Uniti Atom/Nova/Star - New firmware - March/April 2018 Comments

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I think there is a mis understanding of what the DSP currently does in the Naim DACs and streamers... it’s not configurable, it’s designed as a specific low pass reconstruction filter for the DAC and matched with the analogue filter... its design is an inherent part of the Naim player and requires  delicate optimisation in terms of execution timing.. having a configurable Naim reconstruction filter DSP is bit like seeing having a configurable DAC chip that be plug swapped out.

I think Naim looked at separate DSP sound optimisations, but felt the negative impact on SQ was not acceptable 

 

Thanks Simon, so are you saying the DSP effect is fixed and cannot be modified at all in software? What I'm trying to understand is exactly what 'DSP' does especilly as firmware 2.3(8574) lists DSP 1.0.2 in About>More, whereas 2.6 has a completely different version which is why I assume that DSP differs between the firmware versions.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I think there is a mis understanding of what the DSP currently does in the Naim DACs and streamers... it’s not configurable, it’s designed as a specific low pass reconstruction filter for the DAC and matched with the analogue filter... its design is an inherent part of the Naim player and requires  delicate optimisation in terms of execution timing.. having a configurable Naim reconstruction filter DSP is bit like seeing having a configurable DAC chip that be plug swapped out.

I think Naim looked at separate DSP sound optimisations, but felt the negative impact on SQ was not acceptable 

 

With respect Simon (and unlike most times I say "with respect" to someone, this time I do actually mean it) I think you are missing the point.

There is no doubt at all that a significant number (most even, if the forum is typical) of Nova and Atom owners find the latest firmware update to be a big downwards step in enjoyability. Not all, but most. Some NDS owners are also not happy, but most are. I think all 272 owners are happy and there haven't been enough of the other streamer owners reporting to know what the overall view is on the old Unitis, NDX and 172.

It is at least arguable that Naim failed to find that point of delicate optimisation to which you refer, at least in the case of the new Unitis. In the case of NDS, perhaps there is no single point that could be found.

The Naim "golden ears" listening to their preferred material, probably quite loud, in Naim's room, using Naim's choice of speakers arrived at a conclusion which a significant number of owners find less engaging than before. We know from beta testing how much difference there can be between versions of firmware that are exactly the same except for the DSP coefficients.

The one thing you can be certain of is that none of their customers, not a single one, will have exactly the same ears, choice of music, room and speakers as the Naim reviewers. It may be that one DSP parameters choice is "correct", but if it sounds wrong to their customers, those customers will gradually leak away.

That's why Naim should offer a choice of DSP profiles and I'm sorry but it is total nonsense that doing so would necessarily damage SQ. if it is designed well, then it can be easily done.

best

David

Semi-random thought, without going back and checking  I have these impressions from this thread. There are more people posting about the Atom than the Nova, which wouldn’t be that surprising given the cost difference. My impression is that the Atom experience is cosnsistently negative, I don’t remember any Atom owner saying they’re happy. On the Nova I think it splits 2-2 for/against. (As 9ne 9f the fors I would say I’m experiencing a very minor uplift, as opposed to the down-votes which are reporting major impact.) Obviously sample sizes are such that any statistician would be screaming non-significant with froth coming from the mouth, but I’ll ignore that for a moment. 

When I auditioned the Atom and Nova, the Nova offered greater drive, greater depth and control of the bass, and much better female vocal presentation, with a greater sense of space. If I’ve understood correctly, female vocals (and similar registers), pacing, mid-bass are all impacted negatively for those who are (rightly) unhappy. So maybe the greater performance of the Nova in those areas either masks it or even means that it is a slight improvement on the Nova and yet can be a negative impact on the Atom. (This makes sense to me, it may be rubbish.) Then add in speaker/room/listener variation and you could get the samples we’re seeing.

I’d still be happy to tell a friend to seriously consider the Uniti range, but I’d show them how to check the firmware level on the app and tell them to insist the dealer had the latest, as even with this sample size it’s obviously very much a matter of personal taste/system (at least on the Nova).

Hungryhalibut posted:

I love the term ‘with respect’, which really means ‘you’re talking bollocks’. At least, that’s what it means when I use it, which is as rarely as possible. 

