NAC282 vs NAC252 - Which is Best? Only One Way to Find Out. Fight!

nigelb posted:

Thanks FT. I remember you from the Sopra/250DR/300DR demo at that new dealer near Harlow. I very much enjoyed the day.

Hope you are well and maybe we'll meet up at another demo one day. Geez that makes us sound like anarchists!

Cheers

Nigel

Hi Nigel,

Indeed, a most enjoyable day and a thoroughly musical afternoon too.  

The combination of a 272, the DR technologies and the Sopra speakers together demonstrated how well Naim has re-discovered its musical mojo.

And at least 2 of the listeners that day has NAC52 & NAP135 amplifiers...

I was rather taken with that 300DR though...

See you at the next one!

Best regards, FT

Allante93 posted:

1st the garbage statement clearly states the 552 is supreme, I simply added to the garbage statement by acknowledging, it is powered by Naim's best PS. 

2nd the garbage statement clearly states that the 252 is slightly better than the 282. 

3rd The garbage statement states that the 282 is of poor value, because it is similar to the 202.

But to validate, that the statement is garbage. 

What is the difference between the 202, and the 282?

quite different is vague, what internal parts do they share? 

If they share 70% then similar, if 50% or less not similar. 

Simple Nigel, if two components share the 90% of the internal parts, then they should sound similar.

If two components don't have any internal parts in common they should sound different. 

That's all Nigel B. 

Example:  a regulated 250 should sound better than a non regulated 200, why they don't share the same internal parts. Simple!!!

Sorry English was not my Major!  Math ok, y = mx + b

x raised to the n + 1 divided by n + 1 , etc..

Simple logic, ok! 

Just food for thought! 

The Armchair QB!

 

 

I am not too interested in the internals of my gear, preferring to concentrate on the sound that emanates from it.

There is an argument that goes, the simpler the internals of an amplifier the better. The ideal of course being a straight wire with gain, one end attached to the source, the other to the speakers, nothing added, nothing taken away. So you could even argue that the amount on components and circuitry in an amplifier is inversely proportional to the sound quality it produces (y = -mx + c, I know you are good at Maths !). Indeed it would also be preferable to have a one box system and get rid of those pesky leads that always end up adding or subtracting something from the signal they convey.

So less is more? Well that of course over-simplifies things. We do unfortunately need an array of components and circuitry to get a sound out of our boxes. But so what of the internals of one box have similarities with the internals of its bigger brother. All that matters is the degree (and nature) of the improvement and the amount of cash you are being asked to pay for that improvement.

I can understand that those with a technical interest may wish to know how a particular level of SQ is produced from the hardware, but this is of little interest to me. I am a music lover so all I really care about is how close these black boxes get to the real thing. Simples!

Nigel,

I too enjoyed your posts and this is a path I have trodden myself. I did not have the advantage of a home demo for comparison and had to buy blind. If you prefer the 252 then your choice is correct. I am firmly in the 252 camp and can't understand how anyone could prefer the 282 but there are lots of variables. For me the 252 did everything better and calmed down my at the time CDX2/XPS source which could be glaring at times. Enjoy.

Dave

Posted by Nigel:

""l am not too interested in the internals of my gear, preferring to concentrate on the sound that emanates from it.""

Agreed, at the end of the end of the  day, all That matters is the Music!

Repeat, I have never heard a 252, nor a 552. Hence, I coin myself The Armchair QB.

Now The topic, which is best, 282 or 552?

Most would agree with the garbage Statement, The Forum, Simón, and yourself, that the 252 is an grown up version of The 282.

As pointed out, the gap is narowed when the 282 is  also paired with The SC DR!

But in the end, the minute differences of the internal componets would most likely, give the advantage to the 252!!!!!

I just joined the Forum last Year, and going on two years with Naim gear, if I had to do it again, I would have gone for the grown up 252! 

I took the Advice of the Forum, and went with The Hi Cap DR! 

If you recall at that time , it was:

282/Hi Cap DR. vs 252/SC

Was suppose to be a close Call!!!!

But I'm content:

Cdx2-282-HC DR-3 x 250.2-PMS Brik!

Didn't mean to rub you the wrong way!

BTW, not that good in Math forgot most of my Calculus!!! LOL

Enjoy your Music!!!!!!

But in closing, look at this detailed detailed comparison, given by Richard, Nice!

The context was differece between the Ndac & NDS internal dac!

Example:  Posted By Richard Dane:

"MDFdude posted:

 so nDAC = NDS DAC section ?

Yes, and no...  

much is shared, such as the selected Burr Brown PCM1704K DAC chips, 40bit Sharc processor etc.. and both have a fully discrete analogue output stage.  The NDS goes further with no internal PSU and the mass loaded suspended boards."

This is what I love about the Forum, Information and helping others!!!!

The Armchair QB!!!!!

yet source first still applies.

I did a comparison of my Chord Hugo vs another good digital source (non Naim, and I will not bother to mention which one), and the Hugo got the start and stopping of the Piano notes spot on, whereas on the other digital source, it was difficult to tell when the Piano note started and stopped.

It was game over for the other source as far as I was concerned.

