The great debate: 102 vs. 72

Posted by: Mike Hanson on 26 October 2002

For quite some time I've been reading silly meanderings on this forum, with a surprising number of individuals claiming that they prefer a 72 to a 102, or at least that the 102 isn't much better. I knew these musings were spurious, and I had a recent chance to verify it.

My secondary system has a 72 powered by a SNAPS2 (dual-railed). I was considering upgrading the SNAPS2 to a Hi-Cap, when a friend suggested that I trade my 72 for his 102. He figured the cost would be less and the performance increase more significant.

I received the 102 yesterday. Unfortunately, it didn't come with any of the link plugs, so I used one SNAPS2 for the audio side, and another SNAPS2 in place of the NAPSC supply, using the SLIC from my Headline (yes this does work).

The difference between 72/SNAPS2 and 102/SNAPS2/SNAPS2 is astounding! The 72 sounds lumpy, muffled, fuzzy, and generally heavy-handed. In sharp contrast, the 102 is detailed and controlled, with a wonderful sense of musical flow. The instruments have more sense of presence and "size". Overall, the improvement is much more than I've observed when changing form a SNAPS2 (or a Flat-Cap which is roughly the same) to a Hi-Cap.

I've seen this pattern before. If you have the option of upgrading power supplies or upgrading pre-amps for the approximately same money, go for the pre-amp upgrade. You won't be disappointed!

Now I need to find an NAPSC-equivalent power supply, because I need that second SNAPS2 and SLIC for my Headline. Since this is purely for the digital side, I'm considering getting a generic 18V power supply (with appropriate current capacity). It will be a whole lot cheaper, and the key issue is getting the digital side onto a separate supply from the audio. Has anyone else done this? Do you know what the current requirements are?

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on SATURDAY 26 October 2002 at 20:52.]
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by Steve Toy
quote:
The 72 sounds lumpy, muffled, fuzzy, and generally heavy-handed. In sharp contrast, the 72 is detailed and controlled


Should this read:

a)The 72 sounds lumpy, muffled, fuzzy, and generally heavy-handed. In sharp contrast, the 102 is detailed and controlled

or


b)The 102 sounds lumpy, muffled, fuzzy, and generally heavy-handed. In sharp contrast, the 72 is detailed and controlled

?

Regards,

Steve.

It was a)

Edited in light of Mike's correction

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 27 October 2002 at 04:25.]
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by Mr.Tibbs
102’s need that auxiliary power supply – It shouldn’t be considered optional.

Mike,
I use a ‘wall wart’ to power the control circuitry in my 102. Basically, you need one that puts out 24V DC with a continuous rating of at least 500ma.
18V might work OK, but I haven’t tried it. It’s worth remembering that using the link plug, you are feeding 24V to the control circuitry.

Mr Tibbs
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by Steve B
According to the main web site, the NAPSC puts out 18v.

Steve B
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by herm
Who he?

Herman
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by garyi
Stallion don't talk crap the 102 is better in all aspects, I know I have used both with the same sources, amp and speakers, the 72 simply is not as good as the 102.

Those that claim otherwise want a 102 but couldn't afford it!
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by Mark Dunn
Hi Marco:

You *really* need a high end T/T!

Best Regards,
Mark Dunn
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Stallion:
You'd have loved him - he was just you're sort wink


Mr Jalfrezi, he gone?

Too bad.

More seriously, there's quite a bunch of users and sellers (it's one of the reasons why the Audio Works split, I believe) who say that after NAC 102 you're on the road to diminishing returns.

Herman
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by garyi
Marco I agree entirely. I have heard a 52 extensively into a 500 through nbls fronted by a CDS2 and yes I want every aspect of that system.

This is the naim structure and the structure dictates that the 102 is better than the 72, my only point is yes the 102 is better than the 72.
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by garyi
And right now my TT source is better than yours razz
Posted on: 26 October 2002 by herm
Moi: "there's quite a bunch of users and sellers (it's one of the reasons why the Audio Works split, I believe) who say that after NAC 102 you're on the road to diminishing returns."

Stallion: "I just feel that the 102/180 both represent a position in the Naim hierarchy that puts you in between two camps: one that's well above the performance of entry level components but, conversely, one that's also significantly well below that available when the Naim performance envelope really opens out."

I think that's just about right, Marco. Of course it gets much better after (Hi / NAPSC-supplied) 102. This "bunch" I'm talking about probably just has a more acute sense of VFM. It's intriguing these dealers I was alluding to (Audio Works is one, but my Dutch dealer is another one) do obviously sell amps in the higher price range. These just do not happen to be NAC 52, and when I ask why: they start about VFM. I don&rsquot do a lot of asking though, not having the M.

