Is source first relevant any more?

Yeah I'm perfectly happy with my HP890's. Yes they have a slightly hollow midrange and they can sound a bit bright at times. But they cost £50 and and they rock like anything I've heared at 4 times the price, they are much better than the Senheister HD497's and Beyer DT331's but thats not saying much.

I'm happy with my headphones though they are comfortable on me and I have no build quality issues on me. I think its important to get the system right though otherwise they will be bright.

 

I got a Superdac last friday. I also happen to own active 50's and well, the combination is really quite something.

If I had the choice between 50's and a superdac or a Levinson 390S and Active 10's I'd take the 50's and the superdac. [And guess what, I own a 390S ]

The only issue is the Superdac needs a preamp - whereas the 390S doesn't.

However, the Benchmarkmedia DAC1 has balanced out's, a volume control, some kind of jitter buster and the same DAC as the 390S and cost $700! [I was going to post photo's of the guts until I saw that 20K limit ]

 

Source first everytime. If you are the sort of person who just values volume over refinement and true hifi of course then this does not apply, but I have heard enough crap amplified by big rigs to know that in the long term it is unsatisfying.

 

I vote for synergy, any system is at least as weak as its weakest link, it can be weaker if there is no synergy... :latte:

 

Hi

Another one here for the source first gang.

I agree with Merlin, if you want quality refined sound you need a good signal. No matter how good your speakers or amps are, they cannot turn a poor signal into a good one.

the source first was a favourite from the turntable days & is still got weight today. High quality turntable require high quality mechnical engineering which isn't cheap. Garbage in Garbage out still applies.

You have to go on quality & not price. And with 2nd hand stuff, modding & value for money gear, you can get systems where the speakers cost more than the front ends. Higher price is no marker for better quality.

I do think one reason why it has fallen by the way side is that there are a number of cheaper cd players (& dacs) which wipe the fall with more expensive players.

Yes a system is only as good as it's weakness link but I don't like the weak link to be the front end. The amp & speakers will show it up.



SCIDB

 

very well put SCIDB. That sums it up nicely.

 

Sure, but if the amp is bad, meaning it cannot control the speakers, the sound is still lousy, and if the speakers dont fit the room or are plain bad, you wont hear that good source either...

 

What we are getting at Antonio is that you can buy a pair of speakers for say £200 that do most things superbly, particularly if you focus on the midrange. With amps too, there are some superb integrateds and prepowers at not silly money, the Rotel RA02 comes to mind, only smoothing over the very fine detail.

Now when it comes to source components, I cannot think of a £350 CD player that excels at anything. I also feel you need to spend more on sources to get real improvements. With analogue you are paying for the greater mechanical integrity, with digital, you are paying for the greater electrical integrity (but boy do you pay for it!).

Now take Robbo's Proacs. Fed from the best kit in the world, they will take on all comers up to many thousands of pounds in the midrange, which for many is all that matters. You will get all the detail, tonal shading and life from 50hz up that the reference player is delivering.

On the other hand you could feed an Arcam Diva 72 into a pair of Wilsons and it simply wouldn't compete, unless of course you are looking for spitty treble and uncntrolled bass.

Put simply, it's a lot easier to find quality but cheap speakers than it is to find an equivalent source.

 

It's source first all the way*, as we were demonstrating to ourselves this afternoon.


* But only if your cabling is up to it.

Well I would say that wouldn't I, but I believe it to be true (and a demonstrable fact of course)

Cheers

 

Hi,

Why are you buying an amp that can't drive your speakers.

I agree with Merlin, you good cheap speaker that are quite easy to drive that can be handled by cheap priced amps. A good cheap speaker will improve in quality when fed with a better signal. I have done this many times over the years.

There are a number of speakers that are not cheap &/or not easy to drive. Some speakers are very fussy about placement, setup etc. If you go for a good front end you need to get a speaker that can be driven by your amp or you need to get amp that can drive your speakers. In both case a good signal is paramount to good sound.


SCIDB

 

source first for me

 

I'd agree - source first

I look at it this way: a fantastic source going through a mediocre amp and speakers will sound way better than a mediocre source going through a fantastic amp and speakers.

Michael.