And in my mind, no upgrade of the preamp all the way to 552 can recover what was not there to begin with.

Playing good Piano recordings on a digital source for me it a pretty good way to tell what is going on.

Allante93 posted:

 

Most would agree with the garbage Statement, The Forum, Simón, and yourself, that the 252 is an grown up version of The 282.

 

This is something my ears take issue with. I don't think the 282 and 252 are remotely similar. One sounds contrived and forced to me, the other sounds natural and effortless. It's not a case of more of the same, or the same but better. Regardless of what drives it or powers it, the gap between the 282 and 252 is for me a cross over point where magic happens. IMO the 152 and 252 are superb VFM points in the range and that which rests between them can easily be matched or bettered for less money.

But we all hear things different. And hear different things.

analogmusic posted:

yet source first still applies.

I did a comparison of my Chord Hugo vs another good digital source (non Naim, and I will not bother to mention which one), and the Hugo got the start and stopping of the Piano notes spot on, whereas on the other digital source, it was difficult to tell when the Piano note started and stopped.

It was game over for the other source as far as I was concerned.

And in my mind, no upgrade of the preamp all the way to 552 can recover what was not there to begin with.

Playing good Piano recordings on a digital source for me it a pretty good way to tell what is going on.

 

 

 

I'm not dug intractably into "source first" but I have been conditioned by experience to believe it over a long period of trial and occasionally error. I think other views of system hierarchy make for interesting discussion and need to be reviewed, but it strikes me as frequently a case of searching for something different to say for the sake of being different. 

You can't recover what is lost at source but you do need a good preamp to establish just what you do actually have.  I have come in my dotage to regard the pre as a kind of secondary source more than a downstream component. Or perhaps I'm just shaping my views to match my prejudices - which is after all only human.

Yes, I see the pre amp as a component who's main function is to preserve as much of the delicate signal as it emerges from the source, amplify it to a degree that it can be passed to the power amp while altering that original signal as little as possible in the process. As such you could consider a pre amp as a secondary part of the source. I certainly think of source and pre as a unit, indeed the new 272 is just that and possibly a validation of my view.

I must admit I am an old fashioned source-first man and this approach has always worked for me as I have upgraded. You simply cannot retrieve downstream anything that might be lost at source/pre amp stages. This is why I probably have a bit of a monkfish of a system at the moment. But monkfish are a bit of a delicacy IMHO even though they may not be the prettiest or popular of things.

 ... except that the pre-amp actually attenuates  the signal in a controllable way!

Indeed, as I said this is how I view a pre-amp's function and I completely accept that technically it is not entirely accurate.

However inaccurate my view, this view and approach to upgrading with a focus on source first (and I include the pre as part of the source - again inaccurate I know) has always worked for me. I have always upgraded the source and pre amp in advance of power amp and speakers in my system. In addition I have always paid attention to cables as a lot can be lost by simply hooking these components together. A necessary evil I know, but one that can be overlooked.

Happy listening.

I've found too that the preamp and source work hand in hand and that you really don't know how good your source is until you connect to a high-quality pre. The moment of revelation came when I hooked up my CDX to a no-holds barred preamp (the Linar P107) and everything that I hated about the CDX simply vanished, revealing a delicate, insightful and eminently listenable source. Not adjectives that I would have used for it previously. I still have the CDX (the swing door is just so... addictive) and use it as gauge of the quality of a preamp or the preamp section of integrated amps that come my way.

Jan

Dozey posted:

 ... except that the pre-amp actually attenuates  the signal in a controllable way!

Which can also be done in the digital domain by a DAC. If only it sounded as good as a good pre...

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

I've found too that the preamp and source work hand in hand and that you really don't know how good your source is until you connect to a high-quality pre. The moment of revelation came when I hooked up my CDX to a no-holds barred preamp (the Linar P107) and everything that I hated about the CDX simply vanished, revealing a delicate, insightful and eminently listenable source. Not adjectives that I would have used for it previously. I still have the CDX (the swing door is just so... addictive) and use it as gauge of the quality of a preamp or the preamp section of integrated amps that come my way.

Jan

Jan, I agree, the better the pre the more enjoyable most of your sources become. I used to be a source first advocate.. I am not now... It's a preamp first approach I now take.

Simon

but a preamp cannot add back what was never there...?

If the digital source cannot get the starting and stopping of piano notes properly, then how can any preamp remedy this fatal musical flaw?

analogmusic posted:

but a preamp cannot add back what was never there...?

Yep - but it can add a bit of 'character' - if that's your bag. 

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Jan-Erik Nordoen posted:

I've found too that the preamp and source work hand in hand and that you really don't know how good your source is until you connect to a high-quality pre. The moment of revelation came when I hooked up my CDX to a no-holds barred preamp (the Linar P107) and everything that I hated about the CDX simply vanished, revealing a delicate, insightful and eminently listenable source.

Jan

Jan, I agree, the better the pre the more enjoyable most of your sources become. I used to be a source first advocate.. I am not now... It's a preamp first approach I now take.

