I did listen to both the NAT Magnetostat and Magma SEs a few days ago. Compared to Jadis in my system, they were more clean and had more resolution, and each instrument sounded more rounded and stood out. I loved the Jadis JPL Plus Ja 100 I had as well. The main difference in the two was also that Jadis airy, while NAT is more transparent, like it's not there. The key difference happens on orchestral where NAT is cleaner. Jadis is more tubey. Both NAT pre and power were incredibly heavy. I enjoyed both. The Magma SE is just too hot to have in summer though, so that's a dealbreaker
Nat Audio - giant killers?
- Thread starter spiritofmusic
- Start date
Hi tough to say. Spirits system and mine are very different. They are always resolving, dynamic, and great bass, control from top to bottom. I have heard the NATs that spirit has before in an analysis audio (planar) system which happens to be a dream system. Over there too they blew my AR ref 3 away on orchestral music separation, roundedness of an instrument, and dynamics. All I want to say is look at your music tastes. NATs are not easy to sell off in the used market, so they need to be long term purchases, and worth it if you are into orchestral. The pre will also drive a SS easily
Maril555, continuing to be thrilled by the Nat's. They manage to give me a good deal of the tonal weight of the Koda and Ypsilon amps I have previously demoed, w/no compromise in transparency or treble incisiveness which can often happen w/a fuller sounding amp.
Hello Spirit, I'm interested in the NAT 211s as well. Have a pair in Croatia being offered but the EU version. The change from 220-110 is a problem. I'm trying to find a solution but a little under informed . Anyone on here done that before?
Bonzo might be able to help you, I think he has bought from Europe before. Hopefully you find a solution, they keep bowling me over.
I think only the manufacturer can change it, in which might make more sense to buy direct from the manufacturer himself, as it is going to be pretty cost effective as well, and get him to do it for 110
See Norman (wisnon)'s post in the Lampi thread:
"I asked Lukasz about the 211 amp and this was his response:
"THis is our best product to date, outshadowing even the DACs. It is not a typical push-pull, which sounds inferior to SET because of damned PHASE SPLITTER circuit. In our amp we do not split the phase, we do not touch it. On the contrary - our monoblock is effectively TWO SET mono amps in one chassis that share a summator output transformer. So not only the signal is as pure as SET but it also gets error cancellations and humming cancellation due to mirroring of the signals.
All that is possible only with true balanced XLR inputs of balanced audio, but our DACS are all balanced internally. Even the Big7 and Golden Gate are now available as balanced.
211 amp unlike many others has ONLY ONE amplification stage in input section - one SET 803Ecc. And it has extremely powerful White Follower drivers per each phase. All in all the amp represents the simplest purest form of 100 W power possible. "
"I asked Lukasz about the 211 amp and this was his response:
"THis is our best product to date, outshadowing even the DACs. It is not a typical push-pull, which sounds inferior to SET because of damned PHASE SPLITTER circuit. In our amp we do not split the phase, we do not touch it. On the contrary - our monoblock is effectively TWO SET mono amps in one chassis that share a summator output transformer. So not only the signal is as pure as SET but it also gets error cancellations and humming cancellation due to mirroring of the signals.
All that is possible only with true balanced XLR inputs of balanced audio, but our DACS are all balanced internally. Even the Big7 and Golden Gate are now available as balanced.
211 amp unlike many others has ONLY ONE amplification stage in input section - one SET 803Ecc. And it has extremely powerful White Follower drivers per each phase. All in all the amp represents the simplest purest form of 100 W power possible. "
Well, I seem to be late to the party regarding NAT but I will now try to address this interesting brand a bit more wholistically.
For starters, I am a NAT owner. I have a most unusual NAT but it is built to the same massive standards. I have the Symbiosis SE, which is a SE(T) amp. It is single ended by a hybrid with a SINGLE, high current MOSFET in the output stage. The input and driver are tubes. It is massive and weighs a full 70Kg (150+lbs.) and has a huge power supply and heat sinks. It also runs very hot. Like all good SETs it has no feedback but unlike an all tube SET it does not have output transformers.
