552 Home Demo
Posted by: David Antonelli on 27 May 2003
All,
Well first of all I'd like to thank Jean Luc at Dimexs and Glen at Audio Two for arranging this one week extended home demo. The 552 has arrived and I am about to pick it up and slot it into my Nat 01/CDS2/52/500/Wilson Benesch ACT 2 system. The stereo Gods have indeed been extra kind as my downstairs neighbors just moved out yesterday, the last moving truck wheeling off into the distance without even a teddy bear falling out the back. Anyone who followed my posts from several years ago would know how great a feeing this is for me. Even a month ago the war vet's wife came storming upstairs in her pyjamas at dinner time pounding on my door because I was listening to a fourth generation Northern Soul tape at low volume on a 50 dollar sony portable with no hyper bass woofer. Just think what happens when I turn up the volume just a tweak on the real system!
So last night it was all systems go and I played Johnny Cash singing Depeche Mode on repeat at full blast to celebrate the occasion and get a sense of what my system sounds like at high volumes. This is all in preparation, of course, for the 552, which I plan to make the best use of this week to see if I want to stretch to one.
So, stay tuned!
Dave
Well first of all I'd like to thank Jean Luc at Dimexs and Glen at Audio Two for arranging this one week extended home demo. The 552 has arrived and I am about to pick it up and slot it into my Nat 01/CDS2/52/500/Wilson Benesch ACT 2 system. The stereo Gods have indeed been extra kind as my downstairs neighbors just moved out yesterday, the last moving truck wheeling off into the distance without even a teddy bear falling out the back. Anyone who followed my posts from several years ago would know how great a feeing this is for me. Even a month ago the war vet's wife came storming upstairs in her pyjamas at dinner time pounding on my door because I was listening to a fourth generation Northern Soul tape at low volume on a 50 dollar sony portable with no hyper bass woofer. Just think what happens when I turn up the volume just a tweak on the real system!
So last night it was all systems go and I played Johnny Cash singing Depeche Mode on repeat at full blast to celebrate the occasion and get a sense of what my system sounds like at high volumes. This is all in preparation, of course, for the 552, which I plan to make the best use of this week to see if I want to stretch to one.
So, stay tuned!
Dave
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Frank Abela
Heh heh, you're going to be so poor next week...
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Chris Bell
So, how does the 552 sound? What kind of changes occured?
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Frank Abela
Chris
Well, you know how a 52 poops all over a 102? Well it's the same with a 552 over the 52. A 252 gets closer but is still not in the same ballpark...as you'd expect given the price differential!
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Well, you know how a 52 poops all over a 102? Well it's the same with a 552 over the 52. A 252 gets closer but is still not in the same ballpark...as you'd expect given the price differential!
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Chris Bell
Frank,
Yes I know the 552 is better...I am curious what changes occured to Daves system.
My 252 was a nice step up from the 52. I expect to have a 552 in a couple of months, so I am curious to hear users reactions and reflections.
Chris Bell
Yes I know the 552 is better...I am curious what changes occured to Daves system.
My 252 was a nice step up from the 52. I expect to have a 552 in a couple of months, so I am curious to hear users reactions and reflections.
Chris Bell
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by David Antonelli
Chris,
Well, the beast has landed and started to unfolded its mighty wings. I am told it has already been burned in and played extensively, so I am only expecting a few days to reach 90-95% of its potential. My first impression was that it sounded like a 52, with a wider soundstage and a greater ease of presentation, a more delicate touch, but also more crisp and defined on transients. Almost seems bullet proof in this respect, as though you could fire a missle out of it while listening to Bach and it wouldn't affect the sound at all. The 52 is a little more shakey in this regard. The 500/ACT 2 definitely show up its limits, especially in terms of over all control.
After about half an hour I noticed that vocals were more real and lyrics that were blurred (Modest Mouse, Moon in Antarctica) were suddenly very clear. A sense of unravelling knots and space.