It does mean that HH. I do not use it often either, but still sometimes it's just the right way to get attention especially if there is a chance the person you are addressing it to will think that you are talking bollocks (which is probably what Simon, when he reads it, will think!)

best

David

David Hendon posted:

The Naim "golden ears" listening to their preferred material, probably quite loud, in Naim's room, using Naim's choice of speakers arrived at a conclusion which a significant number of owners find less engaging than before. We know from beta testing how much difference there can be between versions of firmware that are exactly the same except for the DSP coefficients.

Well, taste is always a matter of subject. But I agree with you that the DSP coefficients can have a big impact on the sound. Nevertheless the set-up also adds its parts to the whole character of the music.

For me it was also at the beginning a musical downgrade when going to 2.6. I reverted back to 2.3 and I was happy. But then I hooked up a NAP 100 I still had to the Atom and what can I say - firmware 2.6 was in an own league and a big improvement in comparison with 2.3. And I also tested version 2.3 with the NAP 100 - so the difference is not from the NAP 100.

I know that this is not a preferred option as it involves some bucks of money but for me it was a big surprise and also a learning. Needless to say, that I will stay now with this set-up and on version 2.6

JosefM posted:
David Hendon posted:

The Naim "golden ears" listening to their preferred material, probably quite loud, in Naim's room, using Naim's choice of speakers arrived at a conclusion which a significant number of owners find less engaging than before. We know from beta testing how much difference there can be between versions of firmware that are exactly the same except for the DSP coefficients.

Well, taste is always a matter of subject. But I agree with you that the DSP coefficients can have a big impact on the sound. Nevertheless the set-up also adds its parts to the whole character of the music.

For me it was also at the beginning a musical downgrade when going to 2.6. I reverted back to 2.3 and I was happy. But then I hooked up a NAP 100 I still had to the Atom and what can I say - firmware 2.6 was in an own league and a big improvement in comparison with 2.3. And I also tested version 2.3 with the NAP 100 - so the difference is not from the NAP 100.

I know that this is not a preferred option as it involves some bucks of money but for me it was a big surprise and also a learning. Needless to say, that I will stay now with this set-up and on version 2.6

That is interesting Jose and it proves my point. You were able to discover that adding the NAP100 you had spare made 2.6 better for you, but what if you had the Atom and that's all? Would you have preferred to stay with 2.6 rather than 2.3 because you were told it was the more accurate?

Anyway I'm glad you found something that worked well for you.

best

David

Although fairly high end kit, the new Uniti range is presumably designed from a marketing perspective to be a bit more ‘mass market’ then the other marque separates. Surely therefore  it should ideally be tuned for a sound that has a wider appeal rather then a polarising one if the sample of users on this forum is anything to go by. If a company is going to change the signature sound of a product that many have previously auditioned and invested heavily in then they’d really need to nail it with something seriously good that doesn’t divide opinion the way this has. 

JosefM posted:
David Hendon posted:

The Naim "golden ears" listening to their preferred material, probably quite loud, in Naim's room, using Naim's choice of speakers arrived at a conclusion which a significant number of owners find less engaging than before. We know from beta testing how much difference there can be between versions of firmware that are exactly the same except for the DSP coefficients.

Well, taste is always a matter of subject. But I agree with you that the DSP coefficients can have a big impact on the sound. Nevertheless the set-up also adds its parts to the whole character of the music.

For me it was also at the beginning a musical downgrade when going to 2.6. I reverted back to 2.3 and I was happy. But then I hooked up a NAP 100 I still had to the Atom and what can I say - firmware 2.6 was in an own league and a big improvement in comparison with 2.3. And I also tested version 2.3 with the NAP 100 - so the difference is not from the NAP 100.

I know that this is not a preferred option as it involves some bucks of money but for me it was a big surprise and also a learning. Needless to say, that I will stay now with this set-up and on version 2.6

Just to confuse matters further I run my Nova most of the time with a NAP 250 attached - I've listened with and without but still prefer 2.3.

The internal Nova amp gives more detail than using the older NAP 250 (whatever firmware), but the NAP 250 just gives a lot of musicality with some music which makes me prefer listening with it most of the time.

I'd originally planned to get Atom/Nova as an all-in-one for streaming in the family room rather than the Lounge where I normally have my AV equipment, but as I've had the main active system in storage for a little while until I sort out the Lounge I repurposed one of the 250s used for that in the interim.

Perhaps I should have gone for a NAC-N 272 instead and used the 250 with it.

