Richard - you have described to a tee one of two events that led me to switch allegiance from a dealer I had used for some time. I was interested in a demo of Keel and Radikal for my LP12 that was in what at the time was an Olive 250 system. The dealer was so keen to push the B&W range that an 800 series model was stuck on the end with pretty much the same results you describe - “boom and fizz”. It put me off B&W speakers and the dealer. I had to pretty much write off the demo. For this reason Im not persuaded by the “get the speakers you like” school and still, certainly for vinyl playback, believe in the source first - balance next school.
BTW the second reason I dropped the dealer was their insistence on crimping a replacement set of NACA 5 leads rather than soldering
The speaker 1st thing to me doesnt make a whole lot of sense, Take a pair of Wilson speakers, throw a 100 watt sony int amp at it and fuel it with the original sony cd player…and you will get sound.
Take a well set up linn lp12 or an Ikemi or a cdx2 into a…Supernait and a pair of nice bookshelf speakers.
I guarantee, you will get a far more musically satisfying experience.
as long as you can hear differences in equipment thru your current speakers to me it means
there are ways to improve the sound without changing speakers.
Agreed. When I was auditioning my latest system at home a couple of years ago I had real issues with the interaction between my ProAc K6 speakers and the NAP 300DR amp I intended to buy. Whilst sorting out a 250 for me to try (which I ended up buying) my dealer left the K6s with me, connected to the SuperUniti I was about to trade in. Whilst not as good as my new system, I have to say the sound was still pretty stunning!. Now I would never advocate matching £13k speakers with an Atom or Nova, but the point is that the speakers, unless they are so demanding of power and amp performance, will sound good regardless of the source, simply because they are good speakers. I know there are many who regard my system as a classic mullet - there entitled to their opinion. If they find putting £20k’s worth of source through £2k speakers does it for them, then that’s great.
I’m with Bob on this one - buy the best speakers you can, and upgrade to their maximum capability as and when. All I know is that I have no desire whatsoever to move away from my 250DR (might be tempted by a 272 replacement, but that’s another story!).
'Mullet, ‘Monkfish’ and ‘Balanced’ approaches each have some merit but historically I have been of the ‘source first’ persuasion. This has been validated in my mind from the experience of hearing continuous improvements through my only set of speakers used as I migrated from a Uniti through to a 500/Classic line up of streamer/amlification.
I think going forward, a more balanced approach will be more appropriate as we get ‘more for less’ as digital front ends develop further.
The point that speakers are the trickiest item to get right has been well made due to the need to correctly match them with power amplification and their interaction with the listening environment.
Having said all of this, I still feel my humble speakers have more to give but as I upgrade further, the need to replace them will increase before I enter giant Monkfish territory.
Firstly, FWIW, I have never understood why the cost of components should be evenly spread throughout the chain. Why should it? There is no reason why the price of a CD player, for instance, should have any relationship to the price of a piece of wire, or a loudspeaker. Loudspeakers are, I think, the largest variable. They have the greatest impact on the overall sound of a system. I realised this many years ago when I bought my first Naim component - their 602, made for them by Mordaunt Short. Some while later my brother-in-law bought a pair of speakers made by Roy George - the same drivers and crossover, but in a concrete (mixed with wood sawdust) cabinet. He had different amplification from mine, which at that point was Naim NAP 120 and NAC12 (IIRC), but there was a definite similarity in the sound. So the speakers were having the greatest impact. I gradually upgraded the amplification, keeping the speakers, going active (same pre-amp, two NAP120). Still the same family sound, but more of it, better controlled. Then to SBLs - that was a big change. Then changed amplification to NAC 52 and active 135s. Similar to passive, but again more of it. Now S600 and NAP 500 (still NAC 52). Again, the speakers made the biggest difference to the sound (I had used NAP500 on the SBLs, passive, and again the sound there was typical SBL). I also had to run my S600s with some quite cheap power amp at one point while my NAP500 was being DRd (can’t remember now what it was - some Japanese thing). Again, they sounded like S600s, though without quite the gravitas and control that the NAP500 has. So in all my changes (from first proper speakers - Wharfedale Dentons) onwards, the speakers have had the greatest effect on the sound.
The speakers don’t add content though, nor do amps. If you have a record deck a good trick is to drag your finger on the platter as it’s playing…how do these ‘speakers’ sound now?
Nobody is suggesting spreading the cost evenly as some things cost more to make. It’s more ensuring you don’t have a poor link in the chain.
Royd A7s were very cheap but very good, especially for the money and allowed me to get an LP12. this was surely better than some top notch speakers and a rega Planar 2?
Are you averse to paying for paragraphs? Just wondered…
Thank you all for your contributions to this topic so far.To me, your inputs have at this stage confirmed what I already knew, there must be a balance. On the other hand, if the system play music as you like it, no matter how it`s put together, then let it be and enjoy.
