Source First ? Really?

Bear in mind that from an R&D perpective Naim has relatively limited resources. It simply isn't possible (or desirable?) for them to refreshing products on an annual basis. We're not talking about Apple here, with its ability to refresh its essentially disposable core product on an annual basis.

Over the past few years, Naim has obviously expended a great deal of R&D effort on a number of core, strategic projects: the Statement amps, the Mu-sos and the recently-announced  replacement of the entire Uniti line. I don't think the company has the resources to do these kinds of projects in parallel.

I'm sure a "better" streaming front end than NDS/555DR will come, and I am also sure that the new streaming platform launched in the new Uniti range will form the basis for this high end source. Naim has invested in and developed a completely customised Linux-based audio OS for its streamers and rippers, complete with in-house developed applications, and it makes absolute sense to me to have got this done first before taking on the NDS update.

The interesting thing to me will be where Naim decides to pitch their new high-end source: as a Statement-level source, with an eye-watering and essentially unaffordable price tag for most mortals; as an NDS replacement (that can use a 555DR) at a similar price point  to NDS; or somewhere in between. Or perhaps we'll get more than one option eventually!

Bob Edwards posted:

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. 

 

But what does 'source first' mean? If it doesn't refer to the relative price, then what?

From an Engineering / Physics stand point the place where information is most likely to be altered is where energy is transferred from one form to another.  So where motion is transferred to electricity (turntable cartridge) or visa versa where electricity is transferred to motion (speakers).  My own experience is that I struggle to hear the difference between many modern digital sources (streaming) but have no problems telling amps or speakers apart.  Most of my  'magic moments' have come from amp upgrades.  I think the source first principle is a lot less clear cut than it used to be.

...I feel vindicated,thank you for exploring this minefield with me and I believe if it sounds good it sounds good...if upgrades lead to one perceiving and experiencing improvement to SQ then that is a win..

Above all else speakers give any system its overall character, and whilst source-first may be a good ideal, it's no good having the best source if you've got crap speakers, while if you've got speakers that sound lovely to you, in your room, if they're good enough you then hear and appreciate every improvement made at the front end. . Otherwise the theoretical ideal would be for everyone to start with an NDS/XPS or Chord Dave etc, with nondescript amp and speakers, and for anyone who can't afford that level of source then the source is the only thing they should be upgrading till they get there, before touching the rest, when finally they can gradually build something they can start like to listen to.

I for one couldn't live with a system that, for example, boosted the mids and curtailed the bass, as that for me would spoil much of the music I listen to. So, more spent on getting speakers that did bass right down to the bottom octave with at least reasonable control was justifiable expense, before trying to bring other components up to the high sound quality standard I wanted. I am there now, but I would not have enjoyed the journey half as much if I had blown all on the source and had to put up with anything less than the speakers I have had. Heresy to the source first brigade, I know., but I say speakers first!

Of course, I'm not suggesting that there is any harm in having source better than the remainder, as long as you enjoy the sound. And either way, whatever you have is limited by the bottleneck of least well performing component

Solid Air posted:

Bob Edwards posted:

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. 

 

But what does 'source first' mean? If it doesn't refer to the relative price, then what?

It is simply the quality and quantity of musical information that has yet to be amplified. It is not related in absolute term to the cost of the hardware.  A good example would be to compare between a NAT05 XS reproducing a live concert of a uncompressed FM transmission and a recording of this same transmission played on a CD555.  I guess the lowly tuner would win hands down!

I remember around the time Linn and Naim split JV remarked that there was little point in making a better amplifier until sources improved...

I think in the world of vinyl source first remains valid as extracting the information is a delicate engineering and electromechanical task.

The digital world changed things. However, I would not have bought my 252 before the CDS3 when it was Naims top source.

At the end of the day you pays your money....

Stu.

My experience is: Balance first.

Not necessarily in money, but balance of sound, which is suitable for Your taste and Your music (and Your wallet). 

Combination is important to reach Your balance:
Your preferred music genre - CD player or Streamer+DAC or TT (cartridge included) - PreAmp - PowerAmp - Speakers - Room - Cables ...

I have made many trials and errors. I compared NAC202 + NAC200 with Supernait2 and could not decide which is better. I liked former a lot with NAPSC+HiCapDR but bought Supernait2. I used SN2 with NAP200 to calm SN2 down. Then I bought NAC282 and played it first with NAP200. Then I played NAC282 with Supernait2 power amp to have more balanced sound compared to NAP200. I sold Supernait2 and now I am waiting for NAP300DR to arrive next week to work with my NAC282. I made also new high end speakers. They give marvellous sound if what is fed in is marvellous. I can switch between different tweeter and mid settings in speakers to have balance with my source/amplifier.

I heard very recently in Finland Naim Statement with NDS and Sopra 3s. They were full of glory and delight with many kind of music. However, with heavy metal music from a customer in the non-fully-optimised room with bass reflections the total system was not in balance.

We all try to find nice sound. This would not be our hobby if it would be too easy.

