Tagged With "202"

Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Finkfan ·
And fed into a 282,HC,250DR it sounded awesome. The speakers almost disappeared!
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Finkfan ·
Hi Ive had a few demos recently. Playing around with power supplies in different parts of the system. The biggest difference I heard by far was the power supply on the source, every time. Adding a PS to a pre amp did obviously improve things too but nowhere near the same level. I heard the 272 with PS then NDX with PS into bare 272. (NDX was used as dealer didn't have a CDX2). No contest. The NDX kept in performance! The 272 was a small gain in comparison. I too have a CDX2 analogue only. I...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Finkfan ·
Best thing to do though would obviously be to get in touch with a local dealer and arrange a morning for some demos. Ive not heard a 202, but I'd guess there would only be a subtle improvement with the 272. Just a guess. More of a sideways step to add a streaming source, rather than a pre amp upgrade?
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

best_jerry ·
I'm using 202/HCDR/200, as I already had HCDR, anyone know if I upgrade to 200DR will further improve ?
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

catalinmetal ·
yes, in normal conditions, the sound should improve, no doubt about it! and you can probably sell the HCDR or use it for other Naim product...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
No, the HCDR should be kept for the 202. Even with a NAP 200 DR
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

HiFiman ·
Any HiCap is dual rail and power the 202 in dual mode, all NAPs provide single rail to a pre so yes a HiCap will be better especially the DR version.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Singlespeed ·
Naim advised me to go non DR 200 amp to go with my HiCap DR instead of selling HicapDR & buying 200DR...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

best_jerry ·
I will not selling the HCDR, just want to know if 202/HCDR/200 DR are better than 202/HCDR/200 non DR or not.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
Apparently yes . Where are you based? U.K. ?
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

best_jerry ·
hi analogmusic, I'm in Hong Kong. So are you meaning 200DR is better than 200 non DR if both of them are also using HCDR?
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
according to Frank Abela of audio-t, yes, the older 200 is apparently "dry" sounding, the new 200DR has much improved resolution, so if you can trade up, I would do it. PS : I have a 282/HCDR/200 (non DR) rig, and love it. I found much musical improvement when I switched RCA-RCA interconnects to RCA-DIN from my chord Hugo into 282.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Simon-in-Suffolk ·
Hmm, I have not heard the new 200, but just don't recognize that statement of the old 200 sounding dry.. because it wasn't for me.. It had a relatively light slightly sweet sound to me.. it's only shortcoming, if you can call it that, in my setup was that it didn't grip and control the speakers or quite have the resolving power like the regulated amps do, but that is not what the 200 is/was about. Simon
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

best_jerry ·
Simon, I agree with you, 200 is not sounding dry, i owned 200, 250.2 and 300, and finally back to the 200 as it sounds really pretty sweet for that price point, of course 300 is quite better.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

totemphile ·
No it will not! Waste of money.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

totemphile ·
Just for the record, the 200 never sounded dry in my own experience. Maybe it is not the best choice of a word but if dry is meant to mean leaner, crisper or tighter, for lack of a better words, than the old 250.2 for example, then yes, the 200 sounded leaner. It's a great amp.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
And where is Catalinmetal now to praise how much better is the 200dr - apparently 95 percent as good as the 250 dr? Anyway - we all hear what we hear, or sometimes, what we want to hear The 200 non DR is a fantastic amp which I love very dearly, and never understood why catalinmetal said it sounded dry.
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

karlosTT ·
I think 'dry' is an ambiguous term, with no intuitive meaning in audio terms. However, what I think people mean by it is a lean sounding bass, not rounded or full, and lacking a little warmth in tonality. To that extent, I think the 200 is quite capable of coming across as dry sounding - if not in every system context perhaps, but more so than other Naim power amps.....
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Arnaud ·
Karlsott, that is exactly the impression I had when I auditionned (non DR) 200/202 in the past: too lean sounding for my taste, not "sensual" or "comfortable" enough. On the other hand, 250/282 seemed almost too exuberant to me... Does anyone know if the new 200DR/200 is more on the "comfy" side, making it more acceptable to listeners of my kind? Thank you in advance
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

catalinmetal ·
whether is a waste of money only the OP can decide. but with the first statement i do not agree! the step from 200 to 200DR will show improvement in SQ. for the record, have you ever heard the 2 amps side by side? thanks for an honest aswer...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

catalinmetal ·
analog, i see you made quite a mission in pinpointing my posts and fire at them... i would be flattered if i would know if your experience matches mine... i cannot know that so i will not debate further with you, and i would appreciate if you would do the same for me, just ignore my posts if you think they are not worth a dime. while many have swallowed dealers' or forum's saying that 250DR is just the day's rabbit-in-the-box, i happened to make my own findings, and simply decide that for...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

