Always source first? Always?
Posted by: JWinston on 21 December 2002
Konbanwa,
Back from Japan. Without going into particulars (yet) I find myself wondering if in fact one can have too much information coming down the pipe. That is to say, can a source be TOO good for a given amp/speaker combo?
Is this the anti-mullet? Or just simply the fast flat earth?
I'm mainly looking for experience-based observations. If it were a purely metaphysical/speculative exercise I'd be the first to answer OF COURSE NOT!
Right now I'm not too sure.
Regards
John
Back from Japan. Without going into particulars (yet) I find myself wondering if in fact one can have too much information coming down the pipe. That is to say, can a source be TOO good for a given amp/speaker combo?
Is this the anti-mullet? Or just simply the fast flat earth?
I'm mainly looking for experience-based observations. If it were a purely metaphysical/speculative exercise I'd be the first to answer OF COURSE NOT!
Right now I'm not too sure.
Regards
John
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by Mr_Sukebe
I would argue that system balance is not simply a case of having the best source you can buy.
It's pretty obvious that using the old addage of "garbage in, garbage out", that you won't make best use of an amp/speakers, but I don't think things are really that straightforward.
The enjoyment of music can be derived from lots of different messages and nuances.
Personally I'd like my system to sound similar to a live event. How many live events have you been to that have such brilliant equipment that they achieve hi-fi levels of detail from from the PA system? Typically they have a lot of life, are often distorted with weird acoustic interactions from the building, most importantly they are HUGE.
Now from what I've heard of most low end Naim systems, they simply can't achieve this (don't mind about RS specials). The simple fact is that smaller Naim speakers are very good at playing music, but usually fairly rubbish at creating a big soundstage.
examples of this would be the Naim Allaes and Linn Ninkas I heard on dem in the recent past. On both, the scale of music was just not that great. My existing Linn Kabers would murder both of them.
Yet as I have dealt with my speakers/amp first, I haven't been able to deal with the CDP yet, so I'm still running a fairly ropey Arcam 7SE (to be upgraded to a CD5 shortly).
In addition, I'd say that choice of source or back end depends on how your system is being built. Again, for me when I dealt with the speaker upgrade, I wanted to improve both the musical and AV sound, can't exactly achieve that by improving my CDP.
It's pretty obvious that using the old addage of "garbage in, garbage out", that you won't make best use of an amp/speakers, but I don't think things are really that straightforward.
The enjoyment of music can be derived from lots of different messages and nuances.
Personally I'd like my system to sound similar to a live event. How many live events have you been to that have such brilliant equipment that they achieve hi-fi levels of detail from from the PA system? Typically they have a lot of life, are often distorted with weird acoustic interactions from the building, most importantly they are HUGE.
Now from what I've heard of most low end Naim systems, they simply can't achieve this (don't mind about RS specials). The simple fact is that smaller Naim speakers are very good at playing music, but usually fairly rubbish at creating a big soundstage.
examples of this would be the Naim Allaes and Linn Ninkas I heard on dem in the recent past. On both, the scale of music was just not that great. My existing Linn Kabers would murder both of them.
Yet as I have dealt with my speakers/amp first, I haven't been able to deal with the CDP yet, so I'm still running a fairly ropey Arcam 7SE (to be upgraded to a CD5 shortly).
In addition, I'd say that choice of source or back end depends on how your system is being built. Again, for me when I dealt with the speaker upgrade, I wanted to improve both the musical and AV sound, can't exactly achieve that by improving my CDP.
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by plynnplynn
quote:
I would argue that system balance is not simply a case of having the best source you can buy.
Agree
quote:
It's pretty obvious that using the old addage of "garbage in, garbage out", that you won't make best use of an amp/speakers
Agree
quote:
........but I don't think things are really that straightforward.
The enjoyment of music can be derived from lots of different messages and nuances.
Agree
quote:
Personally I'd like my system to sound similar to a live event. How many live events have you been to that have such brilliant equipment that they achieve hi-fi levels of detail from from the PA system? Typically they have a lot of life, are often distorted with weird acoustic interactions from the building, most importantly they are HUGE.
