A Naim Integrated Comparable To NAC282/NAP250DR Standard

Adam,

I didn't fear I was moralising, I feared I was being sententious and verbose, which is a risk I always run. I'll try to be shorter than usual: I appreciate your second sentence as a concept, but I think it's the other way 'round: here, music is just a way to replay the gear we love.

Best

M

Hi Max

I always though sententious was a synonym for 'given to moralizing in a pompous or affected manner'. But you are right there is a second meaning to it: 'abounding in pithy aphorisms or maxims'. Anyhow - English is fun

For the Brits reading this - please forgive us, whilst an Italian and a Pole play with your language

Best,

Adam

Massimo Bertola posted:

Adam,

I didn't fear I was moralising, I feared I was being sententious and verbose, which is a risk I always run. I'll try to be shorter than usual: I appreciate your second sentence as a concept, but I think it's the other way 'round: here, music is just a way to replay the gear we love.

Best

M

 

Dear Max,

You point at the end of post, which I have quote in red, May or may not be the motivation in this instance, but it certainly is in others.

it should be no surprise that some contributors here are primarily interested in the equipment. The only discontinuity is when the reverse is claimed in spite of the evidence. Home replay is a hobby that blends two interests - music and quality of replay. One or the other is usually the dominant one. I think that the same can be said for people who play musical instruments also. Some have a natural talent for playing the instrument, and because they demonstrate this technical ability they go on to become very proficient players. Other players come to playing because they love the music, but may not have an obvious talent for playing the chosen instrument. If a person in this second category has the determination to overcome the period of developing a good technique of playing in spite of less obvious technical talent, the result is usually far more interesting - musically speaking - for the fortunate listers to the performances given.

An example of a great classical pianist who retained nerves and technical fallibilities all his life, but was one the truly great interpretive artists is Edwin Fischer. For me, Edwin Fischer playing Mozart or Beethoven is almost infinitely more musically involving than many more technically gifted pianists. 

I suspect that those people whose main interest in replay is the equipment over the music, generally have a harder time appreciating just how lovely their current replay is, and more subject to the urge to upgrade at frequent intervals. But that is fine. After all it is what keeps companies like Naim, Linn and Quad - among many others - in healthy profit!

Best wishes from George

PS: I always enjoy your posts Max! Never too long in my view. 

'......but I think it's the other way 'round: here, music is just a way to replay the gear we love.'

I think the first definition of sententious might be the more accurate in this instance. 

George Fredrik Fiske posted:

Massimo Bertola posted:

Adam,

I didn't fear I was moralising, I feared I was being sententious and verbose, which is a risk I always run. I'll try to be shorter than usual: I appreciate your second sentence as a concept, but I think it's the other way 'round: here, music is just a way to replay the gear we love.

Best

M

 

Dear Max,

You point at the end of post, which I have quote in red, May or may not be the motivation in this instance, but it certainly is in others.

it should be no surprise that some contributors here are primarily interested in the equipment. The only discontinuity is when the reverse is claimed in spite of the evidence. Home replay is a hobby that blends two interests - music and quality of replay. One or the other is usually the dominant one. I think that the same can be said for people who play musical instruments also. Some have a natural talent for playing the instrument, and because they demonstrate this technical ability they go on to become very proficient players. Other players come to playing because they love the music, but may not have an obvious talent for playing the chosen instrument. If a person in this second category has the determination to overcome the period of developing a good technique of playing in spite of less obvious technical talent, the result is usually far more interesting - musically speaking - for the fortunate listers to the performances given.

An example of a great classical pianist who retained nerves and technical fallibilities all his life, but was one the truly great interpretive artists is Edwin Fischer. For me, Edwin Fischer playing Mozart or Beethoven is almost infinitely more musically involving than many more technically gifted pianists. 

I suspect that those people whose main interest in replay is the equipment over the music, generally have a harder time appreciating just how lovely their current replay is, and more subject to the urge to upgrade at frequent intervals. But that is fine. After all it is what keeps companies like Naim, Linn and Quad - among many others - in healthy profit!

Best wishes from George

PS: I always enjoy your posts Max! Never too long in my view. 

A much more thoughtful and balanced assessment of why we buy and upgrade our gear. I would add however that most of us are a mix of the two types i.e. those motivated by replay and those motivated by the music, and the mix varies. I also believe the mix can change in an individual over time from gaining experience with equipment and experience of listening to music. Bizarrely it was Tidal, with its immediate access to a huge catalog of music, and the 'Music Room' on here that has recently got me listening to many new artists and has expanded my musical horizons considerably

Interesting and thought provoking.

In response to the OPs question there is not an integrated amp (by Naim)  that compares with a 282/250.   As some have said the 272/250 is an excellent alternative if you wish to reduce the box count but even then really requires a XPS to really open the music up. 

However, many ways to skin a cat and I went with a work colleague to hear the Cd5XS with a pair of Neat Motives and it was suggest sublime.  

