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: 30 October 2002 by reductionist

Also. There is still a feeling in the HiFi industry that a component can only sound good if it is hair shirt in operation. This is clearly a fallacy.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm

Hi Per,

You're going to be in such trouble. Yes, the Elites are ported. But that is not the point. Vuk likes them. (So do a lot of other members, actually.)

One thing you have to understand is Vuk is an older member of the forum - not in any bio-, psycho- or plain logical sense*, but he logged in before you did. This means he's right, and you're not. Unless you agree with him.

Another major source of superiority is he went to the prestigious University of Western Ontario (prestigious mostly for having had Vuk on campus). Ever since, as he has explained, the Canada - USA trade balance hinges largely on Vuk's consulting activities. That's why it's vital that he sleeps well and takes his medication.

Lastly, it appears he has on one or two occasions dated a woman he'd taken a picture of. You or I may think it's kind of tacky, but, hey, a date is a date.

Herman

* On the Pink Fish Forum he considered himself a senior member from post one, apparently, though he logged in rather late in the game.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by jpk73

Hey, people!

Do you think a 52/Supercap2 with an extra Supercap2 for the digital circuitry would outperform a 252/Supercap1?

BTW, there is a CD3.5/72/140/Kan2-system at my sister-in-laws-appartement: should we add some Hicaps to the CDP and/or the preamp?

- Jun

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Joe Petrik

Marco,

quote:
...Joe can feel free to give it his best shot - if he feels that it's in his best interests to do so...

In the old days when we sparred you were just plain ol' Marco. Yes, a formidable opponent with many weapons at his disposal, but clearly not an invincible adversary. But now you're Mana Marco™, a Marco with superhuman powers. Quite honestly, I don't think I would survive an MM™ attack if you decided to unleash a torrent of verbal abuse never before seen on this forum. So,...

...I give! I give.

Joe

P.S. The 102 is better.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by garyi

Why all this talk of hi caps and NASPC etc etc.

The question was is a 102 better than a 72.

The answer is yes it is. Marco obviously has not heard a 102 or a 72 in a very long time so we can discount his assumptions.

More over he has placed many extras into the chain to back up his claims, even going so far as to bring mains quality in, that was not the question.

If the talk concerns extras in the chain, then surely the pretty little lights on the 82 and 52 control knobs is playing havoc? No? I thought not.

Time to face up to it lads, if you own a 72 its not a 102, which is better than a 72 and not as good as an 82. Job done.

And yes Vuk, my opinion is so small that it cannot be calculated.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Steve Toy

quote:
as long as were on the subject that sometimes less expensive kit sounds better than higher priced gear. here goes! the cd5 kills the old cdx cd player,

Yup, and a NAD 541 trounces a CD5.

Nuno, you shouldn't have sold your NAD.

Well Nuno can always pay £300 quid for another one instead of paying nearly four times the price for the grossly inferior Naim, and I can do a straight swap of my CDX for a brand new CD5 with a Flatcap 2 thrown in FOC.

So, which is better in terms of absolute performance irrespective of bang-for-bucks, the NAD 541 or the CD5 with a FC2?

I deeply, deeply regret downgrading from CD5/FC2 to CDX 11 months ago - and losing £1300 quid on the deal to boot. What I silly billy I am.

Regards,

Steve.

My sistem: Nad 541/Densen B200/300/Naos

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm

quote:
Originally posted by Stallion:
I'm just waiting for Herm to push the right buttons

Gee Marco,

I didn't know you had any.

Herman

My sistem: sony walkman / bell on my bike

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Stephen Bennett

...as I just bought Stephen Dempsters 102 & NAPSC. So I can compare a 72/hi/140 with a 102/NAPSC/hi/140 directly.

I'll post my observations

Regards

Stephen

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm

But, Marco, why would you want to leave out the Hi in the case of the 102? I think that's such a skewed comparison, particularly since we're not talking megabucks here.

No one who'd have a 72 / Hi combo would next go to a bare 102. Gary has a Hi-cap, I do, in fact virtually everybody does. Everyone who has a 102 will (eventually) have a NAPSC and a Hi-Cap. That's the package. A lot of people who have a 72 will be looking for a Hi-Cap - except the hard core downgraders.

That's what makes your case so... extraterrestially theoretical.

Herman

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Rockingdoc

A hundred posts!
Stop, just get a 52.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Steve Toy

Being a Mana fanatic (Marco isn't one of those, btw) it's a case of "people in glass houses..." regarding notions of using ones anus as some kind of sealed storage facility

Regards,

Steve.

It's just a pleasure to hear music as it was intended to be heard.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Dev B

quote:
Originally posted by Stallion:

quote:
If designed correctly these will not affect the effectiveness of the chain especially while deactivated.

Reductionist

Are you _100%_ sure about this? And if you are, please document your proof.

Marco.

Marco,

I think Reductionist may be right, I remember having a chat with one of the Linn design guys when I visited them and they said pretty much the same thing when I asked them about remotes and balance controls. i.e in theory, if the circuit is designed properly there is no performance advantage from its removal.

Dev

ps. I don't have documented proof I'm afraid

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Steve Toy

"A little birdie tells me you were found with your trousers down at John Watson's after that last fateful visit."

Is that so?

Apparently also, my biggest passion in life is MC carts even though I don't even have a TT...

Regards,

Steve.

Nothing against Mana or Mr. Watson, just the attitude of some of the sycophants from that place

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by matthewr

Marco,

Saying a 102 sounds worse than a 72 because it has a remote control is precisely the logic that says Mana is bad because it uses glass.

