Why do I need a pre-amp?

well the F1 is over but no spoiler here for those who recorded it

How true, how true all your posts are ... and now I also am going to enjoy the music ... for a while at least

Jude - will do this comparison when I look at the DAC V1 replacement sometime in the 2nd half of next year - 1st half of next year is upgrading the 202 - rest of this year is enjoying the 250DR.

In the meantime I hope you all keep listening and let your ears open your eyes!

Allan

Allan Milne posted:

 

well the F1 is over but no spoiler here for those who recorded it ......

In the meantime I hope you all keep listening and let your ears open your eyes!

Allan

Allan, thank you!

An interesting, and enjoyable post.

Allante93!

I seem to recall a view that, given the choice, most people would select a combination of 552/155 over a 152/500.  If the pre-amp wasn't that important presumably most people would go for the latter rather than the former. 

Allan Milne posted:

 

In the meantime I hope you all keep listening and let your ears open your eyes!

Allan

Great quote, enjoy the music.

Richard Dane posted:

I'm a bit confused - I'm not aware of Naim pre-amps having any sort of "sound shaping to emphasise PRaT".  What is this about?  Pitch, rhythm and timing can certainly be undermined by a pre-amp. Pre-amps may seem simple but they are really tough to get right and many brands get this very wrong in my experience - pitch integrity is often the first thing out the window.  Pitch integrity is something audio designers like Naim try ever so hard to preserve - it's either there or its isn't, I'm not sure how it can be emphasised here.

Richard, your response is interesting in view of the fact that it has been suggested many times in these forums that there is a "Naim sound", to achieve which a Naim amplification is the primary need, or that the 'Naim sound' comes from the preamp, or sometimes voiced more specifically as a suggestion that Naim equipment tends to emphasise parts of the mid frequency spectrum where lie the main parts of the music responsible to conveying PRaT information, and until now I don't recall reading any denials of those beliefs. Are you saying categorically that the Naim approach is solely aimed at preserving the input signal in its original waveform, simply having more emphasis on absolutely minimising adverse effects on timing such as phase effects etc - i.e, seeking the same amplification nirvana of the mythical 'straight wire with gain' as do other manufacturers, but placing timing accuracy above other parameters? (If so, is there any skewing or limiting of other parameters such as frequency response or linearity, or at the expense of distortion?)

it would indeed be heartening to learn that Naim's primary goal is fidelity to the input signal and that all the rumours or beliefs to the contrary are wrong.

Is there a white paper from Naim on the philosophy or basis of design of the preamps and/or amplifiers to achieve good pitch, rhythm and timing?

Innocent Bystander posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

Allan Milne posted:

 .

This DAC should be cheaper than an equivalent quality DAC with a pre (ha ha);

 

It's called nDAC, but it's higher quality and more expensive....

It is very good though, veeery good indeed.

Not sure that I've seen many (or any) direct comparisons of sound quality of nDAC or V1 vs Hugo or HugoTT 

There were severeal comparisons  between the Naim DAC and the Hugo (and NDS/555PS) in the early days, and some quite long running threads... Here is my comparison:  https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...48#36342540955634848

Also I think IB said he believed the TT and Hugo analogue output stages are the same... No I understand they are somewhat different.. the TT can drive greater loads than the Hugo.

To my ears there is a slight sonic difference between Hugo and TT, the latter is slightly weightier but seems to loose some of the natural sounding magic of the original Hugo.. It is subtle, and could be down to sample variation, but after a couple of weeks demoing I stayed with my Hugo and the TT went back.

Maybe 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Also I think IB said he believed the TT and Hugo analogue output stages are the same... No I understand they are somewhat different.. the TT can drive greater loads than the Hugo.

To my ears there is a slight sonic difference between Hugo and TT, the latter is slightly weightier but seems to loose some of the natural sounding magic of the original Hugo.. It is subtle, and could be down to sample variation, but after a couple of weeks demoing I stayed with my Hugo and the TT went back.

No, what I said, or at least my words were meant to convey, was that the line output and the preamp output of the Hugo use the same circuitry, just that the line output has a preset volume level.. Similarly with the HugoTT, IT'S line output uses the same circuitry as IT'S preamp output (I didn't suggest it was same as Hugo's). Sorry if my wording was less than clear.

I see, yes that is my understanding too.. The headphone and lineout stage circuitry is shared within both the Hugo and TT, but is a different design in each device. 

