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

I do strongly believe in source first but I think that the meaning gets skewed a bit. Source first merely indicates that the the quality of the source should be equal or greater to the other items further downstream. It does not in any way indicate what your budget allocation should be.

Therein lies the problem. As the quality of digital sources has improved over time, it is no longer necessary to spend the most on a source to ensure that it is the strongest part of a system. Take the 272 or Hugo users for example. I think a lot of Hugo users still know that they have adhered to source first even if it is substantially lower cost than their amplication chain or speakers.

If you take it purely on cost, then then only way to adhere to source first for 282/250 owners (and whatever PSU they use) would be an NDS since even a NDX/XPSdr is lower cost than the amplification chain, But as I said, taking it to mean budgetary allocation would, I think, be incorrect.

My experience shows, unless the source is very inferior, the source first guide doesn't really hold true for Naim, however the NAC first guide absolutely does. The performance of a Naim system is very much centred around the NAC preamp. A preamp can bring the sources and power amp with it. Sure the amps/ speakers can limit and colour sound, and the preamp can't recover info that is absent from the source in the first place... However focus on the best NAC for you and let it bring the rest of the system to you.

Simon

So what is covered by 'source'? Dacs? Pres? 

What is a Pres?

A DAC, CD player, phono cartridge/phono-preamp, tuner, streamer-DAC are usually considered sources - i.e. they are line level signal sources into the NAC (pre-amp)

A NAC and NAP together provide the amplification function - and I guess speakers speak for themselves............

Pre amp

Everything at line level. Got it 

Strictly, for my iMac system, the hard disk in the iMac is one source and Tidal is another, followed by Audirvana, Jitterbug and a DAC. How can I compare the level of quality of these things? I can compare one DAC with another, but I can't compare one with a pair of headphones.

There may have been some sense in 'source first' in the days when hi fi was a simple chain of analogue components, and an electrical signal carried the music down the chain from beginning to end. But those days have gone, and 'source first' should go with it. Music can now come from a vast array of sources and there is no sensible way of comparing digital and analogue elements. It's all about balance, and accepting that nothing is ever perfect.

I have no direct answer, but having spent 2016, among other things, listening to Naim gear, my experience of the biggest improvement over an existing system, and of the strongest impression from it, was hearing a new NAP300DR substituting for a 250.2 in a dealer's system. My brother-in-law heard it too, and in a couple of days he found, and bought, a very good 2nd hand, non DR one.

The interesting thing is that the principle of upgrade itself is not general and homogeneous, meaning that each piece of equipment brings a quality of upgrade, not an amount of it: and the one brought by the 300 has been the most all around satisfying I've heard in a while.

My brother-in-law often says that adding an XPS to his former CDX2 was not half as interesting as adding a HiCap to his then Supernait.

So, I only partially believe in Source First.

M

It was always nonsense peddled by Linn.  Balance and synergy is what counts - in my experience/opinion.

Regards,

Lindsay 

I have a problem with the term "source first".  I do prefer instead using the term "system hierarchy".  The importance of paying heed to that hierarchy, where no step down the chain can improve what came previously, is as true today as it has always been. The thing is that even relatively budget digital sources these days, while maybe not the most engaging you'll come across, are at least highly competent and devoid of obvious problems. So the field has seemingly levelled somewhat.

Until you hear what something like a CD555 or similar can really do...

Richard Dane posted:

I have a problem with the term "source first".  I do prefer instead using the term "system hierarchy".  The importance of paying heed to that hierarchy, where no step down the chain can improve what came previously, is as true today as it has always been. The thing is that even relatively budget digital sources these days, while maybe not the most engaging you'll come across, are at least highly competent and devoid of obvious problems. So the field has seemingly levelled somewhat.

Until you hear what something like a CD555 or similar can really do...

Richard, in full agreement.

Richard Dane posted:

I have a problem with the term "source first".  I do prefer instead using the term "system hierarchy".  The importance of paying heed to that hierarchy, where no step down the chain can improve what came previously, is as true today as it has always been. The thing is that even relatively budget digital sources these days, while maybe not the most engaging you'll come across, are at least highly competent and devoid of obvious problems. So the field has seemingly levelled somewhat.

