Source First ? Really?

Yes! Most of the Time!  Enjoy!

you assume that naim have solutions to making NDS+555 better than it is today. In other words, with current digital sources, is it even possible to be better than NDS+555 today?

...presumably pre the arrival of the Statment similar comments & reservations existed?

It might be reasonable and  natural to conclude that Naims focus on amplication challenges the source first argument?

The Dude posted:

...presumably pre the arrival of the Statment similar comments & reservations existed?

 

It might be reasonable and  natural to conclude that Naims focus on amplication challenges the source first argument?

That's about as logical as saying that Naim have stopped making speakers because they believe they are entirely unnecessary. 

Source first argument:  Nothing later can add back what isn't there in the source.  Better amps and speakers just show up the limitations of the source.

Balanced argument:  Nothing later can add back what isn't there in the source.  Nothing can add back what isn't passed on by later components in the chain.

Weakest link argument:  An audio system is only as good as its weakest link.

Successive aberration argument:  Each component adds it's own distortions and colouration; what you hear at the end is the sum of all these. Improving any component will improve the result but the degree of improvement will vary.

Or a musicians argument:

1. a good instrument and a good musician = fantastic result esult. 

2. lousy instrument and a good musician = most likely still a good result

3. a good instrument and a lousy musician = poor result

Now decide which one is the real source of music

I don't follow your logic - Naim has always had a focus on amplification and it seems natural for them to create a product showcasing all they have learned.

The digital stuff is all relatively new both to Naim and HiFi in general and, as John intimated, might be at a current peak in terms of what has been learned. Also I wouldn't, if a manufacturer, be spending huge amounts of cash creating a high-end component that , as a customer, I wouldn't be buying (even if I had the money) in the digital environment where I haven't a clue where we will be in 5 years time.

Having said that, I am not a source first fanatic; My B&W 803D3 speakers probably create what others might see as a mullet system but I have always believed speakers  are so important since they allow us to hear what the rest of the system can do and should therefore have headroom over the other components in terms of ability.

With my speakers I have full confidence that I will hear any differences that come out of changes to my other components and I think there are probably there for my lifetime.

Perhaps this is an age thing since I seem to remember that when I were a lad advice was to spend 1/2 to 1/3 of total system cost on speakers

Allan

...the final argument appears to these eyes/ears a pragmatic,logical and quantifiable one...I am afraid the speaker reference above makes literally  no sense to me thus perhaps Huge can clarify equally eloquently?

Speaker first as it's the musician, followed by source as it is the instrument. 

Source first makes absolutely no sense any more than some exponents maintain get the best possible speakers and any efficient source/amp configuration will suffice.

In reality synergy throughout the chain from recording, source, amp, to speaker effectively matched to the listening environment is the only way. Oh and it needs to be fed by a good electricity.

Regards,

Lindsay 

As a general rule, yes, source first is the best principle to follow in building a system to maximize satisfaction. 

I forget who, but someone here runs CDS1/Nait1 (2?)/Kans.  I'd much rather listen to that than to a CD5x into Statement/hideous Focals.  Unfortunately, some people took absolutist positions, seeming to forget the reality that most people can't put a system together all at once, and are often subject to the vagaries of the market.  Others argued over tediously about hierarchy of sources (and everything else).

This forum has undergone an enormous philosophical shift, from source first to a more balanced approach.  This is, in my view, the wrong way to build a system, and those who have been here a long time have probably already recognized the shift.  One example: some suggest a 272/250.  That's backwards - the 272, unless used with an external power supply, has zero business fronting a 250, which deserves at least an NDX/282 or equivalent.  Can you do it?  Sure.  But it wastes money and does not maximize the quality of the system. 

Bob Edwards posted:

That's backwards - the 272, unless used with an external power supply, has zero business fronting a 250, which deserves at least an NDX/282 or equivalent.  Can you do it?  Sure.  But it wastes money and does not maximize the quality of the system. 

Bob - I couldn't disagree more.   For the person requiring a 2 box solution a 272/250DR configuration is an excellent option.

And frankly a maximized system is of course ultimately the judgement of the user.

Regards,

Lindsay

I sort of agree with Bob here. A few years ago we'd never have seen £10,000 speakers on the end of something like a 272/250. That said, the 272/250 works brilliantly well and before buying it I discussed it with Naim themselves. Before getting my speakers I took advice and was reassured I would not have a mullet. I think that while the speakers-first brigade seem to be making something of a return, stuff like the 272/250 has got so good that using really good speakers is less of an issue than it was. At the end of the day it's what works that's important, rather than slavishly following a particular mantra. 

...I entirely agree with HHs sentiment...the man/ woman off the street or any of my mates etc (who are not or are interetsed in hifi)  who have listened to my 'awkward' system always state how bloody good it sounds and when I listen I think do you know what this system sounds bloody good as it should for the price that most people spend on a SH car...it isn't the last word obviously but the componenets combine to create a really enjoyable and satisfying musical experience and even whats more...my cables are a right old bloody mess all tangled up behind the equipment & it still sounds great !

kaydee6 posted:

Speaker first as it's the musician, followed by source as it is the instrument. 

For me it's other way round - musician is the source of music so (s)he is the most important.