 

Oh well. Guess it'll have to be one of those "agree to disagree" things... (however alien such things may be! :JPS: ) My own experiences simply go entirely against everyone elses'.

IMO, modern low- to mid-priced CD players do nearly everything to a surprisingly good degree, and sound damn close to "high end" players. By contrast, low- to mid-priced speakers have so many glaring compromises it's painful.

I suppose the comments re: midrange are fairly accurate - you probably could get a speaker that does midrange very well for not much money. Stick it on the end of a decent amp and a good source and yeah, you'll probably have very high quality midrange. And if all you need is midrange, then great! You've found yourself audio nirvana for not much money (at least, not much speaker money). Personally, I quite like a little treble and bass too, and would consider a speaker that does midrange well but treble and bass are either badly done or practically nonexistant to be pretty badly compromised! To my mind (and I accept that others' opinions differ ), the minor differences between CD players are totally insignificant compared to a lack of decent reproduction in two thirds of the audible frequency band (or thereabouts...)!

I concede that with turntables it's likely to be a very different matter, given the primarily mechanical nature of the devices.

Dunc

 

Nice. I've previously heard about that Benchmark Audio DAC. Is it really as good as the hype? What sort of CD player price level would it be comparable to? (For instance, how would you say it'd compare to something like my Meridian 507..?)

Dunc

P.S. - I love how it looks.

 

Ivor Tiefenbrun started source first

Well, at least in Ivor's mind. Which I guess is no surprise as he peddling his turntable at the time (the late '70).

Anyway here's some HiFi porn. A $7000 390S acting as a transport for a $700 Benchmarkmedia DAC (a sort of peverse source first system, that might be going "too far")..

Anyway, going against the source first trend, the Benchmark at $700 it's a damn sight better value than the Levinson and plays very nicely with a pair of $10,000+ speakers.

(To confuse matters I deleted my original post which contained a censored photo. Here's the full "hardcore" photo containing the offensive "black box" from Salisbury. I apologize to those who are easily offended..)

 

Yes.

A 390S

For reasons too bizarre to go into, I have 9 DAC's in the living room with me, and the differences between them are wildly over-exagerated in the hifi press.

The best place to put your money these days is in your speakers and sorting out your room... I can't believe the people who screw around endlessly with stands/cables/other tweakery and yet have their Isobariks (or similar) wedged into a corner, it's insane...

 

Interestingly last night I got the chance to sample possibly the ultimate speaker first setup. My mate is waiting for a new source and in the meantime the system is as follows

Amp and Speakers:
Dynaudio Confidence 5
Classe Cam 350 Monoblocks
Classe CP65 Pre

Cables
Isolda and Mit

Source

Meridian 500 + Cambridge DacMagic

So £20K amp and speakers and a £100 Dac.

Result? Well my Proac/Rotel/Denon AV setup was better in nearly every regard. Hardly surpising really, the DacMagic setup was fine for background music and OK on dance fodder, but most music lives in the microdynamics and tonal shading of the midrange. This was sadly missing.

 

I completely disagree, and I proved it, to myself that is, over and over again, the weak link will always stand out, regardless if it is the source, the power, the speakers or the room...

Remember Vermeer's case, he had an excelent system badly placed, it sounded worst than his Tivoli, that is until I sujested he moved it around to another location...

My last stereo system, with first generation CD player, ended-up sounding quite well with McIntosh and KEF 104.2, of course I had to mate it with sweet sounding gear...

The gains in treble and bass from a good source will be completely waisted with lower level power, speakers, room, midrange its only part of the sound, just try good food without any spices, and you will see what I mean... :chunder:

 

I think I'd agree with you and also SCIDB (dean).

A quaility source will be revealed for what it is. Poor quality sources will be revealed as poor quality sources.

and..
Price isnt a necessary reflection of quality.. for example, perhaps a DAC purchased below £1500 or even less may be sufficient quality to do justice to the rest of the system.

Quality is an interesting point, and its amazing how superb products are sometimes realized for less than a high end price tag. Chord's DAC 64, Ortofohns MC15 II for example both ''sources'' being capable enough to be used with considerably more expensive ancillaries IMHO.

 

:yikes:

Doesn't it just tend to get more and more :chair: with more expensive ancillaries?

Cheers