'cos new things are always better
Posted by: Rockingdoc on 11 September 2002
I'm becoming concerned by the apparent obsession with novelty as a 'good thing' in several threads. Newer certainly isn't always better in audio, or anywhere else.
Apart from the obvious example of vinyl vs CD vs MP3 etc. Manufacturers may not be able to continue to produce an excellent product for reasons of component cost or supply, rather than 'improvement'.
This concept of needing to change for a newer product is promoted by all the hi-fi comics (I think HiFi News is the worst), but they have their own agenda.
Apart from the obvious example of vinyl vs CD vs MP3 etc. Manufacturers may not be able to continue to produce an excellent product for reasons of component cost or supply, rather than 'improvement'.
This concept of needing to change for a newer product is promoted by all the hi-fi comics (I think HiFi News is the worst), but they have their own agenda.
Posted on: 11 September 2002 by belsizepark
However, i think you are being slightly harsh in the way you say it.. whilst newer isn't always better, my view is in in most cases it is.
Ignoring difficulties in getting hold of components, I accept your comment about hifi mags. if the Nap 250 remains much of a muchness after 20 years or whatever, it would be a pretty dull read for most (not necessarily those on this forum though!) to read about it every month.
In general however newer is better..think of new cars against old cars, the general case is that the more modern the car the better it is technically (that doesn't mean preferable.. I would still love an old e-type). Think also of computers, a computer purchased this month pound for pound (dollar for dollar, euro for euro etc)is likely to be better than one purchased last month..
With hifi whilst you may argue that cd is not better than lp, i think it is fair to say that in general newer cd players are better than older ones...
im not overtly familiar with components in hifi equiptment but certainly in other products newer products often are similar to the old ones with lower cost components that often do the same job that whilst may not be inferior in what they do and how they do it to the older product, the underlying quality is often not so good as the engineers have worked out how to cut corners effectively.. the accountants love that sort of "development".. I am not saying that Naim does that atall... but certainly the guy who installed a new set or radiators for me was using what I perceive to be inferior quality of component to the original set even if there are no leaks and the flat stays warm now...
Regards
Belsizepark
Ignoring difficulties in getting hold of components, I accept your comment about hifi mags. if the Nap 250 remains much of a muchness after 20 years or whatever, it would be a pretty dull read for most (not necessarily those on this forum though!) to read about it every month.
In general however newer is better..think of new cars against old cars, the general case is that the more modern the car the better it is technically (that doesn't mean preferable.. I would still love an old e-type). Think also of computers, a computer purchased this month pound for pound (dollar for dollar, euro for euro etc)is likely to be better than one purchased last month..
With hifi whilst you may argue that cd is not better than lp, i think it is fair to say that in general newer cd players are better than older ones...
im not overtly familiar with components in hifi equiptment but certainly in other products newer products often are similar to the old ones with lower cost components that often do the same job that whilst may not be inferior in what they do and how they do it to the older product, the underlying quality is often not so good as the engineers have worked out how to cut corners effectively.. the accountants love that sort of "development".. I am not saying that Naim does that atall... but certainly the guy who installed a new set or radiators for me was using what I perceive to be inferior quality of component to the original set even if there are no leaks and the flat stays warm now...
Regards
Belsizepark
Posted on: 11 September 2002 by Rockingdoc
Well how about hard-wired discrete components vs surface mount in audio. Linn would have us believe in the latter. How come guitarists are paying ridiculous prices for new hard-wired amps in preference to PCB versions? Simply because the old way sounds better. Same thing applies to old guitar effects units, in many cases the newer chips don't sound as good as the old ones.
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by MarkEJ
...started with more sophisticated marketing, IMHO.
Time was, a product (almost anything -- not just audio) was priced on a "cost plus" basis. The manufacturer would build in as much longevity as he could at the price point. More longevity usually meant more expensive materials and build, and therefore a higher price.
Take a look at an original IBM XT -- it's all metal. Even the flippin' keys were metal (click, clack)! They may seem slow and useless by today's standards, but I bet a very high proportion of those still in existence are still working as originally designed but not used, as the user's needs have changed.
