An evening of upgrade permutations...or where to go from CD5/112/150
Posted by: Ron Toolsie on 25 November 2002
I spent an instructive 4 hours having heeded to call from a local forum member who expressed some disatisfaction with the overall results of the above entry-level naim kit. He was running this combination into both Pro-Ac Tablettes and his hombru clones of Response 2.5s, preferring the latter for its weightier spectral response. The question of purchasing even larger speakers or more powerful poweramps (even-gasp- outside the Naim range) was brought up and I felt I had no choice but to truck over a lot of my equipment so we could try incremental upgrades to his existing electronics.
So I packed up the car with the 52, Supercap, 2x135 and a non-Naim CD player that I also use in addition to my CDS2. I also brought extra Snaics and a Wiremold power strip. I should have taken the CDS2/XPS but my car was already rather full. I intend to when I eventually reclaim my gear next week.
On arrival I found the Tablettes on each side of a stone fireplace with the equipment sited on a 4-tier Hutter rack in the corner of the room. Speaker cables looked like NACA5 (athough I could see no identifiable printing on them) with junky gold-colored 4mm plugs at each end. The Tablettes have the + and -ve sockets spaced quite widely apart so I can see why the dealer chose not to use the moulded Naim plugs at that end- but the same horrible terminations were also at the power-amp end. Naughty dealer!
Before listening to anything I set up the 52/SC/135 on a Lovan rack he brought out and sited next to the Hutter. The mechanical integrity of the Lovan was halfway between a house-of-cards and a frame constructe of toothpicks and balsa wood with an alarming amount of sway and rotational flex. These boxes were then powered up and allowed some degree of warm up before any insertion/substitution was attempted.
Now it was time to listen to the CD5/112/150/Tablettes. RLK cued up the audiophile favorite..Rush. It was quite apparent that the overall presentation was congealed, muffled, uninspiring and quite bandwidth limited with relatively little LF extension and even less LF control. All too easy would it be to point the finger of blame at the venerable Tablettes, but I knew better.
So I popped off the linking plug on the back of the CD5 and powered it with the Supercap/black Snaic. Yes I know this is not a typical combination and is poor allocation of resources, but the idea was to see just where the bottleneck was.
CD5/Supercap: This was now a very different sounding machine. A goodly piece of compression was removed, the top end gained extension, clarity and crispness. The bottom end heft started to make sense. Does this make the naked CD5 a bad machine....? Not at all..read on!
Next I removed supercap from the CD5 and returned to its self-powered status. The supercap was instead connected to the 112.The power amp remained the 150.
112/Supercap: A much larger leap over the 150-powered 112 than between the self powered CD5 and the Supercap-powered CD5. Many, but not most of the really unpleasant attributes of the initial sistem were reduced if not banished. Hey, this is beginning to sound enjoyable to listen to.
Next an extra Snaic was brought into the battle and the Supercap allowed to power both the 112 AND the CD-5.
112/SC and CD5/SC: Now things were rocking. Dare I say that there was some hints of depth and soundstage even with Rush. Bass guitar fingering and fretting became quite obvious and snare drum decay could be heard for the first time. All in all I would consider these improvements to mostly justify the cost of a Supercap.
Now it was time to bring out the heavy artillery. The Supercap was connected to the 52 and the CD5 returned again to its self powered state.
selfpowered CD5/52/150....WOW!!!! The music literally became unrecognizable compared to anything we had done previously. It sounded like a different band performing different songs. Instruments appeared that were completely absent before. Certain percussive bells resolved into a myriad of tones and strikes. Dynamics vere vastly improved and the bottom end was not only greatly extended, but also taut, tuneful and just as bouncy as the rest of the frequency spectrum. All this through the self-powered CD5 that was now shown to be a very capable performer.
Ok, ok.... lets see what the 135s can do. Out came the 150 and in went the 135s following much cable fiddling. The Rush album was cued to track 3 and the listening began.
Odd, there was very little improvement. And the vocals started to sound harsh and broken up. The linking wire of the Tablettes was removed the midbass units taken out of circuit leaving only the tweeters. Yup, they were harsh, distorted and broken up. We must have smoked them, dammit. The home-bru Response 2.5 were then brought into the room and hooked up. Horrible... they too had the 'blown tweeter' ragged sound to them. How could this have happened? Maybe it wasn't blown tweeters after all. I rechecked all the wiring and found that I had the supercap connected to not only the 52 (via the Burndy and the snaic to the 52s front panel LD circuitry) but in the heat of cable swapping I had somehow hooked up one of its powered outlets to the 112, that was at this point not hooked up to anything. This offending snaic was removed and the 'blown' tweeters instantly healed themselves. Odd that you can parasitize one of the SC outlets to a component that is 'in series' with the system, but when you steal the juice to something that is out of the loop, horrible things happen to the sound. I will not attempt to explain why, only to document that this exists.