David Hendon posted:

 

That is interesting Jose and it proves my point. You were able to discover that adding the NAP100 you had spare made 2.6 better for you, but what if you had the Atom and that's all? Would you have preferred to stay with 2.6 rather than 2.3 because you were told it was the more accurate?

Anyway I'm glad you found something that worked well for you.

best

David

I wonder if that point is similar in a way to the one I made (probably too wordily) above. The extra weight and control of the NAP100 or the Nova makes the DSP change work, where through a bare Atom it becomes a problem, at least in certain systems  or on certain music types. 

Alley Cat posted:

Thanks Simon, so are you saying the DSP effect is fixed and cannot be modified at all in software? What I'm trying to understand is exactly what 'DSP' does especilly as firmware 2.3(8574) lists DSP 1.0.2 in About>More, whereas 2.6 has a completely different version which is why I assume that DSP differs between the firmware versions.

Yes the  IIR based low pass reconstruction filter is set up by programming the SHARC based DSP processor...and it is a specific design to match the DAC reconstruction filter response... and is carefully designed to offer the required reconstruction performance (ie slope, phase shift, Q and cut off etc) to suit the overall  DAC and filter response architecture. It’s design I don’t believe has ever changed.

However what has  changed is the code execution timing, that is the exact timing that the particular SHARC operands that are executed, which controls the tiny side effects from the DSP module code execution... it is these ‘interference’ side effects that can be tuned so as change the overall modification  of the resultant audio  caused by the perturbations from the DSP and memory data flow. I understand that the Naim designers can almost tune these interference side effects to tweak the audio eq response, but it’s not always a precisely exact process and can be a bit hit and miss... think of it like being able to tune the sonic differences between FLAC and WAV decode. The overall result is ultimately set by Naim to match the agreed Naim sound as clearly just like Naim amp, and preamp performances the audio performance response is subjectively set by Naim... we don’t have different sounding flavours of NAC 552 for example

Now what this means however is that these effects are very exactly specific to each component’s physical architecture and implementation, which is why there are different DSP build optimisations for each Naim product and why sometimes new DSP timing optimisation builds  are required when there are other changes in the firmware.

i hope that makes some sense.

Simon

Perhaps someone (user or beta tester) who has the ear of Naim should extend an invitation to them to comment on what's happened with the Firmware update.

The response I received in the email for a link to the 2.3 firmware was non enquiring and lacking any curiosity. Perhaps they are unaware / disinterested in our experience, but I would have thought by now that a few down grade requests should have set some flags flying in the development department.

David Hendon posted:

I think there are more Nova owners not liking here than Atom owners. But anyway something not wholly desirable is going on and it need understanding!

best

David

 

I’ve Just been back through the thread, more Nova reporters than I remembered, because the first few posters were Nova owners and it’s been 5 pages, and my aged brain had forgotten. I didn’t write the names down while reading back through so could be wrong, but I think it’s 6 Nova and 6 Atom, 4-2 on Nova and 6-0 on Atom, but I could have lost track of user names. AlleyCat’s use of a 250 has buggered my hypothesis that the extra body of bigger systems (Nova/NAP100) compensates for the DSP change, a 250;will out-perform both easily.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
Alley Cat posted:

Thanks Simon, so are you saying the DSP effect is fixed and cannot be modified at all in software? What I'm trying to understand is exactly what 'DSP' does especilly as firmware 2.3(8574) lists DSP 1.0.2 in About>More, whereas 2.6 has a completely different version which is why I assume that DSP differs between the firmware versions.

Yes the  IIR based low pass reconstruction filter is set up by programming the SHARC based DSP processor...and it is a specific design to match the DAC reconstruction filter response... and is carefully designed to offer the required reconstruction performance (ie slope, phase shift, Q and cut off etc) to suit the overall  DAC and filter response architecture. It’s design I don’t believe has ever changed.

However what has  changed is the code execution timing, that is the exact timing that the particular SHARC operands that are executed, which controls the tiny side effects from the DSP module code execution... it is these ‘interference’ side effects that can be tuned so as change the overall modification  of the resultant audio  caused by the perturbations from the DSP and memory data flow. I understand that the Naim designers can almost tune these interference side effects to tweak the audio eq response, but it’s not always a precisely exact process and can be a bit hit and miss... think of it like being able to tune the sonic differences between FLAC and WAV decode. The overall result is ultimately set by Naim to match the agreed Naim sound as clearly just like Naim amp, and preamp performances the audio performance response is subjectively set by Naim... we don’t have different sounding flavours of NAC 552 for example

Now what this means however is that these effects are very exactly specific to each component’s physical architecture and implementation, which is why there are different DSP build optimisations for each Naim product and why sometimes new DSP timing optimisation builds  are required when there are other changes in the firmware.

i hope that makes some sense.

