Old reviews

Here is their most Linn/Naim friendly reviewer, John Nork, doing up Naim's top-of-the line:

Nac 32 0813: $1050
SNAPS 0926: $480
Nap 250: $2245

Nac 32
When used as a preamplifier for magnetic cartridges, the Naim NAC 32 offers reasonably good, if dated, sound quality. In the last issue I opined that the Naim NAC 32 sounded like a respectably good preamplifier, circa 1976. Interestingly, I was informed by a reliable source, well after the publication of the last issue, the magnetic phono stage of the Naim NAC 32 had not been substantially altered since then...Even the most diehard Naim proponents seem to acknowledge that its moving magnet phono stage is less than the cat's meow. [Of course my understanding is that none of the basic circuitry has changed since 1972.]

The moving coil stage of the Naim is significantly more impressive than its more mundane magnetic phono stage. It has ample gain, and is remarkably quiet, due at least in part to its externally housed power supply. Other positive attributes include very good dynamic range (particularly in terms of its ability to capture the vibrant "liveness"of musical peaks), good definition, a powerful yet well defined bottom end, and a top-to -bottom tonal balance free of major aberration. With respect to the latter, there is a bit of brightness in the presence range and middle treble which lends a silvery, more vividly-detailed-than real quality to the NAC 32. Also, midrange fullness is reduced slightly by the NAC 32, which tends to lighten the sound of many instruments (e.g. the french horn). Nevertheless, for a solid state preamplifier (including a moving coil stage yet), it is refreshingly free from glare and brightness.

Also on the plus side of the ledger is the Naim's transient reproduction capability. For example, the impact, skin tone, and proper pitch rendering of tom-tom drums is well preserved. With regard to its soundstage, the NAC 32 does a reasonably good job of retaining lateral spread and stage height. There is a modicum of loss in both areas, however.

In spite of its maker's intention to the contrary, the Naim NAC 32 departs from the ideal of sonic neutrality in a variety of ways. First, and perhaps most troublesome, is its inability to precisely place instruments in the lateral plane. There is a diffuse, ill-focused vagueness to the instrumental placement which is at its worst in the center of the soundfield. A curious ort of horizontal elongation of instruments seems to be occurring here...

In a related vein, there is a noticeable reduction in front-to-back depth when one employs the NAC 32. This is not to say that it is without depth, because it certainly is not. Rather, the degree of front-to-back delineation is lessened, as is the sense that one gets from real instruments that they are radiating sound in three-dimensions. In addition, the ambience-related cues that inform the listener of the nature of the recording site of a given album are obscured.

The critical midrange is also not without flaw. There are traces of pinched nasality and an overall sense of mechanical hardness. These characteristics compromise the sweet sheen of massed strings and the airy, soft, purity of the flute.

At the top end of the frequency spectrum, highs are clean but a bit lacking in uppermost overtones and air...

There is also a mild layer of gauze-like opacity with the Naim NAC 32. Qualities of palpable, tangible immediacy are lessened. In addition, it seems to superimpose some texture on the music passing through it....

As much as I dislike doing so, there is one additional distinction that I need to make regarding this preamplifier. It sounds conspicuously better on rock music than it does on classical. In the case of the Naim NAC 32 preamplifier, its flaws are much less objectionable on rock music, due to the artificial nature of its instrumental timbre and acoustical space. The strengths of the NAC 32 manifest themselves nicely in the reproduction of rock music, which needs its peaks reproduced with gusto and wallop-packing bass. Ultimately, though, there are are other preamplifiers I would rather live with. I can, however, understand the appeal it exerts over others.

NAP 250
...Regardless of its nominal power rating, the Naim NAP 250, when used to drive loudspeakers in the real world, delviers much more apparent power than one would expect from a 70 watt amplifier...

Proof that this design criterion was successfully met was provided by the finding that the NAP 250 did a better job of driving the horrendous load presented by mono-amped Acoustat Model Eights than any other amplifier in my vast collection...

The Naim NAP 250 has a sonic signature. That is unique, in my experience, and sets the NAP 250 apart from ordinary solid state amplifiers. One of the interesting things about this amplifier is that it manages to sound very "solid state-ish"in certain ways, yet manages to avoid many ordinary transistorized bugaboos. It is an amplifier that that, overall, is musically enjoyable to listen to, and that sounds good on a wide range of speakers.

Starting at the bottom, bass reproduction is well-defined but a bit soft and mushy. It does not have the sheer force that the very best bass amplifiers do. In addition, the bass is a bit on the rich side, albeit pleasantly so.

Unlike many of its solid state compadres, the NAP 250 possesses close to the requisite degree of harmonic richness in the lower midrange to give a credible imitation of the real thing in this area. Things begin to thin out a bit as we move into the middle and upper midrange, but still not as much as many other amplifiers.

The piano, for example, tends to lose its warm, wooden resonant characteristics as the notes increase in pitch. There is a mild coarsening of texture with this amplifier which is most noticeable in the midrange. In addition, there is a slight sense of mechanical hardness in the midrange, despite the amplifier's overall "soft"sound quality. There is also a slight hollow nasality throughout the midband, which, under worst conditions, approaches honkiness. The midrange is also mildly opaque (as opposed to lucid), although definition is very good. A slight glare manifests itself in the upper midrange on occasion as well.

Despite the audibility of the above shortcomings, the midrange of the NAP 250 is relatively realistic. Although it is somewhat coarse, mechanical, and slightly opaque, it does preserve timbral balance well and it is free from the rough edges marring many other amplifiers. It has a soft, liquid, almost tube-like quality that is quite easy on the ear. It is not a pure an distinct, thought, as the best solid state designs.