But I must say that so far the change has not been revolutionary, the 552 sounding like a better 52, however I reserve judgement as I just hooked it up. Flaws with one recording with the 52 were the same flaws with the 552, only less so. So far I have played it for 30-40 minutes and expect much bigger changes as things unfold. What I do like about it is how distortion at higher volumes doesn't seem to be a problem. This is not a big problem with my current system, but in comparisson the 52 tends to get a bit wooly, crude, and confused (in comparisson!) when stressed. Mind you, "Heartbreaker" by the Stones at seismic volumes last night was no less enjoyable than with a 552 this afternoon. Also (Frank might like this comment) the 52 tends to "let go of notes" while the 552 is more neutral in this respect.
Thus, so far it seems promissing, but at this very early stage it is hard to give a complete synopsis.
Dave
BTW: Frank do you have the new ACT in yet?
Well, the beast has landed and started to unfolded its mighty wings. I am told it has already been burned in and played extensively, so I am only expecting a few days to reach 90-95% of its potential. My first impression was that it sounded like a 52, with a wider soundstage and a greater ease of presentation, a more delicate touch, but also more crisp and defined on transients. Almost seems bullet proof in this respect, as though you could fire a missle out of it while listening to Bach and it wouldn't affect the sound at all. The 52 is a little more shakey in this regard. The 500/ACT 2 definitely show up its limits, especially in terms of over all control.
After about half an hour I noticed that vocals were more real and lyrics that were blurred (Modest Mouse, Moon in Antarctica) were suddenly very clear. A sense of unravelling knots and space.
But I must say that so far the change has not been revolutionary, the 552 sounding like a better 52, however I reserve judgement as I just hooked it up. Flaws with one recording with the 52 were the same flaws with the 552, only less so. So far I have played it for 30-40 minutes and expect much bigger changes as things unfold. What I do like about it is how distortion at higher volumes doesn't seem to be a problem. This is not a big problem with my current system, but in comparisson the 52 tends to get a bit wooly, crude, and confused (in comparisson!) when stressed. Mind you, "Heartbreaker" by the Stones at seismic volumes last night was no less enjoyable than with a 552 this afternoon. Also (Frank might like this comment) the 52 tends to "let go of notes" while the 552 is more neutral in this respect.
Thus, so far it seems promissing, but at this very early stage it is hard to give a complete synopsis.
Dave
BTW: Frank do you have the new ACT in yet?
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Onthlam
David,
I was commited(or need to be) to ordering one today.
Driving home from work and had enough of this waiting period.
Your comments concern me.
Though there is a certain amount of time this gear needs to settle in? I would expect such a radical and revolutionary change from such a piece of equipment...OUT OF THE BOX!!
It has not for you?
Your words will be greatly appreciated. Choose them well......
If it does not,"CREAM YOUR TWINKIE", I will need to hear one before I make up my mind..
Regards,
Marc
I was commited(or need to be) to ordering one today.
Driving home from work and had enough of this waiting period.
Your comments concern me.
Though there is a certain amount of time this gear needs to settle in? I would expect such a radical and revolutionary change from such a piece of equipment...OUT OF THE BOX!!
It has not for you?
Your words will be greatly appreciated. Choose them well......
If it does not,"CREAM YOUR TWINKIE", I will need to hear one before I make up my mind..
Regards,
Marc
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Minky
David,
I agree with everything you said except that for me the change was "revolutionary" pretty much from stone cold. Your words "delicacy" and "crisp" were among my first impressions too (and have been echoed by others who have heard it). If you had told me that the 552 was "crisp" sounding before I had heard it I probably would have given it a wide berth because I have always associated crisp with bright which equals fatigue and headache, but the 552 somehow manages to be crisp and clear and still be warm and smooth. Dynamics are mindblowing both in terms of the way a piece of music ebbs and flows and in the microdynamics of a voice or intrument. In the voicing of a guitar chord it easy to hear how the notes have been stacked because the life of each string is a seperate event.