Simon

 Yes, thanks makes a fair bit of sense - I guess I'm just trying to understand where these sonic differences emanate from and having a feel for the underlying architecture does help, though naturally I wouldn't expect Naim to divulge too much about this themselves.

It's truly amazing that the code execution timing can have such a dramatic effect if the output of the DSP code is essentially the same.

Well I think after downgrading and upgrading again it's fixed something as it now sounds a lot more like it did. I did exactly the same procedure although this has gone straight to 2.6 without the intermediate firmware they released inbetween. I did a factory reset after both instnaces so I am perplexed as it sounds different to the first time, less harsh and more depth. I didn't imagine it before either as misses who never says anything said somethings changed after the first time to upgrade.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
Suzy Wong posted:
Hungryhalibut posted:

I’m off to Naim tomorrow and will ask them the question. 

Is that the factory tour?

Can you look forward to a couple of NAP250s in the Goodie Bag 

I was hoping to be able walk away with a Statement NAP S1 for evaluation.... assuming it will fit in the boot... 

Now that will be hard to hide in a bag.

Alley Cat posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:
Alley Cat posted:

Thanks Simon, so are you saying the DSP effect is fixed and cannot be modified at all in software? What I'm trying to understand is exactly what 'DSP' does especilly as firmware 2.3(8574) lists DSP 1.0.2 in About>More, whereas 2.6 has a completely different version which is why I assume that DSP differs between the firmware versions.

Yes the  IIR based low pass reconstruction filter is set up by programming the SHARC based DSP processor...and it is a specific design to match the DAC reconstruction filter response... and is carefully designed to offer the required reconstruction performance (ie slope, phase shift, Q and cut off etc) to suit the overall  DAC and filter response architecture. It’s design I don’t believe has ever changed.

However what has  changed is the code execution timing, that is the exact timing that the particular SHARC operands that are executed, which controls the tiny side effects from the DSP module code execution... it is these ‘interference’ side effects that can be tuned so as change the overall modification  of the resultant audio  caused by the perturbations from the DSP and memory data flow. I understand that the Naim designers can almost tune these interference side effects to tweak the audio eq response, but it’s not always a precisely exact process and can be a bit hit and miss... think of it like being able to tune the sonic differences between FLAC and WAV decode. The overall result is ultimately set by Naim to match the agreed Naim sound as clearly just like Naim amp, and preamp performances the audio performance response is subjectively set by Naim... we don’t have different sounding flavours of NAC 552 for example

Now what this means however is that these effects are very exactly specific to each component’s physical architecture and implementation, which is why there are different DSP build optimisations for each Naim product and why sometimes new DSP timing optimisation builds  are required when there are other changes in the firmware.

i hope that makes some sense.

Simon

 Yes, thanks makes a fair bit of sense - I guess I'm just trying to understand where these sonic differences emanate from and having a feel for the underlying architecture does help, though naturally I wouldn't expect Naim to divulge too much about this themselves.

It's truly amazing that the code execution timing can have such a dramatic effect if the output of the DSP code is essentially the same.

Anything that consumes CPU cycles could affect the sound I suppose.. Looking at the fixes in the 2.6 firmware there was a lot of changes and CPU optmisations so I guess thry have to change something's to maintain the same base sound signature. Although In this case its not.  Although I seem to have got back to it somehow.

 

David Hendon posted:
Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

I think there is a mis understanding of what the DSP currently does in the Naim DACs and streamers... it’s not configurable, it’s designed as a specific low pass reconstruction filter for the DAC and matched with the analogue filter... its design is an inherent part of the Naim player and requires  delicate optimisation in terms of execution timing.. having a configurable Naim reconstruction filter DSP is bit like seeing having a configurable DAC chip that be plug swapped out.

I think Naim looked at separate DSP sound optimisations, but felt the negative impact on SQ was not acceptable 

 

With respect Simon (and unlike most times I say "with respect" to someone, this time I do actually mean it) I think you are missing the point.

