advertisement


Old Naim Naits

Tony L said:
I don’t agree at all. I suspect it is more that you don’t like classical as much so haven’t necessarily found the timing intricacies.
Click to expand...

Relatively speaking, there aren't any. When you are listening to a large orchestra you are hearing dozens of people playing, some of whom are thirty or forty feet apart. It doesn't matter how good they are, they cannot time like a decent rock band. Classical is about ebb and flow, not snap and crack.

If it's a smaller group, a quartet or quintet maybe, it's acoustic instruments which are not as demanding to reproduce as electric ones.

When you go to a Hi-Fi shop what do they demonstrate with? Everyone knows the answer to this. It's a small acoustic group, maybe a female singer and a guitar or something along those lines. It ain't ACDC! But it should be. They use music that shows off the system because the system can do a good job of it. You play 'Back In Black' at volume on your stereo and you'll find out pretty darn quickly how capable it really is.
 
echann said:
I also read all the glowing reviews of the Audiolab 8000, went to a demo, heard it and then the Nait 1. Went home with a Nait, which destroyed the Audiolab.
Click to expand...

I actually briefly owned an Audiolab 8000A, which I initially liked for its controlled sound. But I completely lost interest in music. Went to a dealer in Cheadle who suggested a swap with a Nait 2.......

I can't remember who it was, but I'm still really grateful. Still have that Nait in my main system. Lovely little thing (but yes, lacks body and weight).
 
my take on the Naits, after having owned several of them, all 1, 2 and 3 (plus the 5 and 5i), is that the most consistent ones musical performace-wise were the 3s - IMHO with better and more balanced tonality, smoother and livelier than either the 1 or the 2 (both CB and Olive, in this MM and CD, included). also, each 1 and 2 was different-sounding to their same-era peers I had at the time. it was a bit shocking to experience but I once found an interview with the late JV who quite honestly admitted that "The differences between the two preamps [32.5 and 62] are not that large: there are probably bigger variations between a current 62 and one from three months ago. There has to be: we use, for example, three different suppliers for our printed circuit boards. We have to because we use over 80,000 PCBs each year. They do sound slightly different but that’s not to say better or worse." thus, I then learnt to understand why I heard them to be different. I won't say, though, that the Nait 3 is the 'über alles' integrated but it has its charm (looks included), mainly for a person with a pretty much varied taste in music, and with fairly efficient and neutral or warm-ish sounding speakers in a middle-sized room it can really make wonders
 
Mr Pig said:
When you go to a Hi-Fi shop what do they demonstrate with? Everyone knows the answer to this. It's a small acoustic group, maybe a female singer and a guitar or something along those lines. It ain't ACDC! But it should be. They use music that shows off the system because the system can do a good job of it. You play 'Back In Black' at volume on your stereo and you'll find out pretty darn quickly how capable it really is.
Click to expand...

They choose acoustic music because everyone has a direct personal reference having heard/played a real unamplified piano, acoustic guitar or whatever. Loud distorted rock music assembled bit by bit in a studio such as AC/DC (who I personally can’t stand) only exists via the control-room monitors or via shit PA systems at absolutely deafening volumes. It is an entirely made-up/fabricated artefact and not really hi-fi in any real sense at all. Unless you were in the studio control room listening to the huge Tannoys, JBLs, Altecs or whatever through which it was originally assembled track by track you can’t have the slightest clue as to what it was intended to sound like! The studio playback will certainly bare no resemblance to what comes out of say a Nait and Kans, even if that is good fun (assuming one likes AC/DC) at some superficial level. It certainly has no real-world reference point.
 
+1.
There's a world of difference between 'impressive' and 'immersive'.
And we do all hear, or want to hear, things differently.
 
I thought having AC/DC in your living room was more within the purview of big JBLs and a Crown amp than Kans with a Nait, but whatever floats your boat.

Joe
 
Tony L said:
They choose acoustic music because everyone has a direct personal reference having heard/played a real unamplified piano, acoustic guitar or whatever...
Click to expand...

I don't think that's why they do it. I Think they want to make the systems sound as good as possible so choose music that is easy to reproduce and makes the system sound impressive.

It's not confined to Hi-Fi shops. I've done it myself, been pulled into playing and buying music that sounded good on my system. Over time I found I was not listening to the music I loved in my teens. Had my tastes changed? Was that music really no good? No.

Since realising my mistake I've made it my goal to assemble a system that can play anything. Sometimes, that has meant rejecting something that sounded better on a few recordings in favour of kit that wasn't quite as good but made a better job of more recordings. It totally works! My old music wasn't rubbish. These days I listen to a very wide variety of music and more music. I love finding new music but also love pulling out my old records. In fact in the last few weeks I've bought better copies of old albums from Level 42, Genesis and the like.