If I had to put the net effect of these and the many other things that the 552 does so well into one word, it would be "realism". Ask my cat, who has never taken a blind bit of interest in my system and is now sure that there are strangers in the house.
Have fun,
Mark.
I agree with everything you said except that for me the change was "revolutionary" pretty much from stone cold. Your words "delicacy" and "crisp" were among my first impressions too (and have been echoed by others who have heard it). If you had told me that the 552 was "crisp" sounding before I had heard it I probably would have given it a wide berth because I have always associated crisp with bright which equals fatigue and headache, but the 552 somehow manages to be crisp and clear and still be warm and smooth. Dynamics are mindblowing both in terms of the way a piece of music ebbs and flows and in the microdynamics of a voice or intrument. In the voicing of a guitar chord it easy to hear how the notes have been stacked because the life of each string is a seperate event.
If I had to put the net effect of these and the many other things that the 552 does so well into one word, it would be "realism". Ask my cat, who has never taken a blind bit of interest in my system and is now sure that there are strangers in the house.
Have fun,
Mark.
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by smike42
Please keep the info updated - my demo's not for a few weeks yet
Smike
Smike
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by syd
How's your first impressions of PRaT. It's the first thing I listen for when making changes or adding components.
Yours in Music
Syd
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Chris Bell
David,
Great post! I just plugged in my XPS2/SXPS Burndy into the CDX2 and there is a very large grin across my face.
More to follow.
Chris Bell
Great post! I just plugged in my XPS2/SXPS Burndy into the CDX2 and there is a very large grin across my face.
More to follow.
Chris Bell
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Ron Toolsie
Good posts guys...I see that you have qualified the differences between the 52 and the 552 in pretty much the same way as me-although I placed a rather high quantitative advantage of it over the 52. Like you the 52 was a rather large comedown to return to after the 552, but very closely almost as much *fun*. Its not like we are comparing a bad preamp with a good one; rather a very good one with a great one. And the differences between very good and great are very significant to those of us who value greatness.
Minky for instance noted
This almost exactly mirrors my impression of the strummed guitar through the 552. You can find reference to this (and additional qualitative differences) at the following link that I posted very shortly after having the 552 on home demo.
My impressions of the 552
In terms of single component upgrades, I truly believe the 52 to 552 is a more rewarding jump than is the CD5 to CDS2 (which is also seperated by a similar amount of $$) which everybody acknowleges is a no-brainer.
No, the largest obstacle of the 552 is not how much more expensive it is than the 52 or its raw abilities; it is rather its absolute price in context of what non-audio items could be procured with an equal expenditure.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Minky for instance noted
quote:
In the voicing of a guitar chord it easy to hear how the notes have been stacked because the life of each string is a seperate event.
This almost exactly mirrors my impression of the strummed guitar through the 552. You can find reference to this (and additional qualitative differences) at the following link that I posted very shortly after having the 552 on home demo.
My impressions of the 552
In terms of single component upgrades, I truly believe the 52 to 552 is a more rewarding jump than is the CD5 to CDS2 (which is also seperated by a similar amount of $$) which everybody acknowleges is a no-brainer.
No, the largest obstacle of the 552 is not how much more expensive it is than the 52 or its raw abilities; it is rather its absolute price in context of what non-audio items could be procured with an equal expenditure.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Posted on: 27 May 2003 by Chris Bell
Ron,
You should write ads for Naim. I am sold.
Chris Bell
You should write ads for Naim. I am sold.
Chris Bell
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by Frank Abela
David
We had the ACTs in for a while. Beautifully made and finished, as you'd expect. However, we believe that Wb have lost their way somewhat with these speakers. They're analytical to a fault and have none of that easy, natural poise of the ACT2's. They correct the somewhat over-enthusiastic bass but at the expense of the organic quality and natural pace. I'm afraid we declined to keep them on this basis - we'd never sell a pair. It's sad because we love the company and believe in their engineering expertise, but in the context of our large systems (Naim and Chord Electronics) they simply didn't communicate or involve.
