The great debate: 102 vs. 72

quote:

---

That I can believe as your biggest passion, the somewhat "round" one ran off to Germany.

---

I took her there, and I'll be back there on Monday.

The above statement by Fox insults my partner in two different ways...

Regards,

Steve.

Fox - Probably the only person that I would now wish to be banned from this site (isn't he already???)

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 31 October 2002 at 05:18.]

>>> These days, I'm more into circuit topology and channel crosstalk.

Eh? Quoting random technical snippets is not going to convince anyone you know what you are talking about. Channel croisstalk is pretty irrelevant as a measure of performance anyway and i believe certain experts in the field have suggested purposefully mixing the two channels up a little as it gives a more realistic result, sorry don't have the reference although the Headroom Headphone amp. does something along these lines. Circuit topology? What aspects and why? For EMC, Noise reduction, RF susceptibility, PSRR?


>>>Incidentally, what's your view (re: power amps) on 40000uf of bypassed reservoir capacity?

Compared to what? In each polarity? What power amplifier? What slew rate? What peak Current capability? What frequency response? What load tolerance? Regulated or not? Completely meaningless question?

Stevie Dempster wrote

quote:

---

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

---

Such flattery - the cheque is in the post. Well the ether.

My girlfriend prefers the look of the 72 btw..

Regards

Stephen

Followed this thread with some interest as it relects a lot of my experiences with the 72 v 102.

Earlier this year I bought a new 102/180 using a 112/150 and my own '99 Rega Mira as a reference.

When I set it up, I had a problem with the 102 in that I could not get an ideal listening position with my speakers -it was so critical that inches away from the ideal spot would affect one channel or the other. This did happen with the Rega or a Nait that I also trialled at home. After a month of trying, with days left playing on repeat, I gave up, retrieved the Rega that I had p/x and calm was restored.

Then I bought a 72/140. The 72 seemed immune to this sensitivity and I added a Hi-cap. Six months on and I have grown very fond of it. It needs a well recorded disc to make it deliver but it will deliver.

Summary : A 72 needs a Hi and the two should be viewed as a single item. This is not the case with 102. I miss the weight of the 180 but the 140 is more fluid and makes it sound dry in comparison. 72/Hi/140 works for me in my room (23 x 14). On certain disc's when the power is good it all comes together and brings a big smile. Was the 102 faulty? Should I have changed the speakers? Should I have tried harder? I don't know - I just know that I have a reasonably good system now and I'm pleased.

Future plans : I would like to try an 82 or a 250 at some point but for now I am going to make the best of what I have got. I could not face all that again. I have been mailed a copy of 'Roys mods' and it seems to make perfect sense. I will shortly implement most of them - two dedicated lines,plugs,hydra's and fuses.

I've still got the Rega though...........

Whoops...sorry

That should read " did not happen with the Rega or Nait.."

quote:

---

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

---

No, and absolutely not. That's been done to death here.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

To the poster who noted that the 102 was intended to replace the 72, and cost more, so it must be better:

The 102 was $600 more than the 72.

The 92r and Nait 3r were both $400 more than the 92 and Nait 3. [It has been said on the forum that the electronic switching sounds better than mechanical switching, so maybe that affects sound].

The full sized case and box must account for another $50 at retail (maybe a bit more once you consider shipping).

So the price difference between the 102 and 72 is mainly the remote and the box.

As far as the design, my understanding is that the 102 has some regulators on the line stage, and of course a different circuit layout.

It should sound better than a 72. I haven't heard one, so I can't say. However, I understand that Naim meant to kill the 72 much earlier than they did--but their dealers/customers must have revolted. That in itself is very telling.

As far as current costs, you will pay the same for a 72/hicap with phono boards as you will for a 102 with phonos, so that would seem to be a relevant comparison. Plenty of people have bought 102/180 or 102/140, so it is relevant to look at a bare 102. And if you have a 72, you might want to know whether to get a hicap or a 102.

--Eric

It is a great debate! The strange thing is that non of the Naim Audio guys give any remarks on this topic. Why?? ask ourselve this question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuan:
The strange thing is that non of the Naim guys give any remarks on this topic. Why?? ask ourselves this question.

---

I don't need to ask myself a question like that, because it's not strange. They hardly ever intervene in these discussions. Too many layman experts.

