I have four CD-rip versions and the first master is rather raw but is most honest to me. As my system improved this went from murky to quite good as the low-level detail was properly resolved and separated from the noise.
The next remaster has better HiFi but loses something…and so-on. I think my musical-memory is keyed to the Vinyl of this album and all its idiosyncrasies need to be rendered as they were then released for me to immerse myself with it.
Any remaster can genuinely be better - sometimes they are but not that often - but even then a different compromise is made and I usually find a form of ‘noise-coring’ has bee done to remove both low-level noise - and unfortunately musical info I liked. A cleaner HiFi version with the missing part - all personal to which you prefer.
For what its worth, I too noted some “zing” initially with my then new 552 which gradually disappeared now at the roughly 6 month mark. Otherwise nothing else changed.
Hi Nigel, I deal with DSOTM first. Mine bought at Oxfam for £3.99 is the Harvest CDP 7 46001 2 (UK, 1984). I think it is the first UK CD version.
From the SQ point of view it sounded very very exciting, albeit with zing to some notes. I have 1973 vinyl bought for £6 which has some surface noise at the beginning, but I haven’t played it with the 552 yet. I stream with Innuos Zenith Mk 2 into nDAC + 555DR.
Needs a different thread but I have heard the 272/250DR at my dealer’s (I used it to audition some speakers) and it’s quite capable. I’ve not heard an NDX2, but “sideways” would be my guess about that system change as well. Me personally I’d not make this change unless I got the chance to really listen to it in my home and liked it (which could well happen). But “on paper” I’d not do it, as big a fan of the SN2 as I am.
Hi DB, well have not read much about the tweaking of the glass, cups and ball bearings, which apart from the glass which came from a local merchant are Naim parts.
I probably had noticed you mentioning before to put the box lined up with the front of the glass and I do that. What surprised me from your post was the importance of box position on glass and that the sprung suspension boxes have ‘hard’ feet.
As @NigelB points out I do use HiFi Racks and I admit to being reassured by @Clive when he visited on Monday. This kind of purchase does need justification.
Well, checking the 552 after your post I did find it 4-5mm back from the front and the cups in an odd position. Here I suffer the same as Fraim Lite owner who add glass - there is no seat for the cup to ensure accurate positioning on the wooden base. Might the boxes move much more easily over the glass or the glass on the ball bearing?
I also have to admit that I did not think the position of the cups below the glass would make much difference! I got drawn to putting the cups under the box feet approximately for reasons of simplicity / repeatability. I know Fraim is provided with a paper template to position the exorbitantly priced plastic safety retaining rings on the glass. These also do not position under the box being forward and outside the front feet. HH (Nigel) once expressed the view that the retaining rings were a waste of time! I just use them on two top shelves.
I would very much appreciate views on the best place for the ball bearings relative to the box. I could stick the cups to the wood once I work out the best position.
I guess if the SQ is noticeably affected this might explain some long term SQ variability issues I have had.
The 552 is wider bandwidth preamp, which is why it works so well. However this can expose issues with speaker placement and room reflections… and this quite be quite telling.
For example I felt I needed to reposition my speakers because of the increased low end bass when I got my 552.
I have done the Master Set speaker position check (there is a current thread) with Jennifer Warnes Ballad of the Runaway Horse. I concluded the bass, her voice and the soundstage were good. The zing is a pain.
I only have Fraim (now described as full-fraim) and no experience of the lite version as Naim had not invented it when I purchsed my set - but I had experimented with alternative positions of the three mounting points from Naim’s suggested ones.
Perhaps not surprisingly I found the glass is highly responsive to where you place the three points on the ball bearings, as these set the null-points for the vibration modes the glass has available and you can tune these to have the set which sound best. Also Naim seem to cunningly tuned their box feet positions, internal sub-chassis resonance and the glass to all sound best where they suggest.
Also the type and thickness of glass matters to the end-result and I only managed once to find a bit of glass I prefer on one open shelf under my source (ND555 and previously CD555) over what Naim offer. Naim’s glass expects a box sitting on it with feet where they are expected to damp the glass at four points and an open shelf I found works a bit better being slightly heavier (but not too much). In fact this is only because my source fraim stack contains two empty shelves which ‘talk’ to each other unless one has a slightly different self-resonance set of modes.
