72 Vs 92

Good luck...

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

I have to agree with most of what is said here. The 72 is considerably better than a nac 92. I've lived with both, and the 72 is much much better. It's similar to the difference between a nac 32.5 and a nac 42.5. There is no contest.

Here, I have seen them on the used market for less than $600 US, which is like 400 quid.

That said, I have also owned the nac 102, and preferred (prefer) the 72 when I had my old speakers (proacs). Now with SBL's, I wonder whether the relative virtues of the 102 would persuade me that it is better than the 72. I just might.

Judd

quote:

---

It's similar to the difference between a nac 32.5 and a nac 42.5.

---

As it is supposed to be, the 72 is better than a 92. The position in the market of the preamps places the 92 in the same performance bracket as the 42.5. It is outperformed in every way imaginable by a 72 and by a 32.5.

£350 seems to be the usual 'used' price.

Brian

Not entirely true, since the 102 has the "old look".

The 92 was designed as a preamp to fill the gap between the NAIT and 72. Hence why it doesnt sound as good as a 72.

The 72/hicap is far, far better than a 62/hicap. The only reason I got an 82 is that I somehow could not live without remote control.

I'd recommend considering a hicap before a 72.

Phil

quote:

---

The only reason I got an 82 is that I somehow could not live without remote control

---

I followed an even more expensive route. My kids are my remote control.

Bri

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Got to keep it looking like the rest of the system!

Its either that or hold out for a better power amp to connect to the 92, what would people opinions be of that. 72/90 or 92/.....

Cheers, have some spends which, well have to be spent!

I found the 62/140 to be extremely involving, whatever it's hifi weaknesses are. The 72/140 is far better hifi (more detail, better dynamics, better frequency extremes) but the upper midrange was effected me like chalk scratching a chalkboard, except on the best source material.

I did a home demo of the shop's demo 72; it was broken in and warmed up for 24 hours. In the store, it was great - but I only brought the best LPs I had to the store.

8 months after getting my first hicap, I found a very cheap, guaranteed new style 72/hicap. It had been sitting in the store unplayed for weeks. When I got it home, it took me 5 seconds to decide the cold 72/hicap blew away the warm 62/hicap -n hifi and musical terms.

But without a hicap, I'll take a 42/62/92 over a 72 any day.

Phil

quote:

---

But without a hicap, I'll take a 42/62/92 over a 72 any day.

---

This is an interesting point. I don't really enjoy any Naim pre-amp without some kind of external power suppy (other than the "cheater" supply from the power amp). Therefore, all of my comparisons tend to be done with a minimum of a SNAPS2 powering the pre-amp.

Considering the almost laughably low cost of a SNAPS2 (even adding servicing), I can't believe anyone would bother to run a pre-amp off the power-amp's supply.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Other wise what about a better power amp than the 90, say the next one up?

Bri

The 110 is better than the 90, and you could probably sell your 90 for more than the 110 would cost you (because the 90 has a new style case).

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

The 110 is better than the 90, and you could probably sell your 90 for more than the 110 would cost you

---

Mike

I hadn't thought of that. Excellent idea. People
shouldn't underestimate the quality of some of the older Naim gear, the 110 is better than the 90. He could of course go for a 160 which, at £300-£350 (UK) is an absolute steal.

Bri

Got to keep it looking like the rest of the system!

---Don't worry, it has. It was the first preamp with the "smudged print look".

Backlit

OO naim audio

like 102 not 112