And the new, modern-day cardinal rule of the Naim forum is ....

... with patience, the right kind of bait catches the right kind of fish.

I just wrote a really long post on another thread and deleted it and then came across this thread and Innocent Bystander and Bruce Woodhouse have said everything I wanted to in a lot less words.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the box and sometimes can go at a problem with a hammer drill  when all it needs is a light tap from a very small hammer.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Same rules as ever

???? a) Post positive, or not at all

???? b) Never post anything you would not say to someone's face

???? c) It is really about the music. Enjoy.

Bruce

And,...HAFLER30 also wrote...

???? ? dump those pre-conceived notions
...  ?  speak only from experience
...  ?  remove socks before attending to marital          duties

And,.... remember that we are from different countries on this forum.It means different cultures,different ways of expressing themselves....as well, for many it is then also a foreign language to use.

I have a rule,..I wont answer when I get rude answers in any thread,..... I think like this...

? Good,...There you showed your ugly face, you do not understand yourself, that you are making yourself away.... loses in respect.

An example.....
I got a question from a forum member of a thread, out of respect I write a little longer and complete answer to the question.
The answer I got from the member, after my longer answer was.... ? You should write a book! ? ????.

Incredibly.!!! ... to this member, I have actually responded the same on two occasions. But that's the only time.
Otherwise, I reply as I wrote, never on nonsense..... better that they themselves, show their ugly face.!!

?As Hafler30 wrote...."speak only from    experience"

Agree,..when I give advice, then it is of accumulated experience from 35 years with, among others, Naim and Linn.
On such occasions, I never speculate,.. I/we have tested what I'm talking about.... here I never speculate.
If I do not know so I keep quiet, or write that I do not know.

Just a few words from me,... thanks for the word.
/Peder ????

Peder posted:

...

? Good,...There you showed your ugly face, you do not understand yourself, that you are making yourself away.... loses in respect.

An example.....
I got a question from a forum member of a thread, out of respect I write a little longer and complete answer to the question.
The answer I got from the member, after my longer answer was.... ? You should write a book! ? ????.

Incredibly.!!! ... to this member, I have actually responded the same on two occasions. But that's the only time.
Otherwise, I reply as I wrote, never on nonsense..... better that they themselves, show their ugly face.!!

 

For coarification, as it was I who made that suggestion to you, it was not said rudely, nor in any way intended disrespectfully, but simply picking up on your obvious enthusiasm for, and knowledge about, Tina Turner, writing copious amount in what is nearly a one-man thread, and genuinely thinking that if you were to gather that all together there must be enough material for you to write a book. I meant it half literally and half jokingly. 

It seems I may have eaqually misjudged your responses to me, because I assumed they were meant in the same vein and now I wonder if you meant it sarcastically.

There will always be a difficulty with communicating unambiguously between different langage speakers and acroscs different cultures, and no matter how much we, hopefully, try to make allowances for that, sometimes we will fail. So I apologise unreservedly for my part in this case.

Cross cultural (not necessarily languages) misunderstandings have always enriched my life. Sometimes in a painful way, but worth the effort.

Every one here has indeed spent a lot of money on hifi and music, and it is important to validate ones choices.  Although don't take things too seriously by undermining others choice of expenditure. It's all fair game and play at the end of the day.

... absence makes the heart grow fonder.

Innocent bystander posted:

 

 

 

For coarification, as it was I who made that suggestion to you,

???? So I apologise unreservedly for my part in this case.

???? Innocent Bystander,...... you just replied.....
      "You should write a book!"

As I said,... I understood it incredibly rude.
In Sweden,...such a short comment is perceived,in such a respectful response,as very rude.
If instead you had written...."You seem to know so much about Tina,so you should write a book".... it had been perceived positively.

Maybe it's like both me,and now you typed.... cultural differences in the language,that allow some posts to misunderstood.
Therefore,we should think about,before we respond.Please explain with a few words extra... it doesn't hurt.

? Of Course,...when you are so strong,and come forward,...I accept your apology. It is appreciated.!!

Now I think we draw a stretch here,and instead look forward to interesting conversations together,...on this nice forum.

There are others on this forum who should have the same strength as you,...and self-examination itself over some posts they typed.

Regarding what you wrote about Tina here, I'll answer you in the TINA thread.
Hope it then is okay,to copy what you posted here about Tina,to my Tina-thread.?

Again,..It is appreciated.!!???????? 

/Peder ????

Minh Nguyen posted:

... absence makes the heart grow fonder.

