A peril of actual "Hifi"...
Posted by: Mike1951 on 10 January 2018
Just changed from ProAcs to ATC's.
The ProAcs were what I suppose one might call "forgiving", making just about anything listenable.
The ATC's are anything but. The only applicable phrase that springs to mind is "ruthlessly revealing"!
What is there, is exactly what you'll get. For instance - Dave Gilmour's "On An Island" is full, warm and detailed with the music filling the room.
By contrast, "Close To The Edge" by Yes shows it's seventies rock production heritage. Compressed, thin and irritatingly unmusical compared to listening in my AKG headphones from the mobile device.
I'm wondering what other ancient gems in the collection are going to be relegated to the headphones only second division...
OK well, certainly the cabling is the first step as I have noticed a certain "hardness" in the sonic delivery.
My gear is on a tiles-on-concrete floor so no wood vibrations there.
Spending 9 big ones on a pre+power upgrade is moot, even minus the resale value of the old pairing. I'll just have to see where we are after recabling.
Regarding siting the rack - I've read elsewhere a reference to Julian Vereker's statement regarding interference with sonic output. Comments?
Siting of the rack is often misunderstood. People listen with their ears and decide that the bass is loudest in the corner of the room, so the rack mustn't go there.
This is false.
The air pressure from bass sound is greatest in the corners (our ears are pressure transducers), but the air vibration from sound is at a minimum at the corners of the room, and electronics responds more to vibration than to pressure. So, provided the components are on an open rack (rather than sitting on top of a closed cabinet), the corner of a room is an ideal position.
JoexNaim posted:Analytical equipment sucks the joy out of music. It’s not good enough that Gilmour sounds great and Close to the Edge no longer does. Close to the Edge being the way better album too, IMO!
Get the ProAcs back in...lol
I went down similar roads like this and now won’t condsider a High end amp without tone controls to counter this sort of equipment compatibility issue. I hope you get it sorted as I don’t think Close to the Edge is a badly produced album at all....Wakemans organ thunders through my room with wonderful depth and resonant bloom...
Be interested to see if you sort it.
I agree. In my experience there is seldom a bad recording.
Setup can make a big difference. Whilst rooms do present challenges for speakers, there are things to avoid. For example, on my factory tour at the end of November we were told that the main reason for needing good racking arises when the the speakers are close to the HiFi. They also did not recommend having the racks between the speakers. Always worth experimenting with the setup as it costs nothing.
Phil
Mike1951 posted:
My gear is on a tiles-on-concrete floor so no wood vibrations there.
Which will contribute to a certain hardness/brightness in the sound IME.
Like I say, speaker/room matching is important and in my experience is more important than selecting the best speaker in isolation.
JoexNaim posted:Analytical equipment sucks the joy out of music.
<snip>
Analytical equipment doesn't have to take the life out of the music.
In my system, listening to baroque counterpoint, I can hear all the counterpointed themes simultaneously with the rest of the orchestration and each theme retains their own thread and character; and yet at the same time they weave together to build a joyous whole picture. In fact the system is so analytical I can tell not only if baroque (i.e. before Guarnieri and Stradavari) instruments are being played but also if the correct 18th century bowing technique is being used (rather then the modern 19th century playing style).
And all this while still giving a sense of being inexorably drawn into the emotion and feeling in the music
Huge posted:Analytical equipment doesn't have to take the life out of the music.
Of course not. But if the analytical capabilities come with a tonal brightness that makes favourite music hard to listen to then it CAN have that effect.
The key, of course, if to find a system that is both revealing and musical. That’s not always easy, but it’s well worth the effort.
Talked to the dealer in the UK who I used before I moved. He suggested an interesting little experiment re: rack siting.
I used "Rhesus Perplexus" by Brand X to test. A densely-layered fusion track with much delicate percussion work and ringing, undamped tom fills from Phil Collins with double-tracked guitar and fluid, mid register bass lines.
First played on the system as is, then the clever bit - draped the rack in a thick blanket to eliminate reflections and simulate a more distant siting.
The difference was immediate. The bass was warmer and top detail more revealed and placed in the soundstage. All still retaining the all-important musicality of course.
So my first step is re-siting and longer cable lengths.
According to the NAIM dealer, the stricture re: cable length does not apply to modern NAIM equipment and also that the NAP200 is capable of driving any stand-mounted speaker, which at the moment I have to say seems the case.
As the speakers are described as needing to be driven by at least 70 watts and the NAP200 is rated at 80, this certainly brings the match well within the necessary performance level. Of course I understand that better boxes will sound better, but in my opinion, what the speakers are doing, is letting me hear how my current set up is performing, which sounds fine to me. They are not being "under-driven".
So it's re-siting and recabling. I'll update as and when.
