Re: More on source first and other priorities
Posted: 2023-11-03 19:01
Hmmm. I might be able to compare Källa>boazu>'cheap no name speakers in untuned position' with Hakai>boazu>Espeks in a month or so....
https://www.lejonklou.com/forum/
I'm sure one system would do something different better/worse from other system.Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 18:15 Yeah, source first was best.
Here's a hypothetical system for you since I haven't done a real world comparison.
1. Klimax LP12 > Sagatun Monos > Tundra Monos > Inexpressive speakers that don't let the music through very well
2. Selekt LP12 > Boazu > Majik 109s
I think I'd pick system 2.
LOL!lindsayt wrote: ↑2023-11-03 18:41So, the same speakers in both systems? ;)Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 18:15 Yeah, source first was best.
Here's a hypothetical system for you since I haven't done a real world comparison.
1. Klimax LP12 > Sagatun Monos > Tundra Monos > Inexpressive speakers that don't let the music through very well
2. Selekt LP12 > Boazu > Majik 109s
I think I'd pick system 2.
I think where this applies for me is when the speakers are unengaging. Cheap with no name and no setup doesn't guarantee that.springwood64 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 19:01 Hmmm. I might be able to compare Källa>boazu>'cheap no name speakers in untuned position' with Hakai>boazu>Espeks in a month or so....
TrueLego wrote: ↑2023-11-03 19:25I'm sure one system would do something different better/worse from other system.Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 18:15 Yeah, source first was best.
Here's a hypothetical system for you since I haven't done a real world comparison.
1. Klimax LP12 > Sagatun Monos > Tundra Monos > Inexpressive speakers that don't let the music through very well
2. Selekt LP12 > Boazu > Majik 109s
I think I'd pick system 2.
I think in this context we're not talking about crap anything.Were talking about a reasonable standard of kit .Some speakers might be holding back the tune more than other set but both would be enjoyable with a good front end .ThomasOK wrote: ↑2023-11-03 22:43 It just sounds like another misunderstanding of source first. Source first was never meant to be read source only nor to indicate that you can't destroy the musical quality of a system by putting a piece of crap anywhere in the system. It was meant to show that the piece(s) at the beginning of the system are more important musically than those at the end because the music once lost can't be recovered. More important isn't the same as all important and music can certainly be lost anywhere in a system. But the improvement in musical enjoyability of a fully loaded LP12 vs even a lesser LP12 is quite audible through a $200 MM phono stage, a $400 integrated amp and a $500 pair of speakers - as long as you choose the right components that are themselves musical. This example comes directly from the test bench where I used to work and did have Linn Silvers connecting the phono stage to the integrated amp and K20 connecting the speakers. But it doesn't include the room or even precise speaker setup as the speakers are on top of the bench used for turntable setup with a half wall behind them and probably too close to that wall.
So , yes, crap speakers can ruin the sound of even the best source.
Are speakers unengaging or showing how unengaging the source is .Again it's all speculation,and probably something that can't be demonstrated .Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 22:09I think where this applies for me is when the speakers are unengaging. Cheap with no name and no setup doesn't guarantee that.springwood64 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 19:01 Hmmm. I might be able to compare Källa>boazu>'cheap no name speakers in untuned position' with Hakai>boazu>Espeks in a month or so....
I can understand a better pair of speakers revealing an annoyance from the source/amp that other (possibly cheaper) pairs have covered up - I think that's quite normal. But I don't buy a musical pair of speakers turning a musical source/amp into an unmusical one.Lego wrote: ↑2023-11-04 11:54Are speakers unengaging or showing how unengaging the source is .Again it's all speculation,and probably something that can't be demonstrated .Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 22:09I think where this applies for me is when the speakers are unengaging. Cheap with no name and no setup doesn't guarantee that.springwood64 wrote: ↑2023-11-03 19:01 Hmmm. I might be able to compare Källa>boazu>'cheap no name speakers in untuned position' with Hakai>boazu>Espeks in a month or so....
I have a question - do you prefer a guitar thats carefully tuned or a guitar slightly out of tune ? Which one of those two guitars will give you more enjoyment ?Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-01 23:42 I'm sure by now we've all learned the value a source first approach to system building within a limited budget.
And many thanks to the various members who helped me on that journey. A journey that started quite a long time ago soon after I joined. Time has flown.
Yet what's more important to me than source first is the use of musical products end-to-end.
Despite the power of source first, I'd rather have a lower performing but fundamentally engaging system as a whole, to one built from a fabulously musical source, terrifically engaging amps, yet hampered by uncommunicative/unmusical speakers, for example.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I still believe in source first, but all the components have to engage me. It can't overcome a clanger in the mix.
