Whither Naim?

When you read the info you will see that all six inputs can be selected as din( our preferred connector)if someone wanted to convert/programme to use the rca sockets then they can, it may well be that this is a perfect tool to prove our point.

You may not know but not so long ago some of our products always had one pair of rca inputs.

relax, enjoy and take a wider view.

No honestly, the configurable inputs thing is interesting--question is, are those volume and balance (!) potentiometers on the front in the audio path, or are they sampled/scanned/what not?

Anyone get ot see the back of the center-channel (or the front with the grille off)? Is it internally screened or does it use phase-cancelling magnets? (Affects possible future TV purchases.)

Dave Dever

-John

Seriously though, did I miss something, or wouldn't it make more sense to install balanced inputs instead? Surely the types of CD and SACD players rich white guys would be running with a 552 would have balanced connections?

Alex

quote:

---

One of the things that I (and many others judging by previous posts) would dearly love is a 'basic' version of the 52 or 552. i.e. The sound quality of a 52/552 but without all the trappings. Three inputs, - phono, CD, Aux, volume and balance. There are a bunch of us out here who simply don't need all the other stuff.

---

We have this, kind of. DNM preamps! These products of plasticity do everything that a preamp should and could do, and the new DNM 3D series should compete head on with the 52 (Twin) and 552 (Six). You can even bring your beloved DIN connections too!

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

First off, I am quite relaxed and do have my wide angle specs on. Not only that but, I am thinking of Naims best interests here rather than my own selfish desires as I am currently quite content with my lowly RCA equipped (on phono input only remember) NAIT2.

I can and do appreciate your point of view with respect to drawing new customers in, and that said customers may very well end up preferring the DIN inputs once they have had a chance to listen and compare for themselves.

My concern has more to do with principal than practicality. Turning your new top flight pre-amp into some form of programmable cable/connector-comparator-on-the-side as a marketing hook seems somewhat disingenuous based upon Naims established principals. What I mean to say is, why should Naim lower itself?

In the mean time if you are serious about releasing your new flagship pre-amp in this form then it might look better if the following excerpt from the official FAQ were revised...

"We realise that it is less convenient to use connectors that most other audio manufacturers have abandoned or never used, but there are genuine sonic reasons for us using them, and we don't want to compromise for the sake of fashion."

Sincerely,

Craig Best
Naim Audio lover since the beginning of timing

quote:

---

Trickle down indeed... a couple years from now us blue collar folk will have all sorts of mid-range gear to ponder. Imagine a new Hi-Cap that doesn't buzz, a CDX that doesn't read what it's sitting on and an Intro that doesn't rip yer ears off

---

Actually after 3 iterations of entry level CDP's addressing one of the most fundamental things affecting their sound, jitter, by getting rid of the crappy, jitter creating, sound killing CMOS oscillator would be a start

It would cost bugger all, and would seperate Naim from the competition by such a huge margin they'd have a fit.

Andy.

[This message was edited by Andrew L. Weekes on MONDAY 25 February 2002 at 20:03.]

quote:

---

Actually after 3 iterations of entry level CDP's addressing one of the most fundamental things affecting their sound, jitter, by getting rid of the crappy, jitter creating, sound killing CMOS oscillator would be a start

---

Eh? Could you expand on this? From a layman's point of view, we all know that Naim was in the forefront of jitter theory, so I'm surprised they would use CMOS fluxcapacitorthingies if an alternative was readily available. From your post I gater this only applies to CD3/3.5/5?

quote:

---

From a layman's point of view, we all know that Naim was in the forefront of jitter theory, so I'm surprised they would use CMOS fluxcapacitorthingies if an alternative was readily available. From your post I gater this only applies to CD3/3.5/5?

---

I suspect it applies to more than just the entry-level players and I know it also applies to 90+% of the CD players on the planet.

Essentially one needs a good low phase noise clock for low jitter levels at the DAC. It is now widely known in the world of high resolution D-A and A-D conversion that CMOS inverter based oscillators, as used in almost every CD player, including other manufacturers ultra expensive ones (so this is a comment about all, not just Naim) exhibit high phase noise and high jitter.

It's also widely know and documented, and I have proved myself, that PSU rail noise worsens the situation inducing more jitter (as it also does for a discrete oscillator). This is one way in which jitter can be reduced, by reducing PSU noise, a common Naim theme and upgrade route!

There is a limit though, and a relatively simple discrete oscillator (a well tried-and-tested technology) can exhibit much lower levels of jitter / phase noise for the same PSU noise, bringing big benefits. Cost is essentiallly the same - a single transistor and a few inexpensive capacitors can provide lower jitter than the unbuffered CMOS inverter commonly used.

I suspect that the only reason it isn't common is laziness, inexperience or a purposeful intent to limit performance.