dayjay ·
Hm, I've heard the 200dr, 250dr and 300dr back to back with their non dr brethren in the same, good quality system, and the 250dr was the stand out performer to me. If I was to upgrade on my SN2, which I'm not, the 250dr would be the amp that I bought, probably with a 282 at the front and a hicap dr
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
catalinmetal, just enjoying the debate, I do enjoy reading your posts a lot. Don't hold back any opinion just because of me, nothing personal at all, in fact in a roundabout way I do agree with many of your postings. Dayjay that is very interesting post, about the 250 DR being the standout, what did you like about it?
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

totemphile ·
No I haven't. But the Naim marketing blurb says, and I quote: "The NAP 200 does not use the new NA009 transistors as it would not benefit from the extra current handling and other advantages they offer to higher performance power amplifiers. The NAP 200 also does not use regulated rails for the power amplifier section. It does however provide power to the attached preamplifier. This power supply is now upgraded to a DR module identical that can be found in the Hi-Cap power supply. Now the...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

dayjay ·
I'm not great at describing these things, lack the voocabulary but I felt it had a good chunk of the grip of the 300 but had a lovely and lively sparkle to it. Good soundstage and a nice sense of realism to instrument. Obviously the 300dr had this too and more but for vfm the 250dr did it for me. Personally I prefer it to the non dr 300 in that system
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
totemphile makes a very good point, that the naim preamps which do not have a built in power supply really benefit from a PSU like HCDR. when the 202/200 are connected together, and I switch off the NAP 200, the light goes out almost straight away and the capacitors discharge in a second. With 200 powering only itself and the HCDR powering the 202, switch off the 200, and it takes a fairly long time for the light to swtich off and then the the capacitors to discharge (that's when the hear...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

catalinmetal ·
that's the correct answer for me! the rest is just assumption... and it's widely known that assumption is the mother of all f..ups on the other hand, also on Naim's 200DR page, the presentation tells that, along with converting the preamp PSU to DR spec, other changes have been done to the layout and some components... i seem to hear those changes, as does Frank Abela and some others... very nice that you could back-to-back them in the same setup! while i haven't heard the 300DR yet, i think...
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
Nice feedback Catalinmetal. Can you please explain which combinations in your sentence " i really hated the older 200 in certain combinations ".
Reply

Re: NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

Former Member ·
Did you feel that the older 200 was more "dry" sounding than the newer 200DR? what about the 202/HC with old 200 and new 200 DR?
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Mike Hughes ·
My own fault for responding to the 282 comment. To clarify then, there are no circumstances in which I would look at a 282 in my system. I've heard about 7 now with lots of speaker combinations and it does little for me. I've no interest in 252/300 as they're both beyond my financial reach at present but critically also don't offer what the 272 offers. I am also aware what the XPS2 brings to my CDX2. Knowing all that my question remains. If I were to lose the 202/HC2 and move the XPS2 onto a...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

catalinmetal ·
as far as analogue preamp duties, the 272 is better than SN2 preamp, but still little under the 202... the good thing for 272 is that as a source is very close to NDX (if an older non-updated unit, the 272 is even slightly better). 282 is no way analytical or glassy... rather the 202 is! 282 is very smooth and refined, not edgy at all. i suspect the opinion on 282 was more the result of CDX2 sound, which i heard is edgy and hard, sometimes. but since i haven't heard no CDX2 version, i cannot...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Pete Lewthwaite ·
Mike, Since I think your requirement is to add streaming without increasing the number of boxes then just swapping the 202 for a 282 is not going to achieve this so I'll concentrate on the 272. Depending on the age of your CDX2 it may have a digital out facility. If so then I suspect that taking that into the 272 and putting the XPS on the 272 would be worth investigating. If not then I think that Naim can upgrade the CDX2 to have this facility and although more costly may give the best...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Mike Hughes ·
Yes, the 282 is utterly irrelevant to this discussion. FWIW I've never heard it with my CDX2. Only a CDS3 with various speaker and power combinations. Now, moving on... My CDX2 is an early model and I'll only consider going down the digital upgrade route if I can dem that against mine minus XPS2 going analogue into the 272 and hear that it matches or improves on it. I don't really fancy converting it to a very expensive transport unless there is a tangible benefit with the 272. i fully...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

ChrisSU ·
I don't believe a 272 will improve on your 202/HCDR. It will, of course, add streaming functionality, which could potentially mean that you no longer need a CD player. But, if that's what you want, I think you'd be better off adding an NDX to your current system. If you just want a better preamp, get a 282. Those are my impressions based on a couple of fairly lengthy dealer dem's. Others may, of course, have different opinions. I would add that despite my opinions above, I still thought the...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Mike Hughes ·
Thanks but I think my views on the 282 are well known on here. Without going OT it's not a pre I would consider. Ditto the NDX, which, in my view, comes nowhere near the musicality of my CDX2 with or without XPS2. In any event I'm looking to keep the CDP and add streaming as something the rest of the family want. I suspect you're right that a bare 272 won't beat a 202/HC2 but my question is really about whether removing my current XPS2 from the CDP and putting it on the 272 would beat my...
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

