The meaning of Source First

[lejonklou]

Oh, come on sunbeam! You know exactly what I mean. You coined the pointless concept "source only", which is what I'm objecting to.

- A good musical source is wasted by a system that contains other components that destroy musicality

False, as there are virtually no components that "destroy" musicality and the quality of a good source is never "wasted". That's why it's possible we can recognize and feel the skill of a master musician through a telephone that previously recorded a kitchen radio playing a song. Terrible reproduction, but humans have an amazing ability to cut thorough the crap and recognise the essential qualities of the source material. The exact same thing applies to HiFi.

- 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)

Hardly, as then you wouldn't try twisting concepts with the invention of "source only".

- I'm writing about small differences is source quality vs large differences in supporting components, not a rubbish source vs very good supporting component

Irrelevant - the magnitude of differences does not matter, as what the source does is completely different than what other components do. You are stuck in the idea of gradual loss of quality in each step, but in reality the losses are not of the same nature and therefore not interchangeable or tradeable.

[sunbeamgls]

Oh, come on sunbeam! You know exactly what I mean. You coined the pointless concept "source only", which is what I'm objecting to.

- A good musical source is wasted by a system that contains other components that destroy musicality

False, as there are virtually no components that "destroy" musicality and the quality of a good source is never "wasted". That's why it's possible we can recognize and feel the skill of a master musician through a telephone that previously recorded a kitchen radio playing a song. Terrible reproduction, but humans have an amazing ability to cut thorough the crap and recognise the essential qualities of the source material. The exact same thing applies to HiFi.

- 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)

Hardly, as then you wouldn't try twisting concepts with the invention of "source only".

- I'm writing about small differences is source quality vs large differences in supporting components, not a rubbish source vs very good supporting component

Irrelevant - the magnitude of differences does not matter, as what the source does is completely different than what other components do. You are stuck in the idea of gradual loss of quality in each step, but in reality the losses are not of the same nature and therefore not interchangeable or tradeable.

OK Fredrik, I accept there is no need for a new term, I just wanted to find a way differentiate between the strictest interpretation of source first and something a little more pragmatic - "source first is the priority", might be a better phrase. Source first that allows the listener to enjoy that source to much closer to its potential rather than listening to it through a bunch of components that compromise it, that's all. I gave some findings to illustrate the point. It wasn't clear to me that my points had been understood when there were references to speakers first, which I've not mentioned and don't subscribe to.

Whilst I understand your example with the phone, just because that may be possible, doesn't make it desirable.

We'll have to differ on the ability of supporting components to remove musicality.

[Erik]

...............

OK Fredrik, I accept there is no need for a new term, I just wanted to find a way differentiate between the strictest interpretation of source first and something a little more pragmatic - "source first is the priority", might be a better phrase. ..........

Please give up and realize you don't understand source first. There is no need to pretend and then try to explain "a little more pragmatic" way to see it.

/Erik

[sunbeamgls]

...............

OK Fredrik, I accept there is no need for a new term, I just wanted to find a way differentiate between the strictest interpretation of source first and something a little more pragmatic - "source first is the priority", might be a better phrase. ..........

Please give up and realize you don't understand source first. There is no need to pretend and then try to explain "a little more pragmatic" way to see it.

/Erik

I understand it. I just don't want to live with the compromises that taking the principle to extremes brings with it. You can disagree with my approach Erik, but that doesn't stop me from understanding something whilst choosing not to take it to the extreme.

[Erik]

...............

OK Fredrik, I accept there is no need for a new term, I just wanted to find a way differentiate between the strictest interpretation of source first and something a little more pragmatic - "source first is the priority", might be a better phrase. ..........

Please give up and realize you don't understand source first. There is no need to pretend and then try to explain "a little more pragmatic" way to see it.

/Erik

I understand it.

No, you don't

[donuk]

I think debates like this are inevitable on a forum which is populated by people who have very firm opinions. Which is a shame: people who hold different views will be reluctant to contribute.

We are not professional journalists, nor university students having to produce papers which are academically rigorous.

We each have the right to be wrong. To me it is a shame that on this forum there is the same old brotherhood who quote the same few maxims which we all know. It is boring.

For what it's worth, in a lifetime of hifi listening, I find that the source is very important; but so is the rest of the chain. Why did I bother wasting my money on a Tundra: I should have spent it on a better stylus.

Come on guys, there are many roads to hifi Heaven. There is even room for sinner like me who prefer not to use tunedem.

Donuk sunny downtown York

[jajo]

I just don't want to live with the compromises that taking the principle to extremes brings with it.

