Are Older Nait Integrateds Superior To The Current Crop Of Integrated Amps?

I am also intrigued like you, waiting for the replies of other experienced Naim aficionados.

N.B I have a SN2 with Hicap DR and I am impressed with this combo

I have in the past owned the Nait 2, 3, 3R, 5, 5i,  plus many Naim separates,  starting with the 92, 90-2.

I now own a SN2, I like the reduced box count and simplicity of my current system, my thoughts on previous owned Naits are this.

The Nait 2 was magical, should have never sold it, I loved that amp. The 3 was relentless and in your face all the time, I use to damage quite a few speakers with this amp, lack of power I believe was the problem, the 5, too refined and a little laid back for my taste, the 5i was the most fun to listen to, had decent power, and felt it bettered the 112-150 combo I had. A  favorite of mine for sure.

I never owned the 1 but have heard them,  I never heard that it sounded like a 552- 500, I think that may be an internet tale.

Compared to my current SN2, well to be honest, there is no comparison, this Nait is simply on a whole different level, especially with the recently added HiCap DR. At least in my mind, this is the finest sounding integrated I  have ever heard. The scale, power, detail, and to a degree the transparency is what sets it apart from the older units.

Ryder -

I've owned every iteration of the Nait up through the 5 (1, 2, 3, 3R, 5, and 5i).  They are all very good. 

The reason so many people think the 1 and 2 are so special is a blend of sound quality, speaker matching, and nostalgia. 

With sound quality, the 1 and 2 are indeed excellent, and gave one most of the quality that a 32.5/HC/250 could provide, sacrificing volume and frequency extension.  The 2 is slightly more refined sounding than the 1; this may perhaps reflect the improvement in both available sources as well as Naim learning more and more about how to build products consistently.  Put another way, the 1 and 2 effectively gave you the same SQ as the top range gear but over a narrower frequency band.

The second reason is speaker matching.  The 1 was effectively designed to run the Linn Kan, and the 2, being a direct development from the 1, followed.  Hence, a Nait/Kan system worked brilliantly together, and embarassed many other amp/speaker combinations.  The 3, 5, 5i, etc., don't have that advantage, and have to tolerate a much wider range of speakers, with all the variables that entails.  If you put a 1 or 2 on a different pair of speakers, they might work, but probably wouldn't.  If you've ever tried a Nait 2 into a pair of, say, Vandersteens, you'll understand.  Use a 5 to drive those same Vandersteens and they'll produce music you can actually listen to. 

Nostalgia is easy - a lot of us started with Naits long ago and retain a special place in our hearts for them.  All of those combine to create a rose-colored glasses effect.  The 1 and 2 are kind of like the IBL, which gave you most of the performance of the DBL from a certain frequency upwards. 

As far as most enjoyable, find a Nait 1 and a pair of Kans in good shape, and just enjoy. 

Thanks Badlands. Guess it is good to hear another side of the story. So the older Naits sounding close to the 552/500 is an internet tale. And the Supernait2+Hicap DR is currently the finest sounding integrated amplifier from Naim. Comprehensible indeed since the SN2 sits at the top of the hierarchy.

Bob, a very logical explanation indeed. Thanks for the impressions.

Nostalgia. Another perfect example is folks who perennially put the old Exposure amps from the Farlowe era above those from the current range.

Since I don't intend to own some Linn Kan speakers, I guess I can forget about these older Nait 1 and 2.

Strictly as an observation as I haven't much experience with everything involved, that as much as an early Nait had the sound of the bigger pre powers but without the power and extension of the frequencies - so the same with today's Naits having much the same all important midband as the top pre powers but conceding in power and extension of frequency.  As you have observed with extra texture and layering from going from 200 to 250dr

As one who made such a contentious comment, I guess its up to me to help explain myself :-)

In a nutshell Bob Edwards is spot on. 

Nait1 with Kan1 is a truly special combination. A real case of 2 + 2 = 6.

Now for a rider and the cold hard reality. What a Nait1/Kan1 system does well, it does extraordinarily well. As well as many high-end systems. Its that clarity in the upper bass, midrange, the musical timing, the sheer funky fun and musical enjoyment.

It manages to do this because of all the things it doesnt attempt to do at all. Bass extension. High volume. A flat midrange response (Nait1/Kan1 sound *weird* on classical music, and downright honky odd on voice/vocals).

By not attempting to do those "big system things" it focuses on what it can do, and it is marriage made in heaven. 

Now, *if* you place your highest importance on the music, following the beat, the enjoyment, then the Nait1 (fully serviced!) and Kan1s (in good condition, on the right stands), will make your jaw drop with incredulity.

