I would add : ā¦ā¦what they think sounds best for the costs involved.
So I think some tweaking, or optimisation, with of course adding a cost, can improve the sound, even the Naim intended sound.
Given that Naim products generally donāt appear to be built to a specific market cost, and given their stated dedication to achieving the sound they believe in, that limitation would only seem likely to apply to their lower grade products and demos thereof.
Agree with the Naim Fraim even if it bends the question rules slightly having had two Fraims for three months. I was really suprised at how much an improvement could be gained from a carefully set up of bits of wood, glass and metal cups etc. Not the cheapest upgrade looking at the parts invoved but for any doubters: go for it.
Not necessarily. For instance the Fraim : they choosed glass shelves because it sounded the best for the cost. However they observed that steel or aluminium shelves would sound better, but the rack would cost much more.
Solstice turntable : the design of the phono and choice of cartridge is to be inside < 20 k euros budget. If not they would add an improved Superline / Supercap.
I think itās important to clarify that the best sounding material tested was the special alloy plates - these were made perfectly flat (flatter even than glass) and were similar to the special interface plates used on the SL2 speakers. They were difficult to make in quantity and very, very expensive. The Pilkington glass eventually chosen was close though; close enough to be chosen as these were not only far easier to make but also much less expensive.
Youād probably want to avoid steel shelves.
Indeed, and this a where a one layer of tin foil can work as a shim under the CD555 foot on a very slightly uneven glass shelf. Now where is my duster when I need it ATB Peter
I suspect the gap may be more to do with foot thickness tolerance than that amount of variability in glass flatnessā¦. I do often wonder why manufacturers donāt use 3 feet instead of 4, for absolute stability.
(Tin or aluminium foil? I guess latter!)
Peter, much better to use the proper Naim shims on the metal feet. All the metal footed kit was shimmed level on one the special alloy plates before being packed. Of course, re-shimming by the dealer was often necessary when delivered to a customer. As the metal feet have no give or tolerance, ensuring thereās absolutely no rocking at all between the four feet makes a BIG difference to overall performance.
IB, itās because when Naim tried three feet against four, four sounded better.
That canāt be dust Peter. Surely itās vibratory mass damping for the glass shelf???
I use it too, extensively
Best regards, BF
Yes i guess anything would sound acceptable after that
Makes perfect sense
Are you implying that a 552 on 3 feet sounded perfectly cushty but on 4 feet was lovely jubbly?
Hi Richard, are the shims you mention readily available to buy and what size/thickness are the please. I have used the same principle with folded alu foil under one leg on each of my Facts outriggers to stabilise them on my Townsend podiums. Admittedly the beauty of aluminium foil is that you can fold it to not be visible ( at least under the speakers).
I sense an urge growing to address the messy looking tweak under the CD555, nothing to do with OCD of courseā¦.much! Best Peter
Back in my day, they were supplied to dealers gratis. Iād guess itās still the same, but not sure as itās been a long time since I was at Naim. The aluminium shims are round with a hole and wafer thin. Best to ask your dealer for a few.
One personās tweakā¦
I just bit the bullet, made a change, and dramatically improved SQ. I didnāt buy inch-thick speaker cables or an arcane power supply or anything complicated. Instead, I finally admitted that the character and history attached to some of my favourite LPs didnāt make up for the vinyl being knackered from much use and a fair amount of abuse over 30 or 40 years.
Sensibly chosen new copies of Red, Scary Monsters, Hejira and the like are unreasonably expensive of course, but replacing my 30 most-worn LPs has cost a lot less than (say) a second-hand Lingo 4. While the latter is indeed audibly better than a Lingo 1, removing all the crackles and clicks with new vinyl made a much bigger difference to enjoyment, without any of the different compromises that streaming off the NDX2 brings, and not just because the extra quietness encourages me to turn it up a bit.
I am not sure whether this counts as a tweak or an upgrade, and it will be irrelevant to dedicated digital-ists, but upgrading vinyl should not be forgotten when trying to improve the experience - I ignored it for too long, and I suspect I am not the only one.
Isnāt there an argument that it should just work and in this day and age do you think people really want to swinging their burndies etc.
To answer the question I will tweak if itās free i.e. try to run leads as recommended anything else is an upgrade
Sounds totally reasonable to me. I have bought better condition copies of some favourite albums and donāt regret it at all.
I do however sometimes break out my worn copies, the particular sound of the patina brings back memories. I love streaming for how it has broadened my musical horizons. But sometimes that hit of past memories is fab too 8)
To the Nth degree.
Where N is an unknown quantity!