he probably couldn't tell the difference in a blind tasting anyway
Naim XS2 replacing Lavardin IS Ref
- Thread starter JOHN VAN BAVEL
- Start date
I see Lavardin, Audionet, and Karan as very credible alternatives to Naim. In the case of an XS2 vs the IS Ref, I would go with the IS (with the right speakers). Subtly seductive and more engaging. It doesn't grab you like a Naim but give it some time and its strengths become clear.
Midlandaudiox
Trade: Midland Audio X-Change
I broke all the rules of engagement
Don’t engage
I won’t again
Promise
Don’t engage
I won’t again
Promise
Midlandaudiox
Trade: Midland Audio X-Change
he probably couldn't tell the difference in a blind tasting anyway
now whos being patronising
Many years ago I owned a Lavardin IS.
Probably used with older British speakers such as Heybrook, Royd, Rega, Ruark and such.
Not difficult speakers, the IS were no powerhouse.
Back then I was taken by the many positive reviews.
To put it mild, my Naim olive boxes walked over that amp.
It lasted less than weeks in my house.
Probably used with older British speakers such as Heybrook, Royd, Rega, Ruark and such.
Not difficult speakers, the IS were no powerhouse.
Back then I was taken by the many positive reviews.
To put it mild, my Naim olive boxes walked over that amp.
It lasted less than weeks in my house.
Rana
pfm Member
At the time there wasn't sufficient info on the Lavardin apart from some rather good reviews. I subsequently had Peachtree Decco 2 (all 40W of it) which drove Shahinians rather well. Even my Bluesound Powernode 2 (sold today!) drove my Super Elves with zest.
Who’s?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Tannoys and Focal were the ones I’ve heard most often. Fyne Audio would doubtless go on the list too. Easy loads and fairly efficient, with good time alignment and coherence, which all play to the Lavardin strengths, IME.
Shill.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Unfair. It’s not like he’s hiding his motives here.
Mike Hughes
pfm Member
A common and perfectly okay observation. Certainly applies across the board regardless of price, but, doesn’t take away from the fact that hi-fi is no different to anything else. At one level you choose the presentation you prefer but that really doesn’t stop one product objectively being better than another.
To be clear, I have owned Naim products for more than two decades. It’s a presentation I prefer but there is a hierarchy and no consistency. Truthfully I found at least one Naim integrated preferable to their separates. It would be a lie to suggest it better than most of their separates. Mostly it’s the other way round but I’m not blind to the flaws of any product. The XS3 is, by Naim standards, an amp that performs barely at the level you would expect for its price. If you were to upgrade to it I’ve little doubt there are many circumstances it would be a revelation. However, when you compare it to other products in the same price band then it’s not anywhere hear being a market leader and stumbles badly against competitors with massively varying presentations. What it certainly isn’t is a competitor to the Lavardin.
We all like to think our systems and rooms are performing well. There may well be many people who hear both and prefer the Naim. I have heard both in systems I know to be working optimally in rooms which have had much correction done and sound far better than I thought possible. The difference between the two Amos was significant. If other people are not hearing that then I stand by my earlier observation. Something is wrong.
Chris81
pfm Member
Nobody says that they aren't hearing the difference, I described the difference and what Lavardin does good, but some people have different preferences and maybe can't stand a thin(er) bass like the Lavardin has. Also you are saying the second time that your opinion is objective. It is not and will never be. I have absolutely no problem if you say you prefer the Lavardin by far and it wipes the floor with the Naim in some aspects of the sound reproduction, I would agree with the last part. But it isn't better in every aspect in my opinion. What annoys me is the arrogance to tell people what they hear is wrong and your opinion as a fact or objective like Midlandaudiox has done too.
