552 sonic influence

I don't know, but I do know that my Nait5i had a passive attenuator as a volume control whereas the NaitXS has a real preamp in it.   The XS sounds worlds better than the 5i in my opinion.

Consider all of this technical stuff as much as you like but unless you have £20k to spend do not ever, ever listen to a 552 - it will ruin your Hifi life. I will say no more.

Oh dear, here we go again, more 552 hyperbole, yes I think the 552 sounds rather impressive, I have heard many many 552's in different systems some excellent  and some rather disappointing . I decided to pass on a used 552 when it came my way... is my hifi life ruined? Of course not... might I get  a 552 in the future? Possibly....

Listen to a 552 and compare it with any other preamp or passive pot. If you hear no difference you've saved a lot of money. If the 552 sounds inferior you've just hit an opportunity to get very rich indeed. if you can hear a difference there is one. It's a shaky assumption to believe that everyone else will hear exactly the same as you.

I recently eliminated the preamplifier altogether by connecting a Hugo TT to a 250DR as I only use an NDX to feed radio, Tidal & NAS.

Very very transparent sounding (plus all the other superlatives).

G

I come from the 'less is more' school of thinking, but normally sticking a Naim preamp in the chain gives you the Naim 'sound' if you like that sort of thing. 

Regarding the 552 and it's influence on the sound of a system Michael Fremer made some interesting comments on the direct connection vs 552 in his 2003 Stereophile review.

Google 'stereophile naim 552 review' for more

I think besides my deep belief in th quality of the 552, one should also not forget the synergy of the pre and the amp. They at two halls of the total sound. Exclude one and you will get a different and in my ears less satisfying result.

GraemeH posted:

I recently eliminated the preamplifier altogether by connecting a Hugo TT to a 250DR as I only use an NDX to feed radio, Tidal & NAS.

Very very transparent sounding (plus all the other superlatives).

G

Hi G,

I've recently been having thoughts about rationalising my system, so, can I ask what preamp you were running before the Hugo?

Had a look at your profile, but of course, you've updated it to include the Hugo.

Also, what format do you rip / store your CD rips?

Cheers,

Dave.

Dave - I had a recent 282 SCAP and have a mixture of WAV ripped by a once owned HDX and FLAC ripped via pc/dbPoweramp.

G

Thanks Graeme, I'll look into finding a dealer with a demo Hugo TT.

dave marshall posted:

Thanks Graeme, I'll look into finding a dealer with a demo Hugo TT.

Gosh, Dave. Would you really be prepared to give that lovely 552DR?

The very first review of the 552 (in Stereophile) compared a source direct to power amp vs having the 552 in the chain, with the impression that the 552 added dynamics and swing. This mirrors my own findings both running sources with variable outputs into power amps, and through a custom built minimalistic dual potted passive 'preamplifier' with a single input/output. In every instance removing active buffering between the source and the power amp gave a boring and lifeless sound. 

This is even more likely to occur with Naim power amps due to their relatively low input impedance, requiring a low source output impedance. The output impedance of a 552 is less than a ohm. It may be hundreds of ohms for some sources, particularly at low frequencies.  If the source has low value coupling caps, there will be demonstrable frequency roll-off into Naim power amps. And the inability or the source to swing current (as opposed to just voltage) can also choke dynamics. And the cumulative effects of rolled off bass and squished dynamics take all the life and fun out of the music. 

Also, Naim preamps also impose a gentle ultrasonic roll-off to combat the tendencies of their power amps to undergo ultrasonic oscillation, especially into ill-matched speaker wires. This will not be the case with passive preamps. 

Which is not to say that some power amps cannot thrive with passive attenuation upstream. But I certainly would not use a 500 in that fashion. 

MDS posted:

dave marshall posted:

Thanks Graeme, I'll look into finding a dealer with a demo Hugo TT.

Gosh, Dave. Would you really be prepared to give that lovely 552DR?

I don't imagine so, but I seem to be suffering lately from the old

"do I really need to have all these black boxes"

in order to enjoy music?

It can't just be me who wonders about this once in while, and I'm sure I'll get over it, but may seek out a TT for home demo...........just to see, you understand. 

dave marshall posted:

MDS posted:

dave marshall posted:

Thanks Graeme, I'll look into finding a dealer with a demo Hugo TT.

Gosh, Dave. Would you really be prepared to give that lovely 552DR?

I don't imagine so, but I seem to be suffering lately from the old

"do I really need to have all these black boxes"

in order to enjoy music?

It can't just be me who wonders about this once in while, and I'm sure I'll get over it, but may seek out a TT for home demo...........just to see, you understand. 

 

I'll keep my fingers-crossed for you, Dave, i.e. that sonic sense will prevail 

Mike

I can't comment re 552 as I haven't tried, and I dont have a Naim power amp, but FWIW Chord Hugo works well direct into both a Musical Fidelity P270 and a Bryston 4Bsst2, and both Hugo TT and Chord Dave also sing into the Bryston (not tried with the MF).

These three Chords also roll off ultrasonics above 50 or 60 kHz to avoid power amp problems.

the only definitive answer is suck it and see!