Paging Bob- The Shedlock CDX2 test?????

Bruce - Indeed that would be my CDX2. (At the rate things are going it shall continue to be mine)
I did not conclude my posting as there seemed to be little interest in the outcome, outside of my living room.
The remainder of the adventure is a somewhat convuluted tale. feel free to email privately as current situation is not a reflection per se, on the outcome.

Bob

I would also be interested in the short version aka the music capability judgement on the CDX2

regards GEOFFP

email: geoff.phillipps@asml.com

So would I.

markus.c.sauer at t-online.de

HI Bob-

I too am interested in your thoughts on the differences between the CD5 -v- CDX2. Also, what pre amp/amp, etc. are you using.

Regards

Max

email: maxb2k@earthlink.net

Alright then, the public form it shall be. I just need to catch up on my sleep and file my taxes (Oh boy). It shall be posted this week then.

All right- we'll wait in line behind the IRS!

Bob,

Any chance of you having a moment to post your impressions?

regards

WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY

Apologies for the delay, but here it is:

First, let me restate my opinion from the OBE thread: I don't have a single complaint about the CD5/Hi combination, soncically speaking. I find disc slippage to be annoying and very unelegant for a player of it's stature. Still, I could happily live with this combination.

Main system for comparison was an 82/super/250 into Linn Ninkas on stone bases, and I dragged in some other speakers I had, Polk Audio RT 55I (from my HT system), and very briefly, a pair of Neat Petite Mk3. All naim wiring, and everything seated on a target rack w/glass shelves, and just for comparisions sake, I threw the mdf's in for a listen too. Also used a Wiremold block ----

Lets cut right to it then. The CDX2 does low frequency extention unlike anything the CD5/Hi could even begin to muster. In the context of my environment, this was so readily apparent and pronounced as to necessitate repositioning the speakers somewhat farther from the wall than they were before. Along with this, or because of it, instrumental timbres are somewhat darker and warmer. I don't mean "richer", I mean darker, although they are richer too in the sense that more of the body of instruments is rendered.

I found this particular character distinctly different from the CD5/Hi, and set about exploring it. To that end I used mdf shelves and glass and even the floor, sans supports, to see if the location was influencing the unit. No matter what I set it on or where I placed it, it still maintained it's "darker", "richer" view of the music. Other speakers and their different placement within the room bore this out.

The CDX2 has all the pace and drive we expect from a Naim product UNLESS it is plugged into a Wiremold block. It simply didn't get on with the wiremold, which upset and ruined the cohesiveness of the music in general and made it uninteresting. I have obsereved this to lesser degrees with any of the new style boxes. The Wiremold doesn't have the same negative impact on the olive style, but for my money it's a "thumbs down" to the wiremold strip and the new stuff. Hardware store variety three plug molded constuction grade orange molded extentions are literally ten times less expensive and have no negative sonic impact.

The CDX2 loads and plays every disc I threw at it, including all those the CD5 chokes on, without a single hitch. I've yet to put in a disc from anywhere that the CDX2 won't play right off, unlike the CD5, which requires some coaxing or tape or multiple attempts to load. (Or flat out won't play!)

The CDX2 trounces the CD5 for retrival of low level information. It is a deeper peering into a performance AND the manner in which a recording is made. It catches subtle spatial cues and minutae in a performance, that, in addition to being somewhat startling (the clicking of keys on wind instruments), gives you exposure to finer points of technique and musical shading of a given performance. You can also crank your preamp alot farther up without compression! 11:00 + settings are easily achieved and your ears or your room will overload before you can get any digital nasties out of the CDX2.

Going back to the CD5/hi, I was able to find some criticisims with it, but only in contrast. (With the exception of the noise floor. The CD5/Hi just isn't as quiet. period.) The 5 is much less dimensional, and lacks the midrange layering achieved by the CDX2. No matter how positively I feel towards the CD5/Hi, (and I do!), it doesn't grab nearly as much information as the CDX2. That would be the bad news, along with the bass response. The good new is (still) that it doesn't do anything wrong, it just doesn't do as much.

