Whither Naim?

I can appreciate your statement...

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

..were we talking of a new upstart UK cottage industry purveyor of hi-fi gear, however, Naim have been a very successful force to be reckoned with in this particular industry, especially so since the release of the 3 and, even more so, the 5 series.

Do any of the 5 series products outside of the Stageline employ RCAs I ask you? If they do, it would make a lot more sense seeing as they are entry level products which will no doubt introduced thousands to the Naim way of doing things. The 5s are selling like hotcakes and getting top reviews from all quarters, and rightly so.

I can understand the use of RCAs for phono input duties at the entry level (I run a NAIT 2 remember), and I can understand their use on the odd aux input back when Naim were breaking into the market, however, I cannot understand their use on the top pre (and nothing else) in the year 2002 when Naim's success is already at an all time high just to satisfy the desire of the US distributors need to sell a few of Harry Pearson's ass kissing protégé tube/panel heads.

I must rest my case now as it seems that principals have changed in Naimdom, and I am not one to disrespect one for their principals, as opposed to their going back on them for marketing reasons.

Respectively yours,

Craig

I once worked for a major successful company that did not keep it's eyes on the marketing ball because it was internally focussed on what was good over the previous 20 years. It posted the largest corporate loss in history and layed off over half its employees.

It is now reduced to including pension scheme profits in its annual bottom line so as to look good.

YMMV

Derek

This is nearly impossible to do using the DIN plugs (fixed-configuration channels). This is, in my view as a technician, very important at the dealer level, regardless of what planet you're on, as it allows one to solve a connections issue quickly. You need not use the input for critical sources, that's what the DINs are for and better at.

As for bam's remark about the DIN impedance, might I suggest that one advantage is the fact that both the signal and the ground connections have the same physical contact area--which is not the case with an RCA phono connection. Clearly.

This reminds me, too--time to change out the BNC inputs on the 52. I use a Prefix, hence no need even for BNCs (inferior to the Aro connector). The Stageline RCA sockets fit perfectly fine into the BNC-notched holes (as do Cardas' cheaper RCA sockets).

"Is it worth pointing out that din was in fact the standard before rca phono's were ever used."

It isn't worth pointing that out. Valves preceeded transistors but Naim doesn't use valves. Besides, if DIN preceeded RCA and perfromas better they why isn't DIN the standard? I mean, it has to be cheaper to use taking part cost and panel area into account.

"Also the connections within a din plug allow a common earth for both left and right channels not separate earths as occurs in the rca plug. All through a Naim system a common earth is employed."

Why, why, why? No one ever says why this should be a better topology!!!!! What's the technical justification? What about mono-block systems: it is impossible to share the ground between L and R channels. If there were a fundamental ground problem with using 2 leads rather than 1 then why doesn't anyone else act on this superior knowledge? The only two explanations I have right now is that 1) DINs are cheaper and 2) they facilitate supporting psu lines within the same cable system as signal cables. If there is an electrical reason they please share it.

"Din plugs do sound better and the presence of phonos on the 552 will not have any effect on their superiority. However it does allow people to do the comparison,if they so desire, and then realise that we were right all along"

I completely agree. I don't see what people are having so much trouble with in this thread. The animosity over Naim providing both reminds me of the Euro/Sterling debate. Seems like some people think the Naim heritage is at threat. I agree that it is appropriate and correct to provide customer-compatible interfaces. I do wonder why you chose RCA rather than XLR - the latter being widely used for high-end gear.

BAM

david, is it possible to reconfigure (somehow) the BNC's into a high level input like inputs 1 and 2. i realise there will likely leave a hole where the other BNC was.

just curious...

enjoy

ken

Dave must have left it in that hotel room that he got stuck in because of the do not disturb sign hanging on the inside door knob.

Now it all makes sense.

Thanks for the clarification David.

Craig

Good observation.
But it is just an observation unless you explain what you think the advantage of this may be. Please share your reasoning.

