NAC52 vs NAC552 endgame sound comparison?

Hi-Fi Corner
1

Dear Naim Forum users, Im an avid Naim enthusiast, and I can’t be thankful enough for being able (so far as guest only) to tap into your vast expertise along my journey with Naim system.

I mainly listen to rock and metal - not exactly the kind of music that adheres to audiophile production standards, so my music preferences certainly played a role in the long and winded path with variuos mixed setups over the years. I could get good resolution at the cost of music sounding clinical and soulless, but the punch, agility and open live sound was rarely there if at all. Until NAIM happened. I started with an ex demo 202/200/HC and was blown away by the powerful, driven, slightly exaggerated but warm midrange (so in line with the craving for guitar distortion so desired in heavy music) and most importantly - forgiving presentation of Naim’s entry pre/power system. Source-wise Im using SME 20/2 with V arm and great classic Dynavector Karat 23RS cart (far from todays clinical sounding hi end carts). As for digital sources - CDX2 and ND5XS, but my main focus is vinyl. Speakers are Danish Physics DP Zero2 - a mid sized 2.5 way floorstanders with carbon/cellulose Scanspeaks - a warm expressively sounding and very musical speaker. The combination sounds fantastic with very wide soundstage, great punch and clarity but never clinical, and Ive been at home with it for almost 10 years.
Important to mention that when I first home demoed the system I also was lent a NAP250, which I didnt like at all with 202 and went with 200 instead. It felt it took away all the 'power and punch of 200 and made everything sound much more hi-fi without all the excitement and drive / prat. If ‘toe-tapping’ is a valid term here on the forum, I would describe mine as ‘head banging’ prat.

Last december I treated myself to a non DR NAC 500, and Im delighted with it in the system as one should be.

I also bought a NAC 282 in hope it will expotentially add to the already present qualities of sound and bring forth more of the 500’s potential. But as much as it certainly feels more detailed, it did the same thing that the demoed NAP250 back in the beginning did. It took away the excitement of music - beautiful colors, the bite, punch and power have lost their expression somehow and the music now sounds rather aggresive and clinical. Which makes me turn the volume down, rather than indulge as I would with 202 at the helm. The extra detail is great - and Id like to have it, but definitely not at the expense of the above. And so I shelved the 282 and now Im looking for an upgrade more along my sonic expectations.

Hence the question - should I upgrade to a well kept POTS8 NAC52 or a 552?

With all the info I gathered from reading all possible threads on the forum, the NAC52 is still to this day a fabulous amp, and everyone points to its ‘exciting, driven, emotional and vastly musical character’ as if epitomizing exactly such general traits of the Olive Series.

To my eyes (sadly not yet ears) it looks like thats pretty much what Im getting from the 202, as opposed to more precise hi-fi character of the 282, and higher Classic Series in general.

The oppinions about the 52 are nothing short of stellar. Yet the NAC552 is said to have best of all worlds - musicality and detail in abundance exceeding the 282, 252 and even the 52.

That holds a lot of promise, but the question remains - how much of the excitement with metal music playevd via 202 comes from the ‘forgiving’ as in ‘not revealing imperfections enough’ character of it?

With that in mind - would you say that a NAC 52 - being an older construction, perhaps not yet as extremely advanced, source sensitive as 552, would be more suited to my expectations in terms of forgiveness to less perfect recordings, exciting musicality and expression? Or will the 552 be such an immense leap forwards from character of 282 that it will combine the soul of 52 with all the tech advancement and musical refinement of an endgame Naim amp?

Could anyone share their detailed impressions from comparing 52 with a 552?

I would be immensely grateful for your insights dear Gentlemen!

And again thank you so much for so much knowledge passed on here. Its such a great forum!

best

ZB

2 Likes
2

Welcome to the Forum.

I went 52/252/552. Note that I had the 252 initially with a non DR Supercap power supply. Later this was changed and the 552 has had the DR 555PS from the start.

I am not great at detailed HiFi review language and it is a while since I had the 52 but here goes.

I would describe the 52 as having an incredible sweetness, an easy character and a very natural and transparent sound that is always engaging but not that dynamic. Loved mine, and it took the DR PS on the 252 to absolutely convince me of its superiority. Darker, ‘quieter’, with much better definition especially at the bass and more punch all round. It perhaps still lacked some of the 52’s subtle magic but was undoubtedly better in most aspects.