If you should have occasion to compare them to your ACT2's I would love to know how you get on. Perhaps we had a duff pair, but that's unlikely.
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
We had the ACTs in for a while. Beautifully made and finished, as you'd expect. However, we believe that Wb have lost their way somewhat with these speakers. They're analytical to a fault and have none of that easy, natural poise of the ACT2's. They correct the somewhat over-enthusiastic bass but at the expense of the organic quality and natural pace. I'm afraid we declined to keep them on this basis - we'd never sell a pair. It's sad because we love the company and believe in their engineering expertise, but in the context of our large systems (Naim and Chord Electronics) they simply didn't communicate or involve.
If you should have occasion to compare them to your ACT2's I would love to know how you get on. Perhaps we had a duff pair, but that's unlikely.
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by Nigel Cavendish
I think anyone considering this should listen for him/herself - unless money really is no object and the naim alone is enough.
cheers
Nigel
cheers
Nigel
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by David Antonelli
Well, the revolution has begun!
After about half an hour, the sound of the 552 was quite promissing indeed, and was better than the 52 in many respects, but in my enthusiasm to make it back to work for an important meeting, and the afterglow of a blossoming romance still dominating my thoughts I had forgotten to take out the damn transport screws! What an idiot!
So when I got home I corrected this problem immediately and within a few bars the bass opened up and the bass deepened substantially with much more free breathing dynamics. It was clear that this was indeed a "revolutionary" box. The differences between the 552 and 52 are not small by any measure. While many have commented on the great sense of inner detail the 552 reveals, what was most incredible was the sense of pace and dynamics and attack without any sense of fatigue at all.
I started the evening with "Decades" on Joy Division's "Closer" and I could not believe what I was hearing! I have known this track inside and out for over twenty years but I have never heard it with such remarkable poise and emotion. While many harp on the darkness of Joy Division, I would like to point out I am not dark myself and that a former girl friend raised in a German Church of God background without an ounce of gloom in her soul found the Joy Division the only rock band she wanted to listen to! In her mind it was all about "the drama of the soul and its ultimate redemption or destruction". This aspect came out so clearly in Curtis's vocals with the airy synthesizer tailing off into infinity with the triumphant nobility and emotional purity of Beethoven's 9th. So good did it sound, that I tried a Joy Division bootleg of a concert at the Paradiso Club in Amsterdam in their final days when they were starting to forshadow Nick Cave's Birthday Party. I believe that the ultimate test of a stereo product is the ability to illuminate very poor recordings. My GOD! The results were staggering. With the downstairs neighbors gone I pumped the volume up to half way, something I would never attempt with a 52 even with the neighbors gone. This recording did not sound thin or flat in any way. The soundstaging was holographic, vocals were clear and Hook's guitrs sounded a play of asian daggers ripping out into space. You could really hear the desperation in Interzone and the sadness in "Atmosphere" the subteranean organ keys filling the room without a trace of distortion.
After that I went to lighter stuff. Mazzy Star, So Tonight I might see, Hope Sandovals vocals opening up with textures I had never heard before. This Mortal Coil's "Filigree and Shadow" was filled with such nuance, texture, depth, and emotion, with the punctuated sound of the synthesized percusion disappearing and being replaced by actual three dimensional textured beats. The digital souning breakbeats in Goldies "Timeless" became much warmer and detailed at the same time.
Sensing a night to remember, I opened a bottle of Bernard Dugat's 2000 GC Petit Chapelle (they said his 2000s - a very weak vintage - are beter than his 99s- the absolute best of the Cote de Nuit in this vintage that many consider the best in fifty years. I did not believe it possible, like tales of the 552s vast superiority over the 52, but I was proven wrong. The wine WAS better than his 99 and the 552 was clearly towering in my living room like a monument to some kind of new and bold era in preamplification.