I'm glad not to be living next door to you - re volume. But what about the atmosphere created by the audience? You cannot reproduce that at home.
quote:
Now from what I've heard of most low end Naim systems, they simply can't achieve this (don't mind about RS specials). The simple fact is that smaller Naim speakers are very good at playing music, but usually fairly rubbish at creating a big soundstage.
examples of this would be the Naim Allaes and Linn Ninkas I heard on dem in the recent past. On both, the scale of music was just not that great. My existing Linn Kabers would murder both of them.
I personally listen at fairly low levels (never higher than 9 o'clock and usually below 8 o'clock with CDP) whilst thoroughy enjoying the music, the detail, and even the bass detail at that level. I love Kabers too but would listen at low levels with them. I remember listening intently to a pair of Kabers a few years ago when a CD of Carol Kidd was being played thnrough a CD3.5 and a Nait 3 (yes a Nait 3) in Loud and Clear in Glasgow. What amazed me then was the sound "when nothing was being sung or played". The sound at the end of a phrase and at the beginning. Hardly high volume stuff yet it had my total attention.
Whilst appreciating that at a live show the incredible volume does also create an atmosphere which is all absorbing that cannot be re-created at home for so many reasons including very practical and social reasons.
I find that the refined performance and the increased detail that I have achieved through upgrading has provided me with great satisfaction on every occasion when I listen to my system (sorry sistem). I never listen without having a smile on my face. I have gone to live events and not had a smile on my face for reasons relating to performance and volume of sound. The source first agrument has proved to be a sound argument for me and my situation whilst still recogising your earlier ponts regarding system (sorry sistem) balance and the complexity of the situation when setting up a sistem (or system).
What it boils down to is individual personal preference and I suspect that that changes within each individual with time. My tastes in music, preferences for listening volume and what I listen for have changed considerably over the last 40 years.
quote:
Yet as I have dealt with my speakers/amp first, I haven't been able to deal with the CDP yet, so I'm still running a fairly ropey Arcam 7SE (to be upgraded to a CD5 shortly).
In addition, I'd say that choice of source or back end depends on how your system is being built. Again, for me when I dealt with the speaker upgrade, I wanted to improve both the musical and AV sound, can't exactly achieve that by improving my CDP.
With respect to CDP in your own home setting - you are going to get such a shock when you upgrade to CD5 and preferably beyond that that you may have a different story to tell then.
Terry
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by MarkEJ
The thing about the "source first" doctrine which is often forgotten, is that it is an unbeatable way of getting from "nothing" to "desired sistem" by way of gradual upgrading.
Given that changing any item in a sistem will normally involve some sort of financial penalty (selling upgraded component for less than you bought it for + cost of new item) it makes a lot of sense to get from A to C in as few steps as possible.
The classic path would go something like:
LP12/LVX/Basik
Nait
Kans
Install spur, get decent stands. Smack gob.
Change LVX for Ittok
Add LP12 PSU
Change Basik for something better (maybe)
Change Nait for 42/110 or other half-width combo.
Change to MC cart & boards
Add HiCap
Improve preamp
Improve power amp
Consider changing speakers, then come to senses and change preamp instead. Migrate existing boards and HiCap.
Fit Prefix to LP12, etc, etc.
The fine detail of the order of the above is of course open to debate, but with "correct" choices made at each stage, you'd end up with "complete" LP12/52/SuperCap/135s/Kans and a bloody great grin. At no point has any upgrade failed to deliver musical benefits, and the Kans have faithfully passed them on. Neither has any component ever been "exposed" by an unsuitably revealing "next-link" in the chain, and there have been no fund-sapping sideways moves. In terms of overall cost/benefit, "source-first" works, IMHO.
Best;
Mark
[This message was edited by Mark Ellis-Jones on SUNDAY 22 December 2002 at 13:13.]
Given that changing any item in a sistem will normally involve some sort of financial penalty (selling upgraded component for less than you bought it for + cost of new item) it makes a lot of sense to get from A to C in as few steps as possible.
The classic path would go something like:
LP12/LVX/Basik
Nait
Kans
Install spur, get decent stands. Smack gob.
Change LVX for Ittok
Add LP12 PSU
Change Basik for something better (maybe)
Change Nait for 42/110 or other half-width combo.
Change to MC cart & boards
Add HiCap
Improve preamp
Improve power amp
Consider changing speakers, then come to senses and change preamp instead. Migrate existing boards and HiCap.
Fit Prefix to LP12, etc, etc.
