What makes a preamp "better"?

quote:

---

Three questions.

Have you seen how busy a nac 552 is inside?

---

I've seen the inside of a NAC552, I don't know what 'busy' means.

quote:

---

Have you heard how much better it is compared to a nac 52?

---

I've heard a comparison at the Bristol show last year. I don't see the relevance.

quote:

---

Do you believe naim add extra components/suspension systems etc etc into the 552 just for the fun of it whilst knowing they make no contribution to performance?

---

I believe Naim believe they make a contribution.

But none of your 'questions' are relevant to the assertion.

Paul

quote:

---

Even a new-born infant's immediate universe contains many hundreds of discrete objects.

---

But every single one of those discrete objects will be of no significance to the infant except one, then two (negated from one) and so on.



Regards,

Steve.

This is meaningless. Experience isn't atomic, and you can't "negate" two from one. You're talking nonsense.

I give up.

-- Ian

quote:

---

Stuff like, "Should change the signal the least" make sense, but fail to explain the observation that a good preamp is *better* than no preamp at all.

---

First I don't think there's any evidence that the above is universal, it would be perfectly feasible to design a no-preamp system that is just as good, maybe better, than one with a preamp. It would be inherently less versatile though.

If you read my original reply in more detail you will see I have partly explained that.

You cannot isolate the source from the components you connect it to.

Plug a power amp into a CD player output, and the output of the CD player may change, add a suitable buffer circuit (read: preamp) and you can reduce or eliminate this change, therefore less errors.

Feed signals through cables and the driving and receiving circuit can actively change all sorts of parameters, which are audible.

It all comes down to the loads and impedances presented at the various interconnections.

Andy

" none of your 'questions' are relevant to the assertion."

I disagree. They have relevence because you make the following statement :

"don't see any good reason why preamps need be expensive compared to CDPs or power amps."

In terms of R&D and component costs etc the nac552 is comparible in complexity to both cd players as well as power amps. Also on a pound per pound basis evaluation I would suggest that a 552 is more fundamental to absolute performance than a nap500.

If you cannot see the justification then fair enough. Maybe you are in an ideal position then to design and manufacture your own pre which outperforms the competion at a fraction of the cost. I

quote:

---

In terms of R&D and component costs etc the nac552 is comparible in complexity to both cd players <snip>

---

I don't think it's remotely comparable, personally. CD players are dramatically more complex beasts, with a far larger component count and a host of much greater, challenging to solve design problems.

Andy.

Andrew

Does this come from your experience designing both CD players and high end pre-amps or is this laymans speculation?

quote:

---

Does this come from your experience designing both CD players and high end pre-amps or is this laymans speculation?

---

This comes from my experience in designing numerous high-precision analogue / mixed signal and RF circuitry up to 10GHz, some of which is audio-related. How is your opinion formed?

I have done the factory tour, seen the considerable attention to details that Naim put into every one of their products and this all costs considerable sums, but never at any time did it leave me with the awe that it inspires into those without an engineering background, it's simply very rigorous analysis of critical design criteria, coupled to superb process control. It's a very impressive example of this, it may be totally unique, but it's not magic.

As to why others do not, apparently, do this, is a seperate question entirely.

Whilst the NAC552 is a mixed-signal design, by virtue of the remote control / digital elements, the much more complex mixed-signal nature of the CD player, with it's higher-speed signals, critical timing in the picosecond range and the marriage between this and the analogue circuitry will always present a far, far greater design challenge than a primarily analogue component.

Digital and analogue components are anathema to each other, presenting large design challenges if one is not to compromise the other.

The NAC552 may well have required similar levels of R&D (which was not a case I was arguing, if you read my reply) to acheive its levels of performance, but it plainly has nowhere near the level of complexity, in component count, or electromagnetic compatibility, that even a basic CD player has.

Please bear in mind my views are that of a Naim owner, with an extensive range of Naim equipment I love, not simply those of the opposition.

All IMVHO,

Andy.

[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on FRIDAY 11 July 2003 at 11:42.]

[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on FRIDAY 11 July 2003 at 11:43.]

Ok. So why do you think the nac552 costs 5k more than the cds3?

quote:

---

Ok. So why do you think the nac552 costs 5k more than the cds3?

---

Only Naim can give you the answer to that question, but there's a number of possibilities, all of which are likely to be relevant.

Personally though, I can see no reason for it from an engineering perspective, so market forces have to be the primary decider in my view.

These will be based upon the products performance relative to other products in the Naim range, relative to competing products, relative to the cost of it's intended partner, ultimately, the NAP500.

