Source First ? Really?

But mediocre speakers on the end of a good system will generally sound better than a mediocre system through much better speakers. (As per my post above with my KEFs...at the same time I also had ProAc Response D2s, and I think putting them on the old NAD amp would have been a real "meh" experience - the sound just wasn't there to be played.)

In fact, your example that the second set of speakers revealed the rumble of the TT can be turned around to show a source first concept - the rumble was always there; with a better source you might not have needed the better speakers.

I adhere to balance, with preference to source when possible/plausible. If I had a mullet system, I would definitely want the high side out of proportion piece to be the source.

When I started at Naim I was the Customer Service Manager and I lost count of the number of e-mails and phone calls from people who had set their heart on a particular speaker, bought them and either wanted to know the bare minimum of electronics to get them to "work" or expressed dissatisfaction and wanted advice on electronic upgrades to make things sing.  Now, you could just say, that's all grist to mill of the job, but here's the thing, I never once had a call or e-mail from anyone expressing dissatisfaction from doing it the other way round, giving priority to the source and paying heed to the system hierarchy.

And here's why; let's take some extreme but quite possible examples.  Let's take the aforementioned CD555 purely because it's out there and I've mentioned it before.  Now, if you've just bought it and spent pretty much all of your money (something I wouldn't recommend but hey, let's pretend) and only have a few hundred quid left over, even with an old NAD 3020 and a pair of HB1s (or choose any similarly capable but cheap combo) it's going to sing and you'll be really enjoying the music it plays, even if in hifi terms it will be limited. 

Now lets do thing the other way around; Say you've hankered after a nice pair of Ovator S800s (be quick now) and you're just about spent out.  Can you do a similar thing?  Can you buy that old NAD 3020 and a Philips CD50 or one of any number of cheap and reasonably capable old CD players out there.  Or hey, let's get right up to date and go for an off board DAC or reasonably modest cost, whatever.  No, the bottom line is you're going to have some real problems.  You'll be constantly wanting to upgrade to try to get those S800s to begin to work.  For quite a while, through any number of steps on the upgrade path for both source and amp, those S800s are going to sound a bit of a mess.  

Do you see how this may well be a road to dissatisfaction, frustration, and possibly disengagement?

Now, I'm not saying that there's no contentment in between these two extremes, but any contentment probably begins somewhere within the upper half of crossing the middle line and the shift towards the "source first" system hierarchical model.  That's probably where most of us are at, and that's fine.

DrMark posted:

But mediocre speakers on the end of a good system will generally sound better than a mediocre system through much better speakers. (As per my post above with my KEFs...at the same time I also had ProAc Response D2s, and I think putting them on the old NAD amp would have been a real "meh" experience - the sound just wasn't there to be played.)

In fact, your example that the second set of speakers revealed the rumble of the TT can be turned around to show a source first concept - the rumble was always there; with a better source you might not have needed the better speakers.

I adhere to balance, with preference to source when possible/plausible. If I had a mullet system, I would definitely want the high side out of proportion piece to be the source.

No, because with the better source my previous soeakers would still have been inadequate, 

as for inadequate soeakerson better source sounding better than the other way round, that depends so much on the specifics and may be true for some systems/people but not others. In my case I simply don't appreciate music anywhere near as much with the bottom octave or two missing or curtailed, just hearing the harmonics as "bass"

and whilst I agree with balance as an ideal, when seeking the fewest steps to upgrade to minimise total cost there inevitably will be times when balance shifts. And as decent speakers are costly to produce, to spend more on the source than the speakers before you have an acceptable (to the listener) speaker risks limiting the enjoyability.

Of course, this argument has raged for years, and it is nice to see it alive and healthy today!

Obviously a totally unbalanced system won't get the best out of any of the components - in the case of NAD3020 and S800s (yes please, can I swap my S600s for a pair of S800s, please?) the amplifier won't have the power and voltage swing to really get the S800s going (though it probably would sound better than using a pair of Bush speakers).  But once you have a good front end (source, preamp and amp), I have found that speakers make the system sound different much more than any other component.  Decent streamers/CDs, preamps and power amps may sound somewhat different from each other, but in my experience rather less difference than speakers.  Putting different speakers on the end of the NAD3020 will show very different results.  Changing the NAD3020 to a Cyrus, say, would be unlikely to have as much of a difference as different speakers would have.  

Richard,

I agree that specifying speakers first can lead to greater mistakes, but there are two flaws in your argument.  As you have done, I'll use extreme paradigms to show them...

