Is it, really? Unlike digital, it is a very mature industry, and to me it is surprising if/when something revolutionary or major leap appears.
Anothe way of looking at it is as you get closer to perfection, whatever your definition of that may be, the harder it is to improve, and likely more costly. Some manufacturers of course forever update their ranges - but to me that seems more like pandering to people who believe a newer design inherently must be better than an older one.
One thing I see as a limitation with Naim power amps is that it is said that you need a Naim preamp for them to perform at their best, as opposed to being universal products, which may limit their appeal and applicability to other systems where someone already has a preamp that perfectly suits their needs (or, for example, other device like a DAC with output equivalent to that of a preamp).
But 20 years ago was after almost 30 years of development by Naim - and some 20 years before that of development of transistor amplifiers, and that built on valve amp development…
I remember JV saying that it was not worth his time designing a better amplifier until sources (ie the LP12) improved. Otherwise it would simply sound worse. I loved those days! Ivor must have been pleased…
There’s a very limited number of things to change to be honest.
They could possibly tweak:
Volume to use a resister ladder for more even operation.
Lower (which means raise the value) of input sensitivity for modern high output sources. They already did this on both S1 and 272.
After that you’re left with cosmetic issues like how many inputs to keep or whether to still have record out as a separate bank of buttons. Perhaps in light of having already dropped shoebox separates (I really hated that decision) cull the remaining shoeboxes or refit them in full width cases. A lesser brand would just make the changes and bundle in a new fascia design to justify it all as a new product. But in truth, such changes are, in the same casework, too big for a service upgrade and too small for a new product launch.
I’m sure Naim are waiting it out untill they have something really special and not a day sooner. And given that massive amount of product culling they’ve done in 10 years, are probably doing some navel gazing about what sort of company they want to be. Current classic NAC/NAPs were from an age when Naim were and end to end system builder. They had several categories of source and made speakers. Anything they design now has to be with the new reality as a separates maker. Or precisely, an amp maker that happens to have a couple sources
The first time I heard a 52 was in the early 90s with a (then) full monty LP12. My immediate reaction was “wow, it really shows the limits of the Linn,” as if it was offering a vast, wide window that the LP12 couldn’t quite “fill.” Things have moved on since then, and the current Klimax-level LP12 is more than a match for any Naim pre I’ve heard.
Interesting POV Corry. I have a Klimax LP12 with a 252. The 252 showed clearly all the upgrade steps. I suspect my next upgrade (Karousel when I get round to it) will be easy to hear too. If anything they seem to grow together if that makes sense. I wonder what JV would think of my system now?
Yes - and it shows that digital is not the enemy per se as some analogue diehards would have it - just needed the advent of better digital replay, with now far better DACs available than a few years ago - though of course the vinyl character isn’t added, so a negative for people who prefer it (unless, of course, a vinyl album is ripped to digital).
I found that even a 72 could easily show each upgrade I made to the Linn. You will have no difficulty hearing the improvements the Karousel brings (one of the biggest upgrades Linn have ever brought out, imo). You’re in for a treat. I’m sure Julian would me more than impressed with the current state of the art at Linn.
Anyone know why Naim makes source and pre-amp/integrateds that have such mismatched output voltage and input sensitivity within the same manufacturer product range? I understand the modern source levels are somewhat consistent in the industry but it seems really odd that their own products wouldn’t be better matched with each other.
I think the input sensitivity of 75mv was absolutely consistent from way back. Most sources were low output analogue devices. Lower sensitivity inputs started with Statement and were inherited on the 272 that came after. But thinks like the current analogue NACs simply predate that.
Which makes an input sensitivity of 75mV in the modern day ridiculous… Surely this due some attention from Steve Sells so that people can make better use of the available volume control range!
Thanks, so apparently for quite some time. Do you happen to know why the pres’ volume adjustment was not changed to cope? I have this new 252 and while I love it all around:
With NDX2 input, the volume poti is unbalanced up to approx 7:45 (above this it is perfectly balanced, below this, the right channel gradually disappears and I have to adjust balance when listening at what I consider night-time levels - the speakers are not overly sensitive with 89 dB at 1W at 1m)
And too loud for an apartment with NDX2 input when above ca. 9:30.
So a rather small useful part of the travel of the volume poti