I was smart enough to keep my 52 plugged in and warm, so I went back to it briefly after listening to Leftfields "Dusted" and what I heard was depressing indeed, especially in the sluggish, exaggerated playdough-like bass the 552 was able to portray as lightning fast and not exaggerated in any way. The ACT 2 has a way of showing up system problems, espcially in the bass, and the overblown bass I was hearing on some tracks (usually only techno or hip hop) completely vanished AT ALL VOLUMES. At times this year I thought the bass problem was the room, or maybe even the speakers (should I get the new ACT or chimera?) But the culprit was the 52!
Ths morning it is sounding even better, the tones are softer and the timbre of the instruments even more natural. I am sure it still has other faces to show, and I await these eagerly.
Simply put, the 552 is an awesome showstopping amplifier with the delicacy of a fey princess and the ominous might of man's most fearsome war machines. It has elimnated any system problem I thought I had, as well as sytem problems I wasn't even aware of, while also adding new layers of texture and nuance. But to me the most surprising thing is the sense of power and dynamics it has. The gap between 52 and 552 is sadly (for those with little money) greater than the 250-500 gap. I would hardly believe it, but there you go. It's true. So true.
Deal me in!
Dave
After about half an hour, the sound of the 552 was quite promissing indeed, and was better than the 52 in many respects, but in my enthusiasm to make it back to work for an important meeting, and the afterglow of a blossoming romance still dominating my thoughts I had forgotten to take out the damn transport screws! What an idiot!
So when I got home I corrected this problem immediately and within a few bars the bass opened up and the bass deepened substantially with much more free breathing dynamics. It was clear that this was indeed a "revolutionary" box. The differences between the 552 and 52 are not small by any measure. While many have commented on the great sense of inner detail the 552 reveals, what was most incredible was the sense of pace and dynamics and attack without any sense of fatigue at all.
I started the evening with "Decades" on Joy Division's "Closer" and I could not believe what I was hearing! I have known this track inside and out for over twenty years but I have never heard it with such remarkable poise and emotion. While many harp on the darkness of Joy Division, I would like to point out I am not dark myself and that a former girl friend raised in a German Church of God background without an ounce of gloom in her soul found the Joy Division the only rock band she wanted to listen to! In her mind it was all about "the drama of the soul and its ultimate redemption or destruction". This aspect came out so clearly in Curtis's vocals with the airy synthesizer tailing off into infinity with the triumphant nobility and emotional purity of Beethoven's 9th. So good did it sound, that I tried a Joy Division bootleg of a concert at the Paradiso Club in Amsterdam in their final days when they were starting to forshadow Nick Cave's Birthday Party. I believe that the ultimate test of a stereo product is the ability to illuminate very poor recordings. My GOD! The results were staggering. With the downstairs neighbors gone I pumped the volume up to half way, something I would never attempt with a 52 even with the neighbors gone. This recording did not sound thin or flat in any way. The soundstaging was holographic, vocals were clear and Hook's guitrs sounded a play of asian daggers ripping out into space. You could really hear the desperation in Interzone and the sadness in "Atmosphere" the subteranean organ keys filling the room without a trace of distortion.
After that I went to lighter stuff. Mazzy Star, So Tonight I might see, Hope Sandovals vocals opening up with textures I had never heard before. This Mortal Coil's "Filigree and Shadow" was filled with such nuance, texture, depth, and emotion, with the punctuated sound of the synthesized percusion disappearing and being replaced by actual three dimensional textured beats. The digital souning breakbeats in Goldies "Timeless" became much warmer and detailed at the same time.
Sensing a night to remember, I opened a bottle of Bernard Dugat's 2000 GC Petit Chapelle (they said his 2000s - a very weak vintage - are beter than his 99s- the absolute best of the Cote de Nuit in this vintage that many consider the best in fifty years. I did not believe it possible, like tales of the 552s vast superiority over the 52, but I was proven wrong. The wine WAS better than his 99 and the 552 was clearly towering in my living room like a monument to some kind of new and bold era in preamplification.