I think the 552 is fantastic. If you like it has the heft, punch and extension of the 252 but adds the engagement and intimacy(?) of the 52. A real window into the music.

I hope this helps. If a 552 is an option for you my experience suggests skipping the 252 and going straight for the best. If you are looking at a 252 then maybe demo first. I’d describe it as clearly better technically than a 52 but be sure you actually like it what it does enough to make that step.

Other opinions exist!

Bruce

7 Likes
3

Thanks for your reply @BruceW! An amazing upgrade path with 52/252/552!

Im most captivated by the numerous descriptions (now Yours included) of 52’s magic and sweetness, and to my imagination that would translate to agile, colourful sound with a lot of drive and dynamics. On my hunt for a 52, I recently asked someone who was selling theirs due to upgrading to 552, and they said they decided togo back to 52, because the 552 sounded more aggressive and clinical and lacked 52’s grace, and rich romantic sound. I realize such descriptions may mean different things to different ears, but Im curious, from Your expertise, how much of that Olive series musicality, does the 552 actually retain?

2 Likes
4

I would say it does, but it is different. My 552 arrived into a system that had all DR components (see my profile) and in that context it absolutely shines and gives enormous pleasure. It is certainly not clinical or agressive in my setup, but it does provide more detail. Probably therefore less forgiving of source/recording than a 52. Would a 52 work in my current system? Probably it would feel a bit underwhelming, although it might be fun to try.

In an all-olive system would the 52 be better suited? That I cannot answer. If built a second system with all olive components I would probably want one at the heart, but in my main setup the 552 is truly excellent, and sprinkled stardust when it arrived.

Bruce

2 Likes
5

I am a big metal fan, started with a Supernait. Had an 82 250 and then went to a 252 SC non DR 250.
Regretted trying to move to a one box integrated and built back to a Naim Pre Power started again with a 282 non DR SC and a 250DR i found this wasnt as refined as my previous 252 and now back with a 252

I would say the 252 works great with metal/ rock and the jump up from the 282 is fairly big. Maybe a 252 is worth looking at to go with your 500?

I dont have the DR supercap and it sounds great. Can only imagine what a 500 would be like v the 250

1 Like
6

Good afternoon and welcome,

Like you I started out at 202/200 but very soon that became 282/200, and similarly after adding a HC I tried a non DR 250 but that didn’t work for me at least with my then Dyn 1.8s, but the later 250DR was a game changer. And ended up with my Kudos 505s At the end of the OC period I upgraded to 252/300DR and was hugely impressed with the resolution, musicality and considerably improved performance at lower volumes.

BUT circumstances unforeseen enabled me a new 552 very soon after, and sorry to appear to over exaggerate but completely in another league. Yes certainly dynamics and emotional involvement in oodles but I think it’s the kick on the snare or how the scales on Coltrane or Jeff Beck’s live at Ronnies that is truly something else. Now I don’t know the 52 but the 552 is, obviously with the right matching components, truly compelling. All in my opinion of course.

Good luck,

Regards,

Lindsay

PS: Like that SME!

3 Likes
7

I’ve had the 82, 52 and now 552DR.

I ran the 52 with 135s then a 500DR. The 52 is great combination. The star though is 500DR. I listen to alot of rock and electronic music. The 500DR is a stellar amp. I haven’t heard a non DR version.

The 52 with 500DR combination worked extremely well. The 52 has much charm and somewhat less detailed and rougher than a 552DR.

The 552DR 500DR combination I now have is the best, but I could be happy with 52 and 500DR.

It’s down to you, maybe get a 52 and see how you get on before going 552. It could be all the pre amp you need.

I really enjoyed my mixed system of Olive and Original Classic.

And of course there are cost implications.

Best of luck,

BD
:muscle:

6 Likes
8

thanx for an insightful reply. Knowing that 552 will probably become the endgame for me at some point, I am very tempted to try the 52 first, as in some way, intuitively I feel that the ‘colourful’ expressive well paced presentation I get from 202 running the 500 is something thats in line with how the character of Olive series is often described. While the 282 takes that away somehow. I mean 202 is a basic pre so logic would suggest it be still very rooted in older Olive series tech and sound signature? Is my train of thought correct to you guys?

