advertisement


Shoebox Naits

kennyh said:
And yet for me the 5 lost that true Naim sound that was typical of the brand and became warmer and more Quad like to my ears. Was that a combo of the "lead in" black pre/power range MJS?

I rated the 3.
Click to expand...

Indeed - never understood the antipathy towards the 3; I had one from new, and it was excellent.

Subsequent Black Naits I've heard, rather less so, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Charlie_1 said:
I've got a serviced 32.5 but much prefer the 12 (with same cards) into 110 / 160 but am still curious about the 32, particularly a BD one.
Have you ever compared a 12 with a 32?
Click to expand...

Not directly but I'd say a 32 is closer to the 12 having a warmer tone generally speaking. That said these amps are so old and variable there is no definitive best but a good 32 or 12 is a superb pre amp.
 
I also like the 3. In the end considering what is in it It can't not be as good as a 2 if not a bit better due to the extra power. It is not magic is it? Just bits of wire and stuff just like the bits of wire and stuff in the other Naim amps of the time.
 
I wonder if the "thing" that Naits have over their larger siblings is due to the absence of the buffer before the line amp?
 
As I said in my opening post, I enjoyed the Nait 3 for many years. My only criticisms were the hardness in the midrange and treble, and the sense that the music really didn't hang together. To me, music through the Nait 3 was more about "hi-fi" than "the groove".
The Nait 1 and 2 are very groovy to my ears...
 
I think I was less 'into hi fi' in my Nait 2 years than I am now. Or perhaps I should say I couldn't afford anything better so I didnt look, I just enjoyed the music. Now I can afford pretty much what I want so it has caused me to look around a bit and I have some different kit, and whilst muisc itself is still the main driver, I can look for those qualities that perhaps I couldn't before. So, having said this, I agree the Nait has the boogie factor. You can do better, but you've got to spend a fair bit to do it. I could live with a Nait 2 for the rest of my life for sure.
 
Charlie_1 said:
Is that just a case of using a Y cable to send the signal straight from pre to power amp, whilst using the other cable arm to separately power the pre, or is it something more complex than that?
Click to expand...
As an example, in a 72/hicap/250 system the standard Naim way is to connect power to the 72 from the hicap and the signal out of the 72 to the hicap using a single 5 pin SNAIC, then wire the signal out of the hicap to the 250 using a 4 pin DIN to XLR. Rather than do this, remove the signal connections in the 5 pin SNAIC (buy an alternative power only cable made without the signal connections) so the hicap to 72 connection is just power, and connect the 4 pin DIN of the 4 pin DIN to XLR to the 72 output directly. Even better, do this with an upgraded cable rather than the mains flex that is the 4 pin DIN to XLR cable, by which I mean a signal cable with a screen, no foo required.
 
I have never understood the supposed un Naim like reputation of the Nait 5 original. I have had a Naim serviced and updated '5' for about 3-4 years, and in that time it's seen off a SN1, Nait XS, 122X/150X. It is comparable, albeit different, to both my previous beloved Nait 2 and latterly Nait1. I have used the '5' bare, and with a Flatcap2 and in both instances it is a gem of an amp. It has taken a really good 32/Hi/110 to move things on, and even then i miss some of the magic of the '5'. So in conclusion for me, the 1,2 & 5 are rather special.
 
nobeone said:
As an example, in a 72/hicap/250 system the standard Naim way is to connect power to the 72 from the hicap and the signal out of the 72 to the hicap using a single 5 pin SNAIC, then wire the signal out of the hicap to the 250 using a 4 pin DIN to XLR. Rather than do this, remove the signal connections in the 5 pin SNAIC (buy an alternative power only cable made without the signal connections) so the hicap to 72 connection is just power, and connect the 4 pin DIN of the 4 pin DIN to XLR to the 72 output directly. Even better, do this with an upgraded cable rather than the mains flex that is the 4 pin DIN to XLR cable, by which I mean a signal cable with a screen, no foo required.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying. I did try a Y cable and it all sounded a bit strange to me but perhaps this approach, albiet similar, works better.
 
The 5 is a very different design (I think it had a passive preamp section...could be wrong).

If you own a 3 in isolation, especially coming from the 90s generation of budget integrateds, it was a lovely, thrilling, musical thing.

But contrasted with a 2, or (as in my case) a 72/140, the 3 is also one of the most coloured amps I can remember owning.
 
Tim Jones said:
The 5 is a very different design (I think it had a passive preamp section...could be wrong).

If you own a 3 in isolation, especially coming from the 90s generation of budget integrateds, it was a lovely, thrilling, musical thing.

But contrasted with a 2, or (as in my case) a 72/140, the 3 is also one of the most coloured amps I can remember owning.
Click to expand...
No Tim, the '5' has an active pre, and is similar to a Nait XS. You are confusing it with the 5i variants that came after.
 
I have recently moved from a 3 to an Atom and it sounds rather nice.

I’m using a pair of MkI Kans with it and they suit it well.

For me the digital side of replay is my main listening source but for analog it’s really good.

Jono
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top