Dev's dem of a 552/500 vs 52/135

Posted by: Dev B on 10 December 2002

On Saturday, I went for a demonstration of the NAC552/NAC500 versus a NAC52/2x135's at Grahams. The system was fronted by a CDS2 and the speakers were Naim SBLs. From what I had read here (...'it's brilliant') and on other places (...'my fuses are more of an upgrade than this £22k amp') I was curious to hear how much better the new amplifier combination was compared to what I have at home. I also wanted to understand how much better (or worse!) the new combination was over and above the current Salisbury gold standard. Jude at Grahams dutifully obliged, partly because they are mostly responsible for my sistem, and some of my Jazz collection, and partly because I haven't been for a serious hifi dem for years.

To put my audio history into perspective. I bought my present amp and speaker combination (52/135/SBL) about seven years ago and have not upgraded. I bought the NAT01 around the same time. On my other sources, I have gone in round in circles on my record player (Naimed LP12 - Phonosophie - Well Tempered - Naimed LP12) and stands (Sound Org - Mana - Base - Quadraspire - Projekt - Mana) while I have steadily upgraded my CD player: (CDI - CDS 1 - CDS 2). When the CDS2 came out in 1998 I bought one and but apart from that I haven't really felt the need upgrade anything (apart from consumables like MC cartridges) since 1998.

I have also moved about four times in the last seven years and am pretty familiar with how the sound of a sistem changes in a room, and how room accounts for say 60%, of the sound that you get. I am happy with the sound of my sistem, and I have heard many other sistems (friends, nerds from this and Mana forums) so I get to make comparisons from time to time.

I guess the other thing to say is that I like the Naim sound it is fast, dynamic and breathtaking - but not fatiguing - I also like refinement and beauty. Other branded sistems that I have heard often have one or two things that I like and I go 'oh yeah, that's great' but then fall down in another important musical area at the next bassline.

I am digressing, preamble above is to give those readers who don't know me, some idea of my limited audio credibility where I am sort of coming from. Lastly I should say is that I can't afford a hifi upgrade for the foreseeable future, marriage, a new baby and London living have put paid to that! (Thank God). But I can indulge in regular Music binges and have a CD buying frenzy every so often.

I took the following CD's into the dem:

- A CDR of Julian Joseph's Album 'The language of truth', done from my days when I had an Well Tempered TT. A fabulous piece of music with great interplay between Julian's piano playing and the rest of the quartet
- Truby Trio - DJ Kicks: A great compilation on the excellent DJ Kicks series from the Studio K7! label out of Berlin. Think European Jazzy House and with a great tempo and some uplifting vocal tracks and you will get my drift.
- Grooverider - FabricLive CD7: The master returns with an awesome selection of drum and bass, menacing basslines and powerful beats. A sprinkling of softer stuff too but real quality
- Pat Metheny Group - Speaking of Now. I like Pat Metheny, ok, I liked him much more when he was on ECM but I like it the first song okay - the rest of the album is okayish
- Nils Petter Molvaer - Solid Ether. This is modernist Northern European Jazz, with some clever innovations. I think his first album 'Khmer' was marginally stronger (i.e. every track was more continuous), but Solid Ether has a lot of merit.

Joel Benford used to use a fantastic analogy to describe why some things might sound less impressive but have real musical merit. 'Music vs. Sound'. When I read his description, it explained by I liked the Naim sound better than other brands, but it also explained why I can enjoy listening to my £60 Sony CD walkman and the Car Stereo. It also explained how some of my bootleg CD's of raves sounded amazing even though the 'sound' was, frankly, shite. In essence, Joel talked about how Music was about the quality of the relationship between the music notes and how these flow into each other. Sound, in contrast, was more about namby-pamby stuff like 'bass, treble, sound staging, etc'.

