A reflection on mullets, falling in love and ignorance...

Quite, well said.  And of course, you can't really tell if a change in source or amp is positive if your speakers are rubbish.

Sound quality is one aspect. Then there is their visual appearance - accepted by swmbo / myself, and how well they survive a countless number of terrorists kids running through my room.

I now and then feel that sound quality is the only thing what matters on this forum.

SongStream posted:

Quite, well said.  And of course, you can't really tell if a change in source or amp is positive if your speakers are rubbish.

Which is why it's best to avoid rubbish speakers, or indeed a rubbish amp, and definitely avoid a rubbish source - in fact just avoid anything rubbish in the system.  

Of course, good (not rubbish) speakers that allow you to hear improvements earlier in the chain can be purchased for very little, right up to "how much??!!". It's all down to how to best spend any allotted budget, which in my experience always means not scrimping on the source.

I don't get too hung up on the source first rule. When buying a power amp the simple, pragmatic, and common sense advice would be to get the one you can afford with enough juice to drive most speakers. That way you've covered most bases with speakers and are not limiting your choice when changing or upgrading speakers.

Preamp or integrated amps are different to power amps in that they can colour the sound and add their own character much more so than a power amp, personal preference comes more into play. In today's digital world of DACs and streamers perhaps the only scenario for justifying a dedicated preamp or integrated amp would be if you have analogue sources.

FWIW my guess is a minimum for driving SCM19 or SCM40 would be NAP250, SN2, or Nova.

Following the OP’s theme, also with some repetition from his other thread, but keeping it to a minimum:

When I first bought some decent speakers over 40 years ago (more in the ‘Fell in love’ thread), I didn’t know what I was looking for other than something better sounding than I had managed to build myself, with a budget that through inflation would be equivalent to a £2.5-£3k today (though if those speakers were new in todays market I suspect their price point would be rather more - their nearest equivalent today is probably PMC’s Twenty-26).

My source at the time was a Thorens TD150 (own arm) plus Shure M75, that through inflation would be a cost of around £700 today (though again probably somewhat more if it was made today). In terms of hierarchy at the time, that source was probably middling. Amp was a modular Cambridge Project 60, at that time I think I had reached my final revamp, with bridged Z50 power amp modules. And I had identified my speakers as the weakest link.

I had no concept of a “mullet”, but given that for me a prerequisite was a full frequency range, I knew that decent speakers inevitably meant expensive. I assessed a price bracket that opened the door to a number that on paper and in reviews seemed possibilities, most being the pinnacle of their respective manufacturers’ ranges, yet reachable with a couple of years’ saving.

I fell in love with my chosen speakers when I got them home - or rather I fell in love with how music played through them sounded fantastic and became immersive, regardless of any limitations of source or amp. And the fact they stood the test of time for 15 years, through one amp upgrade, an arm and several cartridge upgrades plus CD addition, and only supplanted by their own bigger brother because it was available at a bargain price not because I had felt any urge to upgrade, is testament that they were an excellent choice. And their replacement then stayed for 25 years (and a couple of amp changes, a CD player change and a change to streaming source) with no yearnings for different speakers. Those ones were only eventually replaced because of a financial windfall presenting an opportunity to replace with a modern equivalent so extending life for hopefully another 30+ years.

Until my recent aquisition of Dave, my sources had probably been between a quarter and half the (normalised) monetary value of my speakers. Dave is much closer in value. The result of adding Dave I find quite enthralling - but even if Dave had been available decades ago, I do not believe I would have enjoyed my journey to where I am half as much if I it had been combined with speakers that were significantly compromised compared to the ones I’ve had.

Meanwhile,  yes the amp has to be capable of driving one’s speakers at least reasonably, however as I find the limitations of amps less than the limitations of speakers in terms of music to my ears, I’d rather make the speaker move first and upgrade amp later, than the other way round. 

Had a full range speaker not been important to me the speakers could have been a lot less costly, and hence the source a greater proportion, even exceeding - but unlike some people I don’t find music as satisfying if it relies on the harmonics to give an impression of bass, and no amout of good midrange can compensate for limitations elsewhere. And I need my speakers to sound as good playing heavy rock or prog rock as chamber or opera or piano. Others of course have different preferences for sound and different critical demands for the system, so maybe that defines focus on getting the speakers to sound as good as possible vs getting the source to give as good as possible (“as possible” meaning within available resources). It also may depend on the extent to which someone may be willing to compromise overall balance at times in the interests of fewer steps to their goal.

