I have tried the preamp free ‘less-is-more’ approach more than a few times, and in each case, the sound was dramatically better with the preamp in place…even though there is the extra chain of input/output terminals, interconnects, electronics and a volume pot. I think the original review of the 552 in Sterophile even mentioned that the sound was always better when the 552 was in the signal chain.
When I had a very high-spec phono stage on loan, I ripped a lot of my albums into a CD-Burner. Going straight from the phono-stage to the CD-burner gave a flatter, duller result than using the tape-out buffers in the 552.
As an experiment I even tried tapping the signal from the 552-PS using a DIN4-RCA cable that routed the signal to the CD-Burner instead of sending it to the power amp (the 552PS outputs are stereo…so I could still monitor what was being recorded by the one active speaker). I could even control the input levels to the CD-Burner with the volume control too instead of relying on the input sensitivity knob on the Burner. This I felt gave the best rips even though it was the least pure in terms of many added links in the signal path.
This is what i actually know i am leaving out what i dont know which is considerable!
I would never use a Naim Amp with a non Naim Pre Amp as it is next to impossible to
get a equal result. This is not just simply a question of gain.
Going back through other equipment in various years the idea of removing a Pre Amp
from the chain entirely just seemed to have obvious and logical benefits but no matter
how well the passive volume unit was constructed Silver wire minimum direct wiring etc.
These gains were never achieved one way to describe it from memory was that the sound
was weaker. There was also (out side my scope) the factor of the Amp seeing a varying
resistance from the volume pot if that is the right way to put it.
There’s others including @frenchrooster who have successfully used a non-Naim pre. He has written lots of thoughts on why this works on the Forum. Of course it’s all subjective, but having used. Bryston pre with a Naim power with great success I don’t recognise what you’re saying at all.
Lots of “folklore” on this thread. Naim DR power amp have been professionally reviewed with non Naim preamp and found to be great …. The reviews can be downloaded from Naim website …
I’m sure a reasonably good partner outside of Naim can be found, but there’s no guarantee, and if you match up with a very wide bandwidth pre you may get problems. No folklore.
This is absolutely correct for Naim power amps, and for good well understood reasons known to any engineer who is familiar with the typical design of audio power amps.
To work to their best in the no preamp configuration, power amps have to be specifically designed for this use (as I found when designing such a system). Naim power amps are designed for use with a preamp that implements the necessary system wide pass band limitation.
It should also be noted that if a power amp is designed for a no preamp system configuration and it is then used with a preamp that includes the band limitation, then the resulting system is likely to sound a little ‘dull’. The choice of where to put the band limitation is an engineering decision - there is no single right answer. However having no band limitation or having it is two places is unlikely to work well.
Julian chose to use the preamp as that suited his designs best.
I read a few reviews about the 300 with and without 252 as well as 282 in German mags, that are not on the Naim website, and they wrote that while the 300 was a very good power amp when they tried it with other pres, it became spectacular together with Naim pres
Perhaps Naim could do a small single-source (1 input) preamp for the use with a streamer. Or an LP12. With a few 555DR regulators in the box.
But would there be a market? Lejonklou discontinued the Kikkin which was basically just that.
The thing is that the streamer/DAC is mostly a digital product. It is not optimal to have analog circuits inside and isolation is expensive, Digital volume controls are not optimal that late in the chain. And so on.
So having an isolated all-analog preamp box is optimal.
Sondex (Radford) used to make the PA30 which was specifically designed to work with a passive preamp. Just one example I know of. Reason I know this one is that I have one.
Thats fine JJL my response is biased to earlier Naim equipment and for that i standby it.
Obviously if newer equipment is less reliant on synergy and i am sure that is what most
people own things move on
I have some issue with those that Subscribe. I subscribe to a made up fact of my own
that “Infinity does not matter” but don’t ask me to back it up!
Many Technical arguments are put forward as Fact on the basis of Subscribing without
audio testing carried out. People then get quite upset if you fail to accept such subscription
being that it is Fool proof.
So i ask JJL is your subscription based on hands on testing of your conclusions?
This has long been suggested. However, it doesn’t save much money and limits your market (which can sometimes actually increase your costs, making the unit more expensive) - not much use for anyone needing two or more inputs.
Unfortunately I’m not party to the internal design principles of any audio manufacturers.
I (think) could, however, (still) provide the circuit diagram for one non-commercial example… unfortunately some of the devices needed to build it are no longer available (it was designed in the '80s).