Self-powered CD5/52/135s: The extra weight and propulsion everything took on was very evident. Dynamics were cracking and there was no hint of compression, loss of extension, breaking up or any semblance of the murky sound the Tablettes were putting out only a couple hours before. In this context the self powered CD5 seemed to allow it all to happen. Without having a CDX or CDS2 at hand it was impossible to imagine a more capable performance.
Lastly..... parasitizing the SC to also feed the CD5.
CD5-parasitized supercap/52/135- this was IT man. The CD5 now took on a great degree of depth and vocal articulation. This was a sound that even I could live with for a long, long time. You really couldn't listen to this without some sort of shit-eating grin finding its way on your face- it was so good it was almost funny. Really.
And ultimately.... taking all the gear off the Lovan and resiting the 52/SC/135s on the same Hutter stand that the CD5 was already on. Read the paragraph above and another 30% performance increase. The shit eating grins became guffaws of astonishment.
Lessons learned:
1. All the NAP-powered preamp systems I have recently heard have suffered from a rather compressed, two dimensional and unengaging sound that new users think are due to underpowered poweramps. Rather it is because when the power amp starts to work hard the preamp feed gets choked to the point of cyanosis. I would hesitate to recommend a NAP powered pre-power combo without any external *cap. I understand the 202/200 combo works just fine without any extra DC supplies. Maybe Naim should have 'given' away wall wart EcoCaps with their preamps to accustom the user to the idea of an external preamp power supply.
2. By virtue of the above given, the choice to *cap either a CD5 or a preamp, it HAS to be the latter.
3. The CD5 is an amazingly good player even when self powered. It is quite capable of fronting a pseudomullet system composed of far higher spec'd electronics. If it was the choice between a CD5 and CDX2, OR adding a Hicap to an NAP, then the latter would have to prevail.
4. Parasitizing the Supercap can be a good thing.
5. Parasitizing the Supercap can be a bad thing.
6. The now-defunct 52 is an astonishgly good piece of kit. Give me a 52/SC/150 anyday over the 112/SC/135. The evenings host has pretty much decided to eventually procure a 52 instead of faffing around with less capable intermediates.
7. The 150 is one seriously underated amplifier. The leap from 150 to 135 was nowhere as large as I would have thought although still immediately noticeable and added certain traits that the 150 merely hinted at. Maybe if I had a CDS2 as the source the 135 would have greatly outclassed the 150. I may explore this on my next trip.
8. Upgrading is fun and the results largely predictable, although rather unintuitive to the neophyte naim user.
9. Who needs new speakers when you can just move up the electronic line?
10. Equipments supports (snore) do make a difference. Sometimes a component level difference for the price of considerably less than a component.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
[This message was edited by Ron Toolsie on MONDAY 25 November 2002 at 21:42.]
So I packed up the car with the 52, Supercap, 2x135 and a non-Naim CD player that I also use in addition to my CDS2. I also brought extra Snaics and a Wiremold power strip. I should have taken the CDS2/XPS but my car was already rather full. I intend to when I eventually reclaim my gear next week.
On arrival I found the Tablettes on each side of a stone fireplace with the equipment sited on a 4-tier Hutter rack in the corner of the room. Speaker cables looked like NACA5 (athough I could see no identifiable printing on them) with junky gold-colored 4mm plugs at each end. The Tablettes have the + and -ve sockets spaced quite widely apart so I can see why the dealer chose not to use the moulded Naim plugs at that end- but the same horrible terminations were also at the power-amp end. Naughty dealer!
Before listening to anything I set up the 52/SC/135 on a Lovan rack he brought out and sited next to the Hutter. The mechanical integrity of the Lovan was halfway between a house-of-cards and a frame constructe of toothpicks and balsa wood with an alarming amount of sway and rotational flex. These boxes were then powered up and allowed some degree of warm up before any insertion/substitution was attempted.