Simon

My gut feeling is that this is correct, although I have relatively little experience to back this up. What I don't understand is how certain people North of the border seem to disagree with this approach and appear to be doing quite well without selling analogue preamps. 

Can't answer that.. But I have never completely enjoyed the sound of Linn compared to Naim... so that is probably why I have my preamp first approach..

analogmusic posted:

but a preamp cannot add back what was never there...?

If the digital source cannot get the starting and stopping of piano notes properly, then how can any preamp remedy this fatal musical flaw?

Quite right, but it can reveal what you never knew was there before, because you never heard it before.  That's what the 552 does so jaw-droppingly well...  There's more to music than the stops and starts, I'm sure you'll agree. I found this with great delight when I first plugged a 552 in front of a NAP300 (coming from a 252).

The role of the preamp :

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...mplifier-how-crucial

I very much enjoyed your excellent write-up, Nigel, and recognised many of the traits you described. It sounds to me as if you've made exactly the right choice for you and I hope it gives you a great deal of pleasure.

Mike 

Harry posted:

Allante93 posted:

 

Most would agree with the garbage Statement, The Forum, Simón, and yourself, that the 252 is an grown up version of The 282.

 

This is something my ears take issue with.I don't think the 282 and 252 are remotely similar. One sounds contrived and forced to me, the other sounds natural and effortless. It's not a case of more of the same, or the same but better. Regardless of what drives it or powers it, the gap between the 282 and 252 is for me a cross over point where magic happens. IMO the 152 and 252 are superb VFM points in the range and that which rests between them can easily be matched or bettered for less money.

But we all hear things different. And hear different things.

Harry here's the garbage statement:

""Naim NAC282 The Naim NAC282 is poor value, but still popular, this is largely a NAC202 with the ability to add a second HiCap. Not much else is different in real terms except some marginal improvements in earthing arrangements. Optimum configuration is two HiCaps and a NAPSC. From £1500 second hand.

 Naim NAC252 As far as comparisons go with the NAC252 and NAC52 they ought to be similar, but they sound quite different.It's a long way off a NAC552 and not a massive improvement over a NAC282. Again, the ability to power this unit from a SuperCap is the secret, giving it far more individual supply rails raises the performance of an other similar design. Optimal configuration is with a SuperCap PSU. From £2,000 second hand.

Naim NAC552 Naim's outstanding product of the moment.""

Harry some have mentioned that they don't think the 252 is miles apart from the 552, right here on this very post, what is your thoughts on that ?

And if I'm clear, from your experience the 252 is not remotely similar to the 282, just flat out better, Correct ? 

If the Answer is yes to the latter question, then there's another vote for the 252 ! 

Just curious what was driving, and powering the magical 252 ?

Always nice to get different views!!!

The Armchair QB

Allante93,

Might I respectfully suggest that, if you want answers about the Naim pre amp range, you spend a bit more time listening to them (any decent dealer will lend you one to try - say a 252) and a bit less time regurgitating ill-informed nonesense from t'internet. You will then be far better informed as the only reliable source of information is your own ears.

nigelb posted:

Allante93,

Might I respectfully suggest that, if you want answers about the Naim pre amp range, you spend a bit more time listening to them (any decent dealer will lend you one to try - say a 252) and a bit less time regurgitating ill-informed nonesense from t'internet. You will then be far better informed as the only reliable source of information is your own ears.

Sorry to upset, you with my nonsense.

That was not my intentions!

Enjoy your Music !

Nigelb.

May 2016 suit you Well!

The Armchair QB!

Out!!!!

The closest you can get to a 552 without spending all that money is with a Nait-2 into speakers that it can drive in a smallish room and not too high a volume.

Barring that, you can try a Nac72 into a HiCapDR into a modern amp. Also sounds sublime - again that has more in common with a 552 than the 282 does. You won't get all that detail, and will have tons of stuff that is missing, but it'll still get to the heart of the music.

When I sold off my 282 and was waiting for the 552 to come in, I was running the Nac 72 - and after a short period of adjustment, really didn't miss the 282 at all. That's awesome for a $500 preamp.

The Nac72, for a very short period, was the top of the line Naim preamp, after all.

The 282 does't sound anything like a 202.

Anyway, that's all water under the bridge.

The 272/250DR is a killer system. :-)

Interesting that no one has mentioned the role of the power amp and speakers in this. When discussing the characteristics of the 282 vs. a 252 I don't think a 282 wins over a 252 where the power amp and speakers are up to revealing the nuances that the 252 lets through.

In scenarios where the power amp and speakers may already provide a laid back combination, that slightly energetic quality that seems to be associated with the 282 may make a better balance in that system - but that's not the same as it being a better preamp.

I remeber the old 82/52 days when trying to sell these two preamps, the 52 would really outshine an 82 hands down provided everything downstream of it was up to the challenge. Take the power amp and speakers down a few notches and you could be forgiven for preferring the 82. I'm happy to be shouted down on this but I don't see any reason why 282/252 would be any different in this respect.

I know full well a 252 is better. But the main thing holding me back is whether it will be better in my system. So far my 20.23s have responded well to being the cheapest part of the system but will they show that a 252 in the chain is superior or not is another matter.