I'd like some upgrade advice (real this time)
Posted by: TomK on 25 December 2003
I may have a bob or two to spend in the coming weeks. I’m thinking that replacing my CD5/FC2 with a CDX2 would be a first step. Should I add the XPS2 or replace the 202 with a 282? I know it’s my choice, but it’s just not that convenient to hear all the options up here.
Posted on: 25 December 2003 by bdnyc
Tom-
With my listening perspectives, I have felt that while a great source is always a good idea, somethimes listeners with overzealous "Source First" approaches can somewhat undervalue what a great Pre-amp or Amp can offer. If you can swing it, I would think that a CDX2 is more akin to your trusty old LP 12 than the CD5, and a NAC 282 will really let both shine. For me, the pre-amp is the heart of a Naim system, and as good as a 202 is, the 282 will really open up more resolution, and improve the system in myriad ways, musical, and stereophonic.
Good luck!
With my listening perspectives, I have felt that while a great source is always a good idea, somethimes listeners with overzealous "Source First" approaches can somewhat undervalue what a great Pre-amp or Amp can offer. If you can swing it, I would think that a CDX2 is more akin to your trusty old LP 12 than the CD5, and a NAC 282 will really let both shine. For me, the pre-amp is the heart of a Naim system, and as good as a 202 is, the 282 will really open up more resolution, and improve the system in myriad ways, musical, and stereophonic.
Good luck!
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by prowla
I think the "source first" philosophy may have wilted and waned a bit over recent years.
I have olive CDX/82/250/Kans, having upgraded over the past couple of years from CD3.5/62s/140/Kans. The biggest step for me was from 62 to 82 since it changed the overall sound of the system whereas the CDX and 250 simply refined it. The next step will be an XPS.
With your budget, you will be able to try out the two options before buying. (Don't forget warm-up times though.)
Paul Rowlands
I have olive CDX/82/250/Kans, having upgraded over the past couple of years from CD3.5/62s/140/Kans. The biggest step for me was from 62 to 82 since it changed the overall sound of the system whereas the CDX and 250 simply refined it. The next step will be an XPS.
With your budget, you will be able to try out the two options before buying. (Don't forget warm-up times though.)
Paul Rowlands
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by Mick P
Upgrading any box in the Hifi chain will bring about benefits. Having said that, you always get the best results by putting the best kit up at the front end.
In your case I would opt for the CDX2 and then the XPS2 which will make your system so musical, that you will not believe your ears.
Concentrate on the back end as and when finances permit.
Regards
Mick
[This message was edited by Mick Parry on FRIDAY 26 December 2003 at 10:45.]
In your case I would opt for the CDX2 and then the XPS2 which will make your system so musical, that you will not believe your ears.
Concentrate on the back end as and when finances permit.
Regards
Mick
[This message was edited by Mick Parry on FRIDAY 26 December 2003 at 10:45.]
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by JeremyD
The source priority principle has only ever been a useful rule of thumb, its central idea being that the reproduction chain is only as good as its weakest link.
The idea that a source upgrade will always be a better option than an upgrade further down the chain is demonstrably false - and not even in accord with the principle of source priority - hence Tom's question is a perfectly valid one that deserves answers based on listening rather than the elevation of a misunderstood rule of thumb to a law of physics.
The idea that a source upgrade will always be a better option than an upgrade further down the chain is demonstrably false - and not even in accord with the principle of source priority - hence Tom's question is a perfectly valid one that deserves answers based on listening rather than the elevation of a misunderstood rule of thumb to a law of physics.
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by andy c
Tom,
I have contemplated and gone part way along your route i.e. I got the CDX2 to replace the 3.5 previously in my system.
Big differance!
Then borrowed 282/250mkII/XPS2 and pre putting spurs in my choice would have been 282 then XPS2.
My choice may still be that but I need to re-visit this again since sorting the mains out.
The 282 was the bigger differance, far more of everything... then adding the XPS2 to the CD ramped it up, where as the XPS2 into the 102 was not as big a differance...
I dare bet I'll still go for the 282 as the unity gain appeals to me re the bolt on surround I have anyway, and the spurs will only make the sound better IMO - then the XPS2...
Let us know how u get on...
andy c!
I have contemplated and gone part way along your route i.e. I got the CDX2 to replace the 3.5 previously in my system.
Big differance!
