Source First theory and how far to take it?

[Charlie1]

Good to hear from you on the forum Stellan.

My own system has turned out pretty much bang on your guildlines as a coincidence and it sounds good to me - KK was 2nd hand though.

Must admit that I didn't think it was a good idea to bring cost into it - at least not in this way. After all, the Kikkin blows away your guildlines - in a good way of course - and leaves more money to be spent elsewhere. It's probably OK if you just relate it to brand new Linn components as they are obviously structured so that the better components cost more.

Totally agree that ideally you don't want your playback highlighting weaknesses higher up the chain, although I'm not sure how common or how big an issue this is in practice. A friend of mine heard a pair of 5100s driving 242s. Through his experience with Linn's better amps, he could hear the 5100s weaknesses quite clearly through the speakers, but the owner was delighted with the system as he wasn't aware of the x100 amps short-comings and didn't know any better.

I suppose it depends on what is being highlighted. My Majik Kontrol was quite rough sounding compared to the KK I have now and I found it a bit fatuiging after a while. I don't think I would have wanted to hear that particular characteristic even more clearly through 242s instead of my Ninka's.

[ThomasOK]

As a rule of thumb I use the principle of half the price for equipment down the chain of source, control and playback:

If I have a budget of 100 units I would spend 50 on the source, 25 on control (pre-amp) and 25 on playback, which in turn consists of 12.5 for power-amp and 12.5 for speakers.

Of course, I still have to find the best possible equipment for the given price.

Hopefully, this ensures that the systems front-end is always one step ahead of the back-end, which I think is crucial.

While I agree with the idea behind your suggestion, and even agree that it works with many systems, I am always leery of using this kind of a formula approach.

Just think of the kind of ideas you are giving Linn. If someone wants to buy Klimax 350As he needs a turntable/arm/cartridge that sells for about $190,000US! I really don't think Linn need this kind of advice - the LP12 is expensive enough as is without a $200K variant. :) And imagine what price turntable you'd need for Aktiv Komris with Solos!

[David Neel]

And imagine what price turntable you'd need for Aktiv Komris with Solos!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

[Music Lover]

No it's the other way around. 350A's and active Komri should cost a fraction of their present price. 8)

[StellanH]

Thanks for the comments on my rule of thumb. I have also found that it works pretty well in most situations, but it is of course not a natural law.

Just some replies on your comments:

With 350A active speakers "he needs a turntable/arm/cartridge that sells for about $190,000US!"

No, he does not need to buy something for that price, I doubt that you even can find a source for that money, it would be a live act then.

But who knows, maybe we soon will have the LP12 VSE with Keel in titanium.

The principle just says that it is the price upper limit for that particular link in the equipment chain. This is also true with Kinki example by Charlie1. If you can find something cheaper that is as good as your upper limit for spending money on a particular link in the chain, the better.

[Charlie1]

Not sure if my continued adventures are still of interest to anyone :oops: , but I've played around some more in a hope to gain more insight. Unfortunately, I still have a distinctly limited about of kit to play with so the dem is still quite extreme and unrealistic.

This time I compared £100 Philips DVD player/KK/6100/Ninkas against Klimax LP12/Linto/Technics Midi system.

Firstly I just have to say how great the £100 Philips DVD player 'sounded' on the end of my system. I won't comment on the 'musicality' just yet, but it sounded much better than expected.

Of the two, the DVD/Linn System was much clearer and easier on the ear - miles more sophisticated - it sounded very fine. My wife preferred it straight away. The LP12/Technics sounded muffled and just poor quality by comparison.

I thought that I was going to easily prefer the DVD/Linn system like my wife and on straight forward rock music the better sound was more obvious than any differences in musicality.

However, player something less obvious, you can really hear the Linn/Technics convey the music better despite its poor sound. The DVD/Linn is kind of soulless and empty of life by comparison. I'd need to live with both for a short while but not sure which I'd go for if I had to pick between the two simply because the Technics sounds so rough.

The LP12/Technics system was best in a tune dem BTW - just in case you didn't guess already.

All the best.....