Herman

Stevie Dempster's 102/NAPSC arrived friday so it was off to Basically Sound to have a couple of 'K' MC cards fitted for my Klyde. Then home and installed into my system. Initial pre-warm up results were good. Nothing seemed to be lost from my 72 on CD - in fact there seemed to be a distinct improvement in instrument seperation and depth, speed and bass extension. Going back to my 72 felt a little dull & slow.

On vinyl , there didn't seem much in it - perhaps the 72 having the edge slightly, but the difference seemed very small to me.

The 102 is installed and sounding better each day. I'd rate it as an improvement - but it shows how good a pre-amp the 72 is - especially in a vinyl only system

Oh - and it's butt ugly compared to the 72!

Regards

Stephen

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on MONDAY 04 November 2002 at 11:31.]

What one choses to get may also depend on where one wants to end up.

Alan wrote:

"SO.. for beepy-beepy electronica get a 102/NAPSC.. If you listen to music that needs to convey feeling and emotion get a 72/HICAP."

Um...yes, but a hicap can be added to the 102/NAPSC later. If this is where the buyer figures to end up, then getting the 102/NAPSC now makes sense.

If going for an 82 or 52 later, then perhaps 72/supercap now makes sense (!) then change just the head unit later.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Greg: "Um...yes, but a hicap can be added to the 102/NAPSC later. If this is where the buyer figures to end up, then getting the 102/NAPSC now makes sense."

Stallion: "I also prefer the overall balance of 72/Hicap/140 than 102/NAPSC/180 for similar reasons."

-------------

Since everyone is blissfully reiterating the same old statements with the idea that if you make the same incomplete point twice you're making one complete point, I'll say one more time it's completely useless to compare the 72 / Hi with a 102 / NAPSC without Hi.

Every single person who wants to enjoy the 102 - even if he aims to wind up higher up the ladder eventually - will add a Hi-Cap. Look at the profiles and you'll see.

In a VFM discussion the situation is different (but not that much, because the money isn't that much), but we seem to be talking what kind of sound we're getting, per se.

In that case this 102 sans Hi-Cap is a completely academic situation. It's like saying a Volkswagen is better than a BMW because there's no gas in the BMW's tank.

Herman

I thought the title of the thread was "The great debate: 102 vs. 72", and not "The great debate: 102 vs. 72/Hicap"????
Assuming this is the case it's unbalanced to keep throwing in a hicap to bolster your argument for the 72.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask if the bare 102 is better than a bare 72, or if a 102/hi is better than a 72/hi??
Otherwise it's just a discussion about VFM - and as valid as that is, it's not what the thread was asking.

Graham

Marco,

quote:

---

Quite a few 102/NAPSC/180 systems have left the shop sans Hicap with no immediate plans to add one.

My view is that they'd have been better off (sonically & financially) going for a second hand 72/Hicap/140.

---

If you're going to invoke the secondhand deal argument, why not advise customers to get a used 102, Hi-Cap and NAPSC, instead of a new 72 and Hi-Cap?

Joe

“Quite a few 102/NAPSC/180 systems have left the shop sans Hicap with no immediate plans to add one.
My view is that they'd have been better off (sonically & financially) going for a second hand 72/Hicap/140.”


Financially better off?

The fact is, 102’s can now be had for a little over 500 quid, while 72’s are still making over £350. The new 202 will probably impact further on the second hand value of 102’s, making them more readily available and cheaper again. Add to this the fact that the 72 will probably be twice the age of the 102 – and therefore nearing a service, the sum total now making the 102 no more expensive at all.

The 140 / 180 scenario (though not relevant to the debate) is not far removed from the above. 140’s aren’t that much cheaper than 180’s, you pays your money...

Sonically better off?

Sure a 72/hicap/140 is a great combo, but as explained above, you could probably get hold of a 102 /napsc/ 180 for very nearly the SAME price – certainly no more than £100 extra. Most people on hearing the two setups would take home the 102/napsc/180 system, to suggest otherwise is just plain nonsense.

You also remarked that the 140 is in some way better than the 180.

I’d just like to point out that a 180 uses the same amplifier modules as the 140, the 180 differs only in that it has a substantially larger power supply. This means both amps should (and do) sound remarkably similar, the 180 can go a little louder and deeper and that’s about it. The 140 may sound ‘leaner’, but this must not be misconstrued as meaning ‘better’.