Summed up with some wise words from Stan Curtis, Hifi Critic:
If it`s a great performanse, then what more do you want from the system?
If the music delivers that emotional involvement, then everything else is just words on a piece of paper.
The mystery of hifi; How is that you can built a system that in one respect has many audible deficiencies, yet delivers music as music should be heard?
Source first is still an unmovable rock for me. However, as digital sources improve, you may be able to do source first without the source costing the most.
It gets complicated when you then start confusing source first with which component you choose first. As the speakers need to work for you and set the tone for the whole system, I’d generally start choosing speakers first for a new system and go from there… but still put source first in terms of hierarchy.
I chose speakers first when I built a new system several years ago. But they were by far the lowest cost component. I have different ones now but my amplification chain costs 4 times more and my source 2.5 times more. Yet I consider what I have assembled to be perfectly balanced.
I see a lot of friend’s mullets and the common theme is a very good amp that is still not enough for their much higher end speakers. Control problems ensue and they are forever tweaking cables and changing amps at the same sort of level (i.e. not up to the task). I tell them they can upgrade by downgrading. No one has ever listened to me though.
In fact, I’m usually told I should upgrade my speakers.
Of course speakers don’t add content - they present it, though, in their own way. They are much more varied in their ability to reproduce the signals that are presented to them than other elements in the chain, and so they affect the sound produced more than any other component.
(para)
If you drag your finger on the platter then the speakers will reproduce the effect of doing that in their particular way. It makes no difference what platter it is, they will react the same way. I’m not sure that it’s a good trick, though.
(para)
I find that there is much less difference in the sound of amplifiers and preamps (above a certain level), but much more difference between speakers. I well remember the phenomenal difference between the sound of my active SBLs with NAC 52 and 4 NAP135s and that of DBLs with NAC 52 and 6 NAP135s. Yet both systems are (were) reckoned to be well balanced, I think, and certainly not mullets.
(para)
I’m not convinced that top notch speakers and a Rega Planar 2 would necessarily not sound better than the Royd A7s and LP12. (Do you find capital letters too expensive? Simply curious.)
(para)
I have seen it written that you should pay about the same amount for each component, quite frequently.
It was an old trick used by Julian and Ivor when people claimed that speakers were the most important. Yet as soon as you mess the source up the amazing speakers no longer play decent music.
I don’t think that anyone would expect that the speakers would compensate for messing with the turntable so apart from the obvious I don’t see what it proves. If you do the same thing with rubbish speakers it will do the same thing.
As a long time computer programmer I am very familiar with GIGO. But in Audio if you have bad speakers then it doesn’t matter how good the rest of the system is it still won’t sound good. So we are left with needing a balanced system. But what does that mean? How do you determine whether it is balanced or not? Obviously a BSR Monarch deck playing through a transistor radio as amplifier into a really top quality pair of speakers will not sound good (though it should sound as good as those components can manage). But in my experience (only over the last 50 years or so, but a reasonable time) is that speakers are the most influential part of the system in terms of what it sounds like. For example, my S600s were originally driven by a NAP300. It was good, but when I changed that for a NAP500 it was better - but still essentially a similar sound - the overall characteristics were much the same. A far lesser change than that between the SBLs (active) I had before and the S600s. Or between my Naim 602 and SBLs. I have had many different amplifiers over the years (and pre-amplifiers) and they had less influence over the sound than did the changes in speakers. In terms of vinyl, I started with a Garrard (not sure of the model - something like a 4HF), then Garrard SP25, then Pioneer PL12D, then Rega Planar 3. There were differences, of course - but still I maintain the speakers were where most difference could be heard.
So beyond the obvious that if you put a really bad front end onto a pair of speakers you will not get a good sound, it’s hard to say what constitutes a balanced system, beyond a very basic level.
I have always been a source to speakers Man since I first started my journey and for me it’s never been wrong
source to speakers with a balanced system, no point having an expensive source with a entry level pre or AMP - best to balance the system through - which I have done with my black boxes
when it comes to speakers they are the most subjective and peronal choice to be honest in our systems, I went to the NAIM NOVA demo with speakers that NOVA could not drive, another demo was with NDS 2 x555 into statement and the speakers (altough 25K) just were not up to the job
and our friend in Glasgow always says £& in, *$$M Out - thats more than good enough for me
Sure, bad speakers are bad speakers, regardless of price. However there are good and even excellent speakers available at all price levels, even under £100 if you’re fortunate on the secondhand market. No source, no matter how good can save a truly poor or flawed speaker.
A good example of this is Naim Ariva speakers. Cost about a grand when new, now about £300.
But I think they would do surprisingly well in a blindfold test against a variety of new and vintage speakers.
Codswallop! How about playing the absolute best source, and press on the speaker cones while the music is playing? Of course the speakers can’t okay decent music when you mess with the source in that way, or more sensibly of course they can only play the music as well as the source provides. And no matter how good the source the speakers will always exert their character and limitations.