Also the gain of the analogue stage is fixed, and the level is set in a high precision internal digital domain.

IB,  

Since day one, Julian's aim, first with his original recording kit and mixing desks, then with his amplifiers, has been to try to keep the original sound, as picked up by microphone, as intact as possible.  He quickly realised that information could be lost in many places and in many ways. To that end, the design of a pre-amplifier was critical, and here Julian realised the following necessities to achieve his aim;

The input circuitry must accept the entire output of the chosen source without being overloaded.  For phono signals the frequency response and level of input signal must be normalised. The signal then needs to be conditioned such that the power amp is never driven outside its correct operating parameters. There should be no switched filters, loudness or tone controls as such controls can never improve the quality of the origin al signal and their inclusion results in lost information. The magnetic fields radiated by transformers can interfere with sensitive circuits so pre-amps will be powered by separate off board power supplies to ensure optimum performance.

This has been the bedrock of Naim's designs since the very beginning and remains just as true today. The over-riding aim has always been to try to preserve the original music signal as best as possible.  Pitch integrity is fundamental to this. Without it, you don't have music any more.  As such, one could fairly surmise that pitch integrity has always been priority number one. 

As to any purposeful "voicing"  that's something for designers such as Roy or Steve to comment on (they won't do so on here, but you could always ask them if you ever visit the factory).  I'm not aware of any conscious collective "Naim Sound" voicing.  Pitch integrity is always the key, because it can be lost so easily, however, I don't think that's something that should be deemed as "voicing" - you just have it, or you don't. I'm sure that each designer has settled on a tonal "voice" that they deem to be right. Of course, any design is a series of balances and compromises, so if anything has to be less than ideal I guess it could be something tonal or spatial, but loss of pitch integrity will always be avoided at all costs.

So, as to the issue of a "Naim Sound", people will believe what they want to believe, but as you can see from what I've written above, it's either way more complex, or much simpler than that; it's all about the music.

Richard Dane posted:

IB,  

Since day one, Julian's aim, first with his original recording kit and mixing desks, then with his amplifiers, has been to try to keep the original sound, as picked up by microphone, as intact as possible.  He quickly realised that information could be lost in many places and in many ways. To that end, the design of a pre-amplifier was critical, and here Julian realised the following necessities to achieve:.......

This has been the bedrock of Naim's designs since the very beginning and remains just as true today. The over-riding aim has always been to try 

So, as to the issue of a "Naim Sound", people will believe what they want to believe, but as you can see from what I've written above, it's either way more complex, or much simpler than that; it's all about the music.

So true, this why the Pre Amp is critical !

The complexities, are bought about through the design. That's right, those fond, but gruelling night's shared with Julian.

And Julian's Legacy lives on, the S1 Pre Amp, is an Statement, Indeed!

Now, the simple aspect, yes it is about the Music!

"Since day one, Julian's aim, first with his original recording kit and mixing desks, then with his amplifiers, has been to try to keep the original sound, as picked up by microphone, as intact as possible. ""

PRAT, this is the Naim Sound that so many associate with Naim.

This is why, I eat, sleep, and breath Naim.

This is why, DB, has chosen Naim.

This is why, you have took the time to respond to this post.

This is why, the OP, is considering a NAP 250 DR to combine with a Hugo.

Back in the Day, No, but as HM has pointed out, this is a Digital World, and Naim has kept pace.

HM posted:

"yes, the hugo has its own internal preamp\volume\voltage control. it cannot be bypassed. connecting it to a second preamp will degrade transparancy, even if it was the best preamp ever made."

I knew this would be an interesting post!

Always nice to have Mr. Richard Dane join us.

Thank Richard, for pass information, that has enlightened me.

As Richard Dane would say, keep it simple:

Enjoy the Music, the Why!

The How will take care of itself, beit DB's S1, or Simon's 252, or the OP's Hugo!

Out!

Allante93!

Allante93 - i think there is a little confusion with the Hugo and the term 'pre-amp'. Its not a preamp in the terms that Richard defines above - but it is a line driver stage with a digital domain level control. It is according to its designer  a  simple circuit so as to maximise signal integrity. It is designed so it can drive well reasonably high impedance headphones as well  as a  line in on a preamp/amplifier - or even reportedly some very highly sensitive loudspeakers. It is not designed as far as I can gather to act as a buffer pre amp for any given power amplifier - although it is possible to do this - but with varying results will ensue based on the design of the power amp.

