500 needs big mates

Posted by: Jonathan Hales on 30 November 2003

Yesterday I heard a NAP 500 injected into a CDS2/52/SBL's where a humble 250 had been.

First impressions were its amazing scale, particularly a big, big fat bottom end that I had never heard anything like from SBL's, even in active mode.

Then it hit me like a ton of bricks about the same time as my foot stopped tapping and my head nodding. What started as a big fat wow with feelings of despair having just shelled for a CDS3 was soon replaced with the grim realisation that something wasnt right which I struggled to put a finger on.

Fatigue, headache, bewilderment and confusion amid what seemed to be a system totally out of sorts and unbalanced became the order of the day. In short, all a bit too big for its boots, lacking subtlety and finesse.

I am going out on a limb here and certain this will be as popular as a fart in a monkey suit but there you go and whats more, I reckon its all about the old versus new and matching old and new generally.

I have found the same situation with the CDS3 where, even by optimising the front end, I can now detect the 250 is a bit on edge and at pretty much at its limit with the barrel of of new information being chucked its way.

The 500 is like putting a Ferrari V12 engine into a Cooper S. Loads of grunt but much of it lost in wheel spinning smoke and noise unable to be articulated by a speaker designed in a different era to be partnered by equipment designed with an equality of ability.

Dont get me wrong, it was all silky smooth and powerful but just too boomy and compressed to be right for anything with a high dynamic content. It all got better with simple vocals and guitar but still a bit overblown and unsophisticated at least for me.

The lesson is that the introduction of new boxes that have made huge leaps within their respective ranges into systems in the right places in the expectation that this will solve fundamental shortcomings is an interesting prospect notwithstanding the undoubted abilities of the new power supplies and upgraded 250.

It just seems that for many the 500 will be an amp to far where its natural home is with NBL's and, dare I say it, a CDs3 with a 552.

The rules have changed, the goal posts moved and its time certainly for me to start thinking about a longer term process that will no doubt finish with the last olive box leaving my home.

I'm just off to watch The Lord of the Rings extravanganza that is going on right outside my office door. Trust the new theatre isnt mixing its sound equipment in the same way that some mix drinks and Olive and reference boxes.

Off to hide behind the ramparts from angry Orks and Naim owners.

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by TommyT

Jonathan,
Did you think of re-visiting your speaker set up? I recently acquired a CDSII and found that all the coherence from the sound had gone. Well last night I moved my speakers (Shahinians not SBLs) a further four inches from the wall and all was well once more. I think the fuller body of the sound was causing problems with bass boom, etc.
Worth a try perhaps?
Tom

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by Philip Pang

500 with the SBLs

Jonathan, I heard a 500 with SBLs some time ago, with a CDS1/2 and 52, and was happy with the improved scale it brought the SBLs. It didn't approach the NBL scale of course (but then we wouldn't be comparing birds to the bees...

)

The bass had deepened with more welly, but it was also remarkably tight, never boomy or compressed. So I am surprised to read your findings in your system/room context. Nick put it through very nicely about the grip, which pretty much summed up the 500 on the SBLs for me from that audition.

I can only ask the usual questions whether the 500 you heard was run-in and well-warmed-up. I've found the 135s which I owned for some time to be rather sensitive to the support platforms they're placed on (as with most equipment anyway); the 500 wouldn't be an exception. If you're hearing boom and compression, I would look at your set-up, and the room acoustics.

The 500 works wonderfully well with well-set-up SBLs and a 52, but you would start to look at the speakers the moment the upgrade itch sneaks itself in, followed by the pre. (or should it be the other way round? Or just do both at one go.

)

Good listening; the music's groovin' frightfully more.

Rgds

Philip

naimniac for life

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by greeny

quote:
Given that the 500 will have been developed at the receiving end of a CDS2 and 52 your new/olive hypothesis is highly unlikely.

This must be the most significant point. The 500 would have had very few sales in its first couple of years if it hadn't worked with CDS2 and 52. Yet i've heard very little from 500 owners that are anything less than delighted.

