Cd 3 or 3.5 and 52 mullet system???????

When my CDS2 was being upgraded, I had CD3 loaner in my 52/500/DBL system. While it was not the last word in CD replay, it was not bad.

I always found the 52 to make the most of any source. I find the same with my 552...you should hear my $800.00 Sony 9000ES SACD player, it's scary.

Chris Bell

It's a situation I may find myself in, with (from the back) SBL's, newly serviced 135's, 32.5/hicap, CD3.5/flatcap. It would be sensible to upgrade the CD before the pre, but I've come this far I'm tempted to go for the pre just for a laugh. When the CDX2 finally comes, just imagine the enormity of the upgrade. I'm tempted by an 82 or a 282.

On the other hand....

Chris Bell is right, the 52 does make the most of any source. But it will reveal the limitations or differences between sources.

Digital freeview radio is not the equal of a Naim Tuner.

Likewise the CD3.5/flatcap although good enough to live with a 52, is not the equal of the better Naim CD players; especially the CDS range.

Upgrade to a better CD player later on.

As regards the 82, I suggest not as this requires a minimum of a supercap to give its best in my opinion. Go for the 52, its a far better option.

I reckon my 82 shows some of the limitations of my CDX.

Paul Rowlands

What i would like is a description of the sound.
I've heard some people say that the cd 3 or 3.5 can sound harsh, i wondered if a better pre amp would make this even more apparent.

Don't know about the sound but NANA at least implied that such wasn't a poor investment as they sported the following Hockey Night in Canada haircut on their website for many years as an example of a typical BASE rack assembly...

CD3.5/FLATCAP/NAT03/NAC52/SUPERCAP/NAP135

Source: The Wayback Machine Internet Archive (a virtual arse biter if ever there was one).

Somehow the NANA push for gold flash RCAs round back seems to make more sense now.

Craig

A CD3 was worth the money.

I didn't go on its presentation with a 92/90, but it did perform creditably with a 72/hicap/250.

With a flatcap it should perform better than when I heard it in one box form.

Its not one I would choose to match up with a 102 though.

I compared the 3.5 with CDS1 and CDS2 in my system (52, sixpack, NBLs). All I can say is that in the context of my system I cannot listen to the 3.5.

But in my friends system (92, 90, Credos) it's very satisfying!!!!

- Jun

Hello,

until now upgrading from 102/Hicap to 52/Supercap was the biggest improvement I was able to do, independent on the source (Turntable or CD-Player) Upgrades from NAPs didn`t produce such effects neither upgrading my loudspeakers.
My experience upgrading from CD3/102 to CD3/52: It is worth it.
But I have to admit, that my main source is the turntable.
As I rarely listen to good quality CDs (only my own recordings from a tape machine transfered to CD) the CD3 is sufficient for me. Even with the 52.

Sound improvement of 52 independent of source:
(Keep in mind I mainly listen to classical music)

More details/instruments that you can distinguish in an orchestra,
more natural sound of the instruments,
nearly one octave lower bass hearable on my Audio Physic Virgos!
More realistic dynamics,
you can better locate where the players (of orchestra or chamber music) are sitting in the original room (Ups- I am missing the right word:better room orientation?).

So, if you have a chance to get a 52, go for it. It will improve also the sound coming from the CD3

As sources I have an old P3 TT with accuphase Cart. (at least 15 years old but rarely played from my friend that traded it to me) and I have a CD5 with FC and a Caspian tuner. When I upgraded to the s/h 82 dual Hi (from a 92r) it made the best of all three sources. I get amazing detail when I'm listening now. If I'd waited to upgrade each of my sources before I did the 82 I'd be waiting a long time. I also seem to have much more punch from the 150 and I'm really happy with my system now. I'm sure the nit pickers would disagree but I think a good pre, with mediocre sources, is better than just a mediocre one with a great sources. I'd have gone with a 52 if I had a supercap in the deal, but the 82 was a bargain. I get such a kick out of the little details in the soundstage from my system as it is. I say go for it. Upgrade other things later.

Happy as it is.
glenn

Life is analogue

I did once plug my old CD3.5 back into my system (82/250). The sound was definitely Naim, but it didn't have the character & authority of the CDX.

Paul Rowlands

quote:

---

Originally posted by dozy:
The cd3 will be fine with a few phases of mana under it....

---

Why not buy a Tivoli radio and twentyfive phases of mana as it probably is better than the best Naim sistem? Wake up, or is it too hard to be openminded and realise that the steel-and -glass filter ruins the music?
I tried and got convinced.

/Erik

quote:

---

Originally posted by dozy:
Erik - I am very open minded. I stand by what I said. I know someone who prefers a dvd player on mana into a 552 - he could afford a CDS3, but the DVD player sounds better. If I thought it ruined the music I would not use it, and would not recommend others try it.

Why are people who do not like mana so rude?

---

Because You mana-people are so tolerant to us who prefer other stands.
I recently bought a s/h LP 12 and got a ref table with it. Once again I found mana to filter the music and make it sound artificial, and yes, it was in tune ringing like a bell.

If something in the sistem is wrong maby mana can filter it to a less unpleasant sound?

/Erik

[This message was edited by Erik on TUESDAY 09 December 2003 at 13:15.]

Back to the CD3 into a 52 - note that using Naim preamps with non-Naim amps may not provide the best sound.

Also, consider that a CDS(1) or a CDX or CDX2 will probably cost less than a 52/s'cap and any of the CDPs will blend in better with non-Naim electronics, as will a good turntable + record collection.

OTOH, the 52 is magical, even now (with the 252 and 552). It will certainly get close to the best out of the CD3/3.5.

Of course the CD3/3.5 is harsh. It plays CDs. If you want to beat the CD harshness without losing detail, you'll need something at least as good as a CDS.

Regards.

Phil

Ive heard the cd3 through the 52 and 135's and it sounded great. Infact much better than I had anticipated.