advertisement


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

Locheeboy said:
Of course, If yer using subs...it's not stereo...🤔:cool:
Click to expand...
Why not if it's still two channels?
This is not 2.1 or 2.2 having one or two additional LF channels.

PS I love your accent (or the one I hear in my head when I'm reading you).
 
Last edited:
Unless you have a dedicated listening room, which I'd imagine most of us don't.. the first thing is to find a pair of speakers which both work well in your room, AND can be accomodated without too much disruption of the domestic environment ( This latter of course is subjective..some partners will not tolerate six inches of visible wire...)
Next, try to find an amp which is capable of both driving your speakers, and sounding good to you. Any decent source should then have at least a chance of being heard.
Of course.. all will turn to s*** if you haven't also spent £manyK on magic fuses, wires and supports..;)
 
Addressing the OP's question, I take a balance approach to the chain of components. I do appreciate the wisdom of "garbage in, garbage out". When changing components, I try to look into my longer term view of where I wish to go, and usually go source first. However, sometimes bargains do appear for components further down the chain, and I'll have no issues with buying those as long as they fit into my longer term plans.
 
This is why I try to do A/B tests directly. I also have a very small set of test tracks that I know exceedingly well, so I have some semblance of an absolute baseline in my head. It's not perfect, but it's the best I can do.
 
Mike Hanson said:
This is why I try to do A/B tests directly. I also have a very small set of test tracks that I know exceedingly well, so I have some semblance of an absolute baseline in my head. It's not perfect, but it's the best I can do.
Click to expand...

By the way, I recommend to read a famous article by Audio Note Peter Qvortrup about absolutely different approach to hi-fi testing.
 
As an unreconstructed flat earther I have found over the years

Source - an energetic upfront CD player like Naim CDX2

Interconnect - unfortunately a fairly expensive Chord which is fast and detailed

Amplifier - a big bold energetic integrated like my ATC 150 wpc item, but not Naim!

Speakers - a simple 2 way thin walled pair mounted on spiked stands - HBS2 Heybrooks

My systems are chosen to last 20 years at least, so the present system will outlast me, I guess I tend to choose source first, some high end systems, with expensive amps and speakers I have heard, sound very boring. I tend to fall asleep at high end dealers.

Oh and a dedicated music room is essential!
 
I’d recognise many of the comments made already from different perspectIves. It all probably depends to a degree on if your building from scratch or upgrading an existing system. If from scratch and your really into it I’d probably give similar advice I gave my nephew on buying a bike. Buy a good frame, as a core which reflects the type of ride you want to do as you can upgrade the other components over time. With HIFI, I think the amps are probably the frame, with the pre-amp making the biggest difference, and power amp/speaker and room matching being most important. The source then needs to be balanced with the level of transparency offered by the amp and speaker, and speakers to room and musical preferences. Personally I and my wife love the Sonus Faber and Divore fideliy speakers in the house. They are transparent enough but always a pleasure to listen to. The Wilson’s in my office (“old” w/p 8’s) are fantastic with a perfect recording but not so without. My most expensive TT and cartridge is in the office, as I get most value from them in that system. Interestingly the “old” NDS sounds better in that system as it’s a smooth listen and it tends to be more background there when I listen vs the added transparency of the ND555 in the house which is peachy through the NAIM552/500/S, as it’s synergistic, and often the primary source as the TT is not in the main room we relax in. My most (positively) surprising upgrades were 552/ND555/vermisio cartridge and Tron phono stage and both speakers sets. I’ve also had Shahinian hawks which I loved but never found an amp that I felt did them justice. I feel guilty saying I prefer SF but I do. I use the Tron valve stage phono in the naim system as again that seems synergistic, and the office amp phono stage is pretty good (and it has one). Next update would be new DZ pre-amp for the office primarily for the phono stage or maybe later Wilson Sasha v2+ but am fond of the w/p 8’s as whilst as imperfect and uncompromising as they are. Some argument might be made they are closer to the studio monitor originals and what they can do on a good recording I might miss.
 
Last edited:
adamdea said:
Do you feel you have set them up the same way for home cinema as you would have done for music? IIRC there was a very good article (possibly by Sean Olive) above why 4 subs was optimal. I can't in principle see why the physics would be any different for cinema than music but I can see that the desired setting might turn out differently for the use case. Either way my chances of installing 4 subs in my domestic environment are precisely zero.
Click to expand...

I think that Earl Geddes was one of the early proponents of multiple subs:

Why Multiple Subs?
 
Locheeboy said:
Of course, If yer using subs...it's not stereo...🤔:cool:
Click to expand...
If you use 2 subs it is.

Phyztech said:
Could you please tell me what are the good enough speakers actually. Because I heard top top of the line Martin Logan Neolith, PMC Fenestria and top Montanas, don’t remember their name.
Click to expand...
For a lot of people, something like the NHT SuperOne fits the description. It's not fancy or flashy. But it gets the job done well.
 
tuga said:
That's a totally different story.
Click to expand...

RJohan said:
Yes. And as Audiphiliacs we certainly don't want to be in the second group. So to be on the safe side we hear things that isn't there.

A couple of Audiophiles listen to some gear. One, with a assured voice: 'Did you hear it, with amp Xxxx there where a slight hawkiness in the midrange.' The second Audiophile (who didn't hear any difference) blurts out: 'Yeah!'. The third person, who isn't an Audiophiles, keeps quiet and wonder what they are on about.
Click to expand...

This happens even with everyone thinking they are being honest and rigorous.

People don’t have to try introducing a little rigour into testing, or try new boxes at all of course. However, if you are trying it, a couple of rules (like listeners not seeing the front of the pre-amp or the cables at the back or getting to compare notes in the kitchen) can only help. They have certainly helped us conclude that an ‘upgrade’ gave no benefit that we could hear on 1 or 2 occasions.
 
I remember when I heard the NDS I bought in a Wi-Fi system (I was picking it up), it was bloody awful and way worse than my HDX/ndac/555ps. I reckon 50% of that was crappy Wi-Fi, the rest was the rest of the system. It sounded lovely hard wired at home. Fortunately I‘d heard a well set up NDS before and smiled sweetly and ignored it. The “wife test” is always plays a significant objective cali for me as she never knows the price or frankly gives a damn much beyond the outcome on a fairly carefree basis.
 
Phyztech said:
Could you please tell me what are the good enough speakers actually. Because I heard top top of the line Martin Logan Neolith, PMC Fenestria and top Montanas, don’t remember their name.
Click to expand...
It depends on the room. The only way to find out whether they are good enough is to try other options to see if they can be improved in your room. This is why dealer demos for loudspeakers are rarely useful and home dems are essential.
 
Mike Hanson said:
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?
Click to expand...

Alternatively, the moral of the story is that large high efficiency speakers are not as good as small, low efficiency, but accurate speakers for overall better sound!
 
James said:
It depends on the room. The only way to find out whether they are good enough is to try other options to see if they can be improved in your room. This is why dealer demos for loudspeakers are rarely useful and home dems are essential.
Click to expand...

If you use DRC the room becomes a lot less of an issue. Of course dipoles and omnis need space but most other speakers work well done even in smallish rooms (when EQ'd).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top