Source First theory and how far to take it?

[Music Lover]

Just to add...understaning the lyrics better is another story

Example; is Dylan singing about love and you clearly hear everything he sing, OR do you hear that he really IS in love?
Probably sadness fit the Dylan bill better but you get the point 8)

[Charlie1]

Music Lover wrote:
But a 5% tune improvement (how to measure that btw) in the source is same as 5% tune improvement in the speaker.

I don't understand what that means. To me, a source improvement doesn't do the same thing as a speaker improvement. I rather agree with what I thought Charlie said earlier: Improvements are perceived differently depending on where in the chain they are made. Big source improvements have always been the ones that have left me most baffled.

I thought about this a bit more. A major speaker improvement could be really much more tuneful - I think we all agree. This could in turn translate to less brain work and less listening fatigue and greater enjoyment.

BUT, a relatively minor change (i.e. Linn Black's to Linn Silver's) made higher up the chain (towards the source) would (in my experience) actually make a bigger improvement in musicality simply due to Source First. Yet this upgrade, to Silver's for example, is likely to be much less perceptable and not stand out nearly so much as the obviously more tuneful speaker upgrade. It's only when using Tune Dem that we realise this relatively small improvement nearer the source is actually making the most difference in terms of our ability to follow/understand the music.

Put another way, a small upstream improvement need not necessarily stike you as 'yeah, that's so much more tuneful'. But you might easily think this when listening to a major speaker upgrade. And yet it is ultimately the smaller upstream upgrade that is the more important of the two even though it doesn't come across as making much difference (until you use Tune Dem that is). ((How's Leo's headache coming on? :) ))

So I'm still thinking that tunefulness is not an 'even' indication of better musicality across the entire hi-fi system. That's not to say a source upgrade couldn't strike you as obviously more tuneful. Of course it could, but I'm thinking that there is no relation between perceived tunefulness and our actual ability to understand the music as evaluated via the Tune Method.

[Lego]

The small upstream upgrade you refer to Charlie would probably make you listen to your system more but the speaker upgrade might make you feel your enjoying your system more but your listening habit probably wouldnt change.
If I home dem an item and it sounds more tunefull than the one I've got I might think so what my original still sounds tunefull but maybe not as much.But if I listen to a song that I have listened to for say 15 years and all of a sudden I understand what they are singing about for the first time then I want to purchase that item...

An example is the pink floyd line 'the lunatic is on the grass '...for years I had this picture of a bloke in white layed out on a lawn on a hot summers day..... its amazing what difference going from a Dansette to a rega can make.Maybe I should listen to ol blue eyes all the time and save a fortune....

Communication, thats what music is all about

[Music Lover]

But a 5% tune improvement (how to measure that btw) in the source is same as 5% tune improvement in the speaker.

I don't understand what that means. To me, a source improvement doesn't do the same thing as a speaker improvement. I rather agree with what I thought Charlie said earlier: Improvements are perceived differently depending on where in the chain they are made. Big source improvements have always been the ones that have left me most baffled.

I think you misunderstood me Fredrik.
The SAME musical improvement can be done in the source and speaker.
I.e. the improvement in tune from Ninka --> 242 can be made in the source as well.
That the source has a bigger potential to improve the tune more is another matter.

And of course, Valhalla --> Lingo --> Radikal is perceived differently than Katan --> 242.
BUT Valhalla --> Lingo --> Radikal is also perceived differently than Ittok --> Ekos, as well as differently from cirkus --> Keel. Despite all being on the source.

All upgrades are different. Some are more tune related, some improve both tune and sound. some improve the sound more.
The only common denominator is that upgrades close to the source seems more radikal (great name isn't it?)

[Charlie1]

If I home dem an item and it sounds more tunefull than the one I've got I might think so what my original still sounds tunefull but maybe not as much.But if I listen to a song that I have listened to for say 15 years and all of a sudden I understand what they are singing about for the first time then I want to purchase that item...