High frequency reproduction on the NAP 250 is very smooth, sweet, and somewhat soft. There is just a touch of brightness in the lower treble area that is not really offensive. This overlaps with the slight glare in the upper midrange alluded to above. There is some textural coarseness, although less than in the midrange. Extreme highs are deficient in brilliance and air. The uppermost overtones of the flute, for example, are shorn, leaving the resultant sound rather wooden. All in all, though, the high frequency reproduction is quite pleasant.

Unfortunately, for the Naim NAP 250, there is a shortcoming in its depth reproduction that I have grown more attuned to as time has elapsed. Although the 250 does capture a sense of depth, individual instruments and voices sound paper thin, like props purveying a sense of reality that has no depth when viewed from the side...More than any other factor, it has been my exposure to the Conrad-Johnson Premier II preamplifier that has alerted me ot the importance of this parameter...Very few audio components preserved this information.

The NAP 250, then, does have some sense of depth, although the focused three-dimensional layering available with other amplifiers is reduced somewhat. On another master tape in my collection, an automobile horn honks out in the parking lot during the performance. Many amplifiers fail to pick up the horn at all. Although the 250 does capture the horn (thereby attesting to its very good retention of subtle detail), the distance of the horn is indistinguishable from that of the rear of the orchestra, despite the fact that directional cues indicating otherwise are clearly present on the recording. Similarly, some subtle ambience-related characteristics of the hall are not readily distinguishable.

The observant reader has no doubt notices the similarity in my sonic descriptions of the NAP 250 power amplifier and the NAC 32 preamplifier. There is indeed a "family sound" of sorts to the Naim electronics. Although there are clear differences between the products, the do share many of the same strengths (such as a very good sense of dynamism and good separation of instruments, even under demanding conditions) and many of the same weaknesses (e.g. an inability to precisely focus in the center of the soundstage, loss of fine ambience details). Considering that both products represent the recent thinking of the same designer, such findings should not be surprising. In my experience, though, it is a relatively rare to find a given designer's preamplifier sounding very much like his or her power amplifier. Like the moving coil stage of the Naim NAC 32, the NAP 250 bypasses many of the standard colorations one often encounters with solid state devices. Nonetheless, in certain other respects the NAP 250's sound bespeaks its transistorized nature. The resulting combination is a truly unique sounding power amplifier that will alluringly draw many disciples. As always, the ultimate subjective weighting of factors influencing the purchasing decision must rest with the individual. The NAP 250 does have a personality of its own, however, and that factor must be reckoned with.

--Eri

(I couldn't be bothered to read all of it!)

Steve B

One of the reasons I put this review in is it's so funny. For instance, you mention music, and he has a paragraph about a recording he made of an orchestra on which there is a car honk in the background, and then he goes on about whether that's reproduced in proper perspective!

--Eri

quote:

---

It is an amplifier that that, overall, is musically enjoyable to listen to, and that sounds good on a wide range of speakers.

---

quote:

---

There is also a mild layer of gauze-like opacity with the Naim NAC 32. Qualities of palpable, tangible immediacy are lessened. In addition, it seems to superimpose some texture on the music passing through it....

---

Wow, yes, I remember now, that mild layer of gauze-like opacity used to piss me right off…

Tony.

“Roll up, roll up, get yer palpable, tangible immediacy ‘ere…”.

"...I must admit to having a great deal of difficulty with this business of breaking down the music into parts. I realize that it is the reveiwer's stock-in-trade, but I think it leads to a great deal of confusion, and ends up missing the point entirely.

No one (probably not even the most demented hi-fi enthusiast) talks about the orchestra's front-to-back depth, midrange, or transients in a real life situation. These are hi-fi terms. In real life they talk in musical terms like control, interpretation, and feeling. Such language gets lost in hi-gi, possibly because the sound of even the bery best systems is so far removed from real music as to make the temptation to switch to a different vocabulary irresistable.

On the other hand, it is possible ot evaluate a hi-fi by simply listening ot the tune, and trying to duplicate that tune in your head. This task will always be easier to accomplish on better systems, and harder to accomplish on worse systems...with just a little practice at making an attentive effort to reproduce the pitch of each note in one's head as it is sounded, it becomes quite easy to discern excrutiatingly smal differences in how well the system delivers the tune. The question of which component does a better job then becomes extremely easy to answer...If the system isn't correctly reproducing the tune, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of music, then it certainly can't be expected to do a better job with other, more subte, musical qualities. Furthermore, if it doesn't get the tune right, then it really doesn't matter what other subtleties it does or doesn't handle well...

I realize that the proposition that a better hi-fi produces the tune more accurately than a worse one is a radical, dangerous, and subversive idea. However, it seems reasonable to assume that if a better hi-fi is expected to do a better job of reproducing subtle nuances of things like "depth of image" (when it is very difficult to believe that conventional recording techniques actually place much front-to-back information on records), then certainly a better hi-fi ought to do a better job of reproducing subtle nuances of melody (which one might reasonably expect ot be on the disc, unless it happens to be digital). Furthermore, what possible difference does the imaging make, if the system can't carry the tune. (Who cares where the sound comes from, if you can't tell what it's supposed to be?)"

Interesting in this early version that timing is not mentioned. Furthermore, I believe it is precisely the focus on melody that led many, including Art Dudley, to tubes and single-ended in particular.

Now personally, I think that music is more than just melody. It is in part a sensual experience, and lush midranges, and slam, and pure trebles, and prensence, and dynamics etc. can all be a part of that sensual aspect. It is also rhythm (which is also very important to me). It is also detail (musical detail i mean, like making out the vocals, separating the lines played by the two guitars, stuff like that). But I like what Naim does in all these regards.

--Eric