Prior to switching back from the CDX2, I thought the new deck may lack incisivness. Once I listened again to the CD5/hi, I found I was wrong. The CDX2 can be just as razor sharp on crescendos and plaintif female vocalists as the CD5/hi. What had confused me was the difference between the slightly darker presentation of the CDX2, and the amount of information it presents.
The CDX2, when confronted with a howling female, guitar, or orchestra, illuminates the venue as much as it projects into your room. Lots more going on. I realize that sounds rather "hi-fi", and it is! I am not convinced that it is musically important.

One of my more valued component attributes is dynamics. I think they make or break a component's ability to engage me. Here, I didn't find the CDX2 to best the CD5/Hi at all. After lots of listening I conclude one to be no better than the other. I was surprised by this. I expected the the CDX2 to have a better bounce factor. It didn't. Makes me wonder about the XPS2 though.

THE CONCLUSION: How do I sum up the vfm when the CD5/Hi aces musical satisfaction? Is the CDX2 more satisfying? I mean hey, satisfied is satisfied. Those of you further up the chain may rightly disagree with my conclusion, but I would say that for cash outlay the 82/super/250 is one hell of a lot of money and a damn good system.
The CDX2 is hands down a better player, although not all of the areas it improves upon are necessarily musically significant. Then there is the fact that I find it to be somewhat darker, which in my mind is "character" as opposed to tonally neutral. At it's price it has to judged hard.
It doesn't best the CD5/Hi dynamically, but it is technically and functionally a better player. If I were still a reviewer, I would be asking around for an XPS2, since the cd5 had an outboard powersupply for the comparison, and that may change everything. BUT it is also a hell of lot more money. The CDX2 has the upgrade available, the CD5/HI is maxed out. It may be the difference between buying a fully optioned mid-line and a bare bones luxury version. Listen carefully for yourselves.

Thank you for your input. Very insightful. I just took my CDX2 out of the wiremold and you were 100% right. Excellent work and thank you for your time.

Any other advice?

Bob,
Great feedback. I agree with your sentiments about the 82/super/250 being a very good system. The system that I am aiming for (200/202 w/hicap,CDX)will be on the low end compared to some of the others on this board but would be consider by many as possibly the best they have ever heard and a considerable amount of money(to the point that I am embarrassed and reluctant to tell others how much my system cost).

I think that it is clear that if you aspire for the mid to upper end equipment that the CDX2 is clearly the way to go. My personal problem is as soon as I would get a CDX2, all I would be able to think about is how much better it would be with a 282 or a xps2 (not to mention a 250). That would probably be a deal breaker for my wife!!!!

Tennispro

Thanks for your thoughts Bob.

I too have a CDX2 on loan from my local dealer and am comparing it with my own CD3. I note the darker image you mention and whilst I prefer the base from the CDX2 (I run through 82/2*HI - Active 250's in to Briks) I do not overall enjoy the performance any more. There is certainly more detail to listen to but not as you say any more dynamic range. So when listening to Les Miserables for instance the CD3 is just as convincing. In VFM terms I think I will stay where I am. I have yet to try the CDX2 with an XPS2 and I doubt if I can bring myself to spend £5k + on a CD player but I will have a listen.

For comparison I have some tracks available on CD and LP and I have compared these too. I find the LP each time far more engaging to listen to as it has all the detail of the CDX2 and more but with increased dynamics too. My LP source is LP12/Lingo/Ittok/Troika not state of the art today but still pretty good.

I also find the CDX2 more tiring to listen to with the volume up a bit??

The speaker position in my listening room is not ideal at the moment so this may have an impact on results so I will try again in 6 months when that situation is rectified - assuming our builder works to schedule!!

regards

Smike

Smike

Smike, I've yet to hear a cdp that sounds anything like a record player. I don't quite understand the fatigue @ higher volumes w/ the CDX2. I don't think it's the player, but----
If indeed you do try and xps2 I'd be curious to have your thoughts, particularly as they relate to dynamics.

