Naim 32.5-Better than 52?

I did the 42.5/Hicap vs a 52 and the findings were VERY much in favor of the 52. The 42.5 was ponderous and quite dull in the HF vs the 52. Both the 42.5 and the HC had been recently serviced too. 

I can still remember the first review of the 52 I saw....in the first issue of Audiophile magazine. The reviewer who had the 32.5 to compare it with was overcome by both its cost as well as its performance as compared to the 32.5. 

If you are not entirely convinced by the 52, then you must check the orientation and dressage of not only its Burndy, but also the Snaic that is responsible for the front panel feed. 

Having said that, the 32.5/42.5 in the right system can sound like there is nothing at all lacking. This pursuit of the sublime we engage in comes with exponentially increasing costs and exponentially decaying returns, and an on-tune 32/250 system is still better than 99% of contemporary stuff. Getting up to 99.5% requires the 52 ;-)

I am pretty sure that Malcom Steward's Audiophile Magazine review referred to his then 72/HiCap as the benchmark - rather than a 32.5  

I had a 72/hicap for many years before borrowing a friends 52 for a couple of days. The 72 was superb, and I was very content with it, feeling it lacked virtually nothing until I heard the 52 in my system. The 52 just sounded so much more natural, as if the band was actually in the room. The sound just flowed easily and didn't sound at all forced or harsh. The 52 was way ahead in every area of the musical performance.

The 52 asks more of the source, system and setup. You can't just plonk it in and expect great results. If your TT has drifted out of peak tune or your source just isn't up to snuff, or your stands needing attention or cables need a clean and redress then just putting in a more capable preamp may just make issues clearer rather that were masked by the previous preamp.

Chris Dolan posted:

I am pretty sure that Malcom Steward's Audiophile Magazine review referred to his then 72/HiCap as the benchmark - rather than a 32.5  

Page number, Month and volume please

The 42.5 was ponderous and quite dull in the HF

That was my experience, Ron, when I changed from 42 to 32.5: such a revelation, so I can imagine just what a boost the 52 would be.

I found the 72 had more upper mid band treble than the 32.5. Also sounds a tad more compressed to my ears probably due to the 729s.

With the 52 I am in the back row-- with the 32.5 I am in the front. I will upgrade my source to CDS and do more listening. Thanks for the comments.

Alba1320 posted:

Loki posted:

Chris Dolan posted:

I am pretty sure that Malcom Steward's Audiophile Magazine review referred to his then 72/HiCap as the benchmark - rather than a 32.5  

Page number, Month and volume please

Correct, Chris.

And seeing as you asked, LOKI , Pages 4-7 & 9, May 1990 (the very first issue), with a 'Right of Reply' by Mark Tucker on page 49!

Oh, and it was on the Cover Page, too.

Thanks, I'll see if I can find it: somewhere in the spare palace near the VHS tapes...

Disregard. After inspecting the cables for the 52 I noticed the Burndy is starting to shred. After repairing  it the 52 is far superior.

Sounds like it . It is impossible for the 32.5 to beat the 52, especially in the digital area, 32.5 MC phono input is pretty good, I must say - it has timbres, and subtle, detailed, and spacious sound. 

mikeybaby posted:

II will upgrade my source to CDS and do more listening.

Thumbs up.

C.

I went 42 to 32.5 to 72 to 52,the  latter three with HC. Ever increasing levels of betterness. capped off with a SC on the 52.