CDX2/XPS vs CDS2
Posted by: David Antonelli on 28 February 2003
I had the pleasure last night to borrow a CDX2 from my dealer so i could compare it to the CDS2 and get a good idea which direction naim is going. The rest of my system is NAT01/CDS2/52/500/ WB ACT 2 all on WB Triptych and Asside carbon fiber support racks. My system has recently sounded quite spectacular and the only urge to upgrade has come from just that: an urge. No fault of my system.
Anyway, I was aggrevated to find that after I drove the 10 miles out to my dealer and came back that the CDX2 was locked in RCA mode and I had to go back to get the remote, which was not in the box. Once I came back I fired up the bare CDX2. I was rather surprised at the clarity and delicacey of the trebble and the openness of the soundstage, in this regard it is certainly an improvement over the old CDX, which had a bit too much digital hash in the trebble for my tatse. I played a few accoustic pieces from this mortal coil's "Filigree and Shadow" and then moved on to Neil Halstead's superb solo album, which I like to describe as Nick Drake on mushrooms. The strings were very clean and the vocals smooth, although perhaps "smaller" subjectively than the CDS2. The whole ssystem fell down, however, on music with drive. Sonic Youth's "Daydream Nation" which I had been listening to on repeat for the last two weeks (sometimes the CDS2 does that to you) sounded quite crude. The transients were clumsey and it became apparent that the CDX, while possessing a polished detailed sound, cut out a lot of the body of the note, its natural decay.
So I quickly hooked it up to the XPS. This brought about some improvement in the bass, which after Daydream nation was exposed as sounding a bit thin and boxy, and improved the transients a little so that sonic youth was now more engaging. The immediate thing that struck me was that this player now had a more 3-d sound than the CDS2 (not that the CDS2 sounds flat, because it DOES have a very 3 d sound) and that there was an increased clarity in subtle details, but only in the trebble and upper mids. Unfortunately the lack of fluidity and natural decay was still a problem, as was the bass extension and control.
I went back to the CDS 2, which was now cold, and immediately everything improved in a big way. The sonic picture was perhaps not as spread out in the room, but the timing, fluidity, truth of timber and control over dynamics was much much better. At this stage I decided to go back to the CDX2/XPS and open a bottle of Bernard Dugat's spellbinding 1999 Gevrey Chambertin Lavaux St Jaques, and entered an ethereal world of sour cherries, licorice, and vinilla bean, while going back to "Filigree and Shadow" enjoying the player for the rest of the evening.
The bottom line is that the CDX2 is better than the CDX in terms of soundstage and detail and has a vividness and tonal color that the older player lacks. Against the CDS2 it seems slightly more layerd and three d and has a more crisp sound, which is when listened to closely is really the lack of natural decay and can be considered a digital artifact. The lack of fluidity, natural warmth, bass extension, control on transients, and sort of drum machine timing (although not as bad as the CDX), really makes this player fall substantially short of the CDS 2. Would it sound better with an XPS2? certainly, but i could not see a small change in power supplies accounting for such a change. My experience with the CDX and CDX/XPS is that the addition of the XPS adds weight and a certain warmth and cleanliness but doesn't change the overall sense of fluidity or presentation of the music.
The CDX2 is a victory, yes, but it is still a CDX by any other name. I await the CDS 3 and expect it to be like the CDS 2, but with greater detail and a more "vivid" sonic picture.
Dave
Anyway, I was aggrevated to find that after I drove the 10 miles out to my dealer and came back that the CDX2 was locked in RCA mode and I had to go back to get the remote, which was not in the box. Once I came back I fired up the bare CDX2. I was rather surprised at the clarity and delicacey of the trebble and the openness of the soundstage, in this regard it is certainly an improvement over the old CDX, which had a bit too much digital hash in the trebble for my tatse. I played a few accoustic pieces from this mortal coil's "Filigree and Shadow" and then moved on to Neil Halstead's superb solo album, which I like to describe as Nick Drake on mushrooms. The strings were very clean and the vocals smooth, although perhaps "smaller" subjectively than the CDS2. The whole ssystem fell down, however, on music with drive. Sonic Youth's "Daydream Nation" which I had been listening to on repeat for the last two weeks (sometimes the CDS2 does that to you) sounded quite crude. The transients were clumsey and it became apparent that the CDX, while possessing a polished detailed sound, cut out a lot of the body of the note, its natural decay.
So I quickly hooked it up to the XPS. This brought about some improvement in the bass, which after Daydream nation was exposed as sounding a bit thin and boxy, and improved the transients a little so that sonic youth was now more engaging. The immediate thing that struck me was that this player now had a more 3-d sound than the CDS2 (not that the CDS2 sounds flat, because it DOES have a very 3 d sound) and that there was an increased clarity in subtle details, but only in the trebble and upper mids. Unfortunately the lack of fluidity and natural decay was still a problem, as was the bass extension and control.
I went back to the CDS 2, which was now cold, and immediately everything improved in a big way. The sonic picture was perhaps not as spread out in the room, but the timing, fluidity, truth of timber and control over dynamics was much much better. At this stage I decided to go back to the CDX2/XPS and open a bottle of Bernard Dugat's spellbinding 1999 Gevrey Chambertin Lavaux St Jaques, and entered an ethereal world of sour cherries, licorice, and vinilla bean, while going back to "Filigree and Shadow" enjoying the player for the rest of the evening.
The bottom line is that the CDX2 is better than the CDX in terms of soundstage and detail and has a vividness and tonal color that the older player lacks. Against the CDS2 it seems slightly more layerd and three d and has a more crisp sound, which is when listened to closely is really the lack of natural decay and can be considered a digital artifact. The lack of fluidity, natural warmth, bass extension, control on transients, and sort of drum machine timing (although not as bad as the CDX), really makes this player fall substantially short of the CDS 2. Would it sound better with an XPS2? certainly, but i could not see a small change in power supplies accounting for such a change. My experience with the CDX and CDX/XPS is that the addition of the XPS adds weight and a certain warmth and cleanliness but doesn't change the overall sense of fluidity or presentation of the music.
The CDX2 is a victory, yes, but it is still a CDX by any other name. I await the CDS 3 and expect it to be like the CDS 2, but with greater detail and a more "vivid" sonic picture.
Dave
Thanks for that Dave and Mike. After reading what others were posting on this topic, I thought everyone had been affected by some weird virus! Perhaps bioterrorism that attacks the auditory system only 