Like the all tube NATs, it is tonally rich but not Euphonic. Once fully warmed up and on song it is very transparent, highly dimensional and very balanced from top to bottom. Full bodied does indeed apply but always under good control. What it doesn't have to the same degree of the top SETs I have heard is the rounded 3d imaging...in this sense the presence of the output transistor is felt IMO.
In addition to my own NAT, I have heard at length the following NATs: SE1, SE1 Mk 2, SE2SE (2 different versions), SE3 and the Single integrated. Preamps I have heard are the Utopia, the Plasma and the reference phono. I heard these amps on Apogee Grand speakers (passive and fully active) and Hales Transcendence Eight speakers.
One of the early demos we did was with the Plasma preamp and SE2SE monos against the CAT JL2 signature. Both were excellent but the NAT went to the extra dimension of realism that the CAT could not quite follow despite its other obvious strengths.
So what do I hear from the NAT monoblocks (the integrated is good but perhaps a bit too much on the warm side)? They are transparent and resolving but not at the sacrifice of tonality. They are more neutral than many other SETs i have heard and bass is truly impressive. Image palpability is excellent as is soudnstage organization and (importantly) stability. Images don't swim around...this is a benefit of a large, well-regulated power supply. The sound was similar between monos but I think probably the SE2SE were the best overall sounding IMO. My Symbiosis sounds a lot like this but just with less image palpability.
As for direct comparisons with my NAT Symbiosis and other amps, well my NAT is better than a lot of the competition we have put it up against, including Lamm M 1.1, Octave MRE130 monos and VAC 30/30 Mk3. The one amplifier that soundly beat my NAT is the KR Audio VA350i. It does everything a bit better than my NAT and one thing a lot better. That one thing is the image palpability but bass is also better (surprisingly because it was a strong suit of my NAT) as is low level resolution and as a consequence soundstage depth.
My two friends who had NAT both switched to KR Audio. I used to have a VA 350i as well but sold it for safety when my daughter was born. After hearing one again in direct comparison with my NAT made me want one again...it is really the best sounding amp I have ever owned or heard for sane money.
Let's put it in perspective a bit though. My NAT trounced the Einstein "The absolute Tune" integrated I got immediately after selling my KR (it was a disappointing sounding amp IMO). It trounced the orginal Devialet. It was clearly superior to one of the latest Octave monoblocks and was also better than the Lamm M1.1. I used to own a VAC 30/30, that is actually a very very good amp but being push/pull it could not achieve the overall coherence of the NAT even if it was slightly better in a couple of areas (soundstage depth and image 3d).
This weekend I will hear the large Line Magnetic LM219 ia that is supposed to be pretty impressive...we'll see as I will likely take my NAT to compare with it.
Now that I have a lot of experience with both NAT and KR Audio, I would choose KR Audio. They simply sound more realisitic, higher resolution, better bass (more texture along with the control), nearly perfect tonality, simply the best soundstage and imaging I have heard so far in an amp and from my friend's experience significantly better reliability. So, while NAT is very good, KR from my experience goes about a half level beyond.
It was funny, my friend who brought the KR back over to my place noted that the NAT seems to deliver it all...until you hook up the KR and realize that something was missing. However, when you go back to the NAT it is still very satisfying and you don't really seem to be missing anything...except you just heard that you were missing something.
I have a JJ 322, which by most standards here is a moderately priced amp. However, one shouldn't underestimate it because A) It is made in affordable Slovakia and B) All done in-house (even the transformers). It is very heavy and has huge Double "C" core output transformers (designed and made by JJ). I will be comparing it directly to the NAT over the weekend on my Odeon horn speakers. I have done this before with the NAT a slight favorite but I was running signal passive into the JJ. Now I will perform the demo with two different active preamps: an Audion Silver Night 1.0 and a Pure Sound L10. Preliminary trials with the two preamps on my other friend's Octave monos showed a clear victory for the Pure Sound L10 over the Audion preamp...we shall see how it does now in my system.
NAT is a good deal if you can get them at discounted European prices. The list prices in the US make them look less appealing and I would definitely go with KR if buying in the US. KR is more expensive than NAT here in Europe (real prices not list) so if the budget is somewhat of a concern then NAT gets closer to reference sound than most for a sane price.
