My nap 140 is currently in my rack. And by far the cheapest item there. But you’d not know it. OK, so it has a 72/HC helping, but still. Unless you crank it up, it handles everything thrown at it.
I agree, except for not publishing any. Naim publish some basics, I can live with that. Not publishing any, as prevalent with cable manufacturers, I shun. But yeah, publishing all or a few, both will hurt somewhat.
This thread recalls the old story of Rolls-Royce never publishing the horsepower of their engines. The only thing they would say is that it was “sufficient.”
1 Like
Audio Science Review publish in-depth measurements on DACS of all shapes and sizes and though many of those measurements are not audible, 9 times out of 10 they do seem to equate to good or bad sound.
Of course there are electronics as mentioned by Thomas that measure badly and are coloured on purpose and sound good because of it.
I buy 90% of my gear used without a demo so measurements and reviews are an important part of my buying process and in my experience good measurements or specs do equal good sound.
But if one believes ASR has all the answers and that products measured/tested by ASR which measure well, must sound good, is that not expectation bias? Or Placebo?
My comment was not directed directly to you @Bobthebuilder just an observation. In the Norwegian forum I frequent ASR is used as the absolute truth by many.
I would never buy or do anything else on just one person’s say so ASR is just a part of my buying process and only regarding Dacs but I must say the SMSL SU-9 and SU-8 they recommend so highly are both excellent.
Of course the final choice is always made by the individual’s own taste because like everything we all have different taste in hifi.
My experience is that Hi fi equipment needs to measure well to sound good.
But not every piece of equipment that measures well will sound good.
Actually it was top speed they said was sufficient… not horse power…
The early Rolls Royce cars had the horsepower in the model type… like the Rolls-Royce 10 hp. … but changed their naming structure in the 30s.
I think the new Rolls-Royce Ghost is electronically limited to 155 mph, but it gets there in a leisurely 4.8 seconds 
Okay. But what specific measurements? And can they be reliably interpreted? I know for a fact that the aforementioned site is not at all fond of how any Nait measures, past or present, and have gone into detail about low quality noisy (not mechanically noisy) transformers used in Naits.
I get what you are saying. But to me, specs being irrelevant isn’t so much that they truly are irrelevant. It is that there are a lot more specs and measurements than people realise and evaluating them reliably via some type of metric is flawed. After all:
- What about the things you didn’t measure?
- How do you reliably put them together to come up with a poor, average, good, excellent evaluation of anything? The weighting criteria is subject to opinion.
To me, the mentioned publication falls smack into that category of “just enough knowledge to be dangerous”. While I don’t doubt their measurements, I have no trust whatsoever in their ability to reliably apply and interpret them in a product review.
Specs, I find, are very useful for determining component compatibility. And that’s about it. I don’t expect them to tell me anything about system synergy or overall quality.
It is at least widely believed that they said it about hp and that’s what I also always read. E.g., Wikipedia,
One major improvement over the Silver Ghost was the new pushrod straight-6 engine. Constructed as two groups of three cylinders with a single detachable head, the engine was described by Rolls-Royce as producing “sufficient” power.
The source given for this is Posthumus, Cyril, The Story of Veteran & Vintage Cars. And Posthumus was a respected writer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Posthumus)
1 Like
Agree that a lot of things that influences sound quality can not be objectively measured. However some can, eg channel balance, signal to noise, distortion, actual power output vs spec, etc
The relevance of specs to SQ has been well debated above so I wont go over that ground.
Naim, from the very earliest days, took the view that the only thing that mattered when buying hifi was sound quality, with some attention to aesthetics. They therefore invested in developing a network of enlightened dealers who could demonstrate how Naim gear stood out on SQ grounds.
This of course is trickier to do overseas, and Naim have had to rely more on international reviews and old fashioned ‘reputation’ in those countries that were not willing or able to demonstrate their kit. Naim have presumably written off other countries where the buying public are totally fixated on evaluating gear in terms of relative specs (e.g. Japan apparently), as Naim know they will never win the ‘battle of the (mostly meaningless) specs’ in these territories.
I would therefore suggest that when it comes down to the marketing strategies of ‘battle of sound quality’ vs ‘battle of the specs’, Naim have come down firmly in the former camp. It is not even a marketing strategy, it is a commercial strategy devised by JV in the very early days, and taken to new heights by Naim today.
This strategy does not however translate to the more mass market/lifestyle end of the market, and Naim have had to, quite rightly, change their marketing approach for MuSo, and to some extent, for Uniti. They appear to have done this rather successfully with a large number on international rave reviews and merchandising in mainstream hifi stores and upmarket department stores.
The strategy with the MuSo and Uniti product lines is to introduce the inexperienced (possibly sceptical) listener to quality music in the home at affordable (for many) prices. Having then gained their trust in Naim to deliver great SQ, without the need to quote a bunch of specs, this new breed of listener becomes curious about how much more is possible in the home in terms of SQ (sound per pound if you like).
And who would these new customers turn to? The brand they have come to trust of course.
3 Likes
Very interesting thoughts and analysis of Naim’s selling strategy, especially regarding the MuSo and Uniti product lines.
Lifestyle products and entry level HiFi could well help Naim break into the Asian market, or any other market with specs oriented buying behaviours.
