naim upgrades and comparison with other systems

I recently upgraded from an old 140 to a recent but still "olive style" 250 model into dynaudio contour 1.3 speakers, having cdx/72/hi in front. The reasons why not upgrading somewhere at the front was that a more authoritarian "dictator" for the powerhungry dyns was far overdue and that this upgrade was the cheapest i could do.

From the upgrade i actually expected an improvement in bass control. In fact, this was now amazing, wow! Bass seemed to be perfectly balanced with the other ranges, almost free from unpleasant discontinuities, with an exceptional tune i never heard before through my system. But this was not all yet: had the sound stage undergone a considerable refinement and better illumination with the cdx upgrade, the 250 was now stretching it to stunning extents, revealing much more musical layers and details. Very impressive, since i did not expect such capabilities from a poweramp. All in all, the 250 upgrade was fully satisfying, and surprisingly was in the order of the cd3.5-to-cdx upgrade.

But then came the time for me to cry: a good friend of mine showed up to take a listening session. He admitted that overall sound had improved from the last time he listened to my system, but suggested that something was still missing. His words were: "...as if there is a cork or plug somewhere, holding back the whole sound". cork or plug? i was somehow shocked, and my view immediately turned over to the 72, since it was now the weakest link in my setup. One day later i had transferred my whole system over to my friends place, to compare it with his system. This was completely non-naim and consisted of micromega stage 1 transport, parasound DAC1600 converter, and a 15 years old accuphase C200V/P300V amp combo. The system was spread all over the floor (my chap doesn't know the word tidiness!), my naim system sitted on my solidsteel 3.4, enhanced with granite shelves. Speakers were dynaudio contour 1. We then went through some cds, starting with solo instruments (guitar, piano, etc.) and voices. The difference was not that big, but we still noticed that the naim system played more natural and engaging, while the other system was more hifi, but still in a very pleasant way. When changing to more complex music, like classic orchestra, or even large band setups with lots of instruments and voices (like fela kuti), the difference was striking. The other system played now far more opened and sparkling, the sound stage was monumental, if not gigantic. The naim system apparently was flat and almost 2dimensional in comparison. It also had severe separation problems and obviously was swamped with the musical complexity, leading to a clearly more nervous sound. I was always very happy with my system (and probably still will be), but this comparison clearly pointed out its limitations. Overall, i would have preffered the other system, it was simply better. The transport/converter combo was in the same price range as the cdx. The accuphase amp combo was very old, the poweramp was serviced 4 years ago. Compared to naim kit prices, it would probably be the value of an 82/hicap and 2x135s.

Back home, i'm still enjoying the naim kit. feeding it with my musical preferences - this is "organic" music - makes me forget about the earlier comparison, sound is simply still "beautiful". But i know by now, why there are some cds in my collection that i dont like much. They are not badly recorded, its the system which is overstrained with them. But only until the 52 will replace the 72, in about 2 to 3 years...

rocketeer