Naim CDX2 Opinions?
- Thread starter johnfromnorwich
- Start date
Keith,
did you try other i/cs than the Chrysalis with the Dac1? Chrysalis seems to me to have both frequency extremes rolled off. Is this something youo felt necessary/desirable with the dac?
Thx
Napolean
Lost brother of Napoleon
I wonder why.
KeithL
pfm Member
No intent to roll off frequency extremes. It's just a cable I had lying around since the 80's and I like it.
Keith
johnfromnorwich
even my wife noticed the dif..
I think I may've missed the boat though! In fact the s/h high end market looks pretty dry all round (must be the weather). A couple of the units that were up on thi board are now on ebay, at least one is 'collect only' (I don't mind doing this IF I'm demoing and making a decision, but for a blind, cash only sale it seems a bit risky) and the other had only 1 bid (reserve not met). The only other one I can find, I've PM'd about but got no reply. Time to think again perhaps. Couple of CD5s around, bit of a quality drop maybe but resale might be easier if I don't like it. Hmmm.
Like most other things it’s totally subjective and you’ll only know for sure if you listen at length at home. I started with a CD5 and Hi Capped it to great effect. Whilst the two box solution was better to my ears, it cost more and the bare CD5 still represented good VFM. I went CDX2 after that having availed myself of the opportunity of listening to just about every other CDP in that price range that I could get my ears on. I think the CDX2 is a very musical player and have not found it harsh or difficult to listen to – quite the opposite.
We added an XPS2 two years back for not so much an upgrade as a complete transformation. Again, it’s a case of each to their own and the cost is considerable. But the results are justified to us. Much greater detail and resolution but still essentially musical.
It could be that nearly four years down the road from buying one that the CDX2 is now left behind by some of its better peers. Such is the way of the audio world. But I feel no desire to tweak it, upgrade it or get rid of it. To our ears, in our system and most importantly of all in our room, it clicks and delivers. Wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it for audition. But if you’re buying blind it’s a recipe for possible disaster – a situation that you can’t blame any CDP for. I wish you luck with it.
Cheers
We added an XPS2 two years back for not so much an upgrade as a complete transformation. Again, it’s a case of each to their own and the cost is considerable. But the results are justified to us. Much greater detail and resolution but still essentially musical.
It could be that nearly four years down the road from buying one that the CDX2 is now left behind by some of its better peers. Such is the way of the audio world. But I feel no desire to tweak it, upgrade it or get rid of it. To our ears, in our system and most importantly of all in our room, it clicks and delivers. Wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it for audition. But if you’re buying blind it’s a recipe for possible disaster – a situation that you can’t blame any CDP for. I wish you luck with it.
Cheers
VTA
pfm Member
just my 2 pence, or 5 cents.
I had a CD2 and due to worries about transport reliability sold it on and upgraded/bought a used leter model CDX. I wish I had not, there was something quite special about the CD2 that the CDX did not have for me. Maybe it was an artificial (could even have been distortion, who knows) sound that the CD2 added? to CD playback but it make CD's much more tolerable as compaired to the LP12/ARo/Armageddon.
I think the CD2X is better than both the CD2 and CDX
Adam
I had a CD2 and due to worries about transport reliability sold it on and upgraded/bought a used leter model CDX. I wish I had not, there was something quite special about the CD2 that the CDX did not have for me. Maybe it was an artificial (could even have been distortion, who knows) sound that the CD2 added? to CD playback but it make CD's much more tolerable as compaired to the LP12/ARo/Armageddon.
I think the CD2X is better than both the CD2 and CDX
Adam
I just upgraded from a Naim CD5x to a CDX2 in the last couple of days. The CDX2 was a demo so it’s run in. The rest of my system is: 200-202-NAPSC2-hiline IC-Spendor S8e. I also have a dedicated AC line and the room is treated acoustically. It’s fully dedicated to audio (there are a few advantages to being single).
In brief, the CDX2 is a bit forward (though not bright – the upper frequency range seems natural versus the rest and is not emphasized). It is also very fast, taut, resolute and revealing. Timbres are on the lean side, although smooth and natural. It doesn’t make a bad recording sound good, either. However, to it’s credit it isn’t ruthless in that regard like a lot of audiophilia. I can listen for extended periods and not be fatigued, and I’m sensitive to that.
The thing I like about it is that it conveys the intent and emotion of the music very well. It gets out of the way in spite of it’s voicing, whereas the CD5x mostly kept me knowing I was listening to reproduced music. For the first time I find it easy to simply listen to the music, whether it’s with my emotions or with an analytical perspective. So for this reason it’s worth the cost to me.
