Current system:
Silent Angel M1T, Silent Angel F1 PSU, Gustard R26, 282, 250DR, HCDR
I’m considering replacing the M1T, R26 and 282 with an NSC 222.
Would the 222 be an upgrade in SQ on the 282?
I mainly stream, but occasionally play CDs.
Thanks in advance.
Not really an apples for apples comparison, why not organise a home demo, listen to the 222 and see what you think…….
ATB, J
Yes, thanks, I’d tend to agree.
I’ve heard the NSC222 while listening to some speakers and I was impressed.
The problem is it’s an auction so I don’t really have the home trial option!
I should have also added to my question, how does the HCDR sit within this configuration?
It’s not compatible with the 222 but would I still be using it for the 250DR?
250DR does not use any external psu……
ATB, J
You would be using the Hicap to power the 282, not the 250, so if you get a 222 you would be able to sell it.
The 300 power supply for the 222 is an optional upgrade.
While I haven’t compared them side by side, my impressions from listening to a 282/Hicap, which I used to own, is that it’s a fair bit better than a 222 as a preamp. Of course that also depends on the quality of your source. I’m not familiar with your DAC so couldn’t really comment.
Thanks, therein lies the crux of my problem!
I was about to replace the R26 DAC with a Denafrips Pontus 15th, but now I’m unsure as to whether the 222 would be a better option.
The WhatHifi review seems to think the DAC on the 222 is probably equivalent to a standalone DAC of around £1500/2000
The Denafrips costs around that, but most reviews say that it delivers quality substantially higher than that.
Around 3/4 times higher.
As well as sound quality it’s worth considering whether you want things to be simpler. Two Silent Angel boxes, a DAC, the 282, the Hicap and the Napsc; that’s six boxes. Or a single 222 that does everything. I know which I’d choose.
Note that you need special cabling to connect the 222 you your Classic 250.
Well, they often say the most amusing things 
The R26 has the potential to be a giant slayer.
At home I have heard in my system the CDS3…NDS/XPS…TeddyDAC…R26 as ‘front ends’.
What I can say is that the R26…WHEN fronted by a $500 DDC, a $700 external 10MHz clock, a $300 interconnect and a $400 power cord is by far the best digital source I have ever had. And yeah…you also need a $40 fuse to allow the R26 to excel.
Right now, I am gettining an LF extension and pitch accuracy that I have not had since the 1996 CDS1 I purchased. Plus there is an enormous soundstage that the R26 allows, that I have not heard ANY CDP/DAC swing at.
Having listened to the 222 extensively before exchanging my 282 (for a 332), I think in terms of the pre-amp section you are looking at a backwards step.
Haha, yes I’m not normally a fan, but it was a speed read and they did specifically reference the DAC!
Out of interest what clock did you use?
I’ve been reading positive things about the cheap Leo Bodner clock!
Thank you, that’s interesting to note.
What did you find that would make you think this?
I’m very tempted by minimising my box count, but don’t really want to do that at the expense of the sound!
I use a LHY OCK-2. There is now an upgraded version- the OCK-2S for around $200 extra- and a few places are selling off the earlier model at a discount.
I recently tried out a different power cord on the clock…a fake Audioquest Dragon ($285 for the 1.0m length I got) and there was a noticeable improvement - crisper, more detailed and better rhythmic presentation. The previous cord was a Pangea AC14XL, which was not that much cheaper than the Dragon.
I can easily swap between internal and external clocks with the push of a remote button, and its quite easy to tell what the clock brings to the table.
I also have the cheaper OCK-1 clock here as well, and its subjective improvements are much more subtle.
BTW using an external clock in no way allows you to get by with a lower quality digital transport. When I used a Node 130 ( with DC input mod), the clock- while beneficial - was only modestly so…and getting a better digital streamer is much more cost effective.
I own a 282 for many years now
I would go for a 222.
reason : the Naim source inside the 222.
Had a 272 with an XPSDR at home (twice!) and compared it directly to a 282/HCDR with a few sources, wasn’t that much in it to be honest, of course the 282 was much better, but it wasn’t day any night once I attached my chord Mscaler/Dave to test.
The 222 should be much better.
I used a Naim DAC V1 for a few years, still miss the engagement of a Naim source. Same goes for a Linn source which I owned for a year
The pre-amp section is just not as good as a 282 to my ears.
possibly, but it really depends what source is fronting a 282
Well not really; you could say that about any bit of HiFi - but for the 222 vs 282; the pre-amp is either better to your ears or not. To me, using the same source, the 282 was more engaging and had more drive and clarity.
Thanks, could I just ask what your source was?
You might have to go and have a listen. There are those who felt the 222 was an upgrade over an NDX2/252/SCdr.
I’m not one of them. I thought the 222 was very good. But not as revealing and nuanced as my NDX/XPSdr/282/SCdr. There was no way I considered the 222 an “upgrade”. It’s very much the successor to the 272 and in that respect, I’m sure it is a massive step forward.