Half A Million Hi-Fi?

I heard the ND555 a number of times.... the Naim demo aims to show a difference between products, and if there is time perhaps some known tracks. I was not very convinced until my dealer allowed me to play my music, on a quick visit. I then scheduled a demo, it was wonderful. The Naim demo really undersold this product for me, even though it was done professionally.

How can anyone be happy and sane with such a ridiculous system knowing that he will take a 55% depreciation after the first day of ownership?

No different to buying a yacht, Bentley etc......these people have the money. I am not in their sphere of living, and do not want to be....best of luck to them.

Have heard similar priced systems from MBL, AVM + Gauder and Burmeister. I also heard the big Utopias with Naim. The ones which totally convinced me where the first two. The Burmeister was not to my taste and the Naim wasn’t completely in the best setup conditions. But at that level it’s simply stunning, as it should be....

Some people have just so much money it’s a different world entirely. Senior business people who get £3m in shares and the like. A friend of a friend sold his company and has £42m in the bank. He has a SuperUniti, but also an ocean going yacht. 

My system is nice and it has a feature that most people who drop by to hear it do not appreciate:  It is paid for!   The ProAc 40R speaker is the weak link, but it is set up well and rocking.

There is also the question that if you had £500,000 to spend on hifi would you spend it on Naim? 

Over the many years I’ve been around hi-fi I’ve heard several of these ‘larger than life systems’. A friend of mine describes them as ‘big hi-fi’.  They are impressive in terms of the power they can produce and the huge image they can create but they are not satisfying musically.

Getting fabulous sounding hi-fi is absolutely not about spending mega amounts of money. Its a lot more skilled than that and first and foremost involves knowing what you are aiming for.  Here are my aims, which may contain quite a few adjectives you don’t read about often in the typical press. 

• Firstly I want my system to be massively engaging. The music should grab my attention and not let go.  
• The system should be hugely rhythmical and almost bounce me out of my listening seat. With the right material it should be incredibly propulsive
• The system should allow my brain to construct a soundstage that fills my ‘headspace’ with music. The musicians within that soundstage should be realistically sized, so a voice sounds like its coming from a human mouth, a saxophone sound from a brass horn, an oboe from a small wooden horn and so on
• The speakers should be absolutely invisible. With the right material the sound should fill my listening headspace and extend well beyond any imagined listening room boundaries (remember the imaging is in my head, not my room). It should have width, height and depth.  Essentially it should sound like the air is creating the sound. The soundstage should be full of air, which should have texture which will be different on every single recording
• The soundstage the system creates needs to be contiguous, in that sounds and especially the decay of notes have directional information so you can hear notes produced at their source then drift through the soundstage as they decay.
• The system needs to bring joy to the listener. ‘Impressive’ isn’t a goal. It needs to generate emotion....happiness, joy, wonder, amazement, all the human responses to beauty. You need to bask in the music’s beauty and be amazed at the strength of emotions it can evoke
• There should be nothing irritating about the music it plays. Even poor recordings should sound fine and only really bad one assigned to the ‘never play’ list

Would I buy a Statement amplifier, if I could afford it?

Yes.  Absolutely.  Without a shadow of a doubt. 

The first time I heard it - admittedly still in prototype form, but close enough to being finished that Paul S and Steve S felt confident enough to let me have a listen - I knew that here was something that really did break down barriers and take further the whole idea of what is possible in hifi reproduction. It wasn't about scale or bandwidth or any of the other hifi stuff. It was about getting you closer to hearing the live music event. In subsequent demos I've heard the same thing, regardless of the speakers being used - the qualities of the amplification came through every time. It is everything that Naim has learned over its lifetime, applied without budgetary restrictions, and to my ears (and doubtless many others) there's nothing else quite like it out there.

Oh, and just one more thing about the Statement.  I do know someone who has the Statement. Let me just say that they are a diehard music lover and getting the Statement was a big financial decision to make as they are not a multi-millionaire by any means. And they’re not alone here.  The Statement is the pinnacle for music lovers who want the ultimate in music reproduction in the home. Real sacrifices have to made in other areas of life to afford it, but if it's your passion , and it's something that's achievable, then why not? You only live once.

Certainly the Statement system I heard really boogied and drew me into the music. It added everything that was (relatively) missing from the 500 system I listened to beforehand. And then some!
I could, possibly persuade myself to buy a Statement system but, my better half absolutely would not be happy with such a decision....