There is no doubt at all that a significant number (most even, if the forum is typical) of Nova and Atom owners find the latest firmware update to be a big downwards step in enjoyability. Not all, but most. Some NDS owners are also not happy, but most are. I think all 272 owners are happy and there haven't been enough of the other streamer owners reporting to know what the overall view is on the old Unitis, NDX and 172.

It is at least arguable that Naim failed to find that point of delicate optimisation to which you refer, at least in the case of the new Unitis. In the case of NDS, perhaps there is no single point that could be found.

The Naim "golden ears" listening to their preferred material, probably quite loud, in Naim's room, using Naim's choice of speakers arrived at a conclusion which a significant number of owners find less engaging than before. We know from beta testing how much difference there can be between versions of firmware that are exactly the same except for the DSP coefficients.

The one thing you can be certain of is that none of their customers, not a single one, will have exactly the same ears, choice of music, room and speakers as the Naim reviewers. It may be that one DSP parameters choice is "correct", but if it sounds wrong to their customers, those customers will gradually leak away.

That's why Naim should offer a choice of DSP profiles and I'm sorry but it is total nonsense that doing so would necessarily damage SQ. if it is designed well, then it can be easily done.

best

David

It would probably help to keep upgrades that have an impact on the sound quality clearcut separated from upgrades that are meant to improve functionalities.

I am not an owner of any of the recently introduced  Naim products but I understand that Naim are incrementally improving the functionalities of their Uniti devices.These upgrades should not affect the sound quality in any perceivable way.

I would expect upgrades that aim at improving the sound quality to be clearly flagged and to have no impact on functionalities.

It is also not clear (to me) that all

Eoink posted:

Semi-random thought, without going back and checking  I have these impressions from this thread. There are more people posting about the Atom than the Nova, which wouldn’t be that surprising given the cost difference. My impression is that the Atom experience is cosnsistently negative, I don’t remember any Atom owner saying they’re happy. On the Nova I think it splits 2-2 for/against. (As 9ne 9f the fors I would say I’m experiencing a very minor uplift, as opposed to the down-votes which are reporting major impact.) Obviously sample sizes are such that any statistician would be screaming non-significant with froth coming from the mouth, but I’ll ignore that for a moment. 

...

It is also not obvious to me that all Nova and Atom owners have identical devices. Manufacturers sometime introduce hardware upgrades without notifying it. If there were different Nova around, it would not be very surprising that a firmware upgrade has had a negative impact on some of them and no or negligible impacts on the others. Machines are not very different from humans: they are not all the same!

David Hendon posted:

I think there are more Nova owners not liking here than Atom owners. But anyway something not wholly desirable is going on and it need understanding!

best

David

 

I have an Atom feeding the highs of my PM1, the bass section being driven with a NAP 100. Since the latest firmware update and I can assure you that I noticed a notable change in the sound: the sound seems more detailled but at the same time there is much less authority and PRaT to me : less crisp and less grunt much more quiet/calm tonal balance. 

I find myself using the volume + button more and more, just to get my lounge filled with sound, which was not the case prior to the update. My mind ain't playing me tricks, I do can hear a clear difference before and after the update. 

So please naim, come on, bring back the real naim sound back to my Atom. 

Granthar posted:

Been happy up to now with the upgrade on the Atom but now twice in the past hour the Atom has gone off, the standby button flashes and it reboots

Did you factory reset after the update? If not I would recommend to and see if that helps. If you already did make sure your network connection is ok. I had my Atom reboot when it lost network a few times when in use.

Bouba posted:
David Hendon posted:

I think there are more Nova owners not liking here than Atom owners. But anyway something not wholly desirable is going on and it need understanding!

best

David

 

I have an Atom feeding the highs of my PM1, the bass section being driven with a NAP 100. Since the latest firmware update and I can assure you that I noticed a notable change in the sound: the sound seems more detailled but at the same time there is much less authority and PRaT to me : less crisp and less grunt much more quiet/calm tonal balance. 

I find myself using the volume + button more and more, just to get my lounge filled with sound, which was not the case prior to the update. My mind ain't playing me tricks, I do can hear a clear difference before and after the update. 

So please naim, come on, bring back the real naim sound back to my Atom. 

Bouba, I have always meant to test to see if the internal amp stays on when a new Uniti device is used with an external amp (I assume it does - older units could be set to disable the internal amp) -  from what you're saying I think you're bi-amping with the internal amp feeding high frequency and NAP 100 feeding low frequency.

