Inverse Mullet

Rubbish in rubbish out. Simples

A reverse mullet is known as a monkfish in these parts and I am a proud owner of such a beast.

Why this approach? Well I suppose I am at heart a source first bloke and I have always found you get a good bang for your buck when investing in the front end. The theory is well rehearsed so I won't go over it again.

I have also been convinced about the importance of the pre amp in the HiFi chain so I have invested here. Surprisingly I have also been amazed at the difference posh cables can make so now have a full SL loom.

Having spent first and foremost on source, pre amp (plus a DR version of power amp) and cables in recent years and sticking with my trusty speakers has left my system with monkfish tendancies. The rationale of leaving the speakers until last is that with each home demo, my speakers have been well-behaved and transparent enough to clearly portray the improvement in SQ of all upgrades at the front end and the posh cables I have purchased.

Having said all of this, with the exception of a source power supply upgrade, I am now getting to the point where speakers are definitely next. But do you know what, I am pretty happy where I am right now and I know I will need to spend a significant amount of cash to make any kind on appreciable improvement in SQ from where I am.

All my purchases have been as a result of lengthy home demos. I never buy on a whim and would like to think I always prove to myself the value of a purchase on SQ grounds.

This is my story and I know some take an entirley opposite view and believe in speaker first and then optimise the source and amplification around these. You pays your money and takes your choice.

Hi Timmo,

Which speaker company do you work for ?

Actually not guilty. However, I do agree that source first is the way to go. I have what most would agree is a balanced system but any future upgrades, if they happen, will be with the Sondek.

Flat earth rules!

Stu

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link - whether that link is the first one or the last.

"It's all about balance, Grasshopper."

"If balance good, music good; if balance no good, music no good," (with apologies to Pat Norita).

Then there are those like me who stick relatively inexpensive speakers (nSats) on the end of high end Naim/Linn system.  Reason?  Small room.  Nothing else would work better in there.  After all, I have to fit my other 'toys' in that room as well.

Tallan, are you a part-time guru?

To be serious I have probably shifted from 'source first' towards 'balance first'. Possibly because you used to need to spend large sums of money (and time) optimising turntables but there are very good digital sources available now at relatively lower cost (compared to top notch TTs anyway). The pre amp is still a critical link though IMHO.

I essentially own 8-9k amps/source 1k speakers not quite 10% but not far off I don't see this as an issue.

In proportion of materials, work, R&D,etc speakers are the most ridiculously overpriced component of a system imo.

so many people are just not prepared to spend so much more than they think something is worth.

not saying that spending big on speakers is wrong, just that you then need to spend even more bigger on the system behind it, and then even more on a big house with a big room to put it all in.

mostly the inverse mullet is surprisingly a young mans thing, as getting older the source thins out somewhat.

TOBYJUG posted:

In proportion of materials, work, R&D,etc speakers are the most ridiculously overpriced component of a system imo.

 

Interesting comment - are you able to elaborate, and perhaps give a detailed comparison between the development and production of, say, a Naim power supply and SBLs or SL2s?

I always liked my KEF Q50s.  Better gear always sounded better through them; so, presumably they are not a complete bottleneck.  I like them better than Allaes, which I really wanted to prefer.

I still own both, but the Allaes are held in reserve, for now.

Nick

monkfish-guilty here, too: my phono cartridge and step-up transformer cost about the same as my speakers. there are a lot of factors to blame: speakers are room-dependent and if you can't audition new ones at home -- and in the USA, you usually can't -- it's hard to move on from ones you have and like and that your partner approves of; you may subscribe to the source-first ethos NigelB outlines above; or you may have blown all your money on the LP12. (ahem.)

many reasonably priced speakers are surprisingly capable 

If capable, you can build respectable, inexpensive speakers at home from kit. Try doing that with a source, amp, or pre.

joerand posted:

If capable, you can build respectable, inexpensive speakers at home from kit. Try doing that with a source, amp, or pre.

Which is effectively what JV did originally. 

Timmo1341 posted:

TOBYJUG posted:

In proportion of materials, work, R&D,etc speakers are the most ridiculously overpriced component of a system imo.

 

Interesting comment - are you able to elaborate, and perhaps give a detailed comparison between the development and production of, say, a Naim power supply and SBLs or SL2s?

I couldn't possibly elaborate here as I'm not a member of Naims development team,  I'm talking more about those speaker companies that use off the shelf parts and stick them in a box with a tweaked crossover.   Of course others use drivers that have been modified somewhat, and others that are designed and built straight up by themeselves.  