Blackmorec posted:

Over the many years I’ve been around hi-fi I’ve heard several of these ‘larger than life systems’. A friend of mine describes them as ‘big hi-fi’.  They are impressive in terms of the power they can produce and the huge image they can create but they are not satisfying musically.

Getting fabulous sounding hi-fi is absolutely not about spending mega amounts of money. Its a lot more skilled than that and first and foremost involves knowing what you are aiming for.  Here are my aims, which may contain quite a few adjectives you don’t read about often in the typical press. 

1. Firstly I want my system to be massively engaging. The music should grab my attention and not let go.  
2. The system should be hugely rhythmical and almost bounce me out of my listening seat. With the right material it should be incredibly propulsive
3. The system should allow my brain to construct a soundstage that fills my ‘headspace’ with music. The musicians within that soundstage should be realistically sized, so a voice sounds like its coming from a human mouth, a saxophone sound from a brass horn, an oboe from a small wooden horn and so on
4. The speakers should be absolutely invisible. With the right material the sound should fill my listening headspace and extend well beyond any imagined listening room boundaries (remember the imaging is in my head, not my room). It should have width, height and depth.  Essentially it should sound like the air is creating the sound. The soundstage should be full of air, which should have texture which will be different on every single recording
5. The soundstage the system creates needs to be contiguous, in that sounds and especially the decay of notes have directional information so you can hear notes produced at their source then drift through the soundstage as they decay.
6. The system needs to bring joy to the listener. ‘Impressive’ isn’t a goal. It needs to generate emotion....happiness, joy, wonder, amazement, all the human responses to beauty. You need to bask in the music’s beauty and be amazed at the strength of emotions it can evoke
7. There should be nothing irritating about the music it plays. Even poor recordings should sound fine and only really bad one assigned to the ‘never play’ list

 

Nice analysis. Having altered your points to numbers instead of bullets, I would observe that for me:

1. Agreed.
2. Only when the music is rhythmic and bouncing - there should be no unintended emphasis of it, only as the musicians intended (I am not by nature a dancing person)
3. I want the illusion of the soundstage to be in front of me, maybe to some extent around me, rather than in my head (but perhaps that is what you meant), sized as if on a stage reasonably close to me, but as for precise location, in terms of realism that varies according to the type of performance.
4. Yes - and they should reproduce precisely what is fed to them, with absolute clarity, which should in turn be precisely as recorded, with no emphasis and no loss, with ease at whatever loudness is playing, capable of the loudest crescendo played with ease, precision and without overhang, as well as the quietest note even when played softly.
5. Probably, but maybe only applicable to smaller acoustic ensembles.
6. I would say it should convey the music with all its meaning - and that is not always joy, though the experience should be enjoyable.
7. Ideally so, however whilst it should make the best of a bad recording, it should not be modifying what has been recorded, but should be playing it as it is, whence if the music itself is good enough the listener can ignore the imperfections, just as one can enjoy something played on a cheap transistor radio if nothing else is available. This is always going to be a challenge - the system just needs to make tge best of a bad job.
8. Plus: the room and layout are a fundamental part of the system, and should allow the music to do all of the above - which ideally means no room, but in practice a well tamed one with no significant resonances, nulls, smearing etc.
9. And: above all, the music should sound natural and real.

In terms of half million system cost, obtaining a ‘perfect’ listening room in many cases is likely to dictate purpose built, which might significantly limit the amount available for the rest, meanwhile truly effective speakers capable of approaching the above don’t tend to be cheap, nor do amps capable of driving them effortlessly without negative effect anywhere...

Beyond the above, there is an argument for user-tunable controls, for example to tailor/‘improve’ any imperfect recordings, whether tonally, or in dynamic range - even maybe something akin to ‘sharpening’ of a digital photo. Likewise there is an argument for ‘loudness compensation’ to retain the relative aural balance across the sound spectrum when choosing to play music other than at its natural sound level (but this would need to be sophisticated to do so accurately across different volume levels and  regardless of speaker efficiency or listening distance). But only if such things don’t adversely affect other, more important, sound considerations - or rather, only if they have a lesser adverse effect on the sound than the tailoring has beneficial effect. Maybe this will be an area of future development.

Half a million? That’s nothing , my system sounds like a million !! ???? 

