Mikey reviews the 552
Posted by: Phil Barry on 14 June 2003
Michael Fremer has reviewed the 552 in the July Stereophile. I won't comment on it since, reviews don't mean much to me, but Salisbury and Chicago won't complain much.
Lots of words. Basically, Mikey likes it a lot.
Browse a copy at your newstand.
Phil
[This message was edited by Phil Barry on SUNDAY 15 June 2003 at 01:25.]
Lots of words. Basically, Mikey likes it a lot.
Browse a copy at your newstand.
Phil
[This message was edited by Phil Barry on SUNDAY 15 June 2003 at 01:25.]
Posted on: 14 June 2003 by Onthlam
Whats the skinny???
Marc
Marc
Posted on: 14 June 2003 by Arthur Bye
Marc:
The review was generally complimentary. He used the Hovland HP100 for comparison. Overall the rating was top notch. There were a few comments about the pre imparting a Naim "sound" to the music. But to be fair he said the Hovland did a similar thing but in a Hovlan way.
No mention of it being a bargain or anything.
He used a Musical Fidelity for the amp. J Atkinson seemed to be positive overall but there was some mention about impedance matching.
In the end Mikey liked it! He implied that it was one of the best.
I was actually glad to see that Fremer did the review instead of Dudley. Seemed more impartial that way even it Dudleys read are more entertaining.
Arthur Bye
The review was generally complimentary. He used the Hovland HP100 for comparison. Overall the rating was top notch. There were a few comments about the pre imparting a Naim "sound" to the music. But to be fair he said the Hovland did a similar thing but in a Hovlan way.
No mention of it being a bargain or anything.
He used a Musical Fidelity for the amp. J Atkinson seemed to be positive overall but there was some mention about impedance matching.
In the end Mikey liked it! He implied that it was one of the best.
I was actually glad to see that Fremer did the review instead of Dudley. Seemed more impartial that way even it Dudleys read are more entertaining.
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 15 June 2003 by Onthlam
Arthur, thanks..
I am dumping my 52/Super-CDS2/XPS..Hmmmmm?
Onthlam@rcsis.com
I am dumping my 52/Super-CDS2/XPS..Hmmmmm?
Onthlam@rcsis.com
Posted on: 15 June 2003 by Arthur Bye
Marc:
If you want to see a more complete write up of the 552 there was a review in HiFi+ not that long ago. I think it was Paul Messenger, Chris Thomas and Roy Gregory. They each gave a separate review. As you would expect PM and CT liked it. RG was more middling with his review and dumped on the Nap500.
You're going to have to sell a lot of fries to get a 552 and CDS3.
Arthur Bye
If you want to see a more complete write up of the 552 there was a review in HiFi+ not that long ago. I think it was Paul Messenger, Chris Thomas and Roy Gregory. They each gave a separate review. As you would expect PM and CT liked it. RG was more middling with his review and dumped on the Nap500.
You're going to have to sell a lot of fries to get a 552 and CDS3.
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 15 June 2003 by Onthlam
Arthur,
552,CDS3,2 more 500s,SNAXO/Super...
A BUNCH MORE FRIES!!!
PS could not find the issue that had the 552 write up....
Regards,
Marc
[This message was edited by Marc Newman on SUNDAY 15 June 2003 at 21:28.]
552,CDS3,2 more 500s,SNAXO/Super...
A BUNCH MORE FRIES!!!
PS could not find the issue that had the 552 write up....
Regards,
Marc
[This message was edited by Marc Newman on SUNDAY 15 June 2003 at 21:28.]
Posted on: 15 June 2003 by David Antonelli
Hi,
There is also a review in the new "Inner Ear" a publication that tends to like tubes etc, and they say the 552 is the best preamp they have ever heard, but found the set up instructions difficult. Not a problem for us naimees! They used it with a 250 and a Bryston amp to compare and found that cable matching was important with the non-naim amp, but not so much with the 250. They suggest you can improve the sound a little by using the Nordost option(s), but that the difference is subtle and not that important in the grand scheme of things.