I think that's a brilliant way of putting it.

In the same vein, I recall being initially disappointed by an upgrade as it didn't really sound much different, especially for the cost. But then I started to notice I was getting more of a kick out of the music, sometimes greatly so. And whilst some upgrades let you better 'hear' the emotion in a singer, this one was at times making me 'feel' those emotions myself to a greater extent.

The small upstream upgrade you refer to Charlie would probably make you listen to your system more but the speaker upgrade might make you feel your enjoying your system more but your listening habit probably wouldnt change.

Yes, I think you're right on the money again!

[Music Lover]

Put another way, a small upstream improvement need not necessarily stike you as 'yeah, that's so much more tuneful'. But you might easily think this when listening to a major speaker upgrade. And yet it is ultimately the smaller upstream upgrade that is the more important of the two even though it doesn't come across as making much difference (until you use Tune Dem that is). ((How's Leo's headache coming on? :) )).

If you use tune dem, YES it's going to be obvious that the tune is improved in the source.
But If you listen to the sound, you think the speaker upgrade is bigger.

Discussing big and smaller tune improvements, source vs. speakers, precieved tunfullness vs joy - have you forgot about installation?
Moving the speakers a few mm can improve the tune a LOT!!!
And that in all aspects; sound, tune, joy whatever :mrgreen:
How is that correspond to source first hehe - discuss folks .
What I intend to say is that I don't care where the improvements origin, I care about the total result.

[lejonklou]

The SAME musical improvement can be done in the source and speaker.

I think I understood you. Because this is exactly what I'm unsure of whether I agree with.

Communication, thats what music is all about

Yes :!:

And this is where our view on HiFi differs from those who regard music as nothing more than a signal of varying amplitude and frequency. With a limited and dogmatic viewpoint like that (interestingly enough it appears to be rather common), the quality of digital sources and amplifiers has since long been close to perfect. While turntables and loudspeakers are fundamentally flawed.

I'm thinking that there is no relation between perceived tunefulness and our actual ability to understand the music as evaluated via the Tune Method.

I don't get this. Isn't the Tune Method a method for evaluating (perceived) tunefulness? What to you is the difference between the two? I'm not asking for a general (or someone else's) definition of what the Tune Method is, rather what it means to you. Since you seem to regard it as something more than a method for evaluating tunefulness.

(OR, have you perhaps been mixing up "pitch accurate" and "tuneful"? Perhaps we need to try defining certain expressions to continue this discussion.)

[Music Lover]

The SAME musical improvement can be done in the source and speaker.

I think I understood you. Because this is exactly what I'm unsure of whether I agree with..)

Please elaborate.
Taking my installation example, is that also a different improvement than what you obtain in a source and different from a speaker improvement?
(talking about the tune)

Have to admit that I never tried analyzing where the improvements being made and their relative character. For me all improvements to the better is...simply better. :mrgreen:

With a limited and dogmatic viewpoint like that (interestingly enough it appears to be rather common), the quality of digital sources and amplifiers has since long been close to perfect. While turntables and loudspeakers are fundamentally flawed.

You can add the room acoustics to the flawed items...
But if you listen to the sound, they are correct.

I'm not surprised as it's same in many other areas.
- some cant appreciate good food/wine, they start by adding salt/pepper even on a gourmet dinner, to get it to “taste more”….
- some consider a good sport car having high top speed/accelerate fast, That the handling sucks, the feeling in the steering wheel/brakes is absent - so what?
:?
- some consider an artist that sing without feeling great as the song is technically performed perfect and say Dylan can’t sing... :roll:
- many clap their hands on the bass drum beat, instead of the snare drum :| Can’t help it but my body reacts quite negative of this...it's simply very unpleasant.

[Charlie1]

Charlie1 wrote:
I'm thinking that there is no relation between perceived tunefulness and our actual ability to understand the music as evaluated via the Tune Method.

