Component Priority: Speaker First, Source First, System Balance...?

[Mike Hanson]

Audiophiles often ponder/argue whether speakers are the most important component. I remember many debates on the Naim forum regarding whether "source first" was the best approach. Some insist the amplifier needs to be awesome to drive the speakers properly. Etc.

I have a Ferrum Wandla+Hypsos combo running in both my office and the family room. My Cary SLP-2002 is currently in the shop getting some maintenance and upgrades, so both Wandlas are being used as preamps. The Wandla is an exceptionally good DAC, but I would say its preamp section is merely "good enough" (definitely below the solid-state Benchmark HPA4 and the tubey Cary SLP-2002)

In my smallish office I have the Avondale SE400 and little Ergo IX. In my larger family room it's the lesser SE200 and Klipsch Cornwall.

The family room (with Cornwall) sounds bigger and faster, but my office system sounds better overall (overlooking obvious limitations like bass extension).

The moral of the story seems to be that as long as the speakers are "good enough" (including both sound quality and appropriate room size), then the amplifier is more important. More generally, I think we need to get to this elusive "good enough" level with all our components, at which point "Source First" probably makes more sense, then on down the stream.

Anyone care to add any thoughts and experience?

 

[Isobarik]

I think the terminology Source First was initially started by Linn, I believed this for years, even having a heated debate with a dealer at the time.

I was wrong! although the source is important loudspeakers should come first in my opinion!
No use having a cracking sounding amp, good source whether it be CD or Vinyl and having speakers that don't do it justice.

 

[Heckyman]

Changing the speakers almost always makes the biggest difference...

 

[Mike Hanson]

I agree that changing the speakers will make a massive difference. The problem is that regardless of how good the speakers are, if the upstream is terrible, then it will be terrible. Clearly there needs to be some aspect of balance.

Beyond that, it becomes an interesting exercise to determine where the most performance can be had. I was quite surprised to discover that modest speakers with a greater amplifier could beat awesome speakers with a lesser amplifier.

 

[simon g]

All aspects of tne replay chain are important.

My 50+ years of hifi tell me to start with speakers and their interaction with the room.

Then an amplifier with the facilities required properly to drive them, whilst presenting the preferred tonality.

Then move on to source. Source can certainly have a profound effect on overall result, but it needs to be the final link.

I often read posts asking for speakers to match an amp. Wrong way around, imo

Of course, the above is all very well if starting from scratch and didnt change kit. We then go off down numerous side paths, with varying results.

The only thing that really matters is the end result which suits the listener(s) best.

 

[SteveG]

I think I'm in the speakers first camp as well - on the assumption that the rest of the system is at least competent.

I do think that the right match between speakers and amp is also quite important though.

 

[music fiend]

In my view, it's very important to get the Amp+ Speakers combo right (considering your listening room, of course). After getting that right, you can spend as much as you are willing to in your source.

If you got the amp+ speakers combo right, the overall sound quality will vary according to the source's quality.

 

[James Evans]

Agreed re that, having played around with 3 different pre/power amp combos in the living room here, all with the same speakers, things sound markedly different with each amp combo. So, speakers + amp synergy matters, as does room synergy. Move what sounds good in the living room somewhere else and it may not work.

 

[owl]

I think you can get high performing digital sources and amps for less outlay now than 30 years ago. A well designed speaker is more likely to cost. For me i would spend 50% on speakers and 25% each on source and amp

 

[music fiend]

@owl I know what you mean but I don't think people should "pre-budget" how much to spend on each component.

Knowing that price is what you pay and value is what you get, the important thing is to have components that work well together, regardless of how much each one cost.

In my case, the amp was the most expensive because the speakers are an incredible bargain! If that was the other way round I couldn't care less.

 

[Salamander]

So Mike, you are saying the SE400 over the SE200 makes more of a difference than the Cornwall over the Ergo. Can I ask you how much the difference was between the two amplifier builds, and the cost of your Ergo's build.
I will own up and say I've always recommended speakers first, yet in our two systems speakers are the cheapest component.

 

[Tony L]

The family room (with Cornwall) sounds bigger and faster, but my office system sounds better overall (overlooking obvious limitations like bass extension).

Is there much difference in listening distance? Nearfield listening always sounds more direct, and to my ears more enjoyable, as there is less room effect. Less between you and the recording.

As someone very firmly rooted in the vintage audio market the 1980s ‘new retail price budget’ methodology of ‘front-end-first’ makes little sense. Asking price is just not useful in establishing quality IME, especially today in a dying new market full of absurd excesses, plus over time prices fluctuate hugely as genuinely good kit rises in value and poor kit is forgotten. I largely view the ‘80s era as marketing/groupthink-led now, especially now I realise just how good all those old 301s, 124s etc people were trading in for Linns etc actually were!

