NAP 200 vs. NAP 200 DR

... I mean between a 202/200 and a 202/200 DR of course  !

I think Catalinmetal has gone from a 200 to 200DR. Have a search for his posts, hopefully this will be of help. I think he's very pleased with the new DR in his system.

I had a 200 on loan for a few weeks while waiting for a 200DR to arrive. I tried the following permutations around 202/200 pairing

1) 202  + NAPSC + 200

2) 202 + NAPSC  + HC2 (non DR) + 200

3) 202 + NAPSC + 200DR

There was an improvement to perceived dynamics and soundstage (with the usual caveats of my individual hearing, speakers and room) with 2 over 1, 3 against 2 was more balanced and tricky to call. 3 had more detail, but didn't quite sound as lively as 2, however 2 seemed better across a broader range of listening volumes, but the bass sounded more under control at high listening levels for 3. In the end I settled on 3, since it also freed up the HC2 for duty on a headline. However the logical thing is to upgrade the HC2 to DR and hopefully get best of both worlds.

i have a 172/200DR/ovator S400 setup, on fraimLite with Naca5 spkr cable...

in this setup i had tha chance to test an year or two old NAP200 (non-DR) and a few weeks old NAP250DR...

i posted my findings on several topics, and i found that, from those 3 amps, the best VFM is the 200DR.

i haven't compared (yet) the 200 vs 200DR with 202, is was planned with my Naim dealer and friend, but we haven't found yet the day to relaxingly do that... it will happen though, one of those days.

on my setup, the DR version brought more neutral tone and more refined timbres of intruments, voices were more lifelike, as opposed to the nonDR which has a slightly dry tone, and lacks a bit the refinement.

the soundstage became bigger and noisefloor reduced, thus everything has s slight better impact and control with the DR version...

i made the 250DR comparison at a latter date, and i was expecting real high jump, i had the money prepared for the upgrade, but... i had expected too much, and while better, the 250DR jump over the 200DR was not as i though it would be, in my context, so i decided to try other methods to improve the 200DR (i am now testing a PS Audio AC-12 power chord, their reference, which is really really good indeed, and which takes the 200DR way closer to 250DR than many might expect)! with AC-12, the 200DR sounds really really good indeed, in fact i sometimes haven't heard amp 2 or three times the price of this 200DR that sound really THIS good and balanced.

for conformity, i haven't upgraded the 200 to 200DR, in fact i received a proposition to swap the 200DR for the nonDR 200 plus a DVD5, offer which was very tempting indeed, but after hearing them side by side, which i politely refused.

when i will have the time to check 202/200 vs 202/200DR, be sure i will report here on the forum! what i can tell you is that i think that the new 200DR is a step up from the nonDR version, that is a certain thing.

M24J, for me it's clear: if 202+HC+200 is still under 202+200DR, then the upgrade from 200 to 200DR is a no-brainer!

 

m24j posted:

I had a 200 on loan for a few weeks while waiting for a 200DR to arrive. I tried the following permutations around 202/200 pairing

1) 202  + NAPSC + 200

2) 202 + NAPSC  + HC2 (non DR) + 200

3) 202 + NAPSC + 200DR

There was an improvement to perceived dynamics and soundstage (with the usual caveats of my individual hearing, speakers and room) with 2 over 1, 3 against 2 was more balanced and tricky to call. 3 had more detail, but didn't quite sound as lively as 2, however 2 seemed better across a broader range of listening volumes, but the bass sounded more under control at high listening levels for 3. In the end I settled on 3, since it also freed up the HC2 for duty on a headline. However the logical thing is to upgrade the HC2 to DR and hopefully get best of both worlds.

 

 

Did you feel that the older 200 was more "dry" sounding than the newer 200DR?

what about the 202/HC with old 200 and new 200 DR?

I'm using 202/HCDR/200, as I already had HCDR, anyone know if I upgrade to 200DR will further improve ?

yes, in normal conditions, the sound should improve, no doubt about it! and you can probably sell the HCDR or use it for other Naim product...

No, the HCDR should be kept for the 202. Even with a NAP 200 DR

Any HiCap is dual rail and power the 202 in dual mode, all NAPs provide single rail to a pre so yes a HiCap will be better especially the DR version.

Naim advised me to go non DR 200 amp to go with my HiCap DR instead of selling HicapDR & buying 200DR...

I will not selling the HCDR, just want to know if 202/HCDR/200 DR are better than 202/HCDR/200 non DR or not.

Apparently yes . Where are you based? U.K. ?

hi analogmusic, I'm in Hong Kong.

So are you meaning 200DR is better than 200 non DR if both of them are also using HCDR?

according to Frank Abela of audio-t, yes, the older 200 is apparently "dry" sounding, the new 200DR has much improved resolution, so if you can trade up, I would do it. 

