Is a CDX good enough for a 52?

It will not be shamed when heard through a 52. However, I believe you would get more music from a CDX/XPS/82 than a CDX/52.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Has Vuk got a XPS linked into his CDX. We all know that adding the XPS is a top notch upgrade.

No CDX should be without one.

Regards

Mick

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Now I've heard my CDX on phase 4, compared to the CDX on the X-Caliber with the XPS. I would say Mana phase 4 (better than 2 in the earlier trial) provides closer to 40% of the sonics of the XPS, and only 20% of the "magic".

Therefore, the XPS really makes sense. The Mana still helps, but it's not the cure-all that the fanatics would have you believe. In general, I find that Mana helps the sonics more than it helps the magic.

BTW, when I say "magic", I mean communication, realism, coherance, "wow they're in the room man", etc. The XPS does this to the CDX. Of course, the CDS2 is a huge jump beyond that. In fact, the sonics with a CDX/XPS and CDS2 are actually quite similar. It's the magic that sets them apart.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

If you had the "Wow! they're in the room man" experience with your CDX, just what exactly are you now experiencing with the CDS2?

P.

BTW - the Arse! comment wasn't aimed at you personally - it's a kind of figure of speech over here and was just a comment on that thread in general.

I felt the CDX alone was a bit thin and 'technical', adding XPS gave it authority and a lovely easy musicality. Space and air at the top end, control and richness at the bottom.

Never heard a 52 but i suspect it will show weak links in the source.

Bruce

quote:

---

If you had the "Wow! they're in the room man" experience with your CDX, just what exactly are you now experiencing with the CDS2?

---

"Wow, they're in the room man" is probably better descriped as "palpable". This aspect isn't ON or OFF. It comes in degrees. If you're used to a transistor radio and you hear a good midi system, then the musicians will have much more presence. Of course, this is laughable compared to a CDX, which is bettered by CDS2. Each time you improve the system, the benefits are rewarding.

The sad thing is you can't go back. Once you've acclimatized yourself at a given level, then the lower systems will never produce that magic for you again. They can still play music very well, but that wonderful sense of presence, realism, and palpability just doesn't happen.

Regarding your original "arse" comment, it seemed a little ambiguous, and it's proximity to my own message was suspiciously coincidental. (No offence taken, btw.) Your clarification, however, indicates that you were aiming it at all comments made in the thread, and not any particular poster. What was your point? Were you angry, bored, or both?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Never heard a 52 but i suspect it will show weak links in the source.

---

The CDX isn't "weak". It's a very good player, albeit not as good as the CDX/XPS or CDS2. It will not sound bad through 52 (although it's important to have it on good supports).

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

dave¸

The bare CDX will sound thin and light with a 52 and you will hear some harshness on some CDs. I had a CDX/XPS which is much better but still has some flaws that are revealed with the 52. The CDX/XPS has an artificial glare that makes the music more exciting. The problem with this glare is that it takes away from the balance of the sonic picture. Good recording will sound excellent and bad recordings very bad. I used to think it was the CDs until I purchased my CDS1. The CDS1 is closer to the CDS2 and has a wonderful balance from CD to CD. Everything CD is enjoyable.

If you go for the magic of the 52 put it in your plans to move to a CDS1 or 2. As an incremental move, the CDX/XPS probably makes more sense but I personally would sell the CDX and buy a CDS1 (similar value) in good condition and buy a 52. This way you will have a source that isn’t flawed and the musical magic of the 52.

My 2 cents.

Good luck
John

Chris

Take my advice.......put an XPS on the CDX and you will not recognise it. It hides the CDX's flaws but builds on its strengths. It will be the best thing you have ever done.

Regards

Mick

I have not done A B comparison since I had the money for CDPS not XPS.

Grahams have demmed the two and reckon on 80% down the XPS road with CDPS. The guys at Naim also did the dem for me and think the CDPS a worthwhile upgrade to a stand alone CDX but that an XPS was significantly better - more revealing. The CDX/CDPS was described by Naim as having a "laid back" sound. I think this was meant to be slightly derogatory but it appealed to me since I have grown up on analogue and have a bright listening room (significantly tamed by RPG foam)

The player and its power supply sit (unfashionably but I think rather well) on BASE.

