The Naits compared

I wouldn't dispute your findings, as i have always thought the original 5i more fun and engaging than the XS, and the XS much more fun than the Supernait. The Nait 2 for my money beats the 5i, and therefore them all, so long as it's paired with a reasonably easy to drive speaker.

Brilliant, Jan !

No real feedback, as I've not had the chance to listen to any of these amps, but I think it's a smart and simple way to summarize visually what has been said numerous times on the forum about the different ranges. Could be very useful for newbies (before they go for a proper audition).

And I like your choice of criteria !

PS: Happy New Year !

I like your five measures Jan-Erik. For me the fourth is the mark of a good amplifier.

Thanks gents.

Gary, I've never heard the Nait 2 ; I started at the Nait 3 (fun but rough) then went to the original Nait 5, which I still have. I would love to pit the Ion Obelisk 2 against the Nait 2, but I don't know anyone nearby who has that Nait.

Maurice, thanks, and Robert Gordon (muni de sa "banane") is waiting for you over in the music room.

Mark, as for listening softly, yes, it's a major criterion for me too. The Obelisk 2 ( and its Heed descendents) are masters at this. Still, I'm really looking forward to going back to the SN2 once the review of the 5si is over.

What I've found fascinating over the course of the reviews is how the "immediate involvement with the music" trades off with "depth of insight" as one moves up the range. I wonder if this is deliberately engineered in or simply the result of the engineering decisions that lead to more "depth of insight"?

Meanwhile, to everyone, a happy new year, which I'm sure will yield a few interesting surprises from our formerly green elves in Salisbury.

Jan

Jan-Eric,  i too like your well considered criteria, and also the graphical depiction.  It must be a challenge, however, to assign a quantitative assessment of these Criteria.

I have not yet heard the new Naits, so cannot contribute other than to say your assessment is in keeping with my expectations.  But that counts for little.

Cheers,

Charlie

Good call Jan. The "depth of insight" you gain with the SN2 seems to come  with a certain loss of immediacy that I hear with the two lower priced models. IMO. What I hear with  the SN2 is that everything is set further back . Images are spread out and given equal measure and kind of diluted. With the lower priced models,  with a Jazz quartet for instance.... a   Sax  soloist  is right up front, rich and palpable with the rhythm  set behind it.   There is definitely a trade off. Still haven't decided which presentation works best for me.  Did you actually purchase the SN2 Jan ?

Thanks Charlie. I think of the numbers more as visual aids in setting the distance from the reference, for each criterion. I find it's a two-step process : once in the spreadsheet then adjustment after seeing them graphically. In fact, the numbers could be removed from the graph with no loss of information.

Hi Drew, Yes, I found that there was a trade-off between immediacy and depth of insight. With the SN2, the immediacy is there though if you wick up the volume. I bought the SN2... after lengthy dithering... (the XS2 came close). In the end, I went for depth. I need it for all the obscure CDs my cousin keeps sending me from Norway ( the latest is The Norwegian Wind Ensemble's The Brass From Utopia - A Frank Zappa Tribute.... )

Anyway, if I had started the review series with the 5si, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. An incredible amount of musical talent in a very unassuming package.

Jan

Sounds like an interesting recording. Really appreciate your insight Jan.When will your review of the the 3 Naits be available to read ? I wish I could speak French . Are you using the Naim Nac 5 speaker cable Jan ? So far I haven't been able to hear why this cable is so beloved amongst Naimophiles ??? Best, Drew

Hi Drew,

The essence of the SN2 review can be found here (about a third of the way down the page) :

  https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...-perspective?page=11

The XS2 review is just out in electronic format, and later this week in printed version. I'll translate the listening section and post it here.

The 5si review is not completed yet, but it's almost writing itself!

I use BIS Audio Vivat speaker cables.

Jan

Brilliant graphic with a wonderful choice of criteria!

The SN2 "wins" 4/6 categories.

-Point 1 needs additional explanation. One can assume that with the SN2 one becomes involved but at a slower rate.  This needs additional explanation. Is this on a per-session basis? Are we talking minutes? Hours? And does this all change based upon burn-in?

-Point 4 sounds more technical. I am disappointed in this. But on the other side of the coin Point 5 is also important to me when I want to give it the juice. I want both.