9

HI Richard and thanx for your reply! Very glad to find a metal fan here, and probably we look for similar qualities in sound. Metal on hi-end equipment seems to sound a bit colorless and lean, but this may very well be the modern ‘school of sound’ which from experience at many Audio Fairs Id call anti-expressive and rather on the lounge / chill end of the spectrum. Definitely not the sound of a live rock concert type of sound, where you can feel the guitar riffs physically resonate through the air. To me the 202 sound is wider bigger and beefier than that of 282, which albeit more precise, lacks the scale and bombastic exaggeration of the attack, which is essentialwith underproduced music. Excuse the shakespearean circumambulations - we all know talking about music is like dancing about architecture :slight_smile:

10

Thats exactly what Id expect of a 552 having read about realism of its sound. In a perfect world a seamless mix of dynamics and colorful, engaging musicality would be a perfect endgame.

11

Hi @Dan_M, been following your posts when hunting for the 500 last year - much of incentive to buy it came from reading the forum and taping into both forum users as well as @Richard.Dane informative posts, so Im very grateful I can now ask you in person - really appreciate that!

I am very tempted to try the 52 before 552, as in some way, intuitively I feel that the ‘colourful’ expressive well paced presentation I get from 202 running the 500 is something thats in line with how the character of Olive series is often described. While the 282 takes that away somehow.

Correct me if Im wrong but since 202 is a basic entry level preamp, the logic would suggest it be still very rooted in older Olive series tech and sound signature? Is my train of thought right to you guys? If the 52 epitomizes the Olive series sound, then I could expect it to be along the 202 sound signature but brought to extreme resolution, dynamics and prat? I keep coming back to 202 as sound reference because a lot of the appeal is instantly gone with 282. If 552 is further development of the 282/higher Classic Series sound, then it may not be 100% along my expectations. Or are all 4 Classic series preamps drastically different from one another?

1 Like
12

I think you’d be wise to try the 52. I think with rock and electronjc music it lends itself especially well.

It’s about matching preamps with power amps. A 82 or 282 is more a match for 250. The 52 or 252 with 250 and 300 or 135s.

But the 500 was originally designed with 52.

The 282 is perhaps not good enough for a 500. A 252, 52 and of course 552 will be.

Try the 52 out. You won’t loose anything on it. I enjoyed it.

A 202 by the way doesn’t work well with 250, but 282 250 does.

It’s about getting the balance right.

The 552DR and 500DR is a great combination, at cost.

5 Likes
13

The caveat here is the rest of your system. Speakers make a massive difference. Some on here have paired an 82 with 500 with great results!

It’s a case of trying it out. I loved my 82 with 135s. They were with me for about 5 years.

1 Like
14

The Nac 202 is very far from the Olive series,Olive is very live and tight sounding the Nac 202 smooth and boring, when I have compared.

4 Likes
15

Actually the Nap500 was developed in Nac52 days, it was launched early '00 with JV still with us. The 552 followed a few years later, moreover if your, is a first gen 500, the 52 should be a good match

3 Likes
16

I’m pretty sure the 552 was up and running as prototype when 500 was released. That was all along the end goal and the target partner for 500.

1 Like
17

A 52 with 500DR sounded great. A 52 with 500 non DR could be all the amplification you will ever need!

1 Like
18

The Nac 52 wasn’t good enough for the Nap 500,needed the 552 to really shine.

1 Like
19

@Dan_M Im looking hard for one thats POTS8 upgraded and preferably late serial # and importantly sold within EU/Shengen so that VAT import charges wont render it absurdly expensive. Meanwhile I found a nice 552 at a decent price, hence all the ponderings.

282 may not be good enough for 500 BUT I do enjoy a 202 running it way more, and keep coming back to it as reference for sound I like. Of course more realism and detail would be awesome so Im thinking about the upgrade to 52 or 552 as 282 took away more than it brought with it

20

@Igel thanx for replying - well that does make me really wanna try the 52. The character of olive series like you described it seems like a match made in heaven for rock/metal music

1 Like