Naim is VFM

Yes, but even when JV directing the company, Naim's price-points have changed from the time of the Flat Earth "golden age" - when Naim showed that you didn't have to spend the equivalent of £60k to beat the Krells and Levinsons of this world. Hearing the top-of-the line stuff does remove the "comfort factor" that was in the 1980s when Naim customers felt they didn't need to pay silly money in order to get the sound they want.

Also the relative price of mid-end gear from Naim seems to have increased significantly over the years - it would be interesting to know the factors behind this. However, Naim have moved the goal posts forward on both the quality and price-points of their products.

Below is a copy of my observations on PFM

quote:

---

Having read most of the discussion on Naim and value-for-money rather late, I would like to take a look at this issue from another angle.

Some of the thoughts on Naim's entry into the high-end have not come across that well in text on the Internet, however I would like to look at this from a slightly different angle.

During the 80's and 90's, much of the flat earth press would proudly suggest that flat-earth manufacturers (like Linn, Naim, Rega and Creek) soundly thrashed high-priced round-earth esoterica *without needing to resort to high-end prices*.

Right now, Naim is still a company that produces mid-end priced gear - the NAC202/HiCap/NAP250 is roughly equivalent to the NAC32/HiCap/NAP250 of old. So the same market is catered for.

However, if we take this amplification price-point and compare it against Rega's Planar 3 and P3, we see quite a difference (prices taken from Flat Response March/April 1985 and Audio Excellence website's pricelist):

Time: March/April 1985
32/HiCap/250 price: £1431.75
Planar 3 price: £188
Naim/Rega price ratio: 7.62

Time: August 2003
202/HiCap/250 price: £4524
P3 price: £298
Naim/Rega price ratio: 15.18

This shows that the perceived monetary value of Naim's "now considered" mid-end gear has almost doubled (a factor of 1.99)over the monetary value of today's reference budget turntable.

Of course there are some flaws in this argument in that the Planar 3 was changed down slightly to a P3 and that the 202 is a souped-up 72. Swapping these for a P25 and NAC112 actually give a reducing factor of 0.81.

The reality probably lies somewhere in between (1.4). Indicating that if Naim were to value the NAC202/HiCap/NAP250 at the same level of competitiveness as the 1985, then the price would drop from £4524 to around £3231. A difference of around £1300.

The conclusion is that nowadays Naim may see themselves as about 40% more competitive than Rega, than they did in 1985... and can therefore charge more.

This probably works out the same for Linn. ALthough I do not have the original prices to hand of the LK1/LK280.

Anyway I hope this underlines that everything in this world changes, including relative pricing (just like the stock market) and Linn/Naim/Rega are both affected by the market and changes of circumstance.

Regarding Naim releasing high-end priced equipment, that's ok, the mid-end price equipment is still there (albeit noticably more expensive than before, but Naim have increased in popularity). The trouble is that many of us are silly enough to attend shows and demos, and lo-and-behold our new personal-reference becomes a set of boxes costing £60k...

...thus removing the "comfort factor" in the 1980s when Naim customers felt they didn't need to pay silly money in order to get the sound they want. Nowadays, the sound-they-want costs £60k and this also applies to Linn owners too.

---

Andrew

Andrew Randle
Linn Binn Sinner

Andrew,

Thanks for your intelligent reply.So the nait 1,2,3,5 is the way to go ? Otherwise you're paying silly money.
I've heard a system comprimising a cds-2,supercap,nac-52,ps,6*135,s,B&w Nautilus in a store in Emmen (musifoon),and that was easily the best system I've ever heard.
And I'm very convinced Naim hasn't left the path of the so called flat earth.

Regards,
Rob.

Hi Robbie,

You need to hear the new 2xx series, preferrably *without* the B&W loudspeakers. When you do I'm sure you'll agree that the old Naim magic and qualities are still there. There is now more control and grip across the frequency range, which has the consequence of improving a number of qualities valued by the round-earth brigade.

Regarding the Nait 5 being the only way to go, and the rest being "silly money". Well that depends on your definition of silly money. Some customers have high thresholds and that is the reason why the 552/500 exist (also I'm sure Naim were itching to find a way of showcasing their capabilities).

Fortunately Naim have not abandoned customers with lesser means of expenditure by updating and renewing its equipment and providing a uniform means of transitioning through the upgrade ladder.

The big concern is that the price rises over the past 5 years may have overstepped the current economy. I have great concern about the current amount of personal debt in the world and how that might affect the hi-fi market.

