Is a 72 better than 102 ?

But why not go for a s/h 82, thats better still...

naheed...

quote:

---

I'd read here some "hints" that there are members here who think that a 72 is a better pre than the 102.

---

My take on it is that the 102 is certainly the better preamp, and possibly the better new buy, though to my ears it does sound quite grainy without the 180 quid NAPSC power supply.

Second hand the situation changes dramatically, the 102 for some reason seems bizarrely overpriced, with people often wanting over 750 quid for one (I reckon it is worth 600 tops). A 72 can be picked up for 350 quid, and an upgraded 32-5 for around 250 - the 102 is definitely not worth the extra in my opinion, especially as the 82 seems to resell at around half its list price (and is in a different league). Bottom line is that a 102 is better than a 72, though IMHO it is not as good as a 72 (or 72'd 32-5) with a Hicap which can be had for less money second hand.

Tony.

But as always it depends what you will
end up with in the end. Don't loose your final
end goal.
<br>

Regards
-mb

I echo the observations that the 102 is better than the 72, but it's a bit of an odd beast in that it seems to demand a better source than either the (discontinued) preamp below it or the preamp above it.

My gut feeling is that the 72 is warm and fuzzy enough to mask the flaws of an imperfect source, whereas the 82 cleans up the signal enough to make the most of an imperfect source.

But if you have a solid analogue source, say, LP12 Ittok, Asaka or better, or a solid digital source, say, CDI, CD2, CDX, or better, I'd be surprised if you didn't prefer the 102 to the 72.

I also agree with General Lonorgan that you should get the digital power supply. It doesn't net you many FEPs, but it does reduce grain.

Jo

As to which is the one to purchase, that depends. If you already have a 72/hicap, I would not buy a 102 - the improvement didn't seem big enough - way less than a 62 to 72 move (assuming hicaps on both). If you have to buy either at retail, it's a much closer call, and the 102 probably wins out - 102/NAPSC costs less than the 72/hicap but it doesn't sound quite as good.

What's your source? I expect that a used 72 + source upgrade will be far better than a 102 and no source upgrade.

Where are you going? If it's 82 or 52 land, I'd go with a used 72 to start. If I were going to keep this preamp for several years (4-5, I'd say), and if I had the money, the 102 would look better to me

How important is remote control? I recently dumped my 72 for an 82 because I 'had' to have remote, and I want a 52 anyway. The 82/2 x hicap is much better than the 72 ( should be: it's 2.5 times the cost), but the 72 - especially used - is tremendously cost-effective. I will always have a warm spot in my heart for the 72.

Phil

My sources are LP12 ittok asak and a CDi. The speakers are IBL's

I bought a new 72 with a used 140 instead of my old Nait3 and I have a flatcap. The dealer gave me an option to go for a new 102 without a lost of money - but I have to make a quick decition in order to keep the price of the 72 as a price for a new one. of courcse the dealer will demonstrate the 102 at my home but I didn't want to disturb him unless I'm sure it is a real option for me.

So I understand that with my sources the 102 betters the 72, and as the dealer suggests I'll make a greater afford and will buy it with the napsc.

Thanks,

Arie

I think that reason some people may prefer the 72 to the 102 is that the 72 is more balanced in its presentation. Joe Petrik proposed that the 72 is equal parts detail and musical organization, while the 102 is 2 units more detailed but only 1 unit more organized. After living with both, (and an 82 and a 52) I agree with him.

On an absolute basis the 102 is better; on a value basis I think the 72 better.

Cheers,

Bob

PS--Apologies to Joe if I misstated his position.ü