Herman
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by garyi
Well this is the point, Marco argued his own argument.

The 102/180 does come between the higher end stuff and the stuff below it, i.e. the 72.

without a doubt the performance of the 102 is enhanced with the NASPC and of course the Hi-Cap can't believe the difference the hi-cap made still can't.

Heres the point though. The 102 is better than the 72. Not worth arguing really. Its big box technology you see.

snigger.


BTW Listening to Black Market gardening on the LP12 with this xx-1 in a fixed condition. Blows CD away, now theres a proper argument.

Still want a CDS2 though. and a 52 and a couple of 135s.

Bahhhhh
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by garyi
Please do I am going into town for a KFC!

When you cook all week the last thing you want to do is cook again. smile
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by Steve Toy
If you want to find a leaky tap, go to a plumber's house big grin

Regards,

Steve.

It's just a pleasure to hear music as it was intended to be heard.
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by Mr.Tibbs
“I'm doing Best End of Lamb With a Pine Nut and Pistachio Crust Accompanied By a Rich Red Wine Jus On a Bed of Celeriac Mash, Roasted Challots, Beetroot And Batons Of Pancetta - Scrum!”

Stallers,

I must admit I admire your penchant for appreciating the finer things life can offer.

“and I'll present you with an interesting argument in favour of the 72”

That’ll be the fact you can get hold of a 72 for a lot less money then?
Any other argument would obviously show your ability to appreciate the finer things in life to be somewhat flawed.

Mr Tibbs
Posted on: 27 October 2002 by Bob Edwards
Hi all--

I think the reason some people might prefer the 72 to the 102 is in the upper frequency ranges. The 102 clearly struggles while attempting to reproduce music with a lot of upper octave energy, while the 72, in essence, ignores the same information. Thus the 102 gets in trouble by attempting things the 72 is not capable of. This can lead to some people thinking the 72 to be better balanced and "more of a piece".

Joe Petrik has described the 102 as being one unit more organized and two units more detailed than a 72, with an 82 being 4 units more organized and four units more detailed. I think his essential point is well taken--while the 102 does present more information, that information is not presented as coherently, by comparison, as a 72 or 82.

Finally, my LP12/72 sounds VASTLY better than my lower end spec LP12/82 ever did--source first works. I'd take a CDS2/72 over a CDX/XPS/102 any day.

Best,

Bob
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by herm
Great debate
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Mike Hanson
Sorry, I've been away from my computer for a couple of days. (How bizarre is that?!?)

Sorry for the ambiguity, Steven. As you may have noticed, I've edited the message to reduce the confusion.

Thanks for those specs, Mr. Tibbs. I'll go down to the local surplus electronics store tomorrow and see what I can find. They should also have the requisite NAPSC-style plug.

Stallion, since this system will never be playing vinyl, the performance of the 72 versus 102 with that source is not very important to me. The main source for this system is my studio, with background music while working the next priority. I can't do a comparison with my P3, because I don't have the necessary pre-amp cards to do it.

Regardless of the source, I still think that any allusion to the 72 being better than the 102 is put silliness. Yes, the 72 has a simpler, more focused design. In contrast, the 102 has a more sophisticated and advanced design. Of course, some of it's advances aren't accommodated with quite as much finesse as the 82 or 52, but doesn't mean it's not better overall than the 72.

Bob, your point is probably the most balanced of the bunch. Does that may you equivalent to a 72 or 82, versus a 102? wink

-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by garyi
Stallion. There is one fatel flaw in your argument. The 102 sounds better than the 72.

Small boxes, resontant frequencies, lights etc etc don't really matter in terms of the sound. As I have mentioned I have heard rather a lot the 72 in a similar system, however this one has a CDX, but mine sounds better, even with a CDi, but thats another argument...
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Phil Barry
One again, people are trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Hanson - who started this round with an unequivocal blurb for the superiority of the 102 - now backs off when he says...uh...he doesn't care about vinyl through his 102. Mike's next step - since he's usually reasonable - will be to agree that maybe the 72 is better than the 102 under conditions with which he's not familiar.

Choices are generally about trade offs. Certain choices are pretty clear - IMO that means that the vast majority of people would choose one thing over another, where price is no object - for example, the vast majority of listeners would prefer to listen to Ashkenazy, Mutter, or Albert Collins than to me.

