advertisement


Naim XS2 replacing Lavardin IS Ref

J

JOHN VAN BAVEL

pfm Member
Early opinions re changeover . Firstly , the sheer convenience of more inputs . No more multiple switch boxes to input my cd, turntable , tuner , cassette deck , computer flac files via dac , and 78 rpm player . Also headphone socket eliminates wiring to headphone amp which I can now sell . The ability to change volume from other end of room via remote is also good news . The Lavardin only had 3 inputs as the 4 th was a dedicated phono input and not nearly as good as my Dynavector phono amp .
As for the sound . Hard to categorise , but the impression is that the Naim sound is more particulate , almost as if there are pixels of sound rather than a smooth blend . So sound is a tad harsher / sharper / more discrete. Spacial effects are still good as is bass , and separate instruments are a bit more differentiated . Pace and rythym are up to scratch as per reputation . Lavardin was warmer and sweeter but there is not a lot in it .
It all means lots more listening to familiarise myself------- happy days
 
Interesting. The Nait XS sounds very mediocre to me. Not too sure if XS2 is a major improvement from the original.

The Lavardin IS Reference was often touted to be reference level. I guess it's not the case anymore now.

Enjoy.
 
If you’ve got an XS2 sounding better than the Lavardin that’s telling me you have issues elsewhere with your system or room as they are not even broadly in the same ball park.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GT
Lavardin was warmer and sweeter but there is not a lot in it . yes some people prefer this warmth and sweetness rather than the increased prat of the naim gear . its all personal choice . depending on your likes
 
JOHN VAN BAVEL said:
Early opinions re changeover . Firstly , the sheer convenience of more inputs . No more multiple switch boxes to input my cd, turntable , tuner , cassette deck , computer flac files via dac , and 78 rpm player . Also headphone socket eliminates wiring to headphone amp which I can now sell . The ability to change volume from other end of room via remote is also good news . The Lavardin only had 3 inputs as the 4 th was a dedicated phono input and not nearly as good as my Dynavector phono amp .
As for the sound . Hard to categorise , but the impression is that the Naim sound is more particulate , almost as if there are pixels of sound rather than a smooth blend . So sound is a tad harsher / sharper / more discrete. Spacial effects are still good as is bass , and separate instruments are a bit more differentiated . Pace and rythym are up to scratch as per reputation . Lavardin was warmer and sweeter but there is not a lot in it .
It all means lots more listening to familiarise myself------- happy days
Click to expand...

What speakers?
 
Mike Hughes said:
If you’ve got an XS2 sounding better than the Lavardin that’s telling me you have issues elsewhere with your system or room as they are not even broadly in the same ball park.
Click to expand...
Or you have a different taste. I would took the Naim Nait XS2 all day above the Lavardin IS, that amp was totally disappointing, neither the sound of a good valve amplifier (as often claimed) nor the dynamic and bass control of a good solid state, early clipping even with high sensitive speakers like Living Voice.
 
Old Shatterhand said:
Or you have a different taste. I would took the Naim Nait XS2 all day above the Lavardin IS, that amp was totally disappointing, neither the sound of a good valve amplifier (as often claimed) nor the dynamic and bass control of a good solid state, early clipping even with high sensitive speakers like Living Voice.
Click to expand...

Agree with your sonic assessment. I had an IS and a Mk 1 Supernait; neither were brilliant amps, but the Naim was more to my taste. The guy I sold it to didn't like it much either and, curiously, was able to pinpoint to me exactly why I didn't get on with it, but said he was passing it on to a friend in Poland who loved them. Horses for courses, as @hifinutt alluded to.
 
For further information .
Speakers are Living Voice Avatars .
CD is Astin Trew 3500 [ modifed by manufacturer ] ,
turntable is Orbe with
Dynavector 10x5 cart and phono amp ,
DAC is Schitt Bifrost
Cassette deck Nakamichi MR 2
 
JOHN VAN BAVEL said:
Early opinions re changeover . Firstly , the sheer convenience of more inputs . No more multiple switch boxes to input my cd, turntable , tuner , cassette deck , computer flac files via dac , and 78 rpm player . Also headphone socket eliminates wiring to headphone amp which I can now sell . The ability to change volume from other end of room via remote is also good news . The Lavardin only had 3 inputs as the 4 th was a dedicated phono input and not nearly as good as my Dynavector phono amp .
As for the sound . Hard to categorise , but the impression is that the Naim sound is more particulate , almost as if there are pixels of sound rather than a smooth blend . So sound is a tad harsher / sharper / more discrete. Spacial effects are still good as is bass , and separate instruments are a bit more differentiated . Pace and rythym are up to scratch as per reputation . Lavardin was warmer and sweeter but there is not a lot in it .
It all means lots more listening to familiarise myself------- happy days
Click to expand...
 
As the UK distributor I feel your findings are completely unfounded
Along with many others the musical coherence and texture of sound is quite frankly in a different stratosphere to an XS2
It’s like comparing a bottle of Trevento Malbec (not a bad slurpand a good quaffing red) to a bottle of Illuninos vino de la luz an award winning superior slurp
But I am aware people can’t tell the difference
And if so enjoy the Trivento
 
@Midlandaudiox I can't stand it when distributers or companies tell customers that what they hear is wrong and only the have the clue, at least that is my impression of your post.

I know enough people who where underwhelmed by Lavardin. The whine example is a good example because there is much snobbery and big mouth talk too.

To me there are better valve (and solid state) amplifiers who are doing the tone, texture, flow thing better than the Lavardin.

Sure Naim is way more coarse and less refined but it is also way faster, more dynamic, the bass is hitting harder and has more control not even mentioned PRaT.

To me there is no real better between these two amps they have a total different priority in sounding. One big point is that it is possible to repair Naim amplifiers which isn't the case with some Lavardin amps.

I prefer the Croft Integrated R above the Naim Nait XS2 and the Lavardin IS and it plays great with Living Voice to my ears.
 
Old Shatterhand said:
@Midlandaudiox I can't stand it when distributers or companies tell customers that what they hear is wrong and only the have the clue. I know enough people who where underwhelmed by Lavardin. The whine example is a good example because there is much snobbery and big mouth talk too like you showed with your post.
Click to expand...
I’ve used, and loved Lavardin amps and I don’t recognise the descriptions from the OP and you so you clearly had a very different experience to me. I don’t recall reading about them being compared, sonically, to a valve amp - there was mention of memory effect being a semiconductor thing so valve amps didn’t suffer, but that wasn’t to say the Lavardin should sound like a valve amp.

I’m with MAX on this, the Lavardin makes Naim sound blunt, in my experience. But we’re all different, and no doubt looking for different things. It’s helpful to remember that if somebody likes something you don’t, they’re not necessarily wrong, just looking for different attributes to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top