The meaning of Source First

[sunbeamgls]

Split from the topic 'Listening to Beatles on vinyl'

Speakers without crossover next thing on the list? :-)

The greatest impact on musicality is at the source and the speaker crossover is far from it.

Matt

Yes, however, a good musical signal at the source can be mangled into non-musical content by later components, including crossovers. Source first, but a system is end to end and all components need to preserve musicality as best they can.

[lejonklou]

... a good musical signal at the source can be mangled into non-musical content by later components, including crossovers.

Not really.

The quality of a great source is evident even when put through a bad system. Like back in the day when I played cassette tapes on my lousy kitchen radio: The cassettes I recorded from a top spec LP12 were wonderful to listen to. They could instantly alter the mood in the kitchen. The other cassettes didn't have that ability and felt boring in comparison.

The same thing applies when we record in-room clips of our systems using our iPhones. In absolute terms, they sound pretty awful. But even in those clips it's easy to hear any change done to the source.

Source First! No 'but' or 'however' needed.

[sunbeamgls]

... a good musical signal at the source can be mangled into non-musical content by later components, including crossovers.

Not really.

The quality of a great source is evident even when put through a bad system. Like back in the day when I played cassette tapes on my lousy kitchen radio: The cassettes I recorded from a top spec LP12 were wonderful to listen to. They could instantly alter the mood in the kitchen. The other cassettes didn't have that ability and felt boring in comparison.

The same thing applies when we record in-room clips of our systems using our iPhones. In absolute terms, they sound pretty awful. But even in those clips it's easy to hear any change done to the source.

Source First! No 'but' or 'however' needed.

As I said in my post, fully agree with source first, there is no "but" or "however" about that. Can't agree with source only - source first (no buts or howevers) isn't source only. A very musical source into Naim Statement and Focal Grand Utopias is unlistenably bright, harsh and shouty. Had to leave the room it was so horrible, it was impossible to listen to it to find out if there was any music. Same source in the next room into Naim classic amps and Kudos speakers, very musical indeed. Listened for a couple of hours.

Edited to add another example:

Less than 2 weeks ago, went with a friend to listen to a mutual friend's system - he's in the process of a major re-think based around his WB speakers so there have been a few sessions recently to listen to different kit playing into them. This time the system was Innuos Zenith, USB to Chord Hugo TT into Chord 650 power amp, Naim SL speaker cables and the Wilson Benesch Arcs on their dedicated stands. So this sounded OK from a "hifi" perspective - deep bass (given the speaker size), clear treble etc.
However, and it was a major however, the music was a mess. There was something odd about the timing - almost as if the timing of the music was dependent on frequency or something - certainly it was very uninvolving and didn't engage us in the musical message at all. We swapped speaker cables for Chord Epic Reference but that just took away a layer of information, then the USB cable (I don't recall which makes) which made no discernable difference, certainly not to the lack of tune.
Then we swapped out the Chord power amp for a Naim NAP 250DR (as this was on his list of stuff to demo and was at hand) and the difference was instantly noticable and fundamental. Now the tunes are there again - the instruments are playing together, the wierd temporal aberrations were gone. Music was back in the room. Quite remarkable really - I hope the Chord was faulty or something because it certainly wasn't musical.

[Charlie1]

I played about with source first several years ago once I started to get a clearer understanding from forum members here. I recall connecting my LP12 to our ageing Technics midi system. It didn't sound much from a hi-fi perspective but all the fun was there and it was enjoyable. The best way to distribute hi-fi funds is an interesting topic but I would always heavily veer towards the source based upon experiences like that.

But I also understand that a system can be very poorly balanced (I've owned a couple as a teenager) and the balance fatiguing and/or too distracting to enjoy music, no matter how great the source.

[sunbeamgls]

I played about with source first several years ago once I started to get a clearer understanding from forum members here. I recall connecting my LP12 to our ageing Technics midi system. It didn't sound much from a hi-fi perspective but all the fun was there and it was enjoyable. The best way to distribute hi-fi funds is an interesting topic but I would always heavily veer towards the source based upon experiences like that.

