Naim Uniti Atom Review (Streamer & Amp)

[DSJR]

Do you have any proof of what you said?

YES - just invest in some 1980's HiFi Choice amp books where the 32/Snaps then Hicap/250 and 135's were measured.

Sonically recommended by Martin Colloms, he still referred to the band limited and forward kind of presentation with limited reproduction of depth. I admit this was before the 52 preamp came along and developments of the 32.5 and 72. I may try to scan these reviews as SINAD is somewhere in the 70's and IMD at 19 + 20khz is worse. the Quad 405-2 with 34 preamp wasn't any better either back then - good enough it was and that was that! I'll see if I can do a scan or two and you can see for yourself and interpret it.

P.S. The NAP 250 amp changed a lot in its time. I rather liked the original bolt up 1970's version, but a colleague with full tri-amped active Isobarik system (bought after we visited JV at his home and heard and enjoyed his well set up system) found the amps started to drift off thermally and the 'sound' going off a bit. Back to Salisbury they went and were 'serviced,' coming back worse than before. JV was horrified, 'had words' with the service guy who subsequently left to start his own short lived amp company (Audio Vois I think it was called) and Julian personally took the amps back and set them up jimself. While there and subjectively testing them to my colleague, he compared them to the then new CB-era 250, which despite the same circuit apparently, sounded harder in timbres and more 'percussive/driven, where the bolt up three there had a looser and more 'musical' subjective sound. Post 2000, the casework took a step up and circuit layouts have evolved again. I believe there are a couple of electrolytics which suffer and cause drift in older models (hence the 'need' for servicing every ten years or so in old models), but I get the impression the post 2000 ranges are rather better here (I think they use surface mount on their boards these days too).

I do agree all this seems implausible, but circuit layout and amp set-up really did seem to make a sonic difference back then. Mind you, the tech performance was such I'm not surprised. naim used and maybe still do, have cables with no internal (or I believe external) shielding of the left and right conductors plus a 24VDC line in the SNAIC cables and the supply to power amp cables were simple three core mains wire with DIN at one end and a sister-company non locking 'XLR' at the other. Since JV's passing, RCA sockets appear here and there and this has helped I'm sure, for non Naim owners to buy into the brand.

 

[voodooless]

Can somebody point to the correct graph where PRAT is depicted?

Close your eyes and picture real hard what you wish to see… well, there it is!

 

[sarumbear]

YES - just invest in some 1980's HiFi Choice amp books where the 32/Snaps then Hicap/250 and 135's were measured.

Sonically recommended by Martin Colloms, he still referred to the band limited and forward kind of presentation with limited reproduction of depth. I admit this was before the 52 preamp came along and developments of the 32.5 and 72. I may try to scan these reviews as SINAD is somewhere in the 70's and IMD at 19 + 20khz is worse. the Quad 405-2 with 34 preamp wasn't any better either back then - good enoiugh it was and that was that!

You are counter arguing with yourself. As you said they have measured other famous amplifiers and found them to be no different to the Naim model. If those books stated what the SOTA at the time was you would possibly call NAP250, which was launched in 1975 a SOTA amplifier. There is a reason why we have the term State of The Art and NAP250 was that -- at the time (the state).

 

[DSJR]

I believe you're not quite correct here. The state of the art amps back then had distortion in the 90's (UK made Audiolabs were such and recommended) but almost all the 'high end' models Mr Colloms raved over had estimated SINAD down in the upper 30's and 40's (ARC, Quicksilver and CJ valve amps are three makes which come to mind) and most UK fare then was somewhere in the 70's and 80's (Cyrus and so on). The KRELL KSA50 in original form, plus its 100 sibling, as ok, but today, only fair to middling for what its worth. Do remember that back then, measurements were almost totally ignored in favour of purely subjective comments. as we were a bit sheep-like and often aspired to the fave-rave systems of the times, we felt that if it was good for say, Alvin Gold or Keith Howard before he educated himself in electronics and so-on, it was good enough for us!

I don't have the review, but designer/reviewer Stan Curtis (you must remember him) tested the then baby Naim 42/110 pairing and noticed a lot of third and fifth order distortion. This I can't confirm with evidence as I don't have the review here, just an Aspergic memory of such. this pairing always sounded scrappy compared to the models further up the range and the 62/140 descendants went along way to remove the obvious character of the previous generation. I watched at the factory a set of 135 amp boards being tested, the input transistors better and individually matched for these I was shown and then the first thirty seconds as the brand new board was first powered and settled down into some kind of stability. Distortion here was mostly fourth order according to the test engineer/tech who was happy to show what he was doing.

 

[DesertHawk]

I hate touch screens. Tactical buttons ftw imho.