It is Mike's magic I'm after. A Supercap gives you a lot of magic with an 82 which got me thinking about 52.

So what would give more of Mike's magic:

CDX/CDPS(or XPS); 52/Super etc, or
CDS2/CDPS(or XPS); 82/Super etc?

I can tell you about my personaly experience with the CDX without XPS through the 52. The CDX is excellent at what it does but the XPS completes the package. I found myself wanting when the XPS was missing. I think that 80% of a CDX/XPS would also leave me feeling the same and think that you would be far better off going for the XPS in place of your other power supply. This will then leave you in good shape for the 52 later.

Nigel

I agree with you. I've had an xps for three weeks - it is a stunning improvement. The difference on most cds was breathtaking.

I have bought a lot of cds since it arrived, and I'm tempted to take it out of the system temporarily (but not letting it get cold) so that I can appreciate the difference.

....but I still think the cdx is superb

Chris

I'm still curious though....

Just who was in your room?

I mean - was it Cher, U2, Who?

I have had this "in the room " thing myself and I'm sincerely curious as to any musical recommendations that you may have.

They would be most welcome.

P.

No.

CDS2 through 72/Hicap is better than CDX/52.

Cheers,

Bob

Ride the Light !0

That is based on direct listening experience. Sorry--I should have said that in post.

Cheers,

Bob

Ride the Light !$

quote:

---

So what would give more of Mike's magic:

CDX/CDPS(or XPS); 52/Super etc, or
CDS2/CDPS(or XPS); 82/Super etc?

---

My system is currently CDS2/82/Super/250/Albions, and it's exceedingly magical. I just heard the CDS2/52/500/NBLs again (at Innovative Audio in New York). It sounded stunning, but I was surprised that my system still sounded very good in comparison.

The jump from CDX/82/Super to CDS2/82/Super was astronomical! Everyone (including those who formerly didn't care) commented on the improvement.

I'm hoping that my 52 arrives later this week, so I'll be able to report on the jump from 82/Super to 52/Super (with a CDS2 in front, of course). Maybe that will help.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

I'm still curious though....

Just who was in your room?

I mean - was it Cher, U2, Who?

I have had this "in the room " thing myself and I'm sincerely curious as to any musical recommendations that you may have.

---

You're such a troll!

Although my wife worships both Cher and U2, neither of those "artists" would see the light of my CDS2 if I had the choice. BTW, the production from both is pretty atrocious, although U2 is worse. There's never any of that "in the room" magic from Bono.

I'm much more into "good" music (don't ask me to define that), and my tastes range far and wide. My current favourites are Kevin Gilbert's "The Shaming of the True" and "Kulanjan" from Taj Mahal & Toumani Diabate.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on MONDAY 16 July 2001 at 16:41.]

You appear to have misunderstood me

To explain

In over a year of attending this cyberfest that is this place I have never seen you post in the Music forum and was purely curious to know what you listen to. Others here suggested you listen to Cher and U2 all the time and I sorta had hunch that this couldn't be true.

Now I know you truly are an eclectic listener with the most wonderful taste in music and I thank you for your recommendations.

Your opinion is valued and I'm no longer curious

Regards

P.

Most people have far more specific tastes than I do. Many people not only dislike music outside of their chosen genre(s), but they often take every opportunity to berate its existence. I get sick of the childish posturing, pointless jibes, etc., and I stopped contributing.

I'm also not one for writing reviews of music. I've noticed that most descriptions of "art" are pompous bullsh*t. I suppose I could just list my purchases and tag them as "good", "bad" or "in between", but that seems a little boring.

My preference is to get together with my friends and a bunch of CDs, and to start bouncing from record to record. Now that's heaven!

I also feel that the forum software itself is not conducive to artistic discussions. I make an effort to contribute to the Hi-Fi section, but it's difficult to follow the real flow of the conversations. (Have you tried navigating through that mammoth classical music trivia thread?!?)

At the same time, I've learned about much interesting music from hanging around the music forum, so I don't want it to go away. I'll try to contribute more in the future, for everyone's benefit.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I enjoy almost everything from Early Music to Ozric Tentacles and most points in between.

Does this mean I have no discerning taste or an open mind (or both or neither)?