But I also understand that a system can be very poorly balanced (I've owned a couple as a teenager) and the balance fatiguing and/or too distracting to enjoy music, no matter how great the source.

Its an interesting one - and its not all about how much the kit costs. A NAD 3020 back in the day had some faults from a "hifi" perspective, such as a somewhat bloated upper bass, but it was a very enjoyable and musical amp for only £90 at the time - easily bettering many of the shiny Japanese amps at 3 times the price. It supported many source upgrades in my system before moving on to a better amplifier. Without changing the source the better amplifier made the system better, but it was still in a range of products a few rungs below the quality of the source.

[Charlie1]

Its an interesting one - and its not all about how much the kit costs. A NAD 3020 back in the day had some faults from a "hifi" perspective, such as a somewhat bloated upper bass, but it was a very enjoyable and musical amp for only £90 at the time - easily bettering many of the shiny Japanese amps at 3 times the price. It supported many source upgrades in my system before moving on to a better amplifier. Without changing the source the better amplifier made the system better, but it was still in a range of products a few rungs below the quality of the source.

A friend of mine had one with a Dual turntable. I don't recall the speakers. Like you, I found it very enjoyable.

[sunbeamgls]

... a good musical signal at the source can be mangled into non-musical content by later components, including crossovers.

Not really.

The quality of a great source is evident even when put through a bad system. Like back in the day when I played cassette tapes on my lousy kitchen radio: The cassettes I recorded from a top spec LP12 were wonderful to listen to. They could instantly alter the mood in the kitchen. The other cassettes didn't have that ability and felt boring in comparison.

The same thing applies when we record in-room clips of our systems using our iPhones. In absolute terms, they sound pretty awful. But even in those clips it's easy to hear any change done to the source.

Source First! No 'but' or 'however' needed.

Having given this a bit more thought, I think what you're describing above is the ability to hear a difference in the musicality of the source - that's what both of your examples above illustrate. And that's fair enough - even if a downstream component is only capable of passing along 50% of the musicality, you'll still hear a difference in the musicality of a source.

My contention is that a 95% musically capable source through a 50% musically capable system (total effect 42.5% capability) isn't necessarily giving you a more musical experience than a 90% musically capable source through an 80% musically capable system (total effect 72% capability).
Of course, much better to have a 95% source and 80% remainder of the system. But its when you get up to this sort of level of capability across the system does it seem worth pursuing that last 5% in the source.

The percentage illustration is a bit crude, but gets the point across.

[lejonklou]

Your percentage calculation reveals that you don't understand the concept of Source First, sunbeamgls.

The numbers are beyond crude, as it doesn't work that way at all. The source does something completely different than the downstream components.

[sunbeamgls]

Your percentage calculation reveals that you don't understand the concept of Source First, sunbeamgls.

The numbers are beyond crude, as it doesn't work that way at all. The source does something completely different than the downstream components.

Its all about loss, regardless of component - they all loose some of the music, despite each component doing different things in the chain - it seems that using a great source and then squandering its output through mediocre components is a waste of that source. Loss is cumulative (that's why source first is important, to minimise the loss as much as possible as soon as possible - but its not a miracle which stops losses later - I gave 2 very real examples of this), I'm not sure how its possible to argue with that but I would like to understand more if you could give an explanation of how the chain isn't about minimising loss? We might learn something that way.

If I don't understand source first, I must be wrong in supporting it perhaps?

[Charlie1]

Its all about loss, regardless of component - they all loose some of the music, despite each component doing different things in the chain - it seems that using a great source and then squandering its output through mediocre components is a waste of that source. Loss is cumulative (that's why source first is important, to minimise the loss as much as possible as soon as possible - but its not a miracle which stops losses later - I gave 2 very real examples of this)

But this isn't Source First theory though Sunbeam. Source first isn't about cumulative loss and other components. It's pays zero attention to such things. It's basically saying that if system A has a better source than system B, then it's game over and the rest is irrelevant. System A source might be connected to a cheap 80s midi system. System B source might be only slightly less tuneful and, what's more, connected to the greatest amps and speakers in the world. It still won't matter. System A will be more musical. Source First is that extreme.

