CDS3/XPS2/552/500... yum!

Posted by: Top Cat on 05 July 2003

Hi folks.

Today I heard to date the best sound I have yet heard from a hifi - it was a full-monty Naim system on a Fraim, driving B&W 800 speakers.

All I can say is that it was beyond any reasonable criticism and I am now looking at ways of remortgaging the cat, selling the car and pimping the wife. OK, so I'm exaggerating, but to anyone who dares to question the qualities of the new Naim kit, all I can say is that it was the first Naim kit to offer a better sound in all departments to my own, and any owners of such kit are lucky so-and-so's.

Back down to earth, I dropped my LP12 off at RR in Montrose (it is his system that includes the 552) and shall shortly have my LP12/Armageddon/Lingo/Helikon. Can't wait.

I'd like to take a moment to sing the praises of Robert Ritchie - I have never experienced customer service like it. First class, and then some.

John (dreaming of a 552...)

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
Posted on: 05 July 2003 by bjorne
quote:
shall shortly have my LP12/Armageddon/Lingo/Helikon. Can't wait.

Wow, both 33 and 45 rpm. Are there other advantages using two powersupplies? Razz
Posted on: 05 July 2003 by tre2fly
John, thanks for your enthusiastic post. I have a similar rig, and believe me, I can’t afford it. But, I’ve (irresponsibly?) buried the expense in the debt of my business as one of those most difficult pleasure/pain judgements, that you’ve just helped validate! The joy of the music numbs the pain... Tom.
Posted on: 06 July 2003 by Top Cat
Whoops, meant Aro. I'm recovering from a bout of food poisoning and it's done me head in.

Trevor, difficult to say about CDS3 versus Opus 21 - the 552 and the bigger speakers plus the different room made it very difficult to call.

The only way to be sure would be to do a direct demo - and that would be very tricky. However, all that said and done, the system was *very* nice - though obviously not 4x, 2x or even 1.5x nicer than what I've got. However, extremely nice nevertheless Big Grin

John

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
Posted on: 08 July 2003 by Top Cat
Hi Bob,

You're right it's a toughie. I can't really say, given the short time I had with the system (1.5 hours, perhaps?) and the fact that it was in an unfamiliar room, with unfamiliar speakers and using unfamiliar components. I was also feeling very ill at the time, having been up all night with food poisoning, so my judgement and attention wouldn't have been sharp enough to identify the various contributing factors.

However, I'll attempt a stab in the dark at what I felt the '3 offers over the '2. Basically, it was a lot cleaner, and clearer - the CDS2's I've heard have always struck me as somewhat dark and 'fat' sounding - whereas the 3 is much closer to the Opus 21 presentation - spritely, but with clout where required.

It's really tricky to extract the CDS3 from the 552 - but I suspect that the 552 was enabling much more information to flood out over a 52 or my own preamp would have with regard to the CDS2 - however, the big difference was that the extra information never detracted from the musical theme, and it was tight and nimble without sounding artificially fast or emphasised - a thing that has put me off Naim in certain systems in the past.

In conjunction with the rest of the system, the CDS3 seemed to have a complete and unshakable command over the music, which the CDS2 in the systems I've heard with one, good though they were, didn't.

Having enjoyed the CDX (non XPS) at its price-point in the past, I had originally expected the CDS2 to offer all of that, and more, with a similar sonic footprint, only much better. Instead, I have always found the CDS2 to be voiced in a different way (the 'fat boy' sound) which never sounded right to me - my ears, my preferences). Though the system I heard on Saturday scaled magnificently, it never sounded like the 'fat boy' CDS2 did in both my own system and other systems (various preamps, power amps, racks and speakers).

At this point I have to point out that the CDS3 wasn't broken in fully - in fact, probably only slightly - which makes me think that, given time, its sound would improve by a reasonable amount. The 552/500 and speakers were apparently broken in.

Drawbacks to the sound? Well, for once there were none - as a complete system - which is the best judgement I can make with conviction - it worked exceptionally well, and played music like it oughta do (esp. considering the price!). It's not really my place to try to separate out the contributing elements of the various components, especially given my state on the day...

John

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."
Posted on: 08 July 2003 by David Antonelli
John,

When you heard a CDS2 previously was it through a 52? I found in comparing CDS2/52 to CDS2/552 in my home for a week that the 52 sounded "fat" but that the CDS2 didn't sound fat at all through a 552 (Arun Mehan can vouch for this). Very clean and dynamic up to seismic volumes without the kind of darkness that the 52 seemed to bring to the mix. I'm not implying a CDS3 isn't better than a CDS2, but rather that I can vouch that a 52 IS tonally dark and "PHAT" in a big way compared to the 552 with overblown and blobby bass on certain tracks.

Dave
Posted on: 19 July 2003 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Neill:
Actually, what I have mainly objected to in the competition has been a lightness that causes me to lose interest in the music. All of the information has been there but without its blood and bones! "How nice, would you like a biscuit?"



You still haven't tried it on a Fraim yet, then?

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com