Sound advice taken (CDX2 wise)

I tried out cdx2+555dr>202>200 and found the 555 is not worth the money in this constellation. 202+hicapdr+napsc first was the better decision, it's really enjoyable. I also think xps/xpsdr is the natural partner of the cdx2. 

In my opinion the 555PS or 555PSdr does not sound great with the CDX2 .. sounds too clinical (Hi-Fi)  and not enough musical... if you really need to denude your CDX2 then an XPS2 would be the way to go, but as I have said before I think the CDX2 ultimately sounds best bare on higher end NACs

I would advise to listen to CDX2 bare without any PSU and with original Naim power cord.

then see if you need any upgrade.

What I learnt is that even using non-naim interconnects changes the original Naim sound.

Now listening 2017 remaster tango in the night by FMac!

Sounds Good!  

With jpa digital power cord and Chord Signature tuned array din/ din

I have the album in HD as well ,I am working on them now

analogmusic posted:

What I learnt is that even using non-naim interconnects changes the original Naim sound.

You say that as if it's a negative - changing the original Naim sound. It could be what some folks are after - changing the original Naim sound.

Surely the only way to get 'the Naim sound' is to use all Naim boxes, wires and speakers? If that's the case, most of us don't have it. I prefer my sound with a splash of Tellurium in the mix. 

Indeed. If you played only Naim Label recordings in an all-Naim system I guess you'd have the Naim sound, but you'd be truly limited.

Finkfan posted:

Surely the only way to get 'the Naim sound' is to use all Naim boxes, wires and speakers? If that's the case, most of us don't have it.

Indeed... 

The Naim sound thing or discussion always gives me a bit of an itch as there is no such thing as 'one Naim sound'. Even within the Naim program there is a huge difference between standard power cords, Power-Line Lite, Power-Line, the standard interconnects and the Hi-Line and Super Luminia and the NACA5 a the SL speaker cables.

This is not the same Naim sound in different levels of quality but (very) different uhmm.... 'interpretations' of the Naim sound to say the least. 

And as Naim doesn't do speakers anymore, the term Naim sound gets even more hazy. 

joerand posted:

analogmusic posted:

What I learnt is that even using non-naim interconnects changes the original Naim sound.

You say that as if it's a negative - changing the original Naim sound. It could be what some folks are after - changing the original Naim sound.

to my ears the standard naim cables are as close as ideal to being time aligned, but yes at the expense of other qualities such are detail, and soundstage. Hi-line and Superlumina take the basic Naim engagement factor and add further refinement and the qualities like a big soundstage and more extension on frequency extremes and resolution.

ryder. posted:

cheeselet posted:

Contentious stuff there and I've no experience of powerline options.

Referring back to the discussion around the 202, continuation of my listening has  lead me to believe I have lost the upper bass bloom of the  previous system which I can  only put down to the 202, as this is my experience regardless of source.

Can anyone concur that the nac 202 has this desirable characteristic ie less colouration?

....  Interesting observation which may have some correlation to the experience that I have with the NAC 202. 

For me, I find the 202's character to be desirable though it would depend on system matching particularly loudspeakers, other than listening preferences. The 202 sounds less "bloated" than the 282 (presumably the Supernait 2 as well) with its leaner presentation. Due to the leanness and/or flatness of the 202, some have found it to be uninspiring, but not me. I enjoy listening to both 202 and the 282.

 

You could have something there, regarding speaker matching to the amp combination. The leaner and faster presentation helps the ported Momentums to behave better, I think. The result being an easier listening experience with less colouration and boom to get in the way.

And, of course, the source is an important part of the equation and it could be the reason why the naughty, non Naim, Streamagic seems to sit quite pretty, purely by chance.

Synergy can be a fickle thing!

Nice post CHEESELET, the Cdx2 always draws a lot of attention.

Don't fool yourself, its all good, don't get caught up in the upgrade game.

552>252>282>272>202>SN2.....

You now own Naim's Top of the line CDP, that is still in production!

True, it's not a CD555/CDS3, but by all means not shabby!  

