My SN2 review

No quarter posted:

MarkJ I kind of agree with you,I owned the SN2 for about 2 years,I fed it with a Unitiqute2 digital out,into a Hugo,into the analog in's on the SN2.I really liked it,until I had a home demo of a N272/250dr for a week,to me this combo made the SN2 combo sound rather 2 dimensional(even with the Hugo).I ended up trading in the UQ2/SN2/Highcap dr on the other combo,and could not be happier.

 

I used to have exactly that system (minus speakers of course) and the weak link was the UQ2.  As a transport it's sound was flat and two dimensional and a little too dark for my taste - even a standard Mac mini with Audirvana was an instant improvement.  A case of source first perhaps.  Having said that I have no doubt a 272/250dr is an improvement, and so it should be given the cost differential. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

And you've taught me a new word - concision.  

A lovely word. Three syllables for removing fat. Less painful than circoncision.

As someone who is new to hifi and Naim, I have to agree with earlier, critical comments. This so-called "review" is not exactly helpful, but might in fact confuse those who are interested in climbing up the Naim ladder. Certainly, the review needed some elaboration, as others have already suggested. Apart from this, I found the OP in parts incomprehensible -- not sure what he actually wanted to express and in fact achieve with this "review"... 

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

And you've taught me a new word - concision.  

A lovely word. Three syllables for removing fat. Less painful than circoncision.

And now you've taught me a French word as well. Top stuff. 

Speaking of skin, we have no idea how much of it the OP has in the game. Did he purchase the unit? Did he listen at a dealer, loved it then saw the price? Heard it a friend's?

DAYJAY You are probably right that the UQ2 as a source was why the sound i was hearing was,lets say,limited.At the time,i considered going with an NDX into the SN2,but my dealer did not have one on hand,but did have the N272/250dr available for demo,so that made my decision much easier.This is also why i listed what MY source was,because i agree with Analogmusic,that it has a huge impact on what you get out of your setup.There could of been other factors too,like i was only using a pretty basic Audioquest rca to rca cable between the UQ2 and Hugo,and the same cables between the Hugo and SN2,no din plug.

Mark J posted:

Tidy, crisp amp. Sounds small though. Must say I expected a lot more considering the hyperbole on this site. Overall, disappointed. Too small and cultured to quality as a great Naim amp ( see.. 250, 135, Nait 2 and original Nait 5i as good examples) 

Lots of amplifiers have lower noise floor, better specs etc. But Naims rock don't they? More music, less bullshit reviewer hifi speak..

This one is ok at best. Unless you've heard a really good Naim amp...

 

I respect your view and I disagree. I speak of experience as I owned the XS2 and have a SN2 and heard dozens of other world class amps.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Surely its not a rubbish (admittedly rather brief) review just because it differs from your point of view?

- and one man's 'transparent' is certainly not the same as another man's as we have found on the Sopra thread... in fact probably no audio component is transparent (even though I am guilty of using the word) .... instead we probably have varying degrees of translucence....

 

No, it's a rubbish review. What's wrong with a bit of straight talking? Did I insult anybody? Gosh we are so PC and thin skinned these days. Personally I find it refreshing when people say what they want to say without worrying about what others might think.

I did say I disagree with his opinion politely.

When I use the word transparent I mean the component doesn't seem to add or take away much character from the original audio source.

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

The OP's review is too long. We need concision.

That has caused my best laugh all day 

Timmo1341 posted:

Is it my imagination, or has there been a gradual but inexorable decline in the standards of politeness and tolerance  exhibited on this forum? I've had to stop reading the 'Padded Cell' posts as I find the entrenched opinions and insulting tone used in many of the posts offensive and unpleasant.

It would be a shame were this trend to gain a real foothold in the other fora. How about a good dose of traditional British 'live and let live'? Can't people simply point out their disagreement with a poster's opinions politely, rather than the terse and often downright unpleasant rubbishing in evidence in more and more posts. Some of the more 'senior' members need to demonstrate a little more humility and tolerance (imho, of course!).

+1,  

But does tolerance extent to tolerating rubbish? Standards must be maintained, surely?

Halloween Man posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Surely its not a rubbish (admittedly rather brief) review just because it differs from your point of view?

- and one man's 'transparent' is certainly not the same as another man's as we have found on the Sopra thread... in fact probably no audio component is transparent (even though I am guilty of using the word) .... instead we probably have varying degrees of translucence....

 

No, it's a rubbish review. What's wrong with a bit of straight talking? Did I insult anybody? Gosh we are so PC and thin skinned these days. Personally I find it refreshing when people say what they want to say without worrying about what others might think.

I did say I disagree with his opinion politely.

When I use the word transparent I mean the component doesn't seem to add or take away much character from the original audio source.

Hmm those that know me personally don't usually call me PC - but I will relay that to Mr SinS  - however to the point in hand it did appear that you were saying it was rubbish because you disagreed - hence my query - but if you are saying its rubbish because of its lack of journalistic prowess then I guess its a legitimate personal  comment.... and I also wanted a hook for my comment that 'transparent' is in my opinion a useless metaphor for hifi - because people including myself seem to use in a meaningless and sometimes contradictory contexts... and true transparency is not subjective - its an absolute  - but degree of translucence is..