I was genuinely shocked to find a 74HCU04 based oscillator in a colleagues CD3 and he's now changed it for a much cleaner oscillator - the difference isn't subtle it's a big, big musical difference.

These are the things I find interesting to analyse in other designs - was the time / effort and cost of developing decoupling pillars in the CD5 worth the money when my colleagues CD3 stomps over my CD5 in a big way (and probably gives a CDX a good run)?

...therein lies the rub

Andy.

quote:

---

Kit said...

Er, pardon my newbie ignorance, but is adding extra connection options to a product really so terrible

---

If the inclusion of such connectors goes against 26 years of preaching the critical relationship between common system signal grounding and overall performance then what other answer could there be?

Is not the presence of RCAs on the top pre-amp in particular an affront to the sensibilities of those that have accepted the Naim design approach from the beginning and supported them by remaining loyal customers? How can the inclusion of a provision that allows the user to create signal ground loops be possibly seen as justified on the top level product?

It is the principal that matters here not the details of execution. It matters not one jot that the DIN inputs are unaffected by the inclusion of the RCAs. Yes, I do recall that RCA inputs were often used for phono input duties where seperate signal grounds are not an issue. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

Don't blame me for revolting on this as it was Naim themselves who educated me in this area. I have been a willing protégé to Naim's mentoring since before I owned any of their products.

If you, or Naim for that matter, don't get it then let me put it to you this way...

If your aunt had a penis she'd be your uncle!

Get it?

Craig

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew L. Weekes:
I was genuinely shocked to find a 74HCU04 based oscillator in a colleagues CD3 and he's now changed it for a much cleaner oscillator - the difference isn't subtle it's a big, big _musical_ difference.

---

Makes me think ... has anyone fitted an Audiocom superclock to a CD3? Worth it?

Tim

I have no experience of the Audiocom and cannot comment - there's only one manufacturer I've seen prepared to publish jitter specs, and that's LCAudio. Their clocks have brought about big improvements to Marantz CD63's and a Naim CD3.

The prices have risen to very high levels recently though, and it's a physically large unit to find room for.

I recently built my own which offers similar performance for much less. It also incorporated a low noise regulator allowing bigger benefits by feeding the existing inverter (which in most players the clock is still distributed by) with a very quiet supply. It's a bit more complex than a simple oscillator, as it also incorporated a high speed comparator as a buffer to the oscillator.

The basic clock is a design being widely distributed by it's designer (not me!) around the net, I just refined the PSU a bit and added a small PCB - it measures about 50 x 40mm approx.

It worked magic in a colleagues Marantz CD63.

Andy.

quote:

---

Don't blame me for revolting on this as it was Naim themselves who educated me in this area. I have been a willing protégé to Naim's mentoring since before I owned any of their products.

---

As with anything in life, everything is subject to change. (I'm sure even Roy George has found a few surprises lurking in the cabinets in the R & D department over the years.)

The fact that a lead carries a DIN plug on one end does not exclude it from poor manufacture or design, if the other factors in cable manufacture have been ignored. For some things, a plain-jane RCA-RCA lead pair may be just fine.

(...just not on a CDS)

Dave Dever

I think that I should first cancel all engagements and book the spring/summer off to give them all a fair dem.

Experience tells me that I will more than likely end up preferring the lavender Naim interconnect on the DIN, so I may as well just leave well enough alone and get on with enjoying the music.

Far be it from me to flog a dead horse!

Craig
*Naim Audio Cable Comparator 552

quote:

---

Originally posted by Craig Best:
"is adding extra connection options to a product really so terrible"

The answer in this case has to be a resounding yes.

If the inclusion of such connectors goes against 26 years of preaching the critical relationship between common system signal grounding and overall performance then what other answer could there be?

Is not the presence of RCAs on the top pre-amp in particular an affront to the sensibilities of those that have accepted the Naim design approach from the beginning and supported them by remaining loyal customers? How can the inclusion of a provision that allows the user to create signal ground loops be possibly seen as justified on the top level product?

It is the principal that matters here not the details of execution. It matters not one jot that the DIN inputs are unaffected by the inclusion of the RCAs. Yes, I do recall that RCA inputs were often used for phono input duties where seperate signal grounds are not an issue. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

---

Craig,

you will find one rebut to your argument if you answer the question:-

"does a DIN socket on a 52 give any benefits when used with a non-Naim source that has phono outputs instead of a DIN"?

cheers, Martin

Not to speak for Craig, but I believe his issue is with the principles and morality of Naim succumbing to RCAs "for the sake of fashion" ( Naim FAQ ), not with any sound quality issues.

