The meaning of Source First

[Charlie1]

Thanks charlie1. So this is essentially saying that there are many systems on this forum that are not musically as good as the source only approach suggests the budget could've achieved.

Not really. Just that not everyone understands or likes the source first approach.

I suspect many of those systems are still being enjoyed by their owners.

Yes, but would they be enjoying their system even more if they'd followed a more source first orientated approach?

[sunbeamgls]

A good debate to get to the heart of this topic, thanks for the contributions.

It seems to me that the conclusion is source only, but don't screw that up with non-musical components down the chain, even if those musical components might loose some of the secondary information along the way.

I'll stick with source first (not the source only interpretation) and continue to enjoy my music that way. In the meantime I'll continue to save up for a better source now that I think the rest of my components are at the right level to make the best of a better source. Balance in life is everything, for me, in my music playing system the balance is tipped towards the source but not to the point of losing my balance and falling over.

[Music Lover]

Thanks charlie1. So this is essentially saying that there are many systems on this forum that are not musically as good as the source only approach suggests the budget could've achieved.

Not really. Just that not everyone understands or likes the source first approach.

I suspect many of those systems are still being enjoyed by their owners.

Yes, but would they be enjoying their system even more if they'd followed a more source first orientated approach?

It's personal.
I cant live without dynamics, slam and deep bass. Others can't have huge speakers in the room.

But source first isn't about personal preferences. As Kimi R says "it is what it is"

[Charlie1]

So this is essentially saying that there are many systems on this forum that are not musically as good as the source only approach suggests the budget could've achieved.

Sorry Sunbeam, my comprehension skills let me down there and I read it differently. Ignore my previous answer to this. I do agree with your comment above.

[Erik]

........... Nait and Kan have too much missing from the message, even if they are musical.

Isn't message and musicality the same?

[sunbeamgls]

........... Nait and Kan have too much missing from the message, even if they are musical.

Isn't message and musicality the same?

Well, I'm not sure Tune Method tells you much about the other stuff described by ML earlier. And I'm pretty sure you miss a lot of the intent of Tentemoller's music through a pair of Kans. Which is a good example of where source first could be a better compromise than source only.

[u252agz]

Understanding and accepting 'Source First' does not mean that one cannot break the rule and improve the system downstream, and enjoy the upgrade.

These are some of my reasons for having broken the rule:

Opportunity arises to do this at a favorable cost or ease of upgrade.
Source upgrade is too expensive for the moment ( ie KDS/2 -KDS/3 especially when one has just done KDS/1-KDS/2!):
Source upgrade is too difficult (LP 12 needs to go 100 miles to a trusted dealer)
Improving the sound.
Aesthetics and Size ( see pictures of JBL 3677!)
Deep seated and irrational desire to have Monoblock amps driving impressive looking speakers.

etc etc

[Music Lover]

To all reading this
People need to theorise less and experience more.
Source First is deadly simple to understand, if you attend a demo.

btw
Source First isn't a rule. It's a principle ;)

[sunbeamgls]

To all reading this
People need to theorise less and experience more.
Source First is deadly simple to understand, if you attend a demo.

btw
Source First isn't a rule. It's a principle ;)

I've heard demos many times which is why I also understand source first. The demos I mentioned as examples also easily demonstrate why source only has its limitations.

[Lego]

If you want to really understand source first SB just install a badly setup lp12 ...You'll end up watching TV every night

[Erik]

........... Nait and Kan have too much missing from the message, even if they are musical.

Isn't message and musicality the same?

Well, I'm not sure Tune Method tells you much about the other stuff described by ML earlier. And I'm pretty sure you miss a lot of the intent of Tentemoller's music through a pair of Kans. Which is a good example of where source first could be a better compromise than source only.

sunbeamgls, this is not intended to be blunt, nor is it a way to be rude. Still I have to say I'm convinced you don't understand source first a bit. People "getting" it totally understand what it is and how to use it and explanations, theories, talk about a systems balance and percentages gets unimportant and meaningless.
You can never ever compensate for the loss in the source and that has nothing to do with a source only theory.

/Erik

[Erik]

........... Nait and Kan have too much missing from the message, even if they are musical.

Isn't message and musicality the same?

Well, I'm not sure Tune Method tells you much about the other stuff described by ML earlier. And I'm pretty sure you miss a lot of the intent of Tentemoller's music through a pair of Kans. Which is a good example of where source first could be a better compromise than source only.

