XPS-2 - how good is it?
Posted by: Don Braid on 08 October 2003
Looking for some opinions here. . .
Everything I've heard about adding the new XPS power supply to the "old" CDS2 head unit is that the results are spectacular. (I already know the new burndy cable is a fabulous upgrade, because I've put one between my original XPS and CDS2).
What surprises me is that Martin Collums in HiFi News says the cable is a major upgrade for the CDS2, but the new power supply on top of that doesn't bring much extra benefit.
I've heard exactly the opposite from people whose opinions I respect. Any views on this?
Cheers,
Don
Everything I've heard about adding the new XPS power supply to the "old" CDS2 head unit is that the results are spectacular. (I already know the new burndy cable is a fabulous upgrade, because I've put one between my original XPS and CDS2).
What surprises me is that Martin Collums in HiFi News says the cable is a major upgrade for the CDS2, but the new power supply on top of that doesn't bring much extra benefit.
I've heard exactly the opposite from people whose opinions I respect. Any views on this?
Cheers,
Don
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by smiglass
Hi Don,
I just performed this upgrade 2 weeks ago and the results have been excellent. The XPS2 with the new Burndy has widened the soundstage and made the music more transparent. The overall presentation is vastly improved. I am using a 52/500 combination. This was a very worthwhile upgrade. However the dealer thinks the next step should be the CDS3 because moving to the 552 first will not be as satisfiying, since it will reveal the shortcomings of the CDS2.
Cheers,
Anthony
I just performed this upgrade 2 weeks ago and the results have been excellent. The XPS2 with the new Burndy has widened the soundstage and made the music more transparent. The overall presentation is vastly improved. I am using a 52/500 combination. This was a very worthwhile upgrade. However the dealer thinks the next step should be the CDS3 because moving to the 552 first will not be as satisfiying, since it will reveal the shortcomings of the CDS2.
Cheers,
Anthony
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by Don Braid
Thanks, Anthony. Did you try just the burndy and then add the XPS2, or do them both at once?
I agree with you about the 552 and CDS2. The pre would reveal the inadequacies of the player and make you unhappy. I once made exactly this mistake by going to a 52 while I still used a CDX. It always sounded a bit harsh and unsatisfying, but as soon as I popped in the CDS2 head unit, everything sorted out again.
Don
I agree with you about the 552 and CDS2. The pre would reveal the inadequacies of the player and make you unhappy. I once made exactly this mistake by going to a 52 while I still used a CDX. It always sounded a bit harsh and unsatisfying, but as soon as I popped in the CDS2 head unit, everything sorted out again.
Don
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by smiglass
Don,
I did try the SXPS with the old XPS briefly and found that it was some improvement but not as great as when the XPS2 was added. I agree with Alex, it was a "no look back" upgrade. In the context of the 52, it has made me very happy with my CD's. I am a vinyl lover and the upgrade made CD's very close to my Orbe/SMEV/Lyra Helicon SL/the Groove combination. FWIW, Ken at ProMusica in Chicago told me the CDS3 is so good that he hardly listens to vinyl anymore.
Anthony
I did try the SXPS with the old XPS briefly and found that it was some improvement but not as great as when the XPS2 was added. I agree with Alex, it was a "no look back" upgrade. In the context of the 52, it has made me very happy with my CD's. I am a vinyl lover and the upgrade made CD's very close to my Orbe/SMEV/Lyra Helicon SL/the Groove combination. FWIW, Ken at ProMusica in Chicago told me the CDS3 is so good that he hardly listens to vinyl anymore.
Anthony
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by Don Braid
Thanks, all. So I guess Martin Colloms is blowing smoke when he says that the SXPS made a much smaller improvement than the cable. But how could he know? Just look at his associated equipment.
Don
Don
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by Onthlam
Smiglass,
I see you are in California.
Please come by my house so I can let you hear how wrong your dealer is....
The CDS2 (which I DO plan to upgrade)running through the 552 has never sounded so good! There has been absolutely no revealing of any shortcoming. In fact,(IMHO)The 52/Super has far more issues than the CDS2..The 552 has allowed the CDS2 to play at its best.Thus revealing much more inner detail and dynamics that were actually being squelched by the 52/Super....
