52/500 vs 552/135s
Posted by: Laurie Saunders on 30 June 2003
Has anyone done a direct comparison between a 52/500 vs 552/135s?
I currently run 52/135s
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has actually heard these combinations, please
I am aware of the sort of improvements one can expect when upgrading the preamp (I went 72-82-52) and power amps (I went 140-250-135s), and my own instincts suggest that the 552 will give me the more profound improvement. I ask, because I cannot afford the 500/552 upgrades at the same time (or, even close together)
I listen very loud ("realistic" volumes) but have speakers which are an easy load, and in a fairly small room
Laurie S
I currently run 52/135s
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has actually heard these combinations, please
I am aware of the sort of improvements one can expect when upgrading the preamp (I went 72-82-52) and power amps (I went 140-250-135s), and my own instincts suggest that the 552 will give me the more profound improvement. I ask, because I cannot afford the 500/552 upgrades at the same time (or, even close together)
I listen very loud ("realistic" volumes) but have speakers which are an easy load, and in a fairly small room
Laurie S
Posted on: 30 June 2003 by smiglass
Hi Laurie
Our systems and room dimensions are similar from your previous posts: Orbe/SMEV/Lyra Helikon SL/the Groove/CDS2/52/SC/500/Quad988. The 500 replace the 135's which has completely transformed the sound of my system. There is markedly improved bass grip and imaging. I was able to get the 500 second hand, which makes it possible for me to save for the 552. The combination of the 552/500 is astonishing, but the 135's can not do justice to what the 552 offers, IMHO. The 52/SC is a great preamp and benifits from the improved power amp. Also, the 500 seems to have no problem playing loud and never becomes harsh, as the 135's sometimes would. I have found that there is no need to play my music as loud because the bass extension is there at low level volume.
BTW, I now have the Lyra Helikon SL and the Groove. I had the standard Helikon and Stageline with K boards but the 500 made the surface noise from this combination much more noticable and revealed a CD like hardness.
Hope this helps,
Anthony
Our systems and room dimensions are similar from your previous posts: Orbe/SMEV/Lyra Helikon SL/the Groove/CDS2/52/SC/500/Quad988. The 500 replace the 135's which has completely transformed the sound of my system. There is markedly improved bass grip and imaging. I was able to get the 500 second hand, which makes it possible for me to save for the 552. The combination of the 552/500 is astonishing, but the 135's can not do justice to what the 552 offers, IMHO. The 52/SC is a great preamp and benifits from the improved power amp. Also, the 500 seems to have no problem playing loud and never becomes harsh, as the 135's sometimes would. I have found that there is no need to play my music as loud because the bass extension is there at low level volume.
BTW, I now have the Lyra Helikon SL and the Groove. I had the standard Helikon and Stageline with K boards but the 500 made the surface noise from this combination much more noticable and revealed a CD like hardness.
Hope this helps,
Anthony
Posted on: 30 June 2003 by Bosh
Whilst fully concurring with Smiglass (having gone the same 135 to secondhand 500 route albeit in into SBLs), there does seem to be a critical mass of forum support for going 552 first.
The NAP500 is a hell of an upgrade though and does bring an awful lot to a system. It does also go very loud without any sign of stress whatsoever
The NAP500 is a hell of an upgrade though and does bring an awful lot to a system. It does also go very loud without any sign of stress whatsoever
Posted on: 01 July 2003 by Laurie Saunders
Thanks for the replies. I am aware of what the 500 can do compared to 135s. My exposure to the 552 is more limited, though its superiority over the 52 is beyond doubt. Both would be great upgrades over their predecessors, I am sure of that, however I have to choose between them. Based on previous upgrades, I would pefer 52/250 to 82/135s, for example; ie the preamp upgrade has always provided the more profound improvement.
Just wondered if anyone has actually made the comparison
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on TUESDAY 01 July 2003 at 13:08.]
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on TUESDAY 01 July 2003 at 13:08.]
Just wondered if anyone has actually made the comparison
Laurie S
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on TUESDAY 01 July 2003 at 13:08.]