Regards,

Lindsay

nigelb posted

A much more thoughtful and balanced assessment of why we buy and upgrade our gear. I would add however that most of us are a mix of the two types i.e. those motivated by replay and those motivated by the music, and the mix varies. I also believe the mix can change in an individual over time from gaining experience with equipment and experience of listening to music. Bizarrely it was Tidal, with its immediate access to a huge catalog of music, and the 'Music Room' on here that has recently got me listening to many new artists and has expanded my musical horizons considerably

Interesting and thought provoking.

Dear Nigel,

I totally agree that there is a range of balances between music and the equipment being the main motivation ...

And after a while this balance often changes ... If you start from the purely musical motivation, you get some replay equipment, chosen on chance as often as not, and eventually you come across better replay. There is always better replay, whatever level you reach. Then your interest in the equipment is piqued ...

However, one of my most useful experiences concerning replay was forced downgrading due financial considerations more than ten years ago. It taught me a lesson that was almost certainly unlikely to be learned any other way.

I discovered that you can enjoy music - and particularly beloved music - with a much simpler replay array, and seemingly quite as much ... Even when coming down from the high peaks of replay quality and cost.

Ever since selling some [at the time] top Naim pieces over ten years ago, I have been trying to get the precise balance between cost and aims in replay just right. I am so close that it is excruciating waiting the last few days. Within two weeks, I’ll end end up with pure mono all valve based amplification style replay with a single fifty six year old ESL. 

But I also know that if it comes to it, I can be transfixed by a great performance of my favourite music from the most primitive replay. I would not want to wear such a hair shirt every day, and so the search is on the range of music first to equipment first, veering quite far towards music first. But it is a daily pleasure to be relaxed and working less hard with the replay quality with better equipment. Holidays are the challenge, when away from home. Away, it is likely that the best you have is an ancient kitchen radio to listen to music! Tuned to some weak radio station from another country ...

My replay journey is nigh finished, and then I shall stop wanting to go away on holiday at all!

Best wishes from George

George,

It seems, after a long journey, you have arrived (nearly) in a good place and you are enjoying your music as much as you ever did with top notch gear. Many of us would like to get to that place too, I am sure.

I am sure the Quad mono system will bring you great pleasure.

Enjoy.

PS - apologies to the OP for the diversion.

"My replay journey is nigh finished" too. As it has been for 35 years.

G

heard the SN2 aganist the NAC202/NAP200

frankly i would pay extra 2K for the NAC202/NAP200 combo

due to minimalist approach, i went the SN2 (less power cable, less rack space, less interconnect, less fiddling, less headache, less carton box to store)

interesting, what did the 202/200 do better than SN2?

was it 202/200DR?

I tend to be a minimalist, hence my reluctance to consider separates versus the integrateds I've always owned. Within the integrated realm I've still had experience with extra boxes; I had two FCXS's powering four devices in my former Nait XS system. Having just put a HCDR on my longstanding bare SN2 I'll note a factor I find common with PSU's in a system - It takes longer for the more complex system to come on song and the more complex system seems prone to days when the sound can seem a bit off. Add to that the additional shelving and difficulties associated with proper interconnect and power cord routing and there are merits to be found for integradeds, especially for those that value basic musical involvement over the nth-degree of refinement.

joerand posted:

I tend to be a minimalist, hence my reluctance to consider separates versus the integrateds I've always owned. Within the integrated realm I've still had experience with extra boxes; I had two FCXS's powering four devices in my former Nait XS system. Having just put a HCDR on my longstanding bare SN2 I'll note a factor I find common with PSU's in a system - It takes longer for the more complex system to come on song and the more complex system seems prone to days when the sound can seem a bit off. Add to that the additional shelving and difficulties associated with proper interconnect and power cord routing and there are merits to be found for integradeds, especially for those that value basic musical involvement over the nth-degree of refinement.

That is a really intelligent observation and absolute trueism that goes beyond hi-fi.

The more refined anything is, the more subject to variation. A more revealing system can sound amazing and give you these moments of musical awe. But the more revealing the system gets, the more it can show up things beyond control where the quality of the mains on a certain time of day, humidity, room temperature, background RFI, the lay of the cabling, whatever you can imagine, can have a noticeable impact on the sound. The further up you go and tiny things outside of your control can have a profound and very noticeable impact on the sound. This is far less so with components further down the range. They are impacted by the same things but just not as able to reveal them. And this definately has some major advantages where consistency of enjoyable music listening is conerned. I can totally see how a simpler system based on a SN2 may be far more preferrable irrespective of cost or box count consideration for this reason.

My UQ2 sounds the same day in day and and is always as enjoyable as the first day I bought it. My main system in the loung with 4 boxes making up the amplification always sounds much better but not always by the same amount. It definately changes with the weather as they say.

