Lance

Naim and MF appeal to different people. If you have bought your 72/Hi/250 for PRaT and other flat earth attributes, you WON'T be enamoured by the MF. My experience of MF amps reminds me of lushness, warmth and excessive flab in the bass. Now, I haven't heard the current MF range but I don't think they would have fundamentally changed their priorities (especially marketing ).

Is your friend an imaging and soundstage freak? If so, he may well think his MF trounces your Naim. By all means try the MF, but is there any reason you are dissatisfied with your Naim? Perhaps you should elaborate.

James

Resistance is Futile

Is your firend local? If he's so high on the MF, why doesn't he bring it on over?

Lance

I have some familiarity with this type of kit. I think James and Phil are pointing you in the right direction. Please bear with the intro.

The Musical Fidelity A3cr range is a development of the X series and Nu-Vista amplifiers - in boxes instead of cylinders / losenges. Their are some circuit changes (clearly on the nu-vista amps use the nu-vista valve/transistor hybrids) the circuit boards are similar across the range - but the A3cr use choke regulation - which may give them some performance improvement over the older gear.

The stats for the A3cr power amp are 120W into 8 ohms RMS.

I currently use a MF set up consisting of a X-P100 pre (very, very similar to the A3cr pre) and four X-A200 200W (into 8 ohm rms) monoblock power amplifiers. So mine has a bit more ommph that your freinds.

OK - the comparison:-

Totally different design objectives than Naim. The MF set up (and it is mostly the pre driving this) is about air, space, detail and soundstaging - with some loss of dynamics, timing etc. Bass can sound considerably more flabby than a Naim system, although it is no mean sound when compared to more middle of the road "arcam-esque" hi-fi.

The power amps (mine at least) are a bit different. When you start paying silly money for hi-fi power amps, IMHO you begin to get a bit more balance between the round and flat earth sounds. At lower ends you have to compromise on one or the other. In the same way - top flight Naim gear does give you some of that round-earth feeling, you just have to pay a lot more to keep the PRaT AND get some of the "girlie" soundstaging, depth etc etc.

So if you like that kind of thing - the MF gear is not bad. If you listened to lots of different sounding gear before buying Naim because you liked the Naim sound - then MF gear is probably not for you.

I recently heard Naheed's active 102,140's,sbl based system on piles of Mana. It rocked big time - and made my system sound very flabby. But there are some things mine can do his can't. Just that most naim-enamoured users wouldn't give a monkeys about it.

As for me - If I'd heard Naim before I got into MF - I'd have bought the Naim.

I do still have a foot in the round-earth camp, and will from now on just buy top-flight Naim gear (very slowly) so I can keep the best of both worlds. And I will be seriously investigating Mana to see if I can get more PRaT in my round-world.

I wonder if I can drive my MF monoblocks from a 52? Answers on a postcard please.

Naheed has threatened a return visit next weekend - so maybe he can give a reverse perspective on the Naim Vs MF debate.

OK - hope this ramble helps. Yell if you have any questions.

Jonathan
"I used to love her...."

quote:

---

The MF set up (and it is mostly the pre driving this) is about air, space, detail and soundstaging - with some loss of dynamics, timing etc. Bass can sound considerably more flabby than a Naim system, although it is no mean sound when compared to more middle of the road "arcam-esque" hi-fi.

---

I remember reading an interview with Anthony Michaelson in one of the hi-fi rags years ago, he made the comment that he considered bass control relatively unimportant compared to other areas, and he also considered that the vast majority of current amps are over damped.

No further information is required to explain the soggy, tuneless, and lethargic sound of his amps. I personally rate MF pretty much at the bottom of the heap amp wise, I would honestly take a NAD 3020 to any thing they have on offer. I heard that Nu-Vista preamp thing last year, and it is truly awful.

Tony.

Naim don't recommend using their power amps with other pre-amps as the 'pre-amp define the input characteristics of the power-amp' or some such words. I don't really know what they are getting at here.....

For Lance.
I have to say that ultimately, my comments are clouded by the fact that we used SBL's, not a more suitable loudspeaker for this amplifier. A proper assessment should see the amplifier being used with a recommended loudspeaker system. I don't know what the rest of your setup is. If you are a bit unsettled with you current sound, and can obtain the MF on a loan, then try it. If you have the right CDP and loudspeakers, and depending upon what you are disatisfied with at the moment, it may well work better, although I find it hard to imagine.

Brian

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

http://homepages.go.com/~rontoolsie/index1.html

Thank you for sharing your actual listening experiences with the current highly touted MF amp. I am very greatful for the many varied experiences of this relatively large forum. Your comparative experience as well as those of others have helped lessen my desire to attain the MF amplifier for trial. I am quite happy with my 250/hi/72 naca5/B&W N805s and Rotel 971 cd payer (temporay). I do, however, try to keep abreast of the perceived latest and greatest in the audio reproduction world. As mentioned previously, I do not have a local dealer that I may barror equipment for evaluation. Thanks again Brian and forum.

Lance