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by David Antonelli

Hi,

I have a CDS2/52/500 with Wilson Benesch ACT 2s and the results are fabulous, although a 552 would certainly be nice. The old stuff (CDS2/52) does have a bit of a bloated and thrashy character to it compared to the new, but careful optimization of speakers and stands can help. For example, I found that changes the speaker cable plugs to these new Swiss ones all the naimees in Toronto were using, made a big difference in terms of removing a bit of that bloated bottom end and thrashy character. Also, WB speakers have a nice delicate touch that lends a certain magic to anything that comes through them, helping to counterbalance the slight strain and forcefulness of the CDS2/52.

Tomorrow I take delivery of an XPS2 from Dimexs in Canada. It was very nice of Jean Luc there to let me borrow his personal one from his CDS3. I guess he will be without music this week as a result of my demo. GENOROSITY or what?

Dave

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by Bob Edwards

Jonathan--

Actually, I agree with your premise--that the 500 is better then the upstream gear you heard it with. Even though the 500 was designed (mostly) around the CDS2/52, it's clearly capable of leaving both in the dust--as the 552 so clearly shows!

Two minor points. First, a 500 requires new speaker setup precisely because it has so much more of everything. So a setup optimized around a 250 needs to be redone when a 500 is slotted.

Second, I disagree that the SBLs can't handle what the 500 does. I've heard SBLs powered by a single 500 and driven actively by 500s; you can hear the improvement rendered by active drive even if now you can, finally, hear what I think are the limitations of the SBL.

Finally, I think with the 500 you can (finally!) clearly hear the limitations of the 52. Prior to hearing a 52/500, my sense was that the 52 gave every system it was in a sort of "golden glow" which is intoxicating and seductive. With the 500, however, you can hear that it is ultimately somewhat compressed, colored, and fuzzy. It remains, however, utterly magical, at least for me...

Best,

Bob

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by garyi

I think personally this comes back to my argument with the source first philosophy. I think there needs to be balence in a system. Although the 500 will allow an SBL to perform better, the SBL envitably is not up to what the 500 can do.

System balance in the end.

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by Jonathan Hales

Gents,

For a start it wasnt my system (thank goodness, affirmed by a sound check with the same tracks last night where the lack of a largely thumpy bottom end was more than compensated by a more natural presentation and generally greater appeal all round)

I would have to concede the room has wooden floors that is adding to the lack of control but doubt the speaker positioning has much to do with it.

I still disagree with the contention that because the 500 was developed with a CDS2/52 it is an inherently balanced setup. My point is that the rest of the range has been improved to such an extent that a 500 in the previous context is out of whack and produces an unbalanced result.

I know what I was hearing, and whats more, know what I like and it wasnt that.

Garyi has hit the nail on the head.

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by smiglass

I too have found the addition of the 500 to my system a revelation. Much greater depth and grip as well as improved soundstage. I thought the sound of the CDS2/52 was compressed a bit until I added an XPS2 to the CDS2. This improved the soundstage and detail of the bass tremendously. This took an extended break-in time of about 2 to 3 weeks.

As for the 52/500 combination, it is sublime, but the 552/500 have a synergy that is remarkable and very enjoyable. 52 seems to have a small amount of harshness and "film" that is not present with the 552. I am saving all my pocket change to get one next year!

Anthony

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by Paul Davies

quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
I think personally this comes back to my argument with the source first philosophy. I think there needs to be balence in a system. Although the 500 will allow an SBL to perform better, the SBL envitably is not up to what the 500 can do.

System balance in the end.

Do you have any experiences to back up this contention, or is it based on mere conjecture? I ask because every time that I have compared a "balanced" system with a "source-first" system, the "source-first" system was better by a considerable margin. Examples:

52/52PS/NAP 90/cheap bookshelf speakers (from Mordaunt Short, I think) was much better than 32-5/HICAP/active 6*135 into Isobariks. The source in both systems was an LP12/Ekos/Troika.
CDX/XPS/102/SUPERCAP was much better than CDX ("naked")/52/SUPERCAP. In both systems, the power amp was a Naim NAP250 and the speakers were Linn Keilidhs.

