What would you choose soundwise of these 2 chains and why ?

NDX+XPS2+282+HICAP+250.2

Not hypothetical. This was exactly what I chose and bought in one go (though I swapped out the HCdr for a SCdr 6 months down the road).

My reasoning: Source first is paramount but so is building a balanced system. The problem with a monkfish is that you do definitely get a benefit from the better source but the SN2 can't fully benefit from all the NDS has to offer. If it could, there would be no point in going any higher than a SN2.

I prefer an eel. matched source to amp end to end.

Ask your dealer to dem both systems on the same speakers and see which you prefer. You might find monkfish tastes better but for me, there is no substitute for barbequed eel.

+1

Definately agree here. NDS/555PS is a tremendous source but the SN2 cannot extract its full potential.

I previously ran a 282/hi-cap(x2) with ND5xs/xp5xs and found it to be very capable and enjoyable.

Paul

I would go for the one that gave me the most musical enjoyment in my room. How it sounds to other people in their rooms wouldn't factor in - for the obvious reason.

I'd always be inclined to go source first because it has worked consistently for me down the years and because a later upgrade downstream may occur. But above all I think it's important to keep an open mind and do what works for you.

Option 2 makes the most sense to me.  Personally, I would still expect the SN2 to reveal the difference and much of the benefit of an NDS vs NDX, but I also believe that a 282+250DR, would reveal more of what both the NDX and NDS can do.  Source is important, but so is the rest of the chain, so spread the budget more evenly would be my advice.

Surely it depends if this is a 'final' system, or one to build from.  If the latter I would say source first and build from that.

Building a system is something entirely subjective, and there is a only very small chance that two people would choose the same system for their own preferences.

In my view, [and it is my view, not a Universal Law]: The first thing is to choose a speaker array that works in the room and pleases the listener. The choice of speakers is mind-boggling! 

Second step is get a suitable amplifier for the selected speaker. And the third step is to get source components that are suitable and balanced with the amplification and speakers. 

Balance is important, but this is not necessarily a question balancing costs as much as balancing the quality. 

Digital sources have upset the old apple cart on this. When sources depended on a combination of electronics and quality engineering [such a tape recorder, turntable, or CD player], then a great deal of the cost was related to the engineering quite as much as the quality of the electronic element involved. 

With digital the cost is almost all put into the electronic element, and so great quality sources can be much less expensive than was once the case. 

ATB from George

That's a fair point, but wouldn't change my suggestion.  i'd rather start with better components all the way through, then flog and replace when upgrade disease kicks in, starting with the source.  It's how I've always ended up doing things, the source has always been the first thing to change, and then, whether part of a plan or not, it triggers off the upgrade of everything around it. 

I'll pick the system 1. but substitute NDS with a CD555.

And make sure the amp can handle the speaker load. ( will work with my Wilson WATT 6 in my office but highly unlikely SN2 can drive the Briks )

My upgrade preference always has been start from the top: get the best source I can afford and go downstream.

I would listen to each system, at a Naim dealer and then decide, myself.

I would not ask on an Internet forum - as I cannot see how anyone can really answer you question.

Assuming NDS+555PS is better than NDX+XPS2 and 282+HICAP+250 is better than SN2+HICAP, both chains seem unbalanced. I would not know which one to choose and why, I am afraid. Best, nbpf

Why source first? I am probably missing something very obvious but I do not understand in which sense "source first" should be better than "speakers first" or, e.g., DAC first? Can someone explain, please? Thanks, nbpf

You can't get out what's not there to start with - great speakers can't make up for a poor quality input etc etc.

+ 1. fourth step is to run a coherent cable loom - easy with Naim as they offer everything needed.

then last step is to ensure its all sitting within an enviroment that does not detract from best mechanical performance.

Are you totally sure about that.... That logic might have made sense in the 1970s ..,but Today's HiFi has come a long way since then.

Sure, but this is also true the other way round: a great source cannot make up for poor speakers. Why do you believe that having a great source and poor speakers is better than having a poor source and great speakers? Best, nbpf

I think a balanced system is best but if I were building I would build from the front because I believe that a great source into a mediocre amp and speakers would sound better than a great set of speakers and amp being fed by a mediocre source.  You can only amplify what is being fed into the amp at the end of the day. I know there are other views but that is just mine and, to be fair it probably does come from being into hifi in the 80s but, imho, it still holds true no matter how much things have moved on.  

You say that a great source into a mediocre amp and speakers sounds better than great speakers and amp fed by a mediocre source.

I find it difficult to believe that this is true in general. I tend to think that it very much depends on the particular source, amp and speakers at stake.

But, of course, I understand that some prefer to first get the source right and others prefer to first fix amplification and speakers. There is nothing wrong in setting priorities.

Best, nbpf

Nothing good will achieved if the speakers are not suitable for the room and the listener’s taste.

Start with the speakers. It is really easy. Speakers do not need to be very expensive to get right. They just need to match the scale of the listening space. Almost every system I have seen that was expensive has speakers that were several times larger than suitable for the listening space they sat in.

If you get sensibly sized speakers that work in the space intended, then choosing suitable amplification will be easy. It need not be more powerful than sufficient, and mostly this is far less powerful than the norm for amplifiers chosen for example in the System Pictures thread. Only the most exceptionally large living room with proper speakers could demand more than a Nait 5i as amplification. 

But the source can be chosen easily if one has carefully selected the speakers and amplification. The point with the source in the digital age is that quality sources are much less relatively expensive than amplification and speakers as the cost is now almost exclusively about electronic issues rather than quality physical engineering of the sort that marked out the poor and good turntables, tape recorders, and even tuners of former times.