[Azazello]

Not sure if my continued adventures are still of interest to anyone

Of course they are! :D

[springwood64]

I find it interesting that despite the extreme comparison, you're still weighing up which of the test systems you would live with. It implies that musicality and 'sound' both need to be considered. At least that's what I'm telling myself as I pursue my quest for aktiv playback at the expense of improving my source . . . :?

[Charlie1]

Yes, it's a bit pointless to think about such things really as I wouldn't live with either - I'd HAVE to spread the funds more evenly as neither system is enjoyable. One is lifeless with little chance of widening your musical pallette and probably very fatuiging. The other has a sound so poor its irritating after only a short listen. So yes I agree sound and musicality are both important, but I think plenty of members have said this from the outset.

I was going to delete my post as it does seem a bit silly, but Azazello had already replied (Thanks Azazello BTW for your reply). The original test was to see how far Source First theory extends. This doesn't really add anything new to that. I guess there was never any clear purpose - I just wanted to year how they compared.

One interesting point is that last time I setup this test, I was impressed how good the LP12/Technics sounded. This time it was the complete opposite and all I noticed was how dreadful it was. How does that work? Perhaps my expectations are greatly affecting my judgement? I'd like to think that last time I was focusing on the musicality still coming through, whereas this time I mostly noticed the sound. Really not sure what the truth is though. 'Trust your own ears' is a comment I often read on the Linn forum, but I'm not sure how reliable mine are.

[StellanH]

I hate to nag, but how about a balanced system?

Here you have a source (LP12) costing 10-20 times more than your playback (Technics midisystem). The sheer lousiness of the sound will distract you to much from the tunes played, I think.

On the other hand, the Technics CD-Linn playback will sound very nice but I suspect you will be very soon bored with it, because it will not play tunes but elevator music.

So I keep on nagging of maintaining the balance with half the price principle (see post above). The front end is most important, yes, but the back-end have to follow close after. Otherwise you will lose it!

[StellanH]

Oh by the way,

now we have the LP12 Very Special Edition, just as predicted.

It will not cost 4 times the 350 active system, but Ivor and the guys are working hard on it! Just wait!

[Charlie1]

I hate to nag, but how about a balanced system?

Here you have a source (LP12) costing 10-20 times more than your playback (Technics midisystem). The sheer lousiness of the sound will distract you to much from the tunes played, I think.

On the other hand, the Technics CD-Linn playback will sound very nice but I suspect you will be very soon bored with it, because it will not play tunes but elevator music.

So I keep on nagging of maintaining the balance with half the price principle (see post above). The front end is most important, yes, but the back-end have to follow close after. Otherwise you will lose it!

Yes, you're quite right. Please don't take this as a real-life situation though. I'm just playing around and seeing what turns up. Ideally, I'd have some more suitable kit to play with so that the different systems are not so extreme. I like your elevator music comment :) - a good description.

[springwood64]

Charlie,

When you compared the silvers against the blacks, had you used both sets of ICs and burnt them in? I'm guessing that you had - how long (in playing time) did it take?

The reason that I ask, is that I've recently added some silvers and on first play I had to fight the urge to reinstate the blacks (some of which I've had for over 10 years). I'm now 4 days into 'burn-in' and the 'silver' sound still appears to be evolving but is not yet at the same level of enjoyment that the blacks gave, although it manages to make the blacks appear slightly muffled.

At the moment I appear to have gained clarity at the expense of enjoyment. And now I don't want to go back to the blacks OR listen to the silvers. :(

[Charlie1]

Yes my Silvers were already burned in myself but even more so after I'd sent them to ThomasOK to be burned in on this Vidar machine.

I presume the time required will depend on how much use the system is getting. Have you got CD/DS? If so you could disconnect the speakers and leave a CD on replay 24x7.

I don't recall how long it took but know the feeling. I had the same with my Linto, despite the much better sound. I would have thought that a couple of weeks of moderate listening would be required, but that's only a guess! I'm pretty sure four days is not enough though.

