CDX2 compared to CDS
Posted by: rch on 07 December 2002
Hi all,
went at my local dealer today, just to get some new ideas regarding good music.
It was pure chance that he had a second hand CDS + PSCD in apparantly good condition for sell.
This was a good opportunity to compare it to the new CDX2. The system was:
NAC 282, SC 2, NAP 250 (new version), SL 2;
then the CDS + PSCD on one side and the CDX2 + XPS2 on the other side.
I was using the same CD twice, inserting one in each player and started them play simultaneously. So I could switch the preamp between the two players.
Listened to: Gonzalo Rubalcaba "Imagine".
There was no one else in the room for a certain period, so I had enough time to compare critically, though I didn't have a preference for one player nor a prognosis. Just eager.
My result: a perfect equality. It was impossible for me to recognize any significant difference under these conditions.
When comparing them using other music (not running parallel) there seemed slight differences, the CDS appearing more musical, while the CDX2 might have small advances in clearness. But in general my impression was, that the new midrange player reaches the same level as the best player from the older stuff.
That would be a really hard decision to make, although there are some points to favour the CDX2 (warranty, compatibility etc).
An interesting audition anyway.
Regards
Christian
Posted on: 07 December 2002 by John
If you had the CD players running at the same time through the preamp the results of your demo could be tainted! Two CD players through the same preamp can cause a ground loop.
I compare a CDX/XPS and CDS1 the same way and discovered this issued. They sounded similar to my surprise. I powered down the CDX/XPS and the CDS1 jumped to new heights.
John
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by rch
Mark,
it was a CDS1, 8 years old.
John,
this may be possible, although both players were connected to high-level inputs of the preamp: one to input 2, the other to input 3.
Any other opinions?
Regards
Christian
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by NB
With the advance in technology I would hope to think that all the new products show improvements on the old kit!
Regards
NB
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by rch
NB,
I agree with you in that way, that I also would expect, that a CDS3 would beat a CDS1. Anyway it was astonishing for me, that a lower ranged new player could reach the level of the top player from the older series.
Regards
Christian
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by rch:
NB,
Anyway it was astonishing for me, that a lower ranged new player could reach the level of the top player from the older series.
Christian,
going purely by price, the CDX1/XPS1 was the direct replacement for the CDS1. The CDX2 & XPS2 are more expensive than their predecessors.
I don't really see how you could describe this as a 'lower ranged' player.
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by rch
Martin,
the history of Naim CD-players contents, as far as I know, of three different series at a certain time:
1) the so called slimline (CD3, CD3.5, CD5)
2) the "midranged" line (CDI, CD2, CDX, CDX2)
3) the top players (CDS, CDS2, CDS3)
IMO all Naim players are very high quality products (the CDS3 being the only one I didn't have the opportunity to listen yet).
Certainly, one factor to distinguish them, other than the name, is the price. Comparing the price of a CDS1+PSCD at the time it was produced (1991) to the price of the new CDX2+XPS2 there will be not a significant difference, the CDX2 being perhaps quite a bit more expensive. As to the price this is an amazing evolution, which probably depends not only on electronical progress, but also on economic factors (i.e. inflation, €).
When I was talking about a "lower range" I did not mean the price level (which is scaring), but the three categories above: then the CDX2 would be lower as any CDS.
Agreement on that?
Regards
Christian
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by Peter C
I can't imagine anyone who has heard the CDS range wanting a CDX.
I use a CDS1 and only a more up to date CDS could replace it, if god forbid it went wrong.
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by John
I would be surprised if the CDX2 reaches the analogue domain. The CDX/XPS provides very good digital playback but it never reached an analogue sounding presentation. The only players that have done this so far have been the CDS1 and CDS2. You might like the CDX2 better but I would be surprised if it has an analogue presentation.
John
Posted on: 08 December 2002 by rch
I was just posting my impression under those conditions and not commenting my preferences.
John,
personally I like the CDS much better.
