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

I am among the very few, perhaps the only one here, who started with an older Nait 3 (in 1989) and stayed with it till present time, never being tempted to climb up the very tall ladder of upgrades. The simplicity and immediacy of the Nait 3 / 3.5 player always remained appealing despite of auditioning more advance Naim gear which clearly exhibited a reacher and more dynamic sound. Having a Lo Fi system (relatively speaking) with low expectations enabled me to to focus on the music itself and enjoy it without reservations. There was not one day that my Nait did not sound good. 

If I were to make an analogy to photography I would compare my amp to the old classical manual focusing Nikkors. Unlike the modern lenses which enjoy a much higher sharpness and resolution, the old glass with more distortions and vignette (and a better build)  is still able to capture more honestly the wholeness and three dimensionality of a given scene.

Huge posted:

 

Unless the photographer messes up there will certainly be substantial improvement in every technical aspect of the image!

What a load of nonsense!

gary yeowell posted:

Huge posted:

 

Unless the photographer messes up there will certainly be substantial improvement in every technical aspect of the image!

What a load of nonsense!

Actually not, I have real world experience of designing optical instrumentation, including a digital camera for scientific use.  I do know about the difference between electronic sensors and halide film.  To think that halide film can compete with the current generation of electronic sensors in any technical parameter is far from the truth (and lenses have improved as well).

I agree with Gary, as a photographer.. as severeal are on this forum, I say digital has so many advantages, but it can't match film for that organic feel... although I have some good digital film processor emulators, it just doesn't get it quite right. My results speak for themselves... my highest earning photographs are film prints, not digital .. so technically digital wins on many fronts, but not all.. a film light response and the way the positive/negative is developed opens a whole world of creativity that digital does its best to imitate.. as with audio, its best not to get too wrapped up with the bits and bytes, if you are creating an image to enjoy..

Huge, yeah right....  Perhaps if you had have told me you were a photogtapher, we could have had a discussion. Lets just say i have owned Phase One's, Leica S2, Canon 1DS3s, Pentax 645Z, Sony RX1R.... Etc. I also own a Hasselblad X1 scanner, have used and worked with numerous drum scanners, and use film from 35mm to 10x8. Digital sucks in every way compared to film except for speed of delivery. I have been a working shooter for over 30 years, and almost every one of my many friends/pro shooters feel the same.

Garry, Simon,

Precisely.  Film wins on aesthetics, digital wins technically.  That's precisely where I was going with my first post - the definitive improvement is in the technical parameters only.

Huge, the only sensors that can compete on a colour level are based on multishot technology which pretty much rules out any moving subject and virtually anything outside of a studio. In terms of aesthetics, film still wins even  if theoretically the multishot back has colour fidelity approaching, but not bettering film. If one wishes then to talk about detail rendition, even the best 100mp sensors are outresolved by film in real detail, as opposed to interpolated guesswork. Aside of all this nonsense, photography is not about 0s and 1s as Simon rightly points out.

Gary, technically digital wins hands down, higher accuracy but less perceived 'naturalness'.  The perceived 'naturalness' is where film clearly wins and why we prefer it aesthetically.  I don't have any argument with that at all.

Colour accuracy of current digital sensors (even Bayer arrays) is way better than the divergent response curves of halide film technology (I've measured both).  Absolute colour accuracy of film is actually quite poor, but we've become accustomed to seeing photographs that way and have learnt to like it.  Digital seems 'clinical' just because of the that very accuracy and the 'hardness' of the edges of the pixels.  This is exacerbated as film is almost always developed to a gamma >1, thus ensuring that it can't be accurate either tonally.  In fact we perceive a gamma=1 photograph as weak and low contrast (even though it actually isn't!).

The only films where the Rayleigh criterion of film is close to the pixel pitch of a modern sensor is low speed b/w film, as used for photomicroscopy and copy applications for instance, and typically used at 12.5 - 50 ASA when resolution is the primary criterion.

Huge, Bayer arrays are hopeless at reproducing accurate colour. No single pass sensor (this side of a NASA budget) can manage to compete with a well drum scanned 5x4, let alone 10x8, or a straight print from them. In terms of detail, as you say, some technical films such as Tec Pan (ISO 6) as was, could still beat digital in detail even in smaller formats. Multi shot backs are getting there, but nothing in real life is made up of flat squares. 

Haim Ronen posted:

I am among the very few, perhaps the only one here, who started with an older Nait 3 (in 1989) and stayed with it till present time, never being tempted to climb up the very tall ladder of upgrades. The simplicity and immediacy of the Nait 3 / 3.5 player always remained appealing despite of auditioning more advance Naim gear which clearly exhibited a reacher and more dynamic sound. Having a Lo Fi system (relatively speaking) with low expectations enabled me to to focus on the music itself and enjoy it without reservations. There was not one day that my Nait did not sound good. 

