Is 202/200/Hicap DR Comparable To 202/200 DR ?

A Rather significant improvement ...you seem Rather confused mate..

IT s that easy:Any hicap on preamp is a Rather significant upgrade.

be it Dr (better)or not.

so option three.

Yes, I am confused and for this reason I seek experiences from those who have compared all.

Okay, so 202/200/Hicap DR is a higher level amp when compared to the 202/200 DR. Correct?

What about the 202/200/ Hicap DR and 202/200 DR/ Hicap DR? Will both these amps sound more or less the same?

My understanding was that a 200DR is unnecessary if you have a HC DR as the 200 in the latter arrangement is running off the HC DR! This is based on the material put out by Naim when the 200 DR was launched. Why would there be why difference between 3 and 4?

I'm happy to be corrected on this point.

There are some minor improvements to the internal layout of the 200DR according to Naim. I very much doubt these changes justify the cost of a 200DR with a Hicap, given that you could pick up a decent 200 for maybe half the price.

ryder. posted:

What about the 202/200/ Hicap DR and 202/200 DR/ Hicap DR? Will both these amps sound more or less the same?

No. In theory, any preamp with it's own dedicated power supply should be much better than a power supply originating from the power amp.

But if you can try it, do. A lot of thought went into the preamp DC feed on the 200. How close a 200DR brings it to the performance of an external HC, and whether a HC is worth the money, only your ears can decide. I'd be inclined to live with a 202/200DR for a while and see how you feel.

Thanks for the responses. To clarify, I already have the 202/200 and the Hicap DR is due to arrive by end of the month. Although the Hicap DR is meant for the 282/250 DR (which I also have), it may be used with the 202/200 depending on the results. Currently a non-Naim PSU is being used with the 282/200.

It appears that the 200 DR may not bring much to the 202/200/Hicap DR. If that's the case, I presume it is not worthwhile to replace the 200 with the 200 DR (in a 202/200/Hicap DR system)

That's almost impossible for others to answer for you, But how about this:

1. HCDR on the 282
2. Device that shall not be named on the 202
3. Sit back and enjoy the music.

Antonio1 posted:

so option three.

Wah-hey!! Ryder, I've come out on the winning side in one of your lists. Makes my day!

Please let us know how NAC282, unmentionable PS and NAP250 compares with NAC202, HCDR and NAP200.

Chris

I would be interested in losing my HC DR as that would enable my system to reduce to one column of Hutter. A part ex of my 200 and the HC DR for a 200 DR would be ideal. However, I've yet to see anyone address my earlier point, which was that what I thought Naim had said was that if you have a HC DR you don't need a 200 DR as the former overrides the DR in the 200. If this were to be the case then surely any reported superiority of the 200 DR would need to derive from something other than the DR element to make the change worthwhile? Comments please.

For the benefit of Ryder it's worth nothing that I currently have 200/202/NAPSC/HC DR with a Powerline on the 200 as I didn't see any great gains from adding them on each box and, having experimented, I found that the gain of one on the 200 was greater than when it was on the 202.

My original HC 2 was faulty and it was as easy to upgrade as it was to repair. However, I've mixed feelings on the HC DR. Yes, the noise floor is lower. There is a consequent increase in detail which is initially impressive and quite compelling. However, front to back imaging flattens/compresses slightly and everything is a tad drier. Reverb tails are more brutal and so on. If that floats your boat then fair enough but having heard a SC DR and a 300 DR at a friends I have heard those exact effects replicated in a different Naim system to mine.

It's a bizarre old world where we generally accept that all upgrades involve trade offs except Naim upgrades!!!

However, I've yet to see anyone address my earlier point, which was that what I thought Naim had said was that if you have a HC DR you don't need a 200 DR as the former overrides the DR in the 200.

Correct in that the DR element of the 200DR only supplies the 202.

G

Thanks Graham. That's what I was trying to articulate. 

I've been looking to reduce box count without compromising sound quality and this is looking realistic. Time to contact my dealer and arrange a comparative demo as I would imagine there are other presentational differences between my 8 year old 200 and a new 200 DR regardless of the DR element. 

I wouldn't lose the Hicap merely to reduce to one stack. You'll find other compromises - the CDX2 is much better if kept well away from its power supply. 