Here’s the thing I realized last night – if you want rhythmic precision (i.e., “it keeps the tune”) coupled with the resolution and insight that big money buys you in a cd player, this is the end result. There’s other ways to achieve that insight and emotional bond, which is why Naim isn’t for everyone (witness the opinions on this forum). I suspect from what I’ve heard of Cyrus that what the CDX2 will give you over your current front end is the rhythmic nuance and “soul” you’re seeking, albeit in a similar “lean and mean” context.
In brief, the CDX2 is a bit forward (though not bright – the upper frequency range seems natural versus the rest and is not emphasized). It is also very fast, taut, resolute and revealing. Timbres are on the lean side, although smooth and natural. It doesn’t make a bad recording sound good, either. However, to it’s credit it isn’t ruthless in that regard like a lot of audiophilia. I can listen for extended periods and not be fatigued, and I’m sensitive to that.
The thing I like about it is that it conveys the intent and emotion of the music very well. It gets out of the way in spite of it’s voicing, whereas the CD5x mostly kept me knowing I was listening to reproduced music. For the first time I find it easy to simply listen to the music, whether it’s with my emotions or with an analytical perspective. So for this reason it’s worth the cost to me.
Here’s the thing I realized last night – if you want rhythmic precision (i.e., “it keeps the tune”) coupled with the resolution and insight that big money buys you in a cd player, this is the end result. There’s other ways to achieve that insight and emotional bond, which is why Naim isn’t for everyone (witness the opinions on this forum). I suspect from what I’ve heard of Cyrus that what the CDX2 will give you over your current front end is the rhythmic nuance and “soul” you’re seeking, albeit in a similar “lean and mean” context.
The cdx2 was/is a good player,of course a p/s or better interconnect/mains lead improves matters but then we are talking serious money.
The AH! NJOE TJOEB range of players work very well and punch well above their own weight,in reference form they are still well under a grand and sound a lot more "Full bodied"and natural to the Naim players.
Try to get to hear one,you will not be dissapointed.
The AH! NJOE TJOEB range of players work very well and punch well above their own weight,in reference form they are still well under a grand and sound a lot more "Full bodied"and natural to the Naim players.
Try to get to hear one,you will not be dissapointed.
Naimwise, went from CD5i -> CD5 -> CD5+HiCap2 -> CDX2 -> CDX2+XPS2, the step from CD5+Hicap2 to bare CDX2 was huge improvement, although different presentation.
I am glad with what I have, no desire at the moment to get 555PS or Hiline, but probably in the distant future I would like CDS3. It does symphonic and opera better than CDX2, and probably piano solo as well. I briefly auditioned CDS3 twice.
I use Rega P3 / DL110/ P-75 for LP records playback and I can say that in my system recordings made in 1960-ies - 70-ies sound better on vinyl by a small margin (depends on the original recording and mastering), but modern recordings sound better on CDs by very large margin. I am not talking about Pet Shop Boys type recordings but modern recordings of the classical music mostly.
I think the choice of CDP would depends on what type of music you are listening.
Please note that my 'final judgement' is made in the context of Naim amps and speakers, so it might be very different with other components. Try to listen before you buy.
I probably use the version of CDX2 with the latest transport, but I am not sure, I bought it new one year ago.
I am glad with what I have, no desire at the moment to get 555PS or Hiline, but probably in the distant future I would like CDS3. It does symphonic and opera better than CDX2, and probably piano solo as well. I briefly auditioned CDS3 twice.
I use Rega P3 / DL110/ P-75 for LP records playback and I can say that in my system recordings made in 1960-ies - 70-ies sound better on vinyl by a small margin (depends on the original recording and mastering), but modern recordings sound better on CDs by very large margin. I am not talking about Pet Shop Boys type recordings but modern recordings of the classical music mostly.
I think the choice of CDP would depends on what type of music you are listening.
Please note that my 'final judgement' is made in the context of Naim amps and speakers, so it might be very different with other components. Try to listen before you buy.
I probably use the version of CDX2 with the latest transport, but I am not sure, I bought it new one year ago.
Whereas our CDX2/XPS2 lives in an otherwise non Naim system. Between acquiring the CDX2 and adding the XPS2 we upgraded the amp. A procession of various combinations of black and green boxes were auditioned at the dealers and at home. None of them worked to our complete liking in our room. This came as a surprise. But a negative result is still a result and we found our jollies elsewhere eventually.
So there we have it a view from the other side, so to speak.
Cheers
johnfromnorwich
even my wife noticed the dif..
That's a bit of a worry. I had a P3 for 10 years prior to my Michell and although I really rated it, the Michell absolutely wipes the floor with it in every respect (as I'd hope, given the price differential). If a 3K player is still pipped by a P3 then I'm at a loss.