[This message was edited by Laurie Saunders on TUESDAY 01 July 2003 at 13:08.]
Posted on: 01 July 2003 by Minky
Laurie,
I did the direct comparison over several weeks in my home. If you do a search for "passive NBL's vs active SBL's" and "52/500 vs 552/135's" you will see how things developed. Faced with the choice I would have gone 52/500. This seems to be viewed as a somewhat heretical path by many of the members of this forum but in the context of my room, my speakers and my ears it was a no-brainer.
I agree with everything Anthony said. My post-hoc rationalisation for what I heard is that the 52 is up to the task of driving a 500 (after all, the 500 was developed with a 52) but the 135's don't begin to make use of what the 552 has to offer (it's a safe bet that the 552 was developed with a 500).
I did the direct comparison over several weeks in my home. If you do a search for "passive NBL's vs active SBL's" and "52/500 vs 552/135's" you will see how things developed. Faced with the choice I would have gone 52/500. This seems to be viewed as a somewhat heretical path by many of the members of this forum but in the context of my room, my speakers and my ears it was a no-brainer.
I agree with everything Anthony said. My post-hoc rationalisation for what I heard is that the 52 is up to the task of driving a 500 (after all, the 500 was developed with a 52) but the 135's don't begin to make use of what the 552 has to offer (it's a safe bet that the 552 was developed with a 500).
Posted on: 01 July 2003 by Chris Metcalfe
smiglass -
Fascinated to see you using Quad 988s in a top-end Naim setup... did you compare to the Naim speakers or other top box speakers?
Fascinated to see you using Quad 988s in a top-end Naim setup... did you compare to the Naim speakers or other top box speakers?
Posted on: 01 July 2003 by smiglass
Hi Chris,
I first heard the Quads with the Nap 500 in Chicago over one year ago and was impressed with their neutral sound and imaging. And, contrary to reports, they deliver excellent bass, especially in a small room. I did listen to several box speakers including B&W 803's, Dynaudio 3.3, SBL's and found the Quads to be superior. The guys at ProMusica in Chicago perform an alteration that improves the bass and loudness. I am very happy with them.
I was back in Chicago in May and heard the 552/500/Quad combination and was spell bound! The sense of a three dimensional presentation along with the Naim traits of PR&T were overwhelming. I listened to Charlie Haden's recording featuring Ernie Watts etc. Every player has a space that was unwavering and the emotion of the performance was as close to live has I have ever heard.
Anthony
I first heard the Quads with the Nap 500 in Chicago over one year ago and was impressed with their neutral sound and imaging. And, contrary to reports, they deliver excellent bass, especially in a small room. I did listen to several box speakers including B&W 803's, Dynaudio 3.3, SBL's and found the Quads to be superior. The guys at ProMusica in Chicago perform an alteration that improves the bass and loudness. I am very happy with them.
I was back in Chicago in May and heard the 552/500/Quad combination and was spell bound! The sense of a three dimensional presentation along with the Naim traits of PR&T were overwhelming. I listened to Charlie Haden's recording featuring Ernie Watts etc. Every player has a space that was unwavering and the emotion of the performance was as close to live has I have ever heard.
Anthony
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Arun Mehan
I held off posting on this topic for a bit but today I'm in a posting sort of mood so I thought I would type a word or two here.
Having heard Dave Antonelli's CDSII/01/52/500/WB ACT IIs system, I knew the 500 was exactly what the ACTs needed. Dave wrote extensively about how much better the 500 was compared to his previous 250 with the ACTs. The 500 brings control and grip along with some added dimension. Then when I heard the 552, I couldn't believe how much better the system was. It was more of what the 500 brought to the table. But I doubt a 552/250 would have sounded that good. I think the 552 and 500 have a synergistic effect -- the two together are pure magic. Minky commented on how the 500 was designed with the 52 and most likely the 552 was designed using a 500 and I think he's right. So I would probably get a 500 first and then a 552. The 500 is such a huge step forward from the 135 and 250 that it's not even funny. I could almost say the same about the 552 vs 52, but it would have to be in a system with a pre-existing 500. Source first is not so important with the new reference gear.