No principle should be taken to the extreme.

I went to a local hifi dealer the other week. This is a non Linn dealer. They had a couple of different digital streamers ranging from $200 to $10000. I asked if I could listen to the most expensive unit and the sales guy told me "No, it is not possible because we don't have any speakers connected that will make it justice".

I remember a long time ago when I compared Klimax DS and Akurate DS through a cheap set of computer speakers. I was blown away by the difference in emotion and message. I remember that I listened to music the whole night and thought to myself "I could live with this".

Since then, "Source First" has been the principle on which I have built my system. Does that mean that I have taken it to the extreme and continued to use computer speakers? No. But I want the best source, period. The rest of the system is less important for the end result I am looking for.

[Erik]

I think debates like this are inevitable on a forum which is populated by people who have very firm opinions. Which is a shame: people who hold different views will be reluctant to contribute.

We are not professional journalists, nor university students having to produce papers which are academically rigorous.

We each have the right to be wrong. To me it is a shame that on this forum there is the same old brotherhood who quote the same few maxims which we all know. It is boring.

For what it's worth, in a lifetime of hifi listening, I find that the source is very important; but so is the rest of the chain. Why did I bother wasting my money on a Tundra: I should have spent it on a better stylus.

Come on guys, there are many roads to hifi Heaven. There is even room for sinner like me who prefer not to use tunedem.

Donuk sunny downtown York

Don, of course it is, as long as you don't try to convince someone the Tune Method is wrong or might be interpreted to something it's not. Fredrik hosts this forum and clearly states the forum rules http://www.lejonklou.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13

Trolls like sunbeamgls tries to convince me there is limitations and ways to calculate the shortcomings of source first. He is more than welcome to do this but not here as it's stated to be a place where we have the same common ground.

/Erik

[kct]

Ok chaps. Pistols at dawn.
Is it best bullet or best gun ?

[Erik]

Ok chaps. Pistols at dawn.
Is it best bullet or best gun ?

Source first: best shooter.

[sunbeamgls]

I don't want to shoot anyone nor their opinions, so neither.

[Charlie1]

To summarise, there's been two threads to this topic. There is the source first finding itself, which is one thread. Glad the source only name has been challenged and we can just debate the meaning of source first. Sunbeam thinks it means something else to many of us but I still maintain he understands what we mean by it.

And there is a second thread relating to what you might do with that knowledge to build a system. Someone that beleives in source first (as most of us understand it) may well chose to build a system that doesnt strictly abide by it, as per Jajo's post. Fredrik himself has used MM cartridges all the years I've known him for various sensible reasons. I too ran a Klyde into Urika for a couple of years but also considered the Adikt to replace my first Akiva.

[Music Lover]

what's lost at the source can't be recovered. Source first says this.

True!
But then you write the following...totally contradicting source first.
It can't be both.

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.

sunbeamgls. I'm sorry to say but this is totally wrong.
You can obtain (sometimes) a better sound, but not a more musical result.

[Spannko]

Sunbeam,

If we were to think about the "source" as being the performer, your logic suggests that you would be happier listening to an X Factor contestant on the very best sounding system (of your choice), compared to Dame Janet Baker played on my Bush "hifi" which I bought for my children 15 years ago for £90 (using the Tune Method as a guide). However, I can assure you that the Bush was incapable of removing the musicality of DJB, and as far as I'm aware, there's no system on earth which will make an X Factor contestant enjoyable to listen to!

The same logic applies to the "sources" we have some control over, which is why I use a KDS and not an ADS - the difference in sound may not justify the extra expense, but the improvement in musicality is priceless.

Personally speaking, exchanging any amount of musicality for a more preferable sound is a compromise I'm not prepared to accept.

[Charlie1]

I think that's the best analogy I've heard. Thanks Spannko.

[sunbeamgls]

what's lost at the source can't be recovered. Source first says this.

True!
But then you write the following...totally contradicting source first.
It can't be both.

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.

sunbeamgls. I'm sorry to say but this is totally wrong.
You can obtain (sometimes) a better sound, but not a more musical result.

I think you've misunderstood the second part ML. If you're losing a whole bunch of musicality through poor supporting components, then you're losing musicality, you don't get it back at your ears, regardless of which bit of the system has lost that music. Losing a bit of musicality earlier is a compromise worth accepting (for me) to avoid losing lots of musicality later (for me). All components can lose musicality, not just the source.

