Hoary old chestnut...

Regarding supports, I've tried two methods. The first was placing it directly on three Black Diamond Racing Cones. This improved its ability to display details in the music, and the lyrical phrasing was improved. It seemed a touch dry at times, though.

The second method was placing it on a sheet of 3/4" MDF, which sat on the BDR Cones. Although the details lessened very slightly, the phrasing remaining strong and true. It was also more warm and liquid, and this is how I decided to keep it.

I've now got an 82, and it was a big improvement over the 102. I really prefer a 102 over a 72 (much more open and faster too), but I would suggest that you consider the 82 upgrade as well. Many who buy a 102 get addicted to its superior traits, and the 82 does them so much better. The 82 also comes with the NAPSC, and you're Hi-Cap will work with it just fine. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on SUNDAY 24 September 2000 at 22:02.]

You are not alone in finding the 102 not entirely satisfying. This has been a matter of great controversy on the forum, but more than a few feel that it's not worth getting a 102 from a 72, but better to wait for an 82. The consensus is that the 102 is more open, and has more extended bass and treble than the 72. However, a significant minority feel that it also looses something in coherence and suaveness, that either makes it a sideways step or not enough of an improvement to spend the money. Who was it who said he'd prefer a 72 with a trained monkey? (Anyone can have a 102, but how many trained monkeys are there?) About Mike's advice, remember his wife thought the system "raped her ears" when based around a 102, but doesn't with an 82.

Also, the 112 is about to be loosed on the world. I know it will be positioned below the 102, but if the 112 beats the 72, and the 72 is close in musical satisfaction to the 102, and the 112 is both cheaper than the 102 and will retain more of its used value because it's brand new, and will give you remote control, then maybe you should at least wait to hear the 112 against the 102. (By the way, I'm not saying that any of those conditional statements are true, just that there is enough of a possibility that it's worth waiting.)

--Eric

Actually, it was the move from 3.5/Hi to CDX that made the biggest difference with my wife. I could suddenly play at louder volumes, without having her cringe all the time. (Believe me, this was a joy.)

In fact, I didn't tell her when I changed from CDX/102/NAPSC/Hi/140 to CDX/82/2*Hi/250, and she never remarked on any change! This is probably more attributable to the fact that she doesn't really care (so doesn't pay attention), more than the difference not being big (which it was).

For me, the 72 is a disappointment. Whenever I've auditioned it, I've felt like someone had me wrapped in a blanket. It was very restrictive and clouded compared to my experience with the 102.

Yes, there are few that prefer the 72 over the 102, and that's their loss. Regarding the 82 option, even my own message suggested that it was a better upgrade (and it should be, for the money). Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.

I agree with the others--if you have not been convinced by the 102 in 5 different dems, why buy it ? The 102 also fails the "make at least 2 jumps up" upgrade advice. As good as the 102 is, if it is not making a big enough difference to you, don;t buy it.

If you want to seriously upgrade your hifi, my suggestion would be to try an 82--streets ahead of the 72 and 102; and a good stepping stone to the future if you want to use it.

Best,

Bob

If you are unsure about the 102, have you tried a Supercap with the 72? The 72/Super is very good and possibly (from some viewpoints) better than the 102/Hicap. If you purchased a Supercap now, then a 82 or 52 later would be logical. You perhaps should consider whether the 102 will be your final upgrade for a preamp.

By the way the ultimate upgrade/setup for the 102 is with a Supercap. There is then no question about its superiority to the 72, IMO.

Paul

Regards Geoff

[This message was edited by Geoff Cottle on MONDAY 25 September 2000 at 11:03.

[This message was edited by Geoff Cottle on MONDAY 25 September 2000 at 15:30.]

Thanks for taking the trouble to respond, all comments are much appreciated. I shall try and respond in kind...

I agree that a piece of kit that has failed to convince on 5 sessions should not be considered. However, I would not say that it has failed to impress at all. Rather, it has failed to dispel all doubts. However, I would also say that I would not like to be aligned with the mullet wearing 72-lovers! I go for the "brush" look myself, unpopular as that is at the Bar.

My impressions of the 102 are that the frequency extremes are far more extended than the 72, especially compared to the chubby bass of the 72. It is also clearer...and all of this is obvious and appealing. However, to not coin a phrase, it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing. The 72 has something that keeps me listening, and I am not sure that the 102 does. Hopefully a home dem will convince me one way or the other. I was worried about the setup as I felt that I may be missing something fundamental. Thanks Mike for the tips, I will try them, and then can come to a decision.