I'm pretty sure that's what Linn meant by it back in the day, and perhaps some employees still do, and that's what Fredrik and many dealers and owners still believe.

I have to say though that it has never made logical sense to my mind. And no analogy I ever heard helped either. However, my own preferences in terms of enjoying music have always aligned with it, even some quite extreme comparisons.

I completely understand if you think it's a complete nonsense but I do think this is what it's always meant, not some idea that it's just a good idea to invest a bit more in your source than your amps etc. We can go on to explore limits where it becomes silly but, even so, I think those limits will be a lot further down the line than you had in mind.

[sunbeamgls]

Its all about loss, regardless of component - they all loose some of the music, despite each component doing different things in the chain - it seems that using a great source and then squandering its output through mediocre components is a waste of that source. Loss is cumulative (that's why source first is important, to minimise the loss as much as possible as soon as possible - but its not a miracle which stops losses later - I gave 2 very real examples of this)

But this isn't Source First theory though Sunbeam. Source first isn't about cumulative loss and other components. It's pays zero attention to such things. It's basically saying that if system A has a better source than system B, then it's game over and the rest is irrelevant. System A source might be connected to a cheap 80s midi system. System B source might be only slightly less tuneful and, what's more, connected to the greatest amps and speakers in the world. It still won't matter. System A will be more musical. Source First is that extreme.

I'm pretty sure that's what Linn meant by it back in the day, and perhaps some employees still do, and that's what Fredrik and many dealers and owners still believe.

I have to say though that it has never made logical sense to my mind. And no analogy I ever heard helped either. However, my own preferences in terms of enjoying music have always aligned with it, even some quite extreme comparisons.

I completely understand if you think it's a complete nonsense but I do think this is what it's always meant, not some idea that it's just a good idea to invest a bit more in your source than your amps etc. We can go on to explore limits where it becomes silly but, even so, I think those limits will be a lot further down the line than you had in mind.

Interesting points charlie1. I have to say, according to the forum rules, source first is described as a hierarchy, not an absolute. It refers to order of importance, which I fully subscribe to. What it does not say is 'source at the expense of everything else'. I gave examples where the source in both systems were identical, but one system (the lower cost one, in both examples, as it happens) was more musical, clearly demonstrating that the rest of the system is musically important. Neither of these were extreme examples, but very real and reasonable. I couldn't stand the idea of listening to the first system in example 1 even though it started with a very musical source, as demonstrated by that same source in the scomd system. In example 2 we had a completely unengaging system which became engaging when an amp that let the music through was substituted. How does a hardline version of source first possibly guarantee a musical result in the context of these examples?

It there are those who think having the most musical source possible with the least musical supporting components is giving them a more enjoyable result than a slightly compromised source into very capable components because it fits a theoretical position then that's their particular choice of compromises. I'd much rather listen to most of the music coming out of a well balanced source first hierarchy than a brilliant source that has been trashed by poor supporting components. Source first yes, source only - not for me, I enjoy my music too much for that.

[lejonklou]

Source first isn't about cumulative loss and other components. It's pays zero attention to such things. It's basically saying that if system A has a better source than system B, then it's game over and the rest is irrelevant. System A source might be connected to a cheap 80s midi system. System B source might be only slightly less tuneful and, what's more, connected to the greatest amps and speakers in the world. It still won't matter. System A will be more musical. Source First is that extreme.

I'm pretty sure that's what Linn meant by it back in the day, and perhaps some employees still do, and that's what Fredrik and many dealers and owners still believe.

I have to say though that it has never made logical sense to my mind. And no analogy I ever heard helped either. However, my own preferences in terms of enjoying music have always aligned with it, even some quite extreme comparisons.

I completely understand if you think it's a complete nonsense but I do think this is what it's always meant, not some idea that it's just a good idea to invest a bit more in your source than your amps etc. We can go on to explore limits where it becomes silly but, even so, I think those limits will be a lot further down the line than you had in mind.