Now it was time to listen to the CD5/112/150/Tablettes. RLK cued up the audiophile favorite..Rush. It was quite apparent that the overall presentation was congealed, muffled, uninspiring and quite bandwidth limited with relatively little LF extension and even less LF control. All too easy would it be to point the finger of blame at the venerable Tablettes, but I knew better.
So I popped off the linking plug on the back of the CD5 and powered it with the Supercap/black Snaic. Yes I know this is not a typical combination and is poor allocation of resources, but the idea was to see just where the bottleneck was.
CD5/Supercap: This was now a very different sounding machine. A goodly piece of compression was removed, the top end gained extension, clarity and crispness. The bottom end heft started to make sense. Does this make the naked CD5 a bad machine....? Not at all..read on!
Next I removed supercap from the CD5 and returned to its self-powered status. The supercap was instead connected to the 112.The power amp remained the 150.
112/Supercap: A much larger leap over the 150-powered 112 than between the self powered CD5 and the Supercap-powered CD5. Many, but not most of the really unpleasant attributes of the initial sistem were reduced if not banished. Hey, this is beginning to sound enjoyable to listen to.
Next an extra Snaic was brought into the battle and the Supercap allowed to power both the 112 AND the CD-5.
112/SC and CD5/SC: Now things were rocking. Dare I say that there was some hints of depth and soundstage even with Rush. Bass guitar fingering and fretting became quite obvious and snare drum decay could be heard for the first time. All in all I would consider these improvements to mostly justify the cost of a Supercap.
Now it was time to bring out the heavy artillery. The Supercap was connected to the 52 and the CD5 returned again to its self powered state.
selfpowered CD5/52/150....WOW!!!! The music literally became unrecognizable compared to anything we had done previously. It sounded like a different band performing different songs. Instruments appeared that were completely absent before. Certain percussive bells resolved into a myriad of tones and strikes. Dynamics vere vastly improved and the bottom end was not only greatly extended, but also taut, tuneful and just as bouncy as the rest of the frequency spectrum. All this through the self-powered CD5 that was now shown to be a very capable performer.
Ok, ok.... lets see what the 135s can do. Out came the 150 and in went the 135s following much cable fiddling. The Rush album was cued to track 3 and the listening began.
Odd, there was very little improvement. And the vocals started to sound harsh and broken up. The linking wire of the Tablettes was removed the midbass units taken out of circuit leaving only the tweeters. Yup, they were harsh, distorted and broken up. We must have smoked them, dammit. The home-bru Response 2.5 were then brought into the room and hooked up. Horrible... they too had the 'blown tweeter' ragged sound to them. How could this have happened? Maybe it wasn't blown tweeters after all. I rechecked all the wiring and found that I had the supercap connected to not only the 52 (via the Burndy and the snaic to the 52s front panel LD circuitry) but in the heat of cable swapping I had somehow hooked up one of its powered outlets to the 112, that was at this point not hooked up to anything. This offending snaic was removed and the 'blown' tweeters instantly healed themselves. Odd that you can parasitize one of the SC outlets to a component that is 'in series' with the system, but when you steal the juice to something that is out of the loop, horrible things happen to the sound. I will not attempt to explain why, only to document that this exists.
Self-powered CD5/52/135s: The extra weight and propulsion everything took on was very evident. Dynamics were cracking and there was no hint of compression, loss of extension, breaking up or any semblance of the murky sound the Tablettes were putting out only a couple hours before. In this context the self powered CD5 seemed to allow it all to happen. Without having a CDX or CDS2 at hand it was impossible to imagine a more capable performance.
Lastly..... parasitizing the SC to also feed the CD5.
CD5-parasitized supercap/52/135- this was IT man. The CD5 now took on a great degree of depth and vocal articulation. This was a sound that even I could live with for a long, long time. You really couldn't listen to this without some sort of shit-eating grin finding its way on your face- it was so good it was almost funny. Really.
And ultimately.... taking all the gear off the Lovan and resiting the 52/SC/135s on the same Hutter stand that the CD5 was already on. Read the paragraph above and another 30% performance increase. The shit eating grins became guffaws of astonishment.
Lessons learned:
1. All the NAP-powered preamp systems I have recently heard have suffered from a rather compressed, two dimensional and unengaging sound that new users think are due to underpowered poweramps. Rather it is because when the power amp starts to work hard the preamp feed gets choked to the point of cyanosis. I would hesitate to recommend a NAP powered pre-power combo without any external *cap. I understand the 202/200 combo works just fine without any extra DC supplies. Maybe Naim should have 'given' away wall wart EcoCaps with their preamps to accustom the user to the idea of an external preamp power supply.
