NAC 112 and NAP150. Humble pie!
Posted by: Steve Toy on 14 March 2001
Anyone who has read some of my postings will know that I have not been terribly impressed by this combination. However, I happened upon my dealer's demo room yesterday and the 5 series system was playing away through Credos. I was immediately very impressed. At the time they were sans Flatcap2. I asked my dealer what he had done that they should sound so good. His reply was that they were for a demo that morning and the people had failed to show up. It was now 3pm and the system had been playing since 10am. Eureka!
I then asked him what would happen if we started to add the Flatcap2. So we did. Our findings were as follows (by the way, he wouldn't tell me what was connected to what in terms of the Flatcap2, so I was effectively listening "blind"):
1) Flatcap 2 on CD5: Huge improvement in solidity of soundtage, impact of, say, kick drums, clarity of female vocals (Heather Small) tunefulness of synths...
2) Flatcap2 on NAC112: Improvements were subtle over no use of Flatcap2 anywhere, inferior to use on CD5 - colorations returned on vocals and synths, soundstage lost solidity (I was deliberately seated close to the right speaker to see if the soundstage would still be perceptible)
Flatcap2 into BOTH NAC112 and CD5: Slight degradation of sound over using the Flatcap2 solely for the CD5. Some boxiness now present.
Also, output A from Flatcap2 sounded better than output B.
We added a Hi-cap to the CD5 instead of the Flatcap2 - smoother, sweeter, more gravitas and authority. The Flatcap2 (output A) was then used solely for the NAC112- slight improvement.
These results were agreed upon by both my dealer and another individual (Mike) present at these auditions. Any comments or queries?
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 15 March 2001 at 03:21.]
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 15 March 2001 at 03:24.]
Posted on: 14 March 2001 by Mike Sae
Hi,
Sound like a fun way to spend an afternoon.
As I read it, your experience seems to concur with the source first/ power supply hierarchy;
the better caps closer to the source.
Sorry to fly OT but I figure this is the best place to catch you...
How big is your room for your Naos speakers?
I'm currently running Rega Juras in a room 14x25x8 concrete floors, gyproc walls. Even they seem a bit too large for that room.
I tried the Naos and they were waaay too boomy. How are they placed in your room? Also, they seemed less coherent; heavy handed at the bottom and brittle up top. In fact I summed the whole experience up as "the only Rega product I've been disappointed with".
I've no doubt much of the problem was in the set up and wild bass nodes. Were there any setup issues with yours? Have you heard any of Rega's lesser offerings? If so, how did you find them compared to the Naos?
Best,
Mike
Posted on: 14 March 2001 by Jay
Hi Steven, I agree what a great way to spend an afternoon!
Have to say that my experience with the Flatcap 2 is slightly different. I preferable it to power both a CD3.5 and a 72. I've never tried an "a" vs "b" output comparison though. I'll have to give that a go one afternoon.
As a matter of interest what music did you listen to and did you notice a difference between different genres?
Jay
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by bob atherton
Steven
I haven't really heard the new amps to properly get the measure of them yet, but I sold a 'spare' Hicap to a friend for his CD5 & it made a very worthwhile improvement. All the things you mention. Front end first & all that....
Bob.
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Steve Toy
Mike S,
The Naos speakers are awkward to set up. When I first heard them they did sound brittle at the top end - and light in the bass. Running in helps enormously. I found them, even before they were run in to be engaging and with excellent Pace, rhythmn and timing. The midband was also explicit, if a little forward. They could certainly not be accused of being "polite."
In my view, compared to, say Credos, they are on the warm side - certainly not brittle at the top.
As for positioning (my room is small, 3x2.5m)1.5 metres apart, 1/2 metre from side walls and 1/2 metre from rear walls (I don't have much choice!)
They are not boomy with Densen pre/power combo.
No toe-in, they don't need it. Tweeters on the outside, given how close they are together!
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Steve Toy
Jay,
In the CD5/112/150/Credo demo of yesterday, when I first walked in a collection of Mozart pieces from a compilation by JM Labs was playing. We then switched to a rather good pop compilation put together by Newwoman magazine (I don't read this magazine, I prefer FHM, Maxim, and Hi-Fi News) on the EMI/Virgin label. Tracks used included:
Heather Small - Proud (this was used for the direct comparisons as it shows off things like dynamics, freedom from coloration, soundstaging, Pace, thythmn and timing etc. It is also a bloody good recording, but the louder vocal passages can sound "shouty" if the top end is at all brittle.)
Dusty Springfield - Son of a Preacher Man - this was to test out the harshness of brass instruments - no harshness!