I compare this to the discussions my mate and I have about our cars. He has a BMW 5 series, I drive a Saab. His car handles better, has a more sporting torque curve and much more informative steering. I love my car, and his leaves me cold. Mine has a soul and his does not. Any thoughts from other fans of hot Swedes?

I think you may all be right about the 82, although my only worry is when I get the 135s. Would I be the dreaded back end heavy, and subject to conference ridicule? The supercap is also a good idea, and I may try this, as I plan to keep on upgrading until I get to the ultimate!

Thanks again, will let you know what goes on...

Ben

I know you are not really worried about the wrath of the forum. . . . .

I agree with your thoughts on requiring a home dem of the 102--try to borrow it for as long as possible. Also--if you know you have 135s coming that is an argument for the 82--it will take much better advantage of them than a 102.

I also agree with you on the BMW 5 vs a Saab--the BMW is better at accelerating, handling, etc, but they fail to move me as much as the Saab (9-3). Go figure !

I'm sure I can speak for lots of the folks on the forum who wish you the best of luck !

Cheers,

Bob

When properly supported, and partnered with properly supported source and amps, the 72 can put voices in the room with you. Not saying the 102 ain't better (I've not done an extended comparison), but you may not be getting the best from your 72.

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

I'm getting vague, boomy bass from my 72/140.
They've been running in for about a week now and so far I want my old Nait3 back.

What types of spikes fit into a 72? I have some Target spikes but they're too big.

Also, what sort of interface would you recommend between glass and shelf if I were to put the 72 directly onto a plate of glass? Blu-tack? Ball nutters?

Rest of the system in 3.5/flat sitting on MDF, Rega Jura spkrs.

My old Nait 3 kicked a** in that system. I figured the 72/140 would be more of the same but with extra power. So far it sounds like I threw a very thick blanket over my spkrs.

Thanks,

Mike S

I had a Nait 3 prior to my current 72/hicap/180 -.

I cannot comment on your systems under performance but I can say the move up from the Nait was the greatest life changing thing I have personally ever done.

I experimented using the 72 minus the Hicap and the difference was quite tangible.

Try it and see - I hope you won't be disappointed (or should that be dissed Vuk?)

Regards P.

[This message was edited by Pierre on TUESDAY 26 September 2000 at 20:13.]

I aint no Busta

Sho made me Bag up real hard.

(Can't wait to get to the C's- nice one Vuk )

Regards P.yo-Bitch

You can use any of those 'cones' you might have lying around or you can make your own DIY. I use the DIY recipe that was in Listener a year or so ago. Basically a 1 1/4 inch (or so) screw with a largish head super-glued to a 1 1/4 inch (or so) washer. Now you will use three of these under the 72. As they are higher than the 72's rubber feet, they will "replace" the feet. You can try them with the tips up and with the tips down. Use it the way you prefer.

Now the Glass
Just sitting the 72 with the stock rubber feet directly on the glass otta be fine.

The glass gives me a very different sound than MDF. Lighter sound with less pump in the bass perhaps. But in comparison, the extra quantity of bass with the MDF sounds false. You can compensate a bit by repositioning your speakers. In trade for this is the 'lifting of the blanket' bit. Clarity goes up, air, depth, etc.

Oh, and try the 3.5 on glass for another large hit.

The glass I'm using is 1/4 inch and cost $13 per piece. My CD3, 72, hi, and 140 are each on floor/spikes/MDF/spikes/MDF/glass/component. Each extra level of MDF gave a noticeable improvement. I've not compared this arrangement to, say, a four-tier Mana stand so can't comment there.

And, yea, a hi-cap helps the 72/140 combo alot. When I first home-auditioned the 72/hi/140 combo, I tried it with and without the hicap and compared to my Sony ES receiver. The Sony is *boring* by comparison (read: compressed) but the 72/140 didn't beat it by enough to get my dosh. In fact, the CD player made a larger difference in this regard (CD3 v. Sony ES series CD player).

The hicap made the amp upgrade significant. At the time I made these comparisons I had *no* decent supports - DIY or otherwise, so the results may be different with decent supports.

FWIW, a friend of mine has a 3.5 and Nait 3. My system is *massively* better, but we've not side-by-sided them in the same room or nailed down why the difference.

Hope this helps..

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

I moved my Juras out another foot&1/2 after 5 minutes with the 72/140. There was way too much bass in their old positions.

"The glass gives me a very different sound than MDF. Lighter sound with less pump in the bass perhaps."