I don't know about you, but I always fall into the trap of listening to the "sound" first, but then something twigs in my head that the "music" doesn't sound right. It's a bit like a woman who wears a wonderbra I suppose, looks great, but not alot going on inside frown

The first thing I noticed was the sense of musical flow. I was listening to it and I thought 'bloody hell this is really fast'. The notes really flew along, all in time. There was real propulsion to the music. I cannot emphasize this enough. The presence of the music was very real and immediate and you were tempted to turn the volume up because it was urging you to do so. Also the sound was smooth with no sense of harshness or strain. The Grooverider CD has some pretty evil synthy type noises. And they can sound harsh, but they need to do so to carry the sense of emotion and energy of the muscial piece. On the 552/500, the weird thing was that the harshness was totally gone, but the energy and emotion was still there, in fact it was heightened. I wanted to turn the volume up, but 11o'clock on the volume control was loud enough for the Shoskatovich namby's in the next dem room. On Jazz, the amps repeated the same trick, but with incredible clarity to each of the instruments and the performers. This amplifier combination really opens out the window. My only problem was that the SBL seemed at the limit of it's capabilities - the 'scale' of the sound with SBL's was 'NBL like', but we were approaching is limits. Or were we? I cannot help but thinking what active would do for this combination. But the 552/500 SBLs can do scale, but it was no DBL in this respect.

We then moved back to the 52/135 combination. Familiar ground. In comparison, and I stress the in comparison bit, this combination was not as fast nor did it have the same degree of musical presence or propulsion. Also the 'flow' of the notes was reduced. The music seemed a bit disjointed - the notes stopped and started, and stopped and started, and stopped and started again. Also there was a bit more coloration. That evil Grooverider noise attracted more attention to itself. The good news was that my 52/135 did sound more refined than the dem one, and the combination was still musical. I liked it. But I did like the 552/500 a hell of a lot more, and if I had the a spare money (and I don't) I would have one tomorrow. I really would. I guess my only real reservation about the dem was that I felt a more fuller range speaker is needed to exploit the abilities of the amp.

I have just realised that I have gone on a bit here. I suppose I should add all the usual caveats: YMMV, IMHO, before I get accused of being a Naimy Laimy or whatever.

regards,

Dev.
Posted on: 10 December 2002 by Mick P
Dasan

I bet there are several people in your street running a £20k car, so whats so special about spending £20k on Hifi, if you get the pleasure out of it.

Regards

Mick

NB Great review Dev
Posted on: 10 December 2002 by sonofcolin
The grooverider CD is excellent isn't it! Sounds better on an iPod with good earbuds than it does on my system (just for the energy). Be careful if you go to a gym and listen. You may do yourself an injury!

Great post by the way Dev. 20k pre or $350 iPod + $50 earbuds. Tough choice!

Colin
Posted on: 10 December 2002 by Roy T
If SBLs limit the 552/500 what setups do NBLs & DBLs limit?
Posted on: 10 December 2002 by Chunny Nochubb
the ratio of car value to hifi value is probably far lower amoungst this forum than on average, I agree with Mick you buy a £20k car because you like it, you can get around in a £1,000 car if you need it as a necessity, the rest is luxury - the main difference between hifi and cars is the visibility, everyone knows you have a flash car and how much it cost without having to ask you, you haev to make much more effort to brag about your hifi.

CNC
Posted on: 10 December 2002 by dave simpson
Damn good review man....you've done an excellent job putting into words the attributes i look for in a hi-fi. I don't know which is more rare, that undefinable "magic" you've hinted at (which I've found appears most frequently in old field or 50's jazz recordings) or equipment that can communicate "it" when present in the recording. Naim is one of the few that communicate "it" for me.

regards,

Dave

BTW...If you have a link to Joel's post (assuming it was), I'd love to read it.
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by John Sheridan
quote:
CDS2/552/500/SL2 is near £50,000


That's the 2nd time I've read this on here. Do you guys have a different price list to me?
Rough prices: £6K for a CDS2, £12K for a 552, £11K for a 500 and £5K for SL2s... that's around £35K and probably more like £30 once you've negotiated with your dealer :-) Even with DBLs you're 'only' up to £40K. So where does this £50K figure come from???
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by Derek Wright
Where does the 50k sum come from

why - triple stacked 500s running the speakers in active mode

Dreke
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by John Channing
quote:
Otherwise, we'd all take the bus/train/walk and live in cardboard boxes with our precious hi-fi.