This approach resulted in products which were inherently good, i.e. designed for longevity, reliability and serviceability as well as performance. They acquired a reputation for quality and reliability, and sold many units by word-of-mouth.
Most manufacturers have now worked out that it is more profitable to create aspirational desirability around a product, over a relatively short lifecycle. That way people buy it because mere ownership makes them feel good, and they will tolerate performance and reliability issues up to a point because of this. The design of the product has to be finely judged so as to gradually "tail off" its appeal over (say) 2-3 years, by which time the manufacturer has commenced the marketing campaign to start the cycle over again with the "new & improved" replacement product, which is once again designed from the outset to be replaced after a short time. The manufacturer therefore sells more product over a given period, and by dint of marketing, can often achieve a premium price for a shite product cleverly positioned. There is no need to use expensive materials or build, as the thing only has to last until the next round of advertising.
Thus: money previously spent on both R & D, and really good build, quality control, etc. is now spent on marketing. In most product areas I suppose this is inevitable, as to get good economies of scale, you need to manufacter a lot of items, so you need to sell a lot of them over time. Selling less volume at higher quality and price would be less profitable, because you wouldn't have the "repeat sales" from those whose goods had fallen apart...
To me, there is something not quite right about a society which values novelty above outright quality and longevity. Call me old-fashioned, but I find the most obvious sign of this is the number of products arround which cannot be repaired, only replaced. The only true benefit of this is for the land-fill operators.
All IMHO, of course...
Best;
Mark
(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)
Time was, a product (almost anything -- not just audio) was priced on a "cost plus" basis. The manufacturer would build in as much longevity as he could at the price point. More longevity usually meant more expensive materials and build, and therefore a higher price.
Take a look at an original IBM XT -- it's all metal. Even the flippin' keys were metal (click, clack)! They may seem slow and useless by today's standards, but I bet a very high proportion of those still in existence are still working as originally designed but not used, as the user's needs have changed.
This approach resulted in products which were inherently good, i.e. designed for longevity, reliability and serviceability as well as performance. They acquired a reputation for quality and reliability, and sold many units by word-of-mouth.
Most manufacturers have now worked out that it is more profitable to create aspirational desirability around a product, over a relatively short lifecycle. That way people buy it because mere ownership makes them feel good, and they will tolerate performance and reliability issues up to a point because of this. The design of the product has to be finely judged so as to gradually "tail off" its appeal over (say) 2-3 years, by which time the manufacturer has commenced the marketing campaign to start the cycle over again with the "new & improved" replacement product, which is once again designed from the outset to be replaced after a short time. The manufacturer therefore sells more product over a given period, and by dint of marketing, can often achieve a premium price for a shite product cleverly positioned. There is no need to use expensive materials or build, as the thing only has to last until the next round of advertising.
Thus: money previously spent on both R & D, and really good build, quality control, etc. is now spent on marketing. In most product areas I suppose this is inevitable, as to get good economies of scale, you need to manufacter a lot of items, so you need to sell a lot of them over time. Selling less volume at higher quality and price would be less profitable, because you wouldn't have the "repeat sales" from those whose goods had fallen apart...
To me, there is something not quite right about a society which values novelty above outright quality and longevity. Call me old-fashioned, but I find the most obvious sign of this is the number of products arround which cannot be repaired, only replaced. The only true benefit of this is for the land-fill operators.
All IMHO, of course...
Best;
Mark
(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by Andrew L. Weekes
I agree with everything Mark has just written. I have great admiration for products that were 'right first time' and have stood the test of time. They are few and far between though, but I'm not a dewy-eyed romaticist with regard to all things 'old'.
I tend to agree with the assertion that a healthy scepticism is a sensible thing, but I don't believe that generalisations can be made.
I make no secret of the fact that I'm not a big fan of Linn's electronics, sonically, but from a manufacturing perspective they are way ahead of most of the competition, their investment is huge in this area.