The issue is that very high resolution speakers with a matching bandwidth expose the mistakes that lesser sources, and indeed lesser capable amps make while playing music

The bass won't be as tight, could be boomy,  might not be well articulated, and the musicians could sound robotic, and also the high frequencies could sound crude. As you pay for more expensive sources, the imaging gets better, more panoramic soundstage, and the bass goes a lot deeper, the treble gets more refined, and it all sounds more engaging, vibrant and... musical.

anyway - it looks like you just want those speakers - mullet or not.

so good luck.... I would look for a used XP5 power supply for the ND5XS if I were you... and then next a Hicap DR for the Nait XS while keeping the Neat Motives.

Until you've experienced what a Naim power supply can do with Naim equipment, you just won't know the fun you're missing out on...

Ardbeg10y posted:

Sound quality is one aspect. Then there is their visual appearance - accepted by swmbo / myself, and how well they survive a countless number of terrorists kids running through my room.

I now and then feel that sound quality is the only thing what matters on this forum.

To me sound quality is paramount, over-riding visual appearance, and my better half recognises that as part of the person she married, so indulges me. However there are limits in terms of hideousness (think big Focals) or hugeness (e.g. Tannoy Westminsters) which I know I wouldn’t get acceptance, and even when I showed her a picture of the intriguing Fergusson-Hill transparent horns she was less than impressed, although I thought their very transparency would almost hide them and so get demands that I should see if they’re any good!.

Richard Dane posted:

SongStream posted:

Quite, well said.  And of course, you can't really tell if a change in source or amp is positive if your speakers are rubbish.

Which is why it's best to avoid rubbish speakers, or indeed a rubbish amp, and definitely avoid a rubbish source - in fact just avoid anything rubbish in the system.  

Of course, good (not rubbish) speakers that allow you to hear improvements earlier in the chain can be purchased for very little, right up to "how much??!!". It's all down to how to best spend any allotted budget, which in my experience always means not scrimping on the source.

I would like to point out that my flippant use of the term 'rubbish' is intended to be equally applied to rubbish (by my judgement) products with the "how much??!!" price tags.  My current speakers didn't win the day because they were near half the price I was ultimately willing to pay, or anything to do with the system being balanced in terms cost, but because they were by far the least rubbish vs anything else I heard.  That said the price thing was quite a nice bonus.

analogmusic posted:

The issue is that very high resolution speakers with a matching bandwidth expose the mistakes that lesser sources, and indeed lesser capable amps make while playing music

The bass won't be as tight, could be boomy,  might not be well articulated, and the musicians could sound robotic, and also the high frequencies could sound crude. As you pay for more expensive sources, the imaging gets better, more panoramic soundstage, and the bass goes a lot deeper, the treble gets more refined, and it all sounds more engaging, vibrant and... musical.

anyway - it looks like you just want those speakers - mullet or not.

so good luck.... I would look for a used XP5 power supply for the ND5XS if I were you... and then next a Hicap DR for the Nait XS while keeping the Neat Motives.

Until you've experienced what a Naim power supply can do with Naim equipment, you just won't know the fun you're missing out on...

Maybe a better PS than the XP5XS - I found its improvement not worth the money, changing it after a couple of months for Hugo as an outboard DAC, which to me was a major lift in performance...at a lower price.

As I see it,  too many folks in this hifi hobby consider the wrong primary parameter when they talk about source first or mulletness.

They think price is the primary factor in the determination of the balance of a system. This is fundamentally wrong. The primary factor is musical capability,  not price.  There are many sources that cost mega bucks that I wouldn't give shelf room to, compared to more modestly priced,  but musically very capable components.  I was recently reminded of this when sampling a very expensive upper range source compared to its mid range equivalent.  The upper range product was technically brilliant at extracting information from the media but was very much a backward step in terms of musical engagement. So the mid range component, at half the price,  was definitely the better source musically and the one that 'deserves'  investment further down the chain.

