NAC 52 versus NAC 252

oh yes

Lower noise floor so more detail; more natural sound, just *more*. The analogy I use is to consider reading a book; under a dim light or a bright one the book is the same but its soooo much easier under the bright light - which is the 252.

Do it.

Yeah but the 52 isn't THAT dim a light!

It's a fair chunk of coin to upgrade I'm sure and the only sensible response should be to let your ears decide via a home demo.

Other considerations:-

- Will it unbalance your system ?
- Will you have to upgrade your supercap

Some people claim that they prefer the 282 over the 252. So if I were you and able I'd audition both ...

I find that there are far more similarities than differences between these two preamps. If you belong to the "newer has to be better" crowd, then the 252 will be your preference. Other way around with the 52. I love my 52.
BBM

I think that a Supercap is a Supercap, and there is very little differnce between the two marks.

Its a tad contentious but I think that MOST people prefer the 252 over the 282. Naturally, your ears are the best judge. If you think its better, it is.

It's faster and grabs hold with more authority than any 52. Those that like a 282 better are probably the same that prefer a 200, have found a tonal interface between the 2 to their liking and have sources not revealing enough to get the other stuff. A 252/250 combo is light years better.

quote:

Originally posted by guj:
Is the upgrading from 52 to 252 worth the money and what is the differece?

I have just done this and if you buy S/H the on-cost is not so huge, especially if your 52 needs a full service and POTS 8 upgrade, which mine did.

The downside was the temptation, which I succumbed to, to 'sidegrade' the CDS2/XPS to CDS3/XPS2 and then change the SCAP to a SCAP2 (all S/H but recent) but all this olive kit was in need of service so, once that cost is factored in, the on-cost is not huge.

The difference in replay is night and day, more open, natural deeper and wider soundstage and just more life to the music. It really is that worthwhile.

Graeme

quote:

The difference in replay is night and day, more open, natural deeper and wider soundstage and just more life to the music. It really is that worthwhile.

But by your own words not exactly a fair comparison was it?
Yes I'd expect a 252, SC2 and a CDS3 to sound different as they are a generation further on.

Listen against "new" Olive serviced might be a fairer test.

There are plenty who don't like the newer kit as well, not just because they can't afford it either.

I've just had my Supercap and NAP250 recapped. The improvement this brought to all aspects of playback is very substantial, indeed.
I agree completely with BigH47. To have a fair comparison between Olive and Reference ranges, the older gear must be recently serviced.
It makes that much difference!
Then let personal taste decide.
BBM

quote:

Originally posted by CFMF:
I've just had my Supercap and NAP250 recapped. The improvement this brought to all aspects of playback is very substantial, indeed.
I agree completely with BigH47. To have a fair comparison between Olive and Reference ranges, the older gear must be recently serviced.
It makes that much difference!
Then let personal taste decide.
BBM

Agree with both you and BigH47 and I did use the 252 with the older olive SCAP for a while before replacing the other components and the differences between 252 and 52 alone were less apparent.

It's simply that once the cost of factoring in a service for the Olives is included it made more financial sense to me to invest the money in newer equipment. I actually managed to sell one olive box from 1999 and buy a 2007 replacement for a small profit if you exclude the service cost.....I couldn't resist!

The 52 'does' phono, which the 252 and 552 can't do unaided, and it has a button to prove it, which they don't.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
The 52 'does' phono, which the 252 and 552 can't do unaided, and it has a button to prove it, which they don't.

But naim recommend removing the phono boards from a 52 so as to marginally improve the sound....to closer to that of a 252

quote:

authority than any 52

I have a CDS3/555PS and NAP300 and as I live in Sweden I can´t go to a shop for a listening.
Is it troe that as "js" wrigts about the 252:"It's faster and grabs hold with more authority than any 52" ??

With the CDS3 and the 300, don't bother with the 252. It's a bit boring from my experience of it. Save your pennies and get a used 552. That is the system I used to have and it is fantastic.

Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Hutton:

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
The 52 'does' phono, which the 252 and 552 can't do unaided, and it has a button to prove it, which they don't.

But naim recommend removing the phono boards from a 52 so as to marginally improve the sound....to closer to that of a 252

Well, of course, they may recommend that now, not that I've ever heard it, as that means the purchase of additional equipment from the range - not that I'm suggesting that anything so cynical might be involved.

Two things, though.

Why would any owner of a 52 want to have its sound "closer to a 252"?

And, if removing the boards for which the 52 was principally designed (phono is the default source, and the 52 was introduced some time before Naim produced a CDP) "improves the sound", then JV and his team must have screwed up on the design of their then-flagship item.

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:

quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Hutton:

quote:

Originally posted by graham55:
The 52 'does' phono, which the 252 and 552 can't do unaided, and it has a button to prove it, which they don't.

But naim recommend removing the phono boards from a 52 so as to marginally improve the sound....to closer to that of a 252

Well, of course, they may recommend that now, not that I've ever heard it, as that means the purchase of additional equipment from the range - not that I'm suggesting that anything so cynical might be involved.

.....nope, they recommended that even at the time the 52 was the top of the tree. As for the 52 sounding more like a 252 it was my attempt at humour, hence the winking smiley....never again!

Graeme

quote:

And, if removing the boards for which the 52 was principally designed (phono is the default source, and the 52 was introduced some time before Naim produced a CDP) "improves the sound", then JV and his team must have screwed up on the design of their then-flagship item.

.... but didn't the Prefix arrive a few years after the release of the 52 as a phono upgrade from the internal boards?

I would have thought that was consistent with removal of the boards improving the sound.

That can't be true, Graeme. When the 52 was released, if you took out the phono cards, you wouldn't have been able to listen to your LP12, Phonosophie P3 ,or whatever.

Ayway, I've said my piece!

Graham

Graeame, I concur with your reasoning as regards the costs. I wasn't saying you should have got the Olive kit re-capped/serviced before making comparisons. Your financial reasoning is beyond question.

I would probably buy a 52 "blind" or should that be "deaf"? I would really like to listen to one just to make sure though. I'd like to know if I can stop saving for one and settle back, and listen to the music even more.

Does the 52 cope better with the high output of cd better than the 252? When i changed from 112 to 202 in my small room the sound can be quite loud low down on the volume controls rotation but needs to be up high enough for the left and right channels to balance (obviously not a problem with vinyl as it has a lower output).

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Paterson:
Does the 52 cope better with the high output of cd better than the 252? When i changed from 112 to 202 in my small room the sound can be quite loud low down on the volume controls rotation but needs to be up high enough for the left and right channels to balance (obviously not a problem with vinyl as it has a lower output).

My 52 volume at 9:00 o'clock is the same volume as my 252 now is at 10:00 o'clock....if that helps.

G

how would you discribe a "modernazied 52 and supercap" against a new 252 supercap?

quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Hutton:

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Paterson:
Does the 52 cope better with the high output of cd better than the 252? When i changed from 112 to 202 in my small room the sound can be quite loud low down on the volume controls rotation but needs to be up high enough for the left and right channels to balance (obviously not a problem with vinyl as it has a lower output).

My 52 volume at 9:00 o'clock is the same volume as my 252 now is at 10:00 o'clock....if that helps.

G

By this do you mean that you get less output from the 252 and turn the knob higher than with a 52?

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Paterson:

quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Hutton:

quote:

Originally posted by Alan Paterson:
Does the 52 cope better with the high output of cd better than the 252? When i changed from 112 to 202 in my small room the sound can be quite loud low down on the volume controls rotation but needs to be up high enough for the left and right channels to balance (obviously not a problem with vinyl as it has a lower output).

My 52 volume at 9:00 o'clock is the same volume as my 252 now is at 10:00 o'clock....if that helps.

G

By this do you mean that you get less output from the 252 and turn the knob higher than with a 52?

Yes Alan - Sorry, my original answer was a bit ambiguous.