I haven't heard a 300 but maybe by saving a bit and getting a 300, a 552 could be an easier target. Not sure.
Having heard Dave Antonelli's CDSII/01/52/500/WB ACT IIs system, I knew the 500 was exactly what the ACTs needed. Dave wrote extensively about how much better the 500 was compared to his previous 250 with the ACTs. The 500 brings control and grip along with some added dimension. Then when I heard the 552, I couldn't believe how much better the system was. It was more of what the 500 brought to the table. But I doubt a 552/250 would have sounded that good. I think the 552 and 500 have a synergistic effect -- the two together are pure magic. Minky commented on how the 500 was designed with the 52 and most likely the 552 was designed using a 500 and I think he's right. So I would probably get a 500 first and then a 552. The 500 is such a huge step forward from the 135 and 250 that it's not even funny. I could almost say the same about the 552 vs 52, but it would have to be in a system with a pre-existing 500. Source first is not so important with the new reference gear.
I haven't heard a 300 but maybe by saving a bit and getting a 300, a 552 could be an easier target. Not sure.
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by David Antonelli
Arun,
Nice post! I have been pondering this same question myself for a while. I guess when I finally get a 552 I can coax Glen into lending me a 250 to see how a 552/250 matches up to a 52/500. The step from 52/250/ACT 2 to 52/500/ACT 2 was huge, but adding the 552 seemed even bigger. The question then becomes, what would my reflections have been if I went 552/250 first? I think this is probably a speaker dependent question, but since the ACT 2 is a speaker which seems to require very powerful solid state amps to get full control over the Tactic driver system, one tends to wonder if the refinements and poise of the 552 over the 52 may have been pearls tossed to the swine of the 250 (sorry, it's a great power amp, but completely out of its league in this context).
Spurred on by Frank A.'s comments on the new Led Zepplin reissues with the original packaging, I went out and bought everything except for Coda and have been enjoying how great a good CD can sound through a CDS2/52/500 system. The older ones seem bright and brittle in comparison. Now these discs finally sound like "albums" that can be played on repeat, wheras before they sounded like a collection of songs.
Viva 500!
Dave
Nice post! I have been pondering this same question myself for a while. I guess when I finally get a 552 I can coax Glen into lending me a 250 to see how a 552/250 matches up to a 52/500. The step from 52/250/ACT 2 to 52/500/ACT 2 was huge, but adding the 552 seemed even bigger. The question then becomes, what would my reflections have been if I went 552/250 first? I think this is probably a speaker dependent question, but since the ACT 2 is a speaker which seems to require very powerful solid state amps to get full control over the Tactic driver system, one tends to wonder if the refinements and poise of the 552 over the 52 may have been pearls tossed to the swine of the 250 (sorry, it's a great power amp, but completely out of its league in this context).
Spurred on by Frank A.'s comments on the new Led Zepplin reissues with the original packaging, I went out and bought everything except for Coda and have been enjoying how great a good CD can sound through a CDS2/52/500 system. The older ones seem bright and brittle in comparison. Now these discs finally sound like "albums" that can be played on repeat, wheras before they sounded like a collection of songs.
Viva 500!
Dave
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Minky
quote:
Originally posted by David Antonelli:
The step from 52/250/ACT 2 to 52/500/ACT 2 was huge, but adding the 552 seemed even bigger.
Yes, and it is natural to extrapolate from this that the 552 brings more goodies to the table than the 500 and should therefore be the first step up from a 52/250, but the 552 is like a sophisticated chassis that is pointless without a high performance engine to make use of it.
If I had to downgrade my system I would sell the 552 first because even though adding a 552 to a 500 is in many ways more profound than replacing 135's for a 500, the net effect of 552/135 is way less than that of 52/500.
To further the car analogy :
52/500 = Audi FWD with Ferrari engine.
552/250 = Ferrari with Ford Mondeo engine.
552/500 = Ferrari.