[sunbeamgls]

Sunbeam,

If we were to think about the "source" as being the performer, your logic suggests that you would be happier listening to an X Factor contestant on the very best sounding system (of your choice), compared to Dame Janet Baker played on my Bush "hifi" which I bought for my children 15 years ago for £90 (using the Tune Method as a guide). However, I can assure you that the Bush was incapable of removing the musicality of DJB, and as far as I'm aware, there's no system on earth which will make an X Factor contestant enjoyable to listen to!

The same logic applies to the "sources" we have some control over, which is why I use a KDS and not an ADS - the difference in sound may not justify the extra expense, but the improvement in musicality is priceless.

Personally speaking, exchanging any amount of musicality for a more preferable sound is a compromise I'm not prepared to accept.

Nice analogy, and good to understand your opinion on the right compromise for you.

Not quite an accurate comparison. My point is about losing a small amount of musicality at the source, not writing it off completely, which your analogy suggests. Your comparison here would be better aligned to speaker first thinking.

[matthias]

If you're losing a whole bunch of musicality through poor supporting components, then you're losing musicality, you don't get it back at your ears, regardless of which bit of the system has lost that music. Losing a bit of musicality earlier is a compromise worth accepting (for me) to avoid losing lots of musicality later (for me). All components can lose musicality, not just the source.

My point is about losing a small amount of musicality at the source, not writing it off completely, which your analogy suggests.

Sorry,
Sunbeam,
that you do not get it.

Matt

[Charlie1]

I cant see the debate moving forward now. Only new experiences may change things. Viewpoints seem set now.

[sunbeamgls]

Time to move on. Its getting repetitive. I'll stick with source first as a relative priority for me, in line with many of the forum members, judging by system listings.

Thanks for the constructive contributions.

[sunbeamgls]

I cant see the debate moving forward now. Only new experiences may change things. Viewpoints seem set now.

Coincidence! :)

[matthias]

I cant see the debate moving forward now. Only new experiences may change things. Viewpoints seem set now.

It is enough, let us close the topic.

Matt

[lejonklou]

To summarise, there's been two threads to this topic. There is the source first finding itself, which is one thread. Glad the source only name has been challenged and we can just debate the meaning of source first. Sunbeam thinks it means something else to many of us but I still maintain he understands what we mean by it.

And there is a second thread relating to what you might do with that knowledge to build a system. Someone that beleives in source first (as most of us understand it) may well chose to build a system that doesnt strictly abide by it, as per Jajo's post. Fredrik himself has used MM cartridges all the years I've known him for various sensible reasons. I too ran a Klyde into Urika for a couple of years but also considered the Adikt to replace my first Akiva.

Glad you pointed this out, Charlie. I agree that it's two different discussions.

If one uses the Tune Method to evaluate performance, one arrives at the Source First conclusion. It's inevitable.

The second one, how one chooses to build one's own system, is a different discussion.

[sunbeamgls]

To summarise, there's been two threads to this topic. There is the source first finding itself, which is one thread. Glad the source only name has been challenged and we can just debate the meaning of source first. Sunbeam thinks it means something else to many of us but I still maintain he understands what we mean by it.

And there is a second thread relating to what you might do with that knowledge to build a system. Someone that beleives in source first (as most of us understand it) may well chose to build a system that doesnt strictly abide by it, as per Jajo's post. Fredrik himself has used MM cartridges all the years I've known him for various sensible reasons. I too ran a Klyde into Urika for a couple of years but also considered the Adikt to replace my first Akiva.

Glad you pointed this out, Charlie. I agree that it's two different discussions.

If one uses the Tune Method to evaluate performance, one arrives at the Source First conclusion. It's inevitable.

The second one, how one chooses to build one's own system, is a different discussion.

This make a lot of sense.

[Charlie1]

And Source First is not a theory, it's a finding. A conclusion drawn from countless comparisons where not a single diversion has been noted from the pattern that an improvement closer to the source has a greater musical impact than virtually any degradation happening later in the chain.

Thanks for the clarification.

Where do you stand when people in the past have stated that they would rather listen to a well setup Majik system to a poorly setup Klimax system. Doesn't the superior Klimax source cut through the poor setup?

Maybe open this one out if anyone else has any thoughts.

I did think about it more and concluded it probably depends upon the type of setup issue. For example, something related to the LP12 itself is effectively downgrading the actual source so a well setup Majik system could outperform Klimax.

But what about speaker positioning? I guess it's possible. Perhaps the poorly setup Klimax speakers could be creating a bass issue that also impairs the Klimax spec deck. Enough to drop performance below the Majik deck? Seems unlikely...