PS : I have a 282/HCDR/200 (non DR) rig, and love it. I found much musical improvement when I switched RCA-RCA interconnects to RCA-DIN from my chord Hugo into 282. 

Hmm, I have not heard the new 200, but just don't recognize that statement of the old 200 sounding dry.. because it wasn't for me.. It had a relatively light slightly sweet sound to me.. it's only shortcoming, if you can call it that, in my setup was that it didn't grip and control the speakers or quite have the resolving power like the regulated amps do, but that is not what the 200 is/was about.

Simon

Simon, I agree with you, 200 is not sounding dry, i owned 200, 250.2 and 300, and finally back to the 200 as it sounds really pretty sweet for that price point, of course 300 is quite better.

best_jerry posted:

I'm using 202/HCDR/200, as I already had HCDR, anyone know if I upgrade to 200DR will further improve ?

No it will not! Waste of money.

Just for the record, the 200 never sounded dry in my own experience. Maybe it is not the best choice of a word but if dry is meant to mean leaner, crisper or tighter, for lack of a better words, than the old 250.2 for example, then yes, the 200 sounded leaner. It's a great amp.

And where is Catalinmetal now to praise how much better is the 200dr  - apparently 95 percent as good as the 250 dr?

Anyway - we all hear what we hear, or sometimes, what we want to hear 

The 200 non DR is a fantastic amp which I love very dearly, and never understood why catalinmetal said it sounded dry.

Karlsott, that is exactly the impression I had when I auditionned (non DR) 200/202 in the past: too lean sounding for my taste, not "sensual" or "comfortable" enough.

On the other hand, 250/282 seemed almost too exuberant to me...

Does anyone know if the new 200DR/200 is more on the "comfy" side, making it more acceptable to listeners of my kind?

Thank you in advance

totemphile posted:

best_jerry posted:

I'm using 202/HCDR/200, as I already had HCDR, anyone know if I upgrade to 200DR will further improve ?

No it will not! Waste of money.

whether is a waste of money only the OP can decide. but with the first statement i do not agree! the step from 200 to 200DR will show improvement in SQ.

for the record, have you ever heard the 2 amps side by side?

thanks for an honest aswer...

analogmusic posted:

And where is Catalinmetal now to praise how much better is the 200dr  - apparently 95 percent as good as the 250 dr?

 

Anyway - we all hear what we hear, or sometimes, what we want to hear 

 

The 200 non DR is a fantastic amp which I love very dearly, and never understood why catalinmetal said it sounded dry.

analog, i see you made quite a mission in pinpointing my posts and fire at them...

i would be flattered if i would know if your experience matches mine... i cannot know that so i will not debate further with you, and i would appreciate if you would do the same for me, just ignore my posts if you think they are not worth a dime.

while many have swallowed dealers' or forum's saying that 250DR is just the day's  rabbit-in-the-box, i happened to make my own findings, and simply decide that for me, 200DR is worth better, from VFM point of view, than 250DR, and also worth considering if one has 200 nonDR or other Naim integrated or all-in-ones.

accidentally or not, there seem to be some who actually tend to hear similar to myself, so pretty please mr analog, with sugar on top, like one character said in Pulp Fiction movie, just ignore i exist or acknowledge that we might have very different backgrounds and i can post useful infos for some (maybe i actually do, who knows).

would you not find boring a forum that says in every post the same thing?

yes, we don't hear the same... and maybe that's the good thing...

i won't mention to mr analog that, with PS Audio AC-12 power chord ( a real marvel if you ask me) the 200DR probably gets even closer than estimated 95% to the 250DR powered with stock cable... but please, mr analog, don't go into verbal heart attack! we need you here on the forums premises! and unfortunately for me, and for all of you i cannot, yes, i admit, i cannot actually measure if 95% is the exact figure! how sorry i am... you have no idea! mea culpa!

karlosTT posted:

I think 'dry' is an ambiguous term, with no intuitive meaning in audio terms. However, what I think people mean by it is a lean sounding bass, not rounded or full, and lacking a little warmth in tonality. To that extent, I think the 200 is quite capable of coming across as dry sounding - if not in every system context perhaps, but more so than other Naim power amps.....

Karlos, you have just made quite a very good description of the dry sound. yes it has to do with the tone and timbre... as you said, more so than other Naim power amps.

Hm, I've heard the 200dr, 250dr and 300dr back to back with their non dr brethren in the same, good quality system, and the 250dr was the stand out performer to me.  If I was to upgrade on my SN2, which I'm not, the 250dr would be the amp that I bought, probably with a 282 at the front and a hicap dr