Peter,
if I had the money and would have to choose, I surely would take the CDS.
Everything clear now?
Christian
Posted on: 09 December 2002 by graphoman
you said:
Listened to: Gonzalo Rubalcaba "Imagine"
Really the last thing I want to be undelicate but don’t you think it’s time to be get accustomed to something that can be called music?
graphoman
Posted on: 09 December 2002 by rch
quote:
Originally posted by graphoman:
Really the last thing I want to be undelicate but don’t you think it’s time to be get accustomed to something that can be called music?
graphoman
Maybe some ancient Hungarian history like "Locomotiv GT"? No Thanks.
Posted on: 09 December 2002 by Tim Danaher
quote:
Originally posted by rch:
quote:
Originally posted by graphoman:
Really the last thing I want to be undelicate but don’t you think it’s time to be get accustomed to something that can be called music?
graphoman
Maybe some ancient Hungarian history like "Locomotiv GT"? No Thanks.
Or how about some Vaktazó Hallatkémek? (sp?)
Nnnnice....
Cheers,
Tim
_____________________________
Os nid Campagnolo yw hi, dyw hi ddim yn werth ei marcho...Posted on: 10 December 2002 by graphoman
it’s so nice to hear you know some Hungarian equivalents of the Noise of Yours. These all can be listened to via the speakers but, unfortunatelly, they have absolutely no correlation with real acoustic events.
No, guys, it was not meant that kind of records. Rather Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Händel etc. from earlier centuries or Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky (Bartók as well if you really do want a Hungarian) from the 20th. Or Verdi, Puccini, Wagner. Or all the giants of jazz from Tatum, Peterson, Monk, Gillespy, Goodman just to name but a few.
graphoman
Posted on: 10 December 2002 by rch
quote:
Originally posted by graphoman:
No guys, it was not meant that kind of records. Rather Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Händel etc. from earlier centuries or Brahms, Mahler, Stravinsky (Bartók as well if you really do want a Hungarian) from the 20th. Or Verdi, Puccini, Wagner. Or all the giants of jazz from Tatum, Peterson, Monk, Gillespy, Goodman just to name but a few.
graphoman
Graphoman,
Bartók is great! So are the baroques, classicals and romanticisms you listed - agreement on that!
But that's exactly the music I am listening to approximately 30% of my listening time. I'm not a big opera fan on the other side.
As to the "jazz giants": do you know the album I was using for the comparison between the two players (Gonzalo Rubalcaba in the USA, featuring Charlie Haden, Jack DeJohnette and others)? These ARE giants of contemporary jazz!!
Christian
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by graphoman
OK then, so you know what we are talking about. It’s true, I’m not familiar with modern jazz. The point is that IMHO not-acoustic instruments are not relevant for audio judgement.
Other aspect may be that listening to classical and opera is useless if it does not take 1 hour at least. With jazz (not to mention pop) you are not necessarily stressed that long. These arts do not demand that much concentration. Therefore, listening to jazz does not necessarily give you a real basis if you listen mostly (or at least 30% of the time) classical.
graphoman
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by rch
Graphoman,
now after you taught me all this, I finally discovered the real use of a stop-watch.
Christian
Posted on: 11 December 2002 by graphoman
joking aside, IMHO listenability is one of the most important parameters in Hi-Fi. Yes, you can measure it with stop watch if you want to.
graphoman
Posted on: 12 December 2002 by reductionist
quote:
Originally posted by graphoman:
OK then, so you know what we are talking about. It’s true, I’m not familiar with modern jazz. The point is that IMHO not-acoustic instruments are not relevant for audio judgement.
Dev, are you reading this? Your 552 / 500 dem was flawed! Graphoman should be gramaphone, you are living in that era.
quote:
Originally posted by graphoman:
Other aspect may be that listening to classical and opera is useless if it does not take 1 hour at least. With jazz (not to mention pop) you are not necessarily stressed that long. These arts do not demand that much concentration.
Ever heard of playing two records in a row?