Andrew Randle
Linn Binn Sinner

andrew,

As I hold your values, I'm not impressed.The nac-552 is a statement to all the other manafacturers,
And so is the Nap-500.If you can or can't (or afford or VFM) buy it ,is another discusion.

regards,
Rob

Andrew

while your comparison with the planar is an interesting one, I feel it is a little misguided from a business point of view. Why not take a company that actually has advertising marketing and magazine review sample costs, show costs etc etc. Rega has indulged in none of these for more than 80% of the years you mention, by observing its own very non-standard business models. Apples with apples, perhaps?

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

PS - you also compare products that on one hand (the Planar) with the development costs amortised long ago, whereas your Naim product example has recent development costs built in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Randle:
Fortunately Naim have not abandoned customers

---

Unlike some customers that abondoned Naim, eh Andrew ;-) Or will you be returning to the fold now that the new 2xx series is sooo good?

I find it odd how you bang on about how good Naim is when you ditched your entire Naim sistem for a Linn one, claiming it to be far superior. Obviously your LP12 is a top flight deck but why hamper it with those lesser electronics downstream?

Put your money where you mouth is!

Steve
(In Mick P mode)

My point, Per, is that is seems a little duplicitous on Andrews part especially after his volte face. “Do as I say/suggest, not as I do.” Maybe it would appear less so if he suggested equivalent alternatives, just like others do from time to time.

Each to their own, of course!

Steve

To address a couple of points.

Rico: Naim have indulged in advertising, review samples and show costs during the two periods mentioned. Naim have increased their presence in these respects, and Rega have to a certain extent done the same (except for advertising). Apples with Apples? Well the point of the post was to illustrate that may Naim have change from an apple to a pear in certain respects.

Steve: Sure I'll bang on how good Naim is, the point is I don't buy 2nd best ;o)

Seriously, as I've said before. Naim is great at providing fluidity, scale, spaciousness, upgrade path and service - but I've to hear it beat Linn when it comes to synchronising the musical strands (the key to long term satisfaction). When that changes you'll be one of the first to know.

Andrew Randle
Linn Binn Sinner

[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on FRIDAY 22 August 2003 at 13:40.]

Andrew,

Why listen to the Naim without the Nautilus speakers. I purchased a pair of 804s over the Allaes (which are the same price point), because they're about 10 times better, not just because they have the name Naim on them, as so many other people on this forum tend to do.

CraigP,

There are advantages of hearing Naim electronics with loudspeakers designed with the same set of flat-earth priorities.

Similarly I wouldn't dream of sticking a pair of Linn loudspeakers on the end of a Naim system if I wanted to evaluate Naim's competencies.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
Linn Binn Sinner

Unless of course they were Isobariks...

Paul

also, don't be forgettin' me Kan's

regards,

michael

If memory serves, back in '85, a Naim Nait2 was about £425. Now, this seemed to me to be a huge amount of money. My girlfriend likes to remind me of a comment I made at the time - "I wonder if I'll ever be able to afford one". Naim Audio has always been at the more expensive end of the market. That it was good value for money has also always been the case, but the range has always been more expensive than many would countenance.

If anything, your buying power today is such that a Nait5 is less money relatively speaking than £425 was in 1985! This is especially the case if you compared average pay in 1985 to average pay today. Average pay in 1985 was around £11000. Today it's £23000. Therefore you could argue quite strongly that entry to the Naim ladder is easier than it was all those years ago since, on average, a Nait would cost you proportionally less today than in 1985.

The upper range of the Naim ladder is a lot higher, both quantitatively and proportionally, than it used to be. I can't justify a £11750 preamp per se, but the range is a lot larger than it was in 1985, as well as having much more extended performance. After all, a 32.5 is arguably not even as good as a 202.

So in my view, to suggest Naim is more expensive than it used to be is wrong. It's true that the top of the range components are vastly more expensive than those of yore, but they aren't really comparable either. If you compared components in the same price range after taking into account inflation/buying power, then I think you'll find that it's as expensive as it's always been - it's just that Naim are offering a much more extended range than they had in the past.

Finally, Naim aren't alone in this industry, so it behoves us to compare their prices against other makes and in this regard they don't seem to be more or less expensive than their competition. Value for money means being able to provide a product which performs better than you'd expect at its price point in the market. Provided Naim can do this, then it remains value for money. The new range is doing very well for Naim. This implies that they are perceived as good value for money.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Frank

What a good post.

