How do component part upgrades compare with each other (e.g. source vs preamp vs poweramp vs speakers)?

I'd do 7 first. And what about stands?

An intervention from a heretic ("Stone him! Stone him!", I hear you say)

Source first seems good, so a decent mains supply has proven to work wonders, every time.
Then a good traditional source (i.e. turntable, CD player, tuner, streamer)

I find the whole amp, speaker & room interaction to be a perplexing conundrum.

If the speaker-room interaction is a bad one, then the system seems to be beyond salvation, whatever money is thrown at the upstream electronics.  So get this wrong and disaster is inevitable.  The speaker-room interaction seems to have more ability to ruin the music than almost anything else. Perhaps this is why many claim a speaker first philosophy.   However, if you get it right with a relatively modest pair of speakers, then I am not convinced that speaker first is the right way to go.

I tend towards preferring a relatively modest pair of speakers, driven by an amp that is good enough to really grip them.  Once you spend circa £1,200 on a well engineered pair of standmount speakers and set them up well in a room, they always seem to be eminently capable of revealing improvements in any upstream electronics, even up to Naim 500 series electronics.  Perhaps this is why it took so incredibly long to find a pair of full-range speakers to replace the little Proac Tablette speakers that I have enjoyed for 15+ years.  While several £5-10k speakers are more capable than this little standmount, the negative effect of a poor speaker-room interaction outweighed the benefits of an inherently better speaker.  Who knows?

For all of this, there is a strange paradox that I simply don't get.  We take the sound of a music concert from a Virgin Tivo box, route it through a 10 year old Panasonic plasma TV, take the TV line level output and feed it into a NAC52/135 amp via a 4m long, £10 interconnect and a £6 Ground Loop Isolator, then finally out via the main speakers.  We have a supreme mullet of a system.  A £200 source, corrupted via cheap interconnects and a TV into a superb amp and very expensive loudspeakers.  It should sound awful.  Yet we love it.  Baffling.

So there you are.  All clear now?

Best regards, FT

An age old conundrum and FT is right - to a point!!!!  Certainly, I'm amazed how good a £150 Arcam FM Tuner on R3 can sound through my system although I now have Nait 05 but I always wonder what source components the BBC are using - years back I read Denon CDPs but probably some kind of server technology these days.

But I've always long espoused system matching right through to speaker/room interaction.   And that most certainly includes mains installation and cabling.  Without going into the hows and whats of system building because there are so many variables that apply - budget, how many source components, how many boxes can be accomodated, separate pre/powers or integrated etc - I would then aim (but only then) for the best pair of speakers that the system will drive and work in the environment.   So in some rooms a relatively simple system say a CDX2/SN2 might require say a pair of Neat Petite SX but in other rooms you could max out with Focal Sopra 2s - and yes I've heard the SN2 driving them and it's very good.

Many ways to skin a cat of course.

Regards,

Lindsay

Should not we look at also to our upgrades in an cost/benefit perspective and prioritise like that maybe....... a different method rather than source/pre/power/cables/speakers etc...

It would be nice to upgrade to NDS+2*555PS...

isn't it easy to tell "aaaa why are you driving a focus just get a bmw 3 series, no he should get a 5, but wait why not 7?"

there are many thing that are cost effective with a good effect, for me for example dedicated power outlets, a decent cat6 cable and a frame was very effective rather than a 555PS right away... ( did not have the funds )

so we should do best we can with little money before make an another investment in my humble working man view...

said that if i win the lottery on Saturday i will fly to UK Monday and buy a statement and come back in the evening, fingers cross

Naim, Linn have always advised source first, and after much experimentation with top level (500 series Naim and Klimax level Linn)  that I was very lucky to do, I now fully understand why they say it.

It is the source that "makes" music. everything else is trying to amplify the source.

To a point Analogue.  But only a point.  A front loaded system will be let down by cheaper speakers that don't let the music through.  Balance and synergy I say. 

Regards,

Lindsay

"To a point Analogue. But only a point. A front loaded system will be let down by cheaper speakers that don't let the music through. Balance and synergy I say."

If the music is not produced at the source the best speakers in the world cannot reproduce it. With a good source and cheaper speakers the speakers will alway be getting a better signal.

In my experience source first is always the best. For that reason I have owned Allaes for 10 years, they have always sounded better after component upgrades at the TT, most recently the 552DR, 300DR upgrades and SL cables.