The fine detail of the order of the above is of course open to debate, but with "correct" choices made at each stage, you'd end up with "complete" LP12/52/SuperCap/135s/Kans and a bloody great grin. At no point has any upgrade failed to deliver musical benefits, and the Kans have faithfully passed them on. Neither has any component ever been "exposed" by an unsuitably revealing "next-link" in the chain, and there have been no fund-sapping sideways moves. In terms of overall cost/benefit, "source-first" works, IMHO.
Best;
Mark
[This message was edited by Mark Ellis-Jones on SUNDAY 22 December 2002 at 13:13.]
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by bjorne
I believe source first is the right way, at least with turntables where the differences are bigger than with cd-players. However I also believe it's really important to find a good match of amp and speakers and from there on improving the source.
Of course some people want or need more loudness capability or scale, and therefor buy bigger amps and speakers. I tend to think that these upgrades are more cosmetical than real improvements.
I have heard many cd based system that sound quite ok, where source first have not been the priority; but for my mucical enjoyment "source first" has not let me down.
True I don't play extremely loud and my room is not huge, but the nait3r plays loud enough for me, and I don't really feel any need to start uprading my amp, it will just be to expensive so I rather start to look at cartridges and /or a phonostage for my turntable.
Bjorne
Of course some people want or need more loudness capability or scale, and therefor buy bigger amps and speakers. I tend to think that these upgrades are more cosmetical than real improvements.
I have heard many cd based system that sound quite ok, where source first have not been the priority; but for my mucical enjoyment "source first" has not let me down.
True I don't play extremely loud and my room is not huge, but the nait3r plays loud enough for me, and I don't really feel any need to start uprading my amp, it will just be to expensive so I rather start to look at cartridges and /or a phonostage for my turntable.
Bjorne
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by Roy T
Mark,
Do you have any idea why some systems in this forum have SBL's, SL2's, NBL's and above where the front end does not quite reach the exacting standards of LP12/52/SuperCap/135s/ system?
I suspect a part of the reason may be that not every one hears the same things when auditioning a system and that some combinations of systems & speakers sound very much alike.
Do you have any idea why some systems in this forum have SBL's, SL2's, NBL's and above where the front end does not quite reach the exacting standards of LP12/52/SuperCap/135s/ system?
I suspect a part of the reason may be that not every one hears the same things when auditioning a system and that some combinations of systems & speakers sound very much alike.
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by kan man
Roy - I have a theory...
Some speakers are very 'revealing'. I define this as 'doing exactly what they're told'. Other speakers are not as 'revealing' and whilst sounding very good tend to 'mask' deficiencies further up the chain. A less revealing speaker means that you get less cues that all is not as good as it could be and means that you are content with a lesser source/amplification. I don't think this is the only reason though. If you are a bass freak there are two ways of getting better results - more control at the front end (source first) or better control with better constructed (expensive) speakers (mullet).
On the question of whether a front end can be too good for a pair of speakers I would say yes when taken to extremes. I have a pair of Mission 760SE's (see recent Alco thread)which sound fine with a Nait1 and DVD player (MP3's!). On my main system they fall apart. I suspect this is because they are being told to do things that they are just not capable of in terms of speed/dynamics etc. Put the Kans on the end of the Nait/DVD and it sounds shite (because it is).
Basically I would expect all long term Kan users to be source first advocates and those in the Mission 760 camp to be mullet oriented.
Regards
Steve
Kans are probably the most revealing speaker I have come across
Some speakers are very 'revealing'. I define this as 'doing exactly what they're told'. Other speakers are not as 'revealing' and whilst sounding very good tend to 'mask' deficiencies further up the chain. A less revealing speaker means that you get less cues that all is not as good as it could be and means that you are content with a lesser source/amplification. I don't think this is the only reason though. If you are a bass freak there are two ways of getting better results - more control at the front end (source first) or better control with better constructed (expensive) speakers (mullet).
On the question of whether a front end can be too good for a pair of speakers I would say yes when taken to extremes. I have a pair of Mission 760SE's (see recent Alco thread)which sound fine with a Nait1 and DVD player (MP3's!). On my main system they fall apart. I suspect this is because they are being told to do things that they are just not capable of in terms of speed/dynamics etc. Put the Kans on the end of the Nait/DVD and it sounds shite (because it is).