Correct, Charlie!

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.

When using the Tune Method to evaluate performance, that's the conclusion you end up with.

It's worth noting that Source First is incompatible with the idea of "accumulative loss" (because the losses are not of the same nature and therefore not comparable) or "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" (invalid metaphor).

[Music Lover]

As Charlie wrote

if system A has a better source than system B, then it's game over and the rest is irrelevant.

This is source first!
Best source = best system. Simply as that.
And using same source, the system with the best pre going to be best.

It must be experienced. Musicality can't be calculated.

[sunbeamgls]

Source first is, to me, based on also hearing countless systems, a priority, and the correct one at that. And yes, it has the most fundamental effect.

Weakest link is a poor analogy, I fully agree, with the exception of a system where the source is the weakest link, where the analogy is appropriate.

What L and ML are describing is, to me, not source first but source only. Thank you for clarifying your interpretations. They do not, however, explain away the 2 examples I gave of where it simply was not true. The first example was unlistenable, the second was tuneless. These examples are findings too, not theories. Having a good source is the priority, these examples demonstrate that its a priority, not an absolute. Perhaps they fit into the 'virtually any degredation' exception noted by Fredrik. I would be interested to know if you would be happy to live with a system that was unlistenably harsh or one that played no tune just because you knew it had a good tuneful source? I've heard many systems at shows that have sources known to be musically good but they weren't worth listening to.

If source only is the way to go, should we all have systems that contain the minimum spend on an amp and speakers until we have the ultimately musical source? Should we have a Nait and Kans (as a lowish cost example from the past) or perhaps Boazu and 3677s (an example from today) until we own either a Klimax LP12 or KDS/3 (as examples of source components often referred to as very musical sources)?

[Charlie1]

I have to say, according to the forum rules, source first is described as a hierarchy, not an absolute.

It's still a hierarchy to my mind. As ML wrote, once the source is optimised (Klimax LP12, KDS) then the pre-amp is the next focus until optimised, then power amp, then speakers. So yes, KDS, Boazu, 109s would be a good source first way of spending funds.

Would you really connect a KDS to a Bush midi system from the 1980s? No. The sound quality would be so horrid that there would be no point. But DS/Boazu/109s sounds like a great recipe to me. So, what this means is that somewhere there is a cut off point where it makes no sense to continue down the Source First path. And I suspect this cut off point will vary between people.

Also, Fredrik talks about Source First being a finding. I suspect most of his experiences will be with pretty good-to-very good HiFi, not tacky midi systems - I was just using an 80s midi system to help convey the concept.

[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?

[Music Lover]

What L and ML are describing is, to me, not source first but source only. Thank you for clarifying your interpretations.

Anytime :)
But to be clear, for me: "source first = source only"
Yes, the best source going to get you the most musical result.
But not always the best sounding system, as your examples describes.

If source only is the way to go, should we all have systems that contain the minimum spend on an amp and speakers until we have the ultimately musical source?

Yes, given that musicality is your only goal.

As you (I think based on your text), I also have high requirements on the "sound".

[sunbeamgls]

As ML wrote, once the source is optimised (Klimax LP12, KDS) then the pre-amp is the next focus until optimised, then power amp, then speakers. So yes, KDS, Boazu, 109s would be a good source first way of spending funds.

Would you really connect a KDS to a Bush midi system from the 1980s? No. The sound quality would be so horrid that there would be no point. But DS/Boazu/109s sounds like a great recipe to me. So, what this means is that somewhere there is a cut off point where it makes no sense to continue down the Source First path. And I suspect this cut off point will vary between people.

Agreed - it seems to me that the message is, for example, about excluding buying anything better than Boazu / 109 until you have a KDS/3, or whatever is thought of as a "good enough" source - and that source, as you suggest charlie1, is probably an individual choice - when is a source good enough to spend more on the rest of the system? So a KDS/1 is not worth buying better amps and speakers for? That's a very strict interpretation.

[sunbeamgls]

What L and ML are describing is, to me, not source first but source only. Thank you for clarifying your interpretations.