1  Interface compatibility
The expensive complex speakers are too 'difficult' a load for the cheap amp, so not only do you show the flaws in the amp the inappropriate speaker excessively loads the power amp's output making it sound even worse.
This goes the other way as well, take a top spec LP12 with a low output moving coil cartridge and connect that to your NAD 3020 and see what happens - the result is just as disastrous.

2  Signal - Speaker - Room - Listener interaction
If someone has a specific hankering for a specific pair of speakers, and installs them in an inappropriate room, then no matter what source components or electronics are used the system will never sound 'right'.  Say for instance take a set of speakers that have a small bass peak at 45Hz before rolling off and a tweeter that has a much wider dispersion than the bass/mid just below the crossover point; then place them in an acoustically bright room 3.8m square and they'll sound terrible, no matter what amp and source you use.  The music style - speaker - room - listener interaction is the most complex and variable of all and thus can be considered to the most important to get right.  Get that right and any reasonable source /amp combination will be just what it is; no more, no less.

That's why the successive aberration argument works (it applies to interactions as well as to components themselves).

Richard Dane posted:

Do you see who this is a road to dissatisfaction, frustration, and possibly disengagement?

Now, I'm not saying that there's no contentment in between these two extremes, but any contentment probably begins somewhere within the upper half of crossing the middle line and the shift towards the "source first" system hierarchical model.  That's probably where most of us are at, and that's fine.

Taken in extremis I agree, but just as the source first diatribe does not in reality extend to proposing the very best source money can buy into cheapo amp and speakers, my view of seeking to get the speakers right first does require an amp capable of at least making it sing reasonably, thought behind that enjoyable mysic may be achievable with very humble CD or streaming sources. And in reality, the opportunity to get a real top echelon speaker when at a low level of system development is unlikely to arise.

All -

Source first, or system hierarchy, is a general rule.  It is sadly unsurprising how the defenders of other approaches have, as always, gone to the absurd extremes, and even then had to qualify their responses.  Not happy with a NAD 3020 as an example?  Fine.  Go get an Adcom GFP/GFA 555.  Cheap, competent, and can drive quite literally almost anything. 

The point is simply to insure that your source(s) are as good as possible, because nothing can recover music after the source.  Sorry, but speaker first, or amp first, is absurd and the most certain way to endless changes and disappointment.  Hierarchy is both much less expensive in the long run, and much more satisfying. 

Perhaps you should live with it for a while and then come back in a year and revisit the discussion.

Source first still stands (Garbage in, Garbage out etc...). The entry point for high quality sources is lower these days and for a given budget, allows a more balanced system to be put together. 

Huge, we can argue the minutiae till the cows come home. The argument I make here uses examples and extremes if only for clarity and to underline the point.

But, in the interest of pedants everywhere, regarding your example (1), the NAD3020 (I just chose this one because I know it well - it could have been any one of hundreds of alternatives) had a rather good phono stage and even (eventually) a reasonable MC stage.  But this neither here nor there.  Either use a top MM like a Supex or, as many did, slot in some Ortofon T5s for pocket money.  Or just take your pick of something else for similar outlay.

As for point (2) regarding the room/speaker interface, you take this as reasonably sorted in the speaker choice and setup. There's no need to spend the lions share of your budget here - quite the opposite in fact. Choose your poison among any number of similar cheap but capable options.  Fact is the more demanding the speaker, the greater the bandwidth, the bigger the problem you are going to have with the room...

Bob Edwards posted:

All -

Source first, or system hierarchy, is a general rule.  It is sadly unsurprising how the defenders of other approaches have, as always, gone to the absurd extremes, and even then had to qualify their responses.  Not happy with a NAD 3020 as an example?  Fine.  Go get an Adcom GFP/GFA 555.  Cheap, competent, and can drive quite literally almost anything. 

The point is simply to insure that your source(s) are as good as possible, because nothing can recover music after the source.  Sorry, but speaker first, or amp first, is absurd and the most certain way to endless changes and disappointment.  Hierarchy is both much less expensive in the long run, and much more satisfying. 

Perhaps you should live with it for a while and then come back in a year and revisit the discussion.

There is nothing absurd about it, just a difference of emphasis and perception. As I have pointed out before, speakers are the item that most influence the character of the sound we hear, and for some of us at least in terms of music that can be more important than the fineness of detail (and the speakers only let out what they are capable of). I have known people constantly dissatisfied with their systems and frequently tweaking, until eventually discovering a pair of speakers they liked - and I have never felt that dissatisfaction. 

We will just have to agree to differ - or rather, recognise that Huge's analysis is probably right...