...exerpt from 'Well Connected?', Naim Newsletter, Winter 2000 Edition, page 7.

I presume that Naim meant to imply that the significant advantage over the RCA has less to do with carrying both signal channels through one wire and more to do with one common ground for both signal channels.

I suppose that the XLR was considered but the 'Wire Yanks' would have trouble getting two runs of garden hose into one plug.

Craig

quote:

---

Naim has decided to put user configurable RCA inputs onto its new top pre-amp because David Dever has lost his Ohm meter!

---

Many dealers do not carry one with them in the field for complex installations (e.g., some vintages of NAIT 2s).

Get the picture?

quote:

---

Get the picture?

---

No i didn't. Did you make sure to reduce it's file size to 32K or less prior to uploading?

Craig

Companies which don't provide what the market wants compromise their profitability and hence long term viability.

Jonathan

Say 3 Hail Marys and spin a 78,

dave

In my RF work it's common to match input / output and connector / cable impedances, since it can be shown this gives maximum power transfer. One can get reflections / standing waves which reduce efficiency and can potentially damage equipment, such as transmitters.

There are rare occasions where one intentionally mis-matches to provide optimum noise performance (e.g. receiver front end amp or pre-amp).

In an audio system though this isn't desirable, since we want maximum un-attenuated voltage, hence outputs have low impedances, and inputs have high impedances so that the output is not loaded in any way.

Hence we have an inherent mismatch, which is of the order of 100k Ohms. This dominates any effects from cables and connectors, so the impedance theory / assertion has to be incorrect.

I suspect that it's more to do with resistance and just better connections?

Both DIN's and BNC's use silver as the contact material (or at least some of the better ones do), maybe that's the reason - anyone found any silver plated sockets I can try with my Chord Chyrsalis silver phono's?

Companies should get rid of those bloody phono's on video signals though, where impedance matching is important and phonos are not remotely like a 75 ohm match!

Andy.

Hence we have an inherent mismatch, which is of the order of 100k Ohms. This dominates any effects from cables and connectors, so the impedance theory / assertion has to be incorrect.

andrew, my (possibly mistaken) understanding is that impedance matching of the sort that gets you worried about reflections/standing waves arises when it is relevant to model the transmitting medium (cable) as a transmission line with distributed impedance properties. in this context, the output impedance of the "source" may not be that relevant, assuming of course that its "appropriate" for other reasons. as far as i know, the interface at the end of this "transmission line" has to be matched impedance-wise, else you get the reflection scenario that you paint. example, gold plated speaker plugs into naims nickel plated (i believe) sockets.

this is a vague recollection. probably a total misunderstanding of the issues. you are probably much closer to the more accurate picture than i am.

enjoy

ken

Nice post, "well said that man".

I will offer my 2p, and observe that Naim have been right for years. They know they're right, and they've patiently tried to explain to all and sundry. They are now pushing forth into a market domain where RCA's are not just the norm, but the folks inhabiting this domain demand them. Somethimes you don't need to win an argument - you can just contimue on your path, knowing that some of the folks will "get it" in the end. And you're still right. In this case, Naim openly invite others on to the path with them. Good business. No compromises in sound.

For those who prefer Naim contiue to make a stand, I unvail for you: <cue fanfare> The venerable 32.5 and a pair of lovingly crafted, rose-tinted Gucci specs!

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

BTW, I'll take the 32-5. You can keep yer weenie boy shades.

Craig

quote:

---

Both DIN's and BNC's use silver as the contact material (or at least some of the better ones do), maybe that's the reason - anyone found any silver plated sockets I can try with my Chord Chyrsalis silver phono's?

---

Cardas GRFA: rhodium-over-silver plate, brass base material. We (over here) offer their plugs on ARO tonearm leads for special RCA situations.

The sockets require a larger hole than the factory-mounted BNCs, though, which is why these are less seen now--the less-expensive RCA sockets as found on the Stageline fit without drilling a larger hole, making for a reversible modification...

quote:

---

Rico sez: They are now pushing forth into a market domain where RCA's are not just the norm, but the folks inhabiting this domain demand them.