I don't believe though that the sonic performance, as I perceive it, has anything at all to do with the use of surface mount, per se, but much, much more to do with implementation and the choice of other technologies they use.
There can be no doubt that to ignore the ever increasing range of semiconductors etc. available in this form, many with far better electrical characteristics than their predecessors, limits your ultimate potential, when comparing like-for-like technologies (e.g. op-amps).
There are numerous reasons why a company may not choose this route though, previous investment in technology aimed at leaded component assembly, potential difficulties in inspection, rework or repair, reduced thermal performance in miniature components etc.
As with everything there's a balance to be had, but there are numerous components that I would want the option of using, that dictate SMD as a technology.
In certain areas, such as RF, well-implemented SMD will always perform better than leaded components, and at the higher frequencies it is a mandatory technology, not an option, for the circuit to even function as intended. The network analyser I have access to reveals interesting component behaviour - capacitors that pass DC, inductors that look totally capacitive etc. This is less relevant at audio frequencies, but none the less non-ideal component behaviour is a very real source of degradation, if not factored into a design.
I am sure that Naim and others could produce items that perform sonically well using any technology, I'd even be as bold to say they could improve the current levels of performance through careful use if newer technologies - the existing kit is conceptually simple, but it's the attention to detail that matters.
My only beef is that some people try something once, then automatically exclude it because their initial experience was bad. I like to keep an open mind about everything, in many cases I'm disappointed, but the potential benefits keep me going.
A.
I tend to agree with the assertion that a healthy scepticism is a sensible thing, but I don't believe that generalisations can be made.
I make no secret of the fact that I'm not a big fan of Linn's electronics, sonically, but from a manufacturing perspective they are way ahead of most of the competition, their investment is huge in this area.
I don't believe though that the sonic performance, as I perceive it, has anything at all to do with the use of surface mount, per se, but much, much more to do with implementation and the choice of other technologies they use.
There can be no doubt that to ignore the ever increasing range of semiconductors etc. available in this form, many with far better electrical characteristics than their predecessors, limits your ultimate potential, when comparing like-for-like technologies (e.g. op-amps).
There are numerous reasons why a company may not choose this route though, previous investment in technology aimed at leaded component assembly, potential difficulties in inspection, rework or repair, reduced thermal performance in miniature components etc.
As with everything there's a balance to be had, but there are numerous components that I would want the option of using, that dictate SMD as a technology.
In certain areas, such as RF, well-implemented SMD will always perform better than leaded components, and at the higher frequencies it is a mandatory technology, not an option, for the circuit to even function as intended. The network analyser I have access to reveals interesting component behaviour - capacitors that pass DC, inductors that look totally capacitive etc. This is less relevant at audio frequencies, but none the less non-ideal component behaviour is a very real source of degradation, if not factored into a design.
I am sure that Naim and others could produce items that perform sonically well using any technology, I'd even be as bold to say they could improve the current levels of performance through careful use if newer technologies - the existing kit is conceptually simple, but it's the attention to detail that matters.
My only beef is that some people try something once, then automatically exclude it because their initial experience was bad. I like to keep an open mind about everything, in many cases I'm disappointed, but the potential benefits keep me going.
A.
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by Paul A B:
And how long does a fridge-freezer or washing machine last these days? Not built like the old days are they?
Yes, but how much desirability does a fridge or washing machine have. These aren't lifestyle products and don't need "upgrading" the way hifi,Video,Telephony and computer related products do.
I'm in broad agreement with the basic premise of this thread. Good Quality is Good Quality and Good Sound is Good Sound irrespective of when it was first bought.
Syd
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by belsizepark
computer related products that are newer do tend to be better than older ones....
Regards
Belsizepark
Regards
Belsizepark
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by Jonathan Gorse
Rockingdoc,
I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the Hi-fi press. I'd suggest that all hi-fi magazines have an obligation to their readers to review interesting kit which hasn't been reviewed before - I don't think too many people would want to read reviews of the same equipment over and over again. On the other hand it's important to ensure classic equipment isn't ignored and I think Ken Kessler has probably mentioned the LS3/5A more often than the BBC themselves!