That's pretty much what i'm looking for, which is ironic given that I listen to mainly electronic, hip-hop and R&B. I'm choked that the 72/140 needs all this tweakery whereas I just plopped the Nait on the rack.
If I didn't know about you guys i'd be screwed...

Pierre, what differences did you notice when you went from Nait 3 to 72/140?

I'm disappointed that the things didn't kill the Nait cold outta the box. Even after a bit of warm up, the Nait was much "quicker", delinating bass lines superbly; a drum kit cracked like a gunshot. Now with the 72/140, there's just a bunch of floppy booming (no exaggeration) as if i'd installed Jolida amps or something.

P!ssed,

Mike S

[This message was edited by Mike S on WEDNESDAY 27 September 2000 at 03:30.]

[This message was edited by Mike S on WEDNESDAY 27 September 2000 at 03:35.]

FWIW, my NAC72 is serial 148xxx and the NAP140 is 138xxx; about 2 yrs old.

You're right, a part of the problem is the added oomph. I shudder to think what would have happened if I bought a 180.

Still, after some more listening, the Nait sounded more "fleet of foot".

I'll get rid of all the MDF and ball nutters, try glass, spikes, move the spkrs out even farther (4 feet!?!), maybe toe them in 45 deg...

I've got a digital cam, I could post some pics of the setup; is there a way to post pics without storing them at a particular url?

cheers,

mike s

quote:

---

What should I put between the glass and my rack?

---

The spikes

Try four spikes pointing up with the glass on top. I use playing cards to get the 'shortest' spike to make clean contact with the glass. The glass shouldn't 'wobble' when you've got it right. If this is too much trouble, try three spikes.

And I agree with you about the tweakery bit. I think the deal is that Naim - and probably other makes of kit as well - requires good supports, which neither you nor I have. Hence the rubber bands and band aids...

Also, as you're finding out, the other aspects of your setup were 'tuned' for the Nait and the 72/140 combo is delivering more 'stuff' which your room has to deal with. Just wait 'till you upgrade the source and start getting trouser-flapping bass

I recall Frank Abela reporting great results with the Nait 5 - clean all the way to clipping. I don't know what rack he had it on, but maybe Naim is beginning to address microphonics in the lower-level kit now. Of course, this doesn't help us poor 72/140 owners…

Oh, if you can stretch to 3 pieces of glass and 12 or 9 spikes, try a shelf under your CD player, your 72, and your 140. I couldn't listen to classical until I got glass under the 140.

If it makes you feel better, my friend with a Nait 3/CD3.5 tweaks more than I do and still has an awful sounding system; undynamic, no bass to speak of, and harsh.

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

So I've put the glass under the 72 and pulled the spkrs out a bit more.

The sense of raunch seems to be back; I think the music now has a feeling of being pushed forward rather then being held and muffled back.

I got back late tonite so I didn't get a chance to really let 'er clip but things look promising.

my friend with a Nait 3/CD3.5 tweaks more than I do and still has an awful sounding system; undynamic, no bass to speak of, and harsh.

Agreed, Nait3 had no low bass, but the bass it had was very quick.
What kind of spkrs does your friend have?

I recall Frank Abela reporting great results with the Nait 5 - clean all the way to clipping

Yea, the Nait 5 is a cracker. I'm afraid to listen to the 112/150, as I don't feel like living on a diet of yams and kraft dinner again.
Still, I the prefer the looks and tactile feel of the 72/140. Plus it was cheaper.

Some things I've learnt so far:

-MDF isn't a cureall

-As suggested, old setup was a model of Nait optimization

-Rega Juras are rather boomy (but they do everything else so damn well imo)

Thanks again,

Mike S

[This message was edited by Mike S on THURSDAY 28 September 2000 at 06:42.]

Next: Try glass under the 140

"What kind of spkrs does your friend have?"

Newish model NHTs. About $500 - $600 USD. My ProAcs retailed for $3,200. And yes - the difference was huge. We don't know, though, if that was the whole difference. I suspect not becasue his speakers were making a bit of music at my place and they *do not* at his place.

"-MDF isn't a cureall"

Agreed. But it does give a different sound so can be tried. May work better with other Naim kit than what we have. If you don't like it, you can still use it to add 'levels' under your glass

Last night I re-installed a DIY silver SNAIC (goes between hi-cap and 140) and WOW! Cleaned up the high frequencies!!! Was able to move the CD player back to the Tuner (unfiltered) input on the 72 and the result was great. I was able to enjoy Lee Morgan's Sidewinder (RVG edition) for the first time. This CD was *really* edgy before to the point of being unlistenable.

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