Just 'music'. Not much 'classical' as such (I'd certainly struggle to call it 'pop'), but a lot of very well recorded / mastered material . It's largely devoid of the compression / boosting that seems to plague anything targeted towards mainstream radio. A good deal of acoustic music, some baroque/folk, electronic music, plus a good deal of leftfield rock. If it's unified by anything, then it's the complex inteplay between a relatively small number of instruments - this is why I thought Naim might be a good option. But I need a certain amount of 'grunt' as well.
Greg, IMO that's a very good description of how the CDX2 sounds and I agree it can sound very good on some recordings. However, "smooth and natural" are not adjectives I would ever apply to a bare CDX2. Just shows how perceptions differ.
Also, on your last point re. fatigue. I do find the player harsh and often just can't bear to listen to it - though for me this is a problem with CDPs generally.
I've had a Linn Majik on loan this week and the comparison with the CDX2 has been quite enlightening. The Majik is brighter and more forward and at first sounded too bright though this turned out to be the Nodost Baldur i/c the dealer supplied which I quickly switched out for a Chrysalis.
The Majik showed some very clear strengths being nicely detailed across the frequency range with a forward midrange which portayed vocals in a far more pleasant way than the CDX2 and portrayed a more open soundstage. Overall it was far 'nicer' to listen to.
However, switching back to the CDX2 clearly revealed the Naim machine to be more exciting and engaging - more dynamic with a weightier, darker sound and clearer separation between instruments which I preferred...most of the time.
My wife preferred the more open sound of the Linn.
If we'd been starting from scratch I think we may well have ended up with the Linn saving £1,000 (100+ CDs!) but as I already own the CDX2 it doesn't really make sense to sell it and move sideways.
The CDX2 is a frustrating machine - a real love and hate relationship all the time from one track to the next. I like the excitement but hate the harshness/leanness
In the end I decided to stick with the CDX2... unless my wife really objects...
PhilP and johnfromnorwich:
After posting my first response I read over all of the previous (and very conflicting) responses in this thread. My curiosity suitably sparked (though I know Naim is often reviled on this forum just for being Naim), I re-read the CDX review on Stereophile.com (theyre useful for something these days) then did searches on the CDX2 on the Naim- and audioasylum forums.
Opinions remain divided across the spectrum.
However, I was able to conclude that the CDX2 is archetypical Naim and thus controversial. Like its predecessor the CDX, it is simply full-on NAIM in presentation (although more refined overall, apparently). By virtue of keeping up with current D/A chip technology, it is also very revealing. All of this means that, like other Naim components, it is sensitive to AC mains quality, placement (equipment racking) and cabling. I own a Hi-line, Naca5, a Cablepro NANA power bar and a Quadraspire Q4 with Neuance isolation platforms. All of these IMO are critical to achieving the best out of Naim gear (especially the mid-level stuff) without the harshness, especially the Q4 with Neuance.
Unlike the lower-end and top tier Naim players (which are respectively easier-going and more organic), the CDX2 I think was designed STRICTLY for a Naim system. Its been said often that Naim CD players work best with Naim preamps and the CDX2 is pure case in point.
By the source-first orthodoxy, the archetypical CDX2 has a profound influence on flat-earth aspects. My system with the CD5x sounded merely like good solid state to my ears. That was with a Nait5i, 122-150 and even 200-202. I couldnt understand the big deal of this whole flat-earth thing. NOW I UNDERSTAND with the CDX2.
Back to what I was saying about my CD5x context. The CDX2 is more refined, forward, natural and pacey than the CD5x. It is smooth in the context of the CD5x. Is it smooth in comparison to a Meridian (or even Linn)? Perhaps not, but this is irrelevant to me since I own a Naim system and were talking system synergy. I dont find it harsh at all. Ive owned a lot of equipment over the years before going Naim (e.g., Rega, Creek, Alchemist, Simaudio, Roksan) and I can say that your typical CD recordings are harsh. This is the true problem. At least Naim players typically arent so ruthless like other players.
I bet the Hi-line is critical for achieving the best out of a CDX2 since itll reveal the flaws in non-Naim interconnects in the same way that non-Naim speaker cables always sacrifice certain musicality aspects in Naim systems to improve on one or two things like soundstaging or resolution.
Sometimes I think even flat earthers get too caught up in the audiophile rat race whether they realize it or not. Expectations are killer and are often set too high. Witness the arguments on this forum. When we stop listening to the music in preference to listening to the components or the flaws in musical reproduction (which are always BIG compared to live music), all is lost. At least Naim has its priorities in the right place these days. Do crap CDs sound crap through a CDX2? Yes, I suppose, at least to some degree in my system. But I already know theyre crap since Ive owned a lot of them for ages and have heard them through other (non-Naim) cd players. At least the CDX2 is able to convey the musical message in spite of the recordings unlike the other players (CD5x included most of the time).
