Is it really always source first? My experience is conflicted.

I recently auditioned a 250dr on the back of my SN1. It was a fantastic step up! Like you I guess everyone would say add an XPSDR to my CDX2 first.....but that amp.....wow. 

"source first" is a simplification of "weakest link first". now, what the weakest link in your system is depends on a LOT of factors meaning so its hard to make general conclusions, but "source first" is not necessarily a bad place to start with -- all else being equal...

enjoy...

ken

It depends...

Source first as a principle is a guidance not a hard and fast rule...

Your experience is consistent with many reported here, where system balance achieves the best sound for a given investment.  You have a very nice system to enjoy for some time to come.  And rest assured the XPS will likely offer even more improvement to your system (facilitated by the 250DR) in the future when you are ready to consider it.

Charlie

I bought my 272 with a 250DR and added an XPSDR a few months later. With the 250 in place you'll get the most from an XPS should you decide to go there later, but do get a DR version if you go that route. 

Dupree,  congratulations on your upgrade. An excellent addition to your set up.

Like Finkfan, I've heard the 250dr on the back of a SN1 , a very impressive upgrade,  I would probably be happy with the addition of an XPSdr as well,  either way it's a win win situation...

I've always felt that source first was the way to go but am starting to question whether this is always necessary.

Last week I had the pleasure of listening to a 500 series system into Sopra 1's. It sounded wonderful despite being 'only' fronted by an NDX/XPS DR.

I'm already hearing people thinking 'what idiot would assemble a system like that!'.  The answer to that question is Naim themselves, I heard that system in Naims demo room at the factory and very nice it was too.

Richard

Nothing is black and white. I subscribe to the source first philosophy of system hierarchy but I don't blindly follow it in all situations.

Compared to the polite, tending at times to rather anaemic presentation of the 200, the puffed up, swaggering, larger than life presentation of the 250 is quite something to behold.  I hope the novelty lasts for a long time.

I think the clue is in NAP 200 (non DR) versus NAP 250 DR....

Good to hear these observations, cause I'm in a somewhat similar situation owning a NAC-N 272 and NAP 200 now...

Is a 200 dr'd? Or does the dr just feed the pre? 

trickydickie posted:

I've always felt that source first was the way to go but am starting to question whether this is always necessary.

Last week I had the pleasure of listening to a 500 series system into Sopra 1's. It sounded wonderful despite being 'only' fronted by an NDX/XPS DR.

I'm already hearing people thinking 'what idiot would assemble a system like that!'.  The answer to that question is Naim themselves, I heard that system in Naims demo room at the factory and very nice it was too.

Richard

 

 

I think Naim sometimes chuck together whatever they have to hand - when I was there once I listened to the S800s driven by three 500s and fronted by...... an NDX. But when it's your own money, it might be different. 

Finkfan posted:

Is a 200 dr'd? Or does the dr just feed the pre? 

200 is not DR'd, it is just for the preamp power feed, which is not used in the case of the 272.. So there is essentially little difference in that application..

Hungryhalibut posted:

trickydickie posted:

I've always felt that source first was the way to go but am starting to question whether this is always necessary.

Last week I had the pleasure of listening to a 500 series system into Sopra 1's. It sounded wonderful despite being 'only' fronted by an NDX/XPS DR.

I'm already hearing people thinking 'what idiot would assemble a system like that!'.  The answer to that question is Naim themselves, I heard that system in Naims demo room at the factory and very nice it was too.

Richard

 

 

I think Naim sometimes chuck together whatever they have to hand - 

Apparently they use the eenie meenie miney mo system.... 

Hungryhalibut posted:

trickydickie posted:

I've always felt that source first was the way to go but am starting to question whether this is always necessary.

Last week I had the pleasure of listening to a 500 series system into Sopra 1's. It sounded wonderful despite being 'only' fronted by an NDX/XPS DR.

I'm already hearing people thinking 'what idiot would assemble a system like that!'.  The answer to that question is Naim themselves, I heard that system in Naims demo room at the factory and very nice it was too.

