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: 28 October 2002 by Mike Hanson
As far as having experience with Naim's various pre-amps, I've owned most of them: 42, 42.5, 32.5, 72, 102, 82, and 52 (in obvious order of performance). I've also paired these in myriad combinations with NAPSC, SNAPS, SNAPS2 (dual rail), Flat-Cap, Hi-Cap, and Super-Cap. If anyone is in a position to comment on the relative superiority, it's likely me.
While power supplies certainly make a difference, I can't think of a situation where any power supply less than a Super-Cap was able to elevate a lesser pre-amp above one of its betters. For example, 72/SNAPS2 doesn't beat a bare 102 (just tested). However, I would likely take 32.5/Super rather than 72/Hi. (The Super-Cap really is quite special, and it can often boost a pre-amp more than one step forward.)
That having been said, I realize that not everyone desires the same end result. If you have an unnatural aversion to detail, then I could understand why you might prefer the 72 to the 102. (BTW, choosing the 32.5 over the 82 in any configuration is baffling.) However, if it's detail that you despise, then you're better off visiting your local Sony Store.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by gaby yoon
why is there a so much controversy about 102? That's not the case for 82. Perhaps the reason is that each person has his own taste and criteria of judgement, but also that 102 is not so much convincing in musical performance (or the value for money).
Anyway, this thread discourages me definitely to going from 72 to 102. My conclusion : I had better save money to get a s/h 82 or new 282(perhaps 202)! Am I wrong?
Regards.
Yoon.
* My actual system : CDX + 72/Hi + 250 + Spendor SP100 with NAC A5 ans Black SNAIC.
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Mr.Tibbs
Stallion,
I think Joe just came at your ‘six’ and now you’re toast!
“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.”
Mike,
That plug could be a bugger to source, I changed the socket in my 102 as a way round the problem.
Mr Tibbs
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by herm
Gaby,
how about getting an XPS first? You're kind of looking at a mullet right now.
Herman
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Chris Dolan
Mike
quote:
I can't think of a situation where any power supply less than a Super-Cap was able to elevate a lesser pre-amp above one of its betters
For my money the 42.5/Hicap/110 was better than a 72/110 circa 1989.
The 102 is better than the 72 but proportionately the 82 is so much better.
Chris
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by gaby yoon
Thanks for your attention.
Yes, I'm wondering also which way is to go first: xps or 82. Well, for this, I prefer to open a new thread.
Regards.
Gaby.
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by Ron The Mon
After three pages of responses, I still don't know what form of pre-amp you guys are comparing!!!
A 72 or (32/5) with no phono boards or tape boards sounds quite improved. Also, if the 72 was warmed-up, the 102 would sound harsh in comparison! Vice-versa if you're comparing a warmed-up phono-board-less 102 to a 72 cold with phono/and/or/tape boards.
What is also interesting to me is that when using a hi-level input (ie. tuner/CD) both pres sound better with MC boards vs. MM boards installed. Of course, removing the boards completely is better yet.
What is actually most interesting to me is no-one ever seems to compare the 72 to 112.
Ron The Mon,
Needle-Freak
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by herm
Also, constantly there are comparisons like 72 / Hi with a bare 102, which strike me as rather theoretical. Clearly one of the ways a 102 is better than a 72 is its upgradeability, and when talking about the 102, we should be talking about 102 / Hi / NAPSC. For instance, to make its case Marco's rather dubious six-point story on page 2 of this thread, asserting the 72 is better, needed to ignore the existence of the NAPSC.
Herman
Posted on: 28 October 2002 by redeye
72..warm, gluggy, comforting
102..sharp, etched, exciting
72/Hicap is a triffic pre amp, 102/napsc/Hicap is better (especially if you like to play loud)
I've owned both and wouldn't return to a 72 without a fight.
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Greg Beatty
...local dealers, who is no more, wouldn't sell a 102 without the NAPSC. Well, he would...but he would *really* push for a demo of it before the customer bought. The extra cost is small and the 102 sounds nasty without it.
