Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 15:47:09 GMT
I must say I also thought the Nait 3 was embarrassingly bad. Comparing it directly with a 42/160 was one of the most shocking experiences of my hifi life. What I don't get is how it could be so far removed sonically from Naits 1 and 2. I'd have expected the same circuit in a new case.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Feb 11, 2018 16:29:39 GMT
Hmm I seem to be a minority  |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Feb 11, 2018 17:01:21 GMT
Oh yes - absolutely (beat a Nait 3 with a cheap far eastern amp today) and yes, you are in somewhat of a minority here - sure it ain't rose tinted specs coming to the fore? Modern Cambridge Audio amps (UK designed I believe) are no slouches at all at the very bottom end, you can get a half decent basic Marantz from Richer for under three hundred quid and of course, the Harbeth-'favourite' Yamaha 701 is very powerful and specs out well (appreciating the fact I haven't 'heard' one into real loudspeakers).
Modesty prevents me from banging on about the cheap NVA pre-power amp I have a lot to do with, but on a 'musical' level and bearing in mind its benign character when pushed too hard (it gets a bit breathless), it annihilates ANY Naim of any age and its lower output impedance won't mess with a speaker's response either...
(The Rega Clamshell Mira was made in Essex and the Myryad integrated I refer to was all British too).
P.S. I read somewhere that Naim hobbled their basic preamps, but the tiny mains supply having to work hard powering a preamp as well as the power amp must have played a part - the previous Nait 2 sounded more muscular I remember as well as airless but the cheeky Nait mk1 was a glorious soft-clipper...
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Feb 11, 2018 17:35:44 GMT
This is in the bedroom and doesn't have critical listening although I confess to wondering about the sound on occasion.
Tested against an Arcam Alpha I think, Nait 2 and seemed better to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by karatestu on Feb 11, 2018 18:01:12 GMT
I remember my nait3 stayed with me for 2 years and was quickly swopped for nac72 and nap140 as soon as i had the funds. Thing is i dont remember it being hopeless but was easily beaten by the 72 and 140. The nac112 i auditioned was clearly very bad, easily worse than the nait3.
I then embarked on a modifying frenzy and none of my naim amps or power supplies are in use today. I have reused the transformers but everything else is in bits in my cupboard. One day i may get round to selling them.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Feb 11, 2018 18:17:23 GMT
Cheap Taiwanese mech that lasted a matter of months. No spares at MF and none available elsewhere A 3k plus player that was only useful as a door stop. That sounds like the Krell SACD player, almost all of which are now expensive door stops due to the unobtainium drive mech which fails. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 18:36:51 GMT
Hmm I seem to be a minority I guess we are all in minorities at times with hifi but it doesn't anyone any of us "wrong". I've sometimes wondered what Naim heard in the Nait 3 that made them release it as a replacement for the Nait 2. I'm far more familiar with Nait 1 which I liked, but found to be best in small doses. Maybe in some pairings the Nait 3 sang. I recall trying it with both Kans and Elas and it really lacked clarity and bass. It also lacked the great sense of timing I like in Naim amps. Sources were Naim CD and LP12/Ittok as I recall. Edit, I always assumed Nait 3 was a cost cutting exercise because it appeared so much less for the money than the Nait 2. The NAP90 and subsequent 90/3 were also crap and far less impressively built than the 110 they replaced. IMO of course. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2018 20:02:59 GMT
Ummm - Strathearn turntables.... the choice of 'direct drive' motor was a disaster as it was never intended for constant 33 or 45 drive, the structures were very flimsy and the firm was a money pit I seem to remember. They did make a speaker for a short while with a planar mid-hf and cone bass and all that was needed was some serious work on the bass integration as the mid and top were sublime amongst its peers. I think the company was euthanized before the concept could be developed further... The Planar driver was licenced to Infinity by the liquidators and became the EMIT Tweeter, it was a superb unit. To be fair to the design consultants, the National Research and Development Council or NRDC, a Quango overseeing the technical aspects insisted that the motor developed for the toy roundabout would work. It was despite being circular, a linear motor and they were a buzz word at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Feb 12, 2018 9:48:40 GMT
If Linn had used that motor, they'd have cobbled it to work I'm sure and for loads more money selling-price. Ivor once told me that in a different time and place, the LP12 platter would have been direct driven...
Thanks for the info on the Emit tweeter, I didn't know that and thought the design was buries with the company.
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Feb 12, 2018 11:26:20 GMT
I heard that Linn wanted the Panasonic motor and either they refused or it was too expensive.
It was only afterwards that they tried to spin that belt drive is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by dsjr on Feb 12, 2018 14:21:03 GMT
Hmm I seem to be a minority I've sometimes wondered what Naim heard in the Nait 3 that made them release it as a replacement for the Nait 2. I'm far more familiar with Nait 1 which I liked, but found to be best in small doses. Maybe in some pairings the Nait 3 sang. Edit, I always assumed Nait 3 was a cost cutting exercise because it appeared so much less for the money than the Nait 2. The NAP90 and subsequent 90/3 were also crap and far less impressively built than the 110 they replaced. IMO of course. I honestly believe that Naim were all to do with making money first and foremost. It was just luck that they got themselves hitched to Linn in the mid 70's - and those with long enough memories will hopefully remember the original bolt-up Naim amps with affection as I do. The Nait 3 looks good and has neat relay switching. To me in comparison with its peers, it just sounds limp-wristed like a Quad 34/306, but without the added 'fog' the 34 introduced. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 15:00:19 GMT
 I've sometimes wondered what Naim heard in the Nait 3 that made them release it as a replacement for the Nait 2. I'm far more familiar with Nait 1 which I liked, but found to be best in small doses. Maybe in some pairings the Nait 3 sang. Edit, I always assumed Nait 3 was a cost cutting exercise because it appeared so much less for the money than the Nait 2. The NAP90 and subsequent 90/3 were also crap and far less impressively built than the 110 they replaced. IMO of course. I honestly believe that Naim were all to do with making money first and foremost. It was just luck that they got themselves hitched to Linn in the mid 70's - and those with long enough memories will hopefully remember the original bolt-up Naim amps with affection as I do. The Nait 3 looks good and has neat relay switching. To me in comparison with its peers, it just sounds limp-wristed like a Quad 34/306, but without the added 'fog' the 34 introduced. Limp wristed! I can't argue though. It had a veiled sound and a real lack of clout compared to proper Naim IMO. Not unpleasant but not what I'd expected of a Naim. I really did like Naim when JV ran the company. Things like the IBL, SBL and Aro were products that he pursued with love IMO. From the late 80s they seemed to lose their way a little and after JV passed, I've seen little to make me think they care about much other than cashing in. I do still,like their CD players though. I'd agree that bolt down 160s and 250s are lovely things when re-capped. Not the most revealing sonically but they are so rich musically, you don't care.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Feb 12, 2018 21:32:57 GMT
Acoustic Research XB77 with the "Fish Tail" Headshell. Even those on the production line making it, couldn't see the merit in it, compared to the original box version.
It's an underated arm. People look at it and think: Can't be much good. It's let down by the lack of bias adjustment (which doesn't really seem to have been an issue for countless users), it's use of single strand enamel wiring, and the adoption of a particular headshell assembly.
Fit a standard headshell connector, rewire it and fit a rigid aluminium/magnesium headshell, and I think you'd be quite surprised with the improvement.
A company seems to be making a copy of the original headshell. I don't really see the point when it's continuing with a weak point of the arm.
|
|