Until you hear what something like a CD555 or similar can really do...

Agreed - modern digital sources provide  pitch stability but then I always thought a Rega P3 performed very well with better amplification.  

The Strat (Fender) posted:

It was always nonsense peddled by Linn.  Balance and synergy is what counts - in my experience/opinion.

 

I tend to agree with modern 'source' hierarchy,  but Linn  did have a point in the early emergence days of real quality audio.  I found I got more SQ VFM from the TT/cart combo - in those days.     Today the SQ differences between the top & bottom ends of any brands source, amp or speaker is not so marked as it was then.  So ITR I agree balance & synergy make far more sense today, & that started with CD & now its total since the advent of streaming.

But I have add - I heard a £1600 streamer/amp driving £7000 speakers last week,  now I am confused,  I was blown away with what was going on with the SQ & volume!!!   It said a lot for the amp so maybe the rule book is about to be re-written again.    

Mike-B posted:

But I have add - I heard a £1600 streamer/amp driving £7000 speakers last week,  now I am confused,  I was blown away with what was going on with the SQ & volume!!!   It said a lot for the amp so maybe the rule book is about to be re-written again.    

Ahhh, in isolation is one thing ... but could £4600 of streamer/amp driving £3000 of speakers sound better?

Mike-B posted:

But I have add - I heard a £1600 streamer/amp driving £7000 speakers last week,  now I am confused,  I was blown away with what was going on with the SQ & volume!!!   It said a lot for the amp so maybe the rule book is about to be re-written again.    

What system was that then Mike ?

Eloise posted:

Ahhh, in isolation is one thing ... but could £4600 of streamer/amp driving £3000 of speakers sound better?

My point is the differences between components are not as extreme as in the past, modern & quite modest power devices are now very capable & the hierarchy rule book might need to be revised.

Hi James I heard a system last Tuesday at a similar price - and could have been the same as the one Mike referred to?  I heard a new Uniti Atom and a Uniti Nova playing into a pair of Focal Sopra No1 speakers. To me the Uniti Atom was good - but was perhaps not ideally suited to driving that sort of resolving speaker - and I was not alone in thinking this - it was however completely eclipsed by the Uniti Nova, albeit this was an 'optimised' prototype apparently... the latter just sounded more real -and the balance and high end was more realistic and musical - it was almost like listening to a different recording. So for me there is still a very clear SQ lineage with the new Uniti products .. The new Uniti range is certainly impressive for the price and is a great stepping stone to the SQ DNA of the classic separates.

S

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

But I have add - I heard a £1600 streamer/amp driving £7000 speakers last week,  now I am confused,  I was blown away with what was going on with the SQ & volume!!!   It said a lot for the amp so maybe the rule book is about to be re-written again.    

Ahhh, in isolation is one thing ... but could £4600 of streamer/amp driving £3000 of speakers sound better?

Well I'm just road testing a £300 streamer into my 282. Does my NDX sound better? Yes (phew!)......does it sound 12 times better? Sadly not!

ChrisSU posted:

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

But I have add - I heard a £1600 streamer/amp driving £7000 speakers last week,  now I am confused,  I was blown away with what was going on with the SQ & volume!!!   It said a lot for the amp so maybe the rule book is about to be re-written again.    

Ahhh, in isolation is one thing ... but could £4600 of streamer/amp driving £3000 of speakers sound better?

Well I'm just road testing a £300 streamer into my 282. Does my NDX sound better? Yes (phew!)......does it sound 12 times better? Sadly not!

 

In Economics it's called a law of diminishing returns to scale

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi James I heard a system last Tuesday at a similar price - and could have been the same as the one Mike referred to?  I heard a new Uniti Atom and a Uniti Nova playing into a pair of Focal Sopra No1 speakers. To me the Uniti Atom was good - but was perhaps not ideally suited to driving that sort of resolving speaker - and I was not alone in thinking this - it was however completely eclipsed by the Uniti Nova, albeit this was an 'optimised' prototype apparently... the latter just sounded more real -and the balance and high end was more realistic and musical - it was almost like listening to a different recording. So for me there is still a very clear SQ lineage with the new Uniti products .. The new Uniti range is certainly impressive for the price and is a great stepping stone to the SQ DNA of the classic separates.

