This is true. But it’s not an alternative argument. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Speakers set the tone (no pun intended) and character for the whole system. To that end, I always choose speakers first. That doesn’t in any way mean source is not the most important.
Rob Watts’s argument on interpolation is a bit overstated. Interpolation provides a good guestimate of lost information. But it is absolutely not comparable to lossless compression. It’s not even the same sport. On top of that, that is a function of the source anyway. So while it may make for good DACs (and to some degree all non NOS DACs do this at varying degrees of sophistication), it isn’t something that helps you in the amp and speakers. No one has ever connected an entry level JVC streamer to a Statement Level of amp and speakers and and benefitted from interlopation in an amp to recover what that source failed to reconstruct because it doesn’t exist. More likely the shortcomings of the source will be laid bare.
Demos and comparisons, my point being that my opinions on this subject are informed by experience, not blind faith. Also, I don’t have an axe to grind against Linn.
Indeed as are mine. And experience tells me that I can upgrade or just change a digital source component or amplifier and get a change/improvement to some degree but what will really influence the sound for better or worse is the speaker and its interface with the room.
Incidentally, I have no axe to grind with Linn, have had many brilliant listening sessions with a LP12. And some little while ago went to a superb demonstration of the Linn Selekt one box system with Kudos Titan 505s. Yep £3k of electronics with £8k of speakers.
i don’t know if you are referring to my post - but i have no axe to grind against linn - i love my lp12.
all i am trying to do is identify the source of the phrase ‘source first’
Started in the late 70/80s by one particular hifi magazine and it became a bit of Linn/Naim folklore. The joke at the time was for £300 buy a Dual TT/Nad 3020/baby Wharfedales and enjoy your music but better to spend the £300 on a LP12 with no arm/cartridge/amp/speakers and sit and look at it!
you may well be right but as wikipedia ( i know… i know) say:" The two companies (ie linn/naim ) advocated a ‘source-first’ philosophy … the two companies had almost the same sales and marketing strategy." so a bit more than folklore - i guess given the tangled relationships between hi-fi companies and the hi-fi press we will never know for sure.
best
nigel
I feel that source first is often too literally understood. Source first doesn’t mean that you can have the best source possible associated to the worst amps and speakers.
You can’t focus only on source without regarding the balance of the system, quality of the electronics to reveal the source, room integration, well matched amp/ speakers combo.
All is important, even if the source is the first in the chain.
Of course, IMO.
Exactly right FR. It is so often taken far too literally. When the term source first is used, it doesn’t mean put everything in the source and forget about the rest. It’s just about system hierarchy that prioritises the source on the basis that nothing further along the chain can replace information lost at source, and that any small issue, fault or failing with the source might well be exposed through superior electronics and speakers (i.e. loss of beneficial masking).
It’s nothing to get to too riled about or worry about because you’ve done things the other way 'round. It’s just something to bear in mind when you go about assembling a home system so you don’t make costly mistakes that leave your source out its depth, which is the one sure way of ending up with a lacklustre system that you’ll either eventually lose interest in, or will end up demanding what should have been there in the first place; a better source.
I would agree with this too, and I would add that there is also a chronological sense to the term when building a separates system. Start with the best source you can afford, and the chances are you will choose a preamp, power amp and speakers that do it justice.
All too often here we see people buying expensive speakers, then discovering that in the Naim world, you need to blow the budget on a power amp, maybe a 300, to drive them properly. Then people throw a fit when everyone on the forum points out how much a well matched power amp and PSU is going to cost them, never mind the source.
Where source first really comes in is when upgrading. If you have a really nicely balanced system and decide to upgrade, the front end is the place to start. This ensures that the front is not shown up by improvements down the line. After the source, the preamp follows next, then the power amp and finally the speakers. As has been said it’s nothing to stress about, and sometimes a bargain appears that means that balance is lost for a while.
Actually, my recollection of the joke is different: a composite photo of an LP12 with no arm, a knitting needle, and a mono radio cassette player as an illustration of how not to spend 300 GBP on a HiFi system.
Source first isn’t so much about balance, as it is a relatively simple truth - nothing further down the chain can improve on the source. Changing speakers will (probably) make the most noticeable change to any even moderately good system- so some may think it is of more importance , but even with improved sq it cannot make the source sound any better than it is capable of. That’s all source first is.
The first move anyone makes starting from scratch or should make is to consider what size sound scale and volume they wish to have without overloading the room (this basicly rules out Linns favourite demo spk the Kan) Then choose a amplifier that can drive the spk. To get the best from these components you need the highest quality source you can afford information lost or corrupted here is permanent. Linns view was marketing first! make the T.T. affordable by skimping on items further down the chain - simple really.
But in terms of enjoyment what matters is the sound, so having a sound you like is significant, and speakers are the biggest factor in the character of the sound - meanwhile no chain is stronger than its weakest link, and a system can only pass on to the listener that which the poorest component can manage - so balance is the only perfect way, though with speakers having a character and capability that satisfies.
But if upgrading is planned or in progress few people can afford to change the entire system at a time to maintain perfect balance, so inevitably one of more components will be better than others, more for anyone trying to upgrade most cost efficiently with fewer, larger steps - and whilst any one component is likely to makes difference, getting the speakers to the endgame is most significant in terms of sound, though it may make greater demands on the amp, and of course no component must be really abysmal. (But even before you start spending Naim prices on components that is pretty easy to achieve, at least with digital sources.)
However that was a very specific comparison of one better source and one lesser preamp and vice versa, indicting your preference - and you recognised that it may not even be relevant to extrapolate to other sources and preamps …let alone whole systems, so whilst it is empirical evidence it is very specific and somewhat limited.