Which of the 3 is best for classic rock? Indie rock? Trance?

I will have the chance to audition the XS2 and SN2 directly in the next few weeks. I just don't think the 5si has the power to do my Focus 160s justice.

Looking forward to your final conclusions!

Thanks for all your hard work!

BTW, what is your source for all this? CD? DAC?

Point 1 suggests that the more sophisticated the sound, the more of an otic adjustment required to "learn" the sound signature. Maybe due to the rarity of hearing reproduction at that quality. I'm always amazed that my $200 car stereo rolling down the highway at 70 mph can get me as involved with the music as any Naim gear, just at a different level.

I like the graphic comparison. Quantitative measures would make it simple for you to calculate a VFM factor based on the MSRP. Who would the winner be then? Probably not the SN. The 5 and XS would be close to each other.

Randy, great points.

I could submit on the VFM point that we probably do not each value each characteristic the same.  Thus simply dividing the area of each polygon by the cost of the unit might not yield a 'value per square inch' that is the same for each of us. 

It's a topic I'm sometimes interested in -- the use of quantitative values to express what is ultimately qualitative.  I get that at work all the time.  "What's the chance we will win that lawsuit?"  People want a number, and of course I give them one.  This does NOT detract from Jan-Eric's excellent quantitative and qualitative assessments; bravo, J-E! Brilliant!

UnitiServe (+ linear PS) > DC1 > Naim DAC + TXPS > AR Sound Lunar DIN-DIN (or HiLine)

Interesting. Many times I preferred "lesser" amps to the more powerful or more expansive ones, just never gave it much thought why and what exactly.

I am wondering where would UnitiLite stand on your graph?

It's still just somebodies opinion. Presenting it as a graph does not make it any more or less valid.

Agreed, it's a sample size of one. We could validate it with a large enough sample (e.g.,10, depending on variability) for each comparison. A mean value and confidence interval would tell us where the average opinion lies and how much spread there is for each criterion.

This could be run as a poll and would require listeners who have extended experience with two or more of the units.

On the other hand, one person's opinion can be useful if your experience coincides enough with that of the reviewer. In my case, Art Dudley comes to mind. I find his thoughts on musical reproduction align fairly well with what I'm looking for.

Very interesting, Jan, thanks.

Having owned the Nait, the Nait5, the 5i, the Nait XS and the Supernait I feel stimulated to gather my impressions and post them if of any interest.

Coming back,

Max

Jan, nice write-up, and I enjoyed the graph-reminds me of a sticky spider web, in which all this audio comparison business sure can be at times! Tim

That would be very useful Max.

("Coming back"... from where ?)

Jan,

The more I think about your criteria, the more useful they appear to me.   I think you have the makings for a most useful discussion - perhaps you should devote an article to it (your assessment criteria)?  

I would like to acquire more insight into what design, construction and setup variables affect performance in each of these criteria.  I suspect people at Naim have a good handle on this.  I would also like to know whether some recordings would distinguish or favor performance in certain of these criteria.  

In particular, I have been thinking about 1 vs 2:  Immediate Involvement vs Insight.  

• I have just recently been assessing digital playback mechanisms, with observations that are well served by (1) and (2).  Playing with iTunes through optical out to DAC surprised me as being "fun" on a few music tracks (can't remember which!); but streaming to Qute, coax to DAC is clearly more coherent and insightful.  The iTunes approach is splashier and sources wander about - it almost sounds a bit "louder" if you associate distortion with "loud."  Is this the "excitement?"
• I think my (non-audiophile) casual listener friends (of course, not forum members) can be hooked by (1), especially in rapid A/B comparisons. 

The most puzzling to me is (4), Play Softly with Interest.  My first reaction is that should be mostly applied to speakers, not so much for electronics.  But assuming good speakers, could it be the "excitement" of distortion makes the lower priced gear sound "louder" at lower levels?  I suspect there is only certain music where this effect would be perceived favorably?

I use the word "distortion" loosely here.  It comes in many forms.  Large signal issues may effect only (5), but micro vibration, thermal variation and supply regulation contribute "distortion" at lower signal levels.

Again, thanks for this thread!

Charlie

Hey ! What are you doing here !?   Happy New Year then !

PS: I owe you a mail.