I was smart enough to keep my 52 plugged in and warm, so I went back to it briefly after listening to Leftfields "Dusted" and what I heard was depressing indeed, especially in the sluggish, exaggerated playdough-like bass the 552 was able to portray as lightning fast and not exaggerated in any way. The ACT 2 has a way of showing up system problems, espcially in the bass, and the overblown bass I was hearing on some tracks (usually only techno or hip hop) completely vanished AT ALL VOLUMES. At times this year I thought the bass problem was the room, or maybe even the speakers (should I get the new ACT or chimera?) But the culprit was the 52!
Ths morning it is sounding even better, the tones are softer and the timbre of the instruments even more natural. I am sure it still has other faces to show, and I await these eagerly.
Simply put, the 552 is an awesome showstopping amplifier with the delicacy of a fey princess and the ominous might of man's most fearsome war machines. It has elimnated any system problem I thought I had, as well as sytem problems I wasn't even aware of, while also adding new layers of texture and nuance. But to me the most surprising thing is the sense of power and dynamics it has. The gap between 52 and 552 is sadly (for those with little money) greater than the 250-500 gap. I would hardly believe it, but there you go. It's true. So true.
Deal me in!
Dave
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by david r
I had no idea my system was so worthless.....must sell the wife
CDSII, 52, 135's and SF Electa Amator II's
CDSII, 52, 135's and SF Electa Amator II's
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by Frank Abela
I reiterate:
you're going to be so poor next week...
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
you're going to be so poor next week...
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by garyi
Its a sickening fact but the 552 is that good.
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by Frank Abela
Hmmm, I thought it was around £11750 or so...
And I think I would go CDS2/552 before going CDS3/52, but I admit I haven't done the comparison.
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
And I think I would go CDS2/552 before going CDS3/52, but I admit I haven't done the comparison.
Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by Ron Toolsie
There are very few products that can spontaneously elicit such groans of pleasure and erudite paragraphs of audio erotica as the 552. Unfortunately this is lost on all but the very few fortunates who have heard the 552 in a properly installed system. It is ironic that the one component that is by conventional wisdom the least coloured of a system (the preamp- a mere switching device with variable gain) is starkly revealed to be the most colored. In terms of raw numbers it is speakers by far that suffer the highest percentage of distortion, but for some reason a few percent of mechanical distortion can be eclipsed by the electronic distortion several orders of magnitude less in the NAC52. Even with less than optimal sources.
Thirty years on the 'source first' dogma has suddenly mutated to become 'preamp first'. I know for a fact that the CDS3/52 combination is only a pale semblance of what the CDS2/552 allows- I have tried both here at home.
What I have not tried is the CDS3/552. I think it is time for a refinance with home equity loan, for 'home improvements'.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Thirty years on the 'source first' dogma has suddenly mutated to become 'preamp first'. I know for a fact that the CDS3/52 combination is only a pale semblance of what the CDS2/552 allows- I have tried both here at home.
What I have not tried is the CDS3/552. I think it is time for a refinance with home equity loan, for 'home improvements'.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Posted on: 28 May 2003 by Arun Mehan
Dave,
If I come over, I fear I may never leave! I presume you will be "sick" for a few days
Oh dear.
If I come over, I fear I may never leave! I presume you will be "sick" for a few days
Oh dear.
Posted on: 29 May 2003 by Dev B
I disagree with the notion of 552 first. It is an exceptional preamp but I think a CDS3 is the one to go for 1st.
Dev
Dev
Posted on: 29 May 2003 by Dev B
CDS3 is much more resolving, faster than CDS2. In fact XPS2/SXPS shows you what you can do with the CDS2. The 552 does different things, it makes CD sound even more refined.
