[Elizabeth]

Considerings Clark and used vs new.. If i counted all the used stuff by new prices.. Then my speakers wind up being ony TEN PERCENT of my total 'value'.

[GT Audio Works]

So it looks like as an average we spend 40% on speakers...a few of you 20% types pulled us down.
I am of the opinion that speakers make the most difference in a system and this is where you should put the bulk of your investment
as most of you seem to do.
I did an interesting experiment, which has been done before and this validates "MY OPINION".
 
I replaced all my high end gear and drove my speakers with a crappy $100 cd player and $100 Sony receiver connected with a junk RCA interconnect. It was obviously not as good as my main system but....it sounded better than it had any right to.
Sure it lost some of its powerful presentation, dimension and the top got grainier. But overall I was happy to listen to it just the same.
Then I hooked up my high end system to my old B&W matrix 2 speakers I got at a garage sale for $75.
Not a shabby speaker back in the day.... it sounded good..but everything was smaller and colored by comparison. If I had to choose a system for keeps, it would have been my $6500 speakers hooked up to $200 worth of electronics.
Sure I am a speaker guy and maybe I am biased, but I tried to be objective in my findings.

They say a system is a chain and the weakest link will bring it down...agreed.
So I will not be putting my gear up for sale on A gon anytime soon.
But I see the speaker as an anchor point of a system..where the rubber meets the road.
So the strongest chain is worthless without being properly secured at the end.
                                                                                                                      Greg

Any thoughts...for or against ?

[S Clark]

I was going more by what it is worth now vs. what I paid for it.  When I adjust for the value of the system as is instead of price paid, I come closer to the %40 figure.  My speakers have the highest resale value of any component in my system... and that's as it should be IMO.

[geowak]

That's a great question! I think that spending the most money on a particular piece is NOT as important as determining if you bought an overly hyped brand or model and it does not deliver over the long run. Fit and finish, quality sound, dependability, great service, even longevity should factor into it unless you change equipment as often as you change your underwear.

Too many manufacturers promise the moon, charge too much money and don't deliver over the long haul. IMHO

[soundbitten1]

So it looks like as an average we spend 40% on speakers...a few of you 20% types pulled us down.
I am of the opinion that speakers make the most difference in a system and this is where you should put the bulk of your investment
as most of you seem to do.
I did an interesting experiment, which has been done before and this validates "MY OPINION".
 
I replaced all my high end gear and drove my speakers with a crappy $100 cd player and $100 Sony receiver connected with a junk RCA interconnect. It was obviously not as good as my main system but....it sounded better than it had any right to.
Sure it lost some of its powerful presentation, dimension and the top got grainier. But overall I was happy to listen to it just the same.
Then I hooked up my high end system to my old B&W matrix 2 speakers I got at a garage sale for $75.
Not a shabby speaker back in the day.... it sounded good..but everything was smaller and colored by comparison. If I had to choose a system for keeps, it would have been my $6500 speakers hooked up to $200 worth of electronics.
Sure I am a speaker guy and maybe I am biased, but I tried to be objective in my findings.

They say a system is a chain and the weakest link will bring it down...agreed.
So I will not be putting my gear up for sale on A gon anytime soon.
But I see the speaker as an anchor point of a system..where the rubber meets the road.
So the strongest chain is worthless without being properly secured at the end.
                                                                                                                      Greg

Any thoughts...for or against ?

I agree. I did the same thing with my speakers and came up with the same conclusion.

[Carl V]

I agree for the most part with the Speaker dominance aspect & generally
agree with the 'competent system' being more enjoyable than top flight
system driving "competent speakers"...to a point. We all draw our own lines
in the sand...or decide where the knee is on the Diminishing return curve.

[Phil A]

Some speakers are also more sensitive to electronics/cabling in the chain.  I have multiple systems and things that made a big difference in the main system made a difference in a secondary system only to a very small degree.  If I wanted to count my secondary basement system in the equation for 2-channel listening, the speakers probably are 30%.  In the bedroom system, the speakers are a bit over 50%.

[Gzerro]

As far as overall percentage as a "rule of thumb", I think it makes a big difference if you are talking about a digital or vinyl source. A vinyl setup has alot more potential for meaningful upgrades than a CD player.

My speakers are 67% of my digital system cost, but if I include the turntable and related components it drops to 35%.

[SteveFord]

Mine is going to tough to answer as I buy almost everything used and a lot of it is ancient.
Big System (3.7s) speakers are 53%
Upstairs (1.7s) speakers are only 21%
Lynda's MMG system speakers are 35%

which averages out to a bit more than 36% of the total cost is spent on speakers.

If I were to buy everything new the speakers would be a very small percentage of the cost. 
Planar speakers, by and large, offer exceptional value for the money as the manufacturer isn't putting that big expense into cabinetry. 

I'm not sure if I'm answering the question right but you have to match components up on a fairly equal basis.
I would rather have decent speakers and comparable components as that will give you a satisfying stereo system.
Great speakers with unsuitable (lesser?) components will only lead to disappointment as you'll hear ALL of the flaws which isn't all that much fun.

[won ton on]

20%    It would probably be more but as they are Salk's and factory direct. I'm not sure what they would go for from a store.