Indeed people generally refer to relative component level by price - becauese anything else is a subjective measure to them. In terms of musical capability the comparison in my last post is that I prefer to get speakers with the best musicL capability that I can afford, before seeking to get a source with the best musical capability, and my paragraph refering to Dave in my post 6 hours ago can be read with that in mind.

analogmusic posted:

The issue is that very high resolution speakers with a matching bandwidth expose the mistakes that lesser sources, and indeed lesser capable amps make while playing music

The bass won't be as tight, could be boomy,  might not be well articulated, and the musicians could sound robotic, and also the high frequencies could sound crude. As you pay for more expensive sources, the imaging gets better, more panoramic soundstage, and the bass goes a lot deeper, the treble gets more refined, and it all sounds more engaging, vibrant and... musical.

anyway - it looks like you just want those speakers - mullet or not.

so good luck.... I would look for a used XP5 power supply for the ND5XS if I were you... and then next a Hicap DR for the Nait XS while keeping the Neat Motives.

Until you've experienced what a Naim power supply can do with Naim equipment, you just won't know the fun you're missing out on...

That better loudspeakers expose mistakes of lesser sources and amps is just a theory. Fact is, better loudspeakers will enhance  what you already have and make you forget what you are missing.

Even if I had the means, I would never waste the ouput of a Nap 500 to drive a Scanspeak D2008 tweeter.

Ignorance is only slightly enlightened in relation to cost and effort.  Have noticed many once expensive behemoth speakers now selling for a fraction on the s/h markets. Is that because no one wants to look at them in their own homes ? or because not many have the big system to play them ?

If your going to do a Mullet system, you need to research and do a proper Mullet. Respect the Mullet.

Klipsch Forte iii.  Not that much more than the ATC,   yet will shine with just the XSs in front.

sunbeamgls posted:

As I see it,  too many folks in this hifi hobby consider the wrong primary parameter when they talk about source first or mulletness.

They think price is the primary factor in the determination of the balance of a system. This is fundamentally wrong. The primary factor is musical capability,  not price.  There are many sources that cost mega bucks that I wouldn't give shelf room to, compared to more modestly priced,  but musically very capable components.  I was recently reminded of this when sampling a very expensive upper range source compared to its mid range equivalent.  The upper range product was technically brilliant at extracting information from the media but was very much a backward step in terms of musical engagement. So the mid range component, at half the price,  was definitely the better source musically and the one that 'deserves'  investment further down the chain.

Names......we want names!!!!!!!

TOBYJUG posted:

Ignorance is only slightly enlightened in relation to cost and effort.  Have noticed many once expensive behemoth speakers now selling for a fraction on the s/h markets. Is that because no one wants to look at them in their own homes ? or because not many have the big system to play them ? 

Or because people (the ruling power in the household if not the audiophile tenant) are slaves to fashion, modern fashion being everything small and white, and blow sound quality?

Or the stupidly narrow lounges in the vast majority of British houses built in the last 20 years or so force them to downsize if they move into one?

Or simply because there is always secondhand gear for sale, and the big speakers are naturally a part of that...

Maybe its a bit like cars, a high proportion of upmarket cars lose value quicker than more basic models, and real bargains can be had if one buys older or higher mileage examples (often absolute  knockdown prices at car auctions, often cheaper than the family runnaround type of vehicle). So secondhand buying is a mullet fisher’s delight.

cat345 posted:

 

Even if I had the means, I would never waste the ouput of a Nap 500 to drive a Scanspeak D2008 tweeter.

As used in some Naim speakers, apparently including SBL? 

Scanspeak do do better tweeters, as I know from my sourcing for a project, but I’m curious to know if that particular tweeter has a character trait you particularly dislike?

Innocent Bystander posted:

cat345 posted:

 

Even if I had the means, I would never waste the ouput of a Nap 500 to drive a Scanspeak D2008 tweeter.

As used in some Naim speakers, apparently including SBL? 

Scanspeak do do better tweeters, as I know from my sourcing for a project, but I’m curious to know if that particular tweeter has a character trait you particularly dislike?

This old Scanspeak tweeter have been used in many outstanding loudspeakers, ProAc, Spendor, etc.. but it is now outdated. That said, I wouldn't mind hearing music again through the Response 1SC's  I used to own  ;-)  

I don't know.... the weakest link in many systems (to my ears) is the source and the cables, not really an "outdated" tweeter.

The great thing about a system that has speakers deserving better electronics is that as and when you improve those electronics those speakers will sound better and better as the system evolves so unless of course you are buying a system to last and you don't want to spend anymore money on it,  having exceptional speakers and average electronics  isn't always a bad thing. Tailoring electronics to suit  speakers can be easier than the other way around IME. 

Bob the Builder posted:

The great thing about a system that has speakers deserving better electronics is that as and when you improve those electronics those speakers will sound better and better as the system evolves so unless of course you are buying a system to last and you don't want to spend anymore money on it,  having exceptional speakers and average electronics  isn't always a bad thing. Tailoring electronics to suit  speakers can be easier than the other way around IME. 