What’s love got to do with it?...Oh, hang on...

G

Peder posted:

Innocent bystander posted:

 

 

 

For clarif, as it was I who made that suggestion to you,

???? So I apologise unreservedly for my part in this case.

???? Innocent Bystander,...... you just replied.....
      "You should write a book!"

As I said,... I understood it incredibly rude.
In Sweden,...such a short comment is perceived,in such a respectful response,as very rude.
If instead you had written...."You seem to know so much about Tina,so you should write a book".... it had been perceived positively.

Maybe it's like both me,and now you typed.... cultural differences in the language,that allow some posts to misunderstood.
Therefore,we should think about,before we respond.Please explain with a few words extra... it doesn't hurt.

? Of Course,...when you are so strong,and come forward,...I accept your apology. It is appreciated.!!

Now I think we draw a stretch here,and instead look forward to interesting conversations together,...on this nice forum.

There are others on this forum who should have the same strength as you,...and self-examination itself over some posts they typed.

Regarding what you wrote about Tina here, I'll answer you in the TINA thread.
Hope it then is okay,to copy what you posted here about Tina,to my Tina-thread.?

Again,..It is appreciated.!!???????? 

/Peder ????

Quite happy for that.

I posted this topic in the padded cell because I expected humor and digression. I considered posting a similar topic in the Hi-Fi Corner that would challenge the long-held "source first" dogma. So anything in that regard?

My own experience leads me to the conclusion that speakers well-fit to a room are primary. Over the years I've had the same vinyl and CD sources in my room. I've made gains changing amplification and racking, and found good tweaks with room treatment, power cables, ICs, power strips and even wall sockets. During that time I dragged over a dozen different demo speakers in and out of my room. Not until I stumbled across my current speakers did I cry "Bingo" and feel my system had arrived.

So is "speakers-first" pure blasphemy? Did I stumble backwardly (and with much effort) into satisfaction?

I have never agreed with the source-first dogma: yes, you can only get out what you put in, but also, regardless of what you put in, you can only get out what each subsequent component lets through. Speakers in fact are the component that most affect the character of the sound you hear, and unless you like the sound they can produce all else is a waste. Less of a problem with those content with, for example, a curtailed frequency response, but if you are one of those to whom the bottom couple of octaves are important and you want to hear them uncurtailed and done well then it is likely to require a significant expense on speakers because that is where the biggest design challenges lie. 

Some people argue with ‘source first’ that you only get out what you put in, which is true, but also true of the rest of the  components of the system, you only get out what you let through, while speakers are the primary character builders. 

This of course doesn’t mean use an absolutely abysmal bottom-bracket source, and the power amp has to have at least a half-decent chance of controlling the speaker, so I don’t advocate speaker first to the exclusion of quality of source compared to other components, but until the system is up to quite a significant cost level I believe that it is likely that more monetary value needs to be apportioned to the speakers than any other component (=more spent on them if buying new).

To put it in more specific terms, if couldn’t afford Dave and speakers costing the same (or more), I’d rather have Hugo and speakers costing the same as Dave, than Dave and speakers costing the same as Hugo.

So, to me, very definitely ‘speakers first’ and definitely not ‘source first’ - but as always, with caveats.

There were a couple of specific threads on this subject  a year or two ago.

joerand posted:

I posted this topic in the padded cell because I expected humor and digression. I considered posting a similar topic in the Hi-Fi Corner that would challenge the long-held "source first" dogma. So anything in that regard?

My own experience leads me to the conclusion that speakers well-fit to a room are primary. Over the years I've had the same vinyl and CD sources in my room. I've made gains changing amplification and racking, and found good tweaks with room treatment, power cables, ICs, power strips and even wall sockets. During that time I dragged over a dozen different demo speakers in and out of my room. Not until I stumbled across my current speakers did I cry "Bingo" and feel my system had arrived.

So is "speakers-first" pure blasphemy? Did I stumble backwardly (and with much effort) into satisfaction?

Blasphemy! Blasphemy (even if you are right)!

Everyone... Grab your torches an pitchforks!  To the barricades!  (You did remember to have a torch and pitchfork ready for such a post didn't you!)

(Sorry couldn't resist the sarcasm!)

Huge posted:

joerand posted:

I posted this topic in the padded cell because I expected humor and digression. I considered posting a similar topic in the Hi-Fi Corner that would challenge the long-held "source first" dogma. So anything in that regard?