Mr Tibbs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stallion:
I'd go with what I've suggested.

---

It's good to see you have succeeded in persuading yourself, Marco. Clearly you'd do what you have done.

Somehow it doesn't look like your case has been as persuasive to anybody else - even though you've made it about five times now, completely impervious as you are to calls for a more balanced argument.

Perhaps it's time to call it a day.

Herman

Truth is Stallion, nobody hereabouts is ‘with you’.

A few short months ago you were telling all and sundry how damaging it was to have any ferrous metals in the listening room, never mind supporting the hifi. Now you have gone all ferrous friendly, never missing an opportunity to tell us how it’s the best thing since Mulligans snuff.

I wouldn’t have minded your change of heart, but at the time, you REALLY were so outrageously outspokenly adamant about the ‘detrimental ferrous effect’.

In conclusion, you have more faces than Big Ben and no-one knows (or cares) if any tells the right time. Perhaps in time you may be able to fool a few ‘newbies’ into thinking you know your hifi stuff, but hell could possibly freeze over sooner.

Oh, no offence meant like.

Mr Tibbs

The fact is, 102s can now be had for a little over 500 quid, while 72s are still making over £350.
-----
72s are topping at 350UK, $650 US (with phono boards). You can get one as low as 275/$550.

A 102 w/o NAPSC is $950 at the lowest, $1200 with NAPSC--no phonos. Basically almost double a 72.

Anyone with a 102 that they are willing to sell for 500 quid and ship it to the US at my expense, please email me. It's like that mythical 82 for 1k. Sure they occasionally trade at that price, but every one I see listed is like 1350.

In the UK, I see 102s going for 650 to 775 on the Pink Fish sale pages--no Napsc or phonos.

----------
The 140 / 180 scenario (though not relevant to the debate) is not far removed from the above. 140s aren't that much cheaper than 180s, you pays your money...
----------

140s are going for about $650 new style, as low as $500 old style. 180s are falling, but you are still looking at $900 to $1200. Basically 50% higher.

------------
Sure a 72/hicap/140 is a great combo, but as explained above, you could probably get hold of a 102 /napsc/ 180 for very nearly the SAME price certainly no more than £100 extra.
---------

72/hi/140: $1800 or 900 pounds
102/Napsc/180: $2400 or 1200 pounds

--Eric

Oh yeah?

Just had a look at Loot, a two year old 102 for £565 ono.

Also, a two year old 72 for £450 no less.

Another 72 was going for £350, but no age given.

As for the 180’s, there are a couple of two year old ones going for £560 each. Two 140’s were priced at £350, but no age given. Hicaps seem to be going for £400 or more. I saw one napsc for £90.

I stated that you could put together a 102/napsc/180 for about £100 more than a 72/ hicap/140, so let’s do a little math then;

72 @ £350 ; hicap @ £400 ; 140 @ £350. Total price £1100

102 @ £565 ; napsc @ £90 ; 180 @ £560. Total price £1215

As I stated above, the 72/140 had no age given and the 102/180 were both two years old. If you were to go for a 72/hicap/140 with all three items two years old, the chances are you’d have to pay MORE for them than for a two year old 102/napsc/180!

So Eric, not so wrong after all then was I?

Mr Tibbs

First of all, you are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing bargains for the full-size kit with overpriced shoeboxes--and you are not considering whether the gear actually sold at those prices.

In the last few years I have bought a 42/snaps for $200. I bought a Prefix with 5pin connection for $275. I bought Isobariks for $566. I bought a Linn Axis/Akito with near new Grado Reference and Lehmann Black Cube for $450 shipped! I bought a hicap a few years ago for $450 shipped. That does not mean those deals are repeatable--a couple times a year I find something is that underpriced. I got them because I was lucky, combined with the fact that I check the marketplaces frequently (that takes time which is not free).

You are giving a biased view of the market on Loot.

Right now: 180s are listed at 550, 565, and 650.
140s: three at 300, one at 370, one at 350. Greater supply means that they will tend sell for less than the ask. Conclusion, you can easily pick one up at 300, if not 275, and save 250 pounds over a 180.

Right now there are three 102s: 565 bare, two at 750 with Napsc. Meanwhile, you can grab a 72/140 at 700 or 650 (actually I'm pretty sure you'd bargain down to 600 or 550). Either way, a 72 is AT LEAST 200 pounds less than a bare 102.