Basically I would expect all long term Kan users to be source first advocates and those in the Mission 760 camp to be mullet oriented.
Regards
Steve
Kans are probably the most revealing speaker I have come across
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by MarkEJ
Roy, I strongly agree with everything KanMan says above. However, it is also possible that many of those you mention got into this after about 1988, when both dealers and the press started to go a bit soft on 'source-first'. They wanted a "good stereo", part of which would obviously be "good speakers". Now, "good speakers" do lots of bass, and in order to do that, "good speakers" are obviously big. Many dealers are only too happy to oblige this fetish.
I don't think these people have bad sistems (not even close to it), or have been badly treated by their dealers, but I do think that in musical terms they could possibly have done better for their often considerable outlay. Speakers are usually pretty visible things, and to spend (say) seven grand on a stereo, and still end up with funny little "bookshelf" speakers simply goes against the grain for many, until a particular kind of lightbulb moment hits -- sometimes years later.
For the record, I thnk it's quite likely that the many inexpensive speakers are considerably better at revealing differences upstream than is generally imagined. I still have a pair of Bose 301s (stop giggling at the back) in the loft which I bought new in 1971 as part of the ubiquitous Garrard SP25/Trio amp sistem. Those speakers saw me through to Heybrook TT2, Nad (then Arcam) CDP with NAIT 1. I also experimented a lot with supports made of double sheets of marine ply separated by 2 inch woodscrews. The Bose 301s communicated every change made, and continually sounded better with every upgrade upstream. Yes, they're awful, but they demonstrated to me that speakers have much less influence on the final result than one would instinctively think. Upgrade them too soon, and you'll immediately have to spend money on "fighting the fire" caused by new speakers revealing everything wrong with what's feeding them. Upgrading the source avoids this!
Best
Mark
I don't think these people have bad sistems (not even close to it), or have been badly treated by their dealers, but I do think that in musical terms they could possibly have done better for their often considerable outlay. Speakers are usually pretty visible things, and to spend (say) seven grand on a stereo, and still end up with funny little "bookshelf" speakers simply goes against the grain for many, until a particular kind of lightbulb moment hits -- sometimes years later.
For the record, I thnk it's quite likely that the many inexpensive speakers are considerably better at revealing differences upstream than is generally imagined. I still have a pair of Bose 301s (stop giggling at the back) in the loft which I bought new in 1971 as part of the ubiquitous Garrard SP25/Trio amp sistem. Those speakers saw me through to Heybrook TT2, Nad (then Arcam) CDP with NAIT 1. I also experimented a lot with supports made of double sheets of marine ply separated by 2 inch woodscrews. The Bose 301s communicated every change made, and continually sounded better with every upgrade upstream. Yes, they're awful, but they demonstrated to me that speakers have much less influence on the final result than one would instinctively think. Upgrade them too soon, and you'll immediately have to spend money on "fighting the fire" caused by new speakers revealing everything wrong with what's feeding them. Upgrading the source avoids this!
Best
Mark
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by Derek Wright
Source first is ok until you use the system with many sources ie tuner, tv, dvd vcr as well as traditional recorded source (CD,lp)
At this stage the mantra should be backbone first so as to improve the sound from all sources. I got significant improvement when I plugged in the 52 to all the sourcese and further improvments to all sources with the power amp and speaker upgrades.
Derek
At this stage the mantra should be backbone first so as to improve the sound from all sources. I got significant improvement when I plugged in the 52 to all the sourcese and further improvments to all sources with the power amp and speaker upgrades.
Derek
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by Bob Edwards
I think Mark and Steve covered the bases very well.
I would just add that to plug a CDS2 into a Sony receiver would almost certainly be a waste of time, as would plugging in a LP12/Geddon/Aro etc into a Pioneer receiver or something similar.
In context, source first, IME, has always worked. My system now, with greatly superior sources and inferior amplification to what I owned previously, is infinitely(!) better than my previous (active) system. Also, people who own systems with great sources seem to be happier with their systems than those with lesser sources and bigger speakers/amps etc.
Best,
Bob
I would just add that to plug a CDS2 into a Sony receiver would almost certainly be a waste of time, as would plugging in a LP12/Geddon/Aro etc into a Pioneer receiver or something similar.
