72 edge over 62? Or wait for 32?

The 62 is quite a ways back from the 32.5 (not 32) and the 72.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Thanks for your comments, all.

I can obtain the 62 at a third of the price of a 72 I've found. Question is, is the edge the 72 has worth the difference? And is the 62 a worthy match for the 250?

Cheers,

Edo

I bought my 42.5 rather than a very similar priced 62 after an A B demo.

Am I
A) Deaf Mad Stupid etc
B) Entiled to prefer the more up frount faster sound of the 42.5 (i thought so anyway)
C) Was the 62 shagged

or none of the above

Simon

I always considered the 42/32 to be very similar in performance. The 32(and 32.5) simply had more inputs.

I did uprade a 42 to 32 years ago but never thought there was much in the way of sonic improvement.

I assumed (rightly or wrongly) that the 62/72 would be similar in this respect. i.e. same pre-amps but one with more inputs than t'other.

Steve B

I tried a 72 to replace my 62 in a 62/140 system. On great source material, the 72 was immensely better than the the 62. On normal source material, the 72 was too damned 'harsh'. I bought a hicap instead of the 72.

8 months later, I had a chance to buy a 72/hi for a song. I compared the 72/hi against my 62/hi, and it was a no-brainer. As good as the 62/hi was, there was simply no comparison between it and the 72/hi. On every parameter, the 72/hi won by bif margins. My primary value is 'involvement', and that's where the 72 scored its biggest win.

I cannot fathom the comments of 'james mcp'. (He probably can't fathom mine.) I owned a 62 for 4 years, the 62/hi for one additional year, and the 72/hi for 3-4 years. I don't know james mcp's experience level with the 62 and 72.

The 42/42.5/62/92 in good fettle are pretty much identical. I don't know the 32/32.5. The 72 is far better than the 62 series. Since you have a PSU, I'd strongly urge you to wait for a 72.

I think james mcp is in a very small minority if he truly thinks a 62 is bettered only by an 82/52/552.

The 62, however, is very good - that is, terrific. It is not the best choice for a 250, but it won't be embarassing. But what will it replace? If it replaces a 42 or 42.5, the improvement, if any, will be negligible unless your current preamp is badly in need of service.

I expect the 62 is a sideways step for you; the 72 would be a real improvement.

Regards.

Phil

quote:

---

Since you have a PSU, I'd strongly urge you to wait for a 72.

---

I should have mentioned earlier that I do not have a PSU yet. Still looking.

quote:

---

The 62, however, is very good - that is, terrific. It is not the best choice for a 250, but it won't be embarassing. But what will it replace? If it replaces a 42 or 42.5, the improvement, if any, will be negligible unless your current preamp is badly in need of service.

---

It would be replacing a different brand pre.

Cheers,

Edo

This is another of those "How long is a piece of string?" questions. By this I don't mean that it's a stupid question but that it's one whose answer depends on how you look at it.

A lot depends on your future upgrading plans. When the 72 was launched it was Naim's best pre-amp, and I doubt if many who upgraded to one from a 62 or 32.5 were disappointed.

If you don't expect to upgrade again for many years then perhaps holding out for a 72 would be the best choice - unless you expected to add a HiCap to the 62 in the near future. A 62/HiCap should comfortably outperform a 72 (although I haven't actually compared these alternatives).

However, if you do expect to upgrade the pre-amp in the forseeable future, you might prefer to get the 62 now, and later upgrade to a 102, 82 or 52, all of which are significantly better than a 72.

According to legend the 62 and 32.5 sound essentially the same - the differences between any two being more due to which of two suppliers provided the main circuit board than to which of them is a 62 and which is a 32.5. My own impression is that the 62 is better - but that's based on hearing one 62 perhaps twice and three 32.5s - all with different systems at different times...

JD

This one I have proved to my own satisfaction. We went throught the following transitions:

1. 1988 fully serviced 62 / 160 (bloody good)

2. 62 / HiCap / 160 (better by a lot per unit of currency)

3. Early-ish (red light, no 72 boards, loaned for 6 weeks) 32.5 / HiCap / 160 (exactly as Tony L says on his site; 62 was "a tad leaner", Less precise due to not having been serviced, but overall sound subtly prefereable. Not one to lose sleep over.

4. 1995 72 / HiCap / 160. Immediate and massive improvement in all areas. Overall fun and tingle factor superior to 82/180 experienced under show conditions.

The rumour mill states that later 72s identifiable by having a single pair of BNC inputs sound better than earlier ones with 2 sets. Can't comment -- ours has single BNC input. It's fab, IMHO.

The rumour mill also states that they all take at least 3 weeks to warm up. This is if anything, conservative. They take ages.

Best;

Mark

(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)

Edo

quote:

---

I should have mentioned earlier that I do not have a PSU yet. Still looking

---

I had always assumed that even with the earliest 250s that you needed a separate power supply for a Naim preamp

Paul

quote:

---

I prefer the 62 to the 32.5, the 72 is very slightly better than either

---

I'd probably delete the "very" but otherwise agreed.

James

quote:

---

I'm told that the 102 is better than the 72, but I really don't know whether it is.

The 82, I think, is better than the 62. The 52 is a giant leap better than the 82

---

Agreed. The 102 certainly was not sufficiently better than the 42.5 to make me want one, but the 82 was.

Chris

I've owned 12S, 42, 42.5, 32.5, 62, 72, 82, 52. I have absolutely no hestitation whatsoever in recommending the 72 as the best bang for the buck overall. It is now close in price to the bottom end but gives some insight into what the 82 and 52 can do (albeit in a rather rough and ready way - I couldn't ever imagine prefering it to either of those but one has a certain warm feeling inside when considering its cost). I thought it far better than 12s to 62 (each of which were, give or take, small or negligible improvements on their predecessors). Indeed I just bought one a couple of weeks ago for my brother in law and considered downgrading when hearing it in my system again - I felt no sense of musical loss when listening to it in isolation - only when comparing it to its very big brother (52) (I was running it off a supercap though!).

Steve

First things first put a HiCap on the 62 to hear what it can do. As for a 102 vs 62, not much difference without the HiCap but add the HiCap and 102 was noticeably better than the 62.

When I listened to these combos at my dealers I had some m8's with me who thought spending 1k+ on a pre amp was madness, the main reason for trying the 102 (as I was happy with the 62, HiCap) was I'd run out of inputs on the 62 and after a listen I was ready to buy (sale or return if it didn't work out at home of course), just to see what improvements it made I asked to hear the 102 with the NAPSC. Wow major improvement but it was over my budget so thought add later? No way, my m8's wouldn't let me, in the space of a few hours they went from your mad to spend that on a pre amp that drives a 35w per channel amp to telling me I was mad not to spend the extra £££ on a box "That drives the lights" as it made such a big difference/

Anyway, did it and been very happy.

Just need to try a 250 on the IBL’s………..<grin>

The best demonstration of why, was at a Naim "musical evening" about 10 years ago, where they went up the system hierachy from something like 62/90 to 52/52PS/250. The biggest step, by far, and from the gasps of astonishment I'm sure the rest of the room agreed, was from 62 to 72. That's why I bought a 72 instead of a 62.