Ok so I tried a 252 and I'm not sure what to make of it.

Ok, so I've had too much red wine and I'm currently listening to Blue Nile at too high as volume for the time of day, but I have to say 72/hicap/140 has never disappointed!! Music that invades the soul! Why pay more?? And yes - this is in jest, but with my budget I simply don't want to hear anything else! I've found my ideal system, and I'm happy to live with this long term. I tinker with source upgrades when funds allow but it's the music that really matters. Enjoy your journey and audition as much as you can but don't stress about minor differences. Have fun!!!

282 has bass and treble emphasis and tends to over saturation. This might be exactly what is needed for some systems and rooms. The overall balance may be very good. And of course, none of us can listen through someone else's ears. If it works, great. If it doesn't there are good alternatives.

252 tends to neutral. It's going to suit some but not everyone. Way of the world. If you don't get its virtues for whatever reason, much money is saved. I don't think that the 252 has peers. But I'm biased. 

analogmusic posted:

I mean 282 has been described as "exubertant" with CDX2, but 252 with this source is more neutral.

I wonder what would be the outcome with a more neutral source like a Chord Hugo TT with a 282 vs 252?

FWIW I have compared Hugo with 552 and 282, I don't find 282 to be exuberant, but I myself do find Naim source to be exubertant. Apologies to those who own Naim sources. 

I recently tried a coldplay song "a message". On Hugo the guitar sounds about right to my ears musically, but on UQ as a source into my 282, yes there was an energy in the guitar, which didn't really sound right to my ears.  

Hence my question. I did plan to get the Vinyl to understand what the song really sounds like, but then the phono stage may or may not have a "naim" voicing. 

I do find Hugo "version" of songs to more closely match Vinyl.

Also, what I did find is that 552 is able to extract a lot more finer detail compared to 282 due to lower noise floor.

The interpretation of the term "exuberant" can be a good or bad one. Good if it's dynamic and lively, giving music a breath of fresh air. Bad if the presentation is too forceful and tiring as some have pointed out. It's all relative as the NAC 282 is more exuberant when compared to the flatter sounding (more neutral?) NAC 202, or perhaps the NAC 252. Neutrality can be also interpreted as good or bad. In the end it's all relative. A dynamic, exuberant, lively, tiring and forceful sound, or a neutral, detailed, flat and dull sound.

Or it can be case of listening preference / system matching. Some folks like the presentation of the NAC 282 / Supercap while some are more at home with the NAC 282 / Hicap, citing the former to sound more relentless or tiring.  (bearing in mind loudspeakers are not brought into the mix yet).

You brought up an interesting point on source matching. May I ask what Naim source is it that made the NAC 282 sound more exuberant than the Chord Hugo. My experience with the Chord QBD76 mirrors yours as well although you own the Hugo. I have said this before - the QBD76 DAC sounds like analog. Well, it may be an exaggeration but it does sound close to analog, It doesn't have the hardness that is often associated with most digital sources that possess razor-sharp detail.

I listen to a lot of acoustic music mainly acoustic guitars and pianos. All these instruments sound great on the NAC 282 (and Chord QBD76). At times I disconnected the QBD76 from the system to see how much I am missing without the Chord. Music lost the sophistication and refinement, sounding a little hard (digital) through my Krell CD player. The Chord DAC certainly plays music differently. The differences are mainly at the frequency extremes, the bass and treble. The sound of the percussion is different between the Chord and Krell. With the Chord it sounds more natural and the decay is also different. Percussion sounds a bit unrealistic with the Krell, sounding a bit hard or steely.

"Don't buy anything unless it blows your skirt up."

"Well maybe.

Having your skirt constantly blown up can get tiresome. What I am trying to say is that an initially 'impressive' component can become overbearing".

That's fair comment Nigel. What I was getting at is that the audition of a potential upgrade at a dealership or at home should have one thinking - "Wow!; yes I love it and want it" as opposed to "Well, it's a lot of money and I'm not sure".