Regarding Hi-Fi News being worse than the others I find your view surprising given that both Martin Colloms and I use the NAP250 as a reference and that's been in production since 1974! Furthermore, in the current issue there is a feature on a chap who collects valve equipment which is by anyone's definition 'vintage' and several other reviews relate to well established models.
I fully endorse the sentiment that many consumer goods however were better made in the past - hoovers, TV's etc and this is particularly true of mass market Japanese Hi-fi gear.
Jonathan
I'm not sure I understand your criticism of the Hi-fi press. I'd suggest that all hi-fi magazines have an obligation to their readers to review interesting kit which hasn't been reviewed before - I don't think too many people would want to read reviews of the same equipment over and over again. On the other hand it's important to ensure classic equipment isn't ignored and I think Ken Kessler has probably mentioned the LS3/5A more often than the BBC themselves!
Regarding Hi-Fi News being worse than the others I find your view surprising given that both Martin Colloms and I use the NAP250 as a reference and that's been in production since 1974! Furthermore, in the current issue there is a feature on a chap who collects valve equipment which is by anyone's definition 'vintage' and several other reviews relate to well established models.
I fully endorse the sentiment that many consumer goods however were better made in the past - hoovers, TV's etc and this is particularly true of mass market Japanese Hi-fi gear.
Jonathan
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by Bob Shedlock
I recently read an interesting disertation regarding the trend of disposable consumer goods.
The author was attempting to debunk the concept of "planned obselesence".
He stated that the science of material applications (using lighter, stronger materials) in all design approaches began shortly after WW 2, when efficieny and strength were desirable in forwarding the jet aircraft design for a given performance target. This in turn resulted in newer manufacturing techniques that took us to more inexspenively produced materials. However, because of the shift in emphasis on tooling and the concept of "the least to do the most" in any given application, it resulted in products the are practically unable to be repaired due to cost considerations. Accordingly, some "older" consumer products, when viewed from this perspective, are over built!
Consumer goods do actually do more for less money than they used too, as a general trend. It's the end cycle of the disposable society that seems such a bitter waste of resources.
Thought I'd throw that out as an interesting thought --
The author was attempting to debunk the concept of "planned obselesence".
He stated that the science of material applications (using lighter, stronger materials) in all design approaches began shortly after WW 2, when efficieny and strength were desirable in forwarding the jet aircraft design for a given performance target. This in turn resulted in newer manufacturing techniques that took us to more inexspenively produced materials. However, because of the shift in emphasis on tooling and the concept of "the least to do the most" in any given application, it resulted in products the are practically unable to be repaired due to cost considerations. Accordingly, some "older" consumer products, when viewed from this perspective, are over built!
Consumer goods do actually do more for less money than they used too, as a general trend. It's the end cycle of the disposable society that seems such a bitter waste of resources.
Thought I'd throw that out as an interesting thought --
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by belsizepark:
computer related products that are newer do tend to be better than older ones....
Regards
Belsizepark
Yes but not always. Take Flat Panel LCD screens which are all the rage at the moment. Ever tried to play hectic games on them, or watch an action DVD. They all suffer from slow refresh rates compared to the cheapest 14" or 15" monitor you can buy.Also the "lifestyle" type PCs and Apples are out of date before you leave the shop and you can't upgrade them to any great extent.
Syd
Posted on: 12 September 2002 by MarkEJ
quote:
Originally posted by Paul A B:
And how long does a fridge-freezer or washing machine last these days? Not built like the old days are they?
Well since you mention it, no -- they're not, generally. Though I believe that both Westinghouse and Miele, and some other US and Australasian manufacturers still do a pretty fair job.
Washing machines are a case in point, actually. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that top loading washing machines with very few "programming" controls are still the norm in the US, and have a long service life. It seems to me that it would be very much easier, in engineering terms, to build a long-lasting and reliable top-loader than a long-lasting and reliable front loader. Why? Because the main bearing is more evenly stressed, and door gasket doesn't have to withstand anything like the same water pressure -- just two obvious points -- I'm sure there are many more.