There is a long reason why I did all this - but it works and I’m happy is where I reached.
In your case I’m suggesting it is worth getting any glass shelving under the 552 in the right place either by using a full-fraim shelf - IMO the best method - or trial and error with what you have to find the sweet-spot and then record that position and ensure you can put it back there if it gets moved.
@Filipe when I brought up the subject of the positioning of the cups and balls you said that you had positioned the retaining rings using the paper template (which, given that you don’t gave Fraim, is the best approach). I had assumed that you had then used the shelf with the retaining rings to position the cups for the shelves without retaining rings. This would still not position the rear cup and ball in the right place, of course, but I will measure these locations from my Fraim and let you know if you like. In my case the glass shelves are flush with the front of the wooden shelf and the 552 fascia is set back by about 3/8” so that the volume and balance controls protrude by about 1/16” or so beyond the front of the glass. I’m not suggesting that this is optimised in anyway, but I doubt you’d find consistency among dealer set-ups either.
Clive, Thanks for your measurements. What surprised me was that unless I was careless the 552 had moved. I will have to be more attentive and experiment more!
DB thanks for your input.
Dave, given that to mirror the three wooden racks would cost as much as the 552 upgrade I’m not so sure. I have the benefit of a solid floor slab rather that wood which can resonate more.
My plan is to run the 252 in a second bedroom system (lowly ancient unserviced NAP 90 into Spendour A6Rs) so it gets warmed up. Then get the dealer to come and listen to the best the 552 can do and do a ‘hot swap’. My feeling is the 252 should be good enough if it consistently is at it best. I think I am very fussy. Then I may get my dealer to loan me Fraim for the brains stack to see what it can do.
I’d suggest you don’t say anything about positioning etc. and just let the dealer set up the NAC552 to optimise performance. It would be interesting to see how he does it without influence.
I don’t have a lot of confidence in my dealer. He recommends HiFi Racks and doesn’t like installing Fraim for customers!
The other thing I am suspicious of is the big incinerator that towards the end of last year was connected to our substation. They are drawing electric at the moment, but in 6 months they could be supplying quite a lot. The 552PS hums quite loudly and then stop and starts … To begin with it was very noticeable all the time.
So your observation is that the source is the most sensitive to position of its feet and the cups. So would the preamp also be sensitive except that you have S1 now!
I also wonder whether sibilance is an indicator (to be avoided).
Ahh sibilence, that takes me back to the days of cheap and or badly setup Hi-Fi… thank goodness that is a thing of the past for most I’m sure with Naim
Unnatural sibilence is usually distortion resulting in a lack of resolution in higher frequencies… obviously sibilence is a natural part of speech, but when exaggerated through distortion it is usually quite noticeable and usually objectionable as it detracts from how we recognise real speech to sound.
Now natural sibilence is usually at a lower level compared to other speech sounds, and when vocals are compressed, as they almost always are, the sibilence can be exaggerated… so although unnatural it should sound fairly soft as if low pass filtered. In music production, if heavy vocal compression is required, and natural sibilance is prominent with the artist, then de-essing devices can be used at the recording and mastering stages.
I’ve found all items in the replay chain sensitive and worth getting right, beginning with the source but you can’t assume the rest is fine - in fact you may surprise yourself how it all matters.
I came to all this several years ago from the point of view it was not a big deal and did not matter and racks were just aesthetics - but then found otherwise after some experimentation and ended-up with the Fraim.
As to position - a Naim team set-up a demo a few years ago and were studious about exact positioning on the fraim near the front of glass - possibly for looks, but I asked and was told that is where it is meant to be.
You take that any way but experimentation shows it does make a difference - but you have to try it to find out - or prove to yourself it makes none, for you.
Exactly what is happening I do not know but it certainly seems like vibration gets involved and is not easy to control. Everything has resonances - where energy can build into a large amplitude compared to the forcing amplitude and it seems this can cause the problems.
But all I can do - given I wanted to learn to tune-up my system and enjoy music is find what works and do that. For me pretending it does not exist has not ever worked. My approach is to do all the obvious things first, then learn the next level of things and do them if needed.
Fair enough Phil but I’m pretty sure you’d be surprised at what a difference Fraim makes over the oak set up even with the glass and balls. I certainly was.