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by David Antonelli
Minky,
I agree. I was thinking along the car analogy myself, but couldn't come up with anything as good as your comparison. Now I would like to see a few comments on the great question:
If you have a CDS2/52/135s, should you go for a CDS3, a 552, or a 500 first?
(assume that you MIGHT get money for more upgrades in the future, but are not totally certain of this, so you have to maximize bang for buck).
For example, I could probably buy a CDS3 now, but have decided to wait and buy a 552 first. Just a gut feeling, but I know others would argue for the CDS3.
dave
I agree. I was thinking along the car analogy myself, but couldn't come up with anything as good as your comparison. Now I would like to see a few comments on the great question:
If you have a CDS2/52/135s, should you go for a CDS3, a 552, or a 500 first?
(assume that you MIGHT get money for more upgrades in the future, but are not totally certain of this, so you have to maximize bang for buck).
For example, I could probably buy a CDS3 now, but have decided to wait and buy a 552 first. Just a gut feeling, but I know others would argue for the CDS3.
dave
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Philip Pang
552
Dave, nice predicament to be in, if you're really in it.
In your system, I would also take a 552 first, over the CDS3. The pre provides the window to the soul of music, and with a 500 in tow, as so rightly mentioned by Arun, the 552 would make better sense first over the source, since it is the 500's natural partner in music crime. My opinion of course, there might be others who'd disagree completely.
Good listening, the music's groovin'frightfully more.
Rgds
Philip
naimniac for life
[This message was edited by Philip Pang on THURSDAY 03 July 2003 at 04:25.]
Dave, nice predicament to be in, if you're really in it.
In your system, I would also take a 552 first, over the CDS3. The pre provides the window to the soul of music, and with a 500 in tow, as so rightly mentioned by Arun, the 552 would make better sense first over the source, since it is the 500's natural partner in music crime. My opinion of course, there might be others who'd disagree completely.
Good listening, the music's groovin'frightfully more.
Rgds
Philip
naimniac for life
[This message was edited by Philip Pang on THURSDAY 03 July 2003 at 04:25.]
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by smiglass
Interesting thread!
I too would take the 552 over the CDS3 because it would affect all sources. Since I listen to the TT 50% of the time, it would be a great benifit. Also, the CDS2 is an excellent source and it's true potential is realised with the 552/500. It can also be improved by adding the XPS2 with the new Burndy. One could be satisfied for years with that combination!
Regards,
Anthony
I too would take the 552 over the CDS3 because it would affect all sources. Since I listen to the TT 50% of the time, it would be a great benifit. Also, the CDS2 is an excellent source and it's true potential is realised with the 552/500. It can also be improved by adding the XPS2 with the new Burndy. One could be satisfied for years with that combination!
Regards,
Anthony
Posted on: 02 July 2003 by Minky
Dave,
I hope to have an informed opinion on this in a few weeks, but all I will really be able to tell you is how much better the CDS3 is than the CDS2 in the context of a system that maximises the differences.
I find it hard to imagine that CDS3/52/500 could beat CDS2/552/500 but then again I couldn't imagine my system sounding any better until I heard a 552, so what would I know ?
I hope to have an informed opinion on this in a few weeks, but all I will really be able to tell you is how much better the CDS3 is than the CDS2 in the context of a system that maximises the differences.
I find it hard to imagine that CDS3/52/500 could beat CDS2/552/500 but then again I couldn't imagine my system sounding any better until I heard a 552, so what would I know ?
Posted on: 03 July 2003 by David Antonelli
Hi,
My strong inclination is to get a 552, because on the basis of what i heard it in my system it was as big an upgrade as one could hope for in a single box. The 52 is also over a decade old while the CDS 2 is only 4 1/2 years old. I also listen to the NAT 01 a lot and the 552 really improves on that as well.
Sometimes I am tempted to get the new burndy and XPS2, but then I quickly recognize these as insidious first steps towards a CDS3 masquerading as relatively inexpensive "no-brainers", ultimately plotting to interfere with my goal of a 552. But the source first mafia is no doubt still slithering in the weeds over the CDS3/52 combo.
