Source First ? Really?

IB and Beachcomber,  You are both right.  If I switch off my sub, I get a bass shelf -6dB below 200Hz (due to room positioning of the speakers) and no real bass below 80Hz except for one peak at the room resonance (40-44Hz).  Indeed I can still distinguish a timpani or a bass drum from other bass instruments.  However turn the sub on and it's flat all the way down to 15Hz (-6dB at 10Hz) and you hear and feel soooo much more!

The one exception is where the deep bass is almost a pure sine wave (some electronics and flute stops on an organ) in this case, without the sub, bass notes just disappear as there's insufficient harmonics for the brain to try to 'reconstruct' the fundamental.  Another point is that it's easier to listen with the sub active, as the brain isn't working so hard, since it doesn't have to do the work to reconstruct the missing fundamentals.

i think this thread is irelevant...u go source first and then wait to upgrade the rest of the system...if u go with speaker first then u must update the rest of the system to get them work corectly...if u go x update y, if u go z update ttt, loose of money,  we all listen to music, hear differit,  but not all know matching systems corectly, here we need dealers help or even musicians if we have , i think this thread will not help anyone...go for expensive source and u will find the system weaknest...the word need here is balance...what we all are looking for is balance, a balanced system will preform better than an system based on an expensive source or speakers. From my experience balance is given by prices..if u have a 10000e speakers and use 2000e amp...you will hear something differit that using 10000e amp...and examples cand continue...

I'm not convinced that each component should necessarily be in a similar price range.  Why should they be?  The price of components depends on a great many things, including the amount of fairy dust incorporated.  It would be surprising if the costs of development and manufacturing of each component was about the same for a given ability.  

Adam Zielinski posted:

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

Firmly in the number 3 camp here.

So am I, I tried playing an instrument and found out I'm a lousy musician!

Beachcomber posted:

I'm not convinced that each component should necessarily be in a similar price range.  Why should they be?  The price of components depends on a great many things, including the amount of fairy dust incorporated.  It would be surprising if the costs of development and manufacturing of each component was about the same for a given ability.  

That is very much my point as well - and in my experience it is speakers that cost most by a fair margin if you are not someone satisfied with a curtailed response.

Huge posted:

At the same time you also need to ensure that the more expensive speakers aren't an unreasonably difficult load for the less expensive power amp.

for me, this is the heart of the source-first argument: on average, a great source will not pose problems for a lesser amp and speakers, whereas otherwise great speakers are often a difficult load for lesser amps and sources.

it's possible to create a well-balanced, source-last system, particularly with improvements in digital sources -- but you have to choose carefully.

so, like, everyone's right, man.

Huge posted:

So am I, I tried playing an instrument and found out I'm a lousy musician!

Agreed as far as Adam's options are concerned, but take a good bass guitarist and bass guitar and  give him speakers that cut off the bottom octave or so of his instrument so the lowest note is that of an ordinary guitar, or any other limitation such as distorting and producing fuzzy edges to his sound when he is trying to play clean, then what is heard by the audience is not what is intended, and is likely to be dissatisfying or frustrating to both the bassist and the audience (of course depending on the music being played.

Huge posted:

So am I, I tried playing an instrument and found out I'm a lousy musician!

I tried a number of instruments.

And there is a certain paradox with good ones - some can be quite demanding from a player. But once set up to an idividual's liking it becomes an extension of a musician rather than a mere instrument. Playing one becomes trully magical.

I do like a good filibuster !)

joe9407 posted:

Huge posted:

At the same time you also need to ensure that the more expensive speakers aren't an unreasonably difficult load for the less expensive power amp.

for me, this is the heart of the source-first argument: on average, a great source will not pose problems for a lesser amp and speakers, whereas otherwise great speakers are often a difficult load for lesser amps and sources.

it's possible to create a well-balanced, source-last system, particularly with improvements in digital sources -- but you have to choose carefully.

so, like, everyone's right, man.

This is irrelevant wrt Source First or not...  Exactly the same type of problems occur in vinyl sources:

Matching Arms to turntables
Matching cartridges to arms
Matching cartridges to phono stages (particularly MC)

Actually thinking about it that's even more of a black art and much harder than matching speakers to power amps.

So we can remove any arguments based on mismatch of components as they apply both ways.

For those of us who have a Naim system (presumably most on here) will have probably started assembling it based on a combination of a philosophical belief of what component(s) take prioirty, the experience gained from demos, recommendations from friends, reviews and the advice of a dealer - well some of these anyway.

So we have our first Naim system. We are happy for a while but as is often the case we are infected by a dose of 'upgradeitis'. In an effort to recover from this terrible (and expensive) disease we start the process of trying to identify the weak link, the simple fix, the box switch which will make everything better again. Part of this fix will involve those philosophical beliefs (which can change over time), demos, recommendations, reviews and dealer advice mentioned earlier. Repeat this whole process again and again until Nirvana is reached. Although many at least reach a point of contentment or run out of funds.