Perhaps this was explained to me at various times but I clearly wasn't paying attention, or perhaps you disagree?
Thoughts?
I'm not sure that's a useful analogy Rutger. Obviously I want to hear music more in tune but I can't see a way to work your analogy into what I'm trying to convey.Rutger wrote: ↑2023-11-04 21:58 I have a question - do you prefer a guitar thats carefully tuned or a guitar slightly out of tune ? Which one of those two guitars will give you more enjoyment ?
This is what Source first is for me - the source that gives a more accurate perceived pitch from the recorded instruments when playing music is the better one .
The analogy isn't useful as source first on this forum starts with the performance. Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake and many others played with variable non-standard guitar tunings.Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-04 23:31I'm not sure that's a useful analogy Rutger. Obviously I want to hear music more in tune but I can't see a way to work your analogy into what I'm trying to convey.Rutger wrote: ↑2023-11-04 21:58 I have a question - do you prefer a guitar thats carefully tuned or a guitar slightly out of tune ? Which one of those two guitars will give you more enjoyment ?
This is what Source first is for me - the source that gives a more accurate perceived pitch from the recorded instruments when playing music is the better one .
I don't think I follow Charlie,did someone say musical speakers can make a musical front end unmusical?Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-04 12:59I can understand a better pair of speakers revealing an annoyance from the source/amp that other (possibly cheaper) pairs have covered up - I think that's quite normal. But I don't buy a musical pair of speakers turning a musical source/amp into an unmusical one.
I am starting to lose the plot a bit here, partly cos I've done my back in so its hard to think straight.Lego wrote: ↑2023-11-05 08:33I don't think I follow Charlie,did someone say musical speakers can make a musical front end unmusical?
Im only talking of the perceived pitch of a guitar. Good musicians use tuned guitars on their recordings. If one source can give the perceived listening impression of a more tuned guitar, then the articulation in the lower end of the sound where the fundamental rythm elements are, will also be more articulated, more easy to follow.FairPlayMotty wrote: ↑2023-11-04 23:44The analogy isn't useful as source first on this forum starts with the performance. Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake and many others played with variable non-standard guitar tunings.Charlie1 wrote: ↑2023-11-04 23:31I'm not sure that's a useful analogy Rutger. Obviously I want to hear music more in tune but I can't see a way to work your analogy into what I'm trying to convey.Rutger wrote: ↑2023-11-04 21:58 I have a question - do you prefer a guitar thats carefully tuned or a guitar slightly out of tune ? Which one of those two guitars will give you more enjoyment ?
This is what Source first is for me - the source that gives a more accurate perceived pitch from the recorded instruments when playing music is the better one .
I'm not questioning that source first is still working in terms of our ability to follow an instrument. I just feel that if other elements are uninvolving then they can negate that benefit and leave me uninterested, or much less interested in listening to music.Rutger wrote: ↑2023-11-06 08:53 Im only talking of the perceived pitch of a guitar. Good musicians use tuned guitars on their recordings. If one source can give the perceived listening impression of a more tuned guitar, then the articulation in the lower end of the sound where the fundamental rythm elements are, will also be more articulated, more easy to follow.
Also, the reason spikes below a speaker sound different than soft feets below the speaker , is because of the tone pitch of each instrument with spikes is perceived as better, even If the usual measurements may show differently . The articulation of each perceived tone is better.
A good source is MUCH better to use than any room correction programs like space or Dirak, - the better source will take away the problems with unarticulated bass . A Linn klimax DS without space will sound better and more articulated than an Akurate DS with space, regardless of the room shape.
For the same reason, a Rega planar 2 will be considered more pitch accurate than a Technics sl 1200 direct drive turnable. Better is better.
A more pitch accurate source will make music listening more fun, because its more musical, and more like the musicians intentions . Getting the pitch right will also give you more understanding of the music and more involvement.
This is my take on this subject, others might think different :)
Joni Mitchell, Nick Drake, Fred Neil and many others who experimented with non-standard guitar tunings qualify as, "good musicians" in my book. Guitar tunings are changed deliberately to suit the artist's requirements which adds to the enjoyment of the source recordings, certainly for me.
I'm very happy I bought the Velvet Underground & Nico as an eighteen year old. Sure I took the record back for what I thought was an unwarped version five or six times, back in the days when bad pressings were commonplace. However the music introduced me to a multitude of aspects of recorded music that were new to me. Try streaming The Black Angel's Death Song and tell me that Cale's playing is in tune. Do I enjoy it? Hell yes! My favourite ten albums change often but that album is always in the top five. Experimental music (e.g. Dolphy, Coltrane) pushed the boundaries and I'm glad it did.