Question for Richard Dane

Graham,

the scope of "unauthorised modifications" covers any Naim equipment including power supplies, and any 3rd party SNAIC or Burndy substitutes.

Richard, can I just clarify, is it ok to post links if they are not to commercial hifi or manufacturers websites.  This appears to be what the rules say which seems t mean its ok to post links to hifi articles?

I suppose anything that carries the power supply between boxes is considered part of the equipment, but signal interconnect leads and speaker cables are free of that consideration.

Graham - you will have to wait until Naim introduce their new updated Snaxo Burndy, which they must surely be working on!

DB.

Unauthorised links here in the Hifi Corner are very heavily moderated  - in the main they will be deleted, definitely if commercial - so if you wish to post one then please ask first (either email Naim or via my Wall).  Links to online reviews also fall under the "commercial" banner.  Basically any website that is selling something, pushing an agenda or that hosts some form of advertising is considered commercial.

Re. hifi articles, I give a bit more leeway in the Streaming Audio room, mainly because there's a lot to learn and understand about streaming and computers in audio.  However, similar rules apply regarding links to possible commercial interests.

DB, yes, that's it, there's a performance, safety and a warranty issue with 3rd party SNAIC or Burndy substitutes, although one could well argue in Naim's case that the speaker cables should also fall under "unauthorised modifications".  However, my own view is that a ban on discussion of 3rd party speaker cable is just not tenable, and indeed I feel that there should be no problem discussing possible alternatives just as long as Naim owners are suitably informed and Naim amp's requirements are constantly reiterated.

Thanks for clarifying.  I guess I will keep my question to myself then

Graham, if the question means breaking forum rules then yes, that's best.  The rules are there for good reason.  

Regarding unauthorised modifications, Naim has seen so many horrors turn up for repair and many other cases where items have been found to be faulty or to "blame" for causing damage to other parts of the system, or the whole system is suddenly sounding poor, only to discover that the actual cause was a faulty or even dangerous 3rd party item or lead. It's not just the obviously bodged or ineptly made bits either.  Some stuff appears to be quite professional - you know the sort of thing, a few on the forums said it sounded better, it looked quite good in the pictures, seemed well constructed, but it hadn't passed proper safety testing, or the whole Naim grounding scheme had been ignored to make it sound more "airy" (and then you wonder what happened to the great Naim sound that got you hooked in the first place)...  And then there are the unsuspecting 2nd hand purchasers who buy a "modified" piece of Naim without realising and either end up disappointed or putting themselves at unknown risk.  In such cases, when the modifiers have moved on or start pointing fingers elsewhere, it falls back on Naim to sort things out and put it right, sometimes at considerable cost to the end user. 

And yes,  Naim do want you to buy their bits, their PSUs, their cables, because that's what makes the Naim system.  A soon as you introduce something from elsewhere within the system, it's no longer Naim, or as Naim intended.  

And that's all without even considering that should anything befall the hapless end-user following advice taken on an online forum, the forum owner may well be adjudged to have a duty of care in such a matter.  The responsibilities of online media may well become a really hot issue in the future and I'm sure there are lawyers already sharpening their knives for the feast to come.

So you can perhaps forgive Naim from making this rule and enforcing it with such rigour..

Richard, indeed a fascinating area, the current tendency is for freedom of expression and the suggestion of unduly controlling personal expression on corporate social media is seen as a negative thing with often un intended negative outcomes for the corporation - its a fine balance - although the recommendation is for corporations to be 'thick skinned' where public discussion is invited.

I believe the duty of care comes from official communication rather than a comment made people in a personal capacity on a corporate social media site.

Clearly there can be rules on a corporate social site, and as long as too restrictive or seen as bullying or harassing, there appears to be no issue in applying them.

I think we had a conversation about this once sitting in a Bentley

Have you seen this legal and policy advice doc for corporate social media - its quite interesting

http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs...ial-media-report.pdf

and this advice for social media blogs for health professionals where outcome can be literally life affecting is quite interesting

http://digitalmentalhealth.co....social-media-spaces/

Regards

Simon

I don't have a problem with the rules, Richard, hence why I originally asked you for guidance.

I think I better say no more at this point otherwise you'll possibly have to moderate my post

The moderators have become a bit lax recently when it comes to modifying Naim equipment.

A few month ago there was a thread concerning the modification of the cartridge loading plug in the supeline. Apparently some guy in the states replaced the standard resistors with, what some of the forum members (not me) would describe as boutique resistors, Zee foil resistors or something.

AND, amazingly as far as I can ascertain, Naim have started using Zee foils.

BUT, they don't sound as good.

FC, a few months... ?  Years ago, more like.  That was done by NANA and discussed with and approved by Naim.  So you could call that one "authorised"...