His point is bloody well valid, and I'm surprised he's the only one who's taken offence to this. Since day one, Naim and their followers have proudly poo-pooed the RCA. Now their statement product proudly displays them- a huge paradigm shift. Some can't help but feel that they're being led on a leash in this matter.

Heh, 10 years from now folks will get FEPs for having Naim preamps without RCAs on them. At least I can look forward to tossing my bloody BNCs off a very steep cliff.

In my eyes a bit of the Naim mystique has tarnished, but if it introduces more folks to the world of Naim, then full speed ahead!

P.S.
Apologies to people who did a forum search for Neat Mystique and came up with this rant.

[This message was edited by Mike Sae on TUESDAY 26 February 2002 at 08:07.]

Alex

I was also delighted to hear Naim's embrace of AV at Bristol. I have listened to most of the top-end AV systems and have never "got it". Watching Bjork and Saving Private Ryan on the Naim system was amazing. To my untutored ears Naim has rewritten the AV book. How Naim is finding the time and resources to release such a bewildering array of new products in the last few years is beyond me. Yes, Naim is changing, and Yes that is moving somewhat away from my personal interests - but the enthusiasm is still there by the bucketload. Naim deserves to thrive and had they stood still they would probably have withered and died.

Nic P

Let's get a few things on the record. DINs do not sound better (if they do) because of grounding nor impedance matching. Two wires in parallel connected between the same two points do not a "ground loop" problem make. Output Z of Naim pres is a few ohms, input Z of Naim amps is tens of thousands of ohms: this Z mismatch absolutely swamps anything in the cable or connectors.

If DIN does sound better it will be because the contacts make a better connection inside the connectors.

BAM
Let's not invent aliens to explain corn circles.

quote:

---

you will find one rebut to your argument if you answer the question:-

"does a DIN socket on a 52 give any benefits when used with a non-Naim source that has phono outputs instead of a DIN"?

cheers, Martin

---

From 'Well Connected?', Naim Newsletter, Winter 2000 Edition, page 7, last paragraph...

"It's also worth remembering that connecting a CD player, even an inexpensive one, to one of the DIN inputs using a good quality RCA to DIN cable will provide superior sound to the RCA input."

I believe that Julian's original explanation was that having a superior connection at one end that also commoned the grounds was still far better than having four less good connections and two separate grounds.

Again, I would like to reiterate my point that it is the going against principal that bothers me not the details of execution.

I am quite confident that a well broken in 552 will crap all over anything else on the planet whether it is feed via RCA, DIN or a piece of wet string with a paper clip on the end. But that really isn't my point.

My point is that I, for one, am somewhat disappointed in this form of compromise (to US market pressure no less) on what is destined to be the flagship control unit design of the new millennium.

End of story except to say thanks to Mike S. for covering my back wrt the ignorant newbies.

Oh, and to Chris K., all I can say is that I doubt that you would have gotten away with that crap in the old days. I firmly believe that you have created a bit of a paradox for yourself and Naim. I will leave you to put the heat on yourself while you are figuring out a way to update NANA's FAQs without making yourself out to look an arse.

In the mean time enjoy the music,

Craig

quote:

---

somewhat disappointed in this form of compromise (to US market pressure no less)

---

the lack of design and build to meet the requirements of the export market are the downfall of many companies and products

Remember the customer that has not bought a product is always more right than the guy that has bought.

Naim appear to be attempting to meet the needs of the potential customer resident in Westchester County NY as well as meeting the compulsive obsessive needs of the Hifi anorak

Good for Naim

Note the terms used in this post do not imply any criticism either directly or indirectly on the honored and learned members of this forum
By choosing to read this post you are so doing at your own risk

No animal was harmed in any way in the production of this post <g>

Derek

Take, for instance, Bob Neill. He had to have his CDS-II modified to take Valhalla cables (which can't physically be made to fit into DIN plugs) - probably at considerable expense. The dual approach of both RCAs and DIN would at least give the consumer choice, and any argument which seeks to restrict that is backward to say the least in my mind...

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."

if i am right, then whether you have DIN or 21 carat RCA's at the back of your valued 552 is UP TO YOU!!!

in fact, i have read about a number of people using a phono-din adaptors in order to use their £1000/m signal cable. i cant criticise someone who spends this kind of money on cable when i am contemplating spending serious money on a fraim --its what rocks their boats...

as i understand it, naim have NOT changed their stance on RCA vs DIN. they need not modify any FAQ's on this. all they need to do is add the fact that with the 552, you who is paying your money can now decide whether to have RCA's or all DIN's. doesnt mean that naim have done a preference U-turn and now believe RCA's are better. they are now leaving the choice to the customer, and thereby creating a whole future threads on this forum "my 552 sounds better with RCA's ..." etc etc..

thank you naim for giving us something to argue about. life would be too dull otherwise

enjoy

ken