Reviews of the NAC552 talked about the NAP500 being too cheap for it's intended marketplace (that nebulous area called the 'high-end') so I'm certain that is a factor too.

Don't forget also that the R&D budget that NAC552 / NAP500 owners funds keeps mere mortals like me in better sounding products at the lower echelons of the Naim ladder, as the experience gained filters into those products.

HiFi is all about marketing, unfortunately, it has to be because of the minimal volumes involved.

Anyone who tells you they do it for altruistic reasons, is either unlikely to be telling the whole truth, or unlikely to have a viable business

Andy.

Stereophile's MIchael Frener, in his recent review of the 552, compared the sound of a non-preamped system to that of a 552ed system.

According to him, the preamp, in addition to its obvious functions of source-selecting and first-stage amplification of the input signal, would allow the power amp to better control the loudspeakers. Now that sounds a little surprising at first.

When one thinks of it further, however, the 552 - like any preamp - takes some amplification job away from the power amp, allowing it to perform better. (Somewhat like a good video card would do with your computer's CPU - only the preamp comes before the power amp, not after like the video card does).

This may sound like heresy in flat-earth country, but some serious audiophiles (such as Inner Ear Report magazine, for example) consider the preamp to be the most critical part of the system: they say preamps are the most dificult equipment to design. Hence maybe the relative cost of the 552.

Now where's that lottery ticket?

quote:

---

If you cannot see the justification then fair enough.

---

Andrew has put it better than I could, and from a more authoritative technical position.

My reasoning was that a CDP contains an analogue filter and output stage. A preamp also contains an analogue filter and output stage. These bits of the CDP have to be roughly as good as the preamp. The additional bits required to make a preamp are a switch, an attenuator, and in the modern market some form of electronic control. These bits are much less challenging than the remainder of a CDP. Even entry level Naim preamps have remote control.

quote:

---

Maybe you are in an ideal position then to design and manufacture your own pre which outperforms the competion at a fraction of the cost.

---

You do seem tremendously agitated about this.

Paul

Honestly, no one who has posted in this thread so far knows the part and assembly cost of the 552.

Its been written here that CD players are the most complicated to design whilst preamps are easier. It has also been written, in other threads, that perhaps the power supplies are the simplest of all - in terms of design and parts cost.

Yet the XPS2 costs darn near as much as the CDX2!!!

Personally, I do not believe Naim are fleecing in this example. I believe that it costs to build any of these boxes correctly. The more complex bits of a CD player such as the transport and DAC chips are sourced parts - not made new each time. The timing issues are handled in the design - construction of the player *may* be no more or less rigorous than construction of the XPS2. Naim know for sure and I would guess that new employees start on the easier, lower-toleranced bits and graduate to building the 500', 552's, etc.*

- GregB

* The opinion stated is the generally uninformed opinion of someone who has read the forum for a number of years and has a mild background in electronics and electronics assembly.

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

I'm not agitated in the slightest!

Anybody with functional ears is able to hear the performance difference between a 102 and a 552. At their relative price points they sound better than any of the competion IMO and my experience.

Clearly the additional circuit complexity, component selection and attention to detail of the 552 is what sets it apart from a 112 from a performance perspective. I am suggesting that it is precisely this detail within the execution which sets them apart.

This extra small percentage of performance is where the blood sweat and tears go into and which is what sets the best equipement apart from the ordinary.

The reason we often pay the extra is because, as often is the case, we know that it is precicely in this crucial additional % where all the joy is to be had.

Andrew

I'm sure you could build a pre amp and get it to sound 98% as good as XYZ. The problem is that I'm interested in the last 2% which, with all due respect, I don't believe you would be able to extract.

Simon,

quote:

---

I'm sure you could build a pre amp and get it to sound 98% as good as XYZ. The problem is that I'm interested in the last 2% which, with all due respect, I don't believe you would be able to extract.

---

Was that aimed at me?

Nowhere above have I made a claim to this effect and neither would it be appropriate for me to do so here, so I am unfortunately unable to respond in the manner I would like to.

Since you cannot have any in depth understanding of my, or others skills in this area though, it is also innapropriate for you to make such statements.

Regards,

Andy.

quote:

---

Yet the XPS2 costs darn near as much as the CDX2!!!

Personally, I do not believe Naim are fleecing in this example.

---

Of course they are not - they are simply charging a price that reflects the performance benefit acheived and that the market will withstand.

Anyone who has heard the difference an XPS let alone an XPS2 makes to a CDX, one can see why, bearing in mind the CDX bare cost.

There is though, no way an XPS costs as much to make as a CDX.

Additionally, most people who tried to build a PSU that even equalled the XPS would fail - that's what you're paying for.