[Charlie1]

I've started so may as well finish. Managed to get the Technics midi CD player back in action. This meant I could play the same CD on two different sources - comparisons made yesterday between vinyl and CD were not ideal as I didn't have any unfamiliar music in both formats. At least now they sound more alike and I can use a CD I've never heard.

I compared both Technics and DVD player via the Linn system first of all. The Technics midi-CD player is noticably more tuneful than the DVD player making it sound positively exciting in comparison. The DVD player has zero musical interest. Stellan's comment about Elevator music comes to mind. It's so booooorrrriiiinnnng. Tune Dem's have never been so easy - a few seconds is plenty and then onto the next track.

Leaving the DVD connected to the Linn system and using the Technics as an all-in-one (inc the better source of the two), it was clear once again that Source First held true. Often the difference was clear, but as mentioned yesterday, with simple chord based romps the better sound was at first more striking than the poor music. But most of the time, the DVD was just dull from the first moment. That's one thing that has struck me - how the source can make music so boring. I've always throught of Source First in terms of improving more fancy things like musicianship and interplay between musicians. The over-riding impression tonight was very basic - the poorer source was just plain DULL! I guess they amount to the same thing, but the actual experience is somehow insightful.

I'd say you need a lot of listening experience with various components to make the most from a budget so you can get a high degree of musical enjoyment without feeling you've given up too much sound quality. Or alternatively, getting good sound without scrimping too much on the musicality. Given the opportunity, I can imagine myself playing with various bits of Linn/Lejonklou kit all day long, building various systems by mixing and matching different components to the same budget, but at the same time never really getting to a final point - each system would just be a different set of compromises. The people at the extreme ends have it easy I think - in terms of system building that is - Optimise source, then pre, then.....etc.etc.....easy!

[Azazello]

I do think that the tests done by Charlie are interesting, as they do point out the huge impact of source first when musicality is top priority. The direct practical implications on the other hand are obviously rather small, as no one will actually consider a system like the ones tested.

I think you simply have to ask yourself what kind of system you need, and how much you want to spend. When contemplating different solutions, tune-dem can be a tremendous help for those of us who value musicality first. This is one of the points of tune-dem that are widely misunderstood; people who look down on it tend to believe that “tune-dem” is a way of listening to music, when it actually only is a way of evaluating musical performance. What makes it so interesting is that it seems to be almost universal. Those who say “you can’t tell me how I should listen to music” have failed to understand this.

Another thing is how you choose to use the information you gain by performing “tune-dem” (or reading here on the forum). If you consider my system for example: LP12 (Keel, Ekos2, Lingo2) – Slipsik – Kikkin – LK100 – Active Isobarik, you might think that it’s kind of an extreme source first/tune-dem composition. But I have made a rather big sacrifice in terms of musicality for the sake of impact. 4 x LK100 + Isobarik could have been 2250 + Komponent 110 – a playback that probably would make my system sound broken if compared, but with no low bass what so ever. I have made the decision to prioritize “punch” over “music”, but I do not tell myself or others that it’s the most musical option I had, given my budget.

Personally however, I don’t think I would ever prefer “sound” over “musicality” as I don’t think that I actually ever have heard a system that sounded “better” and performed “worse”. To be honest, I have never really understood what this means. The few “bad but expensive” systems that I have heard have all been plain bad to my ears. One occasion that comes to mind is when I traded my Bonnec Timpano for ADM9:s. The dealer compared it to another preamp in a fairly expensive (maybe EUR 10 000) system that, in my ears, was plain horrible – a Classik would have thrashed it, musically AND sound-wise. When he then swapped his preamp for my Bonnec, everything was still very poor, but clearly better. He then argued that the “presentation was different” and that it was a matter of taste wish preamp you would prefer. He said something like “The Bonnec has lower distortion, bur less blaha blaha (fill in sound-cliché of your choise). I didn’t tell him that he was deaf because I wanted to make a deal with him – but he was deaf. I have no idea what he was listening to, but I guess that it had to do with “sound”? Frankly I believe that many “enthusiasts” like this just don’t have any useful method of evaluation at all.

