Supernait - Are my ears kidding me?

[art80342]

Was trying real hard to find an integrated amp that could do better justice to my humble Vandersteen 2CEsig2. Ex Amp was MARANTZ PM15S1. Liked the way this MARANTZ dealt w vocals so much that was prepared to over look its limited bass extension and thin sound.

Mean time auditioned
- Ayre 7xe
- BAT vx300
- Marantz PM11S1
- NAD M3
- Luxman L-590u Class A
- Luxman L-505u Class AB
- Musical Fidelity A5.5
- Musical Fidelity A1

Somehow ALL (IMHO) could not justify the hudge jump in budget. Until my dealer called me in for the supernait audition - I was sold after 2 times audition. Now my system config as below -

CDP1: Vintage MARANTZ CD15
CDP2: MARANTZ DV4001

AMP: SUPERNAIT
TUBE BUFFER: MUSICAL FIDELITY X-10v3

SPEAKERS: Vandersteen 2CEsig2
Interconnects/SPK cables: Nordost Wyrewizard+Dreamcaster

++OBSERVATION++
1. Supernait too loud
Aware tis sound like a no brainer but its not about the volume knob. just that right now, its really difficult to listen to a whole song completely ie. everything sounds so so loud BUT nice. It seems all the instruments, back grounds, vocals are occupying the same presence in the music. Something I never experience before. Its almost 3 dimensional ie. sound stage has dramatically expanded but compared to my MARANTZ PM15S1, I can usually go all the way past 60% of the volume BUT Supernait - max I can go is 30% before it really gets too loud. (come one 30%??) Mindbearing MARANTZ PM15S1 is 90w per channel at 8ohms - above Supernait!


2. EVERYTHING IS GOOD BUT ....
Observations below made against MARANTZ PM15S1 only. Sound stage has dramatically expanded ie. music now fills the whole room. Rythmn has intensified ie. Has never heard my jazz pieces sound soooosooo fast. There is a 'POP' colour to almost all my CDs now. Maybe this is the PRAT symptoms that many forums have used to describe NAIM sound.

3. A little volume goes a long way
75mv of input sensitivities goes a really long way compared to 240mv in MARANTZ PM15S1 but its a little too fast too furious. One wld be suprised at how much the initial adjustments from 6 to 9 o'clock actually increases the volume. Dealer informed me that this actually a good point as eqpt like MP3 wld do well under such competent volumes.

4. SOMETHING MISSING ....
Can't put a thumb to it ... but the initial impact that DRAWS me to the supernaim ie. the way it presents the music (i hv never come across such presentation) seems to be lacking something...I dun know what. It SURPASSES much to the MARANTZ PM15S1 in many aspects of displaying music but somehow it appears COLD in the way music reaches me. The same CD (the song that I hear so many times) seems to be more competent in all instruments but the vocals just does not connect in the same way the MARANTZ did. EACH INSTRUMENTS/VOCALS/EFFECTS IN ANY SONG SEEMS TO BE FIGHTING FOR ATTENTION AT THE SAME TIME - COMMING TOGETHER AND HAVING THE SAME LOUDNESS (yes i mean certain effects that i could only hear in the back ground in the marantz pm15s1 can now be heard very clearly with supernait but ... its like all the notes/instruments are fighting for the listerner 's attention albeit in an orderly yet forceful manner...)

CONCLUSION
---
I reflected the above to the dealer and the intial suggestion (to my suprise) was to plug the power directly into the wall socket and not via the transformer which am using for my 100volts CDP. To my suprised again, tis indeed cured the loudness issue somewhat BUT not all -dun know why.

Am seriously pondering if Supernait and Vandersteen 2ceSig2 r really a good match. I love these speakers and not gonna change them and the amp shld compliment them instead!

Perplexed now....and also read many forums on NAIM and many owners of NAIM products actually claim that putting the AMP away (not in between) the speakers will actually improve the sound of teh speakers? huh... any way attaching the pictures of my set up as below....

inviting thoughts / comments ...

[Feanor]

Sorry, Art, but it does sound your over-top about all this.

You have listened to a number of amps that are considered be top-notch and represent a range of technology and character. Yet you say your not entirely satisfied with any of them together with you Vandersteens. Humm ... the evidence is shrieking at you that it's the Vandersteens that aren't doing if for you, but you reject that common sense evidence, instead you try amp after amp.

I'm not entirely sure what your are taking about when you mention "loudness" re. the Supernait. Don't forget that the volume control setting is, in itself, irrelevant. Yes, I believe that Naim amps have a reputation of lots of PRaT, but plugging into the wallsock should, if anything, increase the PRaT. Please take a deep breath and explain this issue in a more delibrate manner.

