which is better sounding NAC112, NAP150 or NAC72,NAP140

I'll be interested as well!

Currently considering a 112 to replace a 72 in a 3.5/FC2/72/Hi/140 system.

Following my post on 4 May (Thank you Charlezz and Steven Toy for replying, I added a s/h Hi-cap to the 72 to tame the 'sharp' features of it. I was then thinking of adding another to the 3.5.

Now I'm not so sure. After letting it settle for some weeks, I seemed to have one thing and created another. The sound is certainly much smoother and the system as a whole is bristling with energy, to the extent that I wonder if another Hi-cap would be overpowering.

I now seem to be aware of a loss of clarity and wooliness that must come from the 72 whereas before I was impressed by it's clarity.

I think that the 3.5/FC2 work well together and mixing 'old and new' could be a way to temper the overall sound to suit requirements. I have tried a 102 in the system but found it revealing of the 3.5.

The 112 could well be my next move as I save hard for the CDX (2?) front end. Any comment's? Is this logic correct?

Thanks.

Sorry Kam I've not had a comparison.

Richard, get those 110s off for a service ASAP and the 32.5 (if it also due)

I have just had my 42.5/110 recapped and the benfits are very real. After replacing the old NACA4 for NACA5, grey SNAIC for black SNAIC, installing a mains spur.
The amps have been transformed from old and tired to their original condition (which it quite impressive for such old boxes)
Then you'll wonder about the hicap!
cheers

David

Dudes,

I did a long comparison between a 72/140 and a 112/150 as I was considering what to do with my 92/90. I also did more limited listening at home with an 82 vs a 112 through my 90. n The source in all cases was my cd5.

To my ears, I had a VERY strong preference for the 112/150. The overall presentation was just so much more pleasurable, but still rhythmic and driving. Two aspects of the 112/150 are what sold me. The first is the tremendous dynamics compared with any of the other combos, even the 82. This was strikingly obvious in classical disks. The other bonus was the greatly extended bass compared with my 92/90. It sounds like a bought a subwoofer alomg with my new amps, really, although one on low gain!

Enjoy

Bruce

Anyone with a 72 should hold onto it until they have the requisite pennies to purchase an 82.
Otherwise it's a case of pennies wasted on a sidegrade which may be different but is certainly not not better. The novelty value will soon wear off in the absence of any tangible musical improvement.

The 112 better than an 82 in any way, shape or form - sonically/musically that is?

No way! ... Well, not unless the 82 is revealing the shortcomings of a relatively weak front end.

Regards,

Steve.

The proof of the pudding...

Steve,

Have you directly compared an 82 and a 112 in your home, on your system? I have, and although I preferred the 82, for the money I thought the 112 kicked ass, and it was a no brainer over a 72 or even a 102, But that's just my opinion, and beingthe owner of a "weak front end", my opinion must obviously be taken with a grain of salt.

BEC

BEC143[/B]
I have yet to hear an 82.

There seem to be a number for sale at the moment and I was seriously contemplating 3.5/Hi/82/140 - until I read posts that said the CDX/72/Hi/140 is better! There is also a lot of opinion that a 82 needs at least one Hi-cap. I'm sure that I would then immediately need the CDX.........

And so it goes on...upgraditis is confusing and getting to me.

I have heard, however, 112/Hi/140 (with a CD5) in a shop dem and liked it, but thought at the time I prefered the upfront sound of the 72. In reality, I select times to listen to music only when I feel like a 'full on session' because that's how the system sounds.

So I'm turning to the 5 series with great expectations but will home dem before I buy!

Khoi

Do a search of the post's by Geoff A. They are an interesting read and make a good case to trial the 112.

But felt the 112, though better, was not that much better to justify the additional cost.

cheers

Nigel

quote:

---

Steve,

Have you directly compared an 82 and a 112 in your home, on your system? I have, and although I preferred the 82, for the money I thought the 112 kicked ass, and it was a no brainer over a 72 or even a 102, But that's just my opinion, and beingthe owner of a "weak front end", my opinion must obviously be taken with a grain of salt.

BEC

---

I have heard the 102 with a 150, and a 112 with a 140 as well as the usual permutations.

The 102 was stronger than the 112 with both power amps.

The 82 is a clear upgrade over the 102 into a 180 or a 250.

I did not undertake these demonstrations at home in my own system as I only do home dems on kit I actually want to buy.

Regards,

Steve.

The proof of the pudding...

Christian

quote:

---

Surely a 112/150 MUST be a significant improvement over a Nait3 (provided the front end and the speakers are good enough)?

---

Well I thought so too, but it did not convince me when I heard it.

You could get a pre-owned 72/hi-cap/140 for about the same money and I would imagine that would be more of an improvement.

cheers

Nigel

Hi Steve - it was my 72 / 140 you bought - glad you bought a hi cap for the 72 . I don't think that an 82 will do too much for your system but you are welcome to borrow mine for a weekend with 2 x hi caps if you want a demo . A hi cap on the 3.5 sounds good or perhaps a 250 to get a bit more out of those speakers.
Cheers
Glenda