S

Sounds good Simon - looks like another winner on Naim's hands 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

.............     could have been the same as the one Mike referred to?

Yes it was,  Atom into Sopra-1,  I'm not saying anything other than my point in the previous posts  .............  the differences between components are not as extreme as in the past, modern & quite modest power devices are now very capable & the hierarchy rule book might need to be revised.   I doubt very much a Nait-1 would sound as good driving a pair of Linn Sara's.  

I can't comment on how the 'source first' rule, or hierarchical approach, applies to digital because I don't use it (other than on my iPhone whilst travelling), but In the case of vinyl playback I would say "always did - still does".  

In terms of systems improvement significant benefits from source upgrade will be achieved until one is a very long away along the line/curve of diminishing returns. In the case of the LP12 the improvements from chassis/power source/arm/cartridge, FME, outweigh any benefits from similar investment elsewhere in the playback chain. Poor speakers can't improve the sound, of course, but there have, FME, always been very respectable speakers at many price points before one hits the £2k + level.   

Case in point - having got pretty close to max spec on my LP12 the benefits from chasing to 135's from a 250 were immediately obvious and worthwhile - but that change could not have achieved or offset the much more significant improvements achieved by the TT improvements.

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

But I have add - I heard a £1600 streamer/amp driving £7000 speakers last week,  now I am confused,  I was blown away with what was going on with the SQ & volume!!!   It said a lot for the amp so maybe the rule book is about to be re-written again.    

Ahhh, in isolation is one thing ... but could £4600 of streamer/amp driving £3000 of speakers sound better?

Once I found my original IMF speakers back in about 1975 (today's equivalent value ~£2.5-3k) I found the sound I wanted from speakers and would never be happy with anything less regardless of the remainder of system. My analogue source at that time would probably cost about half of the speakers, while all digital sources I've had between then and now have been between that and the value of those speakers - but in the meantime I moved up to higher IMFs (today equivalent value maybe ~£5k) with an even more satisfying sound, and then most recently PMCs (equivalent value ~£8k).

Taking the source now as the DAC, it was only after my most recent speaker change that the source caught up with the speakers in value. And yes, the most recently improved source has provided better sound for the speakers to let out, but there was never anything less than satisfying from its predecessor at less than one fifth of the cost. (Another example perhaps of both how good some digital sources have become now, and the law of diminishing returns.)

Solid Air posted:

Strictly, for my iMac system, the hard disk in the iMac is one source and Tidal is another, followed by Audirvana, Jitterbug and a DAC. How can I compare the level of quality of these things? I can compare one DAC with another, but I can't compare one with a pair of headphones.

There may have been some sense in 'source first' in the days when hi fi was a simple chain of analogue components, and an electrical signal carried the music down the chain from beginning to end. But those days have gone, and 'source first' should go with it. Music can now come from a vast array of sources and there is no sensible way of comparing digital and analogue elements. It's all about balance, and accepting that nothing is ever perfect.

You got a "source first " system over there, or very balanced.

AQ red with Focal utopia vs Dave with grados

Source first saying to get the Dave 

am i wrong?

Emre posted:

Solid Air posted:

Strictly, for my iMac system, the hard disk in the iMac is one source and Tidal is another, followed by Audirvana, Jitterbug and a DAC. How can I compare the level of quality of these things? I can compare one DAC with another, but I can't compare one with a pair of headphones.

There may have been some sense in 'source first' in the days when hi fi was a simple chain of analogue components, and an electrical signal carried the music down the chain from beginning to end. But those days have gone, and 'source first' should go with it. Music can now come from a vast array of sources and there is no sensible way of comparing digital and analogue elements. It's all about balance, and accepting that nothing is ever perfect.

You got a "source first " system over there, or very balanced.

AQ red with Focal utopia vs Dave with grados

Source first saying to get the Dave 

am i wrong?

 

Sure - and how about a Hugo with a pair of ATC SCM19a speakers? I'd listen to all of those and make a choice. My point is about balance rather than going to one extreme or the other, but it's still whatever works.

And don't under-estimate the capability if the AQ Red btw. With the Jitterbug it gets close to the Mojo at well under half the price.