A maxed out LP12 into 202/200 will sound better than Rega RP3 into 552/500 no matter what the speakers

The example you quote Cobra would be out of balance yes    My point is that maxed out £24k Lp12 Nait 5 Neat Iotas is surely far less optimised than say Rega RP 10, 282/hc/250/Neat XLS. 

... and so it begins...

Or not......

When creating or upgrading a system, end-to-end synergy is always more important than focus on any one point in the reproduction chain.  And I really do mean end-to-end, including the music itself and the listener.

Some systems are better balanced for some genres of music (even if they'll cope almost as well with most others).  For instance, if you have a particular dislike for electronic instrumental music there's little point in paying more for a system with good response below 32Hz, so end-to-end includes the music and through all the components and the room characteristics, all the way to the preferences of the listener's brain.

So keep the synergy with your music your preferences and your room, all the way through all the components.  After that source first is probably the next thing, but still a distant second.

I'd think understanding how you listen to music and what is drawn from the experience as number 1. Then an abstract idea of what course of learning curve to follow into - as number 2.  Then a healthy disregard of what's supposed to be the right thing to do and be prepared to rip up the rule book.

The most important thing to realize when building a system is the quality of pre/power amps and speaker combination governs the minimum quality of the front end.

 Anything above the minimum is fine, going way above is a bonus, going below is a no no.

But going way above hits the law of diminishing returns and hence cost a SHED LOAD of money that could be much spent better elsewhere.
That's my experience.

Huge posted:

But going way above hits the law of diminishing returns and hence cost a SHED LOAD of money that could be much spent better elsewhere.
That's my experience.

I've haven't made that mistake myself, but having done so, I understand why you're cautioning others not to do so.

But when we upgrade piece by piece there will be always an imbalance somewhere, unless you go to a dealer and buy all new 500s as a set.... some times you find a good pre amp with a good deal etc. and then start to build from there. 

my point is there are things to do with a little money before new components, electricity issues, placement, cabling  etc. so you can get the best out of your components.

There are many theories on how to get the best sound. And off course manufacturers have their own ideas, resulting in a certain range of products. Ranging from 'source first' to Alan Shaws 'all amps sound the same ' (translation:'so focus on my range of speakers')

The question is not which theory gives the best sound, but what combination doesn't waste too much potential of the individual components. Price is just a very rough guideline here.

ultimately, what sound will suit your taste is what matters. 

I remember a hifi magazine's reader system setup, in which he placed the speakers facing the wall's, instead of the listening position. He was looking at the back of the speakers. Not because he liked the view, but because he liked the sound that way. 

Very welcome posts!

Kind of makes me wonder whether manufacturers truly know if a system is balanced.  I heard the full 500 system as an assumption of synergistic balance, but when an item is designed and manufactured, the chaps don't think, "ok if we put that transistor there and increase its current demands, the sound will be smoother".  The point I am getting at is surely the blueprint doesn't have knobs to twiddle to alter the eventual sound!

Or do they?  For example, how would Naim decide that the 250.2 should go with the 282 or the 300 the 252 - even though some users stray from this?

I'm far from an expert in product design, so others may be able to help on your last question. However, I assume that matching within you own portfolio can be done quite easily. If customers stray away, that's because of personal taste, budget and the thousands of other reasons one can think of. 

About system balancing, Devialet introduced speaker matching technology. Not really about a balanced system, more about balancing out and algorithms for optimal matching and thus better sounding combination. So at least one manufacturer actively works with other vendors (or just other vendors' products, who knows) to get a better result. 

I find a source first solution is best, however that doesn't (to my mind) necessarily mean that the cost balance is always weighted towards the source.

To my mind (and this is vaige and to provide example rather than any hard and fast rule) ... if you are taking a lower end system; a setup of Naim CD5si / Nait 5si would be well matched with a set of speakers in the £500-£1000 bracket - so a set of speakers costing between a fifth and third of the total system cost.  Moving up and I don't find the proposition (as demonstrated in the other thread) of matching a set of £20,000 speakers with a NDX/555PS/NAC252/NAP300 where the speakers are going to close half to a third of the system cost.

Now if you are using a turntable as your primary source, then the cost of this is going to be higher in proportion to the cost of a "solid state" source.