For starters, I am a NAT owner. I have a most unusual NAT but it is built to the same massive standards. I have the Symbiosis SE, which is a SE(T) amp. It is single ended by a hybrid with a SINGLE, high current MOSFET in the output stage. The input and driver are tubes. It is massive and weighs a full 70Kg (150+lbs.) and has a huge power supply and heat sinks. It also runs very hot. Like all good SETs it has no feedback but unlike an all tube SET it does not have output transformers.
Like the all tube NATs, it is tonally rich but not Euphonic. Once fully warmed up and on song it is very transparent, highly dimensional and very balanced from top to bottom. Full bodied does indeed apply but always under good control. What it doesn't have to the same degree of the top SETs I have heard is the rounded 3d imaging...in this sense the presence of the output transistor is felt IMO.
In addition to my own NAT, I have heard at length the following NATs: SE1, SE1 Mk 2, SE2SE (2 different versions), SE3 and the Single integrated. Preamps I have heard are the Utopia, the Plasma and the reference phono. I heard these amps on Apogee Grand speakers (passive and fully active) and Hales Transcendence Eight speakers.
One of the early demos we did was with the Plasma preamp and SE2SE monos against the CAT JL2 signature. Both were excellent but the NAT went to the extra dimension of realism that the CAT could not quite follow despite its other obvious strengths.
So what do I hear from the NAT monoblocks (the integrated is good but perhaps a bit too much on the warm side)? They are transparent and resolving but not at the sacrifice of tonality. They are more neutral than many other SETs i have heard and bass is truly impressive. Image palpability is excellent as is soudnstage organization and (importantly) stability. Images don't swim around...this is a benefit of a large, well-regulated power supply. The sound was similar between monos but I think probably the SE2SE were the best overall sounding IMO. My Symbiosis sounds a lot like this but just with less image palpability.
As for direct comparisons with my NAT Symbiosis and other amps, well my NAT is better than a lot of the competition we have put it up against, including Lamm M 1.1, Octave MRE130 monos and VAC 30/30 Mk3. The one amplifier that soundly beat my NAT is the KR Audio VA350i. It does everything a bit better than my NAT and one thing a lot better. That one thing is the image palpability but bass is also better (surprisingly because it was a strong suit of my NAT) as is low level resolution and as a consequence soundstage depth.
My two friends who had NAT both switched to KR Audio. I used to have a VA 350i as well but sold it for safety when my daughter was born. After hearing one again in direct comparison with my NAT made me want one again...it is really the best sounding amp I have ever owned or heard for sane money.
Let's put it in perspective a bit though. My NAT trounced the Einstein "The absolute Tune" integrated I got immediately after selling my KR (it was a disappointing sounding amp IMO). It trounced the orginal Devialet. It was clearly superior to one of the latest Octave monoblocks and was also better than the Lamm M1.1. I used to own a VAC 30/30, that is actually a very very good amp but being push/pull it could not achieve the overall coherence of the NAT even if it was slightly better in a couple of areas (soundstage depth and image 3d).
This weekend I will hear the large Line Magnetic LM219 ia that is supposed to be pretty impressive...we'll see as I will likely take my NAT to compare with it.
Now that I have a lot of experience with both NAT and KR Audio, I would choose KR Audio. They simply sound more realisitic, higher resolution, better bass (more texture along with the control), nearly perfect tonality, simply the best soundstage and imaging I have heard so far in an amp and from my friend's experience significantly better reliability. So, while NAT is very good, KR from my experience goes about a half level beyond.
It was funny, my friend who brought the KR back over to my place noted that the NAT seems to deliver it all...until you hook up the KR and realize that something was missing. However, when you go back to the NAT it is still very satisfying and you don't really seem to be missing anything...except you just heard that you were missing something.
I have a JJ 322, which by most standards here is a moderately priced amp. However, one shouldn't underestimate it because A) It is made in affordable Slovakia and B) All done in-house (even the transformers). It is very heavy and has huge Double "C" core output transformers (designed and made by JJ). I will be comparing it directly to the NAT over the weekend on my Odeon horn speakers. I have done this before with the NAT a slight favorite but I was running signal passive into the JJ. Now I will perform the demo with two different active preamps: an Audion Silver Night 1.0 and a Pure Sound L10. Preliminary trials with the two preamps on my other friend's Octave monos showed a clear victory for the Pure Sound L10 over the Audion preamp...we shall see how it does now in my system.