I don't get this. Isn't the Tune Method a method for evaluating (perceived) tunefulness? What to you is the difference between the two? I'm not asking for a general (or someone else's) definition of what the Tune Method is, rather what it means to you. Since you seem to regard it as something more than a method for evaluating tunefulness.

Mmm. I'll try to explain what I mean. Tune Dem to me is trying to follow unfamiliar music in my head whilst it's playing. But perceived tunefulness I mean to be when I'm not using tune dem and just listening normally and after a change to the system I notice the it is sounding more tuneful. Maybe a bass line strikes me as sounding more tuneful.

I don't think a change from Black ICs to Silver ICs would particularly strike me as sounding more tuneful when I listen normally, but tuning speaker position or drive units or a speaker upgrade is likely to do this. So I think there is a mis-match or differnce between actual tune dem performance and my 'perception' of tunefulness in normal listening. Therefore, when someone says my new speakers are so much more tuneful, I question if this will really bring that much long term benefit to their enjoyment.

I know a tune dem is following a melody, so I can't explain why this is. Another example might be playing a better earlier pressing of the same LP. These don't necessarily 'sound' more tuneful. I don't always think, yeah that bass line is really tuneful now. Yet it is the best improvement we can make to enjoying the music.

Maybe I just hear things differently or pick up on certain improvements more than others, which is another reason for me to trust tune dem as being the 'real' indication of my long-term musical enjoyment.

[Charlie1]

Ultimately, I'm trying to question mine (and others) ability to judge system improvements in terms of 'subjective' improvements in tunefulness. I'm suggesting that the way we perceive tunefulness in normal listening (outside of a tune dem) is not a reliable guide because benefits in tunefulness cannot be viewed as being uniform across the whole system. i.e. a new pair of speakers makes the music much more tuneful for all to hear but a minor upstream improvement offers little or no 'obvious' improvement on how tuneful the system sounds.

This also makes me question if there are other factor/s at work making us better able to follow music when using tune dem? Maybe pitch accuracy is not the only ingredient to better musical enjoyment. There seems to be no replacement for higher quality information retrieval in the first place, but is it only pitch accuracy that is so important within that signal? Maybe when we perform tune dem we are not just comparing the ability of two systems to maintain pitch - perhaps our ability to follow the music is influenced by other factors too? Certain types of distortion perhaps that we humans are particularly sensitive to.

[Per A]

Just to add...understaning the lyrics better is another story

Example; is Dylan singing about love and you clearly hear everything he sing, OR do you hear that he really IS in love?
Probably sadness fit the Dylan bill better but you get the point 8)

Yes Music Lover,

I was not clear when I wrote about understanding the lyrics I meant the message of joy or sorrow and passion.

Two years ago I had a pair of IS 6 speakers for a short while. I had heard them in a local hifi-fair and liked them but with my then 5125 they were so flat. Kate Bush who is vibrating with life sounded "natural" but lifeless, a very bad fit wih that power amp I concluded.

With sneaky ds/exotik/ATC SCM 10-2 I get every message and feeling except thundering rumbling bass which seems to be costly. And my neigbours are happier this way too :)

[springwood64]

Charlie - is it you selling the KK on Pink Fish? Is this a Radikal commitment to source first? What pre will you use instead of the KK?

[Charlie1]

Charlie - is it you selling the KK on Pink Fish? Is this a Radikal commitment to source first? What pre will you use instead of the KK?

Yes, it's mine. Unfortunately, I can't afford to keep the KK/1 and buy a Radikal. I also wanted to put some money back in the bank if possible, so the KK/1 sale will enable me to do both. After the recent KK/1 upgrade I just felt afterwards that for someone of my means and family commitments, enough was enough - in fact I felt it was too much money now invested overall. Selling the KK/1 was the best option as there really isn't much in the playback in terms of 2nd hand value. I also bought the original KK second hand so won't actually loose much - if any after the sale.