Hungryhalibut posted:

But does tolerance extent to tolerating rubbish? Standards must be maintained, surely?

Nigel I guess it should - surely what is rubbish and what is not  is somewhat subjective.. but a standard attempting to define what is rubbish and what is not rubbish could be quite entertaining to define...

As I often say, I would agree with you but their is no point in both of us being wrong....

But to be serious,  strong views are fine but best put over in a more diplomatic way...

wenger2015 posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

Is it my imagination, or has there been a gradual but inexorable decline in the standards of politeness and tolerance  exhibited on this forum? I've had to stop reading the 'Padded Cell' posts as I find the entrenched opinions and insulting tone used in many of the posts offensive and unpleasant.

It would be a shame were this trend to gain a real foothold in the other fora. How about a good dose of traditional British 'live and let live'? Can't people simply point out their disagreement with a poster's opinions politely, rather than the terse and often downright unpleasant rubbishing in evidence in more and more posts. Some of the more 'senior' members need to demonstrate a little more humility and tolerance (imho, of course!).

+1,  

Squared

Hungryhalibut posted:

But does tolerance extent to tolerating rubbish? Standards must be maintained, surely?

That's rich considering how we tolerate your constant pedantry on this forum.

Pedantry is an excellent word, with a vocabulary like that could you not have just put a little more effort into your 'review' so that it read as a review, with background data to inform the reader, rather than as a rather short, dismissive and brusk opinion lacking in any detail?  

I have a feeling the conclusion of the review offends rather than the briefness.

 I didn’t hear any wailing and gnashing of teeth when our resident professional hifi critic offered some pearls of wisdom regarding upgrading the Ndac.

"NDAC + XPSDR is really rather not bad".

 Although, I personally like it, concise and to the point.

Mark J posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

But does tolerance extent to tolerating rubbish? Standards must be maintained, surely?

That's rich considering how we tolerate your constant pedantry on this forum.

 

Nothing wrong with pedantry if it translates into thorough comments and advice, is there?

The OP is a critique of other people’s reviews. He obviously doesn’t agree with them, but that’s not to say he’s correct. The SN2 probably sounds top notch in a well balanced system and not so good in a system where no synergy exists.

I usually ignore most forum member’s opinions for this very reason, and I’d certainly not get upset at any criticism of the SN2, I don’t own one, why should I.

But, if he was to suggest the Denon DL103, is lifeless, flat, boring, tidy, crisp and small, I’d say

OYE MARKJ, NO.

Entertaining stuff, everyone.  I wonder how many comments there would be had the OP simply titled the thread 'My SN2 opinion', rather than 'My SN2 Review'.  If someone said they listened to the SN2 a didn't like it, I can't imagine anyone would really care.  A review suggests an impartial balanced appraisal of both positive and negative qualities, and from various different perspectives in terms of taste in music and its presentation via hifi.  The OP's post is not a review, not poor, not good, or anything in between.  However, if I were to interpret to the best of my ability what was said in the original post, I can relate.  I am not sure why, but certain recordings, mostly badly recorded heavy-ish rock tracks, can benefit somehow from an over the top, and slightly muddled delivery.  The ability of the SN2 to unravel everything and lay it bare in musical terms, often exposes rubbish for what it is, rather than somehow masking it.  For me anyway.

fatcat posted:

The OP is a critique of other people’s reviews. He obviously doesn’t agree with them, but that’s not to say he’s correct. The SN2 probably sounds top notch in a well balanced system and not so good in a system where no synergy exists.

I usually ignore most forum member’s opinions for this very reason, and I’d certainly not get upset at any criticism of the SN2, I don’t own one, why should I.

But, if he was to suggest the Denon DL103, is lifeless, flat, boring, tidy, crisp and small, I’d say

OYE MARKJ, NO.

 

Quite right too! 103s are cool...

An interesting post I must say.

I actually do own SN2 with HiCapDr. Of course it doesn't sound the same as my main 'Naim rig' but nor does it have to. But it's not vastly different - it's still a true Naim amp and brings a lot of joy to our sitting room.

SN is trully capable of respecting really high-end sources - in my case it's mostly fed either by an NDX + nDAC with 555PS or Rega RP10 / Aria.

Having heard many Naim amps I know that I will upgrade it with a separate setup one day. But in order to really hear and feel a significant uplift in the quality I also know I will most likely have to get a NAC 552 with NAP 300. Why do things in halves.... 

So Mark - I understand that you're not impressed by your SN2. That's Ok. But before you dismiss it completetely, please bear in mind it really benefits from a careful rack placement, decent power cables, no mains conditioners and performs really well with either NACA5 or SuperLumina speaker cables.

Lots of people do seem to like the amp. You don't which is fine so trade it in and move on. Perhaps you've just had a bad day? It might sound better in the morning

Actually most here get bored of ' good reviews' all the time. There's only so much you can emot with inky blackness.

for me what stands as a good review of a bad component is reading how the reviewer has come to realise this. What efforts were made to try and overcome what was bad about it.  Differentiate what could not be changed for the better. Give example of a component that does more. Give example of music played that drew conclusions. Provide some episiotomological philosophy underscoring personal preference. Etc.