A good stereo should get to the heart of any music and let you hear why people like it. Any music. The idea that only acoustic music qualifies for consideration is ridiculous. If your stereo can't make the music you loved in your teens sound great then it's not a very good stereo.
 
When I had Nait 1 with Epos ES11 nearfield, I used to wonder how it could be possible to get any better. In particular, I remember the midrange had a very live, realistic quality.

Put the same Epos ES11 in my main system with Naim 102/180 and the sound was dull with boomy bass.
If I could go back in time I'd try the Nait in the main system to see how it sounded. Wish I'd experimented more...
 
fatmarley said:
When I had Nait 1 with Epos ES11 nearfield, I used to wonder how it could be possible to get any better. In particular, I remember the midrange had a very live, realistic quality. Put the same Epos ES11 in my main system with Naim 102/180 and the sound was dull with boomy bass.
Click to expand...

Near-field and filling a room are two very different things, like a PA vs a pair of headphones.
 
Mr Pig said:
Near-field and filling a room are two very different things, like a PA vs a pair of headphones.
Click to expand...

I know. But I remember standing well back on one occasion and still thinking the nait/epos pairing was awesome. Just wish I'd experimented more to be sure it wasn't just the recording or something else.
 
fatmarley said:
I know. But I remember standing well back on one occasion and still thinking the nait/epos pairing was awesome. Just wish I'd experimented more to be sure it wasn't just the recording or something else.
Click to expand...

Yeah, to get the best out of your kit you need to experiment a lot, and maybe be very blessed/lucky to find the right things sometimes.
 
Mr Pig said:
When you are listening to a large orchestra you are hearing dozens of people playing, some of whom are thirty or forty feet apart. It doesn't matter how good they are, they cannot time like a decent rock band. Classical is about ebb and flow, not snap and crack.
Click to expand...

Please excuse my bluntness Mr Pig, but it's obvious from the above twaddle that you know sweet ** about classical music.
 
Mr Pig said:
A good stereo should get to the heart of any music and let you hear why people like it. Any music. The idea that only acoustic music qualifies for consideration is ridiculous. If your stereo can't make the music you loved in your teens sound great then it's not a very good stereo.
Click to expand...

I was more arguing that if a system really get the acoustic/‘real’ stuff right (including doing the scale/dynamics/soundstage etc) then everything else usually falls into place perfectly. That has certainly been my experience over the past decade or so, though I have ended up with a vintage studio main monitor system in my living room! I’ve never heard the stuff from my teens (T. Rex, Joy Division etc etc) sound better as I’m now hearing it through kit very similar to that used in its creation. The same goes for classical and jazz too.
 
I can enjoy my Nait 2 with both Classical and rock. For Stravinsky ''The Rite of Spring'' I would use Rogers LS7T and for The Who's ''Magic Buss'' from Live at Leeds I would use JBL Decade 36s.
 
Dealers/Demos all tend to use 'good' sounding albums for audition and shows. I am not interested in hearing audiophile quality recordings on the system. What I want to know how the gear will perform with normal albums, be it acoustic, electric, metal, jazz or whatever...

I hardly go but I cringe every time I hear the same bad music at hifi shows.
 
Martyn Miles said:
Just reading the last few posts, it’s incredible how a discussion on the Nait 1 & 2 has turned into a
slanging match.
Click to expand...
There’s been some friction but also some interesting and diverging comments about how folks evaluate hifi.

I certainly think it’s up to the individual to find their own way. Otherwise, we’d all be satisfied with the same system and clearly that’s not the case. For example, the Linn design approach makes very good sense to me and yet their products most certainly don’t appeal to everyone here, or even myself 100% of the time.

I keep thinking of that German university online test where you listen to two tones and click whether you think it’s low>high or high>low. It then tells you to what extent you’re more of a left-brain or right-brain listener, or in the middle. There were a variety of results on another forum just illustrating one way we hear differently to each another, but who knows how else we differ.
 
Mr Pig said:
Relatively speaking, there aren't any. When you are listening to a large orchestra you are hearing dozens of people playing, some of whom are thirty or forty feet apart. It doesn't matter how good they are, they cannot time like a decent rock band. Classical is about ebb and flow, not snap and crack.
Click to expand...
So an orchestra of classically trained musicians following a conductor who's also classically trained and all full time professionals can't time their music? Don't be ridiculous.
 
Try this for rhythmic precision from a large orchestra!


Boulez is indeed a rhythmic martinet in the old school of Toscanini-esque precision, but this is just an example of how precise rhythmic tension can be built up and used for expressive purposes and building an irresistible momentum.

I always get somewhat bemused by the idea that all the work that goes into creating rhythm and precise articulation is sacrificed by some replay.

Best wishes from George
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top