Richard

I think Naim sometimes chuck together whatever they have to hand - when I was there once I listened to the S800s driven by three 500s and fronted by...... an NDX. But when it's your own money, it might be different. 

You are probably right Nigel, they had the gall to play us a 272/250DR as well!

Now that's really slumming it. 

I think you have to look at this in the context of your whole system. I haven't heard your speakers, but I'm pretty sure they would respond well to some extra welly, which is exactly what they'll get from the 250DR compared to a 200. So for you, an amp upgrade might be a higher priority than it would be for someone with a more easily driven 2 way speaker, for example. 

......but......when your bank balance has recovered, go the whole hog and get an XPS DR, then you'll be sorted.

Not everyone agrees with the source-first dogma: yes, you can only get out what you put in, but also, regardless of what you put in, you can only get out what each subsequent component lets through. Speakers in fact are the component that most affect the character of the sound you hear, and unless you like the sound they can produce all else is a waste. Less of a problem with those content with, for example, a curtailed frequency response, but if you are one of those to whom the bottom couple of octaves are important and you want to hear them uncurtailed, then it is likely to require a significant expense on speakers, which may limit the funds available for the source: but you would get the sound character you like, while any future upgrade of source or amp would shine through. In this case I don't know where the OP is with speakers, but improving the amp might often can improve the sound from the speakers, and it sounds as if that is the case in this instance.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Not everyone agrees with the source-first dogma: yes, you can only get out what you put in, but also, regardless of what you put in, you can only get out what each subsequent component lets through. Speakers in fact are the component that most affect the character of the sound you hear, and unless you like the sound they can produce all else is a waste. Less of a problem with those content with, for example, a curtailed frequency response, but if you are one of those to whom the bottom couple of octaves are important and you want to hear them uncurtailed, then it is likely to require a significant expense on speakers, which may limit the funds available for the source: but you would get the sound character you like, while any future upgrade of source or amp would shine through. In this case I don't know where the OP is with speakers, but improving the amp might often can improve the sound from the speakers, and it sounds as if that is the case in this instance.

Very nicely summarised.... 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Speakers in fact are the component that most affect the character of the sound you hear, and unless you like the sound they can produce all else is a waste. 

I  have given your post a Like before I finished reading your whole post. I find this statement to be useful. Even with the right speakers, personally I think it does not matter whether one should go source first or amp first. The more important task is to complete the journey ie. If you go source first, finish it with the amp later or vice versa. In my mind, all front-end components inclusive of amplifiers are sources to the loudspeakers. And to add on, a well-matched and balanced system would help too. 

There are no rules, although I think source first is still a good guide if you are starting to build a system.  It's possible now to get fantastic sources at prices that are way lower than the equivalent cost when I first heard the source first argument too.  Having said, that regardless of cost, or the order that you construct the system, the thing that matters most, in my view, is synergy and it is sometimes possible to achieve this with a surprising mix of components    

Yes, the NAP 250DR is a very special amp. It does not only bring real improvements to quality speakers with large drivers but relatively small(and cheap) bookshelves with tiny 4.5" drivers as well. I did not expect the 250 DR to be able to change the tonality of my Dali Mentor Menuet and transform it to a higher level of sophistication(from the NAP 200), but that was what i have experienced. When properly matched, it really shines. The NAP 250 DR.

The only disadvantage or bad thing about the NAP 250 DR is it has now caused me to spend less time with the second system based on the NAP 200.

'Source first' is ultimately a meaningless term. If I have an LP12 with an Ortofon Red cartridge fronting a pair of Q2010i speakers, is anyone really suggesting my best upgrade for £800 is a better cartridge? Even if one applies 'source first' to mean 'where to spend the most money' it's meaningless; you can now buy a DAC for £400 that will outperform DACs costing multiples of that from a few years ago.

It's all about balance. There are forum members who love their mullet systems. In my office I have an iMac running Audirvana, Jitterbug, Dragonfly Red, and Grado SR352e 'phones, and it sounds awesome, but it's nowhere close to 'source first'.