I think it’s fair to say that very few other manufacturers have produced a stand out amplifier advance either .
Yes, there has been a resurgence in valves. I left Naim amplification earlier this year, if I could replace speakers and amp simultaneously I would go back at the drop of a hat, possibly to Uniti range.
My guess is that Naim are possibly one of the world’s largest suppliers of pre and power stereo amplification
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Maybe we could have 2 one box 500 mono blocks dressed up for a Christmas party looking like the S1 mono blocks 
ATB Peter
It’s notable that, over the years, NAIM upgrades have always been just that, sonically, when the pitfalls for developing such high-grade kit are always lying in wait.
As Tina once remarked: “You’re simply…”
So really we are back to my point of the thread, other than discrete regulation, nothing really has improved over the past 20 years…
In amplification DR and that’s about it, if we look at streaming that is where the bulk of the R&D budgets seems to have gone , but Naim are not alone in that
C’mon guys. DR is almost a decade old.
I stand by “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” but at nearly 9 years old, even if DR is considered a new range, everything is due for a renewal even by Naim timeframes.
I just think they are going to struggle to find enough changes to justify it.
Well I have ordered a new Naim pre so for me sticking with the current classic case is important, simple but very classy.
There was a different direction of implementing volume control in the superuniti and then later in the Nova.
Pretty sure the S1 has taken this much further.
New preamps would no doubt ditch the blue alps volume pot.
Look at this holistically. True the so called classic pre-powers haven’t changed notwithstanding DR but neither has the Michell Orbe or Gyro. But look at the other stuff Naim has brought to market and that’s a lot of change for a small company. And no small amount of risk involved.
The firms that tend to change for change sake don’t often build up brand loyalty. Or always stay in business.
If you have a good design, your main thrust for change is to make it for less. Take a look at what was going on with VW in the early 1990s. Cars looked OK, but beneath they were not well put together. And many components were cheap.
One of Naims strengths is their consistent product line. And after all amp technology is pretty stable. Better stability in the PSU is the biggest gain.
Look at MF. Great amps, but they changed them every 2 years. The basic design didn’t change, just a different case. Along with another good idea. Choke regulation, nu vista buffer stages etc.
But ultimately now gone.
All in all then, the analog industry has stood mostly still.
Amazing really.
Is that true though?
I wonder if the design of an amp is stable but the components have been improved? Perhaps the components in a 250 of 20 years ago are different to those used now?
Unless you devise a new topology or adopt a completely different approach then there’s not going to be a lot of change. Naim amplification (apart from 552, 500 where split rail power supplies for the 552 and bridging for the 500) has been more about incremental improvements rather than major changes through the years. The move from the Shoebox size pre-amps to full size allowed better internal layouts along with improved PCB design and with the 52 and 52PS, took the existing pre amp design even further with the ability to utilise multiple power supply rails from the new power supplies.
Even the Statement doesn’t stray too far from the path, but without the usual budget and size constraints that ultimately limit what the reference range can do.
Naim produce fantastic amplifiers and perhaps the longevity of the present range show that Naim are doing things right. They only tend to make big changes if they feel it’s a genuine improvement.
Audio research preamps. 6 models per level since 1999:
LS16: 1999
LS16L :2001
LS17: 2006
LS17L: 2007
LS27: 2009
LS28: 2016
Would be interesting to see if the components are still the same. I.e. the same supplier rather than being of different values.
Given that Naim doesn’t makes many ( if not most/all) of its components, I wonder how it controls/monitors changes to components from within it’s supply chain.
It may be just me, but I have been listening to some 60’s/70’s music recently, and to be honest, there isn’t a massive difference to quality on current day music. Yes I realise I am not comparing like for like precisely, but my point is I don’t hear 50/60 years worth of progress in recordings, and so the same appears to be true of Play back quality.
Different, maybe. Better, I don’t know. Apparently we still need to get our electronics rebuilt after 10-15 years.
I wonder, does this apply to streamers and other non-amplification components, too?
This is a very important part of continuous R&D. Of course critical parts are put through an exacting selection process, and are also often precisely matched up. This is something that Naim trusts nobody else to do for them, so it’s all done in person in house. However, if you can no longer source a particular part or component, then, unlike some other hifi companies I know, Naim don’t just automatically plonk in the nearest equivalent; the design goes back to R&D to look at how best to substitute. In some cases it necessitates a minor re-design or changes elsewhere to ensure that performance overall is at least maintained. The process is exactly the same as if it were a new product, with listening tests and sign-off by R&D before given the green light for production. It can be painful, and can adversely impact on production, so it pays to try to be a bit ahead of the game; a bit like when Naim’s preferred maker of large capacitors ceased production. You can’t just buy up lots of stocks and keep them on the shelves for years on end. So that was a big R&D project involving every product that used that make of capacitor. Even bigger was the ROHS implementation, which effectively saw every product having to go back to R&D for extensive work in trying to find the best ROHS compliant componentry. This was a huge task that involving hundreds of components and took place over a few years, and even the type of solder and the entire solder process had to be re-thought and re-evaluated.
Thanks Richard, that was answer I was hoping for.
Item equivalency can be a minefield. You can rarely trust what your supplier tells you!
And can be a nightmare if an OEM ceases trading. Buying their IP is one option, but then getting someone else to make it for you can be another set of issues.
Close relationships with your suppliers is usually a good option.
A bit like Linn when Jelco closed up shop shortly after OEM-ing Linn’s Majik arm. They found a replacement supplier in fairly short order. Different, yes. Better, maybe(?)