Always source first? Always?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stallion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mark Ellis-Jones:


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

---

The source first policy is laudable and no doubt with such a system the grin factor would be there...

BUT!

Mark, not everyone would be happy with Kans on the end of this system...

---

I didn't mean that one should necessarily stop there. With the above sistem, speakers would be a perfectly reasonable next upgrade, in my view. I was advocating "source first" as a sound principle to employ in order to get from entry-level upwards (you choose how far) while changing as few components as possible, and therefore spending as little as possible.

Further, I would suggest that "the feel of a live gig", like imaging and all that, is "icing", the appeal of which could easily wear thin were it not to be underpinned by the "cake" of a first-class source. Superficially therefore, "complete" LP12/102/HiCap/135s/NBLs might well seem attractive, but it I strongly suspect that if musical criteria are used for comparison, "complete" LP12/52/SuperCap/140/Kans would soundly beat it. I use these examples for the purposes of illustration, and I am assuming ideal location and setup in both cases, of course.

Andrew;

quote:

---

Therefore if we presume that the 'live' event is the reference then do we want to re-produce that?

---

No, not as a primary aim, in my view. I think that the reference should be the musical message which results from a live performance . If the system doesn't play in tune and in time, you won't get that, no matter how astonishing the imaging. As somebody once said: "A piano will sound different in different rooms, but it will always sound like a piano, and you will always be able to sense the mood of the player".

quote:

---

The most noticeable was just how good the Trents (£130 in 1986) sounded with the Roskan, 72/140).

---

Exactly my point. Your full-monty Roksan was probably close to 2000 quid when new. The amps? About 1400 quid. And still the 130 pound Trents worked better than you expected...

By the way, in my opinion you have one the best CD players ever made. If you haven't had them done, the upgrades available for the transport are very worthwhile.

Best;

Mark

[This message was edited by Mark Ellis-Jones on THURSDAY 16 January 2003 at 20:57.]

First, let me say that I am new to this Forum. When reading this thread I remembered an experiance I made some years ago that for me fully supports the source first approach. What we did is that we recorded some excellend tracks on a top type IV tape with the Sony Pro walkman. Source was LP12, ARO, Troika, Armageddon via a 52. Using this tape in the cheapest car radios you usally do not even turn on anymore as they are so bad actually delivered listening pleasure. Ther was bass, rythm, simply music. I know a different example than mentioned in the posts here, but I still smile when remembering how it worked.

Stephen

Stephen
you make a valid point. My friends often roll about clutching their sides with laughter when they hear about how much I've spent on the last upgrade. BUT they are all highly enamoured with the CD recordings of vinyl from my LP12/Naim front end when played back on their lesser systems.

malcolm