S 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Allante93 - i think there is a little confusion with the Hugo and the term 'pre-amp'. Its not a preamp in the terms that Richard defines.....

S 

My mistake, I wasn't clear in explaining myself.

English wasn't my strong suit, but the first time I was accused of not understanding the OP's post, he came to my recue, and I was on point.

The post is centered about HM, Statement:

"yes, the hugo has its own internal preamp\volume\voltage control. it cannot be bypassed. connecting it to a second preamp will degrade transparancy, even if it was the best preamp ever made."

Now, I'm 100% behind Richard and Julian, as it pertains to the complexities of the Pre-Amp!

Richard's reply, was related to the Naim Sound!

""So, as to the issue of a "Naim Sound", people will believe what they want to believe, but as you can see from what I've written above, it's either way more complex, or much simpler than that; it's all about the music.""

My reply was related to Richard's " or much simpler than that" 

The WHY, we do this:

The Music, the Naim Sound, PRAT!

Whether it's with an S1, *DB

Or your 252, or my 282, or the OP's Hugo, with its internal pre amp that can't be bypassed.

 It's all about the MUSIC, that's all!

No right, or wrong, no argument here!

The argument is related to the OP's post!

That if one decided to start with an Hugo and a 250Dr, the SQ couldn't be improved, even with an S1!

Didn't mean to get long winded, but wanted to be clear this time.

Enjoy the Music, the Why!

Repeat, the HOW will take care of itself, beit DB's S1, or Simon's 252, or the OP's Hugo!

Got it !

BTW, I have high regards towards you and DB, and appreciate your input, the Forum wouldn't be the same without you guys.

Allante93!

Richard Dane posted:

The over-riding aim has always been to try to preserve the original music signal as best as possible.  Pitch integrity is fundamental to this. Without it, you don't have music any more.  As such, one could fairly surmise that pitch integrity has always been priority number one. 

This is a new term for me.

Richard, by pitch, I assume that you are referring to the 'perceived pitch' (in Linn parlance*), i.e., the sum of its fundamental plus its harmonics.

If pitch is a synonym of frequency, how can an amplifier alter frequency ? Do you mean integrity of pitch relations in a music signal?

* Any type of distortion will change frequency, amplitude or both. And it rarely does this in a linear manner, meaning that some frequencies or amplitudes are changed more than others are. These changes in frequency and amplitude alter the tune by changing the pitch relations in the music. For example — since the perceived pitch of a note consists of the sum of its fundamental plus its harmonics, a distortion that adds extra harmonics will shift the pitch of that note up slightly. Likewise, a distortion that results in the rolling-off of higher frequencies (thus reducing the amplitude of some harmonics) can lower the perceived pitch.

Thanks,

Jan

I always thought the P in PRAT stood for pace, rather than pitch. If amplification changes the pitch of notes, surely that so obviously won't do that it'd never arise as a serious issue?

I found Richard's most recent post somewhat reassuring (of course I wouldn't expect otherwise), but I, too, was musing over the term pitch integrity, which suggests simply not altering the frequency of note, shich I have to say would be an odd and very noticeable thing for an amp,to do.

The most common "allegations" in terms of sound shaping I think have been that Naim amps tend to compress both bass and treble (or enhance midrange), which if true would be a lack of amplitude integrity across the full audio frequancy range - however Richard's post states that the intent is to preserve the original signal as far as possible (although, interestingly, he also said he couldn't say if there was indeed any 'purposeful voicing'). Over to people with more experience than I of the "Naim sound"...

Jan, yes, correct (I think).   Julian wrote some interesting stuff on this, some of which appeared back on the original forum.  I shall have to have a look through my archive and see what I can find.

Of course I could have wrote about PRaT, but it has become such a pejorative term these days, and anyway, "Pitch" seems to have become "Pace", but I guess it's probably all about the same thing really, so I won't get stuck on the semantics of the terms.

Allan Milne posted:

 

I read a post on another thread in which a Hugo TT was connected directly to a 250DR and this got me thinking about my next upgrade which was planned to be from 202 to 282 ....

 

... or am I missing something ...

confused Allan

 

Gentleman, perhaps we should start another post! LOL!!!!!!!!

Humans, very interesting creatures!