If I were to make an analogy to photography I would compare my amp to the old classical manual focusing Nikkors. Unlike the modern lenses which enjoy a much higher sharpness and resolution, the old glass with more distortions and vignette (and a better build)  is still able to capture more honestly the wholeness and three dimensionality of a given scene.

 

You are certainly blessed that your Nait 3 ALWAYS sound good since 1989. I don't have much input on the photography debate though I would like to add that the management of expectations is crucial and of high relevance if one is to stay content with the system. Otherwise he will constantly be on the upgrade path. A very valid point you have brought up there. I still find my system to sound stellar on certain days less satisfying on other days. This phenomenon may be largely related to my mood swings rather than the system exhibiting anomalies.

The same can be said with just about any other amplifier out there, non-Naim amps other than the Nait 3. To derive huge musical satisfaction from the music, a costly full-blown system is not be the ultimate answer. A cheap as chips system may deliver higher levels of musical satisfaction than a bigger and more elaborate system depending on the listener's expectations, taste and preference.

Haim Ronen posted:

I am among the very few, perhaps the only one here, who started with an older Nait 3 (in 1989) and stayed with it till present time, never being tempted to climb up the very tall ladder of upgrades. The simplicity and immediacy of the Nait 3 / 3.5 player always remained appealing despite of auditioning more advance Naim gear which clearly exhibited a reacher and more dynamic sound. Having a Lo Fi system (relatively speaking) with low expectations enabled me to to focus on the music itself and enjoy it without reservations. There was not one day that my Nait did not sound good. 

Hi,

you're damn right. I know it sounds silly from one who has bought a lot of things, many of them more than once, but I think you are blessed by a sanity and a taste none of us can boast. CD3.5/Nait3 are indeed a wonderfully entertaining pair, I have had those as a combo not so long ago and was silly enough to think they could not be enough. Enjoy your system and have my envy.

Best

Max

Whenever I pull out one of my old darkroom prints and compare it to one of my very good Imacon scanned/Canon printed digital prints my heart sinks. Just no comparison if the darkroom print was properly made. That said I never plan on poisoning myself in a darkroom again. So we move on, but that doesn't mean that what came before was broken. 

gary yeowell posted:

Huge, yeah right....  Perhaps if you had have told me you were a photogtapher, we could have had a discussion. Lets just say i have owned Phase One's, Leica S2, Canon 1DS3s, Pentax 645Z, Sony RX1R.... Etc. I also own a Hasselblad X1 scanner, have used and worked with numerous drum scanners, and use film from 35mm to 10x8. Digital sucks in every way compared to film except for speed of delivery. I have been a working shooter for over 30 years, and almost every one of my many friends/pro shooters feel the same.

Keeping with the theme of the thread juxtaposed with interesting photography equipment. You should really only need one of these.

Completed with a nice Brownie case of course.

There has been a lot of talk about the natural symbiotic pairing of the Nait and the Kans, which indeed was a perfect example of the truth being greater than the sum of the parts. But the sum is incomplete without giving some credit to the source. An Ittok equipped LP12 had all the sympathetic idiosyncrasies that further encouraged the Kans to shine- which then allowed some cheap amps with lower pretensions-such as the Creek 4040 to rival the Nait. And yet a Creek , if you can find one, would trade hands for a very small fraction of what the Nait does. The Nytech 252XD was also superlative into Kans (but not so great into KEF104A/Bs)...I once compared the Nytech against a Nait3R and preferred the Nytech. 

In the digital era the original CDS1 was a great match for the Kans/Tukans. The CDS3 not so much. The CDX was also a great pairing with the Kans, brash, a little untidy, but a lot of fun... Like the Basik cartridge (but only in the Ittok. In the LV-X listening to the Basik was about as much fun as getting a good bottling).

There were speakers that also sounded meh with the Nait...the LS 3/5 and even the Saras. But there was one overlooked pairing with the Nait that was equally as magical as the Kans, albeit diametrically opposed in terms of strengths and weaknesses. The Quad ESL! Now that could play both the flat and round earth cards...

The flat earth society will be over the moon to hear that.

Are the old amps better than the new amps?  The short answer is no.  

I can tell you from personal experience that when I replaced my Nait 1 with a new Nait 5 I never looked back.  I had my 18 month old daughter in my arms when I switched the Nait 5 on for the first time and she immediately began rocking in my arms.   I replaced the Nait 5 with a Nait 5XS2, and again, never looked back.  Frankly, the Nait 1 can't hold a candle to the Nait 5XS2 but for me it opened the door to real hifi.

