The 282 is an excellent pre. There is no reason one shouldn’t pair it with a 300, especially if the speakers in use are power hungry (like my Dynaudios for example). I do have a 252/300, but I had a 282/250 before that, and knowing what I know now I would not hesitate to pair a 300 with my old 282 with my Confidence C2 speakers, and think it might be a better choice than a 252/250.
2 Likes
There’s a lot to be said for not having half width hicap plus a little napsc in the mix to rack. This was one of the reasons we went for 252 not 282. Aesthetics do matter to SWMBO.
Never quite understood why the 282 wasn’t designed to use the digital power snaic from SuperCap in the same way 252 can.
1 Like
Mike, I have followed a similar amplification journey to you, and now have 252/250 which I am absolutely thrilled with.
The full journey was
SN1,
SN1+HicapDR,
282+HicapDR+250DR
282+Supercap +250DR
252+Supercap + 250DR.
I can’t quite understand how the 252 divides opinion. I does everything the 282 did, but is so much more revealing and also more controlled, especially in the lower registers.
Paul
5 Likes
Okay, few would doubt that 202>282 is a game changer. 282>252 an improvement but not all see as a game changer. However, most would agree 552 is a game changer.
6 Likes
Having owned all those pre amps, that nicely sums up my impressions too, Lindsay.
2 Likes
That’s a very worthwhile point. With some speakers (like yours or some Shanhinians) a 250 is not quite enough, so 282 to 252 upgrade may be less helpful than 250 to 300DR.
3 Likes
Its called market/price positioning. The circuitry in the 282 is identical to the 252 aside from the power boards/connections
Is it really? Can you point me to the information that confirms that is true? This is the first I’ve heard that claim made about the difference. I’ve had both 282/SCDR and 252 with the same SCDR and it was a very significance step up to the latter.
2 Likes
Don’t recall the summary, but a thread about it, with pictures
Richard’s post is good
1 Like
Different voltages used on the digital sections between a NAC282 and NAC252.
While they may look superficially similar under the skin from a casual glimpse, look further and you’ll see plenty of key differences (see gthacks post and the linked post therein). Some you won’t be able to see as well, such as more rigorous selection of componentry.
2 Likes
A long time ago, 32-HiCap-250 was Naim State of the Art. There was nothing above this.
Everything else came along later. So, of course a 282 will work with a 300. Probably very well indeed.
Talk of synergy and natural partners, is just that. Talk.
1 Like
While some models obviously use different components I thought all NAIM componentry was equally rigorously selected, didn’t realise the same component used in a 282 might be less water tight than if used in a 252
Naim have often applied more critical selection criteria in certain key areas to otherwise seemingly identical componentry the higher up the range you go. Perhaps the best known examples were volume pots in the pre-amps and DAC chips - the Philips TDA1541A Crowns used in the early machines, where the ones that Naim measured as best were reserved for the CDS, to the PCM1704K DAC chip that was used in many different units at different levels, from the CD5x, through to the CDX2, the Naim DAC, all the way up to the CD555 - the ones used in the latter were of course the ones that Naim found measured best.
1 Like
Naim aren’t the only ones to do it either. There’s at least one cartridge range where IIRC the difference in cost and performance levels is just that some come off the production line better measuring than others… Clearaudio?
I don’t know about the MM line of cartridges from Clearaudio, but their LOMCs, from Talisman and Concerto on up, all have different body materials, so the differences are definitely more than just production line measurements.
1 Like
It’s their MM line (apologies for thread drift)
The Clearaudio V2 moving magnet cartridges are meticulously measured, analysed, and hand-selected into four performance levels. In this way Clearaudio achieves the best stereo channel matching, minimum phase error and distortion, flattest frequency response and highest dynamic range at each price point.
1 Like
Think the Linn Trak used to be a “less rigorously selected” Asak. I had both (few years apart) but don’t recall a huge difference.
1 Like
252 is a dual mono preamp
Not sure the 282 is ?
A 252 blows a 282 away in my experience (I have a 282) more lower end grip and more resolution
Still though I put my money on a source upgrade
1 Like
They are both dual mono.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.