I think the 552 has a "naim sound" in as much as it sounds real and live and not sugar coated and artificially smoothed, although smooth sounding things are smooth as smooth can be. In this respect the 552 has no sound of its own. Simultaneously you could have a jack hammer on full blast, a nightinggale twirping, a cat purring, and somebody rubbing two bricks together with wind chimes in the background and the sounds would not modulate each other in any way. Each would sound exactly like the real thing. And THAT is where transparency and the "naim sound" meet and become one.
dave
There is also a review in the new "Inner Ear" a publication that tends to like tubes etc, and they say the 552 is the best preamp they have ever heard, but found the set up instructions difficult. Not a problem for us naimees! They used it with a 250 and a Bryston amp to compare and found that cable matching was important with the non-naim amp, but not so much with the 250. They suggest you can improve the sound a little by using the Nordost option(s), but that the difference is subtle and not that important in the grand scheme of things.
I think the 552 has a "naim sound" in as much as it sounds real and live and not sugar coated and artificially smoothed, although smooth sounding things are smooth as smooth can be. In this respect the 552 has no sound of its own. Simultaneously you could have a jack hammer on full blast, a nightinggale twirping, a cat purring, and somebody rubbing two bricks together with wind chimes in the background and the sounds would not modulate each other in any way. Each would sound exactly like the real thing. And THAT is where transparency and the "naim sound" meet and become one.
dave
Posted on: 15 June 2003 by Arthur Bye
Marc:
I just dug it out. It's issue 19, Sept/Oct of 2002 that has the triple write up.
David:
I'd like to see that review on the Inner Ear. Do they have a website?
Arthur Bye
I just dug it out. It's issue 19, Sept/Oct of 2002 that has the triple write up.
David:
I'd like to see that review on the Inner Ear. Do they have a website?
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 16 June 2003 by Jason Milner
Just found their website:
The Inner Ear
Can't find the review on it - looks like they just post a few old reviews to entice you to buy the hard copy
J
The Inner Ear
Can't find the review on it - looks like they just post a few old reviews to entice you to buy the hard copy
J
Posted on: 16 June 2003 by David Antonelli
Arthur,
Here is my "Review Review" of the Inner Ear Review:
It isn't the most flamboyant review in terms of describing the differences between the 552 and other naim pre amps, but it is quite conclusive in stating that the 552 is the best preamp they have ever heard, and also has quite a lot for people interested in RCA/DIN cable juggling and the nordost "upgrade". So I think those interested in a 552 and other cables/power amps may benefit from ordering a hard copy. Otherwise it is just not qualitatively as informative a review as seen in Hi Fi +. It is more adressed at the non-naim person who may be asking himself "What's teh Buzz?" about this hot new product and can I use one in my non-naim system.
I hope this helps.
Dave
Here is my "Review Review" of the Inner Ear Review:
It isn't the most flamboyant review in terms of describing the differences between the 552 and other naim pre amps, but it is quite conclusive in stating that the 552 is the best preamp they have ever heard, and also has quite a lot for people interested in RCA/DIN cable juggling and the nordost "upgrade". So I think those interested in a 552 and other cables/power amps may benefit from ordering a hard copy. Otherwise it is just not qualitatively as informative a review as seen in Hi Fi +. It is more adressed at the non-naim person who may be asking himself "What's teh Buzz?" about this hot new product and can I use one in my non-naim system.
I hope this helps.
Dave
Posted on: 16 June 2003 by Arthur Bye
David:
Thanks for your "Review Review". Sounds a bit like a "soft review" with no real dirt. I guess I'll wait for it to show up on the web page in a few months.
Arthur Bye
Thanks for your "Review Review". Sounds a bit like a "soft review" with no real dirt. I guess I'll wait for it to show up on the web page in a few months.
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 17 June 2003 by Chris Bell
Wow, what a glowing review for a non-tube product.