In a similar, but different vein
I wouldn't bother with a 72/140 over a Nait. The 72/hicap/140 is a different beast though. Never demoed a Nait with a hicap to see if it came close.
- GregB
Insert Witty Signature Line Here
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Andrew L. Weekes
Not sure if it's exactly the same type, but Maplin sell multipole locking audio connectors, of the type often used on radio transceivers.
They are the same AFAICT as the NAPSC connector, and are available from 2-way upwards - they're inexpensive, so worth a look. The mating chassis part is available too.
Might help...
A.
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Rico
quote:
Maybe. However, once I get the Thorens on Phase 14 Mana who knows?
We know. It will be a case of silk purse/sow's ear. It will still be a Thorens, just jacked up on a load of 'metal'.
My LP12 on just one layer of 'metal' will trounce it.
Now, that aside, Marco - how's about adding some interest to this thread and publishing that recipe you mention - sounds devine!
Interesting in your reply to Joe that you discuss the 72 not attempting things it doesn't do well, and coming off the better for it - I'm sure this is a feature that many prefer. It's precisely the reason that the 112 is so succesful - yet I prefer the 102 (which clearly wants to be a 52 and doesn't make the distance - and makes no excuses) for the etched musicality/warts-and-all style it displays in response to the 112's directed/stage-managed presentation.
All, please note I'm not bagging any of these fine preamps, and loved my 72 very much (and the string of 32.5's after it!).
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Joe Petrik
Marco,
quote:
Hi, Joe, I do enjoy out little chats
As do I, Mr. Marco. As do I. [note clever use of partial repeat to establish congeniality]
quote:
let's look at what you said
Okey dokey.
quote:
However, I was referring to a bare 102 against a 72 - I prefer the 72. The 102 is "clearer", but I find the 72 more musical and it doesn't try to do things it's not capable of.
It usually comes down to this: If you can afford a 102, you can afford a NASPC, so a bare 102 vs. a bare 72 is a moot comparison. Anyway, I agree the 102 needs the NAPSC and for the reasons you pointed out. Naim should offer it as standard kit.
quote:
However, those full-sized cases are also full of superior components and more complex audio circuitry. Both these factors, I believe, negate the (arguably) detrimental effect of the larger case size (and the other issues) that, in my opinion, the 102 fails to do.
You're assuming the bigger case is worse. Maybe the bigger case is better at dissipating vibrations.
quote:
Why [is the 72 more microphonic than a 102]?
Possibly something to do with the 72's boards being plug-in instead of mostly hardwired, as in the 102. I'd expect a soldered joint to be less microphonic.
quote:
Well, for a kick off, the 52 uses a Supercap so the phono boards behave differently (sound better) than those on a 102.
You're comparing apples with rutabagas. What would happen if you put a SuperCap on a 102?
quote:
An 82 has more complex audio circuitry than a 102 and this influences the sound produced by the internal phono boards. Therefore, I would argue that these factors make both the 82 and 52 better optimised for vinyl than a 102.
The 82 and 52 are simply better preamps, so they make more of
any signal they are fed. It doesn't have anything to do with being optimized for vinyl because they all use the same phono boards.
quote:
Really? How does a NAPSC influence equipment case resonance? Or address microphony issues on circuit boards?
Is doesn't. I intentionally included one glaring mistake in my original message so you wouldn't feel bad about having your entire six-point argument shot down in flames. ;-)
quote:
However, as an aside, does anyone know if the phono boards on the ORIGINAL 72 differ in any way to those used with all current preamps?
The original boards won't fit the modern preamps, so there's one difference.
quote:
Back in the 80's, I remember using an LP12 through a 72/Hicap/250 and feel sure that there was far better synergy/musicality present than there was during my recent experience listening to an identically configured LP12 through a 102/Hicap/180 - and, no, it wasn't just because of the 250.
You’re comparing your
distant flock of seagulls memory of a 72, Hi-Cap, 250 with your much more recent memory of a 102, Hi-Cap, 180. I suggest there's an itsy bitsy flaw in your methods.
I don’t think the 102 is the be-all and end-all of preamps either, but in my system it's better than a 72 and worse than an 82... just as you would expect.
Joe
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Mr.Tibbs
You don’t know when you’re beat do you Marco?
Joe has you ‘locked on’ and you’re only a button press away from oblivion, but he’s a sporting sort of a guy is Joe. Yes, he’s willing to let you off the hook so long as you admit defeat. Me, I’d have let that sidewinder loose without a second thought.
I think what you’re trying to say (in your own inimitable fashion) is that the 102 is only a gnats whisker better than a 72, so best just ignore it and get an 82. If so you’re wrong, the 102 is a completely different animal to the 72, as has been deftly pointed out by Redeye. The only mistake Naim ever made with the 102, was in making the napsc optional. It sounds pretty dismal without it and it positively bursts into life as soon as you fit it. I’m not complaining though, as my ‘napsc’ came for free. – It gave up its day job powering some unworthy telecommunications contraption.
Mike,
Earlier I suggested you would need to seek out a supply with a 500mA continuous rating. I was being a tad cautious there, as the 102 only draws approx 150mA for the control circuitry. My own ‘napsc’ is rated at 24V, 250 mA and works perfectly. Be sure to specify one that has a regulated (fixed at 24V) output.
Andy the oracle and Martin,
Yeah, I think Naim were having a laugh when they used that oddball connector. Perhaps they reckoned it would stop us tinkering types from hooking up those DIY napsc’s?
Mr Tibbs
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Mike Hanson
I found a store in Toronto that has the 3- and 4-pin variety of that plug, but not the 2-pin yet. I'll keep looking for now.
I got a great idea from Bernard (bpaquet here on the forum). I'm currently using a SNAPS2 (dual-railed) for my Headline. The Headline uses only one rail, leaving the other free for use. All I need to do is wire a SLIC to use the second rail, and I can power the 102's NAPSC needs from that same unit. This should work just fine and dandy.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by Phil Barry
Mike,
I wonder if the SNAPS is a large part of your lack of appreciation of the 72. The hicap is a lot better than the flatcap, and you (and others) have said the SNAPS is about the same as the flatcap.
A bare 102 is far more listenable than a bare 72.
At present, a used 72/hi costs about the same as a used 102. This is a much closer call, with many people going for each choice. And I suspect that few people with a 72/hi would find the 102 to be a good upgrade.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
A bare 102 is far more listenable than a bare 72.
At present, a used 72/hi costs about the same as a used 102. This is a much closer call, with many people going for each choice. And I suspect that few people with a 72/hi would find the 102 to be a good upgrade.
Same sort of specious reasoning every time. The original Great Debate was the question whether the 102 is better than the 72, in terms of what it gives. You can turn it into a VFM question and supply the 72 with a HiCap and compare it with a bare 102 - but who would do that?
If you start with a 72 / Hi, though, and replace the 72 with a 102, you have a great upgrade, that's only waiting for the NAPSC to be excellent, no question. But sure, the 72 is cheaper than the 102. Problem is, it doesn't sound better.
Herman
Posted on: 29 October 2002 by redeye
And that...
Is the famed Vuk whammo factor in action
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm
quote:
Originally posted by Vuk Vuksanovic:
Herman.
If you look above, you'll see that _both_ Joe Petrik and I rated the 102 above the 72.
Poor Vuk,
had I forgotten to mention your post? How could I? I know it makes you sad. So I'll make it up to you: it was a great post, Vuk, and you made it all by yourself. Almost.
However what I was saying was there seems to be two debates in that some stick to the question whether the 102 is substantially better than the 72, and when someone like Joe shows, in his excellent post, that the material arguments for the 72's superiority don't add up, others circle back to the VFM question, as Phil did. That's what I wanted to point out.
I.e. because the 72 is cheaper and not a bad amp (obviously) the 102 can't win. I think that's nonsense, the money gap not being that big
I didn't feel the need to mention Joe's post specifically because its excellence was fairly obvious, and also I'm pretty sure he's not like you in that he doesn't need to have his every post strewn with screaming fans and admiring bouquets.
What I'm saying is Joe has both a life and the sense of humor that comes with it.
Herman
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm
Per,
why are you trying to wake Vuk all the time? Vuk needs his sleep.
So I'll answer your question for him. Yes, the Rega is the best source in the world, and you want to know why?
Because it's in Vuk's system, you silly Dane! You don't even know the basics do you? Everything is best the way Vuk does it. You want to have some fun, track speakers in the search box and you'll find the best speakers in the world by the year 2000 were Totems - because Vuk had Totems. A year later there's no question what the best speakers in the world look like. They are Neat Elites, and I'm sure you know why, now.
So I guess we're real lucky Vuk likes the 102 better than the 72, as a rare case of reality and Vuk's take on it overlapping.
Herman
[This message was edited by herm on WEDNESDAY 30 October 2002 at 11:29.]
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by reductionist
You are worng to say ...
>>> 1) All remote control circuitry causes interference and thus degrades sound quality. The NAPSC is simply a solution to a problem - it's better not to create the problem in the first place than have to overcome it. Remote control? Get off yer arse instead!
The 102 uses the same system of remote control as the 82 and 52 pre-amplifiers. When a command is sensed the circuitry awakens from its slumbers to execute the desired command. The circuitry then turns itself off, or rather returns to a hibernating, but expectant state awaiting orders from its master the emitter of Infra-red photons. It should therefore not influence sound quality by its inclusion.
The relay switching is another pressure cooker of Haddock altogether and requires, nay, demands a tightly regulated power supply to work correctly.
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by reductionist
You also say ...
>>> Joe, it should be remembered that I'm rather fastidious and will always go the extra mile to obtain the best possible sound. I appreciate that not everyone is like that: not even yourself, perhaps?
But you still use 52, Supercap, 135's rather than at least a 252,Supercap2, 300? You also do not own a turntable of high calibre. I would humbly suggest you need to actually go the extra inch before claiming to have gone the extra mile.
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Alex S.
You would do well to remember that Vuk's vitriol is entirely understandable. Actually, I'm amazed at how well he's coping. After all, he did have to endure, for a ghastly length of time, the horribly mulletted arrangement of a bare CDX at the front of what was otherwise a quite reasonable system.
Alex
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm
Stallion: "Tibbers, as far as I'm aware, Joe hasn't "beat" me at anything. We're merely having a nice little chat"
Well, maybe it's not such a great idea to let you be the judge of that, Marco. You came with a number of points to prove the 72 was better than the 102. These pseudo technical points have pretty much been falsified and demolished by Joe and various other members. So if you don't want to hear you have been beat - and that's fine with me - your side of the story has been beat definitely. It's extinct. It's been demised.
All that's left is the NAC72 is cheaper, you hear less problems because there's less to hear, and it's good exercise not to have a remote.
Also I'm anxious to hear when you're selling your 52: no one knows better than you how bad that thing has to be with a remote and a full case. Just give a holler and I'll take that piece of junk off your hands.
Herman
Posted on: 30 October 2002 by reductionist
>>> Surely the mere existance of a further interface in the chain is not beneficial to sound quality whether it is activated or deactivated?
It is not an interface in the audio chain. It is a set of control gear that control parts of the chain. If designed correctly these will not affect the effectiveness of the chain especially while deactivated.
>>> And why, then, do many minimalist, hi-end manufacturers deliberately choose not to include remote control with their equipment?
Cost of developement. Minimilist manufacturers are usually very small <10 man companies who try to achieve maximum sound per pound, or best at a specific price point. Include remote control and the price rises, the performance does not have to suffer. Note "does not have to". The cost of developing a remote system that does not cause a problem is high and the designers do not often have the time / expertise.
You own a remote pre-amplifier, if leaving remote control off improves things so much why do you not own one of these "perfect" minimalist devices?
>>> It isn't just for economical reasons.
Yes it is.