There is no substitute for the ears in deciding!

And no two people’s tastes are likely to produce identical choices. 

It should go without saying that competent interconnects and suitable equipment supports will optimise the performance of the chosen components, but these aspects make far less difference than the basic aspects.

ATB from George

You don't have to believe anything. Just trust what your ears tell you. And try to keep an open mind.

Ooh... I agree with (most of) the various views above. Let's see.

Yes, rubbish in, rubbish out, so source first. This still holds true IMHO.

Yes, the cost of good digital sources has come down. So, say, the 272 can and does punch above its weight.

Yes, speakers are vital and dictate the final sound of whatever are feeding them.

(I apolgise here for the simplistic terminology but it is language I understand).

I think a lot of the angst and debate about how best to guild a system is due to the understandable fact that most of us are alredy embarked on the journey to sonic nirvana (geez that sounds naff but I can't be bothered to reword it - you know what I mean) and have already made certain 'commitments' in our purchases. If we all had the (financial) luxury of wiping the slate clean and picking a system from scratch we would all end up with a wonderfully 'balanced' system, selected from endless dealer demos (like the one I attended today at Audiobarn which was extremely enlightening) and buy the whole system in one go. Not realistic!

The fact is we buy hifi bit by bit and hope to end up with the best system we can afford. The pain is that manufacturers quite rightly continue to develop their ranges and technology, particularly digital (more so than analogue), is moving on at a fast pace. 

You also get the odd manufacturer throw you a curve ball. I give you Focal for example who have just presented us with the Sopra 2 which is simply stunning with Naim gear, having previously shown no signs of producing a compatible speakers in the past.

So what on earth do all these ramblings mean in terms of this thread. Not sure really, I just felt compelled to chip in my twopennth worth. All I would say is that there is (now) no 'right' nor 'wrong' way to build or upgrade a system. Much depends on where you are and where you want to go and what new offerings are out there at the time you feel compelled to buy.

Reading this back I am not sure have added much to the debate. One thing I am sure of however is the value of a good Naim dealer. These boys can save you from very expensive mistakes for sure!

Why does the second one seem unbalanced to you? First one is a monkfish sure but the second is an eel with a source in proportion to the amplification.

I would say one thing, although getting a good source is paramount, I agree with those who say choosing a speaker first (not necessarily going for a mullet and spending most on the speakers) is a good idea. However, you can't choose speakers without them being hooked up to a source and amp and one pair of speakers may not work well with certain electronics. It makes it fairly hard to understand how much of what you like is coming from the electronics and how much from the speaker. No easy answer there. I indeed chose my speakers first based on the room but it is not always that easy.

At worst a monkfsh can be a bit of waste of money if it is not intentionally on a path to a different end system. An NDS is capable of things you'll never hear completely with a SN2 but as others correctly pointed out, that might be the correct place to start the journey.

The eel is definitely a better final resting place if this is to be you're last system. Am confident if you demo those system on the same speakers, the eel will win.

For those advocating the mullet and the benefit of a cheap source and better speakers; yes things have moved on but there are still limits. Great speakers can be very demanding of the source and amplification and while there might be some initial wow in the first few mins, it generally sounds worse. If they are a challenge to drive you'll get worse dynamics than with lesser speakers on the same amp and if they are revealing they will show that your source isn't great. An iPod into 20K of amp and speakers is a good (if extreme) example - it sounds naff after the first few mins. Not only could you get better results allocating the 20K differently to allow a better source, in that extreme example, you could probably get better results spending less overall.

Seems to be some argument here about the virtue of monkfish vs. mullet but the OP's question was monkfish vs. eel.

At this point, I would choose neither, and go with a 272/XPS-DR/250 instead.

The NDS/555 Sn2/hicapdr is too imbalanced. The SN2/HiCapDR while good, is no way showing the potential of the NDS/555. The 282/250 is really the minimum for the NDS, IMHO.

The NDX/XPS/282/250 etc. is way too many boxes. Also, I find the streamers work better when paired with DR tech components. You're better off pairing non-DR amplification with CD players.

The 272/XPS-DR/250DR is all gear from the same gen, and voiced together. Three nice boxes, and not much in there to upgrade - Also balanced.

Now, if you have a different end game in mind, you're asking the wrong question. Say, you want to end with a NDS/555DR 552/500, then you can go down the Source first route, and just use basic amplification in the interim.

The problem is: in order to establish the truth of a general rule like

a great source into a mediocre amp and speakers sounds better than great speakers and amp fed by a mediocre source

by listening to what my ears tell me, I would have to listen to a huge number of unbalanced systems of the two sorts. This is hardly feasible. Relying on my ears is also not likely to lead to a sound judgement: unfortunately, my hearing was quite seriuosly damaged.

I am trying to keep an open mind and I am not arguing that there are no cases in which a great source into a mediocre amp and speakers would sound better than great speakers and amp fed by a mediocre source. But I would be quite surprised if these particular cases would be instances of a "universal" rule like the above.

I might be wrong of course, but, generally speaking, I tend to be a bit skeptical about universal laws, in particular on matters of sound quality! Best, nbpf

I agree. What I was trying to say is that perhaps "NDS+555PS+282+HICAP+250" and "NDX+XPS2+SN2+HICAP" would be more balanced alternatives than those considered by the OP while relying on the same components. But I might be wrong of course and the OP might have very good reasons for considering those alternatives. Best, nbpf