Other choices are not so clear. This means - again, IMO - that many people would prefer each option over the other. The Chicago and Cleveland orchestras, for example, would sound great to most listeners. Lots of people would find it very difficult to choose one over the other.

The 102/72 choice is simply one that is not so clear. If remote control is important, of course one will choose the 102, but on sound quality alone, both preamps have their partisans.

For me, a 72/hi beats a bare 102 in musical communication. A 102/hi may be a bit better than a 72/hi, but it's not good VFM.

And, of course, vinyl replay is the critical factor. :-)

Regards.

Phil
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Alex S.
I've never compared a 102 with a 72.

I do prefer 32.5/SC to 82/HC or even 82/2HC though.

Alex
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
for example, the vast majority of listeners would prefer to listen to Ashkenazy, Mutter, or Albert Collins than to me.


The vast majority? I wouldn't be too sure of that, Phil.
Naxos and other budget labels have built their huge succes on the basis that lots of people want to have Beethoven's Fifth (sorry for the classical allusions, folks; Phil started it) but if they have to choose between the Vienna Philharmonic at $ 15 and some hastily assembled Spanish ballet orchestra playing the same material at $ 5 they'd take the latter. It's the same music, after all.

Some of this applies to the Great Debate. With every step up the preamp ladder you get to hear more detail. That's wonderful, but hearing the basic musical message with some of the detail substantially subordinated makes for more direct music, to some. And that's what the 72 does. My layman's guess is that this smaller bandwith makes the 72 a more enjoyable amp to some, rather than the halfwidth case with a couple of inches less of internal circuitry (the same would apply to the 82 and the 52, after all).

Herman
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Joe Petrik
Marco,

quote:
Regarding the 72/102 scenario, chew on this lot:

1) You pay a sonic price for the inclusion of remote control circuitry in a 102 that you don't pay further up the range with an 82/52 etc [where the detrimental sonic effect caused by this circuitry has been successfully dealt with]. The 72 has no such remote control circuitry.


Yup, that's why you get a NAPSC. Problem solved.



quote:
2) The smaller sized case used on a 72 suffers less from the effects of resonance due to there being less area to resonate. Why did JV orginally use this size of case? - I'm sure that, knowing how particular he was about sound quality, it wasn't just for economical reasons. Furthermore, the smaller circuit board used also suffers less from the effects of microphony. Both are crucial factors as far as optimising the sound quality of a preamp is concerned.


Two points -- the 82 and 52 also use full-sized cases, and, more important, the 72 is more microphonic than the 102.



quote:
3) Smaller circuit boards facilitate shorter signal paths thus maintaining better signal integrity.


Good, I can trade it all for a Nait 2 and spend the proceeds on wine, women, and song.



quote:
4) The illuminated input selectors on a 102 generate noise. The source selector knob on the 72 is less sonically intrusive.


See NAPSC.



quote:
5) The original design of the 72 was optimised for vinyl replay due to its particular heritage (pre-CD). The 102 was optimised for CD replay due to it being the most popular source of its era. Therefore, I would argue that there are valid reasons why an original 72 could outperform a 102 on vinyl.


The 102 uses the same phono boards as the 82 and 52, so if the 102 isn't optimized for vinyl, neither is the 82 or 52.



quote:
6) None of this would matter if we were talking about an 82 or a 52 as both use superior components (compared to a 102) that negate the effects of the aforementioned remote control circuitry/case & circuit board size/illuminated input selector issues and the 72 vinyl design principles.



Yes, the 82 and 52 are better. No argument.

See NAPSC about "negating the effects of the aforementioned remote control circuitry/case & circuit board size/illuminated input selector issues."

About the vinyl design principles, the 82 and 52 use the same phono boards as the 102.

Joe
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Phil Barry
Herm,

This forum seems to have a number of musicians; alas, I am not one of them. I'm sure the vast majority fo people would prefer to hear the Lincoln Elementary School (Evanston, IL.) band than to hear me. And rightly so....

The point remains: some things are clearly better than others. The 102 is not clearly better than the 72, even though many people opine that it is.

Phil
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by David Stewart
But it does gave me a whole bunch of jolly good reasons to stick with a Nait and enjoy it smile

David
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by garyi
The 102 is better. when I added the NASPC I can't say as I noticed much difference, it still sounded good.

The 72 is not as good. I don't know if it is measurable but its obvious.

And curiously the 72 is better than the 92.

the 102 is not as good as the 52.

Havn't heard the 82 so can't comment