NAT is a good deal if you can get them at discounted European prices. The list prices in the US make them look less appealing and I would definitely go with KR if buying in the US. KR is more expensive than NAT here in Europe (real prices not list) so if the budget is somewhat of a concern then NAT gets closer to reference sound than most for a sane price.
Thanks. When you compare the KR to the NAT, are you comparing it to your Symbiosis, because the NAT Magnetostat and Transmitter/Magma can be available at reasonable prices factory direct. I am assuming those, as well as an Utopia plus se2se combo will be superior to your one-off integrated?
Also, I know a dealer of KR Audio who switched to Aries Cerat (Cypriot) and says they are much superior.
Also, I know a dealer of KR Audio who switched to Aries Cerat (Cypriot) and says they are much superior.
No, the KR has been compared to some of the SE series monoblocks as well and came out ahead.
Having heard the Ares Cerat gear in Munich last year I was quite impressed with the sound of their gear. The design philosophy is also definitely in the right place. I would probably not say that their gear is much superior to KR based on my listening but I have not direcly compared the two brands (not easy to get hold of Ares Cerat gear). Who is the dealer you know and where is he located? i would be interested giving it a listen.
Paris, his name is Romain, http://www.080.fr/
His system has my favorite pair of speakers, Tune Audio Anima (horns), with Aries Cerat Diana integrated. Since you have the Odeon, worth going down there.
What were the NATs you compared the KR with. KR are much more pricier, and did you compare it on orchestral music, because where I find the NATs to excel is separation, dynamics, bass, and each instrument in the orchestra comes across as more rounded
Interesting, they also have KR.
No doubt NAT does dynamics, separation, tone etc. well. They are very good amps. I have simply found that KR exceeds NATs ultimate performance envelope in basically all the areas you described and with all kinds of music. It is not worlds different but I find it to be significant. I have directly compared the KR VA350i to the NAT SE2SE, Symbiosis and Single. The VA350i is priced comparably to the NATs.
The VA350i has been on my wish list for some time to compare with my DarTZeel- have never seen a used copy pop up in the states. Its new price point isn't very competitive for a unit with a passive volume pot. Maybe that will change with the euro depreciating against the $.
Morricab, KR Audio is mute point in UK, no distribution here. And I've heard less than complimentary things about KR 845 tubes re reliability (like my previous Audion-situated Elrog 845s).
What you summarise re Nat Audio SQ I heartily concur with, you've pretty much covered things.
What you summarise re Nat Audio SQ I heartily concur with, you've pretty much covered things.
Just curious...what do you think of the big Apogee Grands? I have not come across too many people who've ever heard one. I have long kept in the back of my mind the big Apogee Full ranges updated by True Sound Works, maybe/maybe not with a duo of high quality subs if necessary.
Lloyd, I'm looking at AvantGarde Trio Classico w/a pair of Basshorns, or Sadurni Acoustics Staccato horns as my final destination speakers, on the end of my Nats. Bonzo75 may be able to help re the Apogees.
Not regarding full ranges. Very rare. Also apogees are very different speaker to speaker, depending on how it has been modded. Put a good aluminium frame, external crossovers, high quality ribbons and magnets, and performance zooms up.
Thanks gents, yes, i have mentioned somewhere here before that i was looking at the True Sound Works Apogee Full Range and also the Analysis Audio Amphytron/Orion just for long-term options. Will look forward to hearing either or both some day...in the meantime, comments always welcome. I think Bonzo75 has had great experiences with Analysis Audio as i recall.
Similar threads
Members online
- Hyperion
- ashandger
- hopkins
- Abolive
- Bonesy Jonesy
- Argonaut
- Wavetouch
- Lyubo
- ton77
- acousticsguru
- Mark212121
- Lucas Domansky LDMS
- rafale
- Ketran
- andromedaaudio
- hols
- hesavary
- bonzo75
- mtemur
- agencal
- thekong
- Rexp
- Sablon Audio
- Audio Quack
- shaylin
- abeidrov
- Geoffkait
- Salectric
- Pock
- joeling
- horn150
- Birdwatcher
- analogsa
- amadeus
- Odd Harry
- perart1
- Kingsrule
- nafis
- octaviars
- Wjhen
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |