Flat Earth - But does it sound any better????
Posted by: belsizepark on 09 May 2002
Firstly I should comment that I have not done any listening tests so I appreciate that my comments below are not from first hand experience.
Some of the commentators on this board seem to view this idea of "Source First" as almost the be all and end all of building a HiFi system.
I certainly accept the argument of Garbage in - Garbage Out (GIGO) but I also believe that the sound can not be better than anything other than the weakest link in the chain.
If you have very poor quality speakers then the sound can not be better than the poor quality emitted from those speakers and the same goes for the amplifier.
To take the flat earth to the extreme, some people it would appear would like people to have the top of the range CDP combined with Nait (bottom of range amplifier) and Intro (bottom of range speaker), given a specific budget.
What if Naim introduced an even cheaper amp and speaker, then would the same apply. And whilst on that subject why stop there?.. Why not a top of the range CD player through the amp and speakers of some cheap Japanese mini system? Where does it end?
Whilst I can accept an argument that if people are on a continuous upgrade path then it may make sense financially to readjust where money is spent in order to make the most efficient changes to a top spec complete system, does the same apply if you just want to spend x amount on a system and then listen to the same thing for the next 10 years +???
This subject I am sure is quite contentious as it seems to me most people on this forum are flat earthers. i am not trying to be contentious however, I just fail to understand the argument.
If there is a report/ article someone can direct me to on the internet that shows blind listening tests etc etc that clearly point in another direction to what my instinct tells me I should be grateful to read it. Until then I must say, I am a bit of a sceptic.
Kind regards
belsizepark
Some of the commentators on this board seem to view this idea of "Source First" as almost the be all and end all of building a HiFi system.
I certainly accept the argument of Garbage in - Garbage Out (GIGO) but I also believe that the sound can not be better than anything other than the weakest link in the chain.
If you have very poor quality speakers then the sound can not be better than the poor quality emitted from those speakers and the same goes for the amplifier.
To take the flat earth to the extreme, some people it would appear would like people to have the top of the range CDP combined with Nait (bottom of range amplifier) and Intro (bottom of range speaker), given a specific budget.
What if Naim introduced an even cheaper amp and speaker, then would the same apply. And whilst on that subject why stop there?.. Why not a top of the range CD player through the amp and speakers of some cheap Japanese mini system? Where does it end?
Whilst I can accept an argument that if people are on a continuous upgrade path then it may make sense financially to readjust where money is spent in order to make the most efficient changes to a top spec complete system, does the same apply if you just want to spend x amount on a system and then listen to the same thing for the next 10 years +???
This subject I am sure is quite contentious as it seems to me most people on this forum are flat earthers. i am not trying to be contentious however, I just fail to understand the argument.
If there is a report/ article someone can direct me to on the internet that shows blind listening tests etc etc that clearly point in another direction to what my instinct tells me I should be grateful to read it. Until then I must say, I am a bit of a sceptic.
Kind regards
belsizepark
quote:
Then Linn, worst amp, worst speakers = 0.95 * .75 * .75 = 53.4%
c/f
Rega best amp, best speakers = 50 * .95 * .95 = 45.1%
This looks familiar
- although your version takes the overall view of quality (this equation can apply to individual parameters such as timing, dynamics and tune) http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=67019385&f=48019385&m=8351970764&r=1811907174#1811907174You're on the right lines here. It is a COMMON MISCONCEPTION that a system is simply as good as the weakest link. An amp or loudspeakers do not have a hard-defined ceiling that limits the performance of the whole system... just whack on a better source and it still sounds better.
Andrew
Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"
An interesting thread, and quite informative, ringing a few 'bells' with me. In principle, I agree with the source first approach, but also I think that how one approaches system building, or upgrading depends on what you want out of it now, and in the future, which I suppose very much depends on what one can do, or plan to do from the point of financial expenditure.
My first Naim purchase was a CD Player. I wanted to get a CD player, so as to have access to further recordings of choice, but the bottom line was that it had to equal or better my turntable in terms of performance, as otherwise I couldn't see much point. After a lot of auditioning, different brands etc, I settled on (at the time) the CDI. The CD3 was good, and the CDS a lot better, but I felt I could live very happily with the CDI, AND, I was also thinking about replacing an elderly, but much loved amp, and depending on results, possibly even equally elderly but much loved speakers, so was mindful of both the front end first approach as well as the 'balanced' approach, and my overall budget.
As an example of excellent service, AV Excellence, the local Naim dealer, came around and took my entire existing system to their store (my being carless at the time) and spent an afternoon/evening trying out various combinations.
It became quickly obvious that it was time for a new amp and speakers as well. I was at the point of only really wanting/able to spend Nait money, but just was not as quite as contented with the sound as going further up the line. All the equipment was played for me, and I decided on the then 72. It had a lot more detail, and was of a higher performance level than the then 92. Yes, the 82 was a lot better again, BUT I was also thinking of amp and speakers, and the budget that I had, and for the foreseeable future.
In the end, I settled on a 180. There were only very subtle differences between it and the 140, and a much bigger jump to a 250, but in my opinion, and also advice of the dealer, I went with the 180 to allow greater flexibility for speakers "later on" for as much as I wanted speakers then and there, had spent my budget.
Eighteen months later I went serious new speaker hunting, and became very enamoured of Epos 14's and still am. However, with them at home, the one thing that let them down, for MY taste, was relative lack of bass extension, and power, compared to my current speakers at the time, a pair of early B&W designs. I listen to a lot of baroque music, and am a huge fan of pipe organ. One can argue to the cows come home about PRAT etc, all very relevant agreed, but, if a speaker can't get down to 30HZ or below, then it's going to fail to reproduce musical notes that exist on the recording. A 32ft Organ stop has a fundemental resonance of 16HZ,with harmonics at 32, 64HZ etc. Hence small bookshelf speakers, limited to around 50HZ or so, only reproduce the upper harmonics, and hence a facsimile of the sound, so they were out.
To cut a long story (auditioning!
) out, I settled on SBL's. For the sort of music (organ) that I often like to listen to, and the power required, I simply couldn't have achieved the desired result had I gone for example, CDS, 82, 140. Partly budget (wouldn't have been able to afford SBL's) and bottom line 140 was at or beyond it's limits fairly often when auditioned, v's the 180 with the SBL's on the program content of my choice, and at realistic (pipe organ 
) levels.
This of course (doesn't it always! ) meant I had to spend more, and save up for a Hi-Cap which was added a little later. So I've probably broken all the 'rules' of system building, but, it gave me what I wanted, which was a system that achieved an overall level of musical performance 'excellence' such that I could be very happy with it for a long period of time, without needing, or having that nagging feeling of 'having to upgrade'
It's hard to believe it's nearly seven years ago; the equipment looks and runs like new, the dealers have become friends, and I'm so grateful for the service and advice they offered; nothing was to much trouble, and believe me, I'm one fussy person when it comes to sound, and, (like most of us) the spending of hard earned.
The system is well balanced; not so much in either the front end first, or speakers first approach which used to be contemporary thought many years ago, but in the music making, and enormously satisfying and pleasurable results it gives across a wide variety of music. ( I listen to Jazz, electronic, film, techno-ambient etc, as well as classical) and whilst I readily appreciate it's limitations, like all hifi systems, it's a joy to listen to and to use. One day, if finances ever permit, I'll upgrade, but, for what I wanted, it's my perfect dream system, and I love it.
And, if doing it all over again, no, I wouldn't build it differently. (Hey, I just love those Bach Organ Works, and that subtle room filling 'Purr' of a 16' organ stop - 32HZ resonant frequency - and the occassional door rattle - puts me right in the cathedral!)
At the end of the day, all I could say is find an excellent dealer, and spend some time and let YOUR ears, and musical tastes be the final arbiter. Dogma can lead to headaches, but a love of music will always satisfy. Let your ears, and your heart enter the decision as well as your head and your wallet.
Good luck with it, and thanks for starting off such an interesting thread.
Cheers,
John
Music is the Naim of the Game
My first Naim purchase was a CD Player. I wanted to get a CD player, so as to have access to further recordings of choice, but the bottom line was that it had to equal or better my turntable in terms of performance, as otherwise I couldn't see much point. After a lot of auditioning, different brands etc, I settled on (at the time) the CDI. The CD3 was good, and the CDS a lot better, but I felt I could live very happily with the CDI, AND, I was also thinking about replacing an elderly, but much loved amp, and depending on results, possibly even equally elderly but much loved speakers, so was mindful of both the front end first approach as well as the 'balanced' approach, and my overall budget.
As an example of excellent service, AV Excellence, the local Naim dealer, came around and took my entire existing system to their store (my being carless at the time) and spent an afternoon/evening trying out various combinations.
It became quickly obvious that it was time for a new amp and speakers as well. I was at the point of only really wanting/able to spend Nait money, but just was not as quite as contented with the sound as going further up the line. All the equipment was played for me, and I decided on the then 72. It had a lot more detail, and was of a higher performance level than the then 92. Yes, the 82 was a lot better again, BUT I was also thinking of amp and speakers, and the budget that I had, and for the foreseeable future.
In the end, I settled on a 180. There were only very subtle differences between it and the 140, and a much bigger jump to a 250, but in my opinion, and also advice of the dealer, I went with the 180 to allow greater flexibility for speakers "later on" for as much as I wanted speakers then and there, had spent my budget.
Eighteen months later I went serious new speaker hunting, and became very enamoured of Epos 14's and still am. However, with them at home, the one thing that let them down, for MY taste, was relative lack of bass extension, and power, compared to my current speakers at the time, a pair of early B&W designs. I listen to a lot of baroque music, and am a huge fan of pipe organ. One can argue to the cows come home about PRAT etc, all very relevant agreed, but, if a speaker can't get down to 30HZ or below, then it's going to fail to reproduce musical notes that exist on the recording. A 32ft Organ stop has a fundemental resonance of 16HZ,with harmonics at 32, 64HZ etc. Hence small bookshelf speakers, limited to around 50HZ or so, only reproduce the upper harmonics, and hence a facsimile of the sound, so they were out.
To cut a long story (auditioning!
) out, I settled on SBL's. For the sort of music (organ) that I often like to listen to, and the power required, I simply couldn't have achieved the desired result had I gone for example, CDS, 82, 140. Partly budget (wouldn't have been able to afford SBL's) and bottom line 140 was at or beyond it's limits fairly often when auditioned, v's the 180 with the SBL's on the program content of my choice, and at realistic (pipe organ ) levels.This of course (doesn't it always! ) meant I had to spend more, and save up for a Hi-Cap which was added a little later. So I've probably broken all the 'rules' of system building, but, it gave me what I wanted, which was a system that achieved an overall level of musical performance 'excellence' such that I could be very happy with it for a long period of time, without needing, or having that nagging feeling of 'having to upgrade'
It's hard to believe it's nearly seven years ago; the equipment looks and runs like new, the dealers have become friends, and I'm so grateful for the service and advice they offered; nothing was to much trouble, and believe me, I'm one fussy person when it comes to sound, and, (like most of us) the spending of hard earned.
The system is well balanced; not so much in either the front end first, or speakers first approach which used to be contemporary thought many years ago, but in the music making, and enormously satisfying and pleasurable results it gives across a wide variety of music. ( I listen to Jazz, electronic, film, techno-ambient etc, as well as classical) and whilst I readily appreciate it's limitations, like all hifi systems, it's a joy to listen to and to use. One day, if finances ever permit, I'll upgrade, but, for what I wanted, it's my perfect dream system, and I love it.
And, if doing it all over again, no, I wouldn't build it differently. (Hey, I just love those Bach Organ Works, and that subtle room filling 'Purr' of a 16' organ stop - 32HZ resonant frequency - and the occassional door rattle - puts me right in the cathedral!)
At the end of the day, all I could say is find an excellent dealer, and spend some time and let YOUR ears, and musical tastes be the final arbiter. Dogma can lead to headaches, but a love of music will always satisfy. Let your ears, and your heart enter the decision as well as your head and your wallet.
Good luck with it, and thanks for starting off such an interesting thread.
