Yes the Lindemann Bridge II is very good indeed
1 Like
And conversely I have found that by getting a speaker that sound fantastic early on (48 years ago, a speaker that today would probably sit as the missing PMC Twentyfive-25), gave me immense pleasure that simply increased as other components improved (and in due course I improved further on the speakers). Iāve heard other setups that I found unenjoyable because they were so limited by the speakers, generally missing the bottom end of the music. And my brother-in-law who started out following source first and though his system was wonderful, until he heard my speakers with lesser front end - a year or two later when I upgraded them he gladly took my old ones of my hands.
But it depends what people like, and may depend on music preference. if the bottom two to three octaves is of no interest to someone, or they even dislike, or the music to which they listen has little or nothing down there, it is certainly possible to get good sounding speakers for a fraction of the cost. To me that is missing a major component of the music, and makes it far less satisfying.
1 Like
Source first is a Linn expression from the 70ās.
We should invent a new one. For me itās Ā« balanced first Ā« . The best speakers on average source and amps will sound a average.
The best source and electronics with average speakers will sound good, but limited by the speakers.
Has anyone heard a hifi rose rs130 by any chance? Gets very good reviews ams lolksblike a good piece of kit.
That indeed should be the target - but in reality for many people it can only be a transient state, unless they are not interested in upgrading, or have reached endgame, or have the resources to make complete system upgrades each time. More normally the system will go out of balance when upgrading starts, until other things catch up.
And that is were source-first comes in. You buy stuff that is musical (not impressive sound) and you buy them in the correct order so you dont end up going sideways and especially not backwards. But rather you consider lifting the full musical experience.
I get it you dont agree, just wanted to add my vote for another approach 
3 Likes
Hi 
ā¦
Exactly,.but option two is still better, because it gives a more musical presentation.
Option No.1 plays more sound.
Option No. 2 plays more music.
2 Likes
Full agree.
Iād usually recommend a roughly equal spend on source, amp and speakers + about 10% on cables/accessories.
So if you have 10k to spend thatās about 3k on each (source/amp/speakers) and 1k on cables/accessories.
How do you break it down?
2 Likes
Linn & Naim are always source-first proponents, and this is exactly the reason that I buy stuffs from them because they get it right.
3 Likes
Yes, but if you start with high end speakers and entry level sources and electronics, it will take time generally to reach a satisfying sound during the progressive upgrading of the later.
If you start with high end sources and amps with entry level speakers. you will still, since the beginning, have a satisfying sound.
2 Likes
Itās what I wanted to say. Average = option 1, good = option 2.
1 Like
Absolutely. 30% each. 10/15 % cables and rack.
But maybe the most important is that each part is on similar level. Sometimes not always on same price.
For example : Nd555/ 2 ps= 40k
Full Statements: 300 k
Speakers : 80k
1 Like
I have used the N100/Plixir with the internal DAC of my Moon amp and also with the Qutest. I have used the N50-S38 only with the Qutest.
So Iām not claiming very much at all - only what Iāve experienced myself and what I think based on that. Iām not saying itās definitive.
You have seemed to be somewhat resistant to possibilty that a good digital transport could out-perform your MacMini with your Dave. Thatās fair enough I suppose, except that you seemed to be basing your assertion largely on technical matters rather than actual listening experiences. ie. you talk a lot about DAC susceptibility to RF and the like and postulate this or that with regard to transports rather than saying āwell Iāve listened to X,Y and Z transports with my Dave and actually none of them out-performed my MacMini.ā
If you are now saying that you have in fact listened and that your MacMini is as good to your ears as a dedicated digital transport well then thatās a different matter entirely. But why not just say so in the first place? I may not agree with your assessment if I listened to the same combination but that doesnāt matter.
I donāt think its in any way meaningful to attempt to assess the efficacy of transport/DAC combinations without listening to them first. That is what you appeared to be doing based on technical factors.
1 Like
That is what I would do now if I could turn the clock back. Iāve only owned large speakers for the past 3 years or so and itās only now that I realise how much Iāve missed out on by investing so heavily in the source and amp that relatively little was left for speakers. Yes I was brainwashed by all the āsource firstā dogma back in the late 70ās / 80s.
Not that I havenāt owned some excellent speakers for many years, namely Kans and IBLās. But neither can begin to compete with the sheer sense of presence and reality that my horn loaded Klipsch Forte IIIās create. The driving system is far simpler and less costly than it was back then but Iām in no doubt that this is the most satisfying and realistic system Iāve ever heard - let alone owned.
If I had around Ā£70K to spare it would all go on speakers - a pair of JBL Everests.
2 Likes
And the best speakers fir the individual make the music the most enjoyable and involving (provided amp good enough to control adequately and source reasonably decent(.
Absolutely not a satisfying sound to my ears!
Absolutely not! If you read what Iāve written in this thread and others I am open to the possibility that my transport can be bettered. The point I have been making all along is simply that I do not believe it to be inevitable that any difference will be large as you and some others seem to consider to be a certainty, rather my anticipation is that the difference would be minor. I accept that I might be wrong, but IIRC the people who have been by inference suggesting the difference will be dramatic have not themselves heard Dave, let alone compared different transports into Dave. Rather the assumption, like yours, seems to be that if a transport works wonders with a lesser DAC it will do the same with Dave.
Simple: no-one has been suggesting that the model of Melco I tried will sound better, it has always been higher level transports, which I havenāt heard. And in point of fact I have on multiple occasions mentioned that I heard no difference when I compared my transport with that Melco.
BTW I have on occasion qualified that comparison saying it was short: It was for only maybe half an hour or so, therefore I cannot say whether on longer listening I might discern that one does sound better than the other, but if so whichever is the better it is only to a marginal degree.
1 Like
Auralicās Aries G1 fits that bill and is very good. The G2.x series are even better, but considerably more expensive.
Roger
1 Like
The Aries G1 is likely to be replaced as the new S1 becomes available now.
Bargains to be had ex demo or pre owned.
Aries G2.1 will be replaced I expect as the G.2.2 becomes available from around September. G2.1 should become a little more affordable then.
I have both and they work well with Naim and Qutest, as well as with Auralicās own Vega dac.
1 Like
So a Nova into top Focal or top PMC speakers can be a satisfying sound ?
1 Like