Somehow, the marketing bods at British White Goods Conglomerates plc have managed to convey the idea that a good washing machine comes with flashing lights and a graphic equaliser, and feet that rip your flooring to pieces should you feel the need to move it, Talk about inapropriate technology... and latest thing seem to be a bulbous front panel which bashes your hip when you walk past it. Great.
The thing is, if a manufacturer reduces service life by cutting corners in order to cut costs, all he has done is to shuffle the cost onto someone else, as the cost of disposing of his failed, sealed, unrepairable doorstop is never directly borne by him, but by the rest of us.
I saw a study once which listed the "total energy content" of a number of everyday manufactered items. With most of them (but most notably cars), the energy required to build them was far greater than that required to run them for their designed service life. In the car section, the most environmentally responsible choice appeared to be almost any Volvo, Mercedes or large, lazy, US "gas-gussler", since they were all "over"-engineered, under-stressed, and therefore lasted longer.
We owe it to the planet to demand longer product life, and thereby liberate ourselves from the dual harnesses of fashion, and conformity as a measure of self-worth.
God, I can rabbit on sometimes...
Best;
Mark
(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)
[This message was edited by Mark Ellis-Jones on FRIDAY 13 September 2002 at 00:49.]
Posted on: 13 September 2002 by Rico
Great post, Mark!
(oh no, I've lost my volvo.)
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
(oh no, I've lost my volvo.)
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 13 September 2002 by JohanR
Quote, from Mark:
"Somehow, the marketing bods at British White Goods Conglomerates plc have managed to convey the idea that a good washing machine comes with flashing lights and a graphic equaliser"
I'm probably one of very few non UK residents who has a Brittsih made washing machine. Hoover! And it does not have any bells and whistles, just ordinary old round buttons.
But, yes, I get your point. And everybody elses on this thread.
JohanR
"Somehow, the marketing bods at British White Goods Conglomerates plc have managed to convey the idea that a good washing machine comes with flashing lights and a graphic equaliser"
I'm probably one of very few non UK residents who has a Brittsih made washing machine. Hoover! And it does not have any bells and whistles, just ordinary old round buttons.
But, yes, I get your point. And everybody elses on this thread.
JohanR
Posted on: 13 September 2002 by MarkEJ
quote:
Johan;
I'm probably one of very few non UK residents who has a Brittsih made washing machine. Hoover! And it does not have any bells and whistles, just ordinary old round buttons.
Congratulations! You're obviously a true hobbyist white goods enthusiast at heart, and I think you should be nominated for the Stoy-ic award for bloody-minded persistence in the face of adversity.
Best;
Mark
(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)
Posted on: 13 September 2002 by Steve Toy
I think the former applies. Nobody wants to buy something with an in-built self-destruct button these days, even if they intend to renew it after only a year or two.
Cars now last longer than ever, but people still want newer ones because advances in technology always mean that the newer ones are always better. Also, cars seem to follow fashions just like clothes.
Note that most new cars are currently styled like Stealth aircraft - examples being all Fords, the Renault Laguna, the Audi A4, and even Japanese cars like the new Mazda 6 (iirc).
My old Mondeo is hopelesly out of fashion with its nineties curves, but it is still going strong after 240k. If I had the money and/or different spending priorities, I'd replace it with a more fashionable model, but I'm not forced to do so as it still works just fine.
Hi-fi has followed similar fashions - the curved boxes of the mid-nineties have been replaced by more rectangular shapes, and the seventies silver box is also back.
Then you have the classic and less ephemeral designs like Naim boxes which are/were unchanged since the end of the Eighties. As for cars, we have Jaguar, Rover, BMW and Mercedes amongst others with a distinctive corporate appeal that is almost timeless.
Regards,
Steve.
It's just a pleasure to hear music as it was intended to be heard.
Cars now last longer than ever, but people still want newer ones because advances in technology always mean that the newer ones are always better. Also, cars seem to follow fashions just like clothes.
