Well thank you dear sir, but I must kindly remind you, I’m no Lord
Some really interesting topics and points of view here, on which I’d like to comment.
First on the concept that speakers are the most important component. This may or may not be true, depending on the room they are installed in and on the equipment driving them. Take a pair of Linn Kans and a pair of Isobariks. The Isobariks are full range floor standers while the Kans are mini-monitors.
Install both pairs in a small bedroom and the Kans will sound markedly better for near-field listening, while the Isobariks will overload the room and not integrate fully. The Kans will also image way better. But install them in a large room and the order is reversed, the Kans lacking the muscle to fully drive and fill the room. So the first point, speakers cannot be considered in isolation of the room in which they’re installed. Next let’s consider the source. The reason the Linn outsold the Thorens and various Garrards was because it could be made to sound a good deal better. An LP12 on the front end was a great match for Kans or Isobariks, as long as the speakers were installed in a room with the right characteristics. Then we come to electronics. Here a Nait driving Kans would outperform a 32/250 driving Isobariks if the Isobariks were overloading the room. In the appropriate rooms a Nait driving Isobariks would outperform a 32/250 driving Kans. Upgrading a Garrard 301 to a Linn LP12 would result in a significant improvement to any loudspeaker/amp combination, so at the time, Linn’s assertion that source was the most important was true given that the source’s impact was universal and governed the output of any loudspeaker/amp combination.
Conclusion, get the speaker/room interface correct, get some matching electronics, then get the very best source you can afford, because the source is what defines how well the loudspeakers and amp perform. In the days of analog this meant buying the best turntable. But with local and remote streaming it’s not quite the same thing anymore.
In the days of analog turntables, the more information recovered and least noise added, the better the sound. What was lost at the turntable could never be recovered downstream and added noise could never be removed. With digital streaming this is no longer the case. What is still true is that the better the input, the better the output. This hi-fi axiom still holds for streaming and as far as we know, seems to be a universal truth.
In analog, the turntable generates the analog signal so is considered to be the analog signal’s source (alternatively the reel-to-reel or cassette deck). But in digital, it’s different. Within a typical household network, the router generates the originating ethernet parcel stream so from a network standpoint can be seen as the source. But if this ethernet voltage stream is converted to radio waves then regenerated into voltage, the device that does the regeneration becomes the source. Similarly if the ethernet voltages are converted in the server to USB format, the server becomes the source of the USB stream, so what we have in a network are a series of sources, all working on the principal that the better the input, the better the output. Follow this logic and what you realise is that the network provides a huge opportunity to the audiophile. Not only does it transport the musical data in various physical forms, it also provides multiple opportunities to upgrade and refine the musical data such that the network becomes an active part in the creation and improvement of the final musical presentation. Every part of the network gives a better output when it’s input is improved. This is very easy to prove. Take a bit perfect data stream and upgrade the router from an Intel Puma chipset based unit to a unit based on the Broadcom chipset and the improvement generated by the router can be clearly heard as improvements in musical presentation. The only way those improvements can be heard is if they travel through each stage of the network on the basis of better in = better out. So, while its true to say ‘source first’, in a remote streaming system that provides several opportunities to upgrade, ideally starting from closest to the DAC and working upstream to the router.
4 Likes
I have, exactly as your source into Dave and with innuos zenith 2 and phoenix usb. The difference is considerable
3 Likes
Absolutely agree with the room speaker combination being key for me. My Kans don’t work well in the room where my D9.2’s are, and the 9.2’s are just about unlistenable to in the Kans room. It doesn’t matter which amp, or source, or cables, or isolating platforms, or absorption panels or any of the other paraphernalia available, they are never going to work in the wrong room. So for me it is always speaker/room first, amplification to suit the speaker, and then the best source I can afford. Common sense then dictates the budget and balance of those components and where the crossover occurs.
Is there a best way? Probably but I can’t afford it on a fixed budget. Meanwhile I’ll approach my system build in the way that suits me. I respect and admire those who have their way of building a system. I learn just as much and it helps me tweek and interest me. Why the absolutes on here is beyond me.
1 Like
Hi yes that is right. That is what I was explaining, my views have evolved based on my experiences.
Yes not quite sure why my profile is hidden… it’s not meant to be.
Yes I have had 252 and then 552 NACs… and now having left Naim and returned arrived with the Nait50… but the key thing was speaker room matching. I had listened to many many speakers at home… some quite pricey others less so, price did not seem to be a necessary bearer on suitability. I loved my various ATCs over the years they matched my room and tastes well.
I now use RED 50s on SolidSteel stands… these for me are almost perfect for my room, tastes and system and was the first speaker I had kept for more than 6 months that moved away from the ATC passive formula. ( I use Yamaha actives in my studio).
I have always been into what I call the Mandelbrot effect. It’s what gives me the enjoyment in immersive listening to recordings and productions. I have found the trait that goes best for that is minimum phase distortion across the pass band, perhaps at the expense of dynamics. I also prefer speakers in my room with a relatively limited HF dispersion.
It’s funny I haven hone demoing a pair of RED 120s… just invited my dealer to fetch them… they are not for me for my room. As I say room speaker matching is important.
1 Like
Hi 
…
What effect did you think you got, when you installed the InnuOs Phoenix USB reclocker in the system…
I present you my sincere apologies, your Grace.
2 Likes
You are all wrong here. I know the truth. There’s no speakers first or source first, or even balanced first.
There’s budget first.
9 Likes
I agree finally with you. Who could disagree. It’s crucial to find speakers that match the room. So your view is logical, not refutable.
It’s not like saying « speakers first « as the best speakers you can afford, electronics and source are less important.
Well I respectfully disagree, kind sir. I firmly believe that the speakers need to match a British room, not just any kind of room. And then we start from there.
1 Like
Yes it needs to be a relative balance
3 Likes
By Jove old man, I think you’ve got it 
1 Like
Not quite sure what a British room is… they come in all shapes and sizes and different furnishings, just like in my experience rooms in most other countries in Europe.
So you need to find a speaker that matches that room, whether it be office, snug, music room, living room or what ever room… including dimensions, furnishings, construction, listening positions etc and of course acoustic taste. Otherwise the balance may well be wrong or even reflections smearing the sound. Many consumer loudspeakers are designed for in room performance and response.
Have we all got religious now?
2 Likes
I would dare to just add to your well explained post, that a British room would be a perfect room model and therefore make the standard for us audiophiles. Thank you for replying to my comment kind sir.
But they are nearly all different… as far as I am aware there is not a British standardised room for where people listen to their audio systems, just like in Switzerland or France…
Also people have solid floors or suspended floors, that can affect speaker matching.
If I may, in my humble opinion, that aspect isn’t of any significant importance in this context.
I think Jove refers to Jupiter and the Roman god of Jupiter was called Zeus, the god of gods… and somehow in some strange oldie English way, it was used as slang for….My god old man, I think you’ve got it right
I’ve watched my Blackadder don’t you know 
1 Like
Not sure I follow you… that is, with the greatest of respect, exactly what we have been talking about and the context of your specific term a ‘British Room’.
Perhaps you could explain what are you wanting to convey with your term ‘British Room’ in the context of matching different speakers for your room.
Indeed 
. I thought it is short for Jehovah which is Hebrew for God.