 

[sarumbear]

I believe you're not quite correct here. The state of the art amps back then had distortion in the 90's (UK made Audiolabs were such and recommended) but almost all the 'high end' models Mr Colloms raved over had estimated SINAD down in the upper 30's and 40's (ARC, Quicksilver and CJ valve amps are three makes which come to mind) and most UK fare then was somewhere in the 70's and 80's (Cyrus and so on). The KRELL KSA50 in original form, plus its 100 sibling, as ok, but today, only fair to middling for what its worth. Do remember that back then, measurements were almost totally ignored in favour of purely subjective comments. as we were a bit sheep-like and often aspired to the fave-rave systems of the times, we felt that if it was good for say, Alvin Gold or Keith Howard before he educated himself in electronics and so-on, it was good enough for us!

Without any data whatever you believe is in your head: Beliefs are not objective.

Anyway, we have polluted the review thread too much. If you want to discuss whether the old NAIM amps were SOTA at the launch or not please open a new thread and invite me to join.

 

[FrantzM]

You know, B&O have always sold on their aesthetic and finish, but I now believe that even in the 80's, they were way ahead internally and technically, not that we 'flat earthers' then even looked at that brand remotely seriously, regarding it as a rich man's Technics or similar stack system (I was pulled up short later on I remember, hearing so many Beosystems 'sound' really very good in owners' homes in a good-all-round kind of way)

+1000

 

[peniku8]

It is rather and way more informative to read the knee of the graph. Distortion is rapidly increasing after 36 W.

I agree, you have clean distortion-free headroom until you reach the knee. That's not what I took issue with.
I took issue with how the data was presented. It's not made clear (to the random person that might find ASR via google and look at this graph), that Amir's power figures and the manufacturer figures were determined differently, both with their own valid approach. If you don't know that, you'll just assume Amir's reading is correct and the manufacturer is lying about their specs. The last line of red text on the image can be misleading imo, in the way it's written.
I'd personally add the power figure at the knee, the figure at 1%THD (as that is most common) and the manufacturer spec. Most average people see the picture and think 'test result worse than spec, uh oh, manufacturer bad'.

 

[RandomEar]

Do you think the filter is done on purpose to cause some rise in distortion in high frequencies? This and the amp roll of in high frequency may indicate some intention to prevent the unit from sounding harsh to some listeners. What do you think? It doesn't looks like an accident.

The filter simply looks "good enough" to me. THD+N starts to rise around 3 kHz and passes the - still very low - value of 0.01% at 10 kHz. Any rise above 10 kHz is practically irrelevant, because the harmonics will be above 20 kHz and, hence, inaudible. And I don't even think 0.01% of THD+N are a real concern. That's really not a weak point of the device. It just looks bad on paper, with little to no practical consequence.

Concerning the FR drop off above 6 or 7 kHz: That may be intentional, and if it is, it's dumb. Who want's a HiFi device with a baked-in and non-adjustable EQ? If it's not intentional, it's a design problem. Either way, -1.3 dB aren't a huge problem but it's also not a good look in my book.

 

[sarumbear]

Most average people see the picture and think 'test result worse than spec, uh oh, manufacturer bad'.

Whether NAIM is delivering to spec or not the issue here. The amplifier is below par compared to a very large number of amplifiers tested. There can be no arguing about that.

That is the issue and the shame of the manufacturer.

 

[Spkrdctr]

Hi

From this and similar review of HEA products, the audiophile should retain that a good AVR provide more feature than most (any?) of the these High End Audio offerings. At a much better price.; perhaps in a less "lifestyle" form factor...
At around that price, $3500, one can begin contemplating a good, fine sounding 2-channel system complete with subwoofer with a Denon AVR-X3700...
Denon AVR-X3700 ...... $1299
KEF R3 ....... $2000
SVS ....... SB1000 $500
Oh! and DRC comes in the form of Audyssey ... It is included with the X-3700...

Peace.

That's what I have been pushing on these threads for awhile now. So much "audiophile" high end stuff is no better than an inexpensive Yamaha RX-685 receiver. But with the Yamaha you get so many surround options plus 2 channel DSP bypassing etc. It is fairly easy to beat the value of some of the high end junk made out there! Sure it is not Topping performance but for the price $499 you get 7 channels of amplification and lots of things to fine tune and play with. Much more fun than blowing $4000 and getting very little.

 

[restorer-john]

Anyway, we have polluted the review thread too much. If you want to discuss whether the old NAIM amps were SOTA at the launch or not please open a new thread and invite me to join.

Realisticaly, the only reason anyone buys a Naim product in 2022 is the UK pedigree, name and reputation they acquired in the mid 70s through to the late 90s. And, as such, discussion of what got us there is quite valid, especially in a review of a current Naim branded product.

Was the hype/reputation based on fact, folklore or simply good marketing? It's all valid and the discussion need not be hived off into another thread. My personal opinion was older Naim was beatifully constructed in the traditional 'belts and braces' UK school of design, but poorly performing, fragile and prone to failure, due to inadequate cooling, poor component choices and simpy overpriced by the time it arrived down under.