Be patient and look towards the end game, meanwhile, enjoy your Music!

Cdx2.2> pre-loved 202>250·2

Great!

Wait for the right opportunity, and pounce on it, when it presents itself!

If I was in the Market I would focus on Naim's sweet spots:

Middle of the road pre amps, Cdx2, and the DR technologies.

That being said, my end game would be:

Cdx2.2>282>HCDR>250DR

The 282 is your navigation port.

TT/Ndac/Naim's new 2019 Streamer:

But what do I know, I didn't play the upgrade game!

I took the Advice of the Forum also!

Cdx2>282>HCDR>3 x 250.2>Briks

I hear Naim has tweaked the Snaxo to work with Kudos Speakers! 

Who know, maybe Focal next! LOL......

Allante93!

analogmusic posted:

to my ears the standard naim cables are as close as ideal to being time aligned, but yes at the expense of other qualities such are detail, and soundstage. Hi-line and Superlumina take the basic Naim engagement factor and add further refinement and the qualities like a big soundstage and more extension on frequency extremes and resolution.

 

Analogue,

I'm serious and not the least ironic, but I sometimes wonder how 'time alignment' in cables or electronics seems so easy to catch and evaluate by simple ear by some. I still haven't caught the PR&T thing, but imagining to perceive or compare 'time alignment' (provided I understand what it is) is pure science fiction to me. Is there anyone who can explain please what is going to be aligned in time by a cable, and how? Or how do I recognize that something is not aligned in time?

Thanks,

Max

If you hear the drums half an hour after the record has stopped playing, you'll know that something is wrong.

cheeselet posted:

You could have something there, regarding speaker matching to the amp combination. The leaner and faster presentation helps the ported Momentums to behave better, I think. ....

........

Synergy can be a fickle thing!

Sex up your source as much as you can. Keep the amp lean and tight. Works for me.

C.

Hungryhalibut posted:

If you hear the drums half an hour after the record has stopped playing, you'll know that something is wrong

Max_B posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

If you hear the drums half an hour after the record has stopped playing, you'll know that something is wrong

 

(but I knew I wouldn't – and won't - get a proper answer).

I have one Max the music was recorded by amateurs who did not understand what a metronome is and could not play in time with each other.

But than again.... a cable would not fix that....

Hmmm... must search for another answer....

Max_B posted:

analogmusic posted:

to my ears the standard naim cables are as close as ideal to being time aligned, but yes at the expense of other qualities such are detail, and soundstage. Hi-line and Superlumina take the basic Naim engagement factor and add further refinement and the qualities like a big soundstage and more extension on frequency extremes and resolution.

 

Analogue,

I'm serious and not the least ironic, but I sometimes wonder how 'time alignment' in cables or electronics seems so easy to catch and evaluate by simple ear by some. I still haven't caught the PR&T thing, but imagining to perceive or compare 'time alignment' (provided I understand what it is) is pure science fiction to me. Is there anyone who can explain please what is going to be aligned in time by a cable, and how? Or how do I recognize that something is not aligned in time?

Thanks,

Max

From what I've heard with various cables, I feel 'time alignment' comes with better cable design. After listening to a complex piece of music through a budget set of cables and it can sound muddled and confusing. I've found myself reaching for the remote to turn it down. However, change those cables for some well designed ones and everything becomes clear. Vocals and instruments are separated, soundstage is bigger, you can hear things you hadn't heard before, it just sounds right.

Cables are like filters, the best cables I have ever heard don't provide information on how they are made, no doubt for good reason. 

But safe to say high end cables allow the music to flow with the minimum of distortion, hence everything sounds right, or sounds as it was meant to sound when originally recorded. 

'Time alignment' I would suggest is just another way of describing PRaT, except their is no such thing as 'time alignment'.........but their is such a thing as high end cables that provide minimum interference and distortion ...

Have I missed something MAX_B or maybe it's quite a long story :

Youve bought and sold the same thing five times?

Ive another question about the XPS supply. Is it wasted on the CDX2 when it is in transport only mode?

The answer to the second question is 'yes'. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

The answer to the second question is 'yes'. 