If you are looking for deep bass, look elsewhere. If you are looking for house-rocking volume levels, look elsewhere. If you are looking for "BBC style" midrange purity and the sort of flat frequency response that helps make classical music work, then look elsewhere.

They are deeply flawed. Significantly limited. But when they work, they work. And yes, I'd rather have Nait1/Kans than 552/500 with big speakers in a room with poor setup and poor acoustical treatment, for the simple reason that I would listen to Nait1/Kans for far longer. Which, for me, is the overriding criteria. 

That's another 100 quid on Nait 1 prices.

C.

i turned down 900 quid offer for my mint, factory serviced Nait 1 :-)

Bob Edwards and Jon Honeyball above have made great posts above.  I have a Nait 2 on MKI Kans and it's magical, I wonder if a Nait 1 would be even better?

It's about context, permitters , and expectations but in the right room Nait/Kans are utterly enjoyable, a hoot and insanely addictive!  Flawed but who cares!

Naits 1&2 do indeed work wonders with Kans, but they do so with many other speakers also. (Not a reply to Mark above as i know he already has experience of this).

There's not much for me to add here to Bob's and Jon's posts.  No, a NAIT does not sound like a NAC552 and NAP500.  You will not mistake one for the other.  In pure hifi terms the pre/power is far superior.  However, for sheer engagement and fun on speakers like Kans, Minstrels, n-Sats and the like, the NAIT is right up there with anything else you care to name.  Indeed, perhaps up there above anything else you care to name.  Which is perhaps why it's so special.

 And that reminds me, it's time to get my early NAIT off to Salisbury for a service...

The Naits kept the energy in the music alive at a time when integrated amps from other manufacturers almost always fell short, so compared to other integrateds (and many pre-power combos) at the time they were magical.  On the other hand, as other have said, they were also deeply flawed and weren't 'all rounders' - they often seemed to try and 'drive' even delicate music when instead it should be allowed to glide and float in the air.  If you could live with their flaws, then for many people little else would do.

The modern Naits are much more rounded and more competent overall, but to achieve balance they've had to lose some of the extremity.  Compared to most others (Exposure being one of the few exceptions here) they still retain more energy and musical involvement; but now they no longer make such a hash of more delicate music.  They are all the better for it.

From the technical perspective, well technology has moved on and the new ones are just so much more tolerant of speakers and cables!

Mmm my Nait1 does delicate just fine, and i have a SN2 sat below it to compare. Anyway, whatever floats your boat. Just don't believe newer always equals better, just different.

Yes, "it's great fun, irrespective of musical genre", I agree, but occasionally that's just not what I want.

My personal view is that I'm less keen on the Steppes of Central Asia being painted in a vibrant green with a chrome yellow sun set in an ultramarine sky, or when the Sugar Plum Fairy is wearing tap shoes!

Ryder,

I have had Nait1, Nait3, Nait5, Nait5i, NaitXS, SuperNait. They all belong to different moments of my life, but I can tell you that they all sound(ed) different, each with its own personality. My personal synthesis is that there seems to be a paradigm shift when people talk of power in an amp or of any other characteristics. I remember that my Nait 1 was a lovely amp, but when I heard an A&R Cambridge A60 in direct comparison the Nait sounded lean, a little shy, not very engaging; but my taste was different perhaps. I sincerely wouldn't know what to do with a Nait1 today.

The Nait3 is cheerful, a little exuberant; the Nait 5 is suave, more mellow but not poor of a certain 'light' of its own; a classy smaller amp; the Supernait has many detractors but is a great integrated, clearly orientated at being objective rather than at pleasing the ear; I think that very little can substitute for power in an amp: every time I've heard some loudspeakers with more powerful amps, they sounded 'better'.

When I had my first SN, I compared it directly to a 42.5/140 (unserviced) combo, and although I can understand the meaning of 'fun' as some people use it to describe an old CB set's rendition, to my ears there was little or no compare between it and the SN in terms of control, cleanness, neutrality; the SN is much underrated IMO.

My latest experience with the NAP300 has proved to me that a smaller amp has to sport really great, unique features to win over a more powerful, well designed one.

My opinion only

Max 

I seem to remember years ago that we ran a poll on the NAITs  1, 2, 3. If memory serves right NAIT 2 was  the most loved, followed by 1 and then 3.  Keep in mind that we all have slightly different preferences and obviously we may not be "wired" exactly the same way e.g. we do not have the same favorite color, or like the same personalities.  I love NAIT 2 and still consider it among one of the great musical components I have heard. In fact I built a pair of efficient speakers for it using the highest resolution parts I could buy back in 1989, which cost a bit, but the rewards were off the curve. I still have and love that system. Beguiling, inviting and infinitely optimistic is how I see it.