---

I have to disagree. IMO, the 552 is in a market domain where XLRs are not just the norm, but the folks inhabiting this domain demand them.

Every other high end CDP (even Mike H's Cambridge CD6) uses XLRs. So, couldn't Naim save face and satisfy the "rich white guys" by providing XLRs instead of RCAs?

Rather pissed off at having lost a bidding war for Soundbases,

mike.

I see your point re XLR's. However, to run balanced would require a little more circuitry... then (possibly) there would be some more compromises.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

"Two wires in parallel connected between the same two points do not a "ground loop" problem make"

Huh? In my book you've described a closed "circuit" that can carry small but interfering currents. Apparently you and many manufacturers don't consider this to be a significant problem. It may not fit your perception of a ground loop in the same way that a circular connection of grounds between many components creates audible noise (hum etc.). But if two ground conductors are connected together at their ends, it's still a loop that is completely avoidable by using common ground DIN-to-DIN connections.

BAM also asks:

"If DIN preceeded RCA and perfromas better they why isn't DIN the standard?"

I've done a bit of internet research for you.....

RCA connector is born (in the USA):

1949 - RCA Victor introduces the 7" 45 rpm format. The 'single' is designed to compete with the rival microgroove format introduced by Columbia a year earlier, the 33 1/3 LP, both designed to offer better fidelity and greater recording time than the 78. To play the 45, industrial giant Henry Dryfus designs the first 45 changer in brown bakelight, a device that uses an 'RCA connector' ushering in the era of 'audio components'. (clipped off the net)

The introduction of the RCA connector, or "phono plug", pre-dates the era of high-performance audio gear. It was provided on many radios and "stereophonic" units as a convenient alternative to screw terminals for speaker connections. At the time, the benefit of separate component design was yet to be fully realized, and as such the suitability of the RCA connector for inter-component connections was unknown. It was later determined that the DIN plug, on the other hand, was ideal for low-level signal voltages, and so became a standard connector on many audio components manufactured in Europe. (clipped from NANA site)

By the early 80's (when the big Japanese electronics manufacturers were busily flooding the worldwide market with cheap audio gear), the RCA connector became common place, and hence the 'de-facto' standard. Consider how easy it is to mass produce rca leads (like the ones that are thrown in with mass market gear) compared to fiddly multipin DINs. Also, the lack of standard DIN pin-out connections within the audio industry presented a major hurdle, compared to single channel RCA leads. As the high-end industry evolved, few audio companies recognised the significance (and few designs were thought out well enough that it mattered) of the RCA related problems. Some decided it was a compromise worth living with to avoid compatibility issues. Naim (quite rightly!) put performance first, especially within the context of Naims' system designs. However for decades now many audiophiles have lived in a predominantly RCA world with countless products to choose from.

And then along came the Naim 552...

regards

Nic P

???

Surely you jest?

THe snaic price reflects manufacturing and component cost this would be true in the future with anything we make.

We have in the factory almost all the latest and greatest cables we would love to use them if the end result sounded in our terms better but all we have tried to date do not hack it!

The problem we face often with naca5 is the stiffness of the outer sheath in an ideal world it would be good to have a cable without such a mind of its own. This is a secondary issue to us, the sound comes first.

"It was later determined that the DIN plug, on the other hand, was ideal for low-level signal voltages"

I guess I'm still trying to find a technical justification for this assertion. I may be waiting a while...

You suggest that two wires connected between the same two points are more prone to unwanted circular currents and these affect the music signal. Not immediately obvious to me. I need to think about this some more. If so, then excellent point.

Anyhow, I would like to respectfully ask, in the name of preserving Naim's brand reputation for accuracy and no Bull***t, that the assertions about cable impedance are removed from your literature at once. They are technically incorrect and misleading and frankly unecessary.

BAM