So what am I saying? Well I suspect our beliefs of what component takes priority in our system changes with experience and changes due to the point we have reached in the evolution of our systems. We might have actually started with a rather well balanced system. But as we upgrade we might be tempted, in an effort to save money in the long run, to leapfrog the next 'logical' step up in a component's hierarchy. For example going from ND5X to a NDS, or a 200 to a 300DR, or from a 202 to 252, or from a modest speaker to a 'tough to drive' beast. Nothing wrong with that and I have indeed done this on occasion. But what it means is that our systems can flip from balanced to Mullets to Monkfish and back again as we attempt to reach Nirvana in as few steps as possible. Others of course will philosophically be drawn to either to Mullets or Monkfish based on their beliefs and experiences.

This can of course be a lot of fun as long as we realise what we are doing. There might also be a long term plan to reach 'balance'.

Oh dear, I don't seem to have added much to the argument, assuming there is indeed an argument!

A system comprised of a 10k speakers, a 10k  amp and an 1k source should sound much better than a 10k source, a 10k amp and a 1k speakers.  Speakers are much more sensitive to topology, quality, design etc. than electronics.  And their cost/benefit ratio has a longer plot.  Just try listening to SF Aida...

BTW, a few grand room treatment will give more benefit than a few grand system upgrade anywhere in the chain.

My system has 2 x £13k sources and £1.5k speakers and it sounds fabulous. The amp was about £2k 15 years ago. Admittedly the phono stage cost £6k.

NIGELB,  I am in complete agreement with your eloquent conclusions, which basically means their is no definitive right or wrong , assuming as you rightly say, we know what we are doing...... Personally I'm not a fan of referring to anyone as an idiot, mullet or whatever.... Or even assuming one is always right ....everyone is no doubt on their own musical and (expensive) journey and hopefully having fun along the way...

Hi Wenger, reference to a mullet (or monkfish or halibut) isn't a reference to the person but a reference to an organisation of audio gear!

Dozey posted:

My system has 2 x £13k sources and £1.5k speakers and it sounds fabulous. The amp was about £2k 15 years ago. Admittedly the phono stage cost £6k.

Mega monkfish (x 2)!

It ok DOZEY but for you and for what u hear...for others it may look like an unbalanced system...but doenst matter.

wenger2015 posted:

NIGELB,  I am in complete agreement with your eloquent conclusions, which basically means their is no definitive right or wrong , assuming as you rightly say, we know what we are doing...... Personally I'm not a fan of referring to anyone as an idiot, mullet or whatever.... Or even assuming one is always right ....everyone is no doubt on their own musical and (expensive) journey and hopefully having fun along the way...

Wenger, I assume you realise that I use the term 'Mullet' to describe a type of system with a perceived back-end (usually meaning speaker) emphasis, and not to describe the owner of said system. 

nigelb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

NIGELB,  I am in complete agreement with your eloquent conclusions, which basically means their is no definitive right or wrong , assuming as you rightly say, we know what we are doing...... Personally I'm not a fan of referring to anyone as an idiot, mullet or whatever.... Or even assuming one is always right ....everyone is no doubt on their own musical and (expensive) journey and hopefully having fun along the way...

Wenger, I assume you realise that I use the term 'Mullet' to describe a type of system with a perceived back-end (usually meaning speaker) emphasis, and not to describe the owner of said system. 

Sorry NIGELB, I was under the impression it's perhaps had an extra hidden meaning. 

Huge posted:

Hi Wenger, reference to a mullet (or monkfish or halibut) isn't a reference to the person but a reference to an organisation of audio gear!

I'm pleased you have clarified that, I was under the impression the terms had a hidden meaning.. 

nigelb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

NIGELB,  I am in complete agreement with your eloquent conclusions, which basically means their is no definitive right or wrong , assuming as you rightly say, we know what we are doing...... Personally I'm not a fan of referring to anyone as an idiot, mullet or whatever.... Or even assuming one is always right ....everyone is no doubt on their own musical and (expensive) journey and hopefully having fun along the way...

Wenger, I assume you realise that I use the term 'Mullet' to describe a type of system with a perceived back-end (usually meaning speaker) emphasis, and not to describe the owner of said system. 

I always thought mullet meant an apparently unbalanced system, even if it may work, not specifically "back end"? That I think nearest approaches use of the term in other circles.

Dozey posted:

My system has 2 x £13k sources and £1.5k speakers and it sounds fabulous. The amp was about £2k 15 years ago. Admittedly the phono stage cost £6k.

Although I haven't heard it I don't think I'd reject thisnsystem out of hand, but better speakers would improve both the mid and bottom end and let out what you're putting in.

N.B. <and a trivial observation) I think you've slightly undervalued the speakers which today if PMC had continued them would be about 2.5k

Innocent Bystander posted:

nigelb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

NIGELB,  I am in complete agreement with your eloquent conclusions, which basically means their is no definitive right or wrong , assuming as you rightly say, we know what we are doing...... Personally I'm not a fan of referring to anyone as an idiot, mullet or whatever.... Or even assuming one is always right ....everyone is no doubt on their own musical and (expensive) journey and hopefully having fun along the way...

Wenger, I assume you realise that I use the term 'Mullet' to describe a type of system with a perceived back-end (usually meaning speaker) emphasis, and not to describe the owner of said system. 

I always thought mullet meant an apparently unbalanced system, even if it may work, not specifically "back end"? That I think nearest approaches use of the term in other circles.

Innocent bystander, thanks for the clarification,  I would be interested to know what the meaning of the word 'idiot' is,  in hifi terms?  having noticed the word used on a few occasions on thus thread.. 

I think Idiot means "someone who disagrees with me".