I agree that you want the source (and pre-amp and amp) to be good.  As you say, otherwise nothing will get back what is missing.  However, I would suggest that getting a good/very good streamer/CD player/pre-amp and possibly power amp is easier (there is more choice, but there are, above a certain competency, fewer differences between them) than finding speakers speakers, which differ enormously.  There used to be (still is?  I don't know) the view that you should split your budget evenly (or possibly some other ratio) between components (e.g. TT, Pre-amp, Amp, Speakers).  So your speakers should cost about the same as your TT.  Particularly these days (with most people using digital source) this is not, I think, valid.  I didn't notice, for instance, a great deal of difference between CD3.5 and CDX with XPS, nor between NAC82 and NAC52.  All of these are adequately competent for the power amp and speakers I had (Naim power amps have been, variously, NAP120, two NAP120s biamped, NAP250, two 250s biamped, 4x135s, 300 and now 500).  All the way through, the speakers (Wharfedale Dentons, Naim 602 (serial number 2!), SBL, S600 have made the largest difference.  

Of course, maybe I have rubbish ears.  But then, so must my friends and relations...

Richard, I know the reason you used extremes (and I for the same reason, and I'm also familiar with the NAD3020, but only MM versions, and in addition to a reasonable phono stage, it's reaction to the ultrasonic spuriae of early CD player was better than some amps).  I'm just pointing out that the same system design flaws can occur at both ends (or any other component - c.f. the transistors are rubbish only valves are any good argument) ; a point that is almost always glossed over in the source first argument.

Source First / Speakers First (or any other xxx dogmatic position) have the same flaw.

Incidentally the same applies to the Vinyl / Digital argument.

Of course, vinyl is fundamentally flawed.

(runs away and hides)

Beachcomber posted:

Of course, vinyl is fundamentally flawed.

(runs away and hides)

Technically true, and anyone who denies that is in cloud cuckoo land.  However if you can live with it's flaws and you have an exceptional TT,  arm and cartridge all working together really well, then it also has a considerable number of euphonic sonic characteristics.  For some people these give so much pleasure despite the inaccuracy, and to such an extent that they can ignore the flaws.  For these people vinyl really does win hands down.

True

This is an interesting discussion. I do think think there's a problem with the premise of 'source first' though . . . which is that it doesn't really mean anything.

I get that if you're building a system from scratch you might want to choose the source first and match the rest to that - you have to start somewhere - although I'm not sure that doing it in reverse would yield a worse result. Certainly, nothing that's been said here would indicate that.

So the discussion is really about the source needing to be 'better sound quality' than the subsequent components, on the basis that 'sound quality' cannot be put back once lost. I understand this as a theory, but it's based on the premise that one can compare the 'sound quality' of a NAD 3020 and an LP12. You can't - they do different things. It's like comparing a car and a caravan. The measure that seems to be being used - perhaps unconsciously - is money, ie spend more on the source. But that entails a further assumption, that two items doing different things can be measured in their effectiveness by price. That's like saying a Rolex watch is inferior to a London apartment because it's cheaper. It simply makes no sense as a comparison. Can you compare a Hugo with a NAP250DR? Me neither.

So here are my conclusions: there is no absolute measure of sound quality; price is a poor proxy for sound quality; therefore no item in the chain can be said to be 'better' or 'worse' than another that does a different job; therefore 'source first' does not, in practice, mean anything.

Source first does mean something, of course it does, and it's nothing like comparing a watch and an apartment. It's not about cost per se, but about quality. Back in the day cost was often used as a proxy, and in general still can today.

So in simple terms an NDX and a Nait 5 and nSats should be better than a ND5xs, Supernait and Ovator 400s. Of course it is possible to analyse or overanalyse, as people are wont to do, but if you hold to source first as a general principle you won't go far wrong, whether you are building a system in the first place, or upgrading an existing balanced setup. 

Solid Air posted:

 Can you compare a Hugo with a NAP250DR?

Very easily

I take my existing system and replace the current DAC with a Hugo.

I take my existing system and replace the current power amp with a NAP250DR.

I then decide which I like more.

Comparison done.

It is true that it is necessary that the source be at least as 'good' (define that how you may) as the rest (because you usually can't put back what was lost) - but having a superb source on a rubbish back end (poor slew rate in the amp, tiny speaker drive units etc.) but I feel that CD/DAC/Pre-amp/amp design is at such an advanced stage that it is fairly easy to remove these as a limiting factor, compared with the speakers/room/ears/brain.  

