Yes, Julian apparently tried to make his amps extra reliable, but not 'idiotproof'. Snoopy, you want an 'idiotproof' design that may be compromised sonically, because of it. Also, Snoopy, you appear not to see the 'trees' for the 'forest'. That is why a similar, but different schematic looks the same to you.
john curl said:
Man you come right out of a comic book
Sometimes I don't know whether to take you seriously or not
I would have thought that connecting an amplifier to a set of speakers through a set of reasonable cables and having the amplifier unexpectedly take off and blowing up the speakers and/or amplifier was not being an 'idiot' !!
People who sell products to the public which are designed so close to the margin of being unreliable are themselves being irresponsible and idiots. And since you condone that sort of practice then maybe that says something about yourself
You are just trying to defend the indefensible !!
Julian won awards for his business success. You should 'Google' his name, sometime.
I can't vouch for reliability with the wrong cable. Once I was with Julian at a CES show and he needed some speaker cables for a demonstration. I thought that the Monster 'quad' cable would be perfect, but he looked at them and rejected them for being too low in inductance per foot, or something, but he did not elaborate. He went for the 'zip cord' style, instead.
I can't vouch for reliability with the wrong cable. Once I was with Julian at a CES show and he needed some speaker cables for a demonstration. I thought that the Monster 'quad' cable would be perfect, but he looked at them and rejected them for being too low in inductance per foot, or something, but he did not elaborate. He went for the 'zip cord' style, instead.
dear "snoopy",
please calm down?
you're not doing justice to the Charles Shultz character at all!
what exactly are you so very excited about here?
...does it really matter if Naim is/was good or not?
...does it matter if they were better/worse than some Japanese amp back in the 1970s??
I'm not sure, but most folks are happy to discuss the relative merits of different amps, and topologies. Let's try to focus on matters other than the personalities of participants? People can have different perspectives and viewpoints and still not be "right" nor "wrong", eh?
perhaps if you would take the time to explain the source of your intensity here, it would help us understand you, and maybe be a catharsis (sp?) for you as well??
_-_-bear
please calm down?
you're not doing justice to the Charles Shultz character at all!
what exactly are you so very excited about here?
...does it really matter if Naim is/was good or not?
...does it matter if they were better/worse than some Japanese amp back in the 1970s??
I'm not sure, but most folks are happy to discuss the relative merits of different amps, and topologies. Let's try to focus on matters other than the personalities of participants? People can have different perspectives and viewpoints and still not be "right" nor "wrong", eh?
perhaps if you would take the time to explain the source of your intensity here, it would help us understand you, and maybe be a catharsis (sp?) for you as well??
_-_-bear
Re: NAIM design
(except that a BC239C is an npn)
I am a qualified and experienced engineer. The terms "witch craft", "paranormal" and so on are terms that are used to fill gaps of ignorance. The reasons Naim amps sound as good as they do is down to very, very clever engineering. No hocus-pocus necessary.
The Avondale circuit is what you end up with if you attempt to "clone" a Naim based on an approximate schematic and superficial understanding of electronics, build the clone and find it doesn't sound very special, then you assume you are more clever than Naim so you apply conventional tweaks and end up making your clone sound a little better. Then you peddle it as cheaper and better than a Naim. The Avondale people appear to be ignorant of Naim's design.
Along the same lines, criticising a quasi-complementary output stage as being inherent bad (especially on the grounds of being old-fashioned) compared with a fully-complementary output stage is just plain ignorant. The criticism is typically a reflection of a coveting of visual symmetry combined with a paucity of understanding of basic physics.
BTW, the 22k collector resistor is there for a very good reason. Of all the criticisms one might level at Naim, wasting parts is not one I've ever encountered. Naim have always been excellent at squeezing every little drop out of as few parts as possible, to minimize their mfg costs, and this is one reason they have managed to stay in business for so long. Wisdom will overcome arrogance if you first seek to understand something before you take pot-shots at it.
Excellent, VivaVee.VivaVee said:
(except that a BC239C is an npn)
I am a qualified and experienced engineer. The terms "witch craft", "paranormal" and so on are terms that are used to fill gaps of ignorance. The reasons Naim amps sound as good as they do is down to very, very clever engineering. No hocus-pocus necessary.
The Avondale circuit is what you end up with if you attempt to "clone" a Naim based on an approximate schematic and superficial understanding of electronics, build the clone and find it doesn't sound very special, then you assume you are more clever than Naim so you apply conventional tweaks and end up making your clone sound a little better. Then you peddle it as cheaper and better than a Naim. The Avondale people appear to be ignorant of Naim's design.