I've bought a Kikkin to replace it. Dem'd Kikkin/Radikal against KK1/Lingo last week and the former was very clearly better to my ears, the Radikal making so much difference I was not in any way let down by the hype. And I should also add that the Kikkin is just silly money for that level of performance. It could be double and still excellent value. If Fredrilk ever decided to sell through dealers then I think he could easily keep the exisitng cost for himself and just add 50% for the dealer cut - it would still be great value to my mind. Looking forward to getting everything installed at home.

Interestingly, it's more satisfying working with a tighter budget now and juggling the components around.

[sommerfee]

Source First theory and how far to take it?

After listening the whole evening to a Klimax DS, Majik-I (the old brick one!), and Katan (unfortunately we just had to stop because of the neighbours) my answer is clear:

To the very end. :mrgreen:

[Briain]

Years and years ago (very late 70's) when I got into all this, I used to use a LP12/Ittok/ADC into a Nytec (with a big home built PSU) and Kans. My friend had the ultimate source first system though: LP12/Syrinx/ADC into a NAD3020 (with a big home built PSU) and some 15 year old (at that time) homebuilt Wharfdale speakers. The Wharfdales were the cheapest of the cheapest ones with really nasty units but very simple crossovers; that feature probably really helped them to make some pretty foot-tappingly cool music though.

The tonal balance was somewhat odd, but the musicality was just totally amazing! Once you got used to the characteristic sound of the funny wee Wharfdale speakers, you forgot about the odd balance (your ears simply adjusted to compensate) and you just listened to the music; and lots of music there was to listen to as well; the system sounded absolutely amazing.

From that discovery back in those early days and based on all the systems I've heard since, a heavily 'source first' biased system build has always been my key criteria. If I was starting from nothing, I am in absolutely no doubt what so ever that I would would always go to the extremes of getting the best source possible, then a reasonable amp, and finally speakers that didn't have too many rips in the cones! :)

Bri

[Charlie1]

Two people who’s opinions I trust are now at a similar view point. They strongly suspect that they would prefer to go from Katan/Ninka level speakers to 212/242 level speakers rather than upgrade Ekos 2 to SE (assume Radikal/Keel already in place). It’s a rare instance where they think they’d go against Source First theory.

I should add that neither has A-B dem’d the two options against one another, just experienced them independently and feel a 3k speaker upgrade to be better value overall. These are both individuals that love music and are not just sitting there listening to the nice sound. They think the speaker upgrade not only a huge boost to sound, but musicality also.

So I've been wondering what's going on and wanted to do the following tune dem with this in mind: -
A.) Radkial LP12 with Normal Linn Power Lead, Kikkin, 6100, Ninkas
B.) Radikal LP12 with Cisco Router Mains Lead, KK/1, 6100, Ninkas

Before starting I did swap Radikal mains leads on the same preamp to gauge the gap between the two. It was surprising how much more musical the Linn one is when you consider it's only a power cord. The Cisco one also brought forward the cymbals so I can imagine some folk in the world preferring Cisco to Linn Smile

Both Kikkin and KK/1 were well warmed up and occupied the same rack shelf – handy the Kikkin is so compact. I hope Fredrik doesn't mind my using his Kikkin against a KK/1 in this way, but the Kolektor sounds too different from these two in its presentation. The sound differences between KK/1 and Kikkin didn't leap out and get in my way which I find very useful when it comes to tune dem, so credit to the Kikkin there.

I used an LP of Scott Joplin piano music I'd not listened to before.

System A conforms to SF theory in making more sense of what is on the LP. It unravels it better, especially complex elements. The timing of notes comes across better. I does a better job of recreating the piano playing.

Despite the above, system B could easily be thought of as being better and I don't mean in terms of sound quality. This system is easier to listen to in line with what I normally experience between Kikkin and KK/1. By this I mean the music is more accessible. It's like being spoon fed somehow. You can get into the music quicker. There is an effortlessness and lack of resistance being offered by the KK/1. Interestingly, to my mind these are tune dem/musicality attributes so isn't this counter to SF theory?

