NAC92/NAP90 versus NAC72/NAP140

It is my understanding and from limited listening experience that the NAC72/NAP140 should reflect a significant sonic upgrade over the NAC92/NAP90. I believe that the NAC92 limits the frequency response much more than the NAC72.

Cheers,

My first experience of naim was of a nait 3 which was much hyped by the press and my dealer. Given the cost at the time (about £500) I thought it deeply disappointing. Happily many of its shortcomings (coarseness and lack of resolution) were rectified in the 92/90 combination to which you refer. I was all set to go when I was played the 72/140. After some toing and froing this is what I chose (and still own), along with rega planar 3 and rega kytes. Ive since added a hi-cap which is really worthwhile-you dont know you need it til you try it, then wonder how you did without.

The 72/140 gave a fuller and much richer and more mature sound than the 92/90. Nevertheless I was struck by how the 92/90 sounded exciting and presented music in a very appealling way. Try to imagine the shape and dimensions of the 92/90 sound as wide and short-like a letterbox. The 72/140 produces more of a circle of sound-much taller than 92/90 but also narrower. I can see this doesnt read terribly well but its the best I can manage at the mo!

Anyway as I already said, I chose the 72/140 which excelled where it mattered the most. However I came away thinking then and still now that I could easily live with a 92/90. It sounds good, its cheap, looks natty and can even come with a remote control.

cheers

roman

I can't answer the question because I have never heard a 92 but I upgraded from 102/90 to 102/140 a few months ago, and thought some info on the difference might be of interest:

With my speakers, Linn Kans, the 140 produces basss that is deeper and more tuneful but leaner. [The latter has enabled me to use my Kans close to the rear wall, as most Kan owners do, for the first time in ~16 years of owning them]. The 140 better preserves dynamic contrasts and is faster, more detailed and more articulate throughout the frequency range. The effect of the latter really struck me when I realised that the 90 had been hanging on to some notes (particularly percussion) too long, blurring their true decay.

Also, its performance is far less dependent on the time of day: the 90 sounded much better in the middle of the night than during the day but the 140 sounds good enough even from the moment of switch on at any time of day.

The overall effect is that music played via the 140 has greater emotional intensity, is less tiring to listen to and makes me more inclined to keep listening - even via my Rotel RCD965BX CD player [which is currently my main source until I get another Lingo for my LP12]

Hope this helps.

--J

<ft>
In any case why do you ask?
</ft>

Just weighing up my options before I spend some money. I guess you get what you pay for and I'll probably be shopping for a recent 72/140 now.

Upgrading from 42.4/90 to 72/140 was a huge step in a Kan based system.

- Jun