Naim AV1

Posted by: Naheed on 24 September 2000

Is it correct that when using the AV1 only rear loudspeakers are required (no side/centre,sub) ???

Does the unit require a *cap p/supply ?

naheed...

Posted on: 24 September 2000 by Erik
second: no
Posted on: 25 September 2000 by keV
Sorry guys, but can someone explain what the point is of buying an A/V processor that doesn't process any of the formats you'd want it for in the first place?

I thought the AV1 was designed to provide an alternative to Dolby Surround Sound only. Things have moved on so much with Dolby Digital and DTS. Now if Naim brought out a real world A/V processor...

Kevin

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by Naheed
The processor was based on Naims on 'SFX' technology i think this was a totally different approach ???

However, all this said i picked up a new price list from the show and the AV1 was'nt there (?) discountinued ???

naheed...

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
>> Sorry guys, but can someone explain what the point is of buying an A/V processor that doesn't process any of the formats you'd want it for in the first place? <<

Naim has always contended that the DD and DTS sound screws up the music. Their surround sound doesn't adhere to this. It just manages to surround you with music without screwing too badly with the typical Naim attributes.

If you don't care that you aren't hearing what the filmmaker intended, and are happy with simple surround, then I suppose the AV1 could satisfy you. In my case, though, I want to hear it the way the creators of the work intended. That's why my house will have two separate rooms: one for two-channel audio with Naim gear, and the other with typical mass market gear (Sony or something similar). Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
You can be such a snob, Vuk!

The sonics for most movies are quite acceptable through my two-channel system. However, if the flick is an eye/ear-candy extravaganza, then I want to experience it in its full glory.

I realize you don't appreciate the importance of this, with your 12" TV. We all have our priorities. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by Mark Rampling
Just thought I'd pass on a rumour I've heard that Naim is developing a new AV processor and multi-channel power amplifier for the 5 series .....
Posted on: 25 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
As far as TV size goes, it really comes down to viewing angle. Like like to have a significant portion of my field-of-vision occupied by the image. Movie theatres are great for this, which is why it's such an immersive experience. My 32" TV at home is OK, since I'm about less than 8' away from the screen. With a 13" baby-TV, I would have to sit about two feet away to simulate this experience, so it's not really suitable for my viewing pleasure. It also depends on what you're used to: I had a 20" TV for many years and though it was fine, but now 32" is "normal".

There are many types of "good film". Some of these films are purely cerebral, making the quality of the picture and sound superfluous. Then there's the big-budget roller-coaster-rides that Hollywood churns out, where visual and sonic effects are the crux of the film. Neither of these is "better" than the other; they just satisfy different desires. Some of us like them and some of them don't. (For the record, I don't like Harlequin romances either.)

The term "eye candy" has crept into the general jargon of the day. As far as Beverly Hills 90210 goes, I've seen it only once. (It wasn't really my cup of tea either.)

I've always been a big fan of volleyball. (Believe it or not, I was the assistant coach of a team for a couple of years.) I enjoyed watching both the men and women a few days back. I haven't seen any of the beach variety yet, and maybe I'll catch some in passing. (I'm not interested enough to go looking for it.)

Loewe does make beautiful TVs, although they don't make anything really big (probably because they can't get it to look good enough). My next TV will be at least 50" and HDTV capable. Until that time, 32" will do me just fine. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 25 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
Yes, I'm a relativist. I'm that way, because I recognize that everything can be measured with very different yardsticks. You say that Mozart is "better" than Michael Bolton. Although I agree, I could also ask you, "In what way?". Ultimately, you'll use a measurment that is meaningful to you (and crucial, as far as you're concerned). However, someone who prefers the formerly mulleted one may get more emotional pleasure from the B-man and are put-off by the pretentious nature of Mozart. Therefore they like Bolton more, so he's "better". It's all depends on what your priorities are.

An important factor is personal experience. Since you live alone, you are rarely required to compromise your taste. You can listen to the "best", and eschew the "worst" to your heart's content.

In contrast, I live with a person who doesn't have the same breadth of musical appreciation as I do. She knows what she likes, and as far as she's concerned, her music is far more palatible than mine. Am I so conceited that I might think I'm right and she's wrong? Or do I merely recognize that we each have our likes and dislikes, and we must compromise to get along? It makes for a happy world, with both of us getting a turn at the wheel. Besides, it's just music!

Anyone who steadfastly adheres to the concept of absolutism is ultimately close-minded. Because of this attitude, we have religious wars, etc. If everyone merely accepted that we won't always agree, the world would be a much better place.