I beg to differ.

... only one way to find out!

Finkfan posted:

Max_B posted:

analogmusic posted:

to my ears the standard naim cables are as close as ideal to being time aligned, but yes at the expense of other qualities such are detail, and soundstage. Hi-line and Superlumina take the basic Naim engagement factor and add further refinement and the qualities like a big soundstage and more extension on frequency extremes and resolution.

 

Analogue,

I'm serious and not the least ironic, but I sometimes wonder how 'time alignment' in cables or electronics seems so easy to catch and evaluate by simple ear by some. I still haven't caught the PR&T thing, but imagining to perceive or compare 'time alignment' (provided I understand what it is) is pure science fiction to me. Is there anyone who can explain please what is going to be aligned in time by a cable, and how? Or how do I recognize that something is not aligned in time?

Thanks,

Max

From what I've heard with various cables, I feel 'time alignment' comes with better cable design. After listening to a complex piece of music through a budget set of cables and it can sound muddled and confusing. I've found myself reaching for the remote to turn it down. However, change those cables for some well designed ones and everything becomes clear. Vocals and instruments are separated, soundstage is bigger, you can hear things you hadn't heard before, it just sounds right.

I've spent some time at the Mac in the last hour or so, learning about 'time alignment'. I am old enough to remember when the term came out, and it was – and always has been – referred to loudspeakers' design. It means, and I think it can only mean, that a number of sound waves leave their source from the same vertical plane, at the same, expected moment, maintaining their phase relationships. It is explained horribly, but it can refer only to the reciprocal mode of interaction of sound waves in time.

I can't see how cables can enter into this; there are many more chances that phase relationships are destroyed during the process of recording than in any 'fault' in cable design. I am not a technician of course, but the little I know about the parameters that are in play about cables – capacity, resistance, inductance – can have an effect on the reciprocal relationships of pitches; but I don't know enough.

I only know that when I read that someone has recognized bad timing, or time alignment, or in general a wrong treatment of time in a stereo system I am amazed at how someone can spot such a complex issue, without mistaking it for something else perhaps.

I remember that when I bought a full set of Vertere cables – IC, SNAICs, speaker cables – for the first few days I had the feeling the the music sounded somehow slower; but that was because the sound was perhaps richer, and this implied that my brain needed working more and created slower tempo.

Perhaps I am only diffident because I hate options and useless complexity, so the idea of having to play like a child, with parameters I don't really know or understand, to reach a subjectively satisfying result then commenting it on a forum with a pseudo-technical, objective-sounding jargon, makes me feel ill at ease. But that's hifi, isn't it?

This is not meant to be sarcastic or offending to anyone. Please excuse me anyone who feels differently.

cheeselet posted:

Have I missed something MAX_B or maybe it's quite a long story :

Youve bought and sold the same thing five times?

Hi,

yes, it is quite a long story and yes, I have bought and sold and re-bought a few Naim boxes a few times. My current SN is my 3rd, I have my 5th pair of N-Sats in their boxes because I am using the second pair of S-400s. I don't know if the CDX2 I am using is my 4th or my 5th. The number of HiCaps, HiLines, Snaics and meters of NAC A5 I have owned and sold and re-owned is beyond my recollecting capacity. But at least I now know why I did all that.

Best

M

cheeselet posted:

... only one way to find out!

Indeed. When I was considering putting a PSU on my (then) bare nDAC, the option I defaulted to was an XPS2.  It sounded good. However my very wise dealer suggested I pause and try the (then) newly released XP5XS which, for the same price as an XPS2, I could have two: one to power the nDAC, the other to power the CDX2.2 which I used as a digital output.  The CDX2.2/XP5XS/nDAC/XP5XS outperformed the CDX2.2/nDAC/XPS2 so that's what I went with (until later putting a 555PS on the nDAC).  

I've since briefly experimented with improving the PSU on the CDX2.2 as used as a transport and couldn't really hear a further improvement. The performance benefit seems to come from separating the PSU from the CDX2.2.

So, worth trying, and you might not need to go to as far as an XPS2.