In context, source first, IME, has always worked. My system now, with greatly superior sources and inferior amplification to what I owned previously, is infinitely(!) better than my previous (active) system. Also, people who own systems with great sources seem to be happier with their systems than those with lesser sources and bigger speakers/amps etc.
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 22 December 2002 by bjorne
Right Bob! 
Posted on: 25 December 2002 by Peter C
Without quality sources you don't hear as much music as the other way round.
A CDs is more enjoyable than CDX.
An LP12 with a moving coil better than a player with a moving magnet.
I do put the video through a 52/hicap/250/SBL's and it sounds fine, however digital radio off of a digital TV box doesn't sound as involving.
Good quality amplification and speakers can reveal more of a poorer source, but in contrast allow you to enjoy the music more with better quality sources, like an LP12, CDS1 and a Naim tuner.
A CDs is more enjoyable than CDX.
An LP12 with a moving coil better than a player with a moving magnet.
I do put the video through a 52/hicap/250/SBL's and it sounds fine, however digital radio off of a digital TV box doesn't sound as involving.
Good quality amplification and speakers can reveal more of a poorer source, but in contrast allow you to enjoy the music more with better quality sources, like an LP12, CDS1 and a Naim tuner.
Posted on: 25 December 2002 by Phil Barry
I'm usually a source-firster, but I guess I feel it's more importantto be a contrarian.
I recently heard a Rotel 855 CD and VPI HW19IV? SME V/ AT0C9 through a 32.5?-110 or 140 into Spendor S100s in a room that's not too friendly to the Spendors.
The Rotel expecially provided marvelous music, much better than I expected.
Would the same investment weighted more towards the source be better? I just don't know.
Phil
I recently heard a Rotel 855 CD and VPI HW19IV? SME V/ AT0C9 through a 32.5?-110 or 140 into Spendor S100s in a room that's not too friendly to the Spendors.
The Rotel expecially provided marvelous music, much better than I expected.
Would the same investment weighted more towards the source be better? I just don't know.
Phil
Posted on: 25 December 2002 by Mr_Sukebe
I guess the marketing really worked then.
Without fail almost everyone here has stated that source first is the right way to go, yet how many of you have actually experienced it?
e.g. the last reply before this talked of using a digital TV radio broadcast through a high quality system, whilst comparing it to an LP12.
How about trying the same LP12 through a pair of Kef Cresta 1s, then comparing a £100 cdp using the rest of your existing system.
I await your reply with interest.
Without fail almost everyone here has stated that source first is the right way to go, yet how many of you have actually experienced it?
e.g. the last reply before this talked of using a digital TV radio broadcast through a high quality system, whilst comparing it to an LP12.
How about trying the same LP12 through a pair of Kef Cresta 1s, then comparing a £100 cdp using the rest of your existing system.
I await your reply with interest.
Posted on: 25 December 2002 by Mark Dunn
Hi Mr. S:
Whilst 'in the trade' I did the source first dem' hundreds of times and it rarely failed to convince.
The classic SF set up was of course, LP12/LVX/Basik with NAD 3020 and Videotone Minimax.
Best Regards,
Mark Dunn†
Whilst 'in the trade' I did the source first dem' hundreds of times and it rarely failed to convince.
The classic SF set up was of course, LP12/LVX/Basik with NAD 3020 and Videotone Minimax.
Best Regards,
Mark Dunn†
Posted on: 26 December 2002 by Peter C
"How about trying the same LP12 through a pair of Kef Cresta 1s, then comparing a £100 cdp using the rest of your existing system
"e.g. the last reply before this talked of using a digital TV radio broadcast through a high quality system, whilst comparing it to an LP12."
_____________________________________
The point I was trying to make was that a poorer source can have its limitations revealed through higher quality amplification and speakers.
In comparison a high quality source can reveal what budget kit is capable of and the source first test rarely fails because you have quality at the start of the chain.
An LP12 with budget kit like £100-£200 amps and speakers does work because the amps and speakers are receiving a higher quality source to begin with, however; they are not capable of revealing just how good the source is, unlike quality amps and speakers.
I have heard an LP12 through 72/140/Es11's and compared it with a Linn Axis and Rega 3 through the same amps.
The difference in quality with all the turntables was obvious. Each step up i.e Rega 3 to Linn Axis, then LP12 showed a difference in quality of sound and was also more enjoyable.
