Supercap/Flatcap - am I deaf?
Posted by: JohnS on 24 June 2001
Greetings fellow addicts
I have been feeling a bit upgradey recently and so I took advantage of a good deal offered on an ex-demo Supercap, expecting to get a 52 in the not too distant future.
The existing setup was a CD3.5 w/Flatcap and NAC62 w/Flatcap plus NAP250 and SBLs. I figured that I should use the Supercap to power the CD3.5 (source, source, source). Then I noticed that the Supercap had two 5-pin power outputs, one with signal connections and one without.
So I tried using it to power the CD3.5 AND the 62. Then I switched the 62 back to a Flatcap. I couldn't really tell the difference. Should I have listened for longer?
I love the sound of the system, the room size imposes constraints but the only negative to my enjoyment of the musicality is an occasional slight harshness/tizz on the treble. I figure a 52 & CDSII will fix that 
Any advice welcome.
Posted on: 24 June 2001 by Paul B
The Supercap was not designed to power both the CD3.5 and 62 simultaneously. Its performance would likely be greatly compromised. Try it on the preamp alone as intended by Naim.
Paul
Posted on: 24 June 2001 by Steve Toy
The Supercap is intended solely for use with preamps, and is a must with a 52. a Hi-cap really is as far as you can go with a CD 3.5. Beyond that it's a case of high residual components doing very little. Even the Flatcap 2, which is designed for use with two components in this way sounds better, INHO, when ONLY connected to the source.
With regards the FC2 my findings were as a result of "blind" listening tests!
Posted on: 24 June 2001 by Mike Hanson
Put the Super-Cap on the pre-amp, and leave a Flat-Cap on the 3.5. The 3.5 can't benefit from the extra finesse of the Super-Cap nearly as much as the pre-amp can.
If you hook up both 3.5 and pre-amp to the Super-Cap at the same time, you'll cause a ground loop. It doesn't surprise me that it didn't sound very good.
BTW, the 62 will not display the wonders of the Super-Cap as well as the better pre-amps. It will definitely be much better than a Flat-Cap, though.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 24 June 2001 by JohnS
I set up the Supercap with the pre-amp and the Flatcap with the CD3.5 and immediately noticed an improvement over the other configurations I had tried. Thank you all for your advice.
-John
Posted on: 27 June 2001 by Charlezz
The first i read "Supercap, or Flatcap, am i deaf?", i thought "Yes guy , you are!", but now i understand better....
When i put a supercap on my Nac102 (I had a cd3,5-Nac102-Hicap-Nap180, so now the cd3,5 works with the Hicap), the differnce was trully impressive, it was just like nite and day.....
Supercap is really a GREAT stuff!!!!
Charles
Posted on: 28 June 2001 by Phil Barry
Heard it - no comparison - 102/s'cap by a mile. But when you consider the comparably costly 82/2 x hicap vs 102/s'cap, the choice is not so clear.
Posted on: 28 June 2001 by Mike Hanson
It's for grounding purposes, so that the entire system is grounded starting with the source on down. It's called "Star Earthing". If you connected the 250 directly to the 102, then the ground wouldn't be the same.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 28 June 2001 by Duncan Fullerton
Ajaz,
The 250, like the 135 and 500, only have signal inputs on their XLR's and have no DC voltage output. Hence the need for some sort of 'cap between them and the pre-amp.
The SNAIC from the 'cap to the pre-amp sends DC volts and gets back L/R signals. The SNAIC from the 'cap to the amp just passes on the L/R signals.
Smaller amps like the 110, 160 etc. have a DC voltage output on some of their DIN's and can thus power a pre-amp down the SNAIC and get the L/R signals stright back. However, if you stick 'cap in the middle, the sound improves no-end.
Hope this helps.