If anyone really wants to hear the progress made over 30 years, you are welcome to drop round, music in hand, and i will play you a Nait 1 vs a SN2. I'm away for the next month from next week, but after that, come and fill your boots.

ryder. posted:

As we all know, the term "better" is subjective as it can mean many things.

Thus answering your own question.

Who is to say which is "better"? Who has the best ears?

Whatever your ears tell you is better is better. Because you use your ears to listen to music, not somebody else's.

My ears tell me that nothing sounds like a 552/500. Not remotely. That's why they are so special. I have heard all the Naits but not in the same systems that I heard the 552/500. I don't think they sounded terribly good. but I can easily see the appeal You might find them compellingly good. So trust your ears.

If you can get your hands on a Nait 1/2/3 and twist the knob to output 552/500 levels of sonic magic you will have saved a huge sum of money, which at the end of the day is probably more important than anything.

If the offer still stands when you return, I have always wanted to hear old Naits - pre nait 3 which was my first :-)

Added you have CDS3 as well 

Will be back second week in Nov.

Richard Dane posted:

There's not much for me to add here to Bob's and Jon's posts.  No, a NAIT does not sound like a NAC552 and NAP500.  You will not mistake one for the other.  In pure hifi terms the pre/power is far superior.  However, for sheer engagement and fun on speakers like Kans, Minstrels, n-Sats and the like, the NAIT is right up there with anything else you care to name.  Indeed, perhaps up there above anything else you care to name.  Which is perhaps why it's so special.

 And that reminds me, it's time to get my early NAIT off to Salisbury for a service...

One of my S E Asian clients has brought at least six Nait 1s and Nait 2s as he loves the music they can bring with Kans! Last time I visited, he had me replacing Kan tweeters and bass units in a couple of pairs he'd recently brought LOL. Basically, any member of his family into music has been given a Nait and Kans Top fella IMHO.  His main system being fed by his Aro LP12 and CD555 is a 552/500 of course.

KR

Peter

can you still get kan tweeters and bass units? I suspect not, but just asking...

Massimo Bertola posted:

Ryder,

I have had Nait1, Nait3, Nait5, Nait5i, NaitXS, SuperNait. They all belong to different moments of my life, but I can tell you that they all sound(ed) different, each with its own personality. My personal synthesis is that there seems to be a paradigm shift when people talk of power in an amp or of any other characteristics. I remember that my Nait 1 was a lovely amp, but when I heard an A&R Cambridge A60 in direct comparison the Nait sounded lean, a little shy, not very engaging; but my taste was different perhaps. I sincerely wouldn't know what to do with a Nait1 today.

The Nait3 is cheerful, a little exuberant; the Nait 5 is suave, more mellow but not poor of a certain 'light' of its own; a classy smaller amp; the Supernait has many detractors but is a great integrated, clearly orientated at being objective rather than at pleasing the ear; I think that very little can substitute for power in an amp: every time I've heard some loudspeakers with more powerful amps, they sounded 'better'.

When I had my first SN, I compared it directly to a 42.5/140 (unserviced) combo, and although I can understand the meaning of 'fun' as some people use it to describe an old CB set's rendition, to my ears there was little or no compare between it and the SN in terms of control, cleanness, neutrality; the SN is much underrated IMO.

My latest experience with the NAP300 has proved to me that a smaller amp has to sport really great, unique features to win over a more powerful, well designed one.

My opinion only

Max 

Max,

Thanks for the post. I think I can relate to some of the sentiments on the crude, raw but cheerful and exuberant presentation of the small integrateds. These integrateds can be lively but they lack the refinement of the more powerful amps especially the pre/power boxes. The separation, space and layering of the bass are usually superior with the pre/power. The differences will be more apparent with larger speakers usually those with 8" or larger drivers. Differences will be less significant with small bookshelves that come in 4 to 5" drivers.

I share the same opinion on the comparison between a smaller and larger amplifier. I have had the Nait XS, currently NAC 202 / NAP 200 and NAC 282 / NAP 250 DR. There is a clear step-up when going up the ladder. The last comparison between the NAP 200 and NAP 250 DR with the NAC 282 has shown that a more powerful and well-designed (fully regulated) amp is capable of sounding more musical. I am sure the NAP 300 will sound more impressive next to a smaller amp.

A huge over simplification..... (Raw/crude/cheerful) usually put forward when justifying a big amp purchase.