yet another NAP vs NAP thread

Caught in upgrade hell?  You've just upgraded today and thinking about moving on already...Some people listen to music - some listen to boxes. It's maybe worth remembering what this is all about in the first place.

Sister xx

Surely the 155 comes with a din lead - why do you need to waste money on another one. As to the amps, I'd have a used 200 rather than a new 155. 

rainsoothe posted:

I'm also not looking for a recessed midrange, quite slightly on the contrary.

Please clarify.

C.

Sister E. posted:

Caught in upgrade hell?  You've just upgraded today and thinking about moving on already...Some people listen to music - some listen to boxes. It's maybe worth remembering what this is all about in the first place.

Sister xx

 

Amen sister.

The 172/100 is a good pairing - if I were you I'd take a little time to take stock of what you have.

What is the Nac N172 XS doing more than the SN1?

rainsoothe posted:

Hi again, everyone.

... Current system is Nac N-172 XS - Nap100 - Focal Aria 906 (which will, most likely, be upgraded in a few months with PMC DB1 Gold ...

Owning DB1i and Focal 806Wse speakers I'd say that was pretty much a sideways move. The PMCs are always happier in small rooms, it is a nearfield monitor after all. Ex-dem PMC twenty.21 would be a better bet than the golds (yes I have those too!)

@hungryhalibut - I only have the 155XS on home dem, and the dealer is changing location, so things are a bit hectic (and their cables are elsewhere for the time being). The cable is for Nac N + Nap100, which I'm keeping for a while anyway.

[@mention:55771800629066628] - it sounds more natural to me (the Nac-N172). The difference isn't huge, but it showed how limiting the UQ2 was as a preamp. About a year ago I tried driving a Nap200 with the UQ2, and I didn't like it one bit - the sound had too much woodyness, and the separation between instruments was pretty bad. So I didn't see the point in upgrading with that integrated, if the source was a bottleneck.

[@mention:24797126401319069] - I had a short listen to the PMC twenty.23 floorstanders and they are impressive, but their tweeter is to piercing for my tastes. Yes, it wasn't with Naim, but with Bryston amplification. I, however, auditioned the DB1 Gold with my nap, and they sound much better to these ears. Their soundstaging is spectacular, and boogie factor is way higher than the Focals. The low end is way tighter, and I rather like their slight midbass hump. My room is 16 sq meters, I auditioned the DB1s ina larger room and they had no problem making wonderful, huge music.

[@mention:1566878603945950] I'm not moving on, I'm only considering future upgrades to the stuff I haven't upgraded already. Don't worry about people focusing more on boxes than on the music (which isn't the case here to begin with, but let's assume that for argument's sake) and, instead of trolling threads with life-lessons, maybe help by answering the question that's being asked. Maybe that way there would be fewer threads on the same topic, and people such as myself wouldn't be forced on creating yet another one.

[@mention:1566878604010590] - I will be doing that, and if the PMC's solve my lack-of-weight-sound issue (with their humpy bass), it's probably gonna stay.

[@mention:1566878603952052] - read smile-shaped EQ.

I'd look for easier speakers to continue the Nap 100 use, otherwise s/h Nap 150X, 140/110 or 180 will do much cheaper than a new 200

difference between source, speakers and preamp is much higher than between mentioned poweramps provided speakers are not a difficult load.

As for DNM singlewire cable, its fine in some combinations however rolled-off buttom/top and a true mismatch on Naim amplication, just IMO & IME

Thanks, b_lund. The DNM cable actually solves some of my room's issues, since the the room is prone to boomy bass and brightness.

Small update: so I have the PMCs on home dem, and so far it's not as charming as in the demo room. Which goes to show, yet again, how important home demos are. More on this later.

Also, when I returned the NAP 155xs to the dealers, they gave me a nap200 for auditioning, and I also borrowed a pair of pre-owned Spendor s3e they have lying around.

So here's what my ears have to say:

- Nap100 vs nap155xs: the 155 brings more weight to the presentation, and soundstage is a bit bigger, there's more details to be heard. But, somewhat paradoxically, it also gives the impression that stuff is a bit crammed and thrown at you. The nap100 is more relaxed and balanced for me, if only it had the 155's authority...

- PMC db1 gold: my undamped room diminishes the soundstage illusion I heard in the dealer's room, where they were also set in free space. In my room they are closer to walls (still 30 cm away, though). With nap100 they sound ok, but, as hafler30 suggested (and I contradicted) not much difference between them and my Arias. There is more low-end punch, but a bit uncontrolled at times, and that's about it. The nap155xs makes the soundstage bigger, but also makes the PMC too forward.