Of course a pair of Kans fed by a top source will be superior to a pair of bigger but less good speakers fed by an ADSM. Simply source first!
/Erik

[ThomasOK]

I think pretty much everyone on here takes it as obvious that you can make a system unlistenable with a really bad component placed anywhere in the chain. I think most would also agree that there is a tremendous amount of expensive and very expensive Hi-Fi that would fall into that really bad component category. Lets face it, much if not most, of the sound produced at Hi-Fi shows is pretty appalling. (It makes me happy that Fredrik and I were able to make an actually very musical sound last year.)

However, really awful components trashing the musicality of a system has little to do with Source First. The way I view Source First is that it is indeed best to upgrade your source to the best possible, even using modest electronics and speakers, as it will produce a more musical result. The first time I really tested this out was in 1980 when I compared a Rega Planar 3 with a good MC cartridge through a 32/250 into Isobariks vs. an LP12 with MM cartridge through a NAD 3020 into a pair of $218 Graphyx speakers. There was no question that the LP12/3020/Graphyx system was quite enjoyable musically whereas the Rega 3/32/250/Isobarik system sounded pretty bad. As good as a Rega 3 was and is, the Naim/Linn gear just showed up all its faults and sounded a mess. Since then I have done these types of comparisons numerous times, one recent one where an LP12/Radikal/Cirkus subchassis/Basik LV-X/AT95e absolutely slaughtered my second LP12 featuring a Lingo2/Kore/Ekos2/Adikt. So every single component on the Lingo 2 LP12 (even the plinth) was significantly more musical than those on the Radikal LP12 (and in some cases such as the arm, vastly so) except the power supply - but it overruled all that as it is further up the hierarchy. You'll never guess what I did with the Lingo 2 and what replaced it.

So yes, give me my fully loaded LP12 into a Brio and Majik 109s or Dynaudio Emit 10s and take it from there. Much better than compromising to a lesser source with the rest of my system.

[sunbeamgls]

Well, I'm not sure Tune Method tells you much about the other stuff described by ML earlier. And I'm pretty sure you miss a lot of the intent of Tentemoller's music through a pair of Kans. Which is a good example of where source first could be a better compromise than source only.

sunbeamgls, this is not intended to be blunt, nor is it a way to be rude. Still I have to say I'm convinced you don't understand source first a bit. People "getting" it totally understand what it is and how to use it and explanations, theories, talk about a systems balance and percentages gets unimportant and meaningless.
You can never ever compensate for the loss in the source and that has nothing to do with a source only theory.

/Erik

Not taken as rude. Its a debate about the topic.

Perhaps read the thread? I said much the same earlier on, what's lost at the source can't be recovered. Source first says this. But I'd far rather lose a little musicality at the source than lose lots of musicality later in the chain. That way I get more music.
So find a very very good source within the budget, but don't throw away what your source is doing for you by adding poor components. Source first gives a better result than source only.

[sunbeamgls]

I think pretty much everyone on here takes it as obvious that you can make a system unlistenable with a really bad component placed anywhere in the chain. I think most would also agree that there is a tremendous amount of expensive and very expensive Hi-Fi that would fall into that really bad component category. Lets face it, much if not most, of the sound produced at Hi-Fi shows is pretty appalling. (It makes me happy that Fredrik and I were able to make an actually very musical sound last year.)

However, really awful components trashing the musicality of a system has little to do with Source First. The way I view Source First is that it is indeed best to upgrade your source to the best possible, even using modest electronics and speakers, as it will produce a more musical result. The first time I really tested this out was in 1980 when I compared a Rega Planar 3 with a good MC cartridge through a 32/250 into Isobariks vs. an LP12 with MM cartridge through a NAD 3020 into a pair of $218 Graphyx speakers. There was no question that the LP12/3020/Graphyx system was quite enjoyable musically whereas the Rega 3/32/250/Isobarik system sounded pretty bad. As good as a Rega 3 was and is, the Naim/Linn gear just showed up all its faults and sounded a mess. Since then I have done these types of comparisons numerous times, one recent one where an LP12/Radikal/Cirkus subchassis/Basik LV-X/AT95e absolutely slaughtered my second LP12 featuring a Lingo2/Kore/Ekos2/Adikt. So every single component on the Lingo 2 LP12 (even the plinth) was significantly more musical than those on the Radikal LP12 (and in some cases such as the arm, vastly so) except the power supply - but it overruled all that as it is further up the hierarchy. You'll never guess what I did with the Lingo 2 and what replaced it.