After posting my first response I read over all of the previous (and very conflicting) responses in this thread. My curiosity suitably sparked (though I know Naim is often reviled on this forum just for being Naim), I re-read the CDX review on Stereophile.com (theyre useful for something these days) then did searches on the CDX2 on the Naim- and audioasylum forums.
Opinions remain divided across the spectrum.
However, I was able to conclude that the CDX2 is archetypical Naim and thus controversial. Like its predecessor the CDX, it is simply full-on NAIM in presentation (although more refined overall, apparently). By virtue of keeping up with current D/A chip technology, it is also very revealing. All of this means that, like other Naim components, it is sensitive to AC mains quality, placement (equipment racking) and cabling. I own a Hi-line, Naca5, a Cablepro NANA power bar and a Quadraspire Q4 with Neuance isolation platforms. All of these IMO are critical to achieving the best out of Naim gear (especially the mid-level stuff) without the harshness, especially the Q4 with Neuance.
Unlike the lower-end and top tier Naim players (which are respectively easier-going and more organic), the CDX2 I think was designed STRICTLY for a Naim system. Its been said often that Naim CD players work best with Naim preamps and the CDX2 is pure case in point.
By the source-first orthodoxy, the archetypical CDX2 has a profound influence on flat-earth aspects. My system with the CD5x sounded merely like good solid state to my ears. That was with a Nait5i, 122-150 and even 200-202. I couldnt understand the big deal of this whole flat-earth thing. NOW I UNDERSTAND with the CDX2.
Back to what I was saying about my CD5x context. The CDX2 is more refined, forward, natural and pacey than the CD5x. It is smooth in the context of the CD5x. Is it smooth in comparison to a Meridian (or even Linn)? Perhaps not, but this is irrelevant to me since I own a Naim system and were talking system synergy. I dont find it harsh at all. Ive owned a lot of equipment over the years before going Naim (e.g., Rega, Creek, Alchemist, Simaudio, Roksan) and I can say that your typical CD recordings are harsh. This is the true problem. At least Naim players typically arent so ruthless like other players.
I bet the Hi-line is critical for achieving the best out of a CDX2 since itll reveal the flaws in non-Naim interconnects in the same way that non-Naim speaker cables always sacrifice certain musicality aspects in Naim systems to improve on one or two things like soundstaging or resolution.
Sometimes I think even flat earthers get too caught up in the audiophile rat race whether they realize it or not. Expectations are killer and are often set too high. Witness the arguments on this forum. When we stop listening to the music in preference to listening to the components or the flaws in musical reproduction (which are always BIG compared to live music), all is lost. At least Naim has its priorities in the right place these days. Do crap CDs sound crap through a CDX2? Yes, I suppose, at least to some degree in my system. But I already know theyre crap since Ive owned a lot of them for ages and have heard them through other (non-Naim) cd players. At least the CDX2 is able to convey the musical message in spite of the recordings unlike the other players (CD5x included most of the time).
Steven Toy
Accuphase newbie
The Chrysalis interconnect would seriously hold back a Majik especially where instrument separation is concerned. I found the CDX2 to be dynamically rather flat in comparison and slightly off the pace using Siltech interconnects (Paris and SQ28) with both players.
Greg, again I agree with most of what you say. The CDX2 is a sensitive piece of kit and there are significant benefits to be gained by paying attention to cabling, support, mains etc (BTW, I found the Majik to be far less sensitive though there were clear differences between the three i/cs I tried. I'm sure Steve is right that there are better matches than Chrysalis but I wanted to try something fairly neutral).
Anyway, I went Hi-Line, Hydra, Fraim and each made a significant difference. No NACA as I have WB speakers and the combination isn't a happy one. I had some well run-in Chord Epic on trial for a couple of weeks and this worked well in my system - I may well go down that route now I know I'm sticking with the CDX2. (BTW, The Epic didn't work so well with my LP12 sucking some of the life out of the mid-range so this will a difficult choice to make).
Re. expectations. I think a large part of my discontent with my CD playing system was that I'd been expecting a lot more from a £3k CDP. I don't think I would have been happy no matter which player I'd bought. I've now got a better idea of what's possible from the CD format and have accepted that its never going to deliver what I get from vinyl.
PhilP
My findings are kinda the flip side of yours Greg, which I guess only goes to show how many variables are at work. We couldn't make our CDX2 work in our room with Naim amplificatioon, but the CDS3 never sounded better to me than when it was on the front of a Naim set up. I feel for anyone who doesn't have the time or facilities to take equipment home for a good audition.
Cheers
Cheers