Regarding Stellans take on “balanced” I have to say that the big flaw is that it considers “price” as a valid component. Price and performance are sometimes related, and if that’s the case, the formula might be of some value. But consider a system like LP12SE/Adikt – Slipsik – Kikkin – Active Majik 140? This is a perfectly reasonable system for someone who don’t want to go MC. But the “balance” would look better with Akurate Kontrol instead of Slipsik and Kikkin, regardless of the fact that it would be a worse system. Again, I think It’s a matter of the actual situation; what budget do you have, what products are available and to what price, and what system that you can possibly get for this money will bring you most joy?

/Az

[StellanH]

I must admit that price and performance tends to get less related in these days. There are clearly some over-priced gear out there, we do not even have to look away from some cherished brands.

However, I dont think performance is disconnected from price, not at least from the point of the producers. How is they gonna sell you a more expensive product if they cannot show (tune-dem!) it that is better than their cheaper product?

Obviously, Lejonklou have a lower price/performance relation, but I think he still can show that price follows performance.

Most manufacturers does not sell by tune-dem of course, but by sound, gadgets, gold-finish, number of glowing tubes etc.

[lejonklou]

I tend to agree with Azazello that the correlation between price and performance is really questionable.

From a competent manufacturer at a given time, there might be a correlation. But as soon as you change manufacturer, or time passes, or you add second hand options to the equation, the correlation might be completely gone.

[ThomasOK]

I think that this thread points out that there is another valuable evaluation tool in deciding how to spend your Hi-Fi budget: common sense! (I know, common sense isn't all that common. :( )

Of course you can find playback components that are so bad you won't want to listen to them. And you can find matchups that are tuneful but miss other parts of the music enough that you may find them unenjoyable as Azazello noted.

However, if you go with individual components that are themselves balanced and enjoyable you will find that source first really does work. The old upgrade chart that had you starting with a Dual 505, NAD 3020 and decent basic pair of speakers (Maxims or similar) and then upgrading to a Rega P2, then a P3 and then an LP12 before upgrading the amp or speakers still holds true. Only once you had an LP12 would you then look at a Nait and Kans, and then you'd upgrade the arm and cartridge, then a good preamp and amp and finally go up to Isobariks once the rest was sorted.

This system still works. Start with a Rega P1, Rega Brio3 and a decent pair of inexpensive speakers (in my case I'd use Paradigm Atoms at under $300US a pair). The best way to improve that if you had a little more money to spend would be to replace the Rega P1 with a P2 or a P3. To upgrade that system save up and buy a Majik LP12 or a good used LP12. Once you've got a decent LP12 setup then you could look at a Rega Mira3 or a Linn Classik with a Kinki. With one of these better amps you would be ready for Rega RS1 or 3s, Katans or Majik 109s. But once you're at this level it is time to go back to upgrading the LP12.

As any number of people who have heard and used these systems can testify, a pair of Katans, Majik 109s or even original Kans are good enough that you can take the LP12 as high as possible and you will still be able to hear and enjoy the improvements. And with the LP12 fairly well tricked out you'll also be able to enjoy taking the electronics as far as you care to.

Certainly, you might wish for more bass performance than Katans or Majik 109s and there are any number of options from Majik 140s to Espeks to Isobariks, etc.that can give you that. But if you put Klimax 350As or ATC 100As at the end of a Majik Kontrol driven by a Rega P3 you will not be happy with the results. Boring and lackluster would definitely be the way to describe it. Music just isn't any fun through such a system.

So there you have the ingredients for an enjoyable system:

Tuneful performance
Balance
Common Sense

And an unlimited source of funds doesn't hurt either - especially with all the continuing LP12 upgrades! :)

[ThomasOK]

I tend to agree with Azazello that the correlation between price and performance is really questionable.

From a competent manufacturer at a given time, there might be a correlation. But as soon as you change manufacturer, or time passes, or you add second hand options to the equation, the correlation might be completely gone.