_____________________________________
"e.g. the last reply before this talked of using a digital TV radio broadcast through a high quality system, whilst comparing it to an LP12."
_____________________________________
The point I was trying to make was that a poorer source can have its limitations revealed through higher quality amplification and speakers.
In comparison a high quality source can reveal what budget kit is capable of and the source first test rarely fails because you have quality at the start of the chain.
An LP12 with budget kit like £100-£200 amps and speakers does work because the amps and speakers are receiving a higher quality source to begin with, however; they are not capable of revealing just how good the source is, unlike quality amps and speakers.
I have heard an LP12 through 72/140/Es11's and compared it with a Linn Axis and Rega 3 through the same amps.
The difference in quality with all the turntables was obvious. Each step up i.e Rega 3 to Linn Axis, then LP12 showed a difference in quality of sound and was also more enjoyable.
_____________________________________
Posted on: 26 December 2002 by JohanR
Quote:
"Without fail almost everyone here has stated that source first is the right way to go, yet how many of you have actually experienced it?"
A while ago I tried connecting my Tivoli table radio into my 82/Hi/180 and, at that time, Intro II:s. There was NO improvement what so ever over the naked Tivoli!
I then tried my CDS II into the Tivoli. Clearly better than the other way around!
So, it's source first for me.
JohanR
"Without fail almost everyone here has stated that source first is the right way to go, yet how many of you have actually experienced it?"
A while ago I tried connecting my Tivoli table radio into my 82/Hi/180 and, at that time, Intro II:s. There was NO improvement what so ever over the naked Tivoli!
I then tried my CDS II into the Tivoli. Clearly better than the other way around!
So, it's source first for me.
JohanR
Posted on: 26 December 2002 by Greg Beatty
...am not so sure I want to build my system this way.
In my younger days, a close friend had an LP12 and I didn't. No matter what I did to my amps and speakers, there was a groove, a boogie, and an almost psychadelic connectedness to the music my system would never match. A less-than-magical source cannot be made up for downstream.
But...
The system I want to improve right now is not an audiophile system per se and I'm not sure that is or shoudl be my goal.
This system resides in a family living room. My wife and I both enjoy music - no doubt - clost to 1,000 LPs and 600 CDs between us. But we use the system for TV, DVDs, videos, and LP. With so many sources, what to do???
Starting with a gaggle of sources:
* Basic LP12
* Panasonic DVD player
* Sony ES series CD player
* JVC VCR
and
* Sony ES series receiver
* ProAc Response 2 speakers
I'm leaning towards replacing the amp & speakers as the first moves.
Why? The overall balance of the system in my room (18 x 25 x 10 with adjoining dining room) is just not right and the "not rightness" is the same with all sources.
It seems that it is down to either the speakers themselves (it may be that the proacs are a bit long in the tooth or don't move enough air for this room) or the amp (10+ years old - can't be recapped so may get a Nait 5).
Thoughts?
- GregB
Insert Witty Signature Line Here
In my younger days, a close friend had an LP12 and I didn't. No matter what I did to my amps and speakers, there was a groove, a boogie, and an almost psychadelic connectedness to the music my system would never match. A less-than-magical source cannot be made up for downstream.
But...
The system I want to improve right now is not an audiophile system per se and I'm not sure that is or shoudl be my goal.
This system resides in a family living room. My wife and I both enjoy music - no doubt - clost to 1,000 LPs and 600 CDs between us. But we use the system for TV, DVDs, videos, and LP. With so many sources, what to do???
Starting with a gaggle of sources:
* Basic LP12
* Panasonic DVD player
* Sony ES series CD player
* JVC VCR
and
* Sony ES series receiver
* ProAc Response 2 speakers
I'm leaning towards replacing the amp & speakers as the first moves.
Why? The overall balance of the system in my room (18 x 25 x 10 with adjoining dining room) is just not right and the "not rightness" is the same with all sources.
It seems that it is down to either the speakers themselves (it may be that the proacs are a bit long in the tooth or don't move enough air for this room) or the amp (10+ years old - can't be recapped so may get a Nait 5).
Thoughts?
- GregB
Insert Witty Signature Line Here
Posted on: 26 December 2002 by Peter C
Proacs speakers require better than a Sony ES receiver which is doing you no favours.