Along the same lines, criticising a quasi-complementary output stage as being inherent bad (especially on the grounds of being old-fashioned) compared with a fully-complementary output stage is just plain ignorant. The criticism is typically a reflection of a coveting of visual symmetry combined with a paucity of understanding of basic physics.
BTW, the 22k collector resistor is there for a very good reason. Of all the criticisms one might level at Naim, wasting parts is not one I've ever encountered. Naim have always been excellent at squeezing every little drop out of as few parts as possible, to minimize their mfg costs, and this is one reason they have managed to stay in business for so long. Wisdom will overcome arrogance if you first seek to understand something before you take pot-shots at it.
Thank you traderbam.
I didn't want to be too critical of the Avondale Audio circuit. It is an Avondale Audio circuit NOT a Naim Audio circuit.
My point was that using this schematic as a means to denigrate Julian Verker is like buying a Naim clone on Ebay then loudly proclaiming that all Naim amps are bad.
And incidentally I would use the same argument if the same lazy argument was being used against ANY amp designer/manufacturer, whatever nationality.
I should confess a slight interest in that I was involved in manufacturing Naim amplifiers in the early 80s. So I think I understand the historical context very well.
Twenty years later I have a much more balanced view of the relative merits of that Naim design. The original has quite a few subtleties that are easily missed - many of which are not apparent from just looking at the bare schematic
I still have one pumping music out in the rumpus room (that's den, I think, for the US!) - for no particular reason other than it is still running after twenty years without fail and looks like doing so for a while yet. I wouldn't put it in my 'good' system by choice but the continued local sales suggests that others would be happy to.
I didn't want to be too critical of the Avondale Audio circuit. It is an Avondale Audio circuit NOT a Naim Audio circuit.
My point was that using this schematic as a means to denigrate Julian Verker is like buying a Naim clone on Ebay then loudly proclaiming that all Naim amps are bad.
And incidentally I would use the same argument if the same lazy argument was being used against ANY amp designer/manufacturer, whatever nationality.
I should confess a slight interest in that I was involved in manufacturing Naim amplifiers in the early 80s. So I think I understand the historical context very well.
Twenty years later I have a much more balanced view of the relative merits of that Naim design. The original has quite a few subtleties that are easily missed - many of which are not apparent from just looking at the bare schematic
I still have one pumping music out in the rumpus room (that's den, I think, for the US!) - for no particular reason other than it is still running after twenty years without fail and looks like doing so for a while yet. I wouldn't put it in my 'good' system by choice but the continued local sales suggests that others would be happy to.
snoopy said:Man you come right out of a comic book: xeye: Sometimes I don't know whether to take you seriously or not
You are just trying to defend the indefensible!!
This is interesting in a sad sort of way. There is nothing of value here, just someone with an agenda, and doing a **** poor job of it; although I must comment that John's showing an admirable presence by not being sucked in by an instigator.
Let it go.
Re: Naim
also, a couple of other schematics of that year which you claim are superior and comment why please.
Edmond Stuart said:
Hi Snoopy,
Maybe I've missed it, but can you also put a link to the original schematic, so we all can see how badly it was designed.
BTW, the revised circuit still contains an error: the collector resistor of TR2 should be zero Ohm instead of 22kOhm.
Cheers,
Edmond.
also, a couple of other schematics of that year which you claim are superior and comment why please.
Yes. I've made lots of Naim clones in the past...enough to know I had no idea how to make one sound good. I recall meeting the Crimson designer in the early 1980s in a lecture and he openly admitted he couldn't figure out from the schematics why the Naims sounded so good. I met JV twice, briefly, and managed to get some hints from him...but I didn't know enough to really make sense of what he told me. It wasn't until years later that I managed to figure it out, and even then it wasn't through studying theory. It was through an arduous and obstinate cycle of making small circuit changes then listening to the difference, and repeating this again and again and again until there was no where for the mystery to hide.VivaVee said:
You must have been in Salisbury back then. I think I first visited the Naim factory in 1981 with some uni friends, including a PhD student of wind turbine design, named Touraj.