While I think that is entirely true, I think it also ignores the fact that until those electronics are brought up to the level of the speakers, better performance could have been had from the same budget with lesser speakers and a better electronics. If the owner never upgrades, then it is a bit of a waste.

Other than that I tend to agree. Since speakers are so room and preference dependent, it makes sense to choose them first when building a new system. "Source First" doesn't have anything to do on the order in which components are chosen. But the issue soon evolves because a person doesn't tend to rebuild a whole new system each time. Once a system is in place, people are more likely to try and change a speaker in line with with the current system.

Mullets are hard to define. Because some speakers are expensive but not necessarily demanding to drive or in fact any good it can be hard to pinpoint a mullet in every case. And a mullet is context sensitive. An electronics only mullet can exist. Just look at all the 272/300DR combos out there. Even Naim like this mullet.

Halloween Man posted:

I don't get too hung up on the source first rule. When buying a power amp the simple, pragmatic, and common sense advice would be to get the one you can afford with enough juice to drive most speakers. That way you've covered most bases with speakers and are not limiting your choice when changing or upgrading speakers.

A realization I came to once I got a quality 200-watt integrated with a pre-amp signature that ticked all my boxes. I could bring home virtually any mainstream speaker for demo with the confidence I could successfully command them. Having previously sorted racking, room treatment and cables, that left the speaker/room interaction my only concern.

it's about allocation of funds within a limited budget.

so the OP wants to buy a 2000 GBP speaker.

But could that 2000 GBP be spend on improving the source or the system....?

That's a question only he can answer with the help of his local dealer. He has to live with his system.

Maybe 1500 GBP towards the source and 600 GBP for Dynaudio Emit 20 speakers, which will give a huge taste of a sound from Dynaudio that makes studio monitors like ATC, while giving a massive dose of Pace Rhythm, and timing... something Dynaudio has understood from the very beginning.

All I can say is once I realised that source first works for me, I now have a Chord Dave, a 282/HC/250DR, and Dynaudio focus 260 speakers.

The speakers are ok, probably I could jump all the way to a Confidence Dynaudio speakers C1, C2 or C4, but my system works for me musically and does all the hi-fi things too and I'm not in a hurry...... That's the crux of the issue for me.

If I never upgrade anything again, I'm happy with what I got.

The key to all this was the Chord Dave, and the 282 preamp, then 250 DR, and last the Focus 260....

analogmusic posted:

I don't know.... the weakest link in many systems (to my ears) is the source and the cables, not really an "outdated" tweeter.

Both would amaze me. I've heard plenty of systems where something was off but I've never thought "Well clearly I hear the root cause of this and it is the interconnect/source/tweeter/a high tide" etc. Those can be possible to determine in your own system when you are familiar with sound and what changed. Significantly harder in any other context.

sunbeamgls posted:

The upper range product was technically brilliant at extracting information from the media but was very much a backward step in terms of musical engagement. So the mid range component, at half the price,  was definitely the better source musically and the one that 'deserves'  investment further down the chain.

My experience as well and exactly why I make it a point when demoing to include recordings of "lesser quality" that otherwise musically engage me. An over-exposing source that compromises engagement can be a mullet. Unless you plan to play only your superior recordings at home, why use them exclusively when demoing gear?

feeling_zen posted:

analogmusic posted:

I don't know.... the weakest link in many systems (to my ears) is the source and the cables, not really an "outdated" tweeter.

Both would amaze me. I've heard plenty of systems where something was off but I've never thought "Well clearly I hear the root cause of this and it is the interconnect/source/tweeter/a high tide" etc. Those can be possible to determine in your own system when you are familiar with sound and what changed. Significantly harder in any other context.

I agree regarding cables, in that they are refinements, rather than fundamental components, so the ‘offness’ a less than perfect cable might make is only likely to be significant when the system is already pretty good (and not the “night and day” differences in the common hyperbole of the forum) - so to my mind a £2k cable is nonsensical in the context of, say, a £5k system.

However a tweeter is part of what gives a speaker its character - evenness of treble response, any ‘hardness’ of the sound, any tendency to sibilance, etc., can be down to the tweeter used - but indeed not simply whether it may be last season’s favourite (though I suspect Cat345 simply meant there are better sounding ones than the cited one rather than that it has a fundamental fault).