Can anyone tell me if an upgrade from an NAP180 to 2 NAP135 means as big a step as from an NAC82+Hicap to an NAC82+Supercap. At present date my system consists of a CDX+XPS, NAC82+Supercap, NAP180 and 2 JMlab Mezzo Utopia, and I'm quite happy with it, but intend to replace my NAP180 by 2 NAP135. I actually experienced the step from NAC82+Hicap to NAC82+Supercap, and it was so far the most striking one, even more than the one from CDX to CDX+XPS or the one from NAC82 to NAC82+Hicap.

Christian

Bottom line: A CDS2 may be your best bet

For about 20 months, I've been defending my choice to go from a 140 to a 250 instread of going from a 72 to an 82.

At that time, although I agreed the 82 was better than the 72, I did not think it was my most cost-effective move.

Recently I upgraded from a Grado Sonata to a rebuilt Karma. Now THAT is an upgrade, at least in an ARO (Grado goemetry incompatible with ARO, I think).

In any case, I strongly suspect that if I had upgraded my cartridge first, the 82 would have been a bargain, compared to the 72, and today I might be running something like an LP12/ARO/Te Kaitora/82/2 X hicap/140.

In your case, although the 135s will make the 180 sound like a poor relative, the CDS2 may make a bigger difference.

Can you compare a CDS2/XPS/82/s'cap/180 to a CDX/XPS/82/s'cap/2 X 135?

Note: Simon and I commented approximately simultaneously.

Simon - do you have any 2nd thoughts about doing the 52 before the CDS2?

I have done just this upgrade plus others and can give you some subjective comments and comparisons:

First I went from CDX/XPS/102/NAPSC/HICAP/180 to CDX/XPS/52/SUPERCAP/180. I listened to 82/HICAPx2 but the 52 was hugely more detailed and musical. Treble was sweeter and the glassiness of the 102 was gone. I didn't go for the 82 because the quality of the bass with 2xhicaps I found a little unnatural.

Next I went from CDX/XPS/52/SUPERCAP/180 to CDS2/XPS/52/SUPERCAP/180. Musically this was the largest jump to me. The fluidity and musicality of the CDS2 is in another league to the CDX.

Lastly (?) I went from CDS2/XPS/52/SUPERCAP/180 to CDS2/XPS/52/SUPERCAP/135s. The 180 is a bit warm in the bass and some detail is lost. The 135s opened the tap on the rest of the system - weight, scale and detail hugely better. Not as musical an upgrade as the CDS2 or 52, but essentail I think. I enjoyed the system with the 180, but it was severely constricting the music.

Simon

Hello Christian,

I haven't heard the Mezzo Utopia's in a Naim system and I don't know if they are hard to drive (Frank could help us out there), but I'm sure they will benefit greatly from a pair of NAP 135s. Are you thinking about buying the NAP 135s new or did you find a used pair? If you found a used pair for a good price, I would go for it. If you are planning to buy new, I think I would prefer to change the CDX for a CDS II as suggested and replace the NAP 180 with a NAP 250. This combination shouldn't cost much more than a new pair of NAP 135s if you get a good price for your CDX and NAP 180, but will definitively sound better!

Did you go to the demo of the CDS II, NAC 52, NAP 135s, NBLs which AudioConcept organised some time ago?

Ciao!

Willem

Christian

It's difficult to say which of the three obvious upgrades is best for your system. The CDS2 is a good measure better than the CDX/XPS. The 52 makes an 82 look sick in most systems. The 180 is not particularly powerful, transparent or detailed (but rhythmically in the 135 class).

My limited experience with Mezzo Utopias is they need power. They don't have a reactive impedance, but they aren't particularly easy to drive. For example, they benefit significantly from a NAP500 over the 135s, which is the test I tried. But I imagine that the effect would be similar going from a 180 to 135s.

In the final analysis, I believe that if you are using the system in a large room (difficult to imagine you're not doing that given how big the speakers are), then I would recommend the 135s over the CDS2/52 options since the 180 will be stretched and running out of steam in that situation. Replacing the weakest component in the system will give you the biggest bang for your buck I believe.

The 135s are fabulous amps. They have much more scale, detail, transparency and slam than the 180 would ever dream of; the 135s play the same game as the 180 in terms of rhythm and pace too, so they sound like a grown up 180. I really believe the 180 to be your weakest link.

Regards,
Frank.

If, as Frank suggests, your speakers need power, then I can recommend the 2 x 135s route. My Dynaudio 1.8s need serious watts and the 180 was running out of steam, particularly in the bass area. Frank will probably remember 'cos he works at the emporium where I bought the (used) 135s.

Upstream is CDX / 102 / HiCap / Napsc. Now I have attack with control, power without strain and more bass than I know what to do with. Frankly the Dynaudio cones hit the end-stops before the 135s complain (for a list of CD tracks that can do this to your system enquire further).

I did this upgrade rather than add an XPS (which I tried) but have yet to audition 82/52, 'cos I know I'll want one if I do.

Hope this helps.

Graeme

Frank,

My music room measures about 35m2 and is 3,7m high with 2,4m high bookshelves around the walls (but of course not behind the speakers). I should call it a large enough room for the Mezzo Utopias.

If I turn up volume to about 10 o'clock (which is in fact quite loud) the 180 gives an impression of strain in loud passages of Mahler symphonies or Wagner operas, for instance.

I think I'll eventually go for the 135s for this reason and those, you, Simon and Graeme evoked. Also from the point of view of the upgrade path beginning at the source, it would be logical to proceed this way because I first upgraded the CDX and then the 82. After the 135s, I think I can start again on top, with a CDSII and so on.

To Willem:

Thanks for your suggestion. Unfortunately, I could not go to the demo organised by Audio Concept some day in spring this year. If you ever will be interested in a second-hand CDX, let me know by e-mail, my address is mentioned in my profile.

Christia

I'm not at all familiar with the Mezzo Utopias so this may be totally unfeasible - but in the UK 2 250s cost about the same as 2 135s. A 2nd hand Naxo or Ixo can be had quite cheaply so, assuming the Mezzos are only 2-way, going active may be an alternative. There was a recent thread on the forum where plenty of folk raved about the active route, even though Naim themselves only recommend it when there's nowhere left to go with your source and preamp. It may be a good alternative for really tricky loudspeakers.

Phil

Phil,

Thanks for your suggestion, but I think Mezzo Utopias (3-way) are not conceived for active running. Going active would imply too much interfering in the conception of the speakers.

By the way, bi-wiring (I know you did not mean this) is impossible with the Mezzos because there is only one terminal with two WBT plugs, and JMlab even are against it. To quote JMlab: 'The point to point wiring used in the crossover assembly eliminates any need for bi-wiring, which is often used in an attempt to overcome the limitations imposed by inferior crossover assemblies and circuit boards.'

I think the 135s will do it; an upgrade of half the power of the 180 will certainly help. JMlab recommend an amplifier with a power between 50 and 200W (at 4 OHM).

Christia