I found the Sony ES range disappointing and that is what I suggest you improve on first.
New amplification and a tuner would help. Naim Nait 5 as a starting point.
I found the Sony ES range disappointing and that is what I suggest you improve on first.
New amplification and a tuner would help. Naim Nait 5 as a starting point.
Posted on: 26 December 2002 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Hi John
Not arguing with anything posted above, just another angle in that should you see a real bargain that does not fit in with your upgrade hierarchy, IMHO you should consider buying it.
Shikata ga nai? I think there may be....
The one that got away is always a horrid story to relate. And if you ever are not sure, ask the Forum for an opinion - someone will always say what you want to hear!
Regards
Mike
Not arguing with anything posted above, just another angle in that should you see a real bargain that does not fit in with your upgrade hierarchy, IMHO you should consider buying it.
Shikata ga nai? I think there may be....
The one that got away is always a horrid story to relate. And if you ever are not sure, ask the Forum for an opinion - someone will always say what you want to hear!
Regards
Mike
Posted on: 28 December 2002 by NB
Quote:-
And if you ever are not sure, ask the Forum for an opinion - someone will always say what you want to hear!
______________________________________________________________
If that is so then why ask for an opinion in the first place?
Happy new year!!
NB
And if you ever are not sure, ask the Forum for an opinion - someone will always say what you want to hear!
______________________________________________________________
If that is so then why ask for an opinion in the first place?
Happy new year!!
NB
Posted on: 14 January 2003 by silklee
Will a P9 or Naimed LP12 / 92 / 90 / ES14 be taking the source first theory too far?
Posted on: 15 January 2003 by MarkEJ
quote:
Originally posted by silklee:
Will a P9 or Naimed LP12 / 92 / 90 / ES14 be taking the source first theory too far?
Absolutely not! In source-first extremism terms, that's pretty mild. I've only heard ES14s with a Quad 33/303, but ES12s are certainly plenty good enough to show the quality of the source. I would have thought it should sound terrific.
Best;
Mark
Posted on: 15 January 2003 by JohanR
Quote:
"Myself, I had a CDI-72-140-JPW Minimonitor for a while. Spunded really, really good. Had to be heard to be belived. Of course, when the SBL arrived it sounded better but at a cost."
Having once compared CDI to CDS in roughly that type of system WITH JPW Minimonitors, and having once lived with SBL:s, I don't agree!
Quote:
"What you also have to take in to the calculation is cost of producing. A CD-player is more important then a speaker BUT maybe you can buy a CD-player that sounds 90% "correct" for 500 GBP. To buy a 90% "correct" speaker you probably have to pay +10.000 GBP. So, where do you put youre money?"
This is, of course, and in a way, true. But one could argue that you could buy a 99% "correct" CD-player, but there is no 99% "correct" speaker. At any cost.
Quote:
"Just to chose a more expensive CD-player then the speaker is to me, not to understand the whole concept."
Yes, the CD-player should be better than the speakers, not just more expensive!
JohanR
"Myself, I had a CDI-72-140-JPW Minimonitor for a while. Spunded really, really good. Had to be heard to be belived. Of course, when the SBL arrived it sounded better but at a cost."
Having once compared CDI to CDS in roughly that type of system WITH JPW Minimonitors, and having once lived with SBL:s, I don't agree!
Quote:
"What you also have to take in to the calculation is cost of producing. A CD-player is more important then a speaker BUT maybe you can buy a CD-player that sounds 90% "correct" for 500 GBP. To buy a 90% "correct" speaker you probably have to pay +10.000 GBP. So, where do you put youre money?"
This is, of course, and in a way, true. But one could argue that you could buy a 99% "correct" CD-player, but there is no 99% "correct" speaker. At any cost.
Quote:
"Just to chose a more expensive CD-player then the speaker is to me, not to understand the whole concept."
Yes, the CD-player should be better than the speakers, not just more expensive!
JohanR
Posted on: 15 January 2003 by andrew mcmullins
Observations and Comment:
Concerning Live Events
I went to a concert at Festival Hall just before Christmas. I say there closed my eyes and tried to see if I could place the music. Yip ... harp in the right place, choir all nice and at the back but ... hey ... whats going on here ... the singer sounded like she was 50 feet in the air coming of a set of loudspeakers. Therefore if we presume that the 'live' event is the reference then do we want to re-produce that ?