Eleanor McEvoy - Only a Woman's Heart - for timing, especially the integration of a fairly heavy bassline. No problems reported here, although the Hi-cap on the CD5 gave more authority.
Kirsty Maccoll - Days - percussion and dynamics.
All Saints - Black Coffee - I just like that track. The analysis was over by now, although I did note a slight roll-off in the deep bass compared to my Naos.
As for the notion that musical genre influences choice of components, I have no truck with that. A system is musical or it isn't, although I do agree that RECORDINGS can make a difference, but ultimately they are a part of the process, if not the system of musical reproduction. We should not be programme dependent in our evaluations.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 15 March 2001 at 14:33.]
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 15 March 2001 at 14:36.]
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes
Steven,
Sounds like you had a great afternoon.
One question - did you use output A of the FC2 output to power the CD5, then use B to power 112?
I don't think it's any great secret that the A output of the FC2 is 'better' than output B.
Output B was only really intended for use with the CD5 analogue stage, although many people may use it for Stagelines, or in my case, Prefix.
I found that with output A to the Pre, and B to the CD5 both steps were a definite upgrade.
It's interesting though that your original opinion has changed, and just highlights how a poor dem can affect potential sales of a product, something Naim should be concerned about. When I demo'd my 5 series it was cold and not run in (it had been unboxed the same morning). It was also poorly located and sited. It did sound better after some 'realistic' volume levels as the afternoon wore on, but this is one of the problems of demoing new kit.
Certainly 2-3 weeks of use at home made a lot of difference to my own system. Fortunately it showed enough potential for me to be confident is spending £3k+ on it, something I haven't regretted at all since - I love my 5 series system!
Andy.
P.S. May be worth re-assesing the Nait5 also 
P.P.S. I agree with your comments on musical choice, although I cannot use classical to assess a system (not being a big classical music listener), but a better system is a better system, and I've certainly enjoyed classical more at home since I've had the 5 series.
Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Steve Toy
I don't like classical music much either, but it happened to be playing when I arrived at the shop, and what the system seemed to be doing grabbed my attention.....
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Steve Toy
Andrew,
We tried the A only of the FC2 through the CD5 and then the B. The A output was much better. You're not trying to tell me to use the inferior output into the source component, to try to improve matters further down the chain, surely not?!
So output B is good for little things like a Headline, but definitely NOT the CD5!
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Mike Sae
Oh, I didn't realize you were running Densens.
I really wanted to like the Naos but is didn't work out.
I get a sour feeling that Rega's new line of speakers don't synergize with Naim amps as well as their older models.
My Juras were fine until I switched to Naim amps.
I can see how they'd be happier at the end of leaner sounding amps like the new 2000 Rega electronics.
Regards,
Mike
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Steve Toy
But they do....
Naos on the end of CDS2/Nac52?Nap250 is a brilliant combination, both within the listening room...and outside, with the door open - it's a band playing in there, not a hi-fi system!
Very important: use a decent pre/power amp combo as a MINIMUM! Otherwise those flagship Regas can sound unruly, like they did at the Chester show in the Rega room, where they were struggling on the end of a, err, Mira!!!
What amplification was you using when you heard them?
Another thing: Interconnects. In an all-Naim system you use Chord Chrysalis, but with Densen they just spit them out as harsh, grainy rubbish with poor extension at the frequency extremes. I use Nordost Solar Wind. Their leanness in the bass - but no lack of extension, and cleanness in the treble are a perfect foil for the Naos' (potential) shortcomings.
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 16 March 2001 at 04:43.]
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 16 March 2001 at 04:45.]
Bugger me! It's my hundredth post!! 
to what level of cliquiness may I now aspire to....? ....If I ever so wished...
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 16 March 2001 at 04:49.]
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on FRIDAY 16 March 2001 at 05:06.]
Posted on: 15 March 2001 by Mike Sae
I heard them off a dealer's Nait 5 and my 72/hi/140. Stock cabling.
I was thinking aloud when I suggested that the new Regas may not work as well with Naim as the older ones. Still, they do sound "phatter" then Xels or Elas, which isn't a bad thing IMHO.
I'm really starting to appriciate Credos as well, but they're not kind to alot of the Punk and Hip-Hop I like. Can't wait to hear the new Naim speaker. I hope they're not too much more then the Credo.
Ultimately, my room is funky as far as speaker placement is concerned; alot of speakers don't work in there for some reason, so I was wondering if getting yours settled down was a pain.
Best Regards,
Mike
Posted on: 16 March 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
The A output was much better. You're not trying to tell me to use the inferior output into the source component, to try to improve matters further down the chain, surely not?!