 

[Andy211]

I tried this unit out a few years ago. I heard so much about Naim and for the price, had high expectations. Inexplicably, it sounded very good on some tracks and very poor on others. The software was terrible, maybe they improved it? I felt that the 40w was insufficient. I was told by the salesperson that Naim conservatively rates power and in reality the 40w is probably much higher. I'm glad I moved on.

 

[PeteL]

Some would say Naim is is high end - their ‘statement’ stack is £200k

Naim Statement (Full System) - Hifi Lounge

<h2 class="wendy">What HFL Thinks</h2> Naim Statement - Naim really are one of Britain’s truly great companies, always leading the way when it comes to hifi, whether it is creating the world greatest CD player to embracing this new age of streaming we find ourselves in today, but most...

hifilounge.co.uk

OK, but what really sells are Mu-So systems and such. Their main bread and butter market is IMO the crowd I described. I do not know anybody in the market for this but maybe, especially in other markets. It was based on the pulse of what I saw around. Those are indeed quite powerful. I did however heard something similar, probably not the exact same but same type of amp paired with some Focal Utopias and it sounded great. Too much money for me.

 

[DSJR]

Without any data whatever you believe is in your head: Beliefs are not objective.

Anyway, we have polluted the review thread too much. If you want to discuss whether the old NAIM amps were SOTA at the launch or not please open a new thread and invite me to join.

I have no interest in the brand now, except to marvel at the annual price increases... I've spent time with the Statement amps and wouild say they're more powerful (they appear unburstable subjectively) than the humbler moderls, but there's still this brightly lit quality I can't fathom or test for. Into Dynaudio Confidence 60's I got a headache after forty minutes. The same speakers/room with the Chord top power amps and pre/Dave were much more benign to me.

Here's one dreadful scan I've just done of the 250. The 135's are worse and once I've sorted the PC the scanner is attached to, I'll post that and leave it be. Stereophile have had a go at one or two of the new boxes and the performance is in fairness a bit better.

 

[AudioSceptic]

It will be great to be able to test the product set that started the Naim phenomenon, NAP250 and the matching preamp. I can't recall the model number for the pro but but from late 70s. Eye opening to see how well they have progressed or went the other way round.

I remember the NAC32 + NAP 250 being the ones "to have", with the NAC12 + NAP160 being the more affordable pairing.

 

[AudioSceptic]

Do you have any proof of what you said?

Proof of what? That the performance really wasn't that good?

 

[Dj7675]

The question is why are all these reviewers raving about Naim?

Paid ”reviewers” or ones that are financially linked to brands in some way. Or people that are swayed by a pretty box with a higher price tag and think a higher cost of an item must be better.

 

[AudioSceptic]

YES - just invest in some 1980's HiFi Choice amp books where the 32/Snaps then Hicap/250 and 135's were measured.

Sonically recommended by Martin Colloms, he still referred to the band limited and forward kind of presentation with limited reproduction of depth. I admit this was before the 52 preamp came along and developments of the 32.5 and 72. I may try to scan these reviews as SINAD is somewhere in the 70's and IMD at 19 + 20khz is worse. the Quad 405-2 with 34 preamp wasn't any better either back then - good enough it was and that was that! I'll see if I can do a scan or two and you can see for yourself and interpret it.

P.S. The NAP 250 amp changed a lot in its time. I rather liked the original bolt up 1970's version, but a colleague with full tri-amped active Isobarik system (bought after we visited JV at his home and heard and enjoyed his well set up system) found the amps started to drift off thermally and the 'sound' going off a bit. Back to Salisbury they went and were 'serviced,' coming back worse than before. JV was horrified, 'had words' with the service guy who subsequently left to start his own short lived amp company (Audio Vois I think it was called) and Julian personally took the amps back and set them up jimself. While there and subjectively testing them to my colleague, he compared them to the then new CB-era 250, which despite the same circuit apparently, sounded harder in timbres and more 'percussive/driven, where the bolt up three there had a looser and more 'musical' subjective sound. Post 2000, the casework took a step up and circuit layouts have evolved again. I believe there are a couple of electrolytics which suffer and cause drift in older models (hence the 'need' for servicing every ten years or so in old models), but I get the impression the post 2000 ranges are rather better here (I think they use surface mount on their boards these days too).

I do agree all this seems implausible, but circuit layout and amp set-up really did seem to make a sonic difference back then. Mind you, the tech performance was such I'm not surprised. naim used and maybe still do, have cables with no internal (or I believe external) shielding of the left and right conductors plus a 24VDC line in the SNAIC cables and the supply to power amp cables were simple three core mains wire with DIN at one end and a sister-company non locking 'XLR' at the other. Since JV's passing, RCA sockets appear here and there and this has helped I'm sure, for non Naim owners to buy into the brand.

I think I have those booklets somewhere too. I never heard the 52 or 82 but thought the prices were crazy and I would never even consider them.

 

[RichT]

Very informative review, thanks Amir. Well I guess one does not get what they pay for or is it beauty is only skin/case thick. More Expensive Audio Junk (MEAJ) Regards