Maybe Naim will start to get more respect from the Stereophile crowd? Probably not.
Chris Bell
Maybe Naim will start to get more respect from the Stereophile crowd? Probably not.
Chris Bell
Posted on: 17 June 2003 by Arthur Bye
Chris Bell wrote:
Chris: I think with Mikey and Art Dudley on staff at Stereophile there is likely to be further review of Naim kit. They both seem to be solidly in the Naim camp despite their other worldly (or is it Earthly?) diversions. Dudley has been especially persistent in his subtle hammering on about getting the notes right. He's a Flat Earther all right, he just can't say the words. Just look at his review of the the Linn amp he did last month.
Arthur Bye
quote:
Wow, what a glowing review for a non-tube product.
Chris: I think with Mikey and Art Dudley on staff at Stereophile there is likely to be further review of Naim kit. They both seem to be solidly in the Naim camp despite their other worldly (or is it Earthly?) diversions. Dudley has been especially persistent in his subtle hammering on about getting the notes right. He's a Flat Earther all right, he just can't say the words. Just look at his review of the the Linn amp he did last month.
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 17 June 2003 by Todd A
I read the review today and by Stereophile standards it's glowing. The concluding remarks about the listener being in the presence of audiophile greatness certainly seems like a pretty strong endorsement. Fremer seemed pretty enthused by the product, and he described the Naim sound relatively well in round earth terms. I would bet that the folks in Salisbury and Chicago are quite happy with the review.
Dudley's review of the Spendor S3/5se's do more than hint at his flat earth leanings: he writes that he would like to set up a second system with the speakers and his old Naim gear! Sounds like a flat earther to me.
Dudley's review of the Spendor S3/5se's do more than hint at his flat earth leanings: he writes that he would like to set up a second system with the speakers and his old Naim gear! Sounds like a flat earther to me.
Posted on: 19 June 2003 by Eric Barry
It's not really like Stereophile has ignored Naim. We've seen (if we were looking) coverage of Nait 2, 62/hi/140, CDS, CD2, CDX/XPS, CD3, CD3.5, CD5, NBL, Prefix, Aro (twice), Stageline.
That's thirteen reviews in 15 years. I bet few companies have had more. Now whether they understood the products is another question. The Nait 2 was described as a baby Krell, and Bob Harley said a lot about the imaging of the 62/hi/140, and complained about not using his audiophile cables. But as far as coverage (and Class A ratings for five products), I doubt anyone's complaining.
I'll have to look at it again, but I didn't consider the review a rave compared to some of Fremer's reviews. But no matter.
--Eric
That's thirteen reviews in 15 years. I bet few companies have had more. Now whether they understood the products is another question. The Nait 2 was described as a baby Krell, and Bob Harley said a lot about the imaging of the 62/hi/140, and complained about not using his audiophile cables. But as far as coverage (and Class A ratings for five products), I doubt anyone's complaining.
I'll have to look at it again, but I didn't consider the review a rave compared to some of Fremer's reviews. But no matter.
--Eric
Posted on: 27 June 2003 by ClaudeP
Suggestion: may the new line be more apt at getting nom-naimers to understand?
If Michael Fremer starts to enjoy pace & rythm, everybody can! (Though I do respect his passion for vinyl)
If Michael Fremer starts to enjoy pace & rythm, everybody can! (Though I do respect his passion for vinyl)
Posted on: 27 June 2003 by Rob Doorack
One more for the list: John Atkinson revealed on Audio Asylum that Art Dudley reviews the Nait 5 in Sterephile's August issue.
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Spanner
I'm afraid I must admitt to subscribing to Stereophile and have a TIF scanner if anyones interested. Replies on a postcard please.
I've always found Stereophile pretty complimentary of Naim. Even if the sound hasn't always been what they describe as "high-end" they do compliment the build quality/service aspects of Naim and remark on Naim's beloved PRAT.