Something that adds VFM for me is that these items last. They do not wear out, need very modest care/servcing etc and are not made instantly obsolete by a manufacturer obsessed with constant change for change sake. I am confident that my current system will sound good in 10 years time, spreading the cost this way means vfm in absolute terms which very few of my other 'frivolous' hobbies (cars, bikes, travel etc) can match.


Bruce

To Frank,

That's spot on.The crap said about Naim
nowadays .Why not ......As if Linn is sssooooooo good (for the wife...)

regards,
Rob
Let's alll buy Korsun(I'm sooooo soooorrrry Mark Levin-my-son)

Go to
http://eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/pound_question.php

to get an accurate comparison of prices - that is if you believe what is published in the internet

Derek

<<Have you checked your PTs today>>

Frank

Your memory is a little off. I bought my Nait 1 new for £240 in 1987 shortly before the price rose to £275. I can't remember whether the Nait2 came out later that year or the following. At the same time a new Planar 3 was £188, a K9 was £59, Kans were £275 and KanII stands were £75.

Regards
Steve

I'm only earning £11,000 a year now....should be able to afford that 20 year old Nait soon

Paul.

I have an Audiophile Systems (the US distributor) price list from Jan 1985 and a Nait 1 was $395, Linn Kans were also $395. Today a Nait 5 is $1,550, you will also need a Stageline $395 and a Flatcap 2 $950 if you want to play records. That's a total of $2,875, more than seven times the price of a Nait 1. I'd say entry level Naim today is quite a bit more expensive to get into today than it was 18 years ago.

A better system:

1985---------------------->2003
NAC 32 - $695-------->NAC 112 - $1,250
Hi-Cap - $595-------->Hi-Cap2 - $1,700
NAP 250 - $1,495------>NAP 250 - $4,250
---------------------->Stageline $ 395
---------------------->Flatcap2 $ 950
_______________________________________
$2,785---------------->$8,545

Three times more in this example. A better value here perhaps?

[This message was edited by John Gilleran on FRIDAY 22 August 2003 at 19:41.]

TRRK - I'm with you. Although I suppose VFM means different things to different folks, to me it means something along the lines of producing the best sound for the available funds (regardless of how much they happen to be). I've owned and demo'ed equipment by a number of brands. Nothing has given me the musical enjoyment of my current Naim system. Although I admittedly only have listened to a small fraction of what's out there, I don't think I could have done any better for the money I had available to spend than the Naim pieces that I purchased. Complete buyer satisfaction - isn't that VFM? Add to that reliability, great service, umpteen upgrade options, and good resale value for when you do upgrade, and I have no problem agreeing that - at least for me - Naim represents excellent VFM.

(Sure wish their gear was cheaper though!)

MBM

Naim kit is not VFM.
It's an expensive luxury.
The fact that there's other stuff that costs even more doesn't make Naim VFM.
I guess that most of the people in this forum have decided that it's a luxury they're prepared to pay for.
I have.

Paul Rowlands

Why does everything have to be based on VFM? Call me a mug, but I don't make every purchase based on VFM.

If you yearn for a Ferrari, VFM does not come in to it; Only Ferrari builds Ferraris. If you like the way Naim creates music and only that will do, then this is a good enough justification for me.

Music is important to me, particularly the emotional connection and this is what *I* feel Naim does well. I don't need to justify that to anyone else, weather it is someone who simply looks at the dollars and cents or someone who listens for absolute technical accuracy. Neither of these factors are key drivers in my decision to purchase audio equipment.

Now when it comes to purchasing pots & pans...

tim

Kid
I think Tim articulated my sentiments better than I did...

Paul Rowlands

I'm a bit simple for these arguments. My CD player packed in for the last time and I had £1400 to spend on a replacement. The CD5 (+ HiCap later) was the best sounding player to my ears in the chosen price range, against everything else auditioned. So I bought it. I don't give a damn if it's good VFM or not - call me stupid....

Granted, it's a rather simple, bliknered view of the universe but as a general rule, if something's outside my price range then it's a waste of my time to listen to it. If it's in my price range, then I'm not concerned if the next best component gives 90% of the performance for half the price. I want the best I can afford and I'm not interested in doing calculus. If I have for some reason (e.g. good salesman) managed to be wandering about outside my price range, the 90% for 50% reasoning begins to kick in. But I really try to avoid this. It contributes to upgraditis - well, it does for me anyway.

Hey TRK, I'm just chatting here, not looking to fill you full of holes. I can't count past ten without taking my socks off, but I know what sounds good to me. The VFM argument is kost on me, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.