So yes, give me my fully loaded LP12 into a Brio and Majik 109s or Dynaudio Emit 10s and take it from there. Much better than compromising to a lesser source with the rest of my system.

Some good points ThomasOK.

Trashing the musicality of a system with poor downstream components is not a consequence of source first at all, but it is a risk of source first and a much higher risk of source only.

Your example of Rega into briks vs Linn into Graphyx is comparing speaker lead vs source lead systems and gave the expected result. This is not related to the points Ive been making which are about source first in a balanced way and nothing whatsoever to do with speakers first. Source first supports your last point very well, but giving a speaker first example doesn't add to the case. (edit: as pointed out by charlie1 later in the thread, the story was a useful reminder, I didn't mean this bit to sound so critical).

As an aside, when I had an LP12 I had a DC power supply on it for exactly the reasons you cite, many moons befor Linn could admit to this and get out of their previous marketing rut. I was able to enjoy the benefits of upgrading to the DC power supply through the rest of the system which was not in the same league as the LP12 but was sensibly balanced under a source first approach.

[sunbeamgls]

Understanding and accepting 'Source First' does not mean that one cannot break the rule and improve the system downstream, and enjoy the upgrade.

These are some of my reasons for having broken the rule:

Opportunity arises to do this at a favorable cost or ease of upgrade.
Source upgrade is too expensive for the moment ( ie KDS/2 -KDS/3 especially when one has just done KDS/1-KDS/2!):
Source upgrade is too difficult (LP 12 needs to go 100 miles to a trusted dealer)
Improving the sound.
Aesthetics and Size ( see pictures of JBL 3677!)
Deep seated and irrational desire to have Monoblock amps driving impressive looking speakers.

etc etc

Some pragmatic approaches mentioned here - although maybe the last one isn't so pragmatic :D

Conciously done in the knowledge that source first is still the goal even if there is a different approach along the way. And still enjoying the music more today than you did yesterday.

[Charlie1]

sunbeamgls, this is not intended to be blunt, nor is it a way to be rude. Still I have to say I'm convinced you don't understand source first a bit.

I think Sunbeam understands what many of us mean now, based on some of his responses today.

[Charlie1]

Your example of Rega into briks vs Linn into Graphyx is comparing speaker lead vs source lead systems and gave the expected result. This is not related to the points Ive been making which are about source first in a balanced way and nothing whatsoever to do with speakers first. Source first supports your last point very well, but giving a speaker first example doesn't add to the case.

True, a more balanced system (i.e. all Akurate components) is a more common approach to the source last example. Still, it's just a bit of history from Thomas when he first came across the concept.

Your thinking is very common and Linn marketing has definitely gone that way with their system approach several years ago when they went Majik, Akurate, Klimax. I totally understand your desire for a more balanced spread of investment and wouldn't knock it. Each to their own, especially when it's your own hard earned money.

[sunbeamgls]

Your example of Rega into briks vs Linn into Graphyx is comparing speaker lead vs source lead systems and gave the expected result. This is not related to the points Ive been making which are about source first in a balanced way and nothing whatsoever to do with speakers first. Source first supports your last point very well, but giving a speaker first example doesn't add to the case.

True, a more balanced system (i.e. all Akurate components) is a more common approach to the source last example. Still, it's just a bit of history from Thomas when he first came across the concept.

Your thinking is very common and Linn marketing has definitely gone that way with their system approach several years ago when they went Majik, Akurate, Klimax. I totally understand your desire for a more balanced spread of investment and wouldn't knock it. Each to their own, especially when it's your own hard earned money.

A fair point about ThomasOK using that story, its a useful story to remind why speaker first is not a good way to go. I just wanted to be clear that source first and balanced is not the same thing as speaker first, just in case there was any mis-understanding.

Financial spread of investment is one way of looking at it, although I'd rather think of it as capability of components rather than the cost of those components - but I get the point you're making.

[Erik]

sunbeamgls, this is not intended to be blunt, nor is it a way to be rude. Still I have to say I'm convinced you don't understand source first a bit.

I think Sunbeam understands what many of us mean now, based on some of his responses today.

I'm not convinced.