There is obviously an indisputable logic in garbage in/garbage out, but I’d argue the most important fights there are in the world of mastering with modern streaming services adding vast amounts of confusion, unknown provenance, and wildly different source quality. That aspect is a minefield and the real front-line of ‘source first’ IMHO. There are no matrix numbers to check on streaming services!

 

[Isobarik]

Is there much difference in listening distance? Nearfield listening always sounds more direct, and to my ears more enjoyable, as there is less room effect. Less between you and the recording.

As someone very firmly rooted in the vintage audio market the 1980s ‘new retail price budget’ methodology of ‘front-end-first’ makes little sense. Asking price is just not useful in establishing quality IME, especially today in a dying new market full of absurd excesses, plus prices fluctuate hugely as genuinely good kit rises in value and poor kit is forgotten. I largely view the ‘80s era as marketing/groupthink-led now, especially now I realise just how good all those old 301s, 124s etc people were trading in for Linns etc actually were!

There is obviously an indisputable logic in garbage in/garbage out, but I’d argue the most important fights there are in the world of mastering with modern streaming services adding vast amounts of confusion, unknown provenance, and wildly different source quality. That aspect is a minefield and the real front-line of ‘source first’ IMHO. There are no matrix numbers to check on streaming services!

I regret selling my Garrard 301,SME 3009 for the LP12. I gained nothing! Same goes for my Leak Varislope and TL12's that I stupidly sold for peanuts!

 

[Bas V]

Always been in the source first camp. Nowadays I only listen to Spotify, so I cannot take myself seriously...

 

[Darren L]

I've no hard and fast rules but FWIW, speakers that 'fit' the room, amplification capable of driving the speakers and source to provide the err, signal source.
Of course there's many other considerations , budget, ergonomics, aesthetics, etc, when choosing equipment but I personally believe the worst thing to do is too follow anyone else's theories or mantra (especially those who gain financially) best to make up your own mind and buy what you can afford and like.

 

[Salamander]

I was quite surprised to discover that modest speakers with a greater amplifier could beat awesome speakers with a lesser amplifier.

Someone else listening to the exact same systems may prefer the Cornwall's.

 

[Mike Hanson]

So Mike, you are saying the SE400 over the SE200 makes more of a difference than the Cornwall over the Ergo. Can I ask you how much the difference was between the two amplifier builds, and the cost of your Ergo's build.
I will own up and say I've always recommended speakers first, yet in our two systems speakers are the cheapest component.

Cost wise, the SE400 build is about 1.5x the SE200, although I did temporarily scale back the design of the SE400, so perhaps 1.4x. Both DIY, obviously.

Determining the cost differential between the speakers isn't so straightforward. The Ergo IX was DIY, and the parts were about CDN$1500, IIRC. I would estimate the retail price for speakers to be roughly 3x the parts cost, so let's say $4500. In comparison, the Cornwall's MSRP is $10K, so >2x.

Assuming my 3x multiplier for MSRP vs materials cost is valid:

• The SE400 is about 270% (almost triple) the value of the Ergo IX (based upon the build costs).
• The SE200 (at 3x build cost) is worth 90% of the Cornwall's MSRP.

Given the arbitrary pricing of hi-fi gear, I'm not sure how much we can rely on this metric. Even so, the vastly differing ratios is certainly intriguing.

 

[Mike Hanson]

Is there much difference in listening distance? Nearfield listening always sounds more direct, and to my ears more enjoyable, as there is less room effect. Less between you and the recording.

I'm about 3m away in the family room, and 2m away in the office. However, sitting back further in the office doesn't change the perceived superiority of the combo.

 

[marshanp]

Speakers that make sound you can live with long-term... matched to the room with DSP. The amp's job is then somewhat easier. Buy one to suit the speakers. Digital sources likewise have a simpler job when played via room-matching DSP - buy ones that you like using. Differences between the way they sound are vastly outweighed by differences between speaker sounds and by how well those speakers are matched to the listening room. It's not rocket science...

LP? I wouldn't know, but I'm guessing that choosing the transducer (i.e. cartridge) you like first, then an arm it likes and a well engineered turntable to suit that arm would be logical. Although if you were logical, you wouldn't trust dragging a rock through a groove in a piece of plastic as a way of retrieving a recorded signal.

Cassette? I don't think so... If the source material is irreplaceable, get it transcribed to digital and sort it out.

Open reel? Where's the source material even coming from?

 

[Columbo]

I mentioned in another thread, with the Neat Petites I went from a Naim XS3 (good) to a Rega Aethos (great) to the Hegel H390 (fantastic). Each step up squeezed more out of the Neats. Maybe I could step up again and get even more performance but I don't really see the logic in spending £5-10k amp for £2k speakers. I'm confident spending that money on new speakers would yield far greater gains. So I guess my amp is more "good enough" than the petites "good enough". Confused? I am