Audiolab to Naim

Hi,

you give no detail about your room (size, acoustics) and your listening habits. The D20Rs I assume to be ProAcs, that have 88,5 dB efficiency.

Assuming you listen at 'normal' levels (not precluding conversation), your speakers' efficiency should be enough for a NaitXS. I have heard one play very loud driving Naim SL2s, and as a rule of thumb Naim amps can deliver more loudness than their tag power suggests.

I think it could be more a case of your preferred 'voice'. Having owned all of your mentioned amps (my SN was the classic, though, not the 2), I have an idea of their relative differences (my personal opinions, nothing more!):

The Nait XS is a clear sounding amp with not extraordinary power in the lower region, but luminous and with an unusual ability at resolving inner detail. It can have a narrow or a wide soundstage depending on days, mood, AC; and is usually loved strongly or not loved at all. I had it twice, never loved it too much but it is one of the most refined Naim amps. In a lucky setup it can be, I believe, your last amp. It has often reminded me of a smaller Mark Levinson.

The Supernait is bold, powerful, has authority and grip on the speakers, is slightly monochromatic in its palette of colours, has a wide and sculptured soundstage, lacks a little refinement but can be masculine and very convincing. Its '2' successor compensates for the former's flaws and loses, in my opinion, some of the 1's uniqueness. I have had two Supernaits too. If circumstances had not decided otherwise, I'd still have it.

The 202/200 combo (yes, I had that twice too – once is never enough for me to understand if I love a piece of equipment) is what I have now; it's a little less 'muscular' than the SN but more 'complete' than the XS to my ears; it is a little more pronounced at the extremes than both integrates, is lively, dynamic and very musical. I have discovered, to my amazement (I have owned at least five HiCaps in my life) that I prefer it bare – without HC. It's smoother than either integrated, the easiest to listen to in normal domestic circumstances.

Hope this helps,

Max

Don't worry about the power ratings ... they are a bad guide to how an audio system will sound with particular speakers.

Your best bet is to get a dealer to let you demo and compare but I expect you will be happy with the XS2 compared with the Audiolab.  

One thing to consider is if streaming is part of your medium term plans?  If so a NAC-N 172XS and NAP200 might be in budget?

I moved from the Audiolab 8200CD with an 8000A amplifier to my first Naim system, the entry level CD5i-2 and Nait 5i.

They blew the Audiolab away so I'm sure the XS amp and CD player will.

When I had my Audiolab 8000 integrated it played load alright but had big saturation distortion - that escaped notice - by the very pleasant nature of it.  Moving to Naim XS amp, well at loud volumes it did not seem so loud , mainly because I was so used to hearing distortion at high volumes that was resolved in an entirely different way by the Naim. Audiolab are cool because they used to give you hifi character on a "budget" that other high street offerings could not come close to.

whatever way you choose to go with Naim, expect them to also always have something better for you to want.

XS2 and CD5XS is an excellent combo that sounds great in their bare states (i.e., no added power supplies).

Recently had a mate demo a SN2. He kept his then Nait5i as the SN was missing the boogey factor.

He went to an XS.1 in the end.

SN1 has the Naim signature sound but it really needs a Hicap to take the rough edges off.

The XS.2 has a big 70 watts and is probably more muscular sounding than the 100W Audiolab.

I had a XS.1 running large ProAc floor standers for a while and the XS ran them just fine. If I were looking to down-size (from my 282/250/HC), I'd go the XS myself. 

TOBYJUG posted:

When I had my Audiolab 8000 integrated i..............   Audiolab are cool because they used to give you hifi character on a "budget" that other high street offerings could not come close to.

whatever way you choose to go with Naim, expect them to also always have something better for you to want.

