Is this a mullet system?
Posted by: Chris Bell on 30 July 2003
CDS1/552/500/DBL
My 552 landed this afternoon. Here is a quick recap of the last three hours:
Hour One: System sounds thin, no dynamics, boring. Serious case of buyers remorse.
Hour Two: Hey wait, something is happening here. There is more bass, and wait, I've never heard that instrument before. Buyers remorse beginning to wain.
Hour Three: Oh my god, my DBLs have suddenly doubled in size...where did all that texture come from? Large smile across my face.
More to report after break-in.
Chris Bell
My 552 landed this afternoon. Here is a quick recap of the last three hours:
Hour One: System sounds thin, no dynamics, boring. Serious case of buyers remorse.
Hour Two: Hey wait, something is happening here. There is more bass, and wait, I've never heard that instrument before. Buyers remorse beginning to wain.
Hour Three: Oh my god, my DBLs have suddenly doubled in size...where did all that texture come from? Large smile across my face.
More to report after break-in.
Chris Bell
Chris
You are clearly excited by the new piece of kit
I'm not convinced that's a good thing...especially in a small room.
Have fun
Chris
You are clearly excited by the new piece of kit
quote:Well there's the CDS for you.
System sounds thin, no dynamics, boring
quote:
Oh my god, my DBLs have suddenly doubled in size
I'm not convinced that's a good thing...especially in a small room.
Have fun
Chris
If you mean 'Mullet' as in the system is 'back-heavy' then I would say yes it is.
That 552 will prompt rapid salivation over the prospect of a CDS-3.
I'm not sure whether I envy you or feel sorry for you...
Joe90
That 552 will prompt rapid salivation over the prospect of a CDS-3.
I'm not sure whether I envy you or feel sorry for you...
Joe90
Hi-fi is a syntagmatic chain
I read a couple of years back in Hi-fi+ that the preamp is the link in the chain where most of the sonic/musical info can potentially be lost. I am a believer in such a notion, especially when the front end is digital.
A relatively poor preamp will only strangle a relatively decent digital source component.
Thus, if I had the following system: CDX/102/Hi/250 or even a CDX2/202/Hi/250, I'd get an 82 (or 282) before I got an XPS(2).
I suppose that with a vinyl source, things may be different...
I did hear what a 552 over a 52 could do with a mere CDS2 as well as a CDX2/XPS2 and the difference was a no-brainer.
Regards,
Steve.
I read a couple of years back in Hi-fi+ that the preamp is the link in the chain where most of the sonic/musical info can potentially be lost. I am a believer in such a notion, especially when the front end is digital.
A relatively poor preamp will only strangle a relatively decent digital source component.
Thus, if I had the following system: CDX/102/Hi/250 or even a CDX2/202/Hi/250, I'd get an 82 (or 282) before I got an XPS(2).
I suppose that with a vinyl source, things may be different...
I did hear what a 552 over a 52 could do with a mere CDS2
as well as a CDX2/XPS2 and the difference was a no-brainer.Regards,
Steve.
Sounds like the CDS1 is making more of a "big hair" system than a Mullet
Maybe we could sponsor a "Mullet of the year award". Richer Sounds are selling an "Acoustic Solutions" (no, I've never heard of them either) CD player for GBP30 (USD50) - try feeding one of those into an active 552/3*500/DBL for the ultimate Mullet experience
Maybe we could sponsor a "Mullet of the year award". Richer Sounds are selling an "Acoustic Solutions" (no, I've never heard of them either) CD player for GBP30 (USD50) - try feeding one of those into an active 552/3*500/DBL for the ultimate Mullet experience
CDS1
That's the un-run-in 552 burning in, but certainly not the CDS1, for those of us who have owned and enjoyed one for a period of time before. My ex-CDS1 never sounded anywhere near thin, or boring, and neither did the 2...
If anything, the 1 till today still sounds analogue, full, thick yet clear, with enough PRT to shake off the competition by some distance. Just that its presentation in comparison to the 2 (and now the 3 which I haven't yet heard) does mask some fine detail, and therefore sounds somewhat veiled, and perhaps more "conservative". However in the conveyance of the music's emotional content, and for sheer involvement, it still does justice as Naim's previous reference, and more than adequately holds its head high even when compared to today's competition.
Good listening all; the music's groovin' frightfully more.
Regards
Philip
naimniac for life
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System sounds thin, no dynamics, boring
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well there's the CDS for you.
That's the un-run-in 552 burning in, but certainly not the CDS1, for those of us who have owned and enjoyed one for a period of time before. My ex-CDS1 never sounded anywhere near thin, or boring, and neither did the 2...
If anything, the 1 till today still sounds analogue, full, thick yet clear, with enough PRT to shake off the competition by some distance. Just that its presentation in comparison to the 2 (and now the 3 which I haven't yet heard) does mask some fine detail, and therefore sounds somewhat veiled, and perhaps more "conservative". However in the conveyance of the music's emotional content, and for sheer involvement, it still does justice as Naim's previous reference, and more than adequately holds its head high even when compared to today's competition.
Good listening all; the music's groovin' frightfully more.
Regards
Philip
naimniac for life