Andy.

[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on FRIDAY 11 July 2003 at 14:44.]

[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on FRIDAY 11 July 2003 at 14:44.]

This may be of interest, from an interview with JV...

"And on the CD player, the chips, not just the digital chips but also the analog ones, and the op-amps and the control circuitry, turned out to be nearly one thousand times more sensitive than the discrete circuits that we use in our pre-amplifiers. So we had to go to extraordinary lengths: instead of just attaching the board, the board itself is mounted on a sub-chassis, which is then suspended inside the player."

...and that's just the mechanical aspects, not the electrical ones!

Andy.

And, of course, the cost of manufacture bears no relation to the retail price which seems to be unusually consistent.

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

I'm not agitated in the slightest!

---

I AM NOT SHOUTING!

quote:

---

Anybody with functional ears is able to hear the performance difference between a 102 and a 552. At their relative price points they sound better than any of the competion IMO and my experience.

---

I'm not disputing any of that, especially since I've never heard a 102, and never ever done any comparative listening to Naim preamps, let alone between Naim and their competition.

I stand by my assertion. I actually had in mind that any system with a NAC552 might be mulleted by definition, until Naim produce a comparable CDP...

Paul

Andy,

Re:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew L. Weekes:


"And on the CD player, the chips, not just the digital chips but also the analog ones, and the op-amps and the control circuitry, turned out to be nearly _one thousand times_ more sensitive than the discrete circuits

---

Sensitive to what? Do you know?

I find the need to mount electronics on some form of suspension hard to understand. I've never thought of solid state electronics as being microphonic.

During my time as an engineer, our equipment, a mixture or precision analogue and digital (for process control), had to withstand vibration.

Assuming that the kit did not fall apart during vibration test , I don't recall that it responded to the vibration in any way.

The bandwidths of the analogue sections were very low so microphonic affects would probably not have been detected anyway.

Do you know why circuit board suspension is such an issue?

By the way, an excellent set of posts on this surprisingly emotive subject.

Regards,

Paul.

"Since you cannot have any in depth understanding of my, or others skills in this area though, it is also innapropriate for you to make such statements."

My understanding is that you believe that naim pre amps offer poor VFM in comparison to CD players/ power amps. You attempt to reinforce your position by drawing upon your technical knowledge and background to validate your poor VFM claims.

As you use a technical position to back up your beliefs, I think it only fair that I am allowed to debate from that position also.

Attention to detail and implimentation of a whole wealth of accrued knowledge has gone into making the 552 what it is and how stunning it sounds. The combined experience of an R&D team stretching back nearly thirty years appeares to be derided by yourself although by your own admission you have never attempted to build a high end pre-amp. As an engineer surely you would agree that true objectivity is somewhat clouded in the absense of actually designing and building something yourself.

Sorry, tell me if I missed something?

Paul

It's kinda odd that you are talking about value for money yet admit that you have absolutely no idea of the relative performance of naim pre amps , both to each other as well as with respect to the competion. Don't you think this weakens your position just an insy bit?

"I've never thought of solid state electronics as being microphonic."

Struck me as odd too. Until I moved a hicap from an MDF board to a piece of glass.

OhMyGosh...

The microphonic effects are not a fiction - not in the least. My old dealer reckoned that resonance (read: vibration) control was 9/10 of what good audio is about.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

quote:

---

It's kinda odd that you are talking about value for money yet admit that you have absolutely no idea of the relative performance of naim pre amps

---

It's kinda odd that you're misrepresenting my position.

So far you haven't offered any argument against my original assertion. And I haven't impugned the VFM of any Naim products.

FWIW perhaps you should make your relationship with Naim clear?

Paul

Paul

Its common knowledge that I am involved on an infrequent freelance basis helping to develop visual direction for naim. I have no direct financial benefit from promoting their electronics and would never dare to claim any input in terms of the performance of their product line.

Having said that I have been a naim user for approximately 18 years and always attempt to put across my honest and independent opinions regarding music and its reproduction. I never toe any party line and certainly never advertise or promote under the guise of a thread.

What I will say is that I know of no other company who put so much attention to detail in every aspect of their business. If this sounds like promotion then I'm sorry, it's just been my honest experience for the last five years.

I agree with what you say about Naim.

But, I stand by my assertion that a pre should cost less than a CDP, all else being roughly equivalent. I don't see this as being any kind of attack or slur on Naim, or Naim vfm.

FWIW I was a Naim user for many years starting way back in 1983. I do own some very early Naim gear, and am actually on the lookout for a bolted case NAP250 and NAC32. The older and crabbier the better.

Paul