2. By virtue of the above given, the choice to *cap either a CD5 or a preamp, it HAS to be the latter.
3. The CD5 is an amazingly good player even when self powered. It is quite capable of fronting a pseudomullet system composed of far higher spec'd electronics. If it was the choice between a CD5 and CDX2, OR adding a Hicap to an NAP, then the latter would have to prevail.
4. Parasitizing the Supercap can be a good thing.
5. Parasitizing the Supercap can be a bad thing.
6. The now-defunct 52 is an astonishgly good piece of kit. Give me a 52/SC/150 anyday over the 112/SC/135. The evenings host has pretty much decided to eventually procure a 52 instead of faffing around with less capable intermediates.
7. The 150 is one seriously underated amplifier. The leap from 150 to 135 was nowhere as large as I would have thought although still immediately noticeable and added certain traits that the 150 merely hinted at. Maybe if I had a CDS2 as the source the 135 would have greatly outclassed the 150. I may explore this on my next trip.
8. Upgrading is fun and the results largely predictable, although rather unintuitive to the neophyte naim user.
9. Who needs new speakers when you can just move up the electronic line?
10. Equipments supports (snore) do make a difference. Sometimes a component level difference for the price of considerably less than a component.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
[This message was edited by Ron Toolsie on MONDAY 25 November 2002 at 21:42.]
Wow!!! One of the most amazing posts in a long while. Thank you Ron for the effort of the dems and the very clear writeup.
Dangit though - the SCap powered 112 didn't cut it
Looks like the Big Leap was when the 52 was introduced.
There goes my Nait 5/Supercap plan
- GregB
Insert Witty Signature Line Here
Dangit though - the SCap powered 112 didn't cut it
Looks like the Big Leap was when the 52 was introduced.There goes my Nait 5/Supercap plan
- GregB
Insert Witty Signature Line Here
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas K:
Herm will be proud to see that you've adopted the sistem orthography ...
as a tribute to Nuño, you know...
Herman
As was detailed in the leader post I incrementally inserted the 52, 2x135 into a CD5/112/150 system (running into homebru ProAcs 2.5). Any system with the 52 proved to be better than any system without it. The last swap to be done was lugging over my CDS2 and leaving it there with all the other pieces of my gear while it warmed up over the week. Which is what I did last weekend, returning today to listen and then reclaim.
Starting off
CDS2/52/135 This was obviously far in advance to what the CD5 was allowing previously. Although the qualities of improvements were not the gobsmacking-laugh-in-disbelief types that the 52 always seems to allow they were just as significant. The Dixie Chicks voices became for the first time real and as luscious to hear as the singers are to behold. There was a gorgeous seamlessness to the entire bandwidth and the tunefullness at the LF end was very close in agility to the very engaging, articulate crystaline top end. A relatively small amount of LF plod probably originates from the peerage of the speakers themselves and the 3-5mm wobble between the speaker base plates and the hardwood floor beneath them. In the week that RLK had the CDS2 at his place he swapped back and forth between the CD5 and the CDS2 and became to appreciate its musical wealths equally as much as the more-quickly-accessible attributes of the 52. This too will be a must-have.
CDS2/52/150 This disproportionate combination worked far better than I thought it would. The dynamics became a little more compressed, the sound a little more smeared and course and the LF lost a portion of its extension, textures and on-the-beat rhythm. But this was still fun to listen to. The 150 and the CD5 are cut from the same cloth and are quite comfortable mingling with far more exalted company.
CDS2/112/Supercap/135 Sadly and unfortunately rather predicatably this is more of a rough tumble rather than merely a step down from the above. Soundstage collapsed, musical threads congealed and the exquisite top end clarity and extension was replaced by a rather opaque and rolled off counterpart.
CDS2/112/150 (with no *cap) The now rudimently powered 112 made a tighter constriction in the bottle neck. Much, but not all of the beauty of the CDS2 was swallowed up. Even though the souce is near impeccable, the 'source-first'dogma does not appear to hold up that well here. I think I would much rather a CD5/52 than a CDS2/power-amp-powered 112.
Back to the start CD5/112/150 As alluded to above the drop down from a CDS2 to the CD5 is not nearly as large as you would imagine in the context of this system. There was simply insufficient control exerted on the speakers. I suspect that an easier to drive speaker (Tukan? Katan?) would allow the strengths of the individual components to mostly come through. When the 150 struggles into these speakers, it simply does not do an adequate job in juicing the 112.
