I forgot to ask...

Posted by: Le Chef on 24 October 2000

You guys will know this, but where in the heirarchy of pre-amps (including the 112) does the 72 fit?

Many thanks

Le Chef

Posted on: 24 October 2000 by Phil Barry
above the 12, 22. 32, 32.5, 42, 42.5, 62, 92, 92R, and 112; below 102, 82, 52
Posted on: 25 October 2000 by Bas V
That's an interesting question I was wondering myself. Can anybody give the hierarchy for all the Naim pre-amps? Where does th 92 stand and where a 42-5? For now I don't have a clue which is best!
Thanx,

Bas V

Posted on: 25 October 2000 by Rico
Bas

Phil's post above pretty much sums it up. unless you're looking for a 72 better than 102 Snappy.

Rico - musichead

Posted on: 25 October 2000 by Bas V
Hi Rico,

I have read on this forum, that it would be better to replace a 92 by a 32.5. How about that? And the 62, how good is that?

Regards, Bas V

Posted on: 25 October 2000 by Rico
Bas, I do beg your pardon!

OTTOMH 12, 22, 42, 42.5, 62, 92, 32, 32.5, 72, 102, 82, 52.

I'm not so certain on the 12, 22, and 32. additionally, there are some who prefer the sonic signature of the 92 over the 72 (as there are some who prefer the 62 over the 72).

Hope this helps. Go on the rest of you, flame me now!

Rico - musichead

Posted on: 25 October 2000 by Bas V
Hi Rico!

If I want to upgrade my 92+flatcap, do you agree if I would choose the hicap, 102 route? Or do you think the 72 could be a worthwile option too? I can get one for UKP 450 and a 102 would cost me a lot more....

Gr. Bas V

Posted on: 25 October 2000 by Martin Payne
Rico,

I think that the 62 was supposed to have equivalent audio quality to the 32.5, but with less inputs.

Also, do you really rate the 32 (pre .5) ahead of the 42.5 (assuming, of course, the requisite PS)?

cheers, Martin

P.S. I preferred the 42.5 to the 32.5. I can see this taking over from the 72/102 controversy!

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Rico
Martin

I did say I was not sure about the 12, 22, and 32.

I have listened to 62's against 32.5's - to my ears there is no question. Once you've moved onto 72 or 72 boards, the gap is huge.

Perhaps I should have noted, with the exception of 52, these preamps are judged on their own merits, PSU-less. This way you can avoid "oh but that needs a *cap to really work"... we all know PSU's improve preamps. The only other way is to rate all on the end of a Supercap.

Rico - musichead

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Greg Beatty
...assuming you want a SUBSTANTIAL upgrade for the trouble of upgrading, I suggest that ALL pre's short of the 82 be regarded as *nearly* equal. The 82 is a BIG jump and then the jump to a 52 dwarfs the jump to the 82. If I owned a 32.5 I wouldn't bother with anything short of the 82 unless I really wanted a remote. Then a 2nd-hand 102 might be worthwhile.

Just my 2 bits.

- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Bas V
So Greg, do you think I should first buy a HiCap and later on a SuperCap for my 92 before I change my pre?

Regards, Bas

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Jonathan Gorse
I feel that Greg's post undervalues the performance of as 102 which is far superior to the 72 in my view - exposing a lot more detail and having a far greater dynamic and expressive range.

I regard the 102 as the first in the Naim range to offer a good part of the top end naim sound PROVIDED IT IS HICAPPED AND NAPSC'd. I believe others have indicated that a Supercapped 102 is a very capable device indeed and I believe at least one forum member did that rather than moving to 82.

I would upgrade your pre-amp before hicapping a 92.

regards,

Jonathan

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by BrianD
Rico said:
“12, 22, 42, 42.5, 62, 92, 32, 32.5, 72, 102, 82, 52.”
From the 42 onwards I’d agree with this. I’ve never heard a 12 or 22.

Now for the 112 but I’m only guessing and am prepared to be told I’m wrong:
Given the relatively small performance gap between 32.5 and 72, I would expect the 112 to sit below the 32 in this list. (Paul S. stated on another thread that “The 112/150 will be the top of the range in the 5 series. They basically replace the 92/90.”) He also said that the 72 has gone because it’s sales have been taken by the 102, not because the 112 is better than the 72. Therefore, my attempt at an order would be:

(12, 22), 42, 42.5, 62, 92, 112, 32, 32.5, 72, 102, 82, 52.

Martin said:
“I think that the 62 was supposed to have equivalent audio quality to the 32.5, but with less inputs.”

I’m not sure about this Martin. I had a 42.5 at the time and I was told by a dealer that the 72 came out as a replacement for the 32.5 and with slightly better audio quality. The 62 came out to replace the (only 3 inputs) 42.5 BUT WITH AN EXTRA INPUT. The sound quality was pretty much the same.

Brian

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Greg Beatty
...supercap a 92 rather than get another pre under the 82 level.

The 92 is not bad and I'm not sure a 72 is so hugely better. I would likely prefer (tho have not tried so this IS speculation) a 92+hicap to a bare 72. I HAVE a 72 and think it is most un-remarkable just running off the power supply in my 140. Yea, it is better than a 92 and the 62 that I compared it to, but the diff is small change (IHMO) when compared to jumping to the 82 or 52.

If I had a *-capped 92 I doubt I would upgrade to a 72, unless it were an almost free upgrade second-hand. I would not bother buying and selling boxes until I could get an 82 or perhaps a second-hand 102 for a remote + performance gain. Just MHO.