I guess it is like dining at your favourite resturaunt. The chef may be an artist but he and the kitchen have good days and great days and maybe a few off days. The point is, it is a little different every time but it is very good. But if you want it to be identical and of a predictable level of quality every time, there is always McDonalds.

Massimo Bertola posted:

ryder,

 

I've removed both HCDR and NAPSC from my 202/200, and find it hard to tell you if a significant difference is audible. If any, I find it a little more immediate and dynamic. Fact is, that I have always added PSUs because I thought they were an important addition, and have removed them because for some reasons I didn't want them – so didn't need them – any more. Now, I wait for someone to comment that since I can't hear the difference, I did right; but a difference is very audible, if one wants to hear it. It is not a subjective difference, it's an objective one; what changes, is the importance we give to it, making it a boulder or a feather, depending on us.

What I meant to say is, that after two 202s, two 200s, two Supernaits, countless HiCaps and other *caps of all colours, I now believe that you hear what you want to hear; that is, depending on a mix of expectations and acceptations. Since almost everyone here, one moment or another, will tell you that a HC and a NAPSC make, each, 'a huge improvement', it should be, by consequence, obvious that removing them will cause a huge worsening; only, it didn't happen, because at that point I was not giving importance to their presence/absence anymore. What you can hear and what you enjoy hearing are two different things, that very rarely work together.

As for all the various comparisons between SN, SN2, 202/200, 282/200, 282/250 etc, I did them all: always wanting to reach a conclusion, to draw lines, to have a winner, to establish a hierarchic list. Simply, b*****it: each to his own. To me, the SN is powerful, authoritative, slightly grey and monochromatic; the SN2 is more shaded and round, but less engaging: the separates are 'better', 282 is much more 'masculine' and forward than the 202, the 200 is a lovely amp. I, one moment or another, would enjoy (and have enjoyed) all, and would reject (or have rejected) all; so, prepare yourself to change perennially – or to find a way to keep your enjoyment, expectations, acceptation at their simplest, most immediate and spontaneous.

Hope it helps, apologies for being sententious.

Max

Hi Max,

Thanks for the post. It is amazing that you have owned the 202/200 and Supernaits twice, and have had *countless* of Hicaps in the system. It appears that Joerand seems to share the same experience of not being too impressed with the degree of changes when the HCDR was connected to the Supernait2 (in his post above yours). I am not too adventurous or experimental when it comes to power supplies though. Once I got the PSU hooked up to the NAC202, it was never disconnected from the system. I did not attempt to unplug, plug in and unplug the unit just to determine if it had brought an appreciable difference to the sound. However, I did notice that the sound was cleaner and more refined with the PSU on board, a small improvement. I can relate to your experience when you mentioned you didn't find the difference to be significant. In my opinion it's a fit and forget thing.

In my experience, the setup of the system (room, speaker placement and room acoustics) is more important than the small little things (PSU etc.) and has a much greater influence to the overall sound quality. I'm not suggesting that equipment are unimportant, but by getting the basics right, the rest (better equipment) are the icing on the cake.

In response to your last paragraph (you surely are lucky to be able to listen/own some of these amps SN, SN2, 202/200, 282/200, 282/250), I chose to stick with what I have - the 202/200. At some point of time, the addition of a new integrated amp is imminent. It's not meant to be an upgrade or anything but a complement to the (fine) 202/200. (At times I may just want to experience a different sound or presentation, one of the reasons the Exposure 3010S2-D is in consideration).

GraemeH posted:

"My replay journey is nigh finished" too. As it has been for 35 years.

G

I'm very impressed! I hope my gear will outlast me. If not, at least for another 20 years.

I have the Nait XS-2 now and I think it is a wonderful amp, but as usual I am intrigued by going up the Naim hierarchy, so I was considering separates but my dealer convinced me to audition the SN2 first as it  might be what I am looking for. Lets see how it will go...

Moussa, I had the original XS. I didn't find the original SN a big enough step. In fact, in some ways, it was worse. I fully realise it's not a SN2. I went to a pre power to get a significant improvement on the wonderful XS. YMMV.

Chris

I bought my wife's son a 200/202 just over a year ago. He was happy with it until my recent gift of a NAPSC. His quote was that he hadn't realised his system lacked depth until then.

Adam Zielinski posted:

Fair enough. But I think it is still not that relevant

anyhow - 282 is by far the superior proposition here

Agree! No doubt 282 is superior here and to my ears, there is no way that integrated can beat the seperarates..

This thread is becoming a masterclass in saying the same thing over and over again.

G

The thread is turning into a study in dogmatic repetition.

With minor meaningless variation :-)

GraemeH posted:

This thread is becoming a masterclass in saying the same thing over and over again.

G

Yes, indeed this thread is certainly saying the same things over and over again. Indeed. 

There is a benefit to it: for all of those that English is not their mother tongue it's a fantastic learning experience. How many times can the same thing be said / written without repeating the same words 

Very few, in this case. 

Not many at all