I thought some of you might be interested in a recent visit I had to Grahams Hi-Fi in North London. I have for some time been considering upgrading my system and took the opportunity of having a demonstration to determine the best way forward regarding preamps and CD players given that I already run a modest system of a NAC42.5/HiCAP/NAP140 into Kans with an LP12/Akito/Blue Point for the black stuff.
I booked the dem for the same morning as I was going to collect my NAP140 and HiCAP from service. As the benchmark I took along my circa ’99 Cambridge CD4SE and the initial system comprised this plus a 140/HiCap, Kans (pinched from Grahams workshop) and a NAC112.
My initial impressions were good – the CD4SE has very good timing but it was slightly boxy in it’s presentation and a bit ‘grey’. Paul (who conducted the demo) agreed with my observations and we moved on to the Naim CD5 instead of the Cambridge.
My initial thoughts were one of slight disappointment – I didn’t feel that the CD5 was considerably better, though the more I listened the more I realised that there was a wider soundstage and more ‘space’ around the performer (in this case Katie Webster). Returning to the CD4SE it was quite obvious that good though it was, the CD5 was in a different league.
Paul suggested that I listened to a CDX. I was a bit reluctant to do this given that it was way out of my price range but Paul thought that it was important for me to see if the CDX was really worth saving up for. On audition in my opinion it was that it wasn’t. Yes, it is better than the CD5 but it was a marginal thing. Paul agreed but pointed out that with the XPS the real benefits over the CD5 would be realised. He felt that the real benefit of the price differential between the two players would (in my case) be best spent on the Pre-Amp and he duly brought in a NAC102 to replace the 112.
Wow! This was the biggest surprise of the demo. I had always been ‘brought up’ in the source first philosophy but the NAC102 blew the 112 away and absolutely transformed the system. The sound filled out, we got bass from the Kan’s, the detail and musicality was improved by a huge – and I mean huge – margin. When a Flatcap was added to the CD5 it sounded like the CD system I had never managed enjoy before.
I bought the CD5 and will now save for a NAC102 (or it’s replacement). I left feeling the NAC112 was a very disappointing product (remember at all times it was being powered by a HiCAP). It’s performance didn’t match my expectations. The CD5 is excellent though and has had me going back through all my CD’s late into the night – listening all the way through each track.
I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Grahams, the excellent service and advice and particularly chatting to Tony Graham about totally non-HiFi related matters such as Kings Cross and the changes it has undergone over the years.
I am a very satisfied (Naim and Graham’s) customer.
John.
[This message was edited by John Bailey on MONDAY 11 February 2002 at 22:44.]
Posted on: 11 February 2002 by Name
I went from using a nait 3 as a pre(same as 92) and a nap 180 to a 102 plus NAPSC. The changes seemed to be overall increase in scale but the essence of the naim sound was still evident whether it was the nait 3 pre or the 102 NAPSC.
I would recommend going for the 102 and NAPSC and add on the almighty HiCap; now we're cooking!
Make sure you physically move the NAPSC away from the rest of the rig....it can be plugged into the same plug but the physical separation is important...bass lines become easier to follow.
Happy listening
Posted on: 11 February 2002 by Steve Toy
I am a believer that the source is important - what is lost here cannot be regained further down the chain of command.
However, you need a good preamp as this is the link in the chain that can potentially lose the most musicality after the source.
The 112 is not as good as a 102 - that is a no-brainer.
Get the preamp right, and the difference between the source components will be revealed without any strangulation by the next vital link in the chain.
In Naim terms, the 82 is where it really begins to get exciting, and IMHO, a CDX should not be partnered with anyting less.
A Densen B200 will do the same job as an 82 with decent interconnects, though.
Also, the rack you use is critical with a CDX...
Cheers,
Steve.
Posted on: 12 February 2002 by garyi
The differences were not subtle! I though the 92 was the be all and end all in my little world, alas it was soon relegated to the cupboard once the 102 went in.
Explaining the differences musically as usual is difficult, but the improvement was dramatic. For your info I have recently inserted a 180 in to replace the 90, and the difference again is astounding.
I quite like it at this end of the naim kit I rekon you get more gains between the lower to mid componants as you do between the mid and high. Or at least it dosn't cost as much!!
I havent got the digital power thingy yet so look forward to the improvements that may bring, and of course replacing the flat with a hi cap.
God I am dribbling.
Posted on: 12 February 2002 by John Bailey
quote:
Originally posted by Richard van Laar:
You say that the CDX was not worth the cash compared to the CD5 in that setup. But if I read it right you listenend to both players on the 112 pre-amp which was a disappointing product compared to the 102.The story could be very different when you compared both players on the 102 (I know it would). This makes more sense to me than the dealer telling you the CDX 'needs' an XPS to make it worthwhile...
Richard,
I agree with the point you make but Paul at Grahams identified that the CDX/102 combo was way more than I could afford - or be prepared to pay given the need for holidays, clothes, beer that sort of thing. The other concern was that £2400 is a considerable amount to spend when there is a format war kicking off (DVDA/SACD). The CD5 was affordable, upgradeable allowed a 102 to be within reach and limited my exposure to the format war risk.
Grahams weren't saying that a CDX wasn't worth it over the CD5 unless it had a XPS, just that the gap was small as it was and the 102+CD5 made much better sounds than a CDX with my existing kit.
Oh, and it sounds great!
Very happy.
John.