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor

Trevor Wilson posted:

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor

Thanks Trevor, I’m sure your acknowledgment will be appreciated by all. So in what form will this assistance be?

Trevor Wilson posted:

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor

Trevor

I greatly appreciate your response as I'm sure others do here.

There's clearly a diverse range of opinions from overwhelmigly positive, no/little change to I susepct a small number of negative experiences.

I'm sure all who've reverted would be more than happy to help R&D in any way to understand our specific experience and setups.

AC

Mercky posted:
Trevor Wilson posted:

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor

Thanks Trevor, I’m sure your acknowledgment will be appreciated by all. So in what form will this assistance be?

hello Mercky, i would trust that tech support will contact those whom need support directly

Hello Trevor,

I for one appreciate you reaching out.

However, I have to say I am perturbed by the fact that the sound quality of my Atom was changed as part of the upgrade and without prior warning or a clear and easy reversion path without having to join a forum to discover why my unit had changed its sound.

I also discovered I was not alone, so I would caution about the positive feedback you say you have received and question the source of such feedback. Not every Naim user is aware or a registered user here.

Perhaps going forward, your development team may be more forthright with improvements in firmware and the possible changes in sound quality that users may experience as part of the upgrade. This is HIFI after all and sound is the fundamental concern to those who choose Naim products over other brands.

 

I can’t get my head around 2.6, tonight I was listening to a favourite prog on iradio which plays an eclectic mix of music, it’s only 128k but it sounded excellent I have to say. Right now I’m listening to Jon Hassell ‘Tonight the Moon came dropping it’s clothes’ on Tidal and it sounds sublime, bags of detail AND bass! Am I burning in to 2.6? 

Trevor Wilson posted:

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor

Trevor - i did not believe and neither do the number of threads and comments suggest it is a minority, also using the forum as a measure is not fair as allot of Naim owners do not use it.

To view it as a change is probably better, some like it, some do not.

For over 20 years i have purchased Naim equipment for a specific sound (at least at demo/purchase) and that has always been consistent, but now i have ended up 6mths into owning a Nova a product that i personally would not have bought.

The response from Naim has been poor, denial, refusal, then relying on beta testers to justify.

An option must be offerred that support the original DSP at launch 2.3.1 (i think) and that must be supported moving forward, not as Naim advised, if you downgrade you get no support.

Obsydian posted:
Trevor Wilson posted:

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor



...The response from Naim has been poor, denial, refusal...



Obsydian, with all due respect, that doesn't seem to match up with what I have just read here from Trevor.  He has acknowledged that some customers are not happy with the sound they are hearing on their units after the update, says that Naim are not ignoring those who have raised the issue, and that R&D are looking into why some are experiencing something so different to others. He has also invited anyone who feels they have this issue to contact Naim to work with them in getting to the bottom of it.  Overall, I think that's a good, fair, and right response.

Richard Dane posted:
Obsydian posted:
Trevor Wilson posted:

hello all

i want to reach out and acknowledge that some customers have feedback that they aren't happy with the latest release of software. whilst our feedback would strongly indicate that the majority of customers are happy with the release that does not mean that we at Naim are ignoring those whom have raised issue. The release of 2.6 under-went significant and considerable testing at Naim before release, and we all felt the release was ready and sounded good.

To those that aren't happy i would like to say that we accept your feedback and to tell you that Naim R&D are actively working on understanding your experiences and why it would manifest itself - the team at Naim will assist those in need

Trevor



...The response from Naim has been poor, denial, refusal...



Obsydian, with all due respect, that doesn't seem to match up with what I have just read here from Trevor.  He has acknowledged that some customers are not happy with the sound they are hearing on their units after the update, says that Naim are not ignoring those who have raised the issue, and that R&D are looking into why some are experiencing something so different to others. He has also invited anyone who feels they have this issue to contact Naim to work with them in getting to the bottom of it.  Overall, I think that's a good, fair, and right response.

Well maybe let's setup a poll and survey forum users.

My response related to the Naim response ( I was clearly told, tough it's approved and not for debate)  prior to Trevor post, but if that direction is to email Naim then I and others have already repeatedly done that, should we do so again.

Accept this maybe a Marmite topic, but lets imagine we changed the Naim sound on amps, again some may like it others may not - the option should be given which you want and supported by Naim.

Add Reply

Likes (3)
Robert_FMarcus67JosefM
×
×
×
×