How does the 82 fail relative to the 52?

Having made the 82/supercap to 52 move myself, I can say that it is an enormous leap for a relatively modest additional cost. At the time I did make this move, I was using a non-naim CD player which was several rungs down in performance from the subsequent CDS1. Even with this modest source, the 52 provided a vastly greater more insightful performance over the 82.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

http://homepages.go.com/~rontoolsie/index1.html

I made the 102/supercap to 52 leap myself with a CDX, being somewhat dissapointed in the XPS upgrade at this particular system level, and bipassed the 82 completely. All I could say was "wow". My fanatical review is posted on the audio review web site and I still, almost two years later, feel the same way. In listening to my headphones with the 102 the music had a very flat and hard feel to it, while with the 52 it was like suddenly being ejected into free black space, there was real presence to the spaces beneath and around notes while the notes seemed to gather a whole new cohesion.

I was warned at this stage that the 52 would make all my sources sound worse and that an XPS was the only sensible upgrade. Yet I discovered that the XPS made my system at this stage sound muddy and slow - worse, in fact (hence the legendary and controversial XPS downgrade thread) - and the 52 lifted my system to unimagined heights. Then, once I had the 52, the XPS suddenly was a very good upgrade.

dave

I'm surprised by your experience. I once (inadvertently) compared CDX/XPS/102/Supercap with CDX/52/Supercap into the same power amp and speakers. The system with the better source and more modest preamp was so much better than the other system.

I agree that the 52 is significantly better than the 82, and the 82 with a Supercap is very good indeed. However, if you can afford to max out on only either the source or the preamp, in my experience you're better off maxing out on the source.

Cheers,

Bob

0

quote:

---

How does the 82 fail relative to the 52?

---

Sources aside, the 52 turns beans into peas. The 82 doesn't quite manage that trick.

On a more serious note, the 52 makes all sources sound special. I have often wondered which step to take from your position; I think careful demming is required.

Rico - musichead

In my system the XPS just didn't do much, even after two weeks. On many tracks I had a hard time hearing the difference. With the 52 it was a different story altogether. I was using a 180 and Royd Albions at the time and there just didn't seem to be much point to the XPS at this stage. But after moving up to the 52, and then a 250, the XPS suddenly seemed like a bigger step. About half as big maybe if you insist on quantifying things, as the CDS 2 step.

I guess whether you do source or pre first really depends on prefernces and downsteam components as well.

52 ways to leave your lover

dave