/Erik

[sunbeamgls]

sunbeamgls, this is not intended to be blunt, nor is it a way to be rude. Still I have to say I'm convinced you don't understand source first a bit.

I think Sunbeam understands what many of us mean now, based on some of his responses today.

I'm not convinced.

/Erik

I fully understand source only Erik, I just don't subscribe to it - its too extreme for my taste. I have understood what its about through this thread and debate which has been very useful to me (and hopefully to others). I don't have to fully subscribe to it to understand what's been said. Like I said a few posts back, I understand, I choose to stick with source first over source only.

[matthias]

I'm not convinced.

Agree.
Source first is like gravity. It is not a question of opinion whether it exists.

Matt

[lejonklou]

Sunbeam, please don't invent new concepts, there is no need for them. Source First has always meant the same thing, which is something everyone (except you) in this discussion knows and agrees upon.

What you are advocating is called a 'balanced system approach'. This label was, as I recall it, coined by those opposing the Source First approach, decades ago, but still opposing the general misconception that loudspeakers are the most important part of the system.

To all reading this
People need to theorise less and experience more.
Source First is deadly simple to understand, if you attend a demo.

I agree completely. This was how we Source First people used to convince the Balanced System advocates back in the day - and still do.

I remember two different LP12 turntables being demonstrated in the shop where I worked between 1990 and 1995, one had the top of the line Ekos (arm)-Troika (cartridge) and one an Ittok-K9, if I recall correctly. The difference between these two turntables was really convincing.

Then we put Kairn-Klout-Isobarik (near top of the line Linn amps and speakers) on the Ittok-K9 LP12 and Intek-Index II (entry level amp and speakers) on the Ekos-Troika LP12. In other words, the source that performed worse got the best amps and speakers and the source that performed better got entry level amps and speakers. What happened? The difference between the two LP12s did not shrink, and some felt it even got more pronounced!

Why? Because the better amps and speakers revealed the quality of the source; its flaws became more apparent. And the fundamental musical qualities of the better source were still very evident through the simple amp and speakers.

[matthias]

I remember a further nice comparison at that time:
LP12-Ekos-K9 vs LP12-Ittok-Troika.

Matt

[sunbeamgls]

Sunbeam, please don't invent new concepts, there is no need for them. Source First has always meant the same thing, which is something everyone (except you) in this discussion knows and agrees upon.

What you are advocating is called a 'balanced system approach'. This label was, as I recall it, coined by those opposing the Source First approach, decades ago, but still opposing the general misconception that loudspeakers are the most important part of the system.

To all reading this
People need to theorise less and experience more.
Source First is deadly simple to understand, if you attend a demo.

I agree completely. This was how we Source First people used to convince the Balanced System advocates back in the day - and still do.

I remember two different LP12 turntables being demonstrated in the shop where I worked between 1990 and 1995, one had the top of the line Ekos (arm)-Troika (cartridge) and one an Ittok-K9, if I recall correctly. The difference between these two turntables was really convincing.

Then we put Kairn-Klout-Isobarik (near top of the line Linn amps and speakers) on the Ittok-K9 LP12 and Intek-Index II (entry level amp and speakers) on the Ekos-Troika LP12. In other words, the source that performed worse got the best amps and speakers and the source that performed better got entry level amps and speakers. What happened? The difference between the two LP12s did not shrink, and some felt it even got more pronounced!

Why? Because the better amps and speakers revealed the quality of the source; its flaws became more apparent. And the fundamental musical qualities of the better source were still very evident through the simple amp and speakers.

Now I'm really confused as you're listing stuff here I've not said nor advocated. Here are the bullet points, summarising what I've said:

- I agree with source first
- I have never disagreed with, nor disputed, source first
- A source first balanced system is nothing to do with speakers first
- A more musical source is always a good thing over a less musical source
- A good musical source is wasted by a system that contains other components that destroy musicality
- All based on experience across multiple demonstrations of all sorts of systems and components
- I am not the exception, I agree with source first (I do wonder how many times I have to re-type this before anyone reads it)
- I'm writing about small differences is source quality vs large differences in supporting components, not a rubbish source vs very good supporting components

Just to be clear, source first is the thing (I think I may have mentioned this a fair number of times already). My position is that its not good to waste the best possible source with poor following components when a very very good source supported by decent components can (but is not guaranteed) to give a better overall result. That's all.