You obviously have not been fortuante enough to meet Joel Benford...
John
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by David Hobbs-Mallyon
hmmm,

Yes he told me that story too. I think he was trying to drum up a bit of competitive upgrading.

David
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by Thomas K
"she had been reading the Naim forum and discovered that what she should really have was a thing called a 552"

If said lady is still reading the forum, I would like to point out that I am unmarried as yet, polite, educated, and, in the words of Data, "fully functional".

Thomas
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas K:

If said lady is still reading the forum, I would like to point out that I am unmarried as yet, polite, educated, and, in the words of Data, "fully functional".

Thomas


You were doing well up to the Data reference, better luck next time.
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by Ron Toolsie
Dev nailed the character of the 552/500 which I believe may be largely the trait of the 552.

Although the 'source first' creed has much validity in it, I have found that a really great (or really bad) pre-amp stamps its sonic signature in a rather indelible way. For instance I have listened to a cassette deck into a 52, feeding an Eagle power amp into almost 30 year old Advent speakers. This I suppose is a 'mohawk' system (short on either side, long in the middle), yet it allowed relatively easy access to the musical threads. In a recent posting I also commented that any system I set up (within reason) with the 52 sounded better than any system (within reason) without it-if you replace the word '52' with 'LP12' you will have the late 70s-early 80s mantra of the British audio press when source first was a virtually unchallengeable edict.

When I had the chance to listen to the 552 at home I was struck by how unforced and natural it sounded, and how the 52 by comparison sounded strained, edgy and quite coloured. I find it difficult to return to the disks I have heard using the 552 (fortunately only a few)as they now sound 'off'. It is that subliminal edginess to the sound that makes the vast majority of audio sistems unlistenable to for any great period of time- at least with dynamic speakers that only reinforce it. Electrostatics can have a signal conditioning trait to them that I suppose loosely mirrors the time alignment circuitry in preamps.

In much the same way as cinema-quantity LF response, as exaggerated and inaccurate as it is, can greatly increase the drama of a theatrical moment, having a rythmically and texturally accurate LF response is vital for the fun factor when listening to music.

It is these two parameters where the 552 is unchallenged- it allows a very relaxed, yet very dynamic and uncolored presentation with absolutely no hint of glare on the leading edges(sort of like what active speakers are supposed to be about)as well as allowing the LF end to breath and bloom in a way that is no less than gripping/riveting/you-choose-an-adjective. If I had to distill its traits in a single word I it would be 'continuous'-i.e. it is superbly balanced throughout the entire frequency spectrum. I have not yet heard the 552/500 pairing- and in some ways I am afraid to. What I can say is that the 552 into a mere sixpack of 135s provided one of the most memorable audio experiences I have encountered.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo


Posted on: 11 December 2002 by Tuan
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ron Toolsie:
I was struck by how unforced and natural it sounded,.... It is these two parameters where the 552 is unchallenged- it allows a very relaxed, yet very dynamic and uncolored presentation with absolutely no hint of glare on the leading edges...[QUOTE]

Well Ron,

It sounds like a Mark Levison system to me (with B&W speakers). It is exactly what I experience in my local ML (Brack Electronics) store in Toronto. However, the magic is that Naim allows people to build the system (with multiple boxes upgrade and with ML you have to shell out mega $$ to make a purchase.
Posted on: 12 December 2002 by Phil Barry
I've heard ML several times, usually with speakers like Wilson Watt/Puppies. I've never heard music from any ML combo I've experienced. I've heard music from most Naim combos I've heard.