The Strat (Fender) ·
Mike I agree with Chris but I haven't read your views on the 282. For my part it is a pradigm shift on both the 202 and 272 but I guess you don't concur?
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Mike Hughes ·
Glassy and digital to my ears and always has been. The sound opens up but is clinical/analytic rather than musical. It gains lots of audiophile stuff but loses musicality. It's also not an option as my next move would be "add streaming" with minimal additional boxes. When you say you agree with Chris are you saying 282 plus HC2 beats bare 272 or 272 with XPS2?
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

The Strat (Fender) ·
I've heard 272 with XPS2 and 555 and it's a very good product and if you want to enjoy streaming and reduce boxes then it ticks all the boxes. But in my opinion the 282 is the opposite to that you describe - with a good source (and CDX2/XPS is excellent) then it's a compelling listen and will present a far more enjoyable music experience than the 272.
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Finkfan ·
Recently heard the XPS DR in action. It was on an NDX as the dealer didn't have a CDX2 but I'm sure the effect would be the same. I auditioned the XPS as that's an addition I'd like this year to my CDX2. The effect was enormous! Bigger, better, more clarity, dynamics, definition, everything really. I'd you own and plea on keeping a CD player, a separate power supply is a must!
Reply

Re: 272 plus CDX2 and XPS2 non DR versus 272 plus XPS2 non DR and bare CDX2

Former Member ·
interesting thread. I have always wondered about 272 vs 202 purely as analog preamps. However now that I own both 202 and 282, I have been able to compare them both extensively side by side, and while the 202 is no slouch at all, the 282 is the more musical preamp, and has the added benefits of bigger soundstage in all directions. I could live with either, however, but with a very strong preference for the 282. I am not sure why the 282 sounds glassy and digital to Mike (this has been said...
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Armbored ·
Hi HH, Almost as lame... I've come from an olive 72/140 setup and there is no power button on the rear of the equipment (you can see where this is going, can't you?) Well, when I did the swtich on sequence as suggested, leaving the 155 until last as is normal, the Naim logo lit up when I switched it on at the wall. However, as I last resort I checked the switch at the rear... which of course was off. It must have been getting some power from the Hicap, then when I turned it on properly, the...
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

hungryhalibut ·
That's odd, the 155 never gets any power from the Hicap. Can you confirm that the 202 is connected to Socket 4 on the Hicap, and that the 155 is connected to one of the other three - the one next to socket 4 is generally considered the best one to use, as it's the shortest signal path. You haven't connected the 155 direct to the 202, have you - suspecting that you may have done.....
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Armbored ·
Hi HH, Just switched it all off and double checked the connections. All good, Hicap connected to socket 4/202 and socket 3/155. The 155 has only one DIN socket, which is connected to the Hicap. Switching on sequence; 1) NAPSC; power to preamp comes on 2) Hicap; Hicap powers up and 155 lights up. 3) NAP 155; Naim logo glows brighter. Is there something not right here? I do have one more question for you guys out there... how do I connect a Headline to all this? I was using my NAPSC for the...
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Skip ·
Start with the 202 and 155 and your source into different 202 inputs. Is there a link plug out of place? Get a sound and then add the rest. Do you have a manual? Have you read it? You should. Do you have a dealer? You should. Do you have a friend to help? These power supply hookups are not intuitive on your own. Good luck.
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Richard Dane ·
As Skip suggests, put both link plugs (round 5pin as well as paddle 4 pin) back in place on the NAC202 and start off by just powering it off the NAP. You will have just a SNAIC4 connected between NAC202 and NAP155xs. Get a sound then move to adding the NAPSC. If all well then remove the NAP from the 202, add in the Hicap to the NAC202. Connect NAP to the Hicap pre-out. Absolutely DO NOT leave the NAP still connected to the NAC when you have added the Hicap. Signals route through the Hicap...
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Frank Abela ·
Please remember to switch off everything whenever making a change! The final solution should be no link plugs in the back of the 202, as follows: NAPSC plugged into the socket marked Upgrade 1 (napsc). Hicap socket 4 (the one on the end) connected to the socket marked "Upgrade2 or link2". Use the SNAIC5 (5-pin) and the band should be at the 202 end. Hicap socket 3 (next to the preamp socket I just used above) connected to the 155. You use the SNAIC4 for this, band at Hicap end. Plug speaker...
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Armbored ·
Thanks very much everyone, Yes I removed the link plugs as I have the Hicap and the NAPSC plugged into the upgrade sockets. I will go and check them all now and see where it takes me. Cheers, Mike
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

Armbored ·
PS, Where does the Snaic 5 from the Stageline go to on the 202?
Reply

Re: Connection problems, help please?

hungryhalibut ·
Re: Connection problems, help please?
×
×
×
×