John.

For me the 252 allows you to hear your music as opposed to hear your preamp, and that is its biggest benefit, it gets you closer to the music and emotion without adding too much of its own. However it does add a certain Naim character none the less and compared to say driving a Naim NAP from another vendor preamp there is a clear benefit (to my ears).

So the wow should be about, in my opinion,  hearing the music in a way that's get you closer for immersive listening that just stops your dead andpotentially raises those hairs on the back of your neck rather than the impressive wow you can get from a contoured presentation you might get from many higher end car stereos.... but if the 252 doesn't get you closer, and I mean massively closer, to your music it's clearly not the right preamp for you... I am sure  that there will be those that find the new Uniti Nova gets them closest to the music and the desire to move 'up' the portfolio is diminished.... and a prototype Nova I heard sounded very good indeed.

For me it's not dissimilar to the 552, I can clearly hear what it is doing immensely well, but it doesn't get me significantly closer to my music over my 252  and so the urge to trade up has subsided... but until the 252 it was quite an itch for me.... and as a consequence I did pass on a used 552 that came available for a reasonably affordable price... 

However how we hear music is subjective, these devices are not totally neutral whether it be speakers, DACs, preamps or power amps and so will vary from user to user... there is no absolute truth whether it be for the 282, 252, 552, Statement.. its about what works best for you.

Hi Ryder, I borrowed a Unitiqute to try as a source into my 282. On some rock/dance songs it has that Naim interpretation of music which is very attractive. 

I'm still not very convinced that 282 is exubertant, this character depends on the source, speakers, system cables. I don't find 282 has too much bass and treble (if it where the case, my Dynaudio speakers which like ATC have a pro-studio background and therefore are neutral would let me know), it sounds about right to me.

What I did find is that as you go up the range, the amount of detail retrieval goes up, soundstage increases and that is what  I should expect to get more of with 252.

However I recently discovered that even a 172 can portray a massive soundstage with a source like Chord Dave, and CD555 and Linn KDS/1 also similarly have excellent imageing and big huge soundstages too.

When I did try KDS/1 in my 202/200 it was excellent with a big soundstage, but on 282/250DR, KDS/1 sounds bigger. 

So back to what I am saying, everything has to be matched together, and I don't quite agree with the discussion of a 252 vs 282 without discussing the source context.

As you discovered your QBD76 sounds analog like and fluid (it was designed to be) compared to your other CD player which sounds hard. Now if you were taking this thread very seriously and did not own the QBD76, you might have been tempted to upgrade to a 252DR to soften up your other CD player.

About 252 letting you hear music or the preamp, yes I have heard this from other 282 to 252 upgraders, but after comparing with 552/500, I still don't find 282/HCDR/250DR to impose itself on the music any different than a 552/500.

282 is a 4200 GBP preamp, and with Hicap 1300 GBP, which is 5500 GBP preamp. If it played slow songs too fast, it would be quite disappointing, but luckily to my ears, musically it is just right.

Soundstage is often mentioned in hifi terms, its not everything and not that important imo, it seem many raise this issue firstly on their list

Ok if its on the record but false too large laid back stage is not my cup, often this effect bring you a boring presentation

Much prefer correct timbre, dynamic, tonal balance, involvement and prat

Go to a small jazz pub session, room is not large, crowded with people, musicians are propped into a corner, what sense does "soundstage mean to you? No its about atmosphere

Going to a classical concert, sitting midway from orchestra, violins on left, a bit soundstage is needed, going up on first row its very much upfront/dynamic and not laid back at all, going on last row way back soundstage term makes no sense really

I cannot agree more b. I learned over time with attending live music (I go to jazz clubs once or twice a week and to classical concerts once a quarter) that there is nothing really as such as large depth of soundstage in particular for amplified instruments.  