[GT Audio Works]

I agree for the most part with the Speaker dominance aspect & generally
agree with the 'competent system' being more enjoyable than top flight
system driving "competent speakers"...to a point. We all draw our own lines
in the sand...or decide where the knee is on the Diminishing return curve.

Yes...The law of diminishing return is in full enforcement with high end audio.
But once you have heard that improvement in you system its hard to go back even if it costs what non audiophiles may call crazy.
In the end does it make you happy ? Does it give you refuge from a stressful day ?
For me, the ability to immerse myself and enjoy an evening's listening,  as opposed to siting in front of the TV and watching some overplayed crap on cable is well worth the price of admission.

[Daedalus Audio]

So it looks like as an average we spend 40% on speakers...a few of you 20% types pulled us down.
I am of the opinion that speakers make the most difference in a system and this is where you should put the bulk of your investment
as most of you seem to do.
I did an interesting experiment, which has been done before and this validates "MY OPINION".
 
I replaced all my high end gear and drove my speakers with a crappy $100 cd player and $100 Sony receiver connected with a junk RCA interconnect. It was obviously not as good as my main system but....it sounded better than it had any right to.
Sure it lost some of its powerful presentation, dimension and the top got grainier. But overall I was happy to listen to it just the same.
Then I hooked up my high end system to my old B&W matrix 2 speakers I got at a garage sale for $75.
Not a shabby speaker back in the day.... it sounded good..but everything was smaller and colored by comparison. If I had to choose a system for keeps, it would have been my $6500 speakers hooked up to $200 worth of electronics.
Sure I am a speaker guy and maybe I am biased, but I tried to be objective in my findings.

They say a system is a chain and the weakest link will bring it down...agreed.
So I will not be putting my gear up for sale on A gon anytime soon.
But I see the speaker as an anchor point of a system..where the rubber meets the road.
So the strongest chain is worthless without being properly secured at the end.
                                                                                                                      Greg

Any thoughts...for or against ?

obviously I am biased, but I do try to help my clients with their systems with as much honesty as I can.

Greg's post says it all... the speaker is what you HEAR. for the audiophile system it is the foundation and sets the stage for the tone the individual wants.  after all these are audio 'paintings', some want a warm 'romantic' tone while others want a more hi-fi (photographic) tone, and all points in between.  I don't mean to say the speaker choice determines your systems tonality but it can limit the scope of the sound.

As a few people have noted, cost of components is not a level playing field, there are many factors ie: direct sale products, new vs used etc. 
Many of our customers would list the speaker as one of the least expensive parts of their system, but also the most important. 
I think the inferred point of this topic is,  what is the 'sonic' value of the speaker to a system?

best,
lou

[satie]

It is a bit difficult to calculate out since my speakers are modified and triamped and there was some redundancy in the system. As things were

Technics 1600 II Oracle Delphi II and Alexandria II, Lenco 78, Sansui 929
Jelco 250S arm, Mayware arm,  OEM arms from Oracle, Technics, Sansui
Technic 205c Mk2 3 and 4. Denon 304 Shure M75 AT OC9 and AT 15S, Garrott Optim FGS/S
Dayton Wright MC pre preamp, Melos 333 gold phono.
Sony 707ES 1 bit player, Oppo 970, Sony BD
Audible Illusions Dual Mono Pre, Melos SHA Gold headphone and pre, Musical Fidelity HTP for DAC/Pre
Fosgate 4100 and 4125, Dyna MkIII, Classe DR-9, Tweakaudio mod Nuforce 8b, Crown 5002VZ
Ashly XR3/18 crossover, Marchand XM44, Ashly XR 1/12 White Instruments EQ
Tympani IV with Neo8 mids.
In that, the speakers and drivers are about 15%, 22% with XO.
As normally played, the speakers are 35-40% 1/3 speakers and XO, 1/3 power amps, 1/3 preamps and sources. Outside of JPS superconductors cabling is DIY

[pansixt]

Currently and considering the MMG's are very affordable, I am probably around 10%. This will change with more room treatments and possible upgrades to them, or more to the point, more powerful amp. Or Bigger Planars.

So is it possible that these necessities/fantasies should or could be considered now as current cost. Could end up being as much as 75%. Or even more. And it would have been the original modest investment that drove the rise in cost/%.

[SoCalWJS]

2 Channel?

About 43%

HT changes the picture completely (drops to about 20%)

[kevin360]

Gulp! Of the total system cost of the big rig, the main speakers represent approximately 10%.

[*Scotty*]

The speakers represent about 60% of the $ spent in my system, mainly because the bulk of the equipment is custom or vintage, which greatly reduced the cost of the components.
Scotty

[johzel]

Current System:  38%

[rbbert]

It seems likely that single source systems will have a much higher percentage spent on speakers.  If I look at my (not yet arrived) Modwright Oppo 105, Pass INT-150, Acoustic Zen Crescendos, VMPS sub, PS Power Plant and cabling, list price for all, I get about 55% for the speakers and sub.

[zuluwarrior0760]

speakers about 10%

Magnepan 3.7

other equip:

Bryston 7bsst2
Convergent Audio Technologies SL1 Renaissance w/ phono PRE
Esoteric K-03 SACD
VPI Classic 3 TT
Lyra Kleos Cartridge
Bryston BDP2 digital player
Grover Huffman cabling
Shunyata Hydra 6 Power conditioner