Source First ? Really?

I totally agree with the source first principal. However loss of source information seems to be the common theme. I see the reasoning behind this with compressed files such as MP3 but surely none of the Naim sources are that poor as to omit that much vital sonic information to render the sound crap in =crap out.  

Surely there is enough quality from modern Naim  sources to feed your preferred amplification (within reason of course) and is it the variation in sonic character of the amplification, speakers and room acoustics that are the critical factors to suit our own aural palate?? 

Bananahead posted:

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.

That isn't comparing a Hugo with a NAP 250DR. That's comparing two set-ups, each of which contain an amp and a DAC, and deciding which you like best. It's a very sensible thing to do, which is my point: there is no way to determine what 'first' actually is. 

For example, let's go with the source first assumption and buy an LP12, a Nait and a pair of KEF LS50s. What exactly makes the LP12 'better' than the Nait? Where is the measurement scale for that? Unless you can show me a measurement scale that shows that an LP12 is 'better' than a Nait - even though they're doing different jobs - then I can't know whether I'm going 'source first' or not. Hence why it's meaningless. It's a false premise.

dayjay posted:

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.

NOW we're getting somewhere!

dayjay posted:

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.

When I was buying and upgrading my system, that's more or less what my dealer did for me (without the booze, though). How else was I going to find out which approach works best?

Adam Zielinski posted:

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.

Pertaining to the sound heard by the listener....

If it's lost at the source, the other components will not get it back.

If it's lost in the amplifier, the other components will not get it back.

If it's lost in the speakers, the other components will not get it back.

What's the difference in the logic?  Is there something which makes the statement about the source unique and more significant than the rest?

I know you didn't include the others statements in your post, but neither is there anything in there to exclude them.

I was lucky enough to upgrade from a Planar 3 with K9 to an LP12 with S/H Ittok VII and K9 feeding a NAD 3120 (the stripped down version) and Linn Index (v1). This system absolutely proved the viability of the source first principle: system hierarchy drove the decision and saved me money over the years. A fulsome and enjoyable sound which was vastly superior to the Rega-fed system. I still have that Sondek, now Aroed, Armageddoned, Cirkused and DVXXIId!

C**p in: c**p out.

Iron Cobra posted:

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. 

What is lost at any point can not be retrieved no matter how good the components are. 

I 'have just read through few posts as there are too many responses here. There is no right or wrong. Everyone is entitled to his views, opinions, preferences and ways of doing things.

I do think everything in the chain is equally important - source, amplification, loudspeakers. However, if given a choice between two systems, one which comprises of a £200 source and £2,000 speakers and another system which is made up of a £2,000 source and £200 speakers , I would pick the former anytime.

Sorry, it appears that the comparison is between the source and the amplifier and not source and speakers. If that's the case, I would still pick the system with a £200 source and £2,000 worth of amplification over one that comprises of a £2,000 source and £200 worth of amplification.

Of course, if the speakers are a tough nut to crack 4 ohm with low sensitivity, a cheap amp will not work unless one can find a powerful (and cheap) Class D amp.

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!

Not exactly, if you have a good source and poorer speakers the sound quality is at least present in the chain even if you lose some through the system.  Having good speakers and a poorer source may mean that it isn't there to lose in the first place.

dayjay posted:

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!

Not exactly, if you have a good source and poorer speakers the sound quality is at least present in the chain even if you lose some through the system.  Having good speakers and a poorer source may mean that it isn't there to lose in the first place.

And what difference does that make? Of what benefit is it? 

I have seen several posts such as these:-

What is lost at the source can not be retrieved later no matter how good the components are.

What I think is the information or detail is not lost with most sources. It's the presentation that's different. 

Ryder, information loss maybe needs to be clarified for you here.  It comes in all kinds of forms; resolution is just one. Distortion another. Bandwidth another. Try comparing a CD5i with a CD555 - it's not just a difference of presentation.  If anything, the "presentation" is itself the most similar thing between them.  The better player though is far more able to resolve the information from the same disc.  Try it.  Do the comparison.  Please...

Richard, I have compared CD players from different makes but do not have experience with Naim CD players. Apologies for that.

No need to apologise.  I just chose the Naim players because I assume that's what we're all familiar with.  Anyway, do try it, if you get a chance.  It doesn't have to be a CD555.  Even a CDX2 or a CD5x will show you against say, a CD5i.

