In my case in last post, reference to expectation was thinking of sound quality, with which in my mind Max’s sonic performance is inextricably linked - but indeed number of boxes may or may not be linked (as I acknowledged in the options in the downsizing poll thread). Sound quality expectation may need revising at times through life, e.g to match resources, work with declining hearing performance, fit with necessary living arrangements etc.
Gone from 5 box amplification system to a Nova, I need speakers i.e with better sensitivity than 83 - but in no rush. It’s also the size of the boxes .
All in all, very happy. Only mistake was not getting one with separate FM stage (lousy broadband)
Unless you can afford a Statement fed by matching sources- all systems are compromises
1 Like
Tried going down to a Nova in a secondary system
Bridge too far for me - sorry
Bevo
1 Like
Fairly sure it can be retro fitted
I have a NAT03 - which was pushed into service last week whilst my internet went walkabout , but thanks for suggestion
1 Like
Getting oodles of delicacy and precision in vocals (which is what I want) my caveat with the Nova would be with speaker matching .
The P3ESR won’t go that loud , love to hear it with speakers that are friendlier to it. Probably smaller PMC would suit my tastes
Mmm
Physical separation of the various parts presumably achieves the desired reduction in interference between them. That or for forty years Naim has been pulling the wool over our ears.
It’s pretty hard to achieve that isolation if it’s all stuffed in a single box, isn’t it? So a single box system must compromise on the benefits of separation.
If we accept that interference from a transformer is a real thing, then separating it from parts that would otherwise be compromised is justifiable, no?
3 Likes
And back to theoreticals.
Please listen to the people who have downsized and the people writing about these products. Your comment is based on an age old assumption which, whilst correct on paper, has long since been shown to not be the only way to achieve great results.
Does separation of components improve sound quality? Well yes of course it can (albeit many still manage to screw it up). Is it the only way to achieve significant improvements? Clearly not. The evidence? Not a theory. Ears and actions.
2 Likes
It’s a two way street; separate boxes and PSU’s also means that there are more large electrical components wired in the system, each of which can misbehave or influence other components in one way or another.
See for instance the “brain vs brawn” discussions on the forums. Interference is still a real point of attention with larger stacks.
When everything is in one box, that environment is in theory more controllable. The tolerances are smaller so more attention to detail and micro-shielding / separation is needed. But as technology progresses, it’s likely inevitable that this will be the way of the future.
5 Likes
I would happily downsize, playing with boxes is a massive distraction for me and my No.1 requirement is a great user interface.
I have been using BluOs and I like it, but it isn’t as nice to use as the native interfaces by Tidal or Qobuz.
Well, if an app is a piece of software, then ‘app’ implies the electrical circuits in which the processing of that software occurs.
And there are a lot of functional sections at work in an Empire.
I_B,
hi. I apologise for not being sure I caught your post’s meaning completely, sometimes not being an English speaking native creates problems to me. Anyway, I think I got the sense. Actually, mine was not meant to sound as a statement but was just my idea. I agree with the second part of your post. I add that sonic performance was italicised because it comes from the OP’s original post. I somehow put it in contraposition to sound because it had a different meaning for me, implying some activity on our mind’s part to appreciate the outcome of the system.
Hope it makes sense.
m.
1 Like
Hi Max, makes complete sense to me - just not a distinction I had thought about drawing myself.
Ok, thanks.
m.
I think we’ve all done the A/B test, does it sound better with a NAPSC or without
My problem was it all became too complex at the back , and when it came out - it would be unfeasible to put it it back , the Nova does a very good job - and I accept it for what it is and what it does. I am totally convinced my former 5 box amplification system would out perform the Nova but it was a nest of interconnected rats tails
I should say I would put the entire XS2 range plus CD player as a replacement for the Nova - but that would be because the ND5XS2 would go into my AV rack and be used as a digital hub / radio streamer replacing the Unitiqute leaving me three boxes for amplification , phono management and Red Book CD in the audio rack -which is what I have at the moment
1 Like
Interestingly the poll I set up currently shows that only 15% of the 65 forum members are thinking of downsizing or have already done so for a system of lesser sound quality or regardless of whether that is the result.
1 Like
The purpose of this thread was specifically to ask if people would buy a single box if it sounded as good as the multi-box system they now own, without a cost saving. You’re not going to achieve that with a Naim system, so if that had been your question you wouldn’t have had many takers….but it’s not what you asked.
1 Like
Where is the poll?
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.