I am currently on the hunt for a 555DR ps to go with my NDX2/Supernait2 so certainly vouch for source first. 
2 Likes
Mike, Ndx2/ xps dr is not Nd555/ 555dr. First point.
Of course your system is very good, but your SN2 is limiting a bit all the possibilities of your source, which would be more at home with a 282/or 252/ into 250.
And I know that an Ndx2 bare into 282/250 sounds better than SN2 / Ndx2 /xps dr. Sorry, but it’s a fact. I have done all these listenings at my dealer place, who is at 500 meters from my home.
In your case you tried to have the best 4 boxes Naim system, and you succeeded. The 282 needs a naps and an hicap, so more boxes.
2 Likes
But the contrary is also true: better electronics will pass more informations, with more separation, dynamics, bass, microdynamics, soundstaging, body of instruments and voices…
In that case, I could replace the SN2 and XPS DR with 282 and 250 - same number of boxes… I have the HiCAP, the NAPSC is tiny - hardly counts.
2 Likes
@NigelB Nigel. As I understand it you for a very considerable period of time have not tried different speakers in your listening room. I predict had you tried some Kudos or Neats, perhaps amongst others, your outlook would have changed!
Regards,
Lindsay
I know that Nigel was wanting to move and probably still does asap…so the speakers are probably waiting for after that move tbd. But you are right it would probably be a very cost effective SQ improvement.
No keep the XPS DR in a ‘either or’ situation!
1 Like
Source first has definitely worked for me over the years. However, personal circumstances in the early 2000s meant that I would be staying in a lot. I had an end game in mind with a plan to buy it on retirement. I simply bought it twenty years early by putting it on my mortgage. Financially unsound perhaps but my system helped get me through a difficult time and a decision I never regretted. The system remains unchanged except for the Sondek. The point is that I was able to buy a system respecting source first but that it was also well balanced. Still no plans to change it…
1 Like
That depends on the lens: extremely poor, and undoubtedly better the first way round. Moderately good, and it may depend on what is being photographed, the type of detain in it. And the poorer lens gets nearer the better end there will be a point where the limitations of the CCD become the limiting factor. The analogy there, is that of course in hifi the source should be of hifi standard, not a low-fi product aimed only at, for example, listening through typical computer speakers or mobile phone earbuds.
But that analogy also does not take into account the speakers. For that you have to add in the monitor through which you view the picture (or printer that prints it). Arguably an better photographic analogy wouod be the lens is the microphone through through to recorded medium, LP or audio file (with all the limitations a poor one will introduce), the CCD is the hifi source, TT/arm/cartridge/phono stage or streamer/renderer+DAC, and the monitor or printer is the speakers. The lens is out of our control. The limitations of resolution, contrast, brightness range, and colour accuracy of the monitor/printer will affect what you see no matter how many pixels (or their accuracy) in the CCD. Likewise the other way round. You will not see better than whatever the CCD or the monitor/printer is able to do, each ultimately limited by the other, but up to that point any improvement in either will improve the image as seen.
Whilst that can apply to some extent with some room problems with judicious positioning of person and speakers, with some rooms speaker choice simply cannot overcome all room-associated adverse effects on sound quality, and some attempts to do so are themselves at the expense of sound quality (e.g. Selecting speakers that forgo bass below a given frequency to avoid exciting bass nodes).
2 Likes
I think that it is important to bear in mind that no one here is likely to buy a poor component, particularly as they are likely to have auditioned it/ them, hopefully in their own home with their current system. Under these circumstances, it should be possible to attain good reproduction notwithstanding whether you priority is either a balanced or source weighted set-up. This should not be taken to an extreme however…or you could end up only ever upgrading source components. So, at some time, amps and speakers will eventually catch up with sources. Personally, I think that the best way to determine which speakers are best for you is when they are fed by the best (for you) upstream components. One person’s view…but it works for me.
2 Likes
we cannot really say it is a fact, but it is what you hear.
I have also done many experiments, for example from 202 to 282, from Chord Mojo to Dave and then from Dave to Blu2, and tried to validate source first concept…
the jump for 202 to 282 is really huge, in terms of musicality, bass, midrange clarity, transients, easily audible with a Chord Hugo and Mojo source. It’s a superb combination
The Jump from Mojo to Dave is also pretty big.
Yes a better preamp like 282 does bring a LOT to the party, but still knowing what information is lost form Mscaler going down to Dave, and then from Dave going down to Mojo, I would pick the best source (MScaler/Dave) and then … go for a 202? NO
I would get the best source possible still (Mscaler/Dave for me - could be NDX2/XP2 for others) and then look anywhere, everywhere possible for a good deal on 82 or 282 or 52/252 (even better) or a 552 if funds allow…
1 Like
I agree, « fact « is not the best term. Personal Evidence ?
Yes personal preference… we hear differently.
For me though the information loss from removing Mscaler is too huge … I’d skip the preamp and upgrade the source if I really had to choose one only
My close friend who owns blu2 Mscaler hears that too Dave sounds considerably less good without it.
I wonder if it depends on the renderer (and if applicable the network) feeding it- in a previous discussion on the forum, whilst it seemed that MScaler was universally found to be an improvement, not everyone felt it was a huge step up.
But the Dave has already a good volume control.
My thoughts were only only comparing Ndx2 /xps dr/SN 2 / hicap vs Ndx2 / 282/hicap /250.
I know which sounds better. Need I to add continuously « in my ears and opinion « ? It’s always the case.
I think it is a cultural thing FR. I am generalising here, but us Brits don’t like opinions stated as facts, it smacks of a tad of arrogance.
Personally, I appreciate your posts and you have a lot of relevant experience. Just stick in the occasional ‘IMO’ or ‘IMV’ in your ‘definitive’ posts and you should get fewer comebacks.
5 Likes
No it does not really depend on the rendered, the MSclaer is a million tap filter, dave has “only” 164,000 taps, and for my ears, there is a big different in transient accuracy.
no you don’t need to - but in hi-fi passion we all hear differently and seek different things.
For me information lost at the source is never regained later on, but we have all trained our ears and brains to hear according the the musical tracks used during testing.
I once attended a demo in UK where a chord Sarum cable completely trounced a Superlumina, but when I played my music tracks on it, the superlumina easily bettered the Sarum.
Which one is better… it would depend on the percentage of genre tracks that one usually plays which favour one cable over the other. The Chord seemed to make easier listening while emphasising the midrange “a little bit extra”, whereas the superlumina was absolutely neutral but superbly “fast” and energetic, much much more than the Chord.
Again depends on the music one usually plays.