Lessons?:
1. As my friend Marc has mentioned to me more than once... 'The source may be the heart of the system, but the preamp is its soul'.
2. When a power amp starts to struggle, the price exacted on its preamp power feed is great.
3. RLK will NOT be buying much needed furniture for a while. We hope to see if a 282 or 202 offers a slice of the beguiling magic that only the 52 so far has seemed to allow.
CDS2/52/Snaxo/Scap/6x135/DBLsWe then returned (with equipment) back to my place and plugged the CDS2/52/2x135 back into the rest of my DBL-sixpack, allowing it to play music for the first time in over two weeks. And play music it did. There was an immense scale, degree of precision and completly unflappable control. The breathy voices of the Dixie Chicks were so goooooood. Now this is a system I can (and do) live with. In fact while listening this evening I found myself wondering just why I felt the need to order the NAP300. Next week I will find out- a disclosure I will not keep to myself.
That is all.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
[This message was edited by Ron Toolsie on MONDAY 09 December 2002 at 06:25.]
[This message was edited by Ron Toolsie on MONDAY 09 December 2002 at 06:26.]
Starting off
CDS2/52/135 This was obviously far in advance to what the CD5 was allowing previously. Although the qualities of improvements were not the gobsmacking-laugh-in-disbelief types that the 52 always seems to allow they were just as significant. The Dixie Chicks voices became for the first time real and as luscious to hear as the singers are to behold. There was a gorgeous seamlessness to the entire bandwidth and the tunefullness at the LF end was very close in agility to the very engaging, articulate crystaline top end. A relatively small amount of LF plod probably originates from the peerage of the speakers themselves and the 3-5mm wobble between the speaker base plates and the hardwood floor beneath them. In the week that RLK had the CDS2 at his place he swapped back and forth between the CD5 and the CDS2 and became to appreciate its musical wealths equally as much as the more-quickly-accessible attributes of the 52. This too will be a must-have.
CDS2/52/150 This disproportionate combination worked far better than I thought it would. The dynamics became a little more compressed, the sound a little more smeared and course and the LF lost a portion of its extension, textures and on-the-beat rhythm. But this was still fun to listen to. The 150 and the CD5 are cut from the same cloth and are quite comfortable mingling with far more exalted company.
CDS2/112/Supercap/135 Sadly and unfortunately rather predicatably this is more of a rough tumble rather than merely a step down from the above. Soundstage collapsed, musical threads congealed and the exquisite top end clarity and extension was replaced by a rather opaque and rolled off counterpart.
CDS2/112/150 (with no *cap) The now rudimently powered 112 made a tighter constriction in the bottle neck. Much, but not all of the beauty of the CDS2 was swallowed up. Even though the souce is near impeccable, the 'source-first'dogma does not appear to hold up that well here. I think I would much rather a CD5/52 than a CDS2/power-amp-powered 112.
Back to the start CD5/112/150 As alluded to above the drop down from a CDS2 to the CD5 is not nearly as large as you would imagine in the context of this system. There was simply insufficient control exerted on the speakers. I suspect that an easier to drive speaker (Tukan? Katan?) would allow the strengths of the individual components to mostly come through. When the 150 struggles into these speakers, it simply does not do an adequate job in juicing the 112.
Lessons?:
1. As my friend Marc has mentioned to me more than once... 'The source may be the heart of the system, but the preamp is its soul'.
2. When a power amp starts to struggle, the price exacted on its preamp power feed is great.
3. RLK will NOT be buying much needed furniture for a while. We hope to see if a 282 or 202 offers a slice of the beguiling magic that only the 52 so far has seemed to allow.
CDS2/52/Snaxo/Scap/6x135/DBLsWe then returned (with equipment) back to my place and plugged the CDS2/52/2x135 back into the rest of my DBL-sixpack, allowing it to play music for the first time in over two weeks. And play music it did. There was an immense scale, degree of precision and completly unflappable control. The breathy voices of the Dixie Chicks were so goooooood. Now this is a system I can (and do) live with. In fact while listening this evening I found myself wondering just why I felt the need to order the NAP300. Next week I will find out- a disclosure I will not keep to myself.
That is all.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
[This message was edited by Ron Toolsie on MONDAY 09 December 2002 at 06:25.]
[This message was edited by Ron Toolsie on MONDAY 09 December 2002 at 06:26.]