Polling views/intent on downsizing or not

Sorry, I don’t see the problem. All of what you write is indeed the case, but I have also an opinion on driving satisfaction with each one

You don’t appear to see the problem with the way the question is asked. To use the cars and bikes analogy, this is the question:

“You currently have a car, would you downsize to a bike if it had the same quality?”

It’s non sequitur, a question that cannot be answered.

I don’t think this is a comparable example because the question is not “you currently have an 8-box system, would you downsize to a kitchen radio if it had the same quality”.

It is more like “…, would you downsize to a fewer-box system if it had the same/better quality”. Which is not impossible.

If “sound quality” is not defined but means something different to everyone, then asking about it in a poll says very little since you are not comparing the same things.

I don’ see it that way because I don’t think objectivity is necessary here. “would you only downsize if the resulting SQ is subjectively equally satisfactory” is a valid question.

I just talked to a mate who downsized from a very high-level Naim system to a simpler and older one. It’s objectively less accurate, transparent, etc., but he likes listening to music with it more.

That’s exactly my point…

So I still don’ get why asking on the basis on this criteria should make the question impossible to answer

Because this:

When talking about your friend, which of the two systems has “better sound quality”?

Is it important? I would think he would probably answer “I downsized only because the resulting sound is equally or more satisfying to me”, rather than “I downsized despite it sounding worse”. But in either case, it can be answered. It’s not a scientific study about whether the smaller systems objectively are no worse, but a poll about how people subjectively feel about it

Switched to a fewer box system , with smaller speakers.

The system has moved sideways , the P3ESR give an extra delicacy but lose the oomph.

I would say that downsizing is not always retrograde . I am not unhappy - content .

1 Like

Yes it’s important because everyone would downsize if they found the smaller system subjectively better sounding. Nobody keeps large stacks of boxes just because they like having a lot of boxes, even if they sound less satisfying than a smaller system.

So the really interesting question is:

"Would you be prepared to give something up when downsizing your system?

And if so what?"

That question is much too complex to reduce to “sound quality” as an umbrella term.

2 Likes

Yes, the loss of complexity for most could be offset by a lack of authority whilst driving speakers .

Perhaps removing masses of boxes is matched by installing ‘‘easier’’ speakers?

Staying very happily where I am with 6 boxes including the CD…until and if I ever make the leap to NAP300. In which case, could stay at 6 by losing the SC2…gulp…but am assured by comments that Aux2 sounds darn good powering SuperLine.

Ergo: stick!

But this is only true if there were one objective measurement of better. There is not, as I intended to demonstrate in the mate’s example. I guess I understand the question as “would you downsize only if it does not diminish listening enjoyment” rather than an objective quality that does not exist anyway

The return towards a separates system was not planned and is rather unexpected. However, having started the journey back I am really enjoying myself.
My decision to downsize was made when I got diagnosed with cancer and my Olive/CB system was needing a service, so the choice was either service and get a streamer or get a single box solution. I chose the easy option of one box. So you could say it was forced on me. Covid19 and spending more time at home has prompted me to upsize again. so my travel spend has been reallocated to hi-fi spend. I am now waiting for a 272 replacement so I can have a 2 or 3 box solution if I go for an external power supply.

1 Like

There are quite a few on this forum who are serial up and downers, myself included.

1 Like

That’s certainly something I did. I wanted, as well as fewer boxes, smaller speakers, so the whole caboodle was less dominating in the room. I dithered between a Nait XS3 and the Supernait 3, ultimately going for the latter because the small speakers still benefit from a bit of welly.

You should add one more option.

Downsize with improved sound quality.

Obviously the smaller amp would not be a Naim.

1 Like

Have never downsized and have no intention of doing so. More is, more.

When or if, it is possible to get the same sound out of a single box then it may become a consideration. I find that the Naim USP of separates is borne out in the sound quality. I even find it faintly ridiculous that Naim even sell the 115/150 and the 202/200 without a psu. They have the Nait for that. Why would anyone buy a two box system when there is a one box equivalent, and when the three box is superior in SQ?

I voted, but my option wasn’t there… I downsized to improve SQ.
Edit I see Ryder made the same comment.

1 Like