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

Solid Air posted:

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. 

I am sure AQ red is a gem for its price or any price

I am curious about jitterbug, read so many conflicting reviews, can you hear the difference with or without It?  

so limited resources which one you get first? 

Dave/grados or AQ/Utopia

It is a hard choice

The Jitterbug works very well with my iMac and the AQ Red - it may be it's best suited to their own DACs and I'm not sure how it would work with another brand. More depth and 'life' in the music. A real bargain in that system.

Of the two systems you mention I'd audition them, and my guess is get the Dave/Grados . . . so point taken :-) . . . but I'd get a Hugo/SCM19a ahead of either of them, or 272/250/SCM19. Hmm, now that would be a cracker. 

Where's my credit card?

Check Elear with mojo

I do share Richard's preference for "system hierarchy" over "source first" as the latter term tells only part of the story.

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.

My experience is the complete opposite. I still remember vividly how first adding an XPS to the CDX and then swapping the 102 for a 52 completely transformed the sound coming out of the Linn Keildhs at the end of the system. Initially, the sound suffered from gross tonal coloration that made all the singers sound like they had head colds. Adding the XPS alleviated the singers' nasal congestion and swapping the 102 for a 52 cured it altogether.

Innocent Bystander posted:

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.

Again, my experience is very different. The bigger preamp with with more modest speakers (NAC 52, Linn Kan) gave more and better bass than the lesser preamp with bigger speakers (NAC 72, Linn Kaber).

TL;DR: YMMV

Paul Davies posted:

 

Innocent Bystander posted:

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.

Again, my experience is very different. The bigger preamp with with more modest speakers (NAC 52, Linn Kan) gave more and better bass than the lesser preamp with bigger speakers (NAC 72, Linn Kaber).

But was it bass down to the lowest fundamentals, or just increased mid-bass given the illusion of more bass, which I believe is not infrequently the case. I don't challenge the controlled aspect - as I indicated, controlled deep bass tends to dictate expensive designs, but I doubt the driver in the Kans could produce the bottom octave or two at anywhere near the same level as higher up.

Paul Davies posted:

 

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.

My experience is the complete opposite. I still remember vividly how first adding an XPS to the CDX and then swapping the 102 for a 52 completely transformed the sound coming out of the Linn Keildhs at the end of the system. Initially, the sound suffered from gross tonal coloration that made all the singers sound like they had head colds. Adding the XPS alleviated the singers' nasal congestion and swapping the 102 for a 52 cured it altogether.

This indicates that improving the source and amp can improve the speaker's sound, which I don't dispute: the point I was making was that the speaker contributes most to the overall character of the sound, and the listener must like that character or there is no point. My original mammoth auditioning exercise back in the 1970s showed how every speaker sounded completely different from every other one, and that at a reasonably elevated cost equivalent to about £2.5-3k today.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Paul Davies posted:

 

Innocent Bystander posted:

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.

Again, my experience is very different. The bigger preamp with with more modest speakers (NAC 52, Linn Kan) gave more and better bass than the lesser preamp with bigger speakers (NAC 72, Linn Kaber).

But was it bass down to the lowest fundamentals, or just increased mid-bass given the illusion of more bass, which I believe is not infrequently the case. I don't challenge the controlled aspect - as I indicated, controlled deep bass tends to dictate expensive designs, but I doubt the driver in the Kans could produce the bottom octave or two at anywhere near the same level as higher up.

Paul Davies posted:

 

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.

My experience is the complete opposite. I still remember vividly how first adding an XPS to the CDX and then swapping the 102 for a 52 completely transformed the sound coming out of the Linn Keildhs at the end of the system. Initially, the sound suffered from gross tonal coloration that made all the singers sound like they had head colds. Adding the XPS alleviated the singers' nasal congestion and swapping the 102 for a 52 cured it altogether.

 

This indicates that improving the source and amp can improve the speaker's sound, which I don't dispute: the point I was making was that the speaker contributes most to the overall character of the sound, and the listener must like that character or there is no point. My original mammoth auditioning exercise back in the 1970s showed how every speaker sounded completely different from every other one, and that at a reasonably elevated cost equivalent to about £2.5-3k today.