As a side bar comment, the XPS2 (I have found) to be a wonderful upgrade. I have one on my 01.. What the XPS2-T has done for the FM band is truly amazing....
I love the fact you use Quads. I had 63s for 18 years and LOVED every minute of it...
Please don't take your dealers teachings as the,"last word", in how things should be done.
The 552(any pre amp)is the soul of any system..
A CDS3 through the 52 will sound better than the CDS2..The sound will still have the 52s harshness and color inflicted on the music..
As you can tell, I went the other way. I bought the 552 first and this has affected the whole system in a tremendous way....
Just one guys opinion.PLEASE come out and hear for yourself....The CDS2 is better than your dealer thinks.....
Regards to all,
Marc
She asked for a Grand piano.
All I could give her was an upright organ...
[This message was edited by Marc Newman on WEDNESDAY 08 October 2003 at 23:59.]
I see you are in California.
Please come by my house so I can let you hear how wrong your dealer is....
The CDS2 (which I DO plan to upgrade)running through the 552 has never sounded so good! There has been absolutely no revealing of any shortcoming. In fact,(IMHO)The 52/Super has far more issues than the CDS2..The 552 has allowed the CDS2 to play at its best.Thus revealing much more inner detail and dynamics that were actually being squelched by the 52/Super....
As a side bar comment, the XPS2 (I have found) to be a wonderful upgrade. I have one on my 01.. What the XPS2-T has done for the FM band is truly amazing....
I love the fact you use Quads. I had 63s for 18 years and LOVED every minute of it...
Please don't take your dealers teachings as the,"last word", in how things should be done.
The 552(any pre amp)is the soul of any system..
A CDS3 through the 52 will sound better than the CDS2..The sound will still have the 52s harshness and color inflicted on the music..
As you can tell, I went the other way. I bought the 552 first and this has affected the whole system in a tremendous way....
Just one guys opinion.PLEASE come out and hear for yourself....The CDS2 is better than your dealer thinks.....
Regards to all,
Marc
She asked for a Grand piano.
All I could give her was an upright organ...
[This message was edited by Marc Newman on WEDNESDAY 08 October 2003 at 23:59.]
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by Don Braid
Oops. I guess I shouldn't draw conclusions about the 552 from the 52. Enjoy your new governor.
Don
Don
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by smiglass
Hi Marc,
Thanks for the invitation! Where are you located? If you email a phone number, I might take you up on it in the future.
I am glad to hear that the 552 does work well with the CDS2. I wanted to get it first for what it does for the other sources I have.
The Quads are wonderful speakers with the most even sound I have ever heard. It works especially well in my small listening room. Also, mine were modified at ProMusica to enhance the bass, which they do very well. I will add some stands they sell when they are available. If you are ever in the Bakersfield, let me know and you can hear for yourself.
BTW, the advice on the CDS3 did not come from Ken, but from another dealer. Ken also puts the 552 first.
Anyway, always good to read your opinions.
Anthony
Thanks for the invitation! Where are you located? If you email a phone number, I might take you up on it in the future.
I am glad to hear that the 552 does work well with the CDS2. I wanted to get it first for what it does for the other sources I have.
The Quads are wonderful speakers with the most even sound I have ever heard. It works especially well in my small listening room. Also, mine were modified at ProMusica to enhance the bass, which they do very well. I will add some stands they sell when they are available. If you are ever in the Bakersfield, let me know and you can hear for yourself.
BTW, the advice on the CDS3 did not come from Ken, but from another dealer. Ken also puts the 552 first.
Anyway, always good to read your opinions.
Anthony
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Chris Metcalfe
Smiglass,
I'd love to hear your system as I've always fancied a pair of Quads myself - not domestically impossible either - but whenever I've heard full Quad systems (e.g. at Heathrow with their valve amps I think) they've sounded 'soft' and 'rounded'. Presumably with your Naim gear they don't!