Note that most new cars are currently styled like Stealth aircraft - examples being all Fords, the Renault Laguna, the Audi A4, and even Japanese cars like the new Mazda 6 (iirc).
My old Mondeo is hopelesly out of fashion with its nineties curves, but it is still going strong after 240k. If I had the money and/or different spending priorities, I'd replace it with a more fashionable model, but I'm not forced to do so as it still works just fine.
Hi-fi has followed similar fashions - the curved boxes of the mid-nineties have been replaced by more rectangular shapes, and the seventies silver box is also back.
Then you have the classic and less ephemeral designs like Naim boxes which are/were unchanged since the end of the Eighties. As for cars, we have Jaguar, Rover, BMW and Mercedes amongst others with a distinctive corporate appeal that is almost timeless.
Regards,
Steve.
It's just a pleasure to hear music as it was intended to be heard.
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by Rockingdoc
Ok I'll come clean, my mentioning HiFi News was the result of a personal disagreement I have with Kessler. I still believe that the primary aim of all the mainstream HiFi press is to sell advertising and they do this by creating disatisfaction in their readers for anything old.
To return to my original point, I don't see why it is assumed that all replacement products from Naim (or anyone else) will neccesarily be an improvement. For example I don't believe that the SBL has been improved upon as a speaker used in a Naim system in smallish rooms. I don't believe it will be, because it isn't economical to build such a tricky small speaker and then try and fit it in a marketable price structure. It has nothing to do with whether the replacements are better, simply if they can be made and sold profitably, which was probably no longer the case for the SBL.
To return to my original point, I don't see why it is assumed that all replacement products from Naim (or anyone else) will neccesarily be an improvement. For example I don't believe that the SBL has been improved upon as a speaker used in a Naim system in smallish rooms. I don't believe it will be, because it isn't economical to build such a tricky small speaker and then try and fit it in a marketable price structure. It has nothing to do with whether the replacements are better, simply if they can be made and sold profitably, which was probably no longer the case for the SBL.
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by JohanR
Quote:
"It has nothing to do with whether the replacements are better, simply if they can be made and sold profitably, which was probably no longer the case for the SBL."
You are probably right there, Doc. Anyone who has looked "inside" a SBL can figure out it must be expensive to make. SL2 should be much simpler to manufacture. Does not explain the elevated price increase!
JohanR
"It has nothing to do with whether the replacements are better, simply if they can be made and sold profitably, which was probably no longer the case for the SBL."
You are probably right there, Doc. Anyone who has looked "inside" a SBL can figure out it must be expensive to make. SL2 should be much simpler to manufacture. Does not explain the elevated price increase!
JohanR
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
quote:
SL2 should be much simpler to manufacture. Does not explain the elevated price increase!
I think quite the opposite - the rationale of design of the SL2 seems to be to produce a SBL-type speaker without the sealant. This has added a lot of additional complexity presumably to make it a more set-up friendly speaker. Whilst it is better than the SBL, my first impressions were to wonder what proportion of the additional cost has gone into fulfilling this remit, and how much has gone into producing better sound.
David
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by JohanR
Ok, I have not looked inside a SL2. But if I understand it correctly it made is pretty much like the Intro / Credo / Allae family, but with a thinner slit. Yes, this thinner slit needs tight tolerances to work, but it does not cost that amount of money.
Another tweeter. Have you checked what a Scan Speak tweeter costs? I have. If you buy it from a dealer, not direktly from the factory, the cheapest D2010/8513 costs 630 SEK, roughly $63. The most super duper expensive D2905/9900 Revelator costs 1795 SEK, thats $180. Does not explain the difference.
And the tweeter is mounted pretty much like in the SBL, even if its looking through a hole in the midbass cabinet. No obvious difference in cost.
The explanation is probably as simple as: It sounds like $7950! Which is fine with me.
JohanR
Another tweeter. Have you checked what a Scan Speak tweeter costs? I have. If you buy it from a dealer, not direktly from the factory, the cheapest D2010/8513 costs 630 SEK, roughly $63. The most super duper expensive D2905/9900 Revelator costs 1795 SEK, thats $180. Does not explain the difference.