Matthew

PS A gentle word of advice: When you say, as you often do, words along the lines of "Thank you, X, for your considered post, now lets have a look at what you said" its difficult to imagine how you could come across as more patronising. It reads like you believe yourself to be addressing a small child or a simpleton rather than, say, a broadly experienced adult educated to a post-graduate level.

Hope this helps.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by garyi

Marco you make clear and defined statements.

The only trouble is you are wrong.

A bare 102 sounds better than a bare 72. It is possibly not earth shattering but its better.

Your argument is that a bare 72 sounds better than a bare 102. You are wrong.

Its ok to be wrong sometimes Marco.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm

quote:
Originally posted by Stallion:
Yes, of course, most 102 owners will use a NAPSC and the logical progression from there is to add a Hicap. In my opinion, _ONLY AT THIS STAGE_ will their 102 sound better than a 72/Hicap.

Can I go and make the dinner now?

Well, it only took you about twenty posts to reach the kind of common sense everybody else takes for granted. The fully clad 102 is better than the ditto 72. Good boy.

Of course, by all means go and make dinner (as I've been doing all along). I know you’re terribly busy. And if you don’t want to be bothered, why toss out a little off-topic provocation saying you don’t like the NAP 180? You don’t need a 180 to cook dinner.

Bon appetit

Herman

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Matthew T

The difference between 102 and 102/NAPSC is nowhere as signifcant as the difference between 102 and 102/Hi with or without a NAPSC. The 102 is not unlistenable without the NAPSC, though it is certainly more listenable with.

Matthew

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Rico

quote:
would humbly suggest you need to actually go the extra inch before claiming to have gone the extra mile.

Careful now, Reductionist - you're bordering hitting MArco where it really hurts.

Stephen Bennett - congrats on acquiring the 102/NAPSC. A releif to see there are some forum visitors able to make a deal and stick to it.

Oh - and Marco: the 102 doesn't "sound like shit" without the NAPSC. It sounds like a pretty good preamp, actually. The NAPSC just cleans things up a little. What next - the CD3.5 just must have a flatcap to sound any good?

quote:
My sistem: Nad 541/Densen B200/300/Naos

Nice post Mr Toy!

Right, I'm far too busy to post here, time I went off to make some breakfast, spin another disc on my clearly inferior CDS-II (has that damnned remote circuitry), and think about having my dealer remove all remote circuitry from my house.

PS - where's that bloody recipe?!

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm

quote:
Originally posted by Stallion:
then again, I'm used to a 52

You are; or rather you were, as you're bound to shed this load of crap (full-width case, remote, Xmas lights controls: where did the music go?!) and get a non-remote, non-nothing amp. You know we have a deal. I get the 52; you get my Betty Crocker.

In response to your Hermy Baby post: we don't need to convince Gary of the benefits of a 102 / Hi / NAPSC. He owns one.

Mr Polar Bear is asleep. Remember it's late October. May - August is a good time to communicate. So save it up.

Good lord: seven pages of 72 / 102, while the issue is worth two!

Herman

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Mike Sae

You people haven't even addressed which one looks better.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by garyi

The 102 looks better as well. You forget people we are talking about Big Box Technology, have you all been asleep?

Mr Marco. This is not hard. Lets take a look at your last post shall we?

Na lets not bother, the 102 is better than the 72, you are wrong I am right, its really rather simple.

This is clearly a case of people who own a 72 because they couldn't stretch to the 102 and people that have owned the lot and don't give a toss. Lets put it another way, why would naim put the 102 above the 72 if it was not better. Der.

The 102 is better, bare than the 72 bare, job done thank you very much, wind yer necks in. Especially you Marco your neck is to far out.

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Hammerhead

quote:
Originally posted by Stallion:

quote:
Stephen Bennett - congrats on acquiring the 102/NAPSC. A releif to see there are some forum visitors able to make a deal and stick to it.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Ooch! Was that directed at Steve Toy re: Mana deal with Tony Lonorgan?

Marco.

No Marco, that was directed at a particular ar$ehole that didn't understand the meaning of the word 'honour' when used in an instance such as "I'll honour my intention to purchase your 102/napsc" and then proceed to disappear into thin air without word yet re-appear advertising the said amp combo whilst actually looking for an 82.. (Name supplied by request if you want to avoid this scum bag)

Stephen Bennett is obviously a man of integrity and superb taste and I sincerely hope he has fun with his new amps.

Regards,

Stephen

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by Mr.Tibbs

Maybe Stallion, but after this thread I think most people would probably not think ‘fussy’.
I'd say something a little less endearing would probably spring to mind.

BTW, since you are now so obviously well versed in technical matters regarding pre-amp design etc. Why don’t we get right down to basics and start off with PN depletion regions.
Right, over to you then..

Mr Tibbs

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by herm

Stallion: "Betty Crocker? As long as she doesn't fanny fart; I'm in there"

Betty Crocker is the ultimate American suburban cookbook writer, you oaf. She's just what you need to quit the pasta pesto farcini habit.

So, I'll cut you some slack. You get the book, I get the 52, including the noxious remote, and I'll light a candle for your chances of a 72.

Herman

Posted on: 30 October 2002 by roman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by garyi:
Lets put it another way, why would naim put the 102 above the 72 if it was not better. Der.

Not so fast,isn't it a fairly commonly held view that a nait 2 is better than a nait 3 (+ some would say the best realised naim amp of all) and that the 32.5 and 62 can match the 72?I've not heard them all and therefore am not qualified to say but am merely pointing out that issuing new equipment does not always guarantee an improvement.