Then borrowed 282/250mkII/XPS2 and pre putting spurs in my choice would have been 282 then XPS2.
My choice may still be that but I need to re-visit this again since sorting the mains out.
The 282 was the bigger differance, far more of everything... then adding the XPS2 to the CD ramped it up, where as the XPS2 into the 102 was not as big a differance...
I dare bet I'll still go for the 282 as the unity gain appeals to me re the bolt on surround I have anyway, and the spurs will only make the sound better IMO - then the XPS2...
Let us know how u get on...
andy c!
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by Phil Barry
An old rule of thumb was that you're best advised to jump 2 levels in the Naim preamp/amp hierarchy to get significant improvements. I doubt that principle has changed with the new stuff.
That seems to indicate a move to a 52 or 252 from your 202. Since the items you're contemplating aren't available on the used market anayway, trips to dealers are in order.
Enjoy your search.
Regards.
Phil
That seems to indicate a move to a 52 or 252 from your 202. Since the items you're contemplating aren't available on the used market anayway, trips to dealers are in order.
Enjoy your search.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by Mike Hanson
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
An old rule of thumb was that you're best advised to jump 2 levels in the Naim preamp/amp hierarchy to get significant improvements. I doubt that principle has changed with the new stuff.
That seems to indicate a move to a 52 or 252 from your 202.
I always consider the power supply as part of the pre-amp. Since going to a 52 or 252 would require a Super-Cap, the first step could be a Super-Cap for the 102.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 26 December 2003 by Phil Barry
Mike makes an excellent point, which had slipped my mind - the x52s need a supercap, so the x52s would be pretty expensive.
Mike's suggestion for a 1st step is a good one. I think many of us, perhaps most, would prefer a 202/s'cap to an 82 powered from a 180 or a hicap.
Phil
Mike's suggestion for a 1st step is a good one. I think many of us, perhaps most, would prefer a 202/s'cap to an 82 powered from a 180 or a hicap.
Phil
Posted on: 20 January 2004 by TomK
Well after much deliberation, dilly-dallying, and wrestling with my conscience (how can I possibly justify spending this amount of money on myself when my son is probably going to Uni in a couple of years time?) I decided to go for the CDX2, and a visit to Ritchie’s in Montrose was organised (you guys in Loud and Clear need to get your stock organised better. That’s several times in the past year I’ve been able to hear stuff immediately in Montrose when I would have had to wait two weeks to hear it in Glasgow or Edinburgh).
Frankly the initial comparisons were less than convincing. Better than the CD5 + FC2, yes, but really worth the money? A bit more of everything was there but it wasn’t the quantum leap I’d been expecting. At this point I made the fatal mistake of asking to hear it with the XPS2. The difference was staggering – far greater than the CD5 –> CDX2. Suddenly the female vocals were a couple of feet closer and the acoustic guitar was in the room with me. Bass was deeper and firmer.
There was no going back and I left having spent a couple of grand more than I planned. After this I’d advise people not to ask to hear the effects of a PS unless they’re prepared to part with the cash!
I now have to draw a line under the upgrading saga. My system has moved on considerably in the last year (for the previous 13 or so years I had a C.A.L. Aria CD player, 32/SNAPS and original 250, thinking that was about as good as it was going to get). I still can’t believe how good it all sounds now and when I stick on a CD I regularly find that I’m listening for 4 or 5 hours at a time. It’s been good fun but the bank manager has decided that enough is enough.
Frankly the initial comparisons were less than convincing. Better than the CD5 + FC2, yes, but really worth the money? A bit more of everything was there but it wasn’t the quantum leap I’d been expecting. At this point I made the fatal mistake of asking to hear it with the XPS2. The difference was staggering – far greater than the CD5 –> CDX2. Suddenly the female vocals were a couple of feet closer and the acoustic guitar was in the room with me. Bass was deeper and firmer.
There was no going back and I left having spent a couple of grand more than I planned. After this I’d advise people not to ask to hear the effects of a PS unless they’re prepared to part with the cash!
I now have to draw a line under the upgrading saga. My system has moved on considerably in the last year (for the previous 13 or so years I had a C.A.L. Aria CD player, 32/SNAPS and original 250, thinking that was about as good as it was going to get). I still can’t believe how good it all sounds now and when I stick on a CD I regularly find that I’m listening for 4 or 5 hours at a time. It’s been good fun but the bank manager has decided that enough is enough.