overspending on the rest of the system if you doubled these costs.</p> <p class="copy1">Picking up where the <a href="http://www.itemaudio.co.uk/diminishing_returns.html">diminishing returns</a> article left off, we might even try to calculate the cost of an optimal system! Bearing in mind the 80 / 20 rule there outlined, we first need to invent a rough working figure for the cost of a typical high-end (100%) system. Just for fun, let's say that the entry price for entry to the 'true audiophile' club is £20,000. As we allowed for previously, this need only be the starting point for our calculation, given that infinitely large amounts <em>can</em> be spent for decreasingly worthwhile improvements . . . . </p> <p class="copy1">A hard-nosed, well grounded music lover might therefore feel justified in saying that spending more than £4000 (20% of £20K) on hi-fi is a mug's game. How might she allocate her system budget in accord with the ready-reckoner above?</p> <p class="copy1">• SPEAKERS: £1360<br /> • AMPLIFICATION: £1080<br /> • ROOM TREATMENT: £280<br /> • INTERCONNECTS: £240<br /> • POWER SUPPLY: £200<br /> • DAC: £800</p> <p class="copy1">That would cover installation of a dedicated mains spur, very competent speakers, pretty uncompromised amplification, proper room treatment, interconnects that don't get in the way, and something of the calibre of a mildly modded Benchmark DAC 1. Funnily enough, it would be hard to improve on a system like that without spending a lot more. So there you have it: never spend more than £1360 on a pair of speakers, unless they're active: in which case you can spend £2440 (as long as you don't need a pre-amp).</p> <p class="copy1">Finally: tweaks. Though many (not all) are worthwhile, most fall into one of the above categories: ie, mods to the DAC or amplifier. For everything else, there is Blu Tac.</p> <p class="copy1"></p></td> </tr> <tr> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> </table> </div> <p> </p> </body> </html>