As for the 252, unless I have missed it earlier in this thread, it should be recalled that while more detailed and refined than the 282, its presentation is somewhat recessed or backward whereas the 282's is more forward. Hence the possible impression of dullness fir some if in unbalanced systems. The synergy with the 300, possibly even more than with the 300DR, makes it very often more enviable then for the reproduction of classical music than for playing pop/rock music.   

Chag -

Chag... posted:

As for the 252, unless I have missed it earlier in this thread, it should be recalled that while more detailed and refined than the 282, its presentation is somewhat recessed or backward whereas the 282's is more forward.

I consider it more a case of neutral and unforced. If one is accustomed to having a more "in your face" presentation the 252 might not suit. The 300 has grip and musicality unavailable below its price point in the Naim range. It doesn't swagger or show off. Again, this won't suit everyone.

Hi Analogmusic, thanks. So it is a Unitiqute that was compared to the Chord Hugo. As for comments on the exuberance of the NAC 282, similarly I do think it depends on MANY factors, not only the source but speakers, cables, loudspeakers and even the room and setup which can affect the sound in a big way. All these variables will inevitably contribute to the impressions of the said components (NAC 282 and NAC 252), and since every system is mostly different there will discrepancies.

In my system, the NAC 282 sounds just right. I am not sure if I would choose to call it exuberant or tiring. It does sound more dynamic than the NAC 202 and spotlit (I have written about the differences between the 202 and 282 earlier). I appreciate the more forward and dynamic presentation of the NAC 282 with my rather smooth and laidback Harbeth SHL5 Plus. The speakers sound more lively with the NAC 282 than the NAC 202. With other more forward speakers, I can imagine the sound of the NAC 282 to be more spotlit, exuberant, tiring or relentless. Having said that, folks may like these traits of the NAC 282.

There are surely many variables that will divide opinions between the NAC 282 and NAC 252. However, I can surely see that the latter is more well received. Not surprising since it sits higher in the hierarchy which means it is superior. Although I can relate to comments on the NAC 282 being exuberant or tiring relative to the NAC 252, I find it to be a good match in my system.

Your experience of matching a good source with the 172 and 202/200 clearly shows that the source is very important.

Yes, fluid is the key word. The QBD76 sounds analog and fluid. Unforced. I am beginning to think that the QBD76 has actually made the NAC 282 sound more like an NAC 252. Hah. (Disclaimer : I have not listened to the 252)

All this talk about soundstage. Although it may not be important to some, it is still one of the many attributes that people would look at other than tonality, timbre and PRaT among others(pace and timing are high on the list for me). Soundstage is an illusion of space. I think it may not be too appropriate to compare the soundstage of a particular seating arrangement in a concert or a live band to a recording. Music on a recording is reproduced in studios by recording engineers in ideal conditions with the purpose of making it sound most presentable/enjoyable whereas being in a classical concert or orchestra in various seating arrangements is a totally different experience. I am sure no producer would produce a recording to mimic the  sound presentation of a compromised seating on the far left or right of the concert hall. The presentation would be unbalanced and sound pretty awful.

a bigger soundstage in Naim preamps (like when going from 202 to 282) means the amp is exposing the source even more, so the source must be up to it, but your QBD76 is more than capable of it.

That is why in the Naim world, it is often advised to get a 552 before a NAP 500 as the system sounds much bigger, and the speakers also sound bigger.

So clearly  soundstage is important as Naim are providing this in their Black Classic preamps.

J.N. posted:

"Don't buy anything unless it blows your skirt up."

"Well maybe.

Having your skirt constantly blown up can get tiresome. What I am trying to say is that an initially 'impressive' component can become overbearing".

That's fair comment Nigel. What I was getting at is that the audition of a potential upgrade at a dealership or at home should have one thinking - "Wow!; yes I love it and want it" as opposed to "Well, it's a lot of money and I'm not sure".

 

John.

Fair comment too, John.

