2. misc-audio
  3. 1269885948

Select Your Less Than Ideal System

Informal survey: Select from one of the four less than ideal systems below. Assume you have limited funds and can only afford three components of excellence and one moderate component. Which will be "sacrificed" to expediency?

I am not interested in alternative answers such as reallocating the funds to achieve balance. This is a thought experiment requiring absolute answers - A., B., C., D.

I have an idea which I am considering writing up as an article and want to see where the community stands on this question. This is not intended to be part of a review and the article is of my own volition, not assigned. Feel free to include your rationale, but I want clear choices regarding the survey. Only one choice please.

Survey: Select your Less Than Ideal Rig:

A.
Moderate source
Excellent amplification
Excellent cabling
Excellent speakers

B.
Excellent source
Moderate amplification
Excellent cabling
Excellent speakers

C.
Excellent source
Excellent amplification
Moderate cabling
Excellent speakers

D.
Excellent source
Excellent amplification
Excellent cabling
Moderate speakers

Thank you for your participation. :)
douglas_schroeder
jdoris
972 posts
 
C in a landslide. Next question: if you set out to follow plan C, and had to compromise on another link, where would it be?

John
douglas_schroeder OP
3,281 posts
 
That was my follow up question. I think the distribution would be much more widely spread from that point. But I would be interesting to see if those who responded, or those who wish to jump in and answer both questions reply. :)
mapman's avatar
mapman
21,853 posts
 
Pre-amp would be next for me after IC.
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
After compromising on the cabling, or finding lower cost cabling that outperformed higher cost cabling in the particular system, I would save money on amplification by choosing speakers that provide higher efficiency and/or impedance characteristics that are easier to drive. Even if that means a slight compromise in speaker performance relative to other speaker candidates that are harder to drive.

Not sure whether to consider that as alternative B or alternative D. The $ are saved on the amplifier, but the possible sonic compromise (or at least a narrowing of the range of suitable choices) is in the speakers. Apologies if that violates your stipulation of an "absolute answer."

Best regards,
-- Al
mapman's avatar
mapman
21,853 posts
 
Al,

That's certainly a reasonable strategy, but I wonder how much that option still ends up costing to get something that reasonably approaches ideal?

Of course, no system is ideal in all ways, so its really always just a matter of what you are willing to give up and how much you have to invest.
More to discover