Bob

Thanks for the excellent description of your time with the CDX2. I have been running one for about a month now but because I have never lived with a CD5 / HiCap I was particularly interested to read your comparison, especially since I did demo the CDX2 against a bare CD5 and a CD5 + Flatcap at the dealer.

I heard something like the same difference you report though a short listening session with a brand new CDX2 in a dealer's listening room is not really a completely fair comparison.
I am happy I chose the CDX2 as it has matured nicely and shows even more of the attributes you highlighted now.

I came at it from a somewhat delicate though tunefull sound from my SONY XA555ES CD/SACD player and am very taken with the darker richer sound. The deep bass has also been an education and a challenge. Quite a bit of speaker placement adjustments were required along with listening location to bring that back under control, but it was worth it.

I certainly don't find listening to the CDX2 tiring, except I tend to keep putting just another CD on instead of going to bed on time.

The other feeling I have is that the CDX2 is a little bit too much for my 112/HiCap/150 to handle with complete comfort. It goes loud quite nicely to a certain point but then the complexity of the signal coming from the CDX2 starts to overwelm the 150 a bit.

So be warned buy a CDX2 at your peril because you will likely be forced to follow on with pre/amp upgrades.

The other point of interest for me is to ask what the CDX2 sounds like against the old CDX. Is it better or just different?

Any body care to comment?

regards GEOFFP

Bob,

Thank you for taking the time to share your experience. Your comments are very helpful.

I'd be interested in hearing if you found the CDX2 in your extended sessions to be -- for lack of a better description -- too aggressive sounding? My understanding is that the CDX can sometimes really show up the flaws in all but the best recordings, but as the CD5 is less transparent it is also more forgiving.

Not sure if this is really fair to ask you, as you probably have not had a chance to A/B CDX and CDX2.

regards

PAC - While it is true I did not have a CDX to side-by-side with the CDX2, I can assure you, based on my experience, that if anything, the CDX2 tends to be reticent!

Thanks for clarifying that last point.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Shedlock:
If indeed you do try and xps2 I'd be curious to have your thoughts, particularly as they relate to dynamics.

---

Hello again Bob,

I've now been listening to the CDX2 with external power supply added and what a big difference!

I now have a CD system that is very close to the quality of my turntable system (albeit that needs a tune and a new cartridge soon).

The improvement in detail is significant - I discovered backing vocals on tracks I thought were single voices etc. The biggest difference is however as you suspected in dynamic range. Now I actually have turned the volume down a bit as the loud bits get louder without the volume control?!

Certainly this has brought my CD collection alive and whereas I've not brought that many (only 300 in 10 years - I have over 1000 LP's) I feel I can start buying them with confidence in enjoying the music.

Where do I go from here - well before I convert my dem into an acquisition I guess I better try the CDS3!

regards

Smike

Smike, thanks for posting back. I am heartend to read that you think the xps2 increases (macro? micro?) dynamics. Over here the xps2 costs just shy of the player itself. I realize you're auditioning, but does it make that significant of a difference? (Worth the bucks?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob Shedlock:
Smike, thanks for posting back. I am heartend to read that you think the xps2 increases (macro? micro?) dynamics. Over here the xps2 costs just shy of the player itself. I realize you're auditioning, but does it make that significant of a difference? (Worth the bucks?)

---

I guess it depends on how many bucks you have to spend.

In my case I would not buy the CDX2 without the power supply. With it (as you say) the cost is doubled and approaches the current cost of my tt so as the performance is also approaching that quality I would say yes except for the fact that the CDS3 exists. If instead of spending 5k I can spend 7k and improve the performance a further chunk who knows???

So I will decide once I have listened to the set.

Regards

Smike