I'd love to hear your system as I've always fancied a pair of Quads myself - not domestically impossible either - but whenever I've heard full Quad systems (e.g. at Heathrow with their valve amps I think) they've sounded 'soft' and 'rounded'. Presumably with your Naim gear they don't!
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Chris Metcalfe:
Smiglass,
I'd love to hear your system as I've always fancied a pair of Quads myself - not domestically impossible either - but whenever I've heard full Quad systems (e.g. at Heathrow with their valve amps I think) they've sounded 'soft' and 'rounded'. Presumably with your Naim gear they don't!
Like Chris I'd really like to hear my system with Quads also (either 57s, or the 988s) I suspect they will never be an all rounder speaker but worth a listen - doesn't Ken C (pro Musica) use Quads with Naim.
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Onthlam
Dev,
Very true. Ken still uses 57s and appears to be
(after all these years) not willing to change.
He has said that if he were to change it would be active DBLs......
Neither the DBL or the Quad do everthing one can wish for..
I am sure in the future there will be an ESL that will do it all...
Smiglass, I am in Sac. I will email you my info..John did some nip and tuck on your Quads?
Spoke to him last week. He is still moving bits in and out of his..
Regards to all,
Marc
She asked for a Grand piano.
All I could give her was an upright organ...
[This message was edited by Marc Newman on THURSDAY 09 October 2003 at 14:35.]
Very true. Ken still uses 57s and appears to be
(after all these years) not willing to change.
He has said that if he were to change it would be active DBLs......
Neither the DBL or the Quad do everthing one can wish for..
I am sure in the future there will be an ESL that will do it all...
Smiglass, I am in Sac. I will email you my info..John did some nip and tuck on your Quads?
Spoke to him last week. He is still moving bits in and out of his..
Regards to all,
Marc
She asked for a Grand piano.
All I could give her was an upright organ...
[This message was edited by Marc Newman on THURSDAY 09 October 2003 at 14:35.]
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by David Antonelli
Don,
I have to agree with Mr Newman. The CDS2/552/500 is an awesome combination I demoed for a full week. We played some dreadful CDs at high noon volume and there was no trace of harshness at all. This is not to say I am not also considering an XPS2 at some stage, but certainly CDS2/XPS2/552 BEFORE CDS3/52, at least for me.
Dave
I have to agree with Mr Newman. The CDS2/552/500 is an awesome combination I demoed for a full week. We played some dreadful CDs at high noon volume and there was no trace of harshness at all. This is not to say I am not also considering an XPS2 at some stage, but certainly CDS2/XPS2/552 BEFORE CDS3/52, at least for me.
Dave
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Jean-Marc
Hi,
Does someone knows exactly what have been modified inside the XPS2?
I have an XPS and I have compared it with the inside shot of the XPS2 that was published last month in a French hifi magazine (they ran a CDX2/XPS2 "test").
For me (I have a background in electronic engineering), the main difference is a bigger transformer. The regulator board looks very the same, maybe naim have used higher spec LM317?
Any details will be very welcome.
Thanks
JM
Does someone knows exactly what have been modified inside the XPS2?
I have an XPS and I have compared it with the inside shot of the XPS2 that was published last month in a French hifi magazine (they ran a CDX2/XPS2 "test").
For me (I have a background in electronic engineering), the main difference is a bigger transformer. The regulator board looks very the same, maybe naim have used higher spec LM317?
Any details will be very welcome.
Thanks
JM
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Martin Payne
Much of the benefits are due to a lower noise transformer, apparently.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Like Chris I'd really like to hear my system with Quads also (either 57s, or the 988s) I suspect they will never be an all rounder speaker but worth a listen - doesn't Ken C (pro Musica) use Quads with Naim.
I have a spare pair of ESL63. Perhaps we should try an experiment sometime? It's necessary to take care with the volume, they don't sound like they're trying yet it can still be pretty loud, and then something goes bang. Usually a Naim amp... Anyway they're not suitable for PA type applications, but they pass the Rage Against the Machine test in my room.
Paul