The main difference between the two is the current capability, I'm not sure there's much difference in other performance parameters.
My understanding is that the higher current capability of output A is intended for the pre-amp (which has the higher current consumption), output B is intended to power the analogue stage of the CD player, which has a lower current consumption.
My use of the word 'better' may be misleading in my original post.
Andy
Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com
Posted on: 16 March 2001 by Jay
I am really going to have a go at this now! I have output A into CD3.5 and output B into 72.
Jay
Posted on: 16 March 2001 by Steve Toy
Try also output A to CD3.5 and output B to nowhere. Just try it. I Think that both connections from the same box may impair the performance of A into the source! These were the results of our "blind " listening test using NAC 112 and CD5. A SEPARATE FC2 to the 72 will obviously improve matters further.
Andrew, never mind the scientific theories about the 112 drawing more current than the CD5. Subjective listening by three people, one of them "hands-on" (dealer) and two others,"blind" including myself and a chap called Mike, revealed that output A was better than B into the CD5. End of story. Excuse the tortology, but it JUST DOES, OK!
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SATURDAY 17 March 2001 at 05:13.]
Posted on: 17 March 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes
quote:
Subjective listening by three people, one of them "hands-on" (dealer) and two others,"blind" including myself and a chap called Mike, revealed that output A was better than B into the CD5. End of story.
I'm not refuting this at all, just that by using it the other way round you can achieve an effective upgrade to both components, that may sound better than just upgrading the CD5, particularly if, as in my case, you have more than one source (LP12, tuner etc.) This argument would not apply if the CD5 is your main source though. As with all things audio, the evidence of your ears is the only thing that matters. I like to have expalanations for things, but am prepared to accept the evidence of my own hearing, even without supporting theories .
As a result of my questions to the guys at Naim, when I bought the 5 series gear, I know that the B output was only really designed for the CD5 analogue stage. Since the spare transformer secondary winding was available, Naim chose to use it to provide a second supply, a sensible cost effective option.
I'll try disconnecting the Prefix later to see if I can hear any effect to the 112 supply.
As it happens, I use output A to the 112, output B to the Prefix, and my own DIY-cap to the CD5, as this was the best combination for me. It results in the best balance between my two main source components.
Andy.
Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com
Posted on: 17 March 2001 by Jay
Had a spare couple of hours yesterday so I thought I'd trial the A and B outputs on my Flatcap 2. My girlfirend thought I was mad, it was a beautiful day here in Wellington, sunny, 23 degrees and not a breath of wind.
Tried quite a few permentations so I won't bother going into them in detail, I'll just give a summary of my findings.
Firtly Output A into the CD3.5 or 72 only, leaving Output B free. I definitely preferred powering the CD3.5 over the 72. With the FC2 into just the 72 it becomes almost too revealing, a technical improvement rather than a musical improvement. The slam of drums and high ends extend but it's just not as rewarding "musically" to listen to. You'll have to take into account that I'm going into Intro's here and they sound a little forward at the best of times. Any "faults" of the CD3.5 are ruthlessly exposed by the 72 and Intro's.
Powering the CD3.5 alone was preferable. The music just flows better, more space around instruments and a level of "forwardness" disappears.
OK now that that's done, if I connect both, is it Output A or Output B to the CD3.5? It's a very close run thing to me but I preferred A into the 72 and B into the CD3.5. Why? Hard to explain except to say that it just sounded better!
So I'm with you Andrew - A into Pre and B into CD.
Jay
[This message was edited by Jay on SUNDAY 18 March 2001 at 00:25.]
Posted on: 17 March 2001 by Steve Toy
But did A into CD3.5 with B disconnected sound better than A into your pre (72)and B into the 3.5? With the 5 series the answer was yes. You admit to the same findings yourself and yet feel compelled to use both outputs. Just because you have the possibility to use both A and B is not the reason to do so if leaving B redundant sounds better!
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 18 March 2001 at 03:34.]
Posted on: 17 March 2001 by Jay
Steve, looks like I'm confusing you, but how you've come to the conclusion that I would use both just because I could is beyond me. Maybe my post wasn't clear so again in summary.
1. If I'm to use only 1 output it would be A into the CD3.5, not the other way round because the 72 becomes too revealing.
2. Best of all was with A into 72 and B into CD3.5, which was Andrews proposition.
Jay
Posted on: 17 March 2001 by Steve Toy
OK!
Posted on: 18 March 2001 by Jay
Steve - I owe you thanks!
I originally had Output B into the 72 and A into the 3.5. It actually sounds better the other way round, I don't know why.
If you hadn't bought up the subject I wouldn't have given it a try! Cheers.
Jay
