Why is a 52 so much better than an 82?

I am now very happy with my LP12/ARO/val/Karma into 82/2 x hi/250 into NEAR 50Ms. The system is magical, providing real insight into and enjoyment from the music I play.

I've heard a 52 only at the dealer's plac, but if the 82 is magic, the 52 in MAGIC.

I expect you've read what others have said about the 52 in the forum, and I expect you've written this question because you haven't comprehended earlier posts. And I doubt my description has helped any.

The only way you can understand is to listen to a 52.

Phil

...I've read the other posts.

I just want to know why it's better. I'm not arguing the case either way, really - I just want to know what's special about it, electronically, to make it so much better than (say) cheaper Naim preamps.

John

The circuitry in the 52 seems more complicated, and I presume that it is implemented with more discreet components. As your question implies, the circuit is fundamentally the same, it's just a better implementation.

Perhaps of even more importance, is that the 52 uses 12 power rails from the SuperCap (via the Burndy lead + SNAIC), where the 82 uses three or five (via 1 or 2x SNAICS + SLiC to NaPSC). This much reduces noise transfer from one part of the circuit to another, and gives a 'better' power supply to the separately powered parts.

(Go on - you know you want one!)

cheers, Martin

I recently did a home dem with my dealer's 52. Currently have LP12/Aro/DV17D2, CDS2, 82/SCap, 135s, SBLs.

The basic 'sound' of the two is broadly the same (I've had the SCap for over a year), but chief differences as follows:

1. Bass. The 52 seemed to have about half an octave more extension.

2. Midband. 52 had crisper, more refined mids, meaning you could 'hear in' to the music more.

3. PRat. Oddly enough the 52 seemed to bring back the kind of raw involvement and excitement that I remember from my first Nait.

4. Imaging (gack!). I really shouldn't say this, but it did seem to have more stereo focus, detail and depth than the 82. But not in a night and day way.

It did sound 'louder' and a volume setting of about eight o'clock semmed to correspond to about 11 on the 82 (but this might just have been a gain thing).

All in all I loved it and would highly recommend it. I would have bought one on the spot, but there was something else on my mind...

Tim J

...my system is pretty unbalanced in a CD way right now (although vinyl is sorted), so any preamp upgrade is some way away, but if and when I do upgrade it, I will ensure that I hear both 82 and 52 (along with comparable preamps from other manufacturers - I am currently happy with my preamp but want a remote!

FYI, my system currently stands at:

LP12/Cirkus/Lingo/Aro/Asaka (Mana p6 shelf)
Arcam 7 CD player (don't laugh)
Crimson pre and 640D hicurrent monoblocks (superb!)
Neat Petite III/Gravitas

(with all electrics either at Phase 5 or Phase 6 Mana, but as yet no Mana under the P/G speakers).

Following the successful purchase of 6 s/h Mana soundstages and a soundframe, I'm about to go to Phase 7 on the TT and Phase 11 under the electronics.

Next to be upgraded is the CD player, which is seriously letting the side down now (as the new amps are so revealing) - current contenders to audition are CD5/HC against CDX/XPS against CDS2/SC against Resolution Audio CD55 - I can't afford the CDS2/SC right now, but if it represents a substantial gain over the others, I'd be prepared to save up...

John

[This message was edited by John Clark on FRIDAY 06 April 2001 at 08:58.]

Loads of reasons. Although the 82 is broadly based on the 52, it is different in several ways. Here are the two biggest reasons.

1. The 52 is completely dual mono. When you look in it, there are two main motherboards, one per channel. The 82 has one motherboard.

2. The 82 can be fed by a Supercap, but only on a per channel basis. ie. the supercap is used to drive each channel via an ordinary SNAIC each. Each half of the supercap acts as a better hicap over all the inputs and this is why the supercap is better than two hicaps. On the contrary (and this is the BIG difference), the 52 is driven by the supercap using the big burndy-ended interconnect. This provides the equivalent of a dedicated Hicap power supply per input. There is also much better (and closer toleranced) voltage regulation to each input - most of this is missing in the 82 application.

Regards,
Frank.

Frank,

I know the 52 has six inputs & the SC gives 12 supplies, but they're not allocated as one pair of supplies for each input.

I believe some of the supplies power the input stage, output filtering, tape buffers, MM/MC boards, SNAIC socket on input 2 for Prefix/WHY, etc.

The separate SNAIC connector for 'digital P/S' powers the front panel & remote and also runs all the relays for input/output selection, mute & mono.

cheers, Martin

Martin,

You said:
I know the 52 has six inputs & the SC gives 12 supplies, but they're not allocated as one pair of supplies for each input.

Yes they are!

Regards,
Frank.

Vincent:

You are right but the 82 still sounds better with a Supercap as opposed to two Hicaps.

Paul