As most listeners have in all probability a smallish room to put them in, the large standmounts and small floorstanders is the hotly contested area here. It seems very difficult to produce a product that works successfully in this environment without putting a big ticket on it. In the end it's all good if there is a product that sounds great - and people out there who are willing to pay what they think it's worth.  I have longtime been looking at the second hand market for a nice pair of the original Wilson Duette standmounts, some prices seem very reasonable now.  But yes, a lot of speakers are so overpriced for what seems unremarkable.

I’ve heard the analogy of opening the patio doors, better the speakers wider the doors - dirt included. Call the weather outside the recording quality and electronics beforehand - all prior to reaching the speakers.

The meaning of "first" in source first is, I believe, generally referring to the cost of each component and thus there is an inbuilt assumption that there is a proportionality betwen cost and sound quality with say, diminishing returns kicking in at a relatively similar cost point. Thus it is promoted as a basis for budget allocation.

It seems to me that digital sources have undermined this assumption to a large extent. The replacement cost of my LP12/Ittock/Troika is many times that of my digital source (a NAS drive)  but the sound quality gap is nowhere near as significant (though some may disagree of course). Source components such as LP12s and CD555s are fantastically expensive compared with a Core or a Melco. I agree with source first but I no longer believe that this hierarchy can be established solely by reference to price. 

Pev, my understanding of the phrase "source first" is that it refers to a hierarchy where the ideal is to focus efforts to maximise performance at the source of the system, on the understanding that nothing further down the chain can recover information lost at the beginning. This way masking effects down the chain work with you, rather than against you, where problems can be starkly revealed if the hierarchy is reversed. Of course, this usually (but not always) means that the source takes the lions share of any nominal budget, so I can see how your understanding of the phrase has come about.

What you say certainly makes sense to me, Pev. I can easily get my head round the concept of 'rubbish in, rubbish out', but I also firmly believe the product of a good source can be significantly compromised by the final link in the chain. When demoing my K6s I had them briefly connected to my SuperUniti. Whilst no one in their right mind would pair £13k speakers with a £3.5k all in one on a permanent basis, what I would say is the improvement in quality of output when compared to the ProAc D20r was absolutely staggering. I happily accept that in VFM terms the route I've taken would not appeal to many. All I would say is that in my particular circumstances, completely unable (and unwilling) to accommodate 6 boxes meant I was limited to the 272 level of source quality, but able to take it to another level by the addition of speakers the sound of which I love. As ever, each to their own, with no absolute right or wrong.

I am a source first guy, although my current system doesn’t really reflect this ethos. But my dip back into the water a few years ago was simply a way to get oriented with reasonable sound again.

I have a 172/200/s400 system

To me a system along the lines of NDS/XPS555/NAC252/Supercap/NAP300 is where I think I want to go. When I get there I may still have the s400 speakers. Makes sense to me, as would a 272/250 driving the s400 as a stop along the way.

Improving the source gets me closer to the emotion of music. Speakers are important but definitely believe you only lose things down the chain, and only get “less bad” as you go up the hifi ladder.

 I also believe that a good recording is where it all starts. Certainly a decent hifi can bring many pleasurable hours with most recordings, but if you hear a well recorded piece and judge purely on sonic truth, the way is clear. So many albums are crying out for better attention in the studio and production part of the chain.

When I started the journey with Naim my speakers definitely by far outclassed the system I had. In my current system setup I am very balanced. Yes I could of course get even better results with the Lohengrin - but at a very high costs. Unless you are your end you should at least make sure your speakers are up to the journey. I am also of the belief of source first, but still bad speakers can bring a system down. While I also belief that decent mid priced speakers get us a long way to where we want to be..... as always the story about ideal setups is a story of finding the right balance....

jon honeyball posted:

joerand posted:

If capable, you can build respectable, inexpensive speakers at home from kit. Try doing that with a source, amp, or pre.

Which is effectively what JV did originally. 

And what I did.  Personally I find amps much easier to design and build than are speakers.

When I purchased a used pair of Wharfedale Diamond 9.1s for someone else's second system, I tested them on my main system (272/555DR > 300DR).

They worked, they sounded pretty good.

My Spendor SP2s sound better, considerably better.

(The Wharfedales also worked well being driven by a Denon D-M40DAB, as would the Spendors.)

My Ovators were a very good source upgrade :-) . Suddenly I started to hear much more compared to my BW CM S2 series.

They are run Active, and I really think that 'Activating' a system does have the same benefits as having a good source. More details survive in the chain, transparent midrange, clean treble, tight bass and so forth and so on.

But Ovators are not really expensive speakers. There is no need to spend hideous amounts of money to have good speakers. Same counts for Dacs.