Source First ? Really?

I feel like we are back in the 80s with this discussion.  For my part I would interpret the source first 'rule' as always start with the source and then work through the system seeking balance.  If I have to have an unbalanced system it would always be unbalanced with the source at a higher level than other components.  

Dayjay, why always bias towards having source at a higher level rather than than choosing way that actually sounds best, whichever way that is?

I would like to hear some active ATC speakers - I have a couple of pairs of their smaller ones (SCM 7 and 10) and I was always impressed by the DBL mainly because the bass is so good.  I wonder what DBLs would be like now if they had the 600/800 BMR?

I guess it depends whether you are looking for a final solution or looking to build a system.  If I'm building and expecting to upgrade into the future I'd start with the best source I can afford and then balance the system in the knowledge that the source will be good enough to last the journey.  If I'm buying a system and I don't expect to upgrade then I'd buy the best collection of items I could get based on the overall sound.  I'm sure they exist but I personally haven't heard many systems that sounded great with amp or speakers that outclassed the source.  When I refer to level, btw, I don't necessarily mean highest cost.

dayjay posted:

I feel like we are back in the 80s with this discussion.  For my part I would interpret the source first 'rule' as always start with the source and then work through the system seeking balance.  If I have to have an unbalanced system it would always be unbalanced with the source at a higher level than other components.  

Back?!? The argument has never disappeared, even if it may not have surfaced often.

It is important that the sound pleases the listener - and that means different things to different people. And balance sounds sensible, but only in the context of what you hear, having nothing to do with cost or other arbitrary measurements. 

Source first just meant that you got a better sound with a T/T like the LP12  (£1100) and cheaper amp and speakers (e.g. nait (£250) and kans (£250)) than if you had spent an equal amount on all three components.

It probably still holds for T/T based systems, but there is some debate about whether it holds for digital sources. So if you are interested do the comparison and hear for yourself (and report back).

I find this discussion very inspiring and educational (from the English language point of view) 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

Adam Zielinski posted:

I find this discussion very inspiring and educational (from the English language point of view) 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

What's the difference between being lost at source and lost somewhere further in the system? You still don't hear it until or unless you improve the bottleneck, and that would apply whichever of the components is "best".

Adam Zielinski posted:

I find this discussion very inspiring and educational (from the English language point of view) 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

If it's lost in the speakers it won't get through to your ears - exactly the same principle applies!

This thread is most interesting (and confusing)

I have changed / added some components recently - having just set up my system (after 15months or so without !!) in a detached house, and obviously in a different room.

My LPs sound SO much better having changed 2 x Hi-Cap to 1 x Supercap

My NDX sounds so much better adding XPS

Still using Kan IIs

Compared to previous listening (in a flat!) I cannot believe what is coming out of these little speakers, more relaxed - not worrying about the neighbours ....... ???

perhaps changing pre-amp / power amp(s) would bring more amazement

I am however thinking of changing my speakers for only the third time in my life - but not really making much progress !?

I was brought up with the "source first" - "garbage in / garbage out" principle

I feel that perhaps my Kans are the next thing to change rather than any source components, but there are so many speakers out there, and all with room complications i.e. placement etc. - perhaps I am better just sitting down and enjoying the music !

Adam Zielinski posted:

 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

And you clearly owe it to yourself to give Dave an audition, as what is lost in the DAC the subsequent components won't get back, lesser DACs losing a lot.

Would be interesting to gather at a friendly dealers and 'spend' say £20k on kit following the different arguments posed on this thread and see which system sounded best.  Even better if that friendly dealer had an alcohol licence.

dayjay posted:

Even better if that friendly dealer had an alcohol licence.

And a supply of Naim mugs................though nothing less than the Statement ones, of course! 

It is a general rule of thumb, source first. I agree, mostly. When I got XS2 with HCDR two years ago, I also thought about changing my CDP (CD5si) with CD5XS naturally. At dealer's demo room I listened to both players (CD5XS in bare form)  back to back and back to back with just three same tunes I very well know. Outcome of that shootout, though surprising, was convincingly clear for me. This is why I did not part with CD5si.

every point in the chain  will have faults , less predictable with today inputs.    dac stages are similar to each other with all but the cheap as chips .Ive never meet a dealer who says an upgrade is worse

audio1946 posted:

every point in the chain  will have faults , less predictable with today inputs.    dac stages are similar to each other with all but the cheap as chips .Ive never meet a dealer who says an upgrade is worse

I took a phono stage back to my dealer this week who was quite clear that he didn't think it was an upgrade on what I had, and he was right too

The trouble with buying the best source that you can afford is that by the time you get the best speaker (for instance) that you can afford then the front end designs that are available will probably have changed.  That seems to be what has happened over the past few years, anyway, with the improvements in CD players and streamers.

My experience was similar to Beachcomber and Hal when it came to demo'ing a better source, that is CD. I have a humble (but lovely) bare CD5 and auditioned a flat-capped CD5, a hi-capped CD5 (yes, yes, I know, probably unwise ) and a CDX2. My cloth ears could barely tell the difference. However, when I upgraded my Pre Amp from NAC42.5 to NAC72 there was a cosmic improvement.

My precious pennies were much better spent upgrading my pre than my source. Now, I have a bit of a mullet CD5/72/hicap/180 PMC TB2i and am as happy as a sand boy. 

So, careful with this source first rule, chaps.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

I find this discussion very inspiring and educational (from the English language point of view) 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

What's the difference between being lost at source and lost somewhere further in the system? You still don't hear it until or unless you improve the bottleneck, and that would apply whichever of the components is "best".

Well... That's not the argument I was making.

You are referring to a loss of fidelity at any stage. And that is entirely plausible and happens all the time

My statement refers to a different principle - if it is lost at a start, nothing will compensate for this or get it back.

Huge posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

I find this discussion very inspiring and educational (from the English language point of view) 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

If it's lost in the speakers it won't get through to your ears - exactly the same principle applies!

Huge... Different logic. Please see my answer above.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

And you clearly owe it to yourself to give Dave an audition, as what is lost in the DAC the subsequent components won't get back, lesser DACs losing a lot.

Dave? That is not a source component as I see it... Transport into the Dave would be.

But of course it is is lost at the DAC stage no subsequent component will get back.

...do we upgrade because we are dissatisfied with the sound of our systems or simply because we believe even  better sq  is available? I suspect the latter as all naim stuff sounds bloody good...

Source first has always been the principle I have lived by for the last 30 years. What is lost at the source can not be retrieved later no matter how good the components are. 

Adam Zielinski posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

I find this discussion very inspiring and educational (from the English language point of view) 

I still stand by my argument though: if it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

What's the difference between being lost at source and lost somewhere further in the system? You still don't hear it until or unless you improve the bottleneck, and that would apply whichever of the components is "best".

Well... That's not the argument I was making.

You are referring to a loss of fidelity at any stage. And that is entirely plausible and happens all the time

My statement refers to a different principle - if it is lost at a start, nothing will compensate for this or get it back.

Sorriy, you'll have to elaborate - yes, if it is lost at the source nothing else will compensate. And if it is there after the start and but lost in the amp nothing after will compensate, and if it gets through the amp but is lost in the speakers nothing will compensate in what reaches the listener. [And , of course, though totally out of our control, if it is lost at the mastering, nothing after will compensate.]

The Dude posted:

...do we upgrade because we are dissatisfied with the sound of our systems or simply because we believe even  better sq  is available? I suspect the latter as all naim stuff sounds bloody good...

I think we are... that rabbit is quite alluring