So 'source first'

Bob Edwards posted:

This is, in my view, the wrong way to build a system, and those who have been here a long time have probably already recognized the shift.  One example: some suggest a 272/250.  That's backwards - the 272, unless used with an external power supply, has zero business fronting a 250, which deserves at least an NDX/282 or equivalent.  Can you do it?  Sure.  But it wastes money and does not maximize the quality of the system. 

Broadly speaking, I would agree with this, although I can see that some for some people, a 250 would be worthwhile when matching room and speakers.  However, I think what has skewed the source first principle is that in purely financial terms, digital, and in particular, streaming sources are cheaper these days, so they may appear to be mullets, especially if you're comparing them to something like a maxed-out LP12. Equally, speakers, especially hand built cabinets with fancy veneers and finishes, are increasingly expensive to manufacture. So perhaps all this distorts the source first principle somewhat when you just look at the figures? 

I generally agree with the source first principle: however I also feel that there is more variation as you increase expenditure on speakers than there is on pure electronics mostly due to the electromechanical nature of speakers. 

Digital electronics on the other hand can be much "simpler" in construction if not design. Even going back to CD transports there were largely mechanical, but especially with vinyl the "source mattered" much more because we were talking precision engineering.

I still regard "source first" as the safest way to build a system. Taken as a dogma however, it loses most of its truth. In most cases it is right to get a better amp than, say a Nait5, even if your source is not yet a NDS/555DR. Better speakers can be in order even before you have those Statements. Just looking at prices and declaring mullets seems like a somehow superficial approach to me.

Before the digital age you had to spend a lot to get a good analog source. Today's digital sources offer a very good price to performance ratio so what was true yesterday is not necessary true today if you only take the cost into consideration. However on a subjective point of view, source first still apply.

As most on here already know, putting an opinion forward about what's the best source to put in a balanced system is more or less easier if using exclusively Naim . Talking about source first and creating balance is more harder if you were to try putting together a system from various brands , more so if they have different price and position in their class that doesn't conform to each other.

As some on here already know aswell - that you can add to the quality of the source further downstream buy using the SL speaker cables.

cat345 posted:

Before the digital age you had to spend a lot to get a good analog source. Today's digital sources offer a very good price to performance ratio so what was true yesterday is not necessary true today

I'm not sure I agree here.  I think good budget TTs have always been available.  In my experience a Rega P3 with good cartridge will stand up well and in most cases show a clean pair of heals to most digital sources.

Regards,

Lindsay

I'm not even really sure what 'source first' means. In what way 'first'?

Does it mean anything more than spending more money on the source than the other components? If so, I think the entire premise is false - money and sound quality are not closely related, especially in the digital realm. A 272 can go perfectly with a 250DR; why not?

Ignore the mantras and let your ears decide.

I have often felt that is a somewhat sterile argument, in that it depends on so many things.  I have lost count of the number of changes I've made to my system over the last 45 years or so, starting with old radios and any odd speaker that I could get hold of, through Sinclair amps (can't remember - Z30, Z50?) through Wharfedale Dentons, Armstrong receiver (223?), Texas amplifer kit, all fronted by Garrard SP25 MKII, then Pioneer PL12, followed by Bailey kit amp and a preamp built from Wireless World design (ultimate preamp or something like that), then Naim NAP 120 and NAC 22, now through Naim 702 speakers, and with Rega Planar 3, then went active (copied the 120 for the second amp - naughty of me) and so on through active SBL with 135s and 52, via NAP300 to now with Ovator S600, NAP 500, NAC52 and NDX.  During this time some of the biggest changes were speakers, speaker cables (from 2-amp mains via 6-amp, 72-strand to Naim cable), power amps, not often the preamp, and to a lesser extent the front end. The change from an early Garrard (looks like the 301/401 but had an integrated tone arm, rather than separately mounted) to an SP25 didn't seem to make a lot of difference, the PL12D was better (using various cartridges, mainly Audio Technica IIRC), nor did the move to the Planar 3, TBH.  The big change, of course, was from the Dentons to the Naim 701s.  Going active was another major change. The change from those to the SBLs (also active with 4 135s) was good.  The next big change was the S600 Ovators, with two of the 135s initially, then the 300 (amp change there was not so significant) and then the 500 (very worthwhile - much better than the 300, which was no slouch).  Changing from CDX/XPS through HDX to NDX was less noticeable than many of the other changes.

Balance is of course important.  Put a 552/NDS/500 through some cheap Technics speakers, and it won't be very impressive.  Change the speakers to something better and of course the system will improve.  DBLs driven by a Sony receiver wouldn't reach their potential.  I don't believe there is a useful correlation or rule of thumb between the costs of TT/CD player, preamp, amp and speakers.  There are power balances between speaker and amplifier of course (e.g. horns work fine with Class A generally, but might Class A might not work so well with some other types of speaker).  But really I'm not convinced that there is any useful rule about which bit is the most important - they all have their part to play.  I have found that it is easier to get a good preamp/amp than a good speaker.

Is there anyone out there that I haven't upset :-) ?

Another bit of rampant confusion here is that more expensive = better with respect to sources (or any other element).  This is, of course, wrong. 

As for the 272/250 minimizing box count, sure.  But by justifying it with reduced box count, the argument for best sound goes by the wayside.  Does the combo work?  Of course.  Does it sound OK?  Sure.  Is it the most musical system you could put together for the same money?  No.  To pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. 

It all sounds very sensible to me, especially the bit about it being easier to find a good amplifier than good speakers.