Note that I'm not suggesting that we always agree on everything, but that we recognize that it's OK to disagree. As long as we understand and accept each others viewpoints, we'll have fun discussing it and no one's feelings will be hurt. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 26 September 2000 by Rico
I reckon surround is almost always overblown. Like that BS thing they roll in the theatre before the start of the feature that has all manner of Joe's 'thermonuclear explosions'... this is compounded by the boneheads running the cinema sound crank everything up... which makes more punters go 'wow' and try to re-create this in their homes, only to find it knocked off of the piles after the subwoofer blew up... sells more kit "DVD... it'll blow your mind!" kinda stuff, like "Perfect sound, forever" ...but I digress.

If you're at all interested in hearing how 'good' surround is executed, try Peter Jackson's 'The Frighteners'. Ok, the storyline is a bit naff, but much of the speialeffects were state-of-the-art on release... and it has the best surround soundtrack I've ever experienced. Or rather, not noticed. And Michael J Fox is rather good. For overblown, try Die Hard 4, Ronin etc... all great action movies, but suffering from overdone soundtracks.

Other than that, I can't get serious about surround - other than a very un-serious pro-logic receiver in storage for the AV room - I prefer good stereo to poorly executed surround.

Oh, and I think every movie should have a compulsory giant octopus or squid in it.

Rico - musichead

Posted on: 26 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
Infopoop is really screwing up. I've lost posts from a few different threads now. (And none of them were controversial enough to be censored.) I've got to get my service provider to get that new forum up and running, because this sucks! Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 04 October 2000 by Naheed
Ref. Marks comments: Just thought I'd pass on a rumour I've heard that Naim is developing a new AV processor and multi-channel power amplifier for the 5 series .....

Is there any such product in the pipeline ?
Is it self contained (integrated amp just the processor as the AV1)?
How much would it cost ?

Either that or i'll end up going to Richer, perish the thought.

naheed...

Posted on: 04 October 2000 by Martin Payne
Naheed,

Paul Stephenson said a good while ago on the old conference that an AV-2 was in the pipeline and would do much more in the way of supporting the major new digital formats.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 05 October 2000 by Naheed
Thanks Martin...

On another note how is the cds2 demo going ...

IS it doing IT for YOU or not ???

naheed...

Posted on: 05 October 2000 by Greg Beatty
Oddly, 'The Simpsons' has quite a soundtrack to it. Lots of ambient stuff going on and I find the show more engaging when I hear this stuff. I prefer hearing The Simpsons through my Naim system than through the TV speakers.

My system at present is a 2-speaker setup. I had a four-speaker surround thingie a while back. The whole image is in front of you and sounds coming from the sides etc. was odd and would happen so rarely that it was distracting. It was also harder to just get into whatever was on. But the extra detail, ambiance, and sense of space is nice and I get this in a non-distracting way with the two speaker setup.

It's great when Bart and Homer run off-screen right and my system lets us hear them running out of the living room

- GregB
Wondering how much FCP's (Forum Credibility Points) he's lost for watching The Simpsons

Posted on: 05 October 2000 by Pete, Mad Bad and Dangerous to Know
Hi,

I don't think any one should lose any FCP's its one of the best shows on the box. Its got some of the best lines like the one said by Fat Tonys side kick about Troy McClure (who is romantically attached to marine life)
"I thought you said he was dead"
Fat Tony "No, I said he sleeps with the fishes".

pete

Posted on: 05 October 2000 by Kevin Hughes
quote:
- GregB
Wondering how much FCP's (Forum Credibility Points) he's lost for watching The Simpsons

Greg,

You lose all your FEPs if you don't watch the Simpsons in my book. The Simpsons is so good that not owning a TV is not even a good excuse for not watching it, I mean name me some other TV shows imortalised in Arab Strap songs?

Kevin.

[This message was edited by Kevin Hughes on THURSDAY 05 October 2000 at 16:15.]

Posted on: 05 October 2000 by Greg Beatty
Thanx for the support guys.

:::snif:::

- Greg "Why You Little..." B

Posted on: 05 October 2000 by Martin Payne
Naheed,

thanks for your interest. The CDS-II dem has been converted to another few thousand pounds on the credit card. Unfortunately, this is just at the same time as the shares I was going to sell have dropped about 20% of their value. Arrgh!!

David Hughes is currently helping the run-in process along.

The CDS-II/CDPS does some things which are so far beyond the wildest ambitions of the CDX that I was quite taken aback.

After exactly seven days running in it's still sounding rather laid back, but I know this will go away after about four or five weeks. The Hammersmith show also proved to me that the CDS-II doesn't have the full sound that I've heard in another system (when compared to CDX/XPS). This was a concern to me as I have a bit of a problem with bass in my room anyway.

cheers, Martin