The NAPSC is bloody marvellous!
Posted by: david needham on 15 August 2003
I've just spent a fascinating afternoon listening to upgrades to my sistem.
Currently I have:
CD5/flatcap2/202/200 into Rogers Ls6a2's
First thing that was done was to add the NAPSC to the 202. F**k me! Why haven't I done this before? It was as though someone had pulled a blanket away. Better definition, piles more PRAT, vocals further forwards. If anything my reservations about the reference range is that the presentation is a little laid back compared to my old 62/140. Not so with the 202/NAPSC/200. Tracy Chapman's Mountains o' Things never sounded so vibrant to me.
Next up, replace the FC2 with a Hicap. Definately an improvement, but not as big a leap as the NAPSC - and four times the cost! Certainly details were more clearly defined, and the space around instruments more obvious. And yes, even more or the PRAT thing.
The next thing was to replace the CD5 with a CDX2. Oh dear! Another jaw drop moment! Here was me thinking my aging Rogers speakers might be the weak link in my sistem and not be up to the job, and then they fill the demo room with such music ! (I took them along with me). If ever I doubted "source first" I don't any more. The difference between it and the CD5/cap? Just more of everything really - More detail, more PRAT, better soundstage, better presence, just....better!
Next I had a listen to the CDX2 with the XPS2. Things are starting to get expensive now - over £2k for this bit of kit. Whilst it certainly did tighten things up and make for a more exiting presentation, I wasn't convinced that it offered VFM.
Finally the XPS2 was removed and the FC2 brought back out. This time however it was used on the 202 instead of the CD5. I must admit I'd not been impressed with the improvements the FC2 brought to the 202 in my home system. Worth the cost of the extra SNAIC, but not much to write home about. However without having to power both the CD5 and the 202, it was a different story. Much more musical and involving. Certainly as big a difference as adding the FC2 to the CD5 when I first bought the sistem.
Conclusions:
The NAPSC transforms the 202 to such a degree that anyone with a 202/200 would be crazy not to check it out.
The CDX2 out performs the CD5, even with a hicap (surprise!), and is IMHO easily worth the extra few hundred quid over that combo.
Although the FC2 can power two pieces of kit, it doesn't seem able to do two jobs without a noticable reduction in performance.
All that's left is to wait for my CDx2/NAPSC to arrive. I can barely wait!
David
Currently I have:
CD5/flatcap2/202/200 into Rogers Ls6a2's
First thing that was done was to add the NAPSC to the 202. F**k me! Why haven't I done this before? It was as though someone had pulled a blanket away. Better definition, piles more PRAT, vocals further forwards. If anything my reservations about the reference range is that the presentation is a little laid back compared to my old 62/140. Not so with the 202/NAPSC/200. Tracy Chapman's Mountains o' Things never sounded so vibrant to me.
Next up, replace the FC2 with a Hicap. Definately an improvement, but not as big a leap as the NAPSC - and four times the cost! Certainly details were more clearly defined, and the space around instruments more obvious. And yes, even more or the PRAT thing.
The next thing was to replace the CD5 with a CDX2. Oh dear! Another jaw drop moment! Here was me thinking my aging Rogers speakers might be the weak link in my sistem and not be up to the job, and then they fill the demo room with such music ! (I took them along with me). If ever I doubted "source first" I don't any more. The difference between it and the CD5/cap? Just more of everything really - More detail, more PRAT, better soundstage, better presence, just....better!
Next I had a listen to the CDX2 with the XPS2. Things are starting to get expensive now - over £2k for this bit of kit. Whilst it certainly did tighten things up and make for a more exiting presentation, I wasn't convinced that it offered VFM.
Finally the XPS2 was removed and the FC2 brought back out. This time however it was used on the 202 instead of the CD5. I must admit I'd not been impressed with the improvements the FC2 brought to the 202 in my home system. Worth the cost of the extra SNAIC, but not much to write home about. However without having to power both the CD5 and the 202, it was a different story. Much more musical and involving. Certainly as big a difference as adding the FC2 to the CD5 when I first bought the sistem.
Conclusions:
The NAPSC transforms the 202 to such a degree that anyone with a 202/200 would be crazy not to check it out.
The CDX2 out performs the CD5, even with a hicap (surprise!), and is IMHO easily worth the extra few hundred quid over that combo.
Although the FC2 can power two pieces of kit, it doesn't seem able to do two jobs without a noticable reduction in performance.
All that's left is to wait for my CDx2/NAPSC to arrive. I can barely wait!
David
well I guess that is way you are not !
...Max, I also know what you would do to the NAP 300
Just keep the power flowing sir....
...Max, I also know what you would do to the NAP 300 Just keep the power flowing sir....