Grab an old style hicap at 300 and you're ready to go, and you saved vs over 102/180. But you didn't get a remote.

Look at ebay, where you have a verifiable sale price. It's true that the 102/180 have come down substantially--making them much more attractive. Two 180s sold recently, one for 480 pounds, another, older (85xxx) for 540. No 140s, but a recapped 110 from a dealer with a black snaic recently got $370, and I bought a 140 last summer for $470. I'd expect 250 to 300 pounds for one now.

For 102s, two in the US sold with NAPSC for $909 and $999. But for 72s--one was sold for $550 WITH phono boards, one failed to get a 300 pound opening bid, and one got 260 pounds.

Right now, a 102/180 is close to twice a 72/140. And if the former falls, so will the latter--that's how markets work.

--Eric

quote:

---

In conclusion, you have more faces than Big Ben and no-one knows (or cares) if any tells the right time. Perhaps in time you may be able to fool a few ‘newbies’ into thinking you know your hifi stuff, but hell could possibly freeze over sooner.

---

A stallion, yesterday.



PS - I got sick of waiting for the recipe while stally twaddles on about the 72. Bought myself a meat pie - far more satisfying than reading through the rest of the thread.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Is that so Eric?

If anyone could be accused of making false comparisons it would be you.

You are quoting the prices of 72’s of unknown age against two year old 102’s and 140’s of unknown age against two year old 180’s. That’s hardly an ‘apples for apples’ comparison is it?

The indisputable fact is, you are likely to be able to pick up a 102/napsc/180 for much the same price as a 72/hicap/140, providing they are of the SAME age. Surely that’s the only fair way to compare the alternatives?

Oh BTW, I noticed you had this to say in an earlier post, “ As far as the design, my understanding is that the 102 has some regulators on the line stage”

No Eric, you are ‘very wrong’ there again I’m afraid. The 102 has no regulators on any of its audio circuitry. FWIW, sometime soon I will be posting some stuff which will reveal a little of what goes on inside a 102.

I didn’t point out the above in an attempt to discredit you, there is so much misinformation bandied about on this forum that your minor error is just a blip. That said however, if you insist on telling me I’m ‘very wrong’ when I’ve made an accurate ‘like for like’ comparison, you’d better keep your own house in order.

Mr Tibbs

This thread has reached epic anal-gazing proportions

I love it.

And all in all we are all agreed that the 102 is better the the 72.

Except Marco who is not listening, or some people that he knows like Zoren.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:
The indisputable fact is, you are likely to be able to pick up a 102/napsc/180 for much the same price as a 72/hicap/140, providing they are of the SAME age. Surely that's the only fair way to compare the alternatives?

Oh BTW, I noticed you had this to say in an earlier post, "As far as the design, my understanding is that the 102 has some regulators on the line stage"

No Eric, you are very wrong; there again I'm afraid. The 102 has no regulators on any of its audio circuitry. FWIW, sometime soon I will be posting some stuff which will reveal a little of what goes on inside a 102.

Mr Tibbs

---

Mr Tibbs, it is possible to pay near as much for a 72/hi/140 as a 102/napsc/180. That's beside the point. You use the word likely. You are not likely to pay 350 for a 72 when neither of those offered can get a bid of 300 on ebay. I could pay 1100 for the shoeboxes, but I'd be stupid to do so when I could get them for 900 without much trouble. By the same token I could easily pay 1500 for the big boys. I'm saying compare 900 with 1200, 1100 with 1400. Either way you are paying a good bit more than 100 pounds for the full-size gear. And don't forget you'll get phono boards with the 72. As to age, I suppose it's an issue if it's less than 2 years old (the youngest the old kit could be anyway), but once you get to 5-7 years, I don't think it makes much difference.

As to the design of the 102, I was certainly not wrong in reporting my understanding. What I said was indeed my understanding, and I am verifying it to be so right here. I specifically said "my understanding" because my info was second hand, I've never seen the inside of a 102, and I'm not an engineer. But I have read that the Naim preamps add progressive amounts of regulation as you run up the ladder from the 72, which only has regulators on the phono boards. I would be quite delighted to hear specifics of the design of the 102 (or the 82, 52, 202, 282, or 252).


--Eric