Dave
My strong inclination is to get a 552, because on the basis of what i heard it in my system it was as big an upgrade as one could hope for in a single box. The 52 is also over a decade old while the CDS 2 is only 4 1/2 years old. I also listen to the NAT 01 a lot and the 552 really improves on that as well.
Sometimes I am tempted to get the new burndy and XPS2, but then I quickly recognize these as insidious first steps towards a CDS3 masquerading as relatively inexpensive "no-brainers", ultimately plotting to interfere with my goal of a 552. But the source first mafia is no doubt still slithering in the weeds over the CDS3/52 combo.
Dave
Posted on: 03 July 2003 by Arun Mehan
Dave,
I guess I woke you up eh? I was hoping to see more contributors. Honestly, the CDS2 through the 552 was beautiful. It's hard to imagine a CDS3 performing at its full potential through the 52. Also considering you have two sources, the 552 seems the most logical upgrade. I remember just as I was leaving you put the 01 on and I almost had a heart attack! If any of you have heard an 01 through a 552 you know what I mean.
Minky, loved the car analogy.
Anthony, those Quads on the end of a 500 must be magic. I need to hear these babies. Dave, how about a trip down to Chicago
I guess I woke you up eh? I was hoping to see more contributors. Honestly, the CDS2 through the 552 was beautiful. It's hard to imagine a CDS3 performing at its full potential through the 52. Also considering you have two sources, the 552 seems the most logical upgrade. I remember just as I was leaving you put the 01 on and I almost had a heart attack! If any of you have heard an 01 through a 552 you know what I mean.
Minky, loved the car analogy.
Anthony, those Quads on the end of a 500 must be magic. I need to hear these babies. Dave, how about a trip down to Chicago
Posted on: 03 July 2003 by David Antonelli
Arun,
Chicago? I've probably worn out my welcome their at Pro Musica by criticizing their choice of speakers over the forum after each time I went (ha!). It would also be hard to tell if the CDS 3 was any better anyway since the speakers they use are quite different from the ACT 2. But I WOULD like to listen to the new ACT at Symphony Sound, however they are likely to have it hooked up to some weird French electronics or something of that persuasion. So...maybe I'll just stay home and wait till I go to the UK in September.
Dave
Chicago? I've probably worn out my welcome their at Pro Musica by criticizing their choice of speakers over the forum after each time I went (ha!). It would also be hard to tell if the CDS 3 was any better anyway since the speakers they use are quite different from the ACT 2. But I WOULD like to listen to the new ACT at Symphony Sound, however they are likely to have it hooked up to some weird French electronics or something of that persuasion. So...maybe I'll just stay home and wait till I go to the UK in September.
Dave
Posted on: 03 July 2003 by JosephR
Laurie, I would go for the NAP500. I tried it on the Gorbe + Helikon SL + Proac Response 3, woth NAC52. It makes the 52/135s sound so puny in terms of power and dynamics. Best of all, it improves on the vocals a lot. A great flat + round earth combination. If you thought the 135s had the grip on the Proacs, think again. The power is frightening, but the Proacs can take it (at least the foam drivers of the Response 3s - fast). If you could borrow the NAP500, that would be great.
However, your Helikon might have too much gain with the added power. I had to replace my standard Helikon to the SL version.
However, your Helikon might have too much gain with the added power. I had to replace my standard Helikon to the SL version.
Posted on: 03 July 2003 by smiglass
Arun,
The Quads are a worthy listen! Gene Ruben endorses them as well. Even though David has had problems with my friends in Chicago, Ken and John, they ususally are on the money about their choices. Their setup, BTW, includes sub woofers, I think Rels, with settings at 50Hz and they use custom stands.
I agree with Joseph wholeheartedly and he makes the same point regarding the Lyra Helikon.
Anthony
The Quads are a worthy listen! Gene Ruben endorses them as well. Even though David has had problems with my friends in Chicago, Ken and John, they ususally are on the money about their choices. Their setup, BTW, includes sub woofers, I think Rels, with settings at 50Hz and they use custom stands.
I agree with Joseph wholeheartedly and he makes the same point regarding the Lyra Helikon.
Anthony