In the meantime, thanks for all the advice, mi amigos.
Sorry to have to tell you that the NAP200 does require you strictly heed Naim's advice re speaker cabling. 3.5m per channel is the absolute minimum but 5m or more sounds best.
Mike1951 posted:
As the speakers are described as needing to be driven by at least 70 watts and the NAP200 is rated at 80, this certainly brings the match well within the necessary performance level. Of course I understand that better boxes will sound better, but in my opinion, what the speakers are doing, is letting me hear how my current set up is performing, which sounds fine to me. They are not being "under-driven".
....from the NAIM website regarding the NAP200
- 70W per channel output into 8 Ohms
The NAP250 is rated at 80W per channel.
I recently heard the SCM19 played through a NAP250 and SuperNait2 at a dealer showroom and they sounded mighty sweet. Good luck with all your efforts with tuning up your system......
Richard, I'm changing to Chord company cabling. Does the length stricture still apply in this case?
Ignore - I've just been advised by a NAIM dealer that it does...
Mike1951 posted:Richard, I'm changing to Chord company cabling. Does the length stricture still apply in this case?
Ignore - I've just been advised by a NAIM dealer that it does...
The 3.5m applies to only NACA5 with its 1uH/m inductance, what its actually saying is the amps need a minimum of 3.5uH inductance per channel. Chord cables are not the same & will vary depending on cable model. I have Chord Odyssey & it has aprx 0.6uH/m so my 5m of Odyssey gives me 3uH per side. And BTW, Chord don't publish cable electrical parameters, I measured it myself.
Well now I'm COMPLETELY confused.
"Yes Chord Co. Cables need to be at least 3.5m." - UK NAIM dealer.
"No they don't" - Spanish NAIM dealer and MIKE-B...
I don't want miles of spare cable to deal with so I'm going to split the difference and go with 4m each.
To ensure the stability of the Naim amp...
NACA5 >= 3.5m per side (>=5m for best performance)
Chord Odyssey >= 5.8m per side (>=8.3m for best performance)
[Lengths based on Mike's measurement - and he knows enough to be trusted on this]
Mike, please don't be confused it's basic electrics. What Chord cable are you intending to use ???
Right. I've had different stories from all sources, official and non-official and first of all, I'm irritated that there doesn't seem to be a generally accepted standard for such a simple question.
So I went to the horses mouth and spoke to The Chord Company.
Their response is that there is no issue whatsoever with cable length as long as it is no shorter than 1.5 metres. When I mentioned 5.8 metres, BTW, he laughed...
They say they've never had a problem with this approach. This matches my local (NAIM -accredited) dealer's view so that's the advice I'm taking.
You can either listen to the people who make the amplifier you already have, or the people who want to sell you wires.
Please, at the very least take Naim's advice...
3.5m minimum.
They designed the amplifier - I don't think the Chord salesperson knows much about the Naim amplifiers' internal circuitry.
Mike1951 posted:Right. I've had different stories from all sources, official and non-official and first of all, I'm irritated that there doesn't seem to be a generally accepted standard for such a simple question.
So I went to the horses mouth and spoke to The Chord Company.
Their response is that there is no issue whatsoever with cable length as long as it is no shorter than 1.5 metres. When I mentioned 5.8 metres, BTW, he laughed...
They say they've never had a problem with this approach. This matches my local (NAIM -accredited) dealer's view so that's the advice I'm taking.
Take their advise on the basis of a loaner cable
Your dealer must be able to provide you a 6 mtr Odyssey run along with a 5 mtr A5 for a couple of weeks test.
Forget the 1.5 mtr joke
I had a 3 mtr TQB in use but a 5 mtr were better so much I purchased this
Now I'm irritated you had that answer from Chord & as for the so called Naim dealer !!!!, enough, good luck.
Mike, don’t be confused. It’s in the FAQ on here. If you had said it was a NAIT5i or Supernait or uniti, then ok fine, but a NAP200 is different - it’s still very much “old school” in its cable requirements.
I've spoken to tech at NAIM and they mentioned their symbiosis with TCC but insisted on a 3.5m minimum even with TCC cables so I'm splitting the difference and going with 4m.
Agh!
Mike1951 posted:I've spoken to tech at NAIM and they mentioned their symbiosis with TCC but insisted on a 3.5m minimum even with TCC cables so I'm splitting the difference and going with 4m.
Agh!
Silly decision imo
Luck anyway
Seeing Chord dare unlikely to know what Naim amps need as well as Naim, unless buying the Odysser which has its inductance mentioned here, If it were me I would go directly to Chord and ask the specific question: what length of the cable I am considering do I need for 3.5uH inductance? and use no less than that on each channel.
How on earth is that "silly"?