I did say that there should indeed be some element of 'wow' during initial listening so long as this does not relate to some massaging of the SQ to sound 'superficially impressive'. This can gradually produce listening fatigue in the longer term I have found. Sometimes less is more.

I think we are actully on the same wavelength here.

N

Yes indeed Nigel. Another point I think is pertinent to getting it right for the individual is to not to get too hung up on the 'upgrade rules'. A truism is may be, but one largely needs to have faith in the courage of one's convictions because we're all seeking something a bit different within the context of our listening space and personal tastes.

The 'source first' thing can be overstated because of a throwback to the heydays of vinyl when a rubbish turntable was irredeemable further down the line. 'Digital' has been a great leveller, and a relatively modestly priced source item can now cut the mustard. Ditto with amplifiers. There are some cracking integrated amps out there.

I've never been as happy with my system, as when, over five years ago I committed to spend what seemed to be a ridiculous amount of money on a pair of loudspeakers. Those old-tech wooden boxes which vibrate the air and connect us to the music are massively important.

John.

I loved my time with my 252 - I always thought it had an elegant sophistication that was lacking in the boisterous (and borderline uncouth at times) 282.

With hindsight I wonder whether the crossovers for my SBLs might have gone a little past their "best before" date and influenced the preference, but for whatever reason my then preference was what it was.

Harry posted:

Chag... posted:

As for the 252, unless I have missed it earlier in this thread, it should be recalled that while more detailed and refined than the 282, its presentation is somewhat recessed or backward whereas the 282's is more forward.

I consider it more a case of neutral and unforced. If one is accustomed to having a more "in your face" presentation the 252 might not suit. The 300 has grip and musicality unavailable below its price point in the Naim range. It doesn't swagger or show off. Again, this won't suit everyone.

Harry, a very apt description mirrors my own findings during my demo early last year in which I ended up with the 252 currently listening to Frances Black simply stunning.

I see your comment on the 300 I have a demo booked at the local dealer next week really looking forward to it.

Pcd posted:

Harry posted:

Chag... posted:

As for the 252, unless I have missed it earlier in this thread, it should be recalled that while more detailed and refined than the 282, its presentation is somewhat recessed or backward whereas the 282's is more forward.

I consider it more a case of neutral and unforced. If one is accustomed to having a more "in your face" presentation the 252 might not suit. The 300 has grip and musicality unavailable below its price point in the Naim range. It doesn't swagger or show off. Again, this won't suit everyone.

Harry, a very apt description mirrors my own findings during my demo early last year in which I ended up with the 252 currently listening to Frances Black simply stunning.

 

I think her sister is better, but then I prefer the 282 over the 252, too.  

Let's roll back 45 years before Naim existed and suddenly a couple of guys turned up for a demo and for the first time heard say a 202/200 let alone a 282.   Do we seriously think it would be described as uncouth?  

I never understand how 282 can be called uncouth. 

Me neither.  I would accept that it is not as neutral as the 252 but on rock music I found that the 282 portrayed the excitement of the music much better.

Pcd posted:

I like Mary Black as well been listening to her for years.

Glad to hear it, PCD, and having said I preferred the 282 over the 252 on rock music, I must say that for Mary Black etc I preferred the 252 over the 282.   

MDS, so how does 552 sound with Rock and Mary Black?

analogmusic posted:

MDS, so how does 552 sound with Rock and Mary Black?

I think you can guess the answer to that, analogmusic.  The 552 seems to render all types of music with the same uncanny transparency.  It's an eye-watering price but then it's performance is in a different league to the 282 and 252.  I found it immediately impressive (unlike the OP's initial audition of the 252) and then over time it just seems to get better. I've had mine for about 9 months now and there are still occasions where I think 'gosh, I haven't heard that before!'.  I suspect the 282 and 252 camps would, if they heard back-to-back comparisons, unite on the conclusion that the 552 put both pre-amps in the shade.   

analogmusic posted:

I never understand how 282 can be called uncouth. 

I never understand how the 252 can be described as dull - but it has been