Last edited:
Midlandaudiox
Trade: Midland Audio X-Change
Never intended to come across as arrogant just my point of view and it’s all subjective to the individual and to the system and environment
Musical choices and material played anyone who has been to MAX and who knows me personally wouldn’t say I come across in that way
I help a lot of people less fortunate than some of us get In to affordable audio and high quality reproduction of music
Naim audio and Lavardin aside let’s not forget some of the super sounding vintage items that make mincemeat of both brands
But haters are gonna hate no matter what
Mike Hughes
pfm Member
My opinion is objective to the extent that the context I’ve heard both in was a room used by a designer of a well know DAC/streamer. Room was acoustically treated and all devices which pass through were measured to death. Thus when you assert the Lavardin has “thin” bass I have to laugh and stand by my assertion that whilst that’s what you undoubtedly heard you were certainly not hearing the Lavardin as is.
When you have, you would be perfectly entitled to assert that you prefer the presentation of the Naim. Objectively better? No. The distance between them is significant. Deeper more precise and slightly warmer bass from the Lavardin. Stunning mid range detail from the Lavardin. Certainly takes its time to show but then it’s not an immediate amp. Slightly less PRaT if that’s your thing but the Lavardin flows better and is noticeably more coherent. The Lavardin is also way more timbrally accurate and presents significantly more of the acoustic environment on recordings. In Naim terms it’s the difference between an original bare CDX2 and a CDS3 with an XPS2. One rocks and is infectious and in your face. You’re on the stage or in the front row. The CDS3 puts you a few rows back but makes you realise how poorly the CDX2 does timbral accuracy. For many years I preferred my CDX2. There is no doubt the CDS3 was better though.
When you have, you would be perfectly entitled to assert that you prefer the presentation of the Naim. Objectively better? No. The distance between them is significant. Deeper more precise and slightly warmer bass from the Lavardin. Stunning mid range detail from the Lavardin. Certainly takes its time to show but then it’s not an immediate amp. Slightly less PRaT if that’s your thing but the Lavardin flows better and is noticeably more coherent. The Lavardin is also way more timbrally accurate and presents significantly more of the acoustic environment on recordings. In Naim terms it’s the difference between an original bare CDX2 and a CDS3 with an XPS2. One rocks and is infectious and in your face. You’re on the stage or in the front row. The CDS3 puts you a few rows back but makes you realise how poorly the CDX2 does timbral accuracy. For many years I preferred my CDX2. There is no doubt the CDS3 was better though.
Last edited:
Bas V
pfm Member
One cannot make such a comment without examples. Please tell us your little secrets!
The issue, pure and simple, is that as a dealer, you have horses in the race.
Your “point of view” is extremely likely to be biased. Nothing more, or less, than that.
gustav_errata
pfm Member
But he stated up front that he's a dealer, so everyone could decide for themselves how large of a grain of salt to take with his opinions. There is literally no need to call him out on something he already disclosed.
Chris81
pfm Member
So you are doing it again and claim what you hear is right/obejctive and what others hear is wrong. The thin bass I described is mentioned by several German hifi magazines too which have acoustic treated rooms like I have. Also different people I know with more or less the same taste and preferences like I have described the amp in that way. By the way, I didn't say the XS2 is better, I liked it more because the Lavardin has some faults which you maybe don't weight as much as I do. To do it like you have done, if you don't hear the thiner bass you played the wrong tracks or you must be deaf.
By the way, have you read my posts? I didn't disagree with your points, quite the opposite. I said before that the Lavardin has advantages vs. the Nait XS2 but still, the Nait XS2 has some advantages too, is way more dynamic and has more PRaT and much more bass IMO and that of the other people I know who have listened to it. Again, yes the XS2 is more coarse and raw but some people like it that way. An electric guitar or a drum set with some types of music makes way more fun because the XS2 is much more engaging IMO.
For Rock and Pop music the Lavardin is to lush and snoozing for my taste but for Jazz and smaller Classic ensembles it is good. I would prefer the XS2 because it is a better allrounder for me but I don't own one anymore because the things you described as advantages are higher on my priority list and therefore I went into valves which do those things even better for my taste.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
By that argument, any dealer is a shill. That’s absurd. And what about people with something to sell in the classifieds? If they discuss its virtues in a thread, are they shills too?