@svor …now that is the service we speak of.
Scott
1 Like
Scott, I agree that it was nice to see Richard’s attention to this but let’s see how this turns out and whether there is any actual help from Naim. Keeping fingers crossed.
1 Like
My posts dont seem to fit with current views or interests so i shall say goodbye to the forum. Sayonara Richard
Mmmmmm the forum isn’t remotely known as a place of agreement or concensus. Why would that stop you? Are you looking for a place where everyone shares your views and interests? That sounds unrealistic and boring.
Why not stick around and be a square peg in a round hole? It’s what I do.
1 Like
@66richard Richard No. I’m well out of synch with the majority on here because I reject “source-first” as a religion but that doesn’t stop me enjoying the forum for what it is.
Regards,
Lindsay
3 Likes
Source first isn’t religion, its science.
1 Like
Nonsense, it’s a science at best it’s an opinion.
2 Likes
I believe it is taken out of proportion in higher-end circles as nobody has a really poor part, and it does often not take into account the realities of life.
- If you have poor speakers but sources that are not all that bad, upgrading speakers will help most
- If you power amp dies, it makes sense to make the next step up with a new power amp. There are many reasons like this that lead to investments down-stream first
1 Like
« Source without conscience is but only the ruin of the sound « Rabelais.
1 Like
“François Rabelais; born between 1483 and 1494; died 1553) was a French Renaissance writer, physician, Renaissance humanist, monk and Greek scholar. He has historically been regarded as a writer of satire, the grotesque, bawdy jokes, and songs”
Do you think he was joking?
Mind you he would have been a fantastic contributor to the forum.
2 Likes
I don’t doubt on it 
I agree with @AJK: it’s more science than religion because, in my experience, it’s based on empirical evidence, not faith.
1 Like
I think source first is 100% true but is grossly misunderstood as a concept.
Source first merely indicates that the source is the most important component and provides fairly infallible logic that information lost cannot be later regained in the playback chain. Part if the garbage in, garbage out principle. I don’t have a lot of time for people who want to dispute that.
But, it doesn’t mean that the source should or must be the most expensive component. That’s where I think the argument falls apart is when people equate relative cost of a source component to the cost of amplification and speakers and tie that to quality.
It’s true that you approximately get what you pay for, but comparing a DAC to and amp is comparing apples and oranges. They’re not the same fruit. Source components have advanced far more than amplification and speakers in the same time. Just look at how comfortable a Hugo is with systems that far outpace the cost of that source.
Source most important: yes.
Source most expensive: nonsense.
7 Likes
We all get the odd dud post that no seems to notice. But maybe stick around tho.
I’ve belonged to a whack of other forums, and this one is by far the most consistently enjoyable and enlightening.
Cheers.
Dave
Stick around, and you will find yourself enjoy some silly comments from some other members.
in the 20 or so years of ownership source first has been my guide, in saying that a balance in the system is not 2 or 3 on list, it’s more like 1.5
my current system ( and my end point) 252/300 is a good example of this, my first source is vinyl and my LP12 is a pretty high spec, some would say my second source NDX (2014) won’t work with 252/300 but I can assure you all it most certainly does (don’t stream just use for FLAC through NAS and I radio)
could I improve my source yes of course, in saying that would I spend quite a few £££ on ND 555 or NDX2 with 555 - not sure I would to be honest, in all the demo days and factory visits I have done Vinyl still does it for me, in saying that ND 555 in the correct set up with x 2 PSU comes a very close second
it’s all part of the journey for me, started all of those years ago with CD5i and the system over the years has grown and improved, with the helpfull thoughts on hear and more so from my dealer - as the Chinese say “as journey of a 1,000 leagues must start with a single step”
Why NAIM??? have heard a lot of other systems and sources and yes some I would happily look at, if I was starting again I am sure I would still choose NAIM as the building blocks? Yes I think I would, I always wanted to get more music since my first Technics system
We are all different and all have different journey plans and that’s what I like about the fourm, get as much information as you can, ask your dealer, demo and then it;s down to you
only couple of things to remember ENJOY the MUSIC and the journey!!
I have
3 Likes
What empirical evidence? It’s based on a subjective opinion , as to what sounds best.
Regards,
Lindsay
1 Like
Hi @66richard. Your posts are all highly informative and bring a lot to the forum. I’ve not replied before because you know more than l do on your subject so I can’t add anything.
I also like to think if no one replies it’s because they all agree with me.
i am not sure source first is either science or religion - as far as i a aware it was a linn marketing campaign - and as has almost been said: there are lies, da…m lies and marketing.
is it always true that information lost cannot be regained? - robert watts seems to show that some lost information can be reconstructed by advanced interpolation.
i am agnostic on source first - tending to agree with you that a degree of balance is key. however there is an alternative equally logical argument that what we hear is most dependent on the speakers and their interaction with the room so perhaps it should be room treatment first?
ducks down and runs for exit
3 Likes
Couldn’t have put it better.