And the tweeter is mounted pretty much like in the SBL, even if its looking through a hole in the midbass cabinet. No obvious difference in cost.
The explanation is probably as simple as: It sounds like $7950! Which is fine with me.
JohanR
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by Paul Stephenson
"Ok, I have not looked inside a SL2."
Sounds like you have not looked at all!
Sounds like you have not looked at all!
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by Mick P
Nick
Excellent posting.
In a few years time you will be like me.
Regards
Mick
Excellent posting.
In a few years time you will be like me.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
...and a subscription to 'Good Woodworking' will only set you back £26.
David
David
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by herm
Provided you dress like a gypsy. (Trousers low on the hips!)
Posted on: 16 September 2002 by John Sheridan
quote:
Provided you dress like a gypsy.
Herm, wrong sort of gypsy.
Posted on: 17 September 2002 by JohanR
I will continue to believe what I believe!
And I have never argued against SL2 being a VERY clever design. Which I think it is.
Paul, maybe you like to tell us what it is that makes SL2 so much more expensive?
JohanR
And I have never argued against SL2 being a VERY clever design. Which I think it is.
Paul, maybe you like to tell us what it is that makes SL2 so much more expensive?
JohanR
Posted on: 18 September 2002 by Laurie Saunders
Just a few thoughts on the recently announced upgrades.
1. It is undeniable that the vast majority of products perform better than their ancestors....IN THE SAME AFFORDABILITY RANGE.
for example, cars TVs etc....are both more reliable and offer better performance envelopes, thus it is not fair to expect a company like Naim, whose aim is to produce the best Hi-Fi in the world, to keep producing the same range of products forever
2. I understand that Naim have made numerous running changes to their kit over the years; a modern 250 probably has quite a few different components compared to the original, though the basic design is the same.They changed their "look" in the late eighties....at that time there was much discussion over the merits of the new look.....you make up your own mind over this.
However this wholesale change of the entire range is more than a style change. My guess that much has been driven by the use of new(cheaper? or more consistent?) automated manufacturing techniques.Also, there is now the availability of the brand new output transistor developed for the 500.My guess is that the new "250" is much like the old except for (a) surface mount technology for the circuit boards (b) the new output transistors (c) beefed up power supply (i.e. bigger transformer)
This is pure guesswork.......any comments Naim?
3. Whilst accepting the above, it is worth remembering:
Many owners of expensive Naim kit,have relatively modest means.I speak for myself here....part of the attraction of being a Naim owner, and climbing gradually up from a 72/140 to 52/135 has been the longevity of the range, company support, and good trade-values. I see my amps as an aspirational product(still the best I`ve ever heard to date).Total range changes do undermine that philosophy....look at the depreciation of Krell & Levinson kit. My point is this: Accepting the need to keep at the front of the pack, change is inevitable...the worry is ...how long before the next one. The great thing about products like the 01 tuner for example, is that about 15 years down the road, there is still almost nothing to touch it for sound quality. This means that the original design must have been pretty good. Are Naim`s new range likely to have the longevity of this sort. Only time will tell, but this is the sort of serious question that penny-watchers like me will have to ask before taking the plunge.
Let`s not forget, Naim has one of the most loyal group of owners in the world. That loyalty was built up by company`s concern for its past customers.I do hope that Naim is not going to become more "commercial" in the way that another, similar company(whose name begins with "L" and ends in "N" and has 4 letters ....guess who?!!!) seems to have turned its back on its grass roots customers.