That’s a cunning plan.
BUT. Producing a wireless speaker with obsolete WiFi technology was not so cunning. 
1 Like
Indeed.
[quote=“Fatcat, post:34, topic:14624”]
That’s a cunning plan.
Indeed it was in recognition of its ageing and dwindling demographic of its traditional market… Naim have or did have a good product marketing strategy presentation on addressing exactly this… and I understand there is now clear data it has met with some success.
In an ideal hifi world I would audition every piece of kit before purchase. And of course to do properly that would be done comparing with every other piece of kit on the market… in reality that is absolutely impossible, even before considering that it should be done in my own room and blind.
So, there has to be a way of sifting through to at least find a shortlist, and for me at least specifications are a part of that, though in part it varies according to what it is: for speakers I probably look at specs and measurements first, while for a DAC I haven’t at all. Considering this widely, options that come to mind are as follows, numbered for convenience not indicating any hierarchy:
-
Dealer recommendations: find one and trust their advice.Need to be sure of course that the dealer expects the same from music replay as I do, or at least that they go to some lengths to understand my preferences and expectations before recommending - so first of all ‘audition’ possible dealers. If there are no dealers within reasonable travelling distance that needs to be done remotely, which is rather more difficult. And of course the range from which recommendations will be made depends on the products the dealer knows and stocks, so filtered by whatever criteria applied in ending up with their current relationships, which might not all be to do with sound quality…
-
Price. I suspect we all do this to some extent, in setting a budget, and assuming that the best will be grouped close to the top of our budget. …but it is not necessarily true, as there can be things way overpriced for what they are, and other things remarkably cheap offering sound quality better than more expensive kit.
-
Hifi shows etc. Products found this way are filtered by the brands that choose to exhibit, and their choices of product to promote, while limited by often far from desirable replay conditions.
-
Hifi published media reviews. Over time this can cover a fair range of products, though as with the ‘trust a dealer’ approach it is necessary to get to understand individual reviewers’ expectations and preferences for music replay, and their style and consistency of reviewing. It can be helpful if they have reviewed a range of gear with which one is familiar, with conclusions in line with one’s own, and comparative reviews may be particularly helpful. However, also relevant, but not necessarily evident, is whether there is a risk that they may be biased by their source of funding for the reviews.
-
Internet forums and discussion groups: These may be of the predominantly partisan type centred on a given manufacturer, or apparently fully independant, though with the latter they may be driven by a hard core of people with a particular common view on what hifi ‘should’ be, with others tending not to get involved as much so that view may prevail. Aside from the partisan type where there is likely to be an inherent bias by at least some contributors, these can be a source of the most independent descriptions of experiences and ‘reviews’, though as with media reviews it helps to get a feel for different people’s expectations and preferences for how they like their music replay systems because there can be huge differences between individuals.
-
Manufacturers’ claims and descriptions. Useful in comparing their own products, and in that an item is unlikely to sound better than they suggest …but whilst there are legal constraints on manufacturers to not make false trade descriptions, at least in some countries, exaggeration, marketing-speak/hype and maximum bending of description in their favour are the order of the day, some manufacturers more so than others. Good for learning about features.
-
Manufacturers’ declared specifications and measurements. Whilst these shouldn’t be false, it must be borne in mind that unless they clarify they might be measured under the most favourable conditions, but nevertheless give some indication of possible strengths or limitations, though not inevitably telling how it will perform in a given system or how it will sound to an individual person.
-
Independent measurements and specifications. These can be more useful than those published by manufacturers, though a lot depends on the competence and appropriateness of the measurement process and how the results are presented (e.g. degree of smoothing), which should all be clear for the measurements to have a chance of being meaningful. Some published measurements are performed by amateurs with limited equipment - that doesn’t necessarily render them invalid, but limitations need to be clear, while they can be very useful for comparative assessment pruposes where a series of different models of product have been tested in the same way.
People’s approaches to shortlisting and choosing inevitable depends on a variety of person factors including where they live. E.g. I have no nearby dealer and it is a major undertaking and cost to go to one. I therefore go a lot on measurements where possible, otherwise specifications, plus whatever review sources I can find, in the latter case seeking as many as I can find, and preferring direct comparative reviews hopefully against something with which I have some familiarity. For things where I feel an audition is essential to avoid risk of major disappointment, notably speakers, I draw up a shortlist from the reviews and measurements/specs, and others’ reported opinions where I have reason to have some confidence in their views, and then seek out a dealer or dealers (or private sellers) where I can audition. My 50 years of buying hifi has been based on this approach, buying the vast majority of components without the opportunity to hear first, and only once been disappointed (as described recently in the longest and shortest time thread).
3 Likes
I bet that, if I could be bothered to collect the numbers, those of us with belt drive TTs far outnumber those of us with direct drive TTs. Now, most of us, I would guess, would chose a TT based on audition. …and the point is this…belt drive TTs measure poorly compared to direct drives.
I pay little (actually, no) attention to specifications, other than dimensions.
1 Like
I have no understanding of the numbers given by specs, and even less of an interest in them. I am just not that technical. I do like how my system sounds even if someone else thinks it’s hopeless. That’s good enough for me.
I do remember the Linn banana advert above, sums up my view really.