I hope I am not being too contentious in saying 'source first' or 'speaker/room/amp' first is really irrelevant.. ultimately it's about system balance or system first. An imbalance in one part of the system could hold the other back... kind of like the music record/reproduction chain/cascade model that is used in some audio engineering circles. 

Now most if not all audio reproduction is essentially flawed.. it is compromised in some way... and this equally if not more so applies to  digital audio. The analogue to digital and back to analogue is a lossy tuneable process and this  opens up an almost infinite set of interpreatations  on audio reconstruction. Therefore the 'source' adds its own colour and interpreatation. In my mind the same holds true for amp/room/speakers... so perhaps you can see my argument for the system first approach.

My personal preference is to drive for relatively neutral speaker/room interfacing and resolving amplification to savour the nuance and subtleties of different source types. I treat an audio source as 'instrument'.

Ryder, information loss maybe needs to be clarified for you here.  It comes in all kinds of forms; resolution is just one. Distortion another. Bandwidth another. Try comparing a CD5i with a CD555 - it's not just a difference of presentation.  If anything, the "presentation" is itself the most similar thing between them.  The better player though is far more able to resolve the information from the same disc.  Try it.  Do the comparison.  Please...

Indeed. My recent upgrade from 180 to 250.2 revealed just how much resolution and detail was missing from an already more than capable power amp. The information from the LP12 was there but not getting through in its fullest form: rather like looking through a dirty window: you can admire the view and glory in God's design, but when the window is cleaned you get a fuller, more impressive and enriching experience. Alternatively, one can do away with the window entirely and go to a concert!

Thanks Richard. It's not going to be too soon as I have overspent on hifi this year, almost touching £12,000. The planned upgrade is on the amplification but I have done a complete revamp of the system which include the speakers.

ryder. posted:

I have seen several posts such as these:-

What is lost at the source can not be retrieved later no matter how good the components are.

What I think is the information or detail is not lost with most sources. It's the presentation that's different. 

 

I teand to agree when you consider a range of different sources around the same level ( I include DACs here because often they're integral to the source), but comparing say Hugo (itself widely considered to be somewhere on a par with the Naim DACs) directly with Dave and the latter has a lot more detail (and some people say that applies to what might be expected to be quite poor sources), and I suspect, but have never compared, that a similar difference may apply to comparisons of the Hugo, nDAC level with a DAC costing only around £100.

However, the presentation of speakers is very much more variable, even in the same price bracket, and they can also lose information (e.g. If it doesn't reproduce the bottom octaves).

Yes, different sources around THE SAME LEVEL is the keyword here. I recall having a difficult time to hear a difference between my Krell KPS-30i and an Esoteric player several years ago although there were differences. In my mind, minor differences between CD players. But the latest inclusion of the Chord QBD 76 changed that. A digital DAC that (almost) sounds like analog in the way it reproduces music.

Yes, the differences with loudspeakers are much more significant than digital (and amplifiers). If one is living on a very tight budget with no allowance to assemble a "balanced" system, allocating most of the budget for a pair of loudspeakers would be my recommendation. Of course, that's my opinion as I understand the source first principle is valued very highly by most people here.

ryder. posted:

I have compared CD players from different makes but do not have experience with Naim CD players.

ryder. posted:

If one is living on a very tight budget with no allowance to assemble a "balanced" system, allocating most of the budget for a pair of loudspeakers would be my recommendation.  

Why exactly would that be your recommendation? Have you ever actually compared a source first and a source last system, and if so, what were they and what were your findings?

Christopher_M posted:

Ryder, I've often wondered how much easier your Naim journey would have been if you had heard a complete Naim set fairly early on. .... Such as the CD5i, Nait5i, Naca5 and n-Sats that I was lucky enough to hear at my dealers's in my early Naim days.

C.

Yes Chris. No such luck. Anyway, I happy with what I have achieved, with some Naim amps.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Why exactly would that be your recommendation? Have you ever actually compared a source first and a source last system, and if so, what were your findings?

I thought I was pretty clear when I wrote the comparison in my post earlier.

An extreme analogy with no allowance for changes to system components.

£10,000 source into £100 speakers

£100 source into £10,000 speakers

I will take the latter.

I'm sorry but I've looked through the whole thread and cannot find where you explain exactly why it would be your recommendation, only that it would be? Do you have examples that demonstrate why?