PRaT is indispensible but not enough!

quote:

---

I find the all-naim experience to be unfulfilling, given the lack of sounstage depth and focus.

---

I have heard many Naim systems sound exactly as you describe, though with good set up I can assure you they can deliver well on the timbre and spatial scale.

I do not actually use a Naim system, just a system with an old Naim amp, but here's my two pence worth anyway. My system has timed like a demon for as long as I can remember - right from back when I had a Xerxes / Onix / Kan IIs the timing and musicallity have been more than intact. What I have tried to achieve since then is get more tonal accuracy and more convincing resolution of timbre without sacrificing any timing, tune playing, or the general fun of it all. After much aimless farting around I find myself back with Kan IIs (there is nothing remotely like them at an anywhere decent price), though I now have far more upmarket stuff feeding them.

A real surprise for me was the amount of improvement in tonal and spatial areas that can be had with good equipment supports - since having all my electronics on Mana the amount of space and realism in instrumental timbre has increased exponentially, whilst also managing to improve the already first rate groove. I have heard similar timbre and spatial improvements with Hutter, though I remain to be totally convinced by it musically.

As for imaging, my system like a lot of flat earth systems tends to project things forward in front of the speaker plane just as much as setting stuff back behind them. Spatial effects is are not constant, they vary completely between different recordings as I believe to be correct - I find many 'round earth' systems force a particular presentation on all recordings which can only be considered wrong.

I have loved all Densen products I have heard so far, especially the 1800 quid pre-power combo, which amps do you have? I have to admit I have been impressed with their CD player too. The only Densen product I own is the Demagic CD, which definitely does something good.

Tony.

Xmas, triple time, bored, watching cable TV at work.

quote:

---

As for Tony 's suggestion to use Mana support, I am just wondering about their resonant properties which may be exacerbated by the smallness of my listening room. I may look at Quadraspire with wooden shelves, although at the moment I'm using Optimum glass shelves.

---

I would not worry yourself about resonant properties of one stand over another, that train of thought leads to the spouting of pseudo scientific theory and general unprovable bollocks that tends to crop up in many of the stand threads. Bottom line is that people who don't like Mana say it rings, people who don't like Quadraspire say it is wobbly. The relevance of such arguments is totally beyond me I don't care what something is made out of, or whether it rings or wobbles, it is whether it works that matters. Mana works.

Here is my take on the three most popular stands here, though the only dems I have done is Mana vs Quadraspire, and Quadraspire vs Hutter. I have not managed to get all three into a room at once.

• Quadraspire Easy to listen to presentation, ambles along with a nice laid back swing, and portrays musical flow well. Sonically it sounds a bit shut in, mushy, compressed, and undynamic, to my ears it very obviously rounds off the leading edge of transients such as a stick hit on a cymbal. Seems to loose low level detail such as a realistic sense of acoustic space / some reverb etc.

• Hutter Good sense of instrumental timbre, good resolution of low level detail, and quite good dynamically, though definitely lost out in the groove and swing area in the dem where I heard it against Quadraspire. To say this surprised me was an understatement.

• Mana Very dynamic and detailed, large, open and airy sound allowing truly excellent pace rhythm and timing. Excellent control from extreme top end right down to extreme bass. Can sound absolutely horrible when not set up right in a headache inducing hard, forward and relentless way. When set up correctly its absolutely the opposite. For me it gives the best of the above with none of the negative aspects.
  

The above is my own personal take, based on the dems I have heard, plus hearing all the above stands in different peoples home systems. On what I have heard, I am very happy with my choice. The stands above can all work well, and they all concentrate on very slightly different aspects of musical performance. Listen to all of them if you have the chance, certainly don't be talked into buying the first you see. Accept no pseudo scientific babble.

Tony.

I do not analyze the sound I hear; I just 'listen' to my gut response. I find that recorded music through the Naim electronics (starting with a 62/140) has evoked a response that feels similar to live music p[erformed well, so I don't know about leading edges, frequency response, PR&T, timbral accuracy, soundstaging.

I do know that soundstage width/depth and localization of instruments don't mean much from the upper balcony of Orchestra Hall in Chicago. And I know that soundstaging is apparent from the seats above and behind the Orchestra (like, 10' from the horns).

But I get imaging from my system. It may be that imaging for Naim starts at the 82 level, but I'm, not sure. And It's not Naim at the ends, so it may not be what Steven means by 'all Naim'.

With my extensive upper balcony experience, I just do not value imaging. It's nice when I get, but it's far from essential for me.

I've got too much money in my electronics to make changes on some one's say so. And if I have a choice between listening to music at home or going to a store to listen to equipment, well, that's a really easy choice. I suspect my next electronics upgarde will be a step towards the 52.

I've tried Mana (3 tier stand), and it sounded very small and undynamic. It was level, and the glass definitely rang right, but I tightened the lock nuts very tight, which I now hear is wrong. So maybe it wasn't set up right, or maybe I don't like Mana.

Phil