- Now the nap200: it's gorgeous. I have only tried it once before, with the UQ2. I don't recall if I had the DNM back then or if I was still using my older Audioquest type4, but the combo was pretty bad - too heavy and congested in the lows. With the Nac-n 172 xs, the nap 200 sounds so much better than the 100 and 155xs! Imo, it takes both their qualities, no defects, and then some: the lows are so much more controlled, but still has the right amount of weight, and the mid-range and highs are so balanced - detailed, but not in-your-face, neither forward, dry or relaxed. 

With the PMCs, the 200 solved the bass bloom issues, but the speakers were still too forward for my tastes.

With the Focals, everything was very balanced, but a bit too relaxed (I know it's the speakers)

------

As for the spendor s3e, they sound amazing, with a couple of caveats. Their energy, especially with the nap200, is simply wonderful. They have weight and punch, but in a very balanced way. They also sound very "together", with a "fruity" sound. 2 quibbles, though: 1. On busy arrangements, like some Dream Theater stuff, they seem to struggle a bit (without losing musicality), but so do all speakers I auditioned (maybe not the martin Logan Motion 40 I used to own). 2. With some recordings, there's a strange sybilance - transatlantic-"the whirlwind" comes to mind. I also heard this while watching a couple of "friends" episodes, the voices (and the overall sound, actually) had a general... "hissness" to them. Reminds me of some ribbon tweeters I heard - namely, the ones on Martin Logan Motions and XTZ 99.25 - which I don't rate in comparison to the ones on Piega premium range or higher-end Adam studio monitors.

-----

In conclusion:

- sorry for long post and confusing terms/statements

- nap200 = superb

- PMC too forward in my room, nap 155xs likewise, nap 100 needs more (controlled) weight.

- spendor s3e - 99% my cup of tea, sibilant at times. Any suggested alternatives to these? It appears I like closed-box designs a lot, wondering if atc SCM 11 would be too neutral, as I love the "rose colored", yet still energetic presentation of these particular spendors.

Woah there...DNM cable is a high capacitance cable and should not be used with certain Naim amps including the 155xs and 200. I've shutdown 250s in the past with that stuff.

As for your quandary, I'm surprised you haven't tried the SuperUniti. That's a cracking solution and if the urge takes you to go further you can upgrade to a 250 followed by a 272.

The least of your worries, it seems to me, are the Focals. Sure, they sound laid back, but then that's to be expected with a cable that's toning down the treble, softening the midrange and muting the bass...

Frank.

Are you sure about that Frank,  I know DNM don't publish spec's,  but wide spacing such as the DNM design will give low C & high L  (per NACA4/5).   It is a strange cable tho'  rolled off top end & not much bass - but that seems to have satisfied rainsooth's bright & boomy room, I would try some soft furnishings for that myself)

PS.  Just found some DNM spec's,,  C is around 14 to 17pF/m & L from 1 to 1.3uH/m,  depending on cable version.  This is similar C to NACA5 & slightly higher L 

I think that in 20 years, the 200 will enjoy the status that the old NAP 160 does these days. There is something quite 'right' with the top of the line 'non-regulated' power amps. Indeed some people expressed preference for the 160 over the chrome bumper 250 and the 200 over the 250.2. 

Anytime you think your power amp is lacking, try a top of the line preamp on it....that usually disabuses 99% of any disatisfaction one may have. 

Indeed, I checked the DNM specs, it's the right stuff. The Audioquest, on the other hand, was the opposite.

So yeah, my dealer made me an offer I couldn't refuse, so I am now the proud owner of a Nac N-172XS + Nap 200 + Spendor S3E. That, and a poor man.

Thanks everyone for your input.

That's weird about the DNM. I definitely managed to shut down 250 amps in fairly short order with that cable. At the time I thought it was because of high C. I wonder what caused the amps (we tried more than one as I recall) to shut down then...

Frank.

It has been several years since I made the swap but I can say, for me the upgrade from a 150x to a 200 was to my surprise, an easily noticeable upgrade.  I actually wasn't expecting much, if any change, I more so wanted the 200 as it was the natural partner for the 202 I had at the time & I liked the matching case work.  I was basically shocked the first time I plugged it in & gave it a listen.  Can't recall all the specifics but for sure much greater clarity/details & improved bass (in both weight & control).