Suppose it also depends how we define 'afford'. In 1986 I spent a major chunk of my savings on a second-hand LP12. I'd decided I had to own one, and apparently had little problem with the fact that a turntable now represented about half of my worldly assets. Let's hope there are no Statement owners in this category : )

easeback1 posted:

Suppose it also depends how we define 'afford'. In 1986 I spent a major chunk of my savings on a second-hand LP12. I'd decided I had to own one, and apparently had little problem with the fact that a turntable now represented about half of my worldly assets. Let's hope there are no Statement owners in this category : )

 

What is wrong with that, Statement or otherwise. If the hifi is so important to anyone? For a good few years I had a high mortgage, and  a hifi system that had cost me as much as most of the rest of the furniture in the house put together, and buying about 2 (expensive!) records a month. When I went to the supermarket each week it was with cash, before the ready abailability of credit cards (thankfully), so totting up as I went to ensure no embarrassment at the till. No car. No holidays. Evenings in - but what evenings: lovely music from great hifi, or it was to me at the time), home brew beer and wine. I can understand someone similarly scrimping and saving for good hifi, and focussing on that to the exclusion of things other people buy.

Innocent Bystander posted

 

Nice analysis. Having altered your points to numbers instead of bullets, I would observe that for me:

1. Agreed.
2. Only when the music is rhythmic and bouncing - there should be no unintended emphasis of it, only as the musicians intended (I am not by nature a dancing person)
3. I want the illusion of the soundstage to be in front of me, maybe to some extent around me, rather than in my head (but perhaps that is what you meant), sized as if on a stage reasonably close to me, but as for precise location, in terms of realism that varies according to the type of performance.
4. Yes - and they should reproduce precisely what is fed to them, with absolute clarity, which should in turn be precisely as recorded, with no emphasis and no loss, with ease at whatever loudness is playing, capable of the loudest crescendo played with ease, precision and without overhang, as well as the quietest note even when played softly.
5. Probably, but maybe only applicable to smaller acoustic ensembles.
6. I would say it should convey the music with all its meaning - and that is not always joy, though the experience should be enjoyable.
7. Ideally so, however whilst it should make the best of a bad recording, it should not be modifying what has been recorded, but should be playing it as it is, whence if the music itself is good enough the listener can ignore the imperfections, just as one can enjoy something played on a cheap transistor radio if nothing else is available. This is always going to be a challenge - the system just needs to make tge best of a bad job.
8. Plus: the room and layout are a fundamental part of the system, and should allow the music to do all of the above - which ideally means no room, but in practice a well tamed one with no significant resonances, nulls, smearing etc.
9. And: above all, the music should sound natural and real.

In terms of half million system cost, obtaining a ‘perfect’ listening room in many cases is likely to dictate purpose built, which might significantly limit the amount available for the rest, meanwhile truly effective speakers capable of approaching the above don’t tend to be cheap, nor do amps capable of driving them effortlessly without negative effect anywhere...

Beyond the above, there is an argument for user-tunable controls, for example to tailor/‘improve’ any imperfect recordings, whether tonally, or in dynamic range - even maybe something akin to ‘sharpening’ of a digital photo. Likewise there is an argument for ‘loudness compensation’ to retain the relative aural balance across the sound spectrum when choosing to play music other than at its natural sound level (but this would need to be sophisticated to do so accurately across different volume levels and  regardless of speaker efficiency or listening distance). But only if such things don’t adversely affect other, more important, sound considerations - or rather, only if they have a lesser adverse effect on the sound than the tailoring has beneficial effect. Maybe this will be an area of future development.

1-9 I completely agree.  What you say expands on or accurately qualifies my own aims.  In terms of rooms, I have found the following:

odd or awkwardly shaped rooms usually do need extensive treatment to ensure that the signals coming from each speaker have closely matching characteristics.  ‘L’ shaped rooms for example tend to be very difficult to get right

In my experience the ideal room is quite small but well proportioned, quite reflective, lossy in the bass and highly diffusive. 

The brain additively combines early reflections with the original waveform, so the sound you get is agile and brightly lit (in a good sense), giving shimmering, sparkling treble when called for but with no sense of echo or overhang and plenty or presence, again when called for.  The diffusion avoids too high an RT, but adds a very natural space and air to the sound, allowing the music to ebb and flow naturally. Reflective/diffusive allows a very good dynamic range where very quiet decays are perfectly revealed while crescendos have real impact  and brass has that typical high energy bite, with no sense of discomfort or fatigue. Lossy means that the room can take a substantial amount of bass to match the energetic HF without overloading. In a small room I generally use sealed enclosures so have less trouble finding the exact position for nicely balanced bass.