It was actually Mikey's review of the CD5 that finally persuaded me to join the rather daunting ranks of the "Naimites".
And while Stereophile have never reviewed a Shahinian speaker they did include the Obelisks in their recent "Top 100" components of all time. All in all Stereophile has become a fairly broad church for a hifi magazine.
I've always found Stereophile pretty complimentary of Naim. Even if the sound hasn't always been what they describe as "high-end" they do compliment the build quality/service aspects of Naim and remark on Naim's beloved PRAT.
It was actually Mikey's review of the CD5 that finally persuaded me to join the rather daunting ranks of the "Naimites".
And while Stereophile have never reviewed a Shahinian speaker they did include the Obelisks in their recent "Top 100" components of all time. All in all Stereophile has become a fairly broad church for a hifi magazine.
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Ron Toolsie
quote:
And while Stereophile have never reviewed a Shahinian speaker they did include the Obelisks in their recent "Top 100" components of all time. All in all Stereophile has become a fairly broad church for a hifi magazine.
Actually about some 10+ years ago they DID review the Shahinian Diapsons after commenting how great they had sounded at shows. JGHs review to this day is about the most scathing piece I have ever read in audiorags...he described (if memomory serves me correctly) the Diapsons 'as pleasant as an infected hang-nail'.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Eric Barry
Those were the days. Hard to see that kind of invective in today's Stereophile. The one that gives a negative review once every two years.
--Eric
--Eric
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by leeto
Art Dudley reviewed the Nait5 in August issue. Interestingly, he reviewed the Musical Fidelity A3.2 at the same time as well.
Posted on: 17 July 2003 by tre2fly
I'm confused. How could hockman interpret Fremer's 552 review as "mixed rather than positive"? Thanks to Richard's link, I just read it and thought that Michael clearly expressed that the 552 is exemplary, particularly if you're after music. It's "audiophile greatness" as he concluded.
Let me also exclaim what a joy it is to have one of my own to listen to every day.
Tom.
Let me also exclaim what a joy it is to have one of my own to listen to every day.
Tom.
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by David Antonelli
Hi,
Another way of looking at this review is that the 552 completely blew away the Hovland, and the reviewer was grasping at a few tiny things that in his mind made the Hovland look better because he can't afford a 552. This is like some 52 owners making arguments about the 52 being better in some areas than the 552, when in reality they are just threatened by the obviously superior 552 and its price tag. People don't like to admit it when the "apple of their eye" is outdone, especially when it is by something that is virtually unatainable.
Also, Stereophile has traditionally been a round earth magazine which has not held much quarter in these parts for precisely this reason. Since when did an owner of a CDS2/52/Six pack DBL even care what Stereophile had to say? When they put the CD 3.5 in the same category as the Linn CD 12 there was significant reason to wonder where they were coming from.
Just a different perspective that may or may not be valid.
Dave
Another way of looking at this review is that the 552 completely blew away the Hovland, and the reviewer was grasping at a few tiny things that in his mind made the Hovland look better because he can't afford a 552. This is like some 52 owners making arguments about the 52 being better in some areas than the 552, when in reality they are just threatened by the obviously superior 552 and its price tag. People don't like to admit it when the "apple of their eye" is outdone, especially when it is by something that is virtually unatainable.
Also, Stereophile has traditionally been a round earth magazine which has not held much quarter in these parts for precisely this reason. Since when did an owner of a CDS2/52/Six pack DBL even care what Stereophile had to say? When they put the CD 3.5 in the same category as the Linn CD 12 there was significant reason to wonder where they were coming from.
Just a different perspective that may or may not be valid.
Dave
Posted on: 18 July 2003 by Rob Doorack
quote:
What would it take to revive [ Listener ]
A cashier's check with a 6 digit number, I'm afraid.
quote:
How can we get Mr. Dudley, Kennet, and Doorack back together.
That's easier, just offer to buy us a round of drinks. Art likes single malts while Bruce and I are partial to ales.