An interesting question is whether we are looking for accuracy (what you get out of the speakers is as near as possible what came out of the mixing desk, which should be as near as possible to what went into the microphone (within limits - some processing is usually a good idea; a little reverb, perhaps, for instance), or whether you don't care two hoots about that, you just want to enjoy what you hear.  Whatever you do, there are compromises.  Vinyl messes around terribly with the frequency response, which of course changes from one part of the track to another.  Digital doesn't inherently store all of the sound wave, though the missing bits can be put back in quite accurately.  Solid state has - to a greater or lesser extent - odd-harmonic distortion, which if sufficiently large sounds horrible, whereas valve has (usually) more distortion but that's even harmonic which doesn't sound anything like as bad - so it's possibly (probably) less accurate, but may be better on the ear.  Plus it goes through output transformers, and there is a whole other can of worms.  So if you are looking for total accuracy - you're not going to get it.  The best you can do is get as near as you can afford/be bothered to, and concentrate on what you enjoy listening to.  

Some of it is habit, I think.  Back in the late 60s and 70s I would record music (e.g. Bob Harris) onto cassette or reel-to-reel from my Armstrong receiver or from my TV (kludged connection to the speaker terminals).  I would then edit those tapes to other tapes to keep the songs I was interested in.  Sometimes those tapes would be re-edited, though I tried to avoid that.  Many of those are now on CD.  When I listen to them, and compare them with a modern recording of them (of the original recording) they are obviously terrible in terms of signal quality, with really poor frequency range, plenty of added hiss etc. - but still, I like listening to them sometimes.  Takes me back.  Occasionally I prefer them - but not for their SQ.

I must admit, while I haven't actually tried it, I find it hard to believe that changing an interconnect cable or ethernet cable can make a huge, chalk/cheese, difference to a system. I would tend to suspect that there is something else very wrong with the system if it does.  The only time I have found a significant difference in cables is with speaker cable.  To a certain point bigger and fatter is good - though over a certain bigness and fatness there is little or no difference.  I have tried oxygen-free linear crystal cables - sounded just the same as any similarly-constructed POC (plain old copper) cable to me.  

I no longer have my NAC12 (it wasn't a NAC 22 I started with) or NAP120 so can't go back to those, but one day in an idle moment I might try putting an old Pioneer CD player I have on the front of my current system and see what happens.  I still have my home-made 120 so maybe see what that does.  I don't hold out much hope, but I'm willing to be surprised...

Wrong again - it was a NAC 22 not a NAC 12.  

Beachcomber posted:

It is true that it is necessary that the source be at least as 'good' (define that how you may) as the rest 
... 

Not true.
For reason see next part...

Beachcomber posted:

...
(because you usually can't put back what was lost)
...

That's true; but it equally applies everywhere in the chain, not just source components.

The myth of the Source First principle is that this only applies to source components.

Even when proponents say "well of course it applies everywhere", they go on to add "but more so at the source", or go on to advise that much greater gains will always be had by upgrading the source.

What they are stating is a principle of information theory, but only applying it to one part of a system.

Even though I lean towards source first, I will definitely admit that most difficult part of a system to get right is the speakers. Which to my mind then makes them the last piece to buy/upgrade.

And I think balance is hard to keep for upgrade loving naim fan, balance is a state that we reach step by step in an expensive hobby, it is the nirvana unless you go and buy all 500 with SL loom and soprano 3 and just drop the plastic

Some of the discussion here starts from the perspective of source first being less relevant in an age of digital sources.

Today, KEF announced the long rumoured active LS50 speaker. As we/if we drift towards active speakers will it not further complicate the source first argument. With such a close synergy between amps, cross overs and drivers in these boxes, they may have a bigger impact on the eventual sound than the source. 

"The myth of the Source First principle is that this only applies to source components."

(I don't see how to do quotes from other posts...)

No, it doesn't apply only to the source components.  But if your source component doesn't pass certain frequencies through, or adds distortion, then there is little that you can do later in the chain.  I suspect that is the sort of thing that source first addresses.  But then, each link in the chain can be a week one.  Dansette record player in front of 552/500/S800 will not sound as good as the system could be (though I suspect that it would still sound a lot better than the Dansette through its own amp and speaker).  LP12 through that same Dansette preamp/amp speaker probably sounds little, if any, better than the Dansette itself.  But this is going to ridiculous extremes.  I think most here are talking about basically good equipment - for instance pretty much anything that Naim or Linn or similar manufacturers produce.  I have used a number of preamps from Naim, and wouldn't say any of them were so bad that I couldn't live with them.  I have used 602, IBL, SBL and S600 (and had a pair of S800 on loan for a few days), and the differences between them are very obvious.  It doesn't matter how good the front end is, if the speakers are no good then the sound will be no good too.  Generally I would say that good speakers on a so-so front end will sound better than average or poor speakers on a good front end.  And average or poor speakers are incredibly common.  Good CD Players/streamers/pre-amps/amps are fairly easy to find.