Try to find your balanced system and enjoy it.

Tuomo

Hi

Source is really important but I have to disagree that it comes first, what would I do with a top-of-the-art source not havig the rest of the components to take advantage of it?

That´s why people ( unless you are afortunate to do it ) start in lower systems that are on the same level of quality and then move up.

I bet more on my speakers and amplification, to match, my room.  

Secondly, if you don´t have the upgrade desease, you tend to keep the amplification more than the source, just to have advantage of the new formats that were implemented during this years.

Another "problem" is that the digital and streaming are still on the move, so, my Uniti doesn´t play AIFF or even can i use the Naim APP, for that I need to upgrade both HW and SW, but I assure you that my "new" NAP´s 135 from the 90´s can play all .

It´s a hard time for Naim, that in amplification still rules,  but in digital is trying not to loose the race, and untill now is beeing able to do it, no matter the menace of other streamers and dac.

In my case, source is very important but only after......  because once you have your amplification match to the speaker and to the room, and to the way you like the music presentation, it will play well streamers, CD, turtables, tuners, and your cassete deck if you have it  

It's simple... forget sow's ears and silk purses, that's for a haberdashery forum.  The single most important component in the audio chain is the pre-amp.  End of story.

I have a CDS3 played into a Nait1 and Shahinian Compass speakers. I also have a CDX2 and SN2 that i have played into the same speakers. The first system is more enjoyable and makes better sense of the music. 

rjstaines posted:

It's simple... forget sow's ears and silk purses, that's for a haberdashery forum.  The single most important component in the audio chain is the pre-amp.  End of story.

And I naively thought it's the music 

"Source first" refers to where the source is positioned within the overall system hierarchy.  The hierarchy is based upon the truism tha the system is a chain of components and that no component further down the chain can improve the component that feeds to it. Indeed, if we assume that no component is perfect then we can use this heorarchy to best effect by finding best matches through components masking the problems of preceding components. Obviously the better the performance, the less masking is needed or desired.

That's the simple theory - as typed in a phone on a train from London, so apologies. But it's a chain and like any chain its only as strong as the weakest link. It assumes a basic level of competence for all components - putting a top end Linn lp12 or cd555 in front of an Amstrad amp and freebie speakers is plainly absurd. However, putting it in front of a NAIT and a pair of Linn Kans is far less so, and perhaps as good a demonstration of "source first" done right as you can get. 

So, beforehand battery does on me.. It's a heorarchy thing.. 

Richard Dane posted:

"Source first" refers to where the source is positioned within the overall system hierarchy.  The hierarchy is based upon the truism tha the system is a chain of components and that no component further down the chain can improve the component that feeds to it. Indeed, if we assume that no component is perfect then we can use this heorarchy to best effect by finding best matches through components masking the problems of preceding components. Obviously the better the performance, the less masking is needed or desired.

That's the simple theory - as typed in a phone on a train from London, so apologies. But it's a chain and like any chain its only as strong as the weakest link. It assumes a basic level of competence for all components - putting a top end Linn lp12 or cd555 in front of an Amstrad amp and freebie speakers is plainly absurd. However, putting it in front of a NAIT and a pair of Linn Kans is far less so, and perhaps as good a demonstration of "source first" done right as you can get. 

So, beforehand battery does on me.. It's a heorarchy thing.. 

So there you have it. The definitive example of source first - cd555 in front of a NAIT and a pair of Linn Kans.

The flat earth society will be over the moon to hear that.

TJ, its just an example. I could have come up with many others. I liked this example because it works in spite of being out on the fringes of being sensible. It's not necessarily about throwing ALL the money at the source, its about recognising that the source takes priority in the heirarchy.

Just remembered when I bought my first proper piece of kit, the kef cresta .  At the little hifi shop it was auditioned for me with a big wadia cdp and a NAIT 5. Was rather disappointed when I got it home hooked up to my modest technics and Audiolab job. 

And my $300 KEF IQ3's sounded SO much better on my Supernait than they did on either of my NADs - both running the same cheapo DVD player as a CD source...or my SBT as well.

I do agree that there is much less difference in digital sources than there was in analog (or even to a lesser extent with CDPs), but as with any aphorism, there is a lot of wiggle room.

Analysing everything I've read on this thread so far, all supports the 'Successive Aberration' model.

...which to me makes complete sense & vindicates my view which challenges the oft held and vociferously  articulated beliefs in respect of system order construction...

And it also means that weather your system is a mullet, a monkfish or a halibut is irrelevant; if it sounds right to you in your room, then it is right (for you!).

VFM is another thing - most people have had to upgrade in stages and so it's inevitable that the overall balance will change, and whilst stating from scratch you can often get a better result for the money, for most people that's rarely an viable option.  To quote the old joke it's usually a case of "Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here".  So, through all the upgrades:  As long as it still sounds right to you in your room, then it still is right; and no dogmatic aphorism will change that.

