rontoolsie
pfm Member
Both the 82 and the 52 were bought new less than a year apart, so were almost certainly of the same genre.
BTW I tried the 82 powered by the NAP180s preamp rail, with one Hicap, a Supercap with only one rail connected (like using it as a single pseudohicap) and finally with two Snaics in the conventional 82/SC way. The 82/180/NoCap was virtually unlistenable it was so shrill and tinny. I found that a goodly benefit of using a SC over a single Hicap was there with only one of the SC rails hooked up (via a single Snaic), so the Supercap trumps the hicap not only in the quantity of available rails, but the quality of each rail too. With this observation I could almost prove by induction that an 82/SC would better an 82/2xHicap. But in that system moving up the power supply path of the 82, there was a far larger leap between the 82/SC to the 52 than between any other PS options with the 82. The 52 really IS that much better.
BTW I tried the 82 powered by the NAP180s preamp rail, with one Hicap, a Supercap with only one rail connected (like using it as a single pseudohicap) and finally with two Snaics in the conventional 82/SC way. The 82/180/NoCap was virtually unlistenable it was so shrill and tinny. I found that a goodly benefit of using a SC over a single Hicap was there with only one of the SC rails hooked up (via a single Snaic), so the Supercap trumps the hicap not only in the quantity of available rails, but the quality of each rail too. With this observation I could almost prove by induction that an 82/SC would better an 82/2xHicap. But in that system moving up the power supply path of the 82, there was a far larger leap between the 82/SC to the 52 than between any other PS options with the 82. The 52 really IS that much better.
dd your 82 happen to be quite a lot older than your 52 by any chance Ron?