4. The final point concerns the new "sound"....I will have to hear it before I come to a judgement....as I`ve said before on this Forum, with the mains improvements I have at home, I believe that my 52/135 setup outperforms the 552/500 on the standard mains supply.I read a review recently (please forgive me.....it was by Paul Messenger, one of the few whose opinion carries some credibility)....he described the gains of the 552 over the 52.....transparency, neutrality, dynamics, bass definition....I have obtained all of these and more by my mains upgrades. I recently heard a CDS252/500 in one the better London Naim dealers.....one whome I`ve seen lauded on this Forum before as producing "stunning sound quality" All I can say is that, if my system sounded as bad as what I heard, I would switch to another brand
5. naim has grown to its presentpostion by being distinctive in its approach to design and sound quality. I do smell a litlle "conformity" (read "compromise" in this new range. I do hope that Naim don`t end up as just another "me too" product, otherwise, why buy Naim ...there are plenty of other high end aspirants out there to choose fro...Krell, Levinson, ...etc(God forbid)
Anyway, I look foreward to auditioning the new range .....that is the only way to tell.....all else is mere froth
Regards Laurie Saunders
1. It is undeniable that the vast majority of products perform better than their ancestors....IN THE SAME AFFORDABILITY RANGE.
for example, cars TVs etc....are both more reliable and offer better performance envelopes, thus it is not fair to expect a company like Naim, whose aim is to produce the best Hi-Fi in the world, to keep producing the same range of products forever
2. I understand that Naim have made numerous running changes to their kit over the years; a modern 250 probably has quite a few different components compared to the original, though the basic design is the same.They changed their "look" in the late eighties....at that time there was much discussion over the merits of the new look.....you make up your own mind over this.
However this wholesale change of the entire range is more than a style change. My guess that much has been driven by the use of new(cheaper? or more consistent?) automated manufacturing techniques.Also, there is now the availability of the brand new output transistor developed for the 500.My guess is that the new "250" is much like the old except for (a) surface mount technology for the circuit boards (b) the new output transistors (c) beefed up power supply (i.e. bigger transformer)
This is pure guesswork.......any comments Naim?
3. Whilst accepting the above, it is worth remembering:
Many owners of expensive Naim kit,have relatively modest means.I speak for myself here....part of the attraction of being a Naim owner, and climbing gradually up from a 72/140 to 52/135 has been the longevity of the range, company support, and good trade-values. I see my amps as an aspirational product(still the best I`ve ever heard to date).Total range changes do undermine that philosophy....look at the depreciation of Krell & Levinson kit. My point is this: Accepting the need to keep at the front of the pack, change is inevitable...the worry is ...how long before the next one. The great thing about products like the 01 tuner for example, is that about 15 years down the road, there is still almost nothing to touch it for sound quality. This means that the original design must have been pretty good. Are Naim`s new range likely to have the longevity of this sort. Only time will tell, but this is the sort of serious question that penny-watchers like me will have to ask before taking the plunge.
Let`s not forget, Naim has one of the most loyal group of owners in the world. That loyalty was built up by company`s concern for its past customers.I do hope that Naim is not going to become more "commercial" in the way that another, similar company(whose name begins with "L" and ends in "N" and has 4 letters ....guess who?!!!) seems to have turned its back on its grass roots customers.
4. The final point concerns the new "sound"....I will have to hear it before I come to a judgement....as I`ve said before on this Forum, with the mains improvements I have at home, I believe that my 52/135 setup outperforms the 552/500 on the standard mains supply.I read a review recently (please forgive me.....it was by Paul Messenger, one of the few whose opinion carries some credibility)....he described the gains of the 552 over the 52.....transparency, neutrality, dynamics, bass definition....I have obtained all of these and more by my mains upgrades. I recently heard a CDS252/500 in one the better London Naim dealers.....one whome I`ve seen lauded on this Forum before as producing "stunning sound quality" All I can say is that, if my system sounded as bad as what I heard, I would switch to another brand
5. naim has grown to its presentpostion by being distinctive in its approach to design and sound quality. I do smell a litlle "conformity" (read "compromise" in this new range. I do hope that Naim don`t end up as just another "me too" product, otherwise, why buy Naim ...there are plenty of other high end aspirants out there to choose fro...Krell, Levinson, ...etc(God forbid)
Anyway, I look foreward to auditioning the new range .....that is the only way to tell.....all else is mere froth
Regards Laurie Saunders