PSC vs. PSC2
Posted by: JRHardee on 02 February 2004
I just replaced my NAPSC with an NAPSC2, and I can barely hear the difference. (Yeah, someone's going to make a snarky comment about ear wax or middle-aged deafness. Don't bother, thanks.)
My question is this--is there any reason to think that the difference would be any more apparent with a 102 or a 202 than it is with my 82/Supercap? Does my setup somehow give the PSC less to do than a Hicapped 102 or 202 does?
My question is this--is there any reason to think that the difference would be any more apparent with a 102 or a 202 than it is with my 82/Supercap? Does my setup somehow give the PSC less to do than a Hicapped 102 or 202 does?
Posted on: 02 February 2004 by Dave J
I replaced my 'old' NAPSC last year and, like everything else, it took a while to burn in. I'd give it a good few weeks before returning to the old one and see what you think.
Dave
Dave
Posted on: 02 February 2004 by Stevo
I had to buy an extra PSC to power a headline and bought a new NAPSC2. I thought it was a really good improvement on my 82, where it's stayed. Having said that, I know someone who thought it made bugger all difference on an 82.
Stephen.
Stephen.
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by greeny
Despite posing this question several times over the past year or so I'm still to see any sort of reasonable explanation.
If the 82 (and 102) were designed to have a completely separate circuit to power the digital only circuits (switches, lights etc) how can improving this supply improve the sound.
Surely the design was that these circuits had no effect on the audio path hence a cheap power supply could be provided. In fact why wouldn't a £10 cheapo Argos transformer do just as good a job.
An NAPSC2 on a headline is a completely different proposition and if better than a NAPSC should prove an improvement.
If the 82 (and 102) were designed to have a completely separate circuit to power the digital only circuits (switches, lights etc) how can improving this supply improve the sound.
Surely the design was that these circuits had no effect on the audio path hence a cheap power supply could be provided. In fact why wouldn't a £10 cheapo Argos transformer do just as good a job.
An NAPSC2 on a headline is a completely different proposition and if better than a NAPSC should prove an improvement.
Posted on: 03 February 2004 by Stevo
quote:
Originally posted by greeny:
In fact why wouldn't a £10 cheapo Argos transformer do just as good a job.
I'd be interested in the results. With all of our common interests at heart, why don't you put your theory to the test? You may save us a lot of money.
Stephen
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by greeny
quote:
I'd be interested in the results. With all of our common interests at heart, why don't you put your theory to the test? You may save us a lot of money.
Stephen
If I had a 102/202 without a NAPSC then I might. But already having a NAPSC with my 82 it's not really worth the effort. Of course I'd have to buy a SLIC conector (available from Maplin I believe) and the transformer, but all told would be < £20.
There would of course be a possibility of this solution poluting the mains more than the NAPSC but who can say they have none of these devices plugged in their house mains anywhere.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by Dave J
quote:
There would of course be a possibility of this solution poluting the mains more than the NAPSC
Greeny,
This may be one of the key reasons for the latest model sounding better.
I recall that during a trip to Naim, just before the new series became available, I heard the new NAPSC and the guys at Naim were extremely proud of their achievements suggesting that, in pure value for money terms, this was the best of the new products.
Dave
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by greeny
quote:
I recall that during a trip to Naim, just before the new series became available, I heard the new NAPSC and the guys at Naim were extremely proud of their achievements suggesting that, in pure value for money terms, this was the best of the new products.
I'm not suggesting the new NAPSC might not be better than the old one. And if it is this would probably be most apparent when powering a headline.
However if the 102/202/82/282 have been designed as I believe was intended then this improvement should not affect the sound.
Mains polution is an interesting one. If you plug the old NAPSC into a different socket or different spur then this potential differenace should be mostly eliminated. Also given the typical mains polution by other household appliances (TV, DVD, Fridge, Heating, dimmer switches, etc etc) do we think the NAPSC noise will be significant? How many of us unplug these before a listening session.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by JRHardee
I have my PSC2 plugged into a different circuit from the rest of my system. Maybe that's why the difference between the PSC and the PSC2 is negligible.
The PSC2 was bought used, and the PSC and PSC2 were both running for a month before doing the comparison, so burn-in wasn't an issue.
The PSC2 was bought used, and the PSC and PSC2 were both running for a month before doing the comparison, so burn-in wasn't an issue.
Posted on: 04 February 2004 by dave simpson
quote:
I have my PSC2 plugged into a different circuit from the rest of my system. Maybe that's why the difference between the PSC and the PSC2 is negligible.
JR,
My NAPSC(mk1) sounds worse plugged into a different circuit (yet best if isolated at the end of a Wiremold away from the other AC plugs). If you're using a Wiremold power strip, try the following AC plug sequence:
Wall>>>250,supercap,Numerik,Karik,Lingo,X,X,X,NAPSC>>>end-of-strip
X= unused outlet
If there's not much difference after changing the plug sequence, turn the Lingo off and *unplug* its AC plug from the Wiremold strip and repeat the plug sequence comparison....it may prove interesting.
regards,
dave
Posted on: 14 February 2004 by Carl Leermakers