Source First.
I started off with a Linn Axis, Akito, K9, Musical Fidelity A1, Castle Trents. The sistem was great rocked my halls of residence nicely and got me into serious hi-fi. I went by the book and replaced the Axis with my current Roksan CD player (after my records were stolen during a break-in), then 72/140 and then finally the IBLs. Each step was a great improvement.
The most noticeable was just how good the Trents (£130 in 1986) sounded with the Roskan, 72/140).
All the best sistems seem to be balanced (no one says the ultimate sistem has a £130 source OR speakers). The final destination will always be a balanced sistem but to make sales we go for a source first so that the upgrade path of amps, speakers etc. is there to be realised.
Andrew
Concerning Live Events
I went to a concert at Festival Hall just before Christmas. I say there closed my eyes and tried to see if I could place the music. Yip ... harp in the right place, choir all nice and at the back but ... hey ... whats going on here ... the singer sounded like she was 50 feet in the air coming of a set of loudspeakers. Therefore if we presume that the 'live' event is the reference then do we want to re-produce that ?
Source First.
I started off with a Linn Axis, Akito, K9, Musical Fidelity A1, Castle Trents. The sistem was great rocked my halls of residence nicely and got me into serious hi-fi. I went by the book and replaced the Axis with my current Roksan CD player (after my records were stolen during a break-in), then 72/140 and then finally the IBLs. Each step was a great improvement.
The most noticeable was just how good the Trents (£130 in 1986) sounded with the Roskan, 72/140).
All the best sistems seem to be balanced (no one says the ultimate sistem has a £130 source OR speakers). The final destination will always be a balanced sistem but to make sales we go for a source first so that the upgrade path of amps, speakers etc. is there to be realised.
Andrew
Posted on: 15 January 2003 by Bob Shedlock
This thread caused me to take a hard look back at the last three decades of my intensive hobby.
Not that it counts for anything more or less valid than anyone else's experiences, but that would include my time as a reviewer, when I had lots of opportunities to try multiple sources in a fairly stable system in a known environment.
I tend to agree that when first assembling a system, source first is the most intelligent way to begin, as already noted in an earlier post.
Bear in mind that my system/stands/room/electrical was already sorted out from the get go.
Beyond the person assembling their first system, source first isn't always the most cost efficent upgrade.
I've had revelations changing almost any given component in a system over the years. Speakers are , as anyone will acknowledge, so room dependent as to render judgements made outside one's own room almost meaningless.
My experiences with the Ninkas is contrary to many other posts. (In my room, in my system, they have tremendous weight, speed, and scale. They've had the lunch of many other highly rated, more expensive brands.)
To date, in the context of my naim system, the single biggest change I've experienced after spending money was the 112 to 82. After that I'd rate the Hi cap from FC2 on the CD5 as next.
Certainly not source first. Certainly not an absolute.
What is required when examining a potential outlay of cash in a system is a fundamental understanding of the existing set up, which points
the owner wishes to change, and exactly where in the context of the system those lackings arise.
Evolution, hopefully not based on trial and error. Well, at least the error part
Not that it counts for anything more or less valid than anyone else's experiences, but that would include my time as a reviewer, when I had lots of opportunities to try multiple sources in a fairly stable system in a known environment.
I tend to agree that when first assembling a system, source first is the most intelligent way to begin, as already noted in an earlier post.
Bear in mind that my system/stands/room/electrical was already sorted out from the get go.
Beyond the person assembling their first system, source first isn't always the most cost efficent upgrade.
I've had revelations changing almost any given component in a system over the years. Speakers are , as anyone will acknowledge, so room dependent as to render judgements made outside one's own room almost meaningless.
My experiences with the Ninkas is contrary to many other posts. (In my room, in my system, they have tremendous weight, speed, and scale. They've had the lunch of many other highly rated, more expensive brands.)
To date, in the context of my naim system, the single biggest change I've experienced after spending money was the 112 to 82. After that I'd rate the Hi cap from FC2 on the CD5 as next.
Certainly not source first. Certainly not an absolute.
What is required when examining a potential outlay of cash in a system is a fundamental understanding of the existing set up, which points
the owner wishes to change, and exactly where in the context of the system those lackings arise.
Evolution, hopefully not based on trial and error. Well, at least the error part