Ultimately, I don't think so because system B is actually harder to discern the melody (in strict tune dem usage) even though it comes across more accessible. You are always hearing a less ‘true’ account of what's on the LP in terms of musicianship. System A is no doubt a better rendition of piano playing with slightly less scattered and confused timing.

I'd not realised this was possible before - a split between musical attributes: fluidity and accessibility on the one hand and on the other hand easier to follow a melody/closer rendition of musicianship. Sorry if members have explained this before on the forum but if so I've clearly not understood. To my mind this reduces the scope of tune dem from relating to all elements of musicality. What I experience between the KK/1 and Kikkin when swapping normally has more to do with how accessible the KK/1 makes the music than its superior ability to let you follow the melody. I don't think this accessiblility (for lack of a better word) ultimately gives me a lot more emotive experience when listening. Maybe this is why despite the large musical benefits of the KK/1 over Kikkin, the gap doesn't equate to a similar degree of musical enjoyment over the Kikkin. Certainly, all previous source upgrades have meant more to me as a music lover. But it is nice for sure to be able to fall into the music more easily via the KK/1.

So does this ring true for anyone? Or have I made any incorrect assumptions?

[DeQMaster]

All in all, are you telling me that, in the end, given my system (late kairn + klout + espek + k400 cable) chaging my sneaky ds for a klimax ds is going to have huge impact on how musical is the whole system?

I always tought that, once in a quality level, i will have to upgrade my entire system to benefict of a true source upgrade, because the inherents limitations of my current system.

Another thing is, should i change my linn blacks and audioart ic3 for linn´s silver? (kairn and klout are chained with original linn cable which i think is black IC)

Im a bit confused by this thread, but may be well a language issue on my side ;)[/quote]

[Music Lover]

chaging my sneaky ds for a klimax ds is going to have huge impact on how musical is the whole system?

yes, regardless of the system.

I always tought that, once in a quality level, i will have to upgrade my entire system to benefict of a true source upgrade, because the inherents limitations of my current system.

Not correct.
Besides, your system is quite good!

And silver IC's are not costly on the Net so go for it.

[lejonklou]

I fully agree with ML!

[ThomasOK]

I too feel that ML is right on the money. Your system is a quite decent one and would certainly benefit musically from a Klimax DS (or an LP12SE/Radikal/Urika).

Ditto on the Silvers.

[DeQMaster]

Silvers for the interconnect between sources and preamp or between preamp and amp?

Or both?

Silvers are high even in second hand market. The cheapest i have found on ebay goes for 150 euro....

On the subject of my system being decent... well, is my first Linn system and also my very first real hifi system. I bought second hand but its really in like new shape. I really enjoy the sound of this system, is clear and warm, as well as very musical. Dunno how sounds what many call "new Linn sound" because i didnt have the chance of hear any of the current amps

My budget is humble and because of health reasons my monthly paycheck is usually spent on doctors even before it gets on my hands, so its hard to me to buy certain components, so every cheaper euro i can get the components,the closer is the buying possibility.

One always can dream with a fully chakra system, with aktiv 242s :)

[lejonklou]

I would watch out for many of the so-called Linn Silvers on ebay. I have seen several and none of them have been originals. Usually a different connector, often terribly soldered, always sounding worse than an original Linn Silver.

If I had your system, I would probably first upgrade the source (a Majik DS with Dynamik is quite a big improvement from a Sneaky DS), then get a Silver Interconnect for the source and then replace the Kairn with a Kikkin. Three nice steps that can be enjoyed one at a time.

Hope that your health improves!

[Azazello]

A Majik DS is of course better, but as a more affordable option, I believe that a Kikkin would be a very nice upgrade all by itself.

[DeQMaster]

A Kikkin would probably trounce my beloved Kairn Pro... :)_

[Music Lover]

Probably should be removed from that line