Mullet Audio
Posted by: Harris V on 17 November 2003
Having been a member of this forum for a few years now I am a little troubled by a recent trend especially amongst new owners. Why the proliferation of mullets with the new 5 and classic series?
Lets get it clear from the start that I am not an anti mullet heretic and believe it is possible to find happiness with a long back and sides. The question I am asking myself is what is different with the new gear that makes it more suitable for weighting the budget at the amp/speakers.
I only have experience of two dealers but they are certainly happy to give recommendations on systems heavy at the amp and speaker end. I am tempted to say it must be the smoothness of the CD5 that makes it more forgiving but then surely dealers should only recommend mullets as a temporary solution - there is so much more to be had. What about the extra detail, dynamics and timing that a CDX or CD3 can bring?
Being cynical however, I would say that given the bias in the Naim range toward amps (ie there are more upgrade options and they can cost much more especially at the NAP 500 end) the dealers are happier to line their own pockets by getting people to look at the amps as the source of their problems.
I am currently in the process of upgrading and have myself a temporary mullet and although the sound is good I could not live thinking it was permanent.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by Martin Payne
Harris,
I suspect that the new amps are more forgiving, too.
I would guess that a mullett with the new gear has less overt "issues", but probably doesn't deliver in the same way that a front-heavy system would. This would not necessarily be obvious without a comparitive demo, although the wrong upgrade can be underwhelming.
However, if you really want lots of power an amp upgrade may be the way to go, even though a front-end upgrade would make the amp sound much bigger.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by garyi
Personally I think the new series blows the crap idology that is 'mullet' out of the water.
The secret to a good system is balance.
the amount of people that post here asking for instance for more grunt or bass, then get offered to 'get a better CDP' is disheartning.
At the end of the day balance is the order of things, yes of course the source is vitally important, but I can tell you for a fact a CDS2 sounds utter shite through a pair of 60 quid denon speakers.
I know also for a fact it sounds a lot better through SBLs.
You get my drift.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by Geoff P
I am with Garyi here.
The consensus is that the new 250 for example is probably the best VFM amp in the range. I can certainly second that as a proud possesor of same.
It does not have to be "blasting" to deliver weight and texture to the music. Hang a good pair of standmounted speakers on the end of it and you may not get the dial past 8.30 to reach good volume levels. That does'nt mean it's overpowered.
Similarly a CDX2 is not too rich for the 112/150 in the right system, especially if it is part of a long term plan for further upgrades.
Naim makes quite a play of the use of "trickle down" technology in the new kit. For example the output transistors from the 500 etc. The effect is maybe that there is a gentler slope to the graph of performance as you move up the range.
T
his is going to get even more obvious by the sound of it if the new 5"i's" are as good as first reports suggest.
The number of so called mullets are probably set to increase, but the good news is that it is not a reduction in the quality of the high end but rather an increase in the performance of the low end which is happening, making good sound more accessible.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by Jack911
Being rather new to Naim in general, and this forum in particular, could someone please explain the term "mullet" as used in the context of this thread?
While you're at it, perhaps you could explain "flat earth" and "PRaT" for me also.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by Olly
My reason for upgrading my 112/150 in preference to my CD5 is that in 5 years time I will still have excellent, useful amplifers instead of an excellent but probably obsolete CDP.
Olly
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by Naimed-In-NY
Perhaps part of this "mullet trend" is due to the fact that the CD5 is such good VFM that many people don't think of it as an "entry level" cdp. Many claim you can move up the Naim chain in amps and preamps before "embarrassing" the worthy CD5.
Another reason might be that it financially is easier to move (slightly) up the chain for amp and preamp than cdp - in the US, the CDX2 is roughly the same cost as a NAP 200 AND a NAC 202 (w/o PSC2).
That being said, each person has to decide for themselves - particularly if on a budget - whether to lean toward source-first or a balanced system. In my case, at the time I became a Naim convert, I had a more pressing need to upgrade my amplification, and purchased a 200/202+PSC2, while retaining my respectable, yet "mid-fi" cdp. Soon I will be ready to upgrade my cdp and I want to buy a Naim cdp. I'd love a CDX2, but it is a lot of money for me. Before making a purchase, I will listen carefully to the CDX2 and CD5 (with and without power supplies) and decide whether the improvement that I expect to hear in the CDX2 is worth the extra money to me.
MBM
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by silklee
IMHO, the CD5 is really a very good CDP. I have heard it on a 52/135 and it did NOT embarass itself. In fact i thought it sounded great.
For myself, i am having a bit of a mulletish system by definition (CD5/202/hi/200/SBL).
What am i thinking of next? Either the CDX2 or a new 250 (even more mullet if i go for this).
Right now, the urge to go for a 250 is much more than the CDX2, maybe because i also have a LP12 analog source.
But somehow i have the confidence that the CD5 can perform even in that system. Of course the best would be try both out.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by garyi
Ghunter I appriciate what you are saying, a better CDP may well give you more bass.
However if say you are plumbing it through a Kan, then upgrading the kan to a bigger speaker would have given you more bass still.
Or changing from a nap 90 to a 250 would have.
Or chaning from a nac92 to a nac 102 would reap much of what every one wants better, deeper cleaner bass.
This is where I am coming from, bang for buck if you will. Quailty is of course an issue, but some people seem to have taken the whole approach a bit OTT I think and once at CDX/90/92 are still be told to upgarde the CDP.
An extreame example but you understand.
Posted on: 17 November 2003 by smike42
Mullet systems,
The great thing about a mullet system (I have a CD3 with active Brik's) is that you can put in an S an everyone is happy!
Smike
Posted on: 18 November 2003 by Brucie
One dealer I know was quite happy with a cd3 feeding a 52/super.
b