[blackraven]

Well Marantz equipment has its own unique sound. It tends to be on the warm side and most other equipment will sound cold compared to Marantz. From what you describe it
sounds like the Nait has a more foward sound presentation and less transparency.
What you are hearing is differences in the pre amp section.

You have auditioned some fine equipment and I find it hard to believe that you could not find one to your liking. Either you have become too comfortable with the Marantz sound or its like Feanor says, it may be your speakers that are the limiting factor. The Nait may also be magnifying deficiencys of your CDP. I found this out when auditionig Van Alstine preamps and DAC's. They actually showed me how bad my 840c CDP sounds next to a high end DAC.

if your looking for a new amp or integrated amp you should consider Van Alstine gear. All his gear has a more analog sound with great transparency, resolution, detail and sound stage. He has a 30 day return policy. www.avahifi.com He's got a new 90wpc integrated that I heard driving a pair of $5000 Salk Veracity HT3's with out any problems.

Here's a review on the Niat http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/108naim/index.html

[Mr Peabody]

The Naim is similar to Krell in the way it presents detail. All detail no matter how subtle it was meant to be is plainly heard. This gives an impression of lack of depth. It also makes it more difficult to fool your brain that the performance is in your room or you are at the venue. This could be consider a down side. But the up side is you do hear all the detail easily and these types of amps have incredible control, transcients and dynamics. The Naim also sounds like it has a very flat frequency response. Although this is instilled in us as a desirable thing, and it can be to some, but flat can also not be as "musical" to some perceptions. You'll have to decide which way you want to go. If you want to lean more toward the Marantz sound but with more detail I'd suggest listening to some more tube gear. I personally would suggest Conrad Johnson if any is available to you. It sounds like the Marantz was more toward what Conrad Johnson does on some of their gear, the vocals are more pronounced/emphasized and bit forward from the accompanying instruments. Whether this is intentional or just a side effect of a very lush midrange I can't say. Elapsed has a Naim system and he found his nirvana by going all Naim. He says the Naim units have a synergy with each other. I can believe that because I found the same with Krell.

One suggestion I have is to experiment some with the tube buffer out of the system to see what happens. I'm sure the buffer adds some warmth but take it out of the loop to see if anything changes to the positive. I'm not familiar with you CD player but you might try a Naim player to hear what happens. I'd also strongly consider what Feanor had to say.

[art80342]

The Naim is similar to Krell in the way it presents detail. All detail no matter how subtle it was meant to be is plainly heard. This gives an impression of lack of depth. It also makes it more difficult to fool your brain that the performance is in your room or you are at the venue. This could be consider a down side. But the up side is you do hear all the detail easily and these types of amps have incredible control, transcients and dynamics. The Naim also sounds like it has a very flat frequency response. Although this is instilled in us as a desirable thing, and it can be to some, but flat can also not be as "musical" to some perceptions. You'll have to decide which way you want to go. If you want to lean more toward the Marantz sound but with more detail I'd suggest listening to some more tube gear. I personally would suggest Conrad Johnson if any is available to you. It sounds like the Marantz was more toward what Conrad Johnson does on some of their gear, the vocals are more pronounced/emphasized and bit forward from the accompanying instruments. Whether this is intentional or just a side effect of a very lush midrange I can't say. Elapsed has a Naim system and he found his nirvana by going all Naim. He says the Naim units have a synergy with each other. I can believe that because I found the same with Krell.

One suggestion I have is to experiment some with the tube buffer out of the system to see what happens. I'm sure the buffer adds some warmth but take it out of the loop to see if anything changes to the positive. I'm not familiar with you CD player but you might try a Naim player to hear what happens. I'd also strongly consider what Feanor had to say.

above easily one of the best expression of how music sounds and how a user typically feels for his music...never read a better expression ...

Rgds

[Feanor]

The Naim is similar to Krell in the way it presents detail. All detail no matter how subtle it was meant to be is plainly heard. This gives an impression of lack of depth. It also makes it more difficult to fool your brain that the performance is in your room or you are at the venue. This could be consider a down side. But the up side is you do hear all the detail easily and these types of amps have incredible control, transcients and dynamics. The Naim also sounds like it has a very flat frequency response. Although this is instilled in us as a desirable thing, and it can be to some, but flat can also not be as "musical" to some perceptions. You'll have to decide which way you want to go. If you want to lean more toward the Marantz sound but with more detail I'd suggest listening to some more tube gear. I personally would suggest Conrad Johnson if any is available to you. It sounds like the Marantz was more toward what Conrad Johnson does on some of their gear, the vocals are more pronounced/emphasized and bit forward from the accompanying instruments. Whether this is intentional or just a side effect of a very lush midrange I can't say. Elapsed has a Naim system and he found his nirvana by going all Naim. He says the Naim units have a synergy with each other. I can believe that because I found the same with Krell.

....

Mr P, this is an articulate explanation regarding detail vs. depth. Maybe I agree in part but not altogether.

In the first place resolution, (I'll avoid the word, detail), is the mother of "air" by which I mean the distinction or separation of multiple instruments or voices from each other such that there is a sense of space or air between the parts. IMO there can be no genuine sense of depth without this. And it has not so much to do with "detail", that is, a crisp, fine-edged presentation; this is often just an illusion detail, or "etch", (like using the "sharpen" feature in an photo editing program).

Yes, I agree that tubes can add not only warmth but also "harmonic richness", and depth to the presentation. These are agreeable things; I like them myself -- especially with less than great recordings. On the other hand I suspect that the effect is actually distortion, (added 2nd order harmonics), which is agreeable in itself and/or that cloaks highher-order harmonics present in some solid state or high feedback designs. However -- possibly -- these harmonic richness and depth are just pleasant artifacts, not a truely accurate representation of reality.

Nevertheless your advice to Art to try more tubes could do the trick for him. Conrad Johnson is certainly a maker with a reputation for a very "tubey" but still refined presentation. If I'm not mistaken Cary is another maker with that reputation. (I have tried neither I should add.)

[Mr Peabody]

What I mean by "depth" is getting a sense of the instruments and/or vocals having a position in the sound stage front to back, not, just everything shoulder to shoulder across the sound stage. Take for example a Triangle being struck in an orchestra, the CJ gives me a sense of it being back further in the orchestra where Krell may have it right next to everything else. The positive of the Krell doing that is it seems like you get more detail because placing it up front it is easier to here. But, some one else may think the positioning is more important and actually call that cueing more detail. Both CJ and Krell have plenty of resolution or "air". It's two very different presentations and whose to say which is more accurate. A friend of mine gave one of the best explanations of tube sound, in general of course, it puts the flesh on the bone.

[art80342]

What I mean by "depth" is getting a sense of the instruments and/or vocals having a position in the sound stage front to back, not, just everything shoulder to shoulder across the sound stage. Take for example a Triangle being struck in an orchestra, the CJ gives me a sense of it being back further in the orchestra where Krell may have it right next to everything else. The positive of the Krell doing that is it seems like you get more detail because placing it up front it is easier to here. But, some one else may think the positioning is more important and actually call that cueing more detail. Both CJ and Krell have plenty of resolution or "air". It's two very different presentations and whose to say which is more accurate. A friend of mine gave one of the best explanations of tube sound, in general of course, it puts the flesh on the bone.

Pea - I second your comments about sometimes being at the back BUT otehr equipments makes it all comes to the front. This is exactly the feeling n nature of MARANTZ vs NAIM. its like - 2 different recordings altogether..... but there is alos some truth about the depth vs detail argument ...hmm

[Feanor]

Pea - I second your comments about sometimes being at the back BUT otehr equipments makes it all comes to the front. This is exactly the feeling n nature of MARANTZ vs NAIM. its like - 2 different recordings altogether..... but there is alos some truth about the depth vs detail argument ...hmm

I'm not questioning your impressions of the Marantz or Supernait as particular amps, nor Mr Peabody's impression of Krell, but I don't buy that there a necessary a trade-off between depth and detail. On the contrary, genuine depth, (as opposed to euphonic but simulated depth), requires resolution. Thus the sonic difference between MP3 and lossless format playback.

[art80342]

I'm not questioning your impressions of the Marantz or Supernait as particular amps, nor Mr Peabody's impression of Krell, but I don't buy that there a necessary a trade-off between depth and detail. On the contrary, genuine depth, (as opposed to euphonic but simulated depth), requires resolution. Thus the sonic difference between MP3 and lossless format playback.

not necessarity a trade off between depth n detail .... i must listen more b4 able to judge.....

[Mr Peabody]

Feanor, per your definition both Krell and CJ perform in spades. What you are talking about between mp3 and lossy is compression or lack of information vs not. Better equipment definitely gives you that air or space around an instrument that lower level equipment can't match. Some equipment also has more of a strained or veiled character to it as well which is undesirable. I call this noise but I'm not positive what causes it. I just noticed that power products have been able to improve or eliminate this character even when I didn't even notice it there. I am not sure what ability to attribute depth to but to give a sense of something behind or further back from something else in the performance is not euphonic or illusion. It's an actual ability that the right combination of good gear can do. I believe CJ is the master of whatever skill this takes. Just using their solid state DAC it has the ability to push the vocals slightly out front while the drums are always in the background.

Resolution to me is when you are able to distinguish separate voices out of a group of background singers instead of hearing as one mass, it's being able to hear separate horns in a horn section versus hearing one mass, it could be hearing breath through a reed that wasn't noticed before or turning of pages in the orchestra, hearing the keys on the horn instruments click as the are pressed, some of these subtleties get lost in lesser gear. Good tube gear should not mask this type of information.

[Feanor]

Feanor, per your definition both Krell and CJ perform in spades. What you are talking about between mp3 and lossy is compression or lack of information vs not. Better equipment definitely gives you that air or space around an instrument that lower level equipment can't match. Some equipment also has more of a strained or veiled character to it as well which is undesirable. I call this noise but I'm not positive what causes it. I just noticed that power products have been able to improve or eliminate this character even when I didn't even notice it there. I am not sure what ability to attribute depth to but to give a sense of something behind or further back from something else in the performance is not euphonic or illusion. It's an actual ability that the right combination of good gear can do. I believe CJ is the master of whatever skill this takes. Just using their solid state DAC it has the ability to push the vocals slightly out front while the drums are always in the background.

Resolution to me is when you are able to distinguish separate voices out of a group of background singers instead of hearing as one mass, it's being able to hear separate horns in a horn section versus hearing one mass, it could be hearing breath through a reed that wasn't noticed before or turning of pages in the orchestra, hearing the keys on the horn instruments click as the are pressed, some of these subtleties get lost in lesser gear. Good tube gear should not mask this type of information.

After all, we're in total agreement on the definition of resolution and depth. My MP3 vs. lossless remark was an analogy, but I think lessor equipment, even when it gets all the info, can't pass all of it along.

When I got my first tube equipment, my Sonic Frontiers preamp, I didn't notice much difference from my previous, passive preamp. The SF is somewhat notorius for solid state-like sound. However with tube rolling I found a type that really did convey some of the tube richness and depth, so I do know what your talking about.

[Mr Peabody]

I understood your analogy. And, it is really pretty good when trying to explain what some one might gain when stepping up in quality. Audiophilia leads to fun with adjectives :)

[hermanv]

Early in the series Mr. Peabody recommended you try your set-up without the Musical Fidelity X-10v3 tube buffer. For me at least, the only tube gear whose sound I like is in the astronomical price range.

I have read mixed reviews of the X-10 tube buffer, I've never heard one. I do worry that good quality tube sound may just not be available at the X-10 price point.

Many of the amplifiers you auditioned have great detail retrieval, it is also possible that your CD player or even your cables just aren't up to the task. I personally found it quite useful to cultivate a relationship with other audiophiles. By swapping equipment it may be possible to identify weak or strong points in your equipment.

[Mr Peabody]

Herman, good to see you back for a visit. Our local shop is experimenting with some Boulder. I really want to get in there to see/hear it. In this economy they aren't sure whether to buy a demo set up. Their entry level starts about the price of a decent car. That's per piece.

[hermanv]

Herman, good to see you back for a visit. Our local shop is experimenting with some Boulder. I really want to get in there to see/hear it. In this economy they aren't sure whether to buy a demo set up. Their entry level starts about the price of a decent car. That's per piece.I did hear some Boulder equipment, it is quite good. The improvement is of course only a small increment over other good brands, so only the end user can decide if that price point is justified. Given what I know of your set-up I'd guess you would be hard pressed to get much improvement by buying Boulder. I'd consider room treatments or maybe speakers first.

[Mr Peabody]

Are you kidding me, who has that kind of money. I am enthused about hearing gear that costs that much though. I'm surprised at your comments, most I've talked to who have heard Boulder seem to think it's the benchmark of high fidelity. It could be the price tag talking though. I've heard other very expensive gear and some were impressive and others not so much. A lot has to do with the set up and room though. As an example years ago when the Dynaudio Evidence came out at $100k it blew me away and I have yet to hear anything that impressive. I heard them a few years later at the shops new location and they were very under whelming at their price. I asked them what was wrong and they didn't seem interested in checking anything. I figure it's their store and they have to sell them so why should I care. I still wonder how there could have been so much difference. It either had to be the room or a set up error.

[hermanv]

You are certainly correct about the room or the set-up. Beyond a certain price point any additional improvement in sound is very much room or system synergy dependent.

Years ago went to hear some Legacy speakers at a manufacturers demo. As you may know Legacy employs no dealers or distributors in order to keep prices lower. The demo was held in an old hotel. All hardwood floors and hard surfaces for the walls, a large room with lots of floor flex and a noticeable tendency towards boominess. Needless to say the demo did not show off their speakers and to this day I have no idea if Legacy speakers sound good or not.

As far as money, someone needs to keep our economy going, a single audio nut could significantly influence consumer spending by buying an all Boulder system. Maybe you could help out our country? :)