In both cases, the "source-first" system was so much easier to listen to because it let so much more of the music through. In comparison, the "balanced" system sounded compressed. strained, and lifeless.

If I were ever to upgrade my system of olive boxes and active SBLs, the SBLs would be the last thing I would change.

Source-first in the end as in the beginning in my experience.

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by garyi

Paul I agree that a good front end is essential. But I would argue that balance is the key.

The reason the mordant shorts probably sounded good is because they were an easy load for the 90, in my balanced system a 102/hi-cap/CDX/sbls would probably sound a lot better than the system you suggest.

I am not trying to turn 30 years of religon, if you believe that a CDS2 into a 82/180 into a cheap mordent short speaker would out perform say a CDX into 82/250/SBL then thats entirely your opinion.

FWIW I have heard many naim systems in many configurations, and some others as well, and for me balanced systems always sound better then say a cheap speaker at the end of an expensive CDP.

Just my opinon of course.

Posted on: 01 December 2003 by Paul Davies

quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
FWIW I have heard many naim systems in many configurations, and some others as well, and for me balanced systems always sound better then say a cheap speaker at the end of an expensive CDP.

Would you care to cite some specific examples with a description of the differences that you heard?

Posted on: 02 December 2003 by garyi

Er, no not really Paul, in the grand scheme of things would it make any difference?

You percieve that the front end is all that matters, I percieve that a balanced system is all that matters.

Posted on: 02 December 2003 by Paul Davies

quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Er, no not really Paul, in the grand scheme of things would it make any difference?

Well, it might show that your preference is based on experience, rather than conjecture or prejudice. It might also help other readers of this forum who haven't had the chance to make the comparison determine if their priorities for music reproduction put them in the source-first or balanced camp. And in the grand scheme of things, does anything said in this forum make any difference anyway?

quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
You percieve that the front end is all that matters, I percieve that a balanced system is all that matters.

That's not quite what I said. What I perceive is that given the choice between source-first amd system balance, I would go for source first. To say that the source is more important than the other components is not the same as saying that the other components don't matter.

Posted on: 03 December 2003 by Laurie Saunders

Reading the above, I guess it comes down to what one defines as better. I am firmly in the "source first" camp primarily because in my experience, and opinion, I value the sort of gains that a better preamp bring, notwithstanding that the benefits brought by a better power amp are recognised and acknowledged. I have made great efforts to try to pusuade someone running a 72/180 into isobarics that the money spent upgrading to an 82 will bring more gains than upgrading the power amp to a 250, even though isobarics are "thirsty" speakers.

I have found, (and when I report this I am often greeted with surprise), that a better preamp will actually bring many of the sorts of gains one might easily attribute to a better power amp

I guess it all comes down to taste and what one looks for in "improvements"

Regarding the "incompatibility" of a 500 /SBLs...I have no doubt that a 500 should make SBLs perform better than, say, a 250. However the 500 has a higher operating ceiling so if the power amp is driven to the limit, then I would guess that the SBLs might concievably sound worse with a driven-to-the-limit 500

A work colleague sold me a pair of mission 700 for £10....(for my office system!). After replacing the internal wiring and getting rid of the internal fuses (ugh!), I placed them on heavy spiked Target stand and hooked them up to my 52/135s, with my colleague present

Needless to say he went white with shock.....he could not believe what he was hearing was coming from his old speakers......I could simply hear why I needed to spend a lot more money on speakers to really hear what the rest of my system was capable of, and the limitations/distortions of the Missions were only too obvious.

I guess it depends on where you`re standing (listening)

laurie S

Posted on: 03 December 2003 by Paul Davies

quote:
Originally posted by Laurie Saunders: I have found, (and when I report this I am often greeted with surprise), that a better preamp will actually bring many of the sorts of gains one might easily attribute to a better power amp

No surprise from me. I had exactly the same experience when I upgraded to the 52/52PS from the 72/HICAP.

Interestingly enough, upgrading the power amp brought many of the sorts of gains one might easily attribute to a better preamp. When I upgraded my NAP 110 to the NAP 250, the first thing I noticed was how much the noise floor had been lowered.