Anytime :)
But to be clear, for me: "source first = source only"
Yes, the best source going to get you the most musical result.
But not always the best sounding system, as your examples describes.

If source only is the way to go, should we all have systems that contain the minimum spend on an amp and speakers until we have the ultimately musical source?

Yes, given that musicality is your only goal.

As you (I think based on your text), I also have high requirements on the "sound".

:) Musicality first, but you have to be able to hear it to find and enjoy it. Example 1, not worth the effort to find out if there is any musicality, example 2 - no tune, therefore not musical. Neither example down to the source, but down to a musical source being squandered further along in the system. And we're talking system components in the thousands and tens of thousands of pounds, not extreme examples of low cost boxes.

[Music Lover]

when is a source good enough to spend more on the rest of the system?

Rule 1 - given the budget, get the best source you can. Spend the rest on amp/speakers.
Rule 2 - when upgrading, spend it on the source until top spec.

This is obvious when you compare alternatives.
(Ivor was right 40y ago and still is...)

Trust me, I rather have a KDS/Nait/Kan-system than ADS/K350A

[Music Lover]

On a budget I would start with this.
KRenew/Kikkin/LK85/JBL 8340 Pro
A steal for 2.5k€

Later
Upgrade to KDS, then get a Boazu

[Charlie1]

Agreed - it seems to me that the message is, for example, about excluding buying anything better than Boazu / 109 until you have a KDS/3

Yep, that's it.

or whatever is thought of as a "good enough" source - and that source, as you suggest charlie1, is probably an individual choice - when is a source good enough to spend more on the rest of the system? So a KDS/1 is not worth buying better amps and speakers for? That's a very strict interpretation.

It's not really that the source has to be good enough. Like ML said above, it's about spending as much as you can on the best source possible (within your budget), leaving only enough for entry level amp and speakers.

To answer your specific question, 'when is a source good enough to spend more on the rest of the system?', the answer would be when you've got the best possible source, then any spare funds can be diverted to the pre-amp. Once you have the best possible pre-amp, then new funds can go to the power amp and so on.

However, if a new better source comes available or a source upgrade, then always shift back to the source first of all, or any other component higher up the hierarchy - i.e. a newly launched pre-amp upgrade should be priority over buying better power amp or speakers that you had anticipated doing next.

Source First is always relating to budget. Without any budget you just buy the best of everything.

[sunbeamgls]

Trust me, I rather have a KDS/Nait/Kan-system than ADS/K350A

Probably right, but if anyone thinks I'm advocating ADS into K350A then they've completely misunderstood my point, as that is distinctly not source first, by any definition.

I'd much rather have (off the top of my head), KRDS/1, AV5125 into active Ninkas than anything that included a Nait or Kans, but that's just personal preference - but it does mean spending a little less on a source and a little more on the other bits to get something worth listening to for me. Nait and Kan have too much missing from the message, even if they are musical.

[sunbeamgls]

Agreed - it seems to me that the message is, for example, about excluding buying anything better than Boazu / 109 until you have a KDS/3

Yep, that's it.

or whatever is thought of as a "good enough" source - and that source, as you suggest charlie1, is probably an individual choice - when is a source good enough to spend more on the rest of the system? So a KDS/1 is not worth buying better amps and speakers for? That's a very strict interpretation.

It's not really that the source has to be good enough. Like ML said above, it's about spending as much as you can on the best source possible (within your budget), leaving only enough for entry level amp and speakers.

To answer your specific question, 'when is a source good enough to spend more on the rest of the system?', the answer would be when you've got the best possible source, then any spare funds can be diverted to the pre-amp. Once you have the best possible pre-amp, then new funds can go to the power amp and so on. However, if a new better source comes available or a source upgrade, then always shift back to the source first of all, or any other component higher up the hierarchy - i.e. a pre-amp upgrade should be priority over buying better power amp or speakers.

Source First is always relating to budget. Without any budget you just buy the best of everything.

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

[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.[/quote]
Completely agree.

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?