Cheers,
John
Music is the Naim of the Game
quote:
It's a question of value for money. And it's not even a question of "should I or shouldn't I". If you set your sights on a CDSII/52/500/DBL system then everything between here and there is a stepping stone along the way.
The CDX is better value for money. Clear pure, and simple. You may not have been on the forum back then - but I went through [many of] the intermediate steps along the way... opportunist preamp upgrades, power amp upgrades, yeah, they were all sort of fun. But given the question of "how best improve my system?" [read: more music wanted] - the CDX is the answer. Given the experience I have, and another opportunity - I'd buy the CDX every time. It's not the only answer, but the most appropriate answer [other CD manufacturers ignored for brevity]. Please note that the question is not "how might I have an enjoyable path from A-B with the most circuitous journey"! : )
Without the luxury (luxury you CAN afford, folks!) of a dem to address such issues as room fill, system synergy etc, source improvment should take even greater precidence.
quote:
I fear that there is a tendency for some of the more frequent contributors to the Forum to take extreme stances on certain issues. The 'source first' dicussion is one such issue.
Sorry - not extreme. Most of the regular posters have "been there, done that, got the t-shirt" - and rather than tiredly posting in a humourless manner, are still enthusiastic about answering a call for advice, from someone embarking on the same journey. These people are keeping the faith! And are keen to help.
Shit, someone here once said "buy the 250". He was right.
Where are you now?Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Hi Steven,
Interesting thoughts and experiences. I tend to agree with the source first principle, however, I've also noticed when auditioning, that changing different components within a Naim system brings slightly different, although similar results.
It can then become difficult to decide sometimes, which is the best component to change given one's budget, and where your'e wanting to go in the systems development.
Usually I think ones ears and a really good demo is the best way here.
I'm going to be facing the same dilema sometime in the future when I can afford to upgrade; it'll either be an 82, or a 250. Interestingly, despite the source first approach, my dealer advocates changing my 180 for a 250, over the 72 to an 82; reason being that it will in their opinion give the best result for the money given I'm using SBL's which they say really need an 250 to perform somewhere near approaching an optimum.
Obviously, active, 135's etc even better, but, ahem, $$$
I heard all the combinations when I bought the SBL's, and I felt that a 180 was pretty much the minimum amplification required; the 140 could cut it, but not really that well, at least on the sort of music I'm prone to listen to, and the 250 was a lot better than the 180 on those speakers, but unfortunately out of my price range at the time.
Certainly, in the context of my system, having heard the combinations, despite agreeing with the source first approach, thought the 250 made better music overall, versus the 72/82 as mentioned.
Anyway, it's really a very interesting subject, but a hard one; I'm not sure that there's always a hard and fast rule, use ones ears as best one can I guess.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Cheers,
John
Music is the Naim of the Game
Interesting thoughts and experiences. I tend to agree with the source first principle, however, I've also noticed when auditioning, that changing different components within a Naim system brings slightly different, although similar results.
It can then become difficult to decide sometimes, which is the best component to change given one's budget, and where your'e wanting to go in the systems development.
Usually I think ones ears and a really good demo is the best way here.
I'm going to be facing the same dilema sometime in the future when I can afford to upgrade; it'll either be an 82, or a 250. Interestingly, despite the source first approach, my dealer advocates changing my 180 for a 250, over the 72 to an 82; reason being that it will in their opinion give the best result for the money given I'm using SBL's which they say really need an 250 to perform somewhere near approaching an optimum.
Obviously, active, 135's etc even better, but, ahem, $$$
I heard all the combinations when I bought the SBL's, and I felt that a 180 was pretty much the minimum amplification required; the 140 could cut it, but not really that well, at least on the sort of music I'm prone to listen to, and the 250 was a lot better than the 180 on those speakers, but unfortunately out of my price range at the time.
Certainly, in the context of my system, having heard the combinations, despite agreeing with the source first approach, thought the 250 made better music overall, versus the 72/82 as mentioned.
Anyway, it's really a very interesting subject, but a hard one; I'm not sure that there's always a hard and fast rule, use ones ears as best one can I guess.
Thanks for your thoughts,
Cheers,
John
Music is the Naim of the Game