My own experience leads me to the conclusion that speakers well-fit to a room are primary. Over the years I've had the same vinyl and CD sources in my room. I've made gains changing amplification and racking, and found good tweaks with room treatment, power cables, ICs, power strips and even wall sockets. During that time I dragged over a dozen different demo speakers in and out of my room. Not until I stumbled across my current speakers did I cry "Bingo" and feel my system had arrived.

So is "speakers-first" pure blasphemy? Did I stumble backwardly (and with much effort) into satisfaction?

Blasphemy! Blasphemy (even if you are right)!

Everyone... Grab your torches an pitchforks!  To the barricades!  (You did remember to have a torch and pitchfork ready for such a post didn't you!)

(Sorry couldn't resist the sarcasm!)

???? Huge,....???????????????? 

I do not think I have the strength to take this debate.
Just says one thing.....
If we talk musicality so far Source First. ?

If we listen to sounds, you usually want to use large speakers.
But listening to sound,tends to tire of the right speed.

Thanks for the word ????.....
/Peder ????

Ardbeg10y posted:

From what age onwards is someone middle aged? 35? 40? 45?

that would be 67........

.........and next year that may be 68.

I'll let you know latter.

Peder posted:

???? Huge,....???????????????? 

I do not think I have the strength to take this debate.
Just says one thing.....
If we talk musicality so far Source First. ?

If we listen to sounds, you usually want to use large speakers.
But listening to sound,tends to tire of the right speed.

I have never, ever, grown tired of listening to  music through speakers that I have chosen because they sound good to me. I have, however, found listening to music tiring in other people’s system where the speakers don’t present the sound cleanly and fully - in other words do not sound good to me.

If musicality is the music conveying itself to tthe listener, captivating and engaging in the process, then the speakers I’ve liked the sound of have provided it. If musicality means something different, then I don’t know, other than that it is hard for me to imagine music listening being more satisfying.

I can give an illustration: About 27;or 28 years ago someone I know had a system with IBL speakers which to my ears were lacking, with LP12/Ittock front end. I had IMF TLS50 speakers, which I’d had for around 15 years, with Thorens TD150/RB300 and Cambridge CD2 sources. He spent his time raving about how good his system was, yet frequently seemed to be trying various tweaks and talking about upgrades he could do, none of which involved the speakers. I just played music on mine without thinking of upgrades, and I found his system tiring to listen through, though as it was his pride and joy I hadn’t the heart to say anything. Then in the local paper when looking for something quite unrelated I saw a pair of IMF’s top speakers for sale at a ridiculously low price, simply too good a temptation to pass up, so I got them. These are speakers that very much were the state of the art at the time I had originally bought their cheaper sibling. The IBL owner expressed interest in hearing my old speakers at home, and when he did he instantly bought them from me. From that moment onwards he ceased talking about upgrades, and in the 25 years that followed I think the only changes he made to his system were replacing the amp when it had a fault, and adding a CD player. 25 years later he did make a change - he substituted my bigger IMFs when I eventually changed them (and I brought home the more manageable TLS50s that one of my sons now has), 

Now, admittedly my sources were somewhat above entry level, but it is the speakers that made those systems sing.

Due to a fault with my NDS I now have a serious mullet system, taking my 'Qute into my active Sl2 system as the streamer!

What is interesting, and I think it reflects the essence of the great post above is that, fundamentally, it sounds very similar and I still enjoy it. Does the NDS do something far better? Thankfully yes, but the essential character and appeal of the system remains.

Seems to me source first is true in some ways but only really once you have the back end sorted will you be happy. Then invest in the source and reap the rewards but don't expect to transform a system that you don't quite like because of the way your speakers present the music. When I did frequent the HiFi room I winced at people upgrading boxes hoping to fix what appeared to me to be basic problems with presentation that originated from the speakers because they were determined to make them 'work' to their satisfaction.

The 'magic' of my HiFi system has come with the source upgrades over years. The fundamental 'likeability' originates from the speakers in my view. I could live with my system in current configuration if I had to, but not my NDS and all the rest into speakers I did not like, however technically proficient.

Great music is of course still great wherever and however you play it. In the car, on the crappy kitchen radio etc

Bruce

I guess one important factor inherent in my previous post, though not expressly stated, is that I did establish what I consider to be a musical, balanced system while dabbling with speakers. I kept my original sources throughout, and these corresponded to my budget level. I did go desperately out of budget demoing speakers up to $8K from familiar makers such as Naim, Rega, Linn, Devore, Proac, ATC, and Larsen. In the end I found a $3.5K speaker from the little-known maker Ryan that gelled with my room and system. So while the process itself wasn't speakers-first, I do think I've found a pair that would sustain future upgrades to my sources. All said, it's all about the speaker/room interaction and I'm happily sitting pat.