I've heard 102-based systems and the 102 is a fine pre. Tho remember some prefer the 72 to it, so perhaps it is not so clearly better like the 82 is to the 72

- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Bas V
But Greg, a 92 + HiCap is much more expensive than a 72. It would be more fair to compare a 92 + Hi to a 72 + Flat. I currently have a flat and I can exchange my 92 + UKP 225 to a 72. Would you go for it?
Posted on: 26 October 2000 by mr saucisson
Don't take that offer for the 92 - it is a rip off. I got my 72 with MC boards for £200, so you can see that the kind of price that you are being asked is not reasonable. I was lucky with that one, but you should be able to get one for not much more than the £225 extra, never mind what the 92 would fetch.

Greg, I have heard the 72 v 92/hicap and preferred the former. In fairness though, I am not sure that the hicap was properly warmed up. However, even if the hicap had been warm, I doubt that it would make up the kind of difference I heard between the two. I can't believe that the cost of the two options in the second hand market makes adding a hicap a good option either.

I would also say that it is worth seeking out a 72 with BNCs on the aux input (ie one with no CD input). There is a discernable and worthwhile sonic difference I believe.

Finally, also bear in mind that the 72 can have its boards removed - a free upgrade which makes a hell of a difference.

In short, go for the 72, it is a good upgrade, can make far more of a Hicap that you may add later, and would not cost very much second hand. Plus, there is the option to take part in the 72 v 102 wars!

Ben

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Eric Barry
I have recently compared all three (now have sold the 42-5 and the 32). Powering each was a Snaps2 recently recapped.

The 32 was 3 years older than the other two. It sounded similar to the 32-5, but the 32-5 had more bass and was just plain better. By which I mean instruments sounded more real, music had more swing, etc. Both have a rather exagerrated upper bass, but the effect, like a Linn, is quite pleasant.

The 42-5 was very good, and I can see some putting preferring it to the 32/32-5. It sounded very open in the upper midrange and treble, but also sounded decidedly lightweight and a bit tizzy. The bass had excellent pitch definition, but was not as deep or warm as the 32s, and lacked grunt. In a system that doesn't do bass anyway, and may not have the most extended treble, it's probably at its best. With higher end equipment, the extra bass and treble of the 32/32-5 is a better bet. The 42-5 is fun though, and has the illusion of great transparency.

As far as the 112, I think we should wait until we place it vis a vis the 102 and 72.

--Eric

Posted on: 26 October 2000 by Greg Beatty
Bas -

-----
But Greg, a 92 + HiCap is much more expensive than a 72. It would be more fair to compare a 92 + Hi to a 72 + Flat.
-----

True if buying new. I was taking the position of someone who had a 92 + *cap and stating that I doubt I would bother upgrading the pre to a 72 unless the price difference between sell of 92 and buy of 72 was very small. If the difference were large, I would rather put the funds to a source upgrade, into more music, a stand, or non-hi-fi stuff.

Please understand that I'm the type who finds the differences between pres small and generally not significant to my enjoyment of music. I also do not like buying and selling boxes for fun. If I'm going to do it, the upgrade needs to be HUGE and cost effective. I realize this may not be your position, so play away. For me, anything at the 72 level or under is pretty much the same. I do hear differences, just not enough to get excited about anymore.

As to whether the deal on the 72 is good or not, listen to Ben and the others. 72s on these shores are listed used for $800 - $1,250

- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it

Posted on: 27 October 2000 by Tony L
quote:
“12, 22, 42, 42.5, 62, 92, 32, 32.5, 72, 102, 82, 52.”

The dynamic changes when cost is brought in to the equation. The second hand market for Naim amps is bizarre, there are some bargains, and some rip-offs.

To my mind the second hand value of both the 92 and 102 is inflated as people seem to want a totally unrealistic 75% of new price for them. The value products are the 82, which changes hand at little over half price, and the 52, where usually pay less than the price of a new head unit and get a 2k+ Supercap in the deal. An old style 52/52PS can occasionally be had for around 2k, and the 72 usually changes hand for less than half new price.

Of the old style preamps the 32.5 is really the only one worth going for, as sounds better from scratch than any of the others, is upgradable, and the price differential against the inferior 42.5 or 62 is so little.

I rate the real second hand bargain preamp or preamp/PSU combos as being the upgraded 32-5 / Hicap (550 quid-ish), 82 (1300), 82/Hicap (1650), and the 52/52PS (2K).

Just for the record, my power amp bargains are the post 1980 'chrome bumper' style 110 (peanuts to buy, kills a 90), and 160 (300 quid-ish for a stunningly good amp), and the post 1984 250 (750) and 135 (1500)… buy cheap, re-cap at leisure.

Tony.

Posted on: 27 October 2000 by Phil Sparks
The nearest thing to Naim 'currency' seems to be the HiCap (probably something to do with the number of applications it can be used in). Going rate seems to range from high £300s to mid £400s depending on age.

Nearest thing to a bargain I got was a pair of 250s for £1800 (both less than 4 yrs old) - I'd phoned that guy only intending to buy 1 but the temptation of going active with my kans was too much to resist. As I've now found out 2nd hand Naxos are the only big depreciators in the Naim range.

Going a little off the preamp tack another 2nd hand bargain is an old style roksan xerxes. The going rate for the full bore version with artemiz arm and decent psu seems to be £600 - £700. The Roxy blows away LP12/Ittok and isn't embarassed by LP12 Ekos Lingo which would cost nearer £1500 2nd hand.

Phil