I think that has to be the concern for Naim. If others are able to improve the SQ with fewer or smaller boxes, Naim have to respond.
I did just that three times, once going from phono pre + psu, pre and mono amps to full function pre + psu and stereo amp and later to phono pre + psu and integrated amp. The third was going from CD transport and DAC to a CD player (into the integrated mentioned above).
And this
The option “but only if there is no reduction in sound quality” covers that. (An improvement in SQ is not a reduction, and indeed is an obvious and even expected reason for change for anyone into hifi, whether increasing or decreasing the physical size.)
Yes, as I noted earlier I omitted to recognise that with an option - unfortunately the system won’t let me add it.
This thread seems to have digressed into an English grammar thread 
3 Likes
Sound quality doesn’t need defining in the context of this poll. It is purely whether the responder considers sound quality to be improved, the same, or worsened, which after all is the only way that sound quality is relevant to the person making the change.
Here in sweden we have something called ”döstädning” (death cleaning) that some people (like me) do when we (prepare to) retire, you turn youself into Marie Kondo getting rid of all old stuff and nostalgia to organise the rest to be able to focus more on what is important to you.
I’ve sold the house and moving to a more central flat with modern open plan.
You are allowed to upsize (I replaced my old Brompton with the electric version).
The music system will certainly be simplified with SQ improved and I want to create a nice environment to listen to music and watch movies. I am looking at active speakers but I dont like the traditional room correction that do more harm than good by killing the direct sound, but I like the Dutch & Dutch and Kii DSP-controlled directional approach.
2 Likes
Although “only if there is no reduction in sound quality” covers improvement in sound quality, it largely implies same quality level.
Improvement in sound quality does not include same quality but a different/improved quality.
1 Like
When I started on the revamping process, the first thing I wanted to change was the speakers 
Nothing wrong with my PMC FB1 , just far too big for the room. I didn’t approach it blindly , I wanted small speakers , with a pro background that were good with voices and could do delicacy .
Went for Harbeth P3ESR , nice speakers which do what I wanted, it was like losing a layer of varnish from the sound.
I didn’t realise the power they like to suck up 
or need .
So my advice to anybody is forget about changing the box 
count , get the speakers right , ones that will marry up better with electronics. The better the match , the easier to downsize.
The best example of this was Feeling Zen and his Luxman / Omega combo.
A wonderfully thought out system
Indeed improvement doesn’t include same quality, but that is irrelevant! As I indicated, “no reduction in sound quality” does include improvement - and as improvement is an expected and. I believe, very normal reason for change for anyone into hifi, whether the improvement increases or decreases the physical size being irrelevant unless someone also has a desire to grow the physical volume if their system (which had never occurred to me as even a possibility until someone coined the term man-fi!) so no reason at all to separate out.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.