+1    I had an 8000a & it was the first real hifi amp I owned,  prior to that it was a Cyrus,  but Audiolab was the one that switched on my hifi button.  I added a 100w 8000px (the last rev of the 8000p)  power amp as a bi-amp sytem,  the 8000a on treble/mid & 8000px on bass (my own design twin bass driver 3 way)     It certainly went loud & it did a pretty good job of hifi.   But I always wanted Naim & the move to a much lesser powered olive pre/pwr, despite hearing Naim so many times before in dealers, shows & homes;    this in my home, my TT & CDP & through my speakers  was that "wow" moment.  sold !!!

Massimo Bertola posted:

Assuming you listen at 'normal' levels (not precluding conversation), your speakers' efficiency should be enough for a NaitXS. I have heard one play very loud driving Naim SL2s, and as a rule of thumb Naim amps can deliver more loudness than their tag power suggests.

 

Normal listening levels not precluding conversation? Your normal is clearly different from mine - i would say that whilst conversation is possible at normal listening levels it would be more comfortable to turn the volume down if wanting a conversation!

IB,

what I meant was that while I normally cannot stand to be addressed verbally while listening to music (I cannot stand to hear anything else than music while there's music on) – so proper conversation is excluded from my listening habits –, to me normal levels mean that if my wife speaks to me I can at least hear what she's saying without having to turn the volume down. If I need to turn the volume down when somebody speaks to me in order to understand what he/she says, music is too loud. I can hear someone whispering two seats away from me in an auditorium, so no need for me to replay music at Luna Park levels at home.

Even at Roberto's place, where music is louder than anywhere else I know of, I can exchange a word or two with him if necessary..

M

Ryonan - as others here suggest, Naim's stated watts pc often don't compare with other manu's - or should that be the other way around.

I've heard Audiolab 8000 range and also Musical Fidelity kit (150 wpc), both rated well above the Naim kit I heard it against. It was 'no competition'. In the latter case, a NAP140 (i.e. 70wpc), trounced the MF amp (to my ears).

A home dem is vital  -  as the room, amp, speaker interface is the most challenging - and will e.g. reveal low level listening characteristics etc.

Massimo Bertola posted:

IB,

what I meant was that while I normally cannot stand to be addressed verbally while listening to music (I cannot stand to hear anything else than music while there's music on) – so proper conversation is excluded from my listening habits –, to me normal levels mean that if my wife speaks to me I can at least hear what she's saying without having to turn the volume down. If I need to turn the volume down when somebody speaks to me in order to understand what he/she says, music is too loud. I can hear someone whispering two seats away from me in an auditorium, so no need for me to replay music at Luna Park levels at home.

Even at Roberto's place, where music is louder than anywhere else I know of, I can exchange a word or two with him if necessary..

M

In my experience of those whose primary listening to classical music is through home replay, tend to play their radios and gramophones much louder than realistic. 

Many years ago I took a friend of mine to the Birmingham Symphony Hall to listen to Beethoven’s Choral Symphony. Certainly this music is rather loud in classical terms, but even then it is hardly very loud at a real concert! 

She was very disappointed by it saying that she was surprised how quiet even the loudest parts were. It was a rather fine performance in my view!

I asked her if she played her record player louder than what we had heard in the concert, to which she said that she did.

“Well then, perhaps you should start listening to your gramophone at more natural levels,” was my response!

I use just one Quad ESL [57] and find that there is absolutely no problem playing at louder than natural levels ... 

To be honest I do know other people who play at realistic levels, but these are a tiny minority ...

I think it is a shame that most people play too loud at home! It distorts the natural musical balances and actually makes things much less clear.

Best wishes from George

George,

this turn of the topic is interesting. I agree with everything you say (we obviously belong to the very same type of listener and share common musical experiences), but I must add that the 'right volume for each recording' (as you wrote yourself a few weeks ago in another thread) much depends on the type of music.