Mike Hughes posted:

I would be interested in losing my HC DR as that would enable my system to reduce to one column of Hutter. A part ex of my 200 and the HC DR for a 200 DR would be ideal. However, I've yet to see anyone address my earlier point, which was that what I thought Naim had said was that if you have a HC DR you don't need a 200 DR as the former overrides the DR in the 200. If this were to be the case then surely any reported superiority of the 200 DR would need to derive from something other than the DR element to make the change worthwhile? Comments please.

For the benefit of Ryder it's worth nothing that I currently have 200/202/NAPSC/HC DR with a Powerline on the 200 as I didn't see any great gains from adding them on each box and, having experimented, I found that the gain of one on the 200 was greater than when it was on the 202.

My original HC 2 was faulty and it was as easy to upgrade as it was to repair. However, I've mixed feelings on the HC DR. Yes, the noise floor is lower. There is a consequent increase in detail which is initially impressive and quite compelling. However, front to back imaging flattens/compresses slightly and everything is a tad drier. Reverb tails are more brutal and so on. If that floats your boat then fair enough but having heard a SC DR and a 300 DR at a friends I have heard those exact effects replicated in a different Naim system to mine.

It's a bizarre old world where we generally accept that all upgrades involve trade offs except Naim upgrades!!!

Mike, try the powerline on the hicap- might sound better- david

david

Hungryhalibut posted:

I wouldn't lose the Hicap merely to reduce to one stack. You'll find other compromises - the CDX2 is much better if kept well away from its power supply. 

I agree. It currently looks as per the below 

                              CDX2

_____                     ______

HC 2 DR                202

_____                      ______

XPS2

_____                      ______

200

If the lower 2 boxes on the left move to the right, and they've been that close previously when everything was on a very tall single column, I don't recall there being any massive change.

David, 

My previous post lacked clarity. I have one PL and tried it on each box in turn for about a month or more at a time. It always goes back on the 200. 

Mike, my preference for use of a single powerline was also on the 200.  The second went on the XPS as putting it on the hicap(2) instead resulted in a comparatively lean sound. After 2 years and fairly recently I added a third PL; to the hicap - improving timing, but at the same time giving a similar effect to the initial PL on the 200 -  more weight and energy coming through (hard to describe, but somehow too much, and becoming a bit overbearing at times).  So I had a couple of home demos of the DR-Hicap, and this seemed to put the system back into balance, restoring a sense of calm and order (all result of lower noise floor I think).   No loss of 'musical integrity' more detail and deeper and tighter bass, yes.  My hicap has gone away for the DR upgrade, so hopefully this will work out in the long term.  Initially I was sceptical about powerlines, but the effects are cumulative and fairly substantial IMO. Just thought I'd throw my experiences into the mix also! 

Socket wise I don't have the option of 3 but I agree entirely with your analysis of the impacts on individual boxes. I was just never convinced of the impacts of having them on all boxes at my level. It was indeed overbearing. Exposing limitations rather than exploiting strengths if you like. It's a bit like a 555 PS on a CDX2. Some swear by it. I just heard too much of the negatives of the CDX2. Balance is everything.

Anyway, back on topic. Anyone think I'm losing anything by looking to replace the 200 and HC 2 DR with a 200 DR?

Mike, I believe the 200 and 200 DR have a single powersupply feed for the NAC. The HiCap has two powersupply feeds, one for each channel of the NAC. So yes you might loose something, but perhaps make some gains from the simplified wiring? I am afraid you will have to listen to decide whether it works for you.

Good point. I'll have to listen. A chat with my dealer is in order. I tend to agree with his take on how Naim stuff works.

Ooh the hardship Simon

Nothing to be afraid of. Something to look forward to.

Exactly Mike - enjoy the trip & the discovery - if hi-fi is a hobby (which by definition is meant to be enjoyed), why do we spend so much time wringing our hands?

And at the end, enjoy the music, because that is the main hobby IMHO.

Not upgraded for a good few years. A dem won't kill me and if it wit is and there's a good part ex deal on the table then who knows.

It seems a bit unlikely that the DR section in a NAP200 could power a pre as well as a Hicap, but there are other minor differences according to the Naim web page:

"The NAP 200 has been revitalised and reintroduced in 2015 with the addition of a Naim Audio DR (Discrete Regulator) module to power its partnered Naim Audio preamplifier. This comes alongside small improvements to some internal componentry and layout that combine to lift its musical performance even further than the original."

I haven't done the 200/200DR comparison myself, just listened to the 200DR and bought it. Let us know how you get on.