It is all about the balance.   With the source first fix, it's biggest flaw is with coherence.   With an elevated source and pre - your going to be putting in more information that the rest has to deal with and make sense getting out.    And understanding what you like to focus on over musicality.   With some preferring simple high quality two way standmounts, and others what only a big back end can muster.

Listening to equipment is more educational than reading about it.

Wugged Woy posted:

Listening to equipment is more educational than reading about it.

I'd suggest that listening to music might be more important and educational.

Is it really a dominant seventh with a flat 9 or a diminished chord? 

Clive B posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Listening to equipment is more educational than reading about it.

I'd suggest that listening to music might be more important and educational.

Is it really a dominant seventh with a flat 9 or a diminished chord? 

That of course is analysing music, not listening to it...(or at least, whether or not one is also listening to it)

Listening to music is (or rather, in my view is and should be) a pleasurable and emotional experience (degree depending on the piece). And  that can either be  directly through the combinations and sequences of sounds presented, with words or without, conveying something to the listener (whether or not the same as any meaning the compose/player(s) may have intended) or indirectly such as, for those that enjoy dancing, the music providing the rhythm that drives the dance.

So an alternative maxim might be:

The best system is one you can’t hear because you’re too occupied feeling the music.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Clive B posted:

Wugged Woy posted:

Listening to equipment is more educational than reading about it.

I'd suggest that listening to music might be more important and educational.

Is it really a dominant seventh with a flat 9 or a diminished chord? 

That of course is analysing music, not listening to it...(or at least, whether or not one is also listening to it)

 

That is true, but it's something I cannot help doing. If it's a piece that appeals to me then I'm wondering how to play and transcribe it. Quite often the harmony can be difficult to hear. Better systems help to uncover this and that helps IMO. Reharmonising from the melody and bass line is otherwise the best I can do and that irritates me.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

Due to a fault with my NDS I now have a serious mullet system, taking my 'Qute into my active Sl2 system as the streamer!

What is interesting, and I think it reflects the essence of the great post above is that, fundamentally, it sounds very similar and I still enjoy it. Does the NDS do something far better? Thankfully yes, but the essential character and appeal of the system remains.

Seems to me source first is true in some ways but only really once you have the back end sorted will you be happy. Then invest in the source and reap the rewards but don't expect to transform a system that you don't quite like because of the way your speakers present the music. When I did frequent the HiFi room I winced at people upgrading boxes hoping to fix what appeared to me to be basic problems with presentation that originated from the speakers because they were determined to make them 'work' to their satisfaction.

The 'magic' of my HiFi system has come with the source upgrades over years. The fundamental 'likeability' originates from the speakers in my view. I could live with my system in current configuration if I had to, but not my NDS and all the rest into speakers I did not like, however technically proficient.

Great music is of course still great wherever and however you play it. In the car, on the crappy kitchen radio etc

Bruce

Great post Bruce. Totally with you on speaker importance. Feeding and driving them optimally is important too of course, but the basic character of presentation is essentially determined by the speaker characteristics and are entirely down to personal preference. 

I recently went through a similar period of my NDS going back to Salisbury for repairs and my SuperUniti standing in as a pre-out feed to my 552/500. It didn’t disgrace itself either, but I found myself choosing music styles quite carefully. Classical wasn’t very satisfying and Chamber music in particular, a no-go area, but heavy rock and pop, which can sometimes be a bit in yer face on the NDS perhaps benefitted from the less detailed SU feed. I found myself favouring different types of music to my normal listening preferences. 

Indeed Kevin, high-resolution can be a double-edged sword in overall system balance when listening to varied recording qualities. It can lead to over-exposure of lesser recordings while greater material plays even better. So where to find the balance? Bruce said "The fundamental 'likeability' originates from the speakers in my view". I would extend that to say that "the speaker-room interaction is fundamental to overall musical engagement".

What good is the best source (or other box) in a system if it over-exposes and/or compromises a portion of the music you'd otherwise like to enjoy? To give up a tad of SQ on top-notch recordings while gaining greater 'likeability" with a larger part of my overall catalog was key for me, and I found that getting speakers to fit my room, system, and ears was the linchpin.