I set the volume to suit the proximity of the instruments....I like a flute to sound like a flute, so it can’t be too loud. On the other hand when you sit close to a flute or even an oboe the sound is pretty energetic and that’s what I aim for. A piano intimately recorded should really get the air in the room energised, just like a real piano does. At that realistic amplitude the room should come alive with musicians and instruments sounding very satisfying and convincing and communicating the soul of the music, with no clues that you’re listening to recorded music coming from 2 speakers in a smallish room. 

To get to the above doesn’t have to costs hundreds of thousands but it does take a great deal of care and attention to detail.  A fairly inexpensive system very well set-up will always outperform a poorly chosen or installed mega-buck system in terms of musical enjoyment and listener satisfaction. 

There’s no doubt that a Naim Statement is a fine piece of electronics that can deliver great music but simply hooking it up to expensive speakers with expensive cable without taking care of of a myriad of other aspects is not a recipe for long term musical satisfaction but probably will serve to impress the odd guest. Getting the best out of a Statement will definitely require some skill and experience and quite possibly will include a custom designed room. 

I think it's down to each individual to define what it means to be able to afford the cost of anything in life. Much will be down to hierarchy of needs and desires. I make no judgements either ways though I do perhaps reserve a bit of respect and admiration for those who chase the dream and make certain sacrifices to achieve it. Hopefully it's worth it, but that's something only the individual involved can answer honestly to themselves. 

Personally, I would dearly love a Statement, but it's a bit of an unattainable dream.  So while I may be able to buy one, I know I cannot afford it at this time. But that's OK - i can admire without having to possess. And I also have some of the trickle-down tech in my NAP250DR, such as the 009 transistors, so I can tell myself I have a bit of the Statement amp in my system already!

It's good to know that my 250dr has Statement technology but to me my setup is my statement, it's what I can afford and puts a smile of my face as soon as play is pressed.

Innocent Bystander posted:

What is wrong with that, Statement or otherwise. If the hifi is so important to anyone? For a good few years I had a high mortgage, and  a hifi system that had cost me as much as most of the rest of the furniture in the house put together

Nothing wrong, agreed. But saving up for a used LP12 or for a hifi that costs as much as your furniture still belongs in a very different category from one that costs as much as a house.

I can't imagine many Statement owners had to carefully check their monthly expenses before ordering one: "Groceries, petrol, phone bill... yep, reckon I can just about swing it."

Haim Ronen posted:

How can anyone be happy and sane with such a ridiculous system knowing that he will take a 55% depreciation after the first day of ownership?

It's all about their wealth status.  

Bart posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

How can anyone be happy and sane with such a ridiculous system knowing that he will take a 55% depreciation after the first day of ownership?

It's all about their wealth status.  

It's all about what floats my boat.   Sure, I would have bought a second hand ('pre-loved') ND555 if I could,  but did I see any on eBay or any other pre-loved site?  No.   So then it becomes a question of "how much do I want this ?" and the answer was  "£13,000".    OK, it's a lot of want, but what else delivers this kind of pleasure?  ( remember, at my age sex  is no longer a viable answer  )

Bart posted:

Haim Ronen posted:

How can anyone be happy and sane with such a ridiculous system knowing that he will take a 55% depreciation after the first day of ownership?

HiFi is not an asset, nor is the cost of HiFi tax deductible. Why talk of depreciation?

Why not? It’s no different to a car, which depreciates over time. All Haim is saying is that it will be worth a lot less the next day should you want to sell it. That sounds like depreciation to me, even though it’s not the strict accounting sense. 

hungryhalibut posted:

Why not? It’s no different to a car, which depreciates over time. All Haim is saying is that it will be worth a lot less the next day should you want to sell it. That sounds like depreciation to me, even though it’s not the strict accounting sense. 

agreed.

It also IS an asset. It is piece of durable equipment with resale value therefore it is an asset. 

Sure, you can go ahead believing that. 

I don't think of cars as assets either. 

Fact is, it's an asset... until you come to sell it,  as I discovered when I sold my NDS recently.  If I didn't understand depreciation before, I certainly do now