At home, with classical – or, more generally, with basically acoustic music, be it symphonic, chamber, jazz, authorial pop singers – I tend to reach a level where clarity is still guaranteed and a certain amount of 'emotional impact' is also not precluded by excessive softness; but with some pop music, a little more impact is often necessary to 'bring the message home'. I remember how impressed I was at Roberto's place, listening to Fleetwood Mac's Task at an important volume (not deafening, not discotheque one of course) and realising, for the first time, how this big sound was finally able to carry to me the emotional impact of the song. The same song, on my kitchen table radio, would have been nice sound, nice harmonies, good arrangements and nothing more.

Best

Max

Massimo Bertola posted:

IB,

what I meant was that while I normally cannot stand to be addressed verbally while listening to music (I cannot stand to hear anything else than music while there's music on) – so proper conversation is excluded from my listening habits –, to me normal levels mean that if my wife speaks to me I can at least hear what she's saying without having to turn the volume down. If I need to turn the volume down when somebody speaks to me in order to understand what he/she says, music is too loud. I can hear someone whispering two seats away from me in an auditorium, so no need for me to replay music at Luna Park levels at home.

Even at Roberto's place, where music is louder than anywhere else I know of, I can exchange a word or two with him if necessary..

M

For me, it all depends on the programme material: chamber music for example, certainly a conversation is easily possible at normal voice levels, even sitting several feet away. For much orchestral music that would be true for most, but not during crescendos. Rock music on the other hand, even sitting right next to someone, some degree of raising of voice is necessary to converse. pRog rock tends to fall somewhere between orchestral and rock. If I'm listening to rock music anyone coming into the room has to move into my line of sight for me to be aware they're there, or call loudly.

but then, I like my music to be as near realistic levels as practicable - though individual people's interpretation of that depends on the type of venue they are accustomed to, and where in it they tend to be.  However, admitedly with rock i only take it up to fully realistic levels on odd occasions, and not sustained more than an album at a time out of respect for ears. 

hi, yes me.

with D20s don't go below SN level or you'll be disappointed.

Thanks so much for the responses. Now really can't wait to upgrade. Getting different opinions though.  Oh and SN is almost double the price of XS2...em....

Massimo Bertola posted:

George,

this turn of the topic is interesting. I agree with everything you say (we obviously belong to the very same type of listener and share common musical experiences), but I must add that the 'right volume for each recording' (as you wrote yourself a few weeks ago in another thread) much depends on the type of music.

At home, with classical – or, more generally, with basically acoustic music, be it symphonic, chamber, jazz, authorial pop singers – I tend to reach a level where clarity is still guaranteed and a certain amount of 'emotional impact' is also not precluded by excessive softness; but with some pop music, a little more impact is often necessary to 'bring the message home'. I remember how impressed I was at Roberto's place, listening to Fleetwood Mac's Task at an important volume (not deafening, not discotheque one of course) and realising, for the first time, how this big sound was finally able to carry to me the emotional impact of the song. The same song, on my kitchen table radio, would have been nice sound, nice harmonies, good arrangements and nothing more.

Best

Max

Dear Max,

I do think that an awful lot of pop music requires the volume to reflect that it is usually played in too small a venue for the amplification used. what I am saying is that for pop music to work emotionally it is necessary to play it too loud for the long term health of the ears. I have less than no positive interest in this sort of music. In fact I dislike it intensely.

Each to their with respect to their own taste for all that, but goodness must be on the side of their hearing if they never grow out of it.

Best wishes from George

Well, pop music is something I've never liked. But rock music is another matter - and about 46 years after the first live gig I went to I still love it, and certainly haven't "grown out of it", still liking the very earliest albums I bought...and though I've been to hundreds of live gigs, and like to play rock music loud, my hearing still rates as good for my age.  However I do listen to more prog than out and out rock, which does have quieter passages, and at least a third of my listening is to classical, so well mixed up ..

Two sorts of music in my book ...  classical and the rest! Any music that involves amplified sounds or a microphone for performance is of zero interest for me.