Phil
Posted on: 13 December 2002 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by Dev B:
Joel Benford used to use a fantastic analogy to describe why some things might sound less impressive but have real musical merit. 'Music vs. Sound'. When I read his description, it explained by I liked the Naim sound better than other brands, but it also explained why I can enjoy listening to my £60 Sony CD walkman and the Car Stereo. It also explained how some of my bootleg CD's of raves sounded amazing even though the 'sound' was, frankly, shite. In essence, Joel talked about how Music was about the quality of the relationship between the music notes and how these flow into each other. Sound, in contrast, was more about namby-pamby stuff like 'bass, treble, sound staging, etc'.



Dev,

is this the posting you had in mind?

cheers, Martin


quote:
Date: 19-Apr-99 03:46
Author: Joel Benford (joel@netcomuk.co.uk)
Subject: Noises


> The atc 20 is a sealed box design,
> unlike the larger models.

Ah-hah

> It's not as forward as the SBLs,

Being forward or otherwise is never an issue for me. I move the speakers, seat, and furniture around to get the tonal balance I want. But I suppose you share this room with civilians.

> Late this afternoon I set up the active SBLs
> again. Granted, all the electronics were cold,


This is usually a major factor ;-)

> but the sound was not so good. [...]
> If someone put a gun to my head (this is a figure
> of speech, don't be literal about it!) and
> demanded that I make a choice this instant,
> I'd keep the atc's passive with my 135's.


Put your hands in the air and give me your 135s.

If the ATCs work better for you, then of course you should go for them Jim.

> I don't understand what people mean when they
> contrast the Naim speaker sound to that of the
> atc sound, particularly when they refer to the
> "studio" sound of the atc.

I don't know if I want to get into this, but I started it so...

In my humble opinion:

First, sound vs music. Music is not sound. Music is the art of combining sounds in an engaging way. A piece of music is not just a set of sounds, it is a set of sounds combined in a particular way.

Consider: Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" exists as a work for full orchestra or as a piano transcription. If you know the orchestral version you'll recognise the piano version within seconds. The piano doesn't sound like the orchestra, but the music carries over quite well. You can play a piece of music on a guitar then play it by throwing wet tea bags at a dustbin lid and get recognisably the same music.

Once more for luck: music is not sound, music is the way sounds are combined together.

Some equipment is very good at reproducing individual sounds (e.g. "I can hear the high harmonics on that guitar quite clearly"). It is not always so good at making these sounds combine into music. This sort of equipment can be very impressive in a quick listen, but it doesn't keep you coming back for more.

Ideally, of course, you want a system that sounds good and plays music. But manufacturers tend to be interested in one thing or the other and their customers have finite budgets. So you have to compromise and choose.

> What are you folks talking about?

Who, me? I dunno.

So far as the "studio" thing goes, it's just an observation that studio equipment tends (on the whole) to be oriented to accurate reproduction of sound rather than music. It's a professional tool -- you use it to check for a sleeve brushing a mic stand during the guitar solo, not to appreicate how good the guitar solo is. You're not here to enjoy yourself, you're here to do a job of work.

Before you put studio monitors in your home, have a good long listen to get over that immediately impressive sound. Make sure you compare how much you enjoy the music, not how realistic the sounds are. Maybe the 20s will be great (I hope so), but be a bit careful here.

> Nor do I understand the "note envelope"
> that's been mentioned here a few times.

When a bass note stops, you want to be able to hear it stop. This seems to be one of the magic ingredients involved in turning sound into music. If you pull SBLs a long way out from a wall (I tried this after Julian mentioned it), you find that bass notes are there and then they're gone but you can never quite put your finger on where they stopped. It's as if you went deaf for that instant. It's a really strange phenomenon.

> Besides designing in a roll off in the bass
> output in anticipation of the wall reinforcement,
> what else could Naim have done to make the SBL, a
> sealed box design, different from what ATC has
> done in their sealed box?

I don't know. I've just heard it happen with SBLs pulled too far from the wall, and heard something that sounded like it might be the same phenomenon with NBLs a long way from the wall.

Joel

Born to groove