Don't get me wrong - I have real affection for the Nait 1 but the internet inspired nostalgia for it is something to behold. No one talks about the constant hiss from the speakers, the loud pop when powered on, the weak speaker jacks that NACA 5 pulls out of the board, and the good, but not great sound.  

Put it this way - It was worth every penny of the $350 Cdn I paid for it in 1993.  I got that much for it when I traded it in on my Nait 5 and was thrilled.  

The prices I see today for the Nait 1 are again I think driven by nostalgia.  Here in Canada the real value in used Naim integrated amps is the Nait 3 or 3r.   

The Rogers ls3/5a is another nostalgia driven speaker especially here in Asia. 

Ian Brown posted:

Are the old amps better than the new amps?  The short answer is no.  

I can tell you from personal experience that when I replaced my Nait 1 with a new Nait 5 I never looked back.  I had my 18 month old daughter in my arms when I switched the Nait 5 on for the first time and she immediately began rocking in my arms.   I replaced the Nait 5 with a Nait 5XS2, and again, never looked back.  Frankly, the Nait 1 can't hold a candle to the Nait 5XS2 but for me it opened the door to real hifi.

Don't get me wrong - I have real affection for the Nait 1 but the internet inspired nostalgia for it is something to behold. No one talks about the constant hiss from the speakers, the loud pop when powered on, the weak speaker jacks that NACA 5 pulls out of the board, and the good, but not great sound.  

Put it this way - It was worth every penny of the $350 Cdn I paid for it in 1993.  I got that much for it when I traded it in on my Nait 5 and was thrilled.  

The prices I see today for the Nait 1 are again I think driven by nostalgia.  Here in Canada the real value in used Naim integrated amps is the Nait 3 or 3r.   

The answer is " In my opinion no" . That's how you hear it, which is fine.it's not a fact.

Others have different ears, different systems,different rooms, different requirements. 

Sister xx

Sister E. posted:

Ian Brown posted:

Are the old amps better than the new amps?  The short answer is no.  

I can tell you from personal experience that when I replaced my Nait 1 with a new Nait 5 I never looked back.  I had my 18 month old daughter in my arms when I switched the Nait 5 on for the first time and she immediately began rocking in my arms.   I replaced the Nait 5 with a Nait 5XS2, and again, never looked back.  Frankly, the Nait 1 can't hold a candle to the Nait 5XS2 but for me it opened the door to real hifi.

Don't get me wrong - I have real affection for the Nait 1 but the internet inspired nostalgia for it is something to behold. No one talks about the constant hiss from the speakers, the loud pop when powered on, the weak speaker jacks that NACA 5 pulls out of the board, and the good, but not great sound.  

Put it this way - It was worth every penny of the $350 Cdn I paid for it in 1993.  I got that much for it when I traded it in on my Nait 5 and was thrilled.  

The prices I see today for the Nait 1 are again I think driven by nostalgia.  Here in Canada the real value in used Naim integrated amps is the Nait 3 or 3r.   

The answer is " In my opinion no" . That's how you hear it, which is fine.it's not a fact.

Others have different ears, different systems,different rooms, different requirements. 

Sister xx

I appreciate the difference between fact and opinion but surely not everything is relative? (At any rate, I think my "no" was qualified and based on the amps I referenced above.)

Let me put it another way - I don't believe anyone who has lived with both a Nait 1 and an XS2 prefers the Nait 1.

Anyone?

I wouldn't bet on it.

After living with the 112/150 and the 202/200 for a few years it was a relief to get back to my Nait 1 and 2. Small room and my funny ears,

Sister xx

Okay, so that's one ; )

I respect and understand the desire to downsize.  You want to enjoy the music after all.  

Nait1 plus Kan1's plus Apple MacPro computer plus about 40TB of storage.

Sounds rather nice. 

(Fully factory serviced Nait1 red LED, as reviewed by Martin in HifiCritic a few months ago)

Kralk Audio BC30 speakers are supposed to be like a modern incarnation of the Kans, I haven't heard them, though....

I'm with Sister E, as i would take a nait 1/2 over a 202/200 in a heartbeat. I have owned every Nait except the '3', and my pick of the bunch is a red led Nait1, closely followed by the '2'. The 5i, XS and SN2 are also very good but suffer by comparison by concentrating a little too hard on the hifi stuff.

gary yeowell posted:

I'm with Sister E, as i would take a nait 1/2 over a 202/200 in a heartbeat. I have owned every Nait except the '3', and my pick of the bunch is a red led Nait1, closely followed by the '2'. The 5i, XS and SN2 are also very good but suffer by comparison by concentrating a little too hard on the hifi stuff.