ATB from George

Dear George,

the use of the word pop is perhaps misleading. If I say that I was referring to, say, Randy Newman, how would I be supposed to refer to him? He's not a Lieder Komponist, not a chansonnier. He's not a rock and roll singer, and he is not a pop singer in the Robbie Williams style. If I listen to Randy Newman, am I listening to pop music? Or am I listening to one who writes art songs and performs them at the piano, like perhaps Schubert himself must have done an evening or two, among friends?

When Sting has sung Hans Eisler, has Eisler become rock-reggae?

As soon as a tag is applied and a generalisation is done, I am unable to continue formulating opinions. Yes, each to his own I suppose.

Best

M

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Any music that involves amplified sounds or a microphone for performance is of zero interest for me.

ATB from George

Excluding, I suppose, all the music you listen to at home with your system.

Best

M

Dear Max,

I am sure that you understood my point! Music that ”requires a microphone or amplifier to be performed live”  is of absolutely no interest to me. Electric guitars do not interest me, and amplified singing does not interest me [etc].

However your post allows me to make the point with complete clarity for those who may not have quite understood my thrust ...

ATB from George

Eloise posted:

Don't worry about the power ratings ... they are a bad guide to how an audio system will sound with particular speakers.

Your best bet is to get a dealer to let you demo and compare but I expect you will be happy with the XS2 compared with the Audiolab.  

One thing to consider is if streaming is part of your medium term plans?  If so a NAC-N 172XS and NAP200 might be in budget?

Or a DAC V1 and 200, if you consider using a computer as a transport.  Both 172 and V1 could also allow you to use your 8200CD via digital out. 

The V1 does not have analogue in, though.  Second hand 200 (non DR version) seem good VFM.

Anther option is to keep the 8200CD and go for a secondhand 202-200 (as the 8200 has digital inputs to make use of its onboard DAC?).

I've experience of demoing the D20R with a V1-200 as well as a 282-200 and its was impressive.

Enjoy the demoes.

Jude

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Two sorts of music in my book ...  classical and the rest! Any music that involves amplified sounds or a microphone for performance is of zero interest for me.

ATB from George

A new species on the forum: musical vegans!

N

Naimiac posted:

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Two sorts of music in my book ...  classical and the rest! Any music that involves amplified sounds or a microphone for performance is of zero interest for me.

ATB from George

A new species on the forum: musical vegans!

N

If one wanted to make a food analogy with music then the classical music genre takes in Cordon Bleu of every natural sort whilst modern pop is totally synthetic mash made of industrial-food grade ingredients and masses of artificial colours and “e-number” chemicals.

It is an interesting thought for certain. And the music of Bach and Beethoven represents a great fully balanced diet of healthy eating in food terms: Your grouse or venison with proper veg compared to you “pop-music" candy-floss!

ATB from George

I wonder what you mean by " Pop" music George. In my book there's only good and bad; if you choose to exclude any music that utilises electronic means for its production then that's very crass of you.

Dear Tony,

I don’t think it crass to reject the artificial in favour of the natural. I practice this policy as far possible in every aspect of life. 

It saves a lot of time. For example, when butter was the spawn of the devil I carried straight on with butter, rejecting the industrially produced margarine that was according to the medical experts of the day, thought to be much healthier. Strangely now margarine is thought to be far worse than natural butter! So much for experts, hey?

Of course I have a more or less daily diet of the hideous music that is called “pop” music, and I have finally found a way of internally ignoring it, but it has taken decades of pratice to completely ignore the radio. 

I have yet to read a definition that can be applied purely with listening to what is “pop” music, I have no idea what actually defines the difference between “rock” music and “pop” music. I have no examples of either [as defined in print] that retain long term affection from me, and I have yet to find any “jazz” that retains my attention for long. 

Even the famous “Take Five” is only attractive to me for the first couple of minutes before the ultra-self-indulgent drum solo distorts any sense of form or scheme to the track. It would be fine, just once as live experience at a jazz club. 

Whilst I accept the personal taste of others, I have no problem saying that I do not share it. 

Each to their own, but what I do find is that it is relatively easy to convert people to the solid healthiness of the classic style.

ATB from George