Flatness of NAC 202 vs NAC 282's Dynamic Spotlit Nature

Hi to everyone I ran nac 202 with a nap 250,2  for nearly two years and it sounded fantastic I was powering it with a supercap 2 .

nigelb posted:

Interesting stuff and this is a clear demonstration of why demos of the entire intended system are so important, particularly amplification and speaker (and room) matching.

The particular example of the 202/282/Dali Mentor Minuets is a great example of why, as James so eloquently puts it, the 'better' amplifier is not necessarily the 'best' choice. Another example is the how opinions divide over the 282 vs 252, with some actually preferring the 282 over the 252. But I would suggest that Ryder's example is more a reflection on the speakers rather than the pre amp, and it is the speakers that are the 'limiting factor' here. It just goes to show that 'upgrading' can be a tricky business and one has to consider the impact of changing one component has on all the remaining components.

An excellent example Ryder of the care needed when attempting to 'improve' our rigs.

Nigel, being somewhat  familiar with the the 282/HiCapD & SuperCapD and the 252DR with various systems, my conclusion is  on lesser speakers and amps the 282 can sound more attractive than the 252 as it has more fizz and sparkle colour. On more revealing speakers/rooms and amps the 252 transforms itself into the class it is, enjoying details and performance with its clarity and transparency that are just hinted at or obscured with the 282. It's what I call the Mandelbrot effect and if you talk to Naim it's what they expect as well from a design point of view and their higher end seperates  DNA, it's no accident ... just like the differences between the 202 and 282, 252 and 552 and the N-Preamps and the seperates. 

If you ever get a chance, I thoroughly recommend a visit to Naim and talk with some of their senior people if you can...it really does explain a lot of what you experience, it did for me at least.

To your point it shows matching is so important and it is quite easy to get out of system balance.

'It's what I call the Mandelbrot effect' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set

Do - explain more - please.

Hi Ian, I did on a couple of recent threads on the forum, but in summary it's the ability to listen into the music recording being replayed and listen into detail or nuance within the recording rather than just listening to a resultant presentation of the recording as a whole. It's like at an acoustic concert, you will, or certainly I find myself, listening to a particular instrument and listening to how it's being played, the musicians style, characteristics of that instrument, how it interacts to the instruments around it and then I will notice another sound or instrument and listen into that... whilst all along I am appreciating the aggregate of all the musicians with the resultant sound and performance.

Therefore it's the ability to listen in and find more detail, which you can listen further into..it makes the replay become alive and ceases to be a homogenous recording. For me this makes recorded music infectious and interesting to listen to.. I would quickly bore otherwise once I had heard a track or album more than a couple of times.

The Mandelbrot set can be visualised as set of never ending similar but varying details/patterns around the edge of infinity and fixed values within the set. You can zoom into these details in a never ending fashion... clearly in audio replay there is a relatively low limit to the extent you can zoom in but it illustrates the point.

Interesting thread and thanks Ryder for the details, doesn't surprise me that much.

As some of you know who have read my other posts, on retirement I treated myself to a mullet system putting B&W 803D3 speakers on the end of my 202/Hicap(non-DR) and 200(non-DR) ... it was great.

I am lucky in that I have funds that are not needed elsewhere and therefore have further treated myself to a 250DR ... great has gone to wonderful.

Note the 202 is still there and it is a real question to me as to whether I am going to upgrade further ... the diminishing returns in terms of SQ vs cost starts to get somewhat extreme in my view at this point.

The 202 is a real performer IMO in terms of what I'm hearing with the rest of the kit; OK I haven't compared it (yet) to other pres but I certainly am not sitting listning and going "oh that bass is not quite right", "where is the detail", etc. etc. - I am just enjoying the sound it produces.

IMO the 202 is perfectly capable of feeding the 250DR and the 803D3 speakers; but then I thought the 200 was also perfectly capable of driving the 803D3's too - so what do I know, maybe I have cloth ears.

Yep, of course it could be better but then so could everything until you get up to 500 level (or Statement if you live on another planet) ... and even then there might be something better, mightn't there ?

I will be making my mind up in the new year and whether I upgrade or not I will be extremely happy with my system and enjoy listning to my music, no doubts, no "what ifs".

For goodness sake, I won't let anyone tell me I have not been enjoying my music for the last 45 years and some of that listning was on pretty ropey equipment

Allan

Simon-In-Sulfolk - Thank you. I recognise the effect you describe, but not the name, Mandlebrot. This effect - of being able to pick out, or notice details, that you previously were not aware of, in a recording you thought you knew well, is something I have long known. Its something I would expect any upgrade to deliver, to some degree. Better Naim boxes certainly generally do this - but an individual may or may not like the result. To some, the lesser details may be more attractive, perhaps....?

Personally, moving from a 102 to an 82 certainly showed this - and I would be fairly confident that the 202 to 282 change would be similar. But, some may prefer the 102/202 version of things - as some still love what the 72 did & still does.

The greater detail can make everything more interesting - there is just 'more music' - you can identify the instruments being played better. After about 40 years of listening to some recordings,  on various systems, they now make more sense - or are more impressive - now I can work out so much better, whats being played & by who...!

PS. Here is a Mandlebrot Set on an album cover....

Allan Milne posted:

 

Interesting thread and thanks Ryder for the details, doesn't surprise me that much.