Yes. I was never a Naim devotee. I thought they sounded very good but lacked imaging and tended to be a little texturally artificial. I thought the style was rather old-fashioned too and the whole brand a bit "MG Owners Club". The customer was encouraged to craft his own system and tweak things and so on...a bit like an electronic version of the LP12 rigmarole. I guess Naim and Linn had the UK high end just about sewn up for a decade, then the first big blow seemed to come from Krell. Dan's "no holds barred" monster finally exposed the weaknesses in the Naim. Krell had its own weaknesses, especially in the PRAT department, but the key magazine reviewers started replacing their NAP250 towers for Krells. My amateur obsession was always to get both the clarity of the Krell and the emotiveness of the Naim. Meanwhile, apparently not entirely satisfied by wind turbine design, Touraj was going for Linn's throat and was utterly obsessed with figuring out the secrets of the LP12. Eventually, he succeeded and founded Roksan.
syn08 said:
It's not even worth going down that path.
Past responses to anything that doesn't fit the common world view are not met with "what do you mean, let's discuss and get to the bottom of this" but more of the basic tone of this discussion set by snoopy. Sounds like Mr. V had it nailed for his time and then Mr. C's science kicked in...
Ahhhh, I guess this is what we call progress. Goodnight all, sweet dreams.
Re: Re: NAIM design
You are forgetting one thing. He charged an arm and a leg for those amps and people who bought them were getting taken for one hell of a ride !! You people who are defending this product just can't admit that you have been ripped off because you didn't have the technical background to scrutinize the worth of these types of products.
And please explain the reason for that 22K resistor among all of the other subtle differences that you claim makes this mediocre design stand out from the pack ??
traderbam said:
Excellent, VivaVee.
(except that a BC239C is an npn)
I am a qualified and experienced engineer. The terms "witch craft", "paranormal" and so on are terms that are used to fill gaps of ignorance. The reasons Naim amps sound as good as they do is down to very, very clever engineering. No hocus-pocus necessary.
The Avondale circuit is what you end up with if you attempt to "clone" a Naim based on an approximate schematic and superficial understanding of electronics, build the clone and find it doesn't sound very special, then you assume you are more clever than Naim so you apply conventional tweaks and end up making your clone sound a little better. Then you peddle it as cheaper and better than a Naim. The Avondale people appear to be ignorant of Naim's design.
Along the same lines, criticising a quasi-complementary output stage as being inherent bad (especially on the grounds of being old-fashioned) compared with a fully-complementary output stage is just plain ignorant. The criticism is typically a reflection of a coveting of visual symmetry combined with a paucity of understanding of basic physics.
BTW, the 22k collector resistor is there for a very good reason. Of all the criticisms one might level at Naim, wasting parts is not one I've ever encountered. Naim have always been excellent at squeezing every little drop out of as few parts as possible, to minimize their mfg costs, and this is one reason they have managed to stay in business for so long. Wisdom will overcome arrogance if you first seek to understand something before you take pot-shots at it.
You are forgetting one thing. He charged an arm and a leg for those amps and people who bought them were getting taken for one hell of a ride !! You people who are defending this product just can't admit that you have been ripped off because you didn't have the technical background to scrutinize the worth of these types of products.
And please explain the reason for that 22K resistor among all of the other subtle differences that you claim makes this mediocre design stand out from the pack ??
bear said:dear "snoopy",
please calm down?
you're not doing justice to the Charles Shultz character at all!
what exactly are you so very excited about here?
...does it really matter if Naim is/was good or not?
...does it matter if they were better/worse than some Japanese amp back in the 1970s??
I'm not sure, but most folks are happy to discuss the relative merits of different amps, and topologies. Let's try to focus on matters other than the personalities of participants? People can have different perspectives and viewpoints and still not be "right" nor "wrong", eh?
perhaps if you would take the time to explain the source of your intensity here, it would help us understand you, and maybe be a catharsis (sp?) for you as well??
_-_-bear
Common mate don't get sentimental now
This is an open forum for everyone to contribute to
This is no longer John Curl's exclusive forum so everyone is welcome to pitch in. Just make sure you back up your claims with solid evidence
MikeBettinger said:
Mr V took shortcuts in his amplifiers which compromised the reliability of the design in order to stand out from the rest. He did not sell anything that was significantly better than anybody else at the time. In other words he cheated at the cost of making an unreliable product that any other manufacturer could have done at the time
I have not seen any scientific evidence for many of the claims made and supported by John regarding the Naim amplifiers. Just lots of here say evidence which is no evidence at all.
I asked what the so called refinements that were made to an otherwise mediocre circuit topology such as that used in the Naim amplifiers and I am still waiting for a reply and so are a few others on this forum
So like you said lets discuss it and cut to the chase
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.