I've heard both and that's what I think
ps. I've had CDi, CDS1, CDS2, and now CDS2/XPS2/SXPS burndy and the latter is as much of a jump as the CDS1 to CDS2 (i.e is as resloving and has better flow)
I've heard both and that's what I think
ps. I've had CDi, CDS1, CDS2, and now CDS2/XPS2/SXPS burndy and the latter is as much of a jump as the CDS1 to CDS2 (i.e is as resloving and has better flow)
Posted on: 29 May 2003 by David Antonelli
Well, after living with a 552 for a mere 2 days I must say that I am shocked at how much coloration the 52 was adding to the mix. While I am sure the CDS3 is much better than the CDS2, what would scare me about a CDS3/52/500 is how much you would be losing from the CDS3 through the 52 (not to mention no more flash remote!). The 552 is so unflappable it almost defies reason. Last night at 11 pm I was listening to the Pixies "Vamos" at 12 O'Clock on the volume dial, the whip-like guitar lashing out into space, completely unmodulated by the attack of the drums. The system didn't flinch. There was no bass boom on hip hop. New insights into everything. Not just details, but cohesion and hidden relationships between rythms. No strain. Just audio pyrotechnics at a level I doubt few on this forum have ever heard. No question what my next upgrade is. And by the time I am ready to switch my CDS2 I will probably be looking at a CDS4!
dave
dave
Posted on: 29 May 2003 by David Antonelli
Peter,
The 52 is a tremendous amp and a bargain on teh used market as I doubt there is a preamp anywhere that can rival it even today at the sort of prices it is getting on the used market. It sounds fabulous, especially at lower volumes, and has a fast, rythmical, but intimate sound. The 552 is no case of hype. I am brutally honest and I took home a CDX2 a few months ago and found with the XPS it was nowhere near the CDS2, which many had stated it was. It was more of a CDX dressed for a night at the opera rather than a day at the races (the older model).
So I concluded that I wasn't really interested in it and that the CDS2 was still very very superior. The CDS3 may be a different matter.
So I was expecting the 552 to be a more refined 52 with a few bonuses to sweeten the pot. What I found instead was truly revolutionary. I am quite skeptical of forum hype, with all sorts of claims like "the 102 eats the 72 for breakfast" making us question "the 552 eats the 52 for breakfast" I agree that more precise and careful assesments need to be made and that irresposnible praise and overuse of phrases like "night and day" can lead one into the labyrinths of cynicism, especially when one actually hears a "night and day" transformation and finds it is really more a "7 pm to 8pm" transformation on the grand scale of things.
But the 552 is no joke. Trust me. Trust Ron Toolsie. We speak the truth.
dave
The 52 is a tremendous amp and a bargain on teh used market as I doubt there is a preamp anywhere that can rival it even today at the sort of prices it is getting on the used market. It sounds fabulous, especially at lower volumes, and has a fast, rythmical, but intimate sound. The 552 is no case of hype. I am brutally honest and I took home a CDX2 a few months ago and found with the XPS it was nowhere near the CDS2, which many had stated it was. It was more of a CDX dressed for a night at the opera rather than a day at the races (the older model).
So I concluded that I wasn't really interested in it and that the CDS2 was still very very superior. The CDS3 may be a different matter.
So I was expecting the 552 to be a more refined 52 with a few bonuses to sweeten the pot. What I found instead was truly revolutionary. I am quite skeptical of forum hype, with all sorts of claims like "the 102 eats the 72 for breakfast" making us question "the 552 eats the 52 for breakfast" I agree that more precise and careful assesments need to be made and that irresposnible praise and overuse of phrases like "night and day" can lead one into the labyrinths of cynicism, especially when one actually hears a "night and day" transformation and finds it is really more a "7 pm to 8pm" transformation on the grand scale of things.
But the 552 is no joke. Trust me. Trust Ron Toolsie. We speak the truth.
dave