As I mentioned earlier I am in full agreement with both these comments. The times when price and performance have any correlation are very rare. When they do occur they only do so within the confines of a really good manufacturer (Linn, Lejonklou and Rega come to mind) and their own line of products. Even that ordering changes when new models come out that outperform older, more expensive ones (Ikemi vs. Karik comes to mind). But go outside of one manufacturer and that all changes. The Rega P9/Exact, while a fine turntable, is certainly no competition for a Majik LP12. Yet the P9/Exact runs $5490US while the Majik LP12 runs $4040US with the optional dust cover.

Once you get to the majority of manufacturers all bets are off. It is well known that many companies' best products are their least expensive. More money mostly buys you more lights, buttons and knobs and worse musical performance. And I'm sure all of us have heard very expensive systems or components that were pretty much totally amusical - yet they get good reviews!

An as an aside to Stellan, Goldmund now makes a turntable and arm that sells for $300,000US and it converts the signal from analog to digital at the headshell - what a brilliant idea! :? It's not alone: the Clearaudio Statament and Continuum Caliburn turntable/arms each run $150,000US. To that you can add a $10,000US Clearaudio or a $20,000US Koetsu MC cartridge. It may not be $190,000US but it's within spitting distance! :(

[StellanH]

When discussing price-performance relations, I of course assume we are talking about serious manufactures and retailers, that sell their products by demonstrations and not by voodoo. I do not mean that product x is automatically better because it is more expensive that y.

It must be DEMONSTRATED to be better, to motivate the higher price.

I guess 95% of the members of this site is on a upgrading path to their audio-nirvana and the only thing that hinders them is the COST.
Then to pretend that price is not related to the performance is ridiculous.

I also do not think the users are up-grading by primarily searching in second-hand shops for bargains or try out 100 pieces of cheap gear to find hidden treasures. That is why we have producers that do the testing of components for you and in the end come up with a good product. And you usually have to pay for all that testing.

Regarding second-hand expensive gear: they are not so expensive any longer, which means that market puts them into the right place in the current hierarchy.

My experience is that you get what you pay for. But the decision what is better and if it is worth it is ultimately yours.

[Charlie1]

I think that this thread points out that there is another valuable evaluation tool in deciding how to spend your Hi-Fi budget: common sense! (I know, common sense isn't all that common. Sad )

I'm not sure common sense can always help. I've felt pretty lost at times, torn between Source First theory advocated here and other trains of thought suggesting that differences between source components are often exagerated and I'd get more bang for buck investing elsewhere in my system. It's especially hard if you respect both opinions and both make sense.

I'd imagine that for those that have gathered a wealth of hand-on experience over the years then perhaps A, B, C just seems only logical. The problem is many of us don't have anything like that level of experience so it's certainly less clear and sometimes plain confusing, particularly when there are vastly different approaches being advocated.

Of course, we can all listen ourselves but only when buying brand new. And whilst a dem means you have a MUCH clearer idea as to what you're getting for your money, living with your choice might turn out a little different as you identify things you missed in the dem.

[ThomasOK]

Charlie1, I agree with all your comments. It is certainly more difficult for the consumer who only evaluates a few pieces of equipment every once in a while. That is why the best bet for most people is to have a good dealer who loves music and can demonstrate which equipment and combinations improve the enjoyment of it. I know these dealers are not always easy to find and that is a pity. But they are worth the trouble in searching out.

On the common sense front I just meant that the hierarchy is valid and, as long as all the components you are using are at least decent and capable of reproducing music with some believability, the system of upgrades I posted above does work. There isn't a lot of sense in trying to see if you can break the hierarchy by hooking an LP12 up to a plastic boom box (except possibly as a theoretical exercise). Throwing in really bad components to see how far you can stretch things can be an interesting exercise, as you have shown in your experiments, but it is hardly a "common sense" way to actually structure a system.

[Charlie1]

I agree with all you're saying above.

[Charlie1]

Just to briefly add that I think poor performing products can be useful to those that are trying to learn tune dem or understand for the first time how differences in musicality come across. Ivor started with MP3 when I attended a dem he was doing of KDS|KK/1|Solos|K350s before moving up in resolution. It was a good starting point as it made the improvement obvious when moving up to CD quality and personally helped me get my ear in, ready for more subtle improvements moving beyond CD resolution.