As JV pointed out if you have a component that significantly outperforms the others, there's little point in improving that (be it a source, amp or speakers, the same principle applies) - it's adding fewest aberrations anyway, so first address the thing adding the most significant* aberrations.

*  Most significant will vary from person to person, dependant on the genres to which they listen what aspects of music are most important to them. So aberrations in a source component that one person couldn't tolerate could be almost irrelevant to a second person, in which case the second person would get more benefit from upgrading other parts of the system even though their source component may be (in many other people's opinion) clearly "inferior".

Presumably cd555 in front of a NAIT and a pair of Linn Kans might not sound any better than a rather lesser CD player...

The source might be the limiting factor, but is not necessarily so.  In any setup there will be some component (or several) which limits what the system can do.  I think, particularly these days with digital sources, the input source is, beyond a certain point, rarely the limiting factor - probably speakers/room affect the sound more than any other component.  It should be much simpler, these days, to design a pre-amp given that most of the low-voltage amplification is done by the source (CD player, tuner, streamer).  The output of these is high enough in principle to drive the power amp directly - though of course there are other factors such as impedance matching and volume control that need to be factored for.  Given that the output of CD players etc. is as high as it is, and that pre-amps in the old days often bypassed some/much of their circuitry for such high line inputs, I'm not sure what of significance pre-amps add these days.  There are some who advocate passive pre-amps (I've never tried one so cannot comment). Most decent power amps these days do what is required very well.  It's only when you are trying to drive difficult speakers at high energy levels that things can become truly unstuck.  

But the speaker/room combination is far more difficult to get right, I think, and I suspect that in many systems this is where the limitations appear.  Any speaker design is a compromise - well, lots of compromises, really.  Chuck different speakers in a system and it will sound very different - more different, I contend, than (above a certain level) changes in the upstream components.  (Whether they sound better is, of course, another matter - but different, certainly).  When I used to go and listen to different systems in audio shops (Audio Excellence, Russ Andrews back in the day (about 1972) and similar) it was always the change in speaker that was most noticeable.  Hence, I think, why active is (usually) so much better than passive - you are getting rid of a rather nasty component (passive crossover) and giving the amps a much easier, more uniform, load to drive.  

Having said that, other components do have an effect, of course.  The 300 was better than the two 135s (not hugely, but noticeably) and the 500 is better than the 300 (again, not chalk and cheese, but noticeable).  But the difference between the S600s and the SBLs was very noticeable.  And DBLs were superb in many respects.  

Steve

Beachcomber posted:

Presumably cd555 in front of a NAIT and a pair of Linn Kans might not sound any better than a rather lesser CD player...

Why presume that?  A NAIT and Kans are very able to differentiate between a CD555 and, say a CD5xs or CDX2 in making sense of the music being played.  If you can, try it for yourself.  No amount of words written or read on here can convince as effectively as actually taking a listen.  

But guess what, it's not a diktat.  You won't be shot at dawn for doing things otherwise.  Hell, even if you do the classic error of choosing speaker first and then chasing down the rest of the system to try to do them justice (often a sure road to dissatisfaction or just losing interest in the whole thing), nobody will be knocking on your door to berate you.  In the real world, money, opportunity, advice - both good and bad, circumstance, and curiosity all play their part in building systems for good or ill.  In imparting advice here borne from past experience, I have generally found the system hierarchy (a much better term than source first) to be sound.  But don't let that tie you in knots.  Sometimes you just have to go with something and hope it kind of works out.  Sometimes curiosity says let me try this and see what I get, and you get lucky, it kind of works ok, and you think, I can live with this. That's reality, and it's ok.

Of course, the elephant in the room is what comes before we even get the music - the mastering, and that can and unfortunately too often does limit what any music replay system can present for our listening pleasure.

The Dude posted:

...which to me makes complete sense & vindicates my view which challenges the oft held and vociferously  articulated beliefs in respect of system order construction...

Bit righteous. It's a hobby!

C.

Richard Dane posted:

Hell, even if you do the classic error of choosing speaker first and then chasing down the rest of the system to try to do them justice (often a sure road to dissatisfaction or just losing interest in the whole thing), 

I beg to differ, though it does depend on the wisdom/care used in choosing other components, and I have to say in my case it took until my third pair of speakers and about 6 years before finding  "the speakers for me". I have upgraded speakers only twice in the 40 years since (but if I still had that third pair I would not be unhappy - they still do sound great!). Admittedly I had improved my original source  to a pretty decent one some time before getting them, but that was driven primarily by my second speakers revealing the rumble of the original turntable as well as the bottom octave of the music. I have been very happy with my system over the years, never feeling there was anything wrong with the sound though aware that better things were possible, and I periodically improved it until reaching where I am now. As others have said, a balance is needed, but as it is the speaker that dominates in terms of the character of the sound presented in the listening room, I believe that deserves primary attention (though as I intimated previously, for anyone happy with a curtailed bass response the demands are far less as getting full bass is the difficult and expensive part to get to sound good).