No. It indicates that changes upstream of the speakers completely changed the character of the sound emanating from the speakers. If the speakers contributed most to the character of the sound, that character would have persisted after the changes upstream were made. The listeners did not like the character of the sound that the original system made, but did like the character of the sound of the changed system, suggesting that there was a point to making improvements upstream of the speakers while leaving the speakers unchanged.

My experience with the Linn Kan is an even more extreme example: Introducing the NAC 52 transformed them from a shrill pair of squawk boxes that were unbearable to listen to into a more refined and controlled pair of loudspeakers that I could happily listen to for hours on end.

I wonder if our different approaches to system building reflect differences in what we look for in a hifi system. But that is probably a topic for another thread.

Paul Davies posted:

 

I wonder if our different approaches to system building reflect differences in what we look for in a hifi system. But that is probably a topic for another thread.

I suspect that is the case, which may also depend on musical tastes: I can't imagine living with the sound I picture emerging from the Kans, based on everything I have read of their limitations, while other people clearly gain enjoyment from them. Neither is right or wrong, as after all it is all about personal listening pleasure, whatever the sound that provides it.

Richard Dane posted:

 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.

On reflection Richard this is of course true but in my experience speakers and the environment in which they operate are critical in that a change will completely change the tonal balance of a system.

Regards,

Lindsay

Lindsay, of course.  It doesn't mean you can just throw any old speaker on the end of your system and expect it to work perfectly.  Irrespective of budget, you should choose a speaker that will work best with the electronics and room that you have.  Choosing a speaker first (which seems to invariably mean throwing the bulk of any budget at them), and then trying to buy electronics to get them to "work" (which invariably means trying to buy the least cost options, because you have no money left) just about never works satisfactorily over the medium to long term.  Yes, you can kid yourself for a bit, but the problems usually mean it's back on the upgrade path, or you just lose interest and move on to something else.  I'm sure there are exceptions - there always are - but they are few.

I'm an exception!  

I've always found that speakers set the personality for the whole system. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have the largest impact. In the same way that the body of a car has the most outward impact of setting the aesthetic for the car, the underlying chasis, engine, and the wheels it rides on totally affects the product to the degree it can be a piece of undrivable trash or a cruise in a Rolls.

To that end, I might actually agree with [@mention:41551091830475636] that they are the linchpin when you find the personality that fits. On the other hand I have in no way found that choosing hifi is the linear process that is described here. I might start with speakers to find something that suits my taste and room, then move on to choosing electronics, then come back and re-evaluate whether the speakers are still  the best fit with the electronics and refine the choice further.

I also think that while speakers coming first in terms of decision making isn't at all bad, I do find that does not mean that they should take a disproportionate share of the budget. It is very hard to go wrong with a well considered lower cost speaker that is a bit (or greatly) outclassed by the electronics. The reverse is not true. It is very likely that you'll go wrong with a higher end revealing (and potentially hard to control) speaker that demands more than the electronics deliver. To that end, I did in fact choose speakers first when I bought a whole system but still steered the whole thing to monkfish territory where the speakers are by far the least expensive part. Case in point: I have 2 systems, one with GBP1250 electronics driving GBP160 speakers and the other GBP20K of electronics driving GBP3K speakers. Both sound fantastic and both satisfied both extremes of the argument. I chose speakers first for setting the personality of the system but invested in source most as the top of the hierarchy.

Huge posted:

I'm an exception!  

I am, too! (Of course if we're almost all exceptions...)

My original IMFs sounded great powered by the very modest Sinclair Project 60/bridged Z50s fed by Shure 75E on Thorens TD150, at least to my ears and thise of all my friends, and they remained with me for about 16 years, setting the character for subsequent speaker upgrades.

My source is the least expensive part of my system, and by a lot.  Do I think I could better it? Sure if I spend 4X what its worth (it performs far more than its cost).  This will be an upgrade down the road, after I upgrade my speakers