 

As some of you know who have read my other posts, on retirement I treated myself to a mullet system putting B&W 803D3 speakers on the end of my 202/Hicap(non-DR) and 200(non-DR) ... it was great.

 

I am lucky in that I have funds that are not needed elsewhere and therefore have further treated myself to a 250DR ... great has gone to wonderful.

Note the 202 is still there and it is a real question to me as to whether I am going to upgrade further ... the diminishing returns in terms of SQ vs cost starts to get somewhat extreme in my view at this point.

 

The 202 is a real performer IMO in terms of what I'm hearing with the rest of the kit; OK I haven't compared it (yet) to other pres but I certainly am not sitting listning and going "oh that bass is not quite right", "where is the detail", etc. etc. - I am just enjoying the sound it produces.

 

IMO the 202 is perfectly capable of feeding the 250DR and the 803D3 speakers; but then I thought the 200 was also perfectly capable of driving the 803D3's too - so what do I know, maybe I have cloth ears.

 

Yep, of course it could be better but then so could everything until you get up to 500 level (or Statement if you live on another planet) ... and even then there might be something better, mightn't there ?

 

I will be making my mind up in the new year and whether I upgrade or not I will be extremely happy with my system and enjoy listning to my music, no doubts, no "what ifs".

For goodness sake, I won't let anyone tell me I have not been enjoying my music for the last 45 years and some of that listning was on pretty ropey equipment

 

Allan

Allan, it sounds like you are in a good place with 'no doubts and no what ifs'. Whilst you are enjoying your system and the music it makes so much I would be very hesitant to attempt an 'upgrade'. As we have already seen on this thread, a so called logical upgrade does not always satisfy. You also have to be very clear on what it is you wish to satisfy when the upgrade bug attacks.

My advice, as long as you are loving the music, stick where you are. Upgradeitis is a terrible affliction and the 'cure' might not work.

I am back on my main speakers, the Harbeth SHL5plus. Currently running NAC 202 / Hicap DR / NAP 250 DR / NAPSC. Will  replace the NAC 202 with the NAC 282 tomorrow to revalidate my experience (the NAC 282 sounds better than the NAC 202 with the Harbeth).

Allan, I have nothing much to add here and pretty much agree with what Nigel has said. From my limited experience with the NAC 202 and NAC 282, I can somehow relate to the great synergy between the NAC 202 and the B&W 803D3 having owned the CDM 1SE and N805. The NAC 202 is more neutral, less forward and/or dynamic than the NAC 282. In other words, less sparkle and fireworks with the NAC 202. For these reasons the NAC 202 might have been a great match with the forward, detailed and dynamic sounding B&Ws. Nobody would know how the NAC 282 might fit in, or whether too much of good thing will be a good thing.

Again, I would follow Nigel's advice. Stick where you are if you derive a lot of enjoyment from the system. This upgradeitis never ends once you are at it.

thanks for this guys,

I really am on the fence about this and it won't be resolved until I demo the upgrades on my list but the fall-back position is no upgrade - significant increases in SQ will require to be heard for the kind of money being spent.

This is not really upgradeitis since this is the move to my final system.

Enjoy playing with the pre/power amps and hope you get the combination that sound right for you,

Allan

Thanks Allan.

Just switched from the NAC 202 the NAC 282. As I have expected, the NAC 282 matches well with the Harbeth speakers.

My findings are the Dali Mentor Menuet does not match well with the spotlit NAC 282. I have checked out a review of the Mentor Menuets (SonicFlare) and it does appear that the speakers do not appreciate forward sounding amps. The summary of the review as follows:-

The Bad : They can sound overly aggressive in the treble when paired with forward sounding electronics.

That explains the unnatural sound I am getting with the Dalis when it is matched with the NAC 282. In my system, I do not find the treble of the Dalis to be aggressive with the 282. Rather, I find the tonal quality of instruments particularly piano to sound different between the NAC 202 and NAC 282. The pitch of the piano sounds higher with the NAC 282 which translates to a brighter sound. I find the tone of the piano with the NAC 282 to be unnatural. With the NAC 202, the pitch of the piano is lower, not as bright and hence sound more right or natural.

With the Harbeth loudspeakers, the tone of the piano does not sound overly forward or unnatural with the NAC 282 (I am currently listening to this system while typing this). The Harbeth is overall superior and more natural sounding speakers than the forward and spotlit Dali speakers. The Harbeth sounds duller with the NAC 202.

From this comparison I am able to deduce, yet again that component matching particularly the amp-speaker interface is very important. The quality of a single component is only as good as the whole assembled system.

Allan Milne posted:

I really am on the fence about this and it won't be resolved until I demo the upgrades on my list but the fall-back position is no upgrade - significant increases in SQ will require to be heard for the kind of money being spent.

This is not really upgradeitis since this is the move to my final system.

An hicap DR makes the 202/200 pair a very, very good sounding system. Almost a revelation.

So touch hat It doesn't astound me at all the success of NAC 202 / Hicap DR / NAP 250 DR in certain settings, as always ears are righter than isolated comments (though not saying at all they are to dismiss). This is a very interesting founding.

In the right system which means paired to good sounding speakers it could be a great place to hung your hat.

Nevertheless 282 is excellent ,much better, but  would ruthless expose any mismatch along the chain .

Unless you're really made up your mind on very capable partners either 202 hicapDR 200 or 250 would be an interesting choice.

They're people here quite satisfied with  272/250 and 202/hicap DR is another league, really.