Upgrade recommendation
Posted by: Adolfo Aguiar on 08 August 2001
My system is :
LP12, Ittok, DV10XII on Sound Org
Rega Planet on Mana Ref
NAC72, HiCap, NAP250 on Sound Factory
Mission 753s, REL Stentor (hooked from
speaker binding post)
I've just had my 19 years old NAP250 serviced for the first time. The result is much better music from all sources. The problem is that vinyl became so much better than CD.
1.I could go immediately for a CDX or save for a CDSII
2.Vinyl playback could also be improved. What route should I take (arm, cartridge, Prefix, Armageddon)?
I live in Brazil and I have very hard access to gear, with no dealers to help.
By the way, congratulations to all of you for this fantastic forum.
If someone out there loves Prog Rock I might be able to give some tips on obscure groups from the 70s.
Posted on: 08 August 2001 by Steve Toy
James,
Try placing your components ON the stand rather than UNDER it. I think you'll hear an immediate improvement!
Adolfo,
As for the 72/Hi/250 being a "classic combo," I'd say a classically imbalanced combo. The 250 is a very revealing power amp, and deserves the MINIMUM of an 82, otherwise it is just telling you exactly what is wrong with the 72 - or 102, for that matter - in terms of harshness/edginess/dynamic restraint/blurred soundstaging etc. If you want music with passion, go for the CDX, then the 82. The XPS, then CDS2 should wait until you've done these first. I experiment with these components on a weekly basis, and I don't own them, so I can see the wood for the trees!
It's always a nice day for it, have a good one 
Steve
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on THURSDAY 09 August 2001 at 04:15.]
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by ken c
72/hicap/250 is fine. i lived with that system for a long time and have fond memories. you will of course reap great benefits if you upgrade to 82/supercap (as steven says), but i agree with james, first of all get a CD2 or CDi or even better CDX as an intermediate stage prior to full monty cdsii (using the upgrade strategy laid out by james). if its hard for you to get a good second hand cd player, then save hard and just go straight for a new cdsii. redefines cd replay. you will not be disappointed.
when you have the cds2 piece, then your system will be crying out for 52/supercap.
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by MarkEJ
quote:
As for the 72/Hi/250 being a "classic combo," I'd say a classically imbalanced combo.
When the 72 was introduced, it was Naim Audio's most expensive preamp -- top of the range. As such, both it and its immediate predecessor (32.5) were actually designed to partner the 250 and later, the 135s. This is still, therefore, a perfectly valid combination which will have all the same merits as it did when first unveiled. It is only because the 52 (and much later, the 82 and 102) genuinely advanced the state of the art so radically that the 32.5/72 designs are now thought of as relatively lowly. There must have been quite a few active tri-amp and even 6-pack systems sold using both 32.5s and 72s in the late 80s. With servicing, there is no reason why these should not sound as good today as they did then. They're only "imbalanced" in terms of what came later!
Best;
Mark
(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Bas V
That's not right Mark, according to the type number the 52 was there before the 72. I cannot believe the 72 has ever been top!
Greetz, Bas
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Matt Gear
Bas
as i understand it, the number of the pre-amp corresponds to when the design / research / development began on the amp, not when it was lauched. so the 52 was actually in development before the 72, although was released after. (1989 for the 72, 1990 for the 52, according to the timeline on the naim site).
Cheers
Matt
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Bosh
See Naim product histories on main site
Drat - Matt beat me to the Anorak of the lunch hour award
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by andrew mcmullins
Sorry Baz.
He is correct. When I bought my 72 (in 1992) the 52 had just been released and was far too expensive for me.
Prior to this there were two pre-amps, the 62 and 72, of which the 72 was better.
The 82 came a long time later. The numbers do not equate to chronological order.
I think I remember seeing a product list on the naim site which has a list of dates etc.
Andrew
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by andrew mcmullins
Damn too many anoraks at lunch time !
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Matt Gear
could this be a new award for forum members? "the yellow anorak" a la tour de france?
matt
(wearing the anorak with pride!)
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Bas V
Ah yeah, that's right. It's just that I really don't like the 72. I'll try anything to show that, hahaha.
Greetz!
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Tony L
quote:
LP12, Ittok, DV10XII on Sound Org
Rega Planet on Mana Ref
NAC72, HiCap, NAP250 on Sound Factory
Mission 753s, REL Stentor (hooked from
speaker binding post)
To my mind this system is very back heavy, for instance the sub costs more than either the CD player or preamp. The turntable is nicely sorted, as long as it is properly set up it should sound very good. It is certainly good enough to take a better cartridge, but I would not see that as an immediate priority. I would however stick the LP12 onto the Mana Reference, as to my ears LP12s benefit from Mana to a remarkable degree.
The CD player is a good one, but is definitely out of its depth in this system, this would be the area I would want to attack first if CD is regarded as a serious source. If so, I would listen to the CDX, it is a very competent player and one I would love myself.
The pre / power balance by today's standards is out of whack, as is my own 32.5 / Hicap / 250. The problem is what if anything should be done to redress this balance. As Mark said above, the 72 / Hicap / 250 was in its day pretty much the top of the Naim passive range. Apart from using 135s it could not be improved upon at the time. For the many hundreds of people out there using these combos the obvious thing would be to aim towards the excellent though obviously expensive 82 or 52. The 102 would be unbalanced from a hierarchical perspective with a 250. From my own experience my humble 32.5 can thoroughly show up all but the best sources, so as ever I would recommend keeping the money up front. This is an area where I am personally currently giving a lot of thought to, and am seriously even considering flogging my whole amp to replace it with a Nait 2 and better stuff upstream.
Speakers: personally I would flog the Missions and the REL and get something a little more modest and easier to control. The choice is wide and personal taste accounts for much, but Linn, Naim, Royd, Neat, Epos etc would all spring to mind, and if you could get a good price for the sub it might be possible to redistribute some cash back up to the source.
Tony.
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Bas V
Sorry Per, I think I should listen to a 72 in my own system for once. Okay, ship it to me!
Greetz!
Posted on: 09 August 2001 by Adolfo Aguiar
James T, Steven T, Ken C, Mark EJ, Tony L
Thank you very much for your input.
I shall go to London in a couple of months and will visit Grahams to audition your suggestions.
Good listening!
Posted on: 10 August 2001 by Rockingdoc
Steve and Bas
You should have known better than to criticise the 72 on this forum. I tried it and didn't get away with it.
Posted on: 10 August 2001 by Steve Toy
I "stand" by what I said. I haven't heard the 72, but it pre-dates the 102.
There is nothing *wrong* with a 102 (or 72) until you partner it with a 250 or greater!
I spend several hours per week in a dem room learning how to optimise Naim (and other) systems.
The combination of a 102 with a 250 sounded rather nasty, whereas a 102 with a 150, or 140 sounded musical.
Upset the balance, and you go backwards, not forwards for your expenditure.
When folks take what you say out of context the sh*t can hit the fan, but those are the risks you take!
It's always a nice day for it, have a good one
Steve
Posted on: 12 August 2001 by Mike Hanson
quote:
The combination of a 102 with a 250 sounded rather nasty, whereas a 102 with a 150, or 140 sounded musical.
Although I'm generally believe that a top-down approach to system building, it doesn't mean you can't get good sound out of less intituitive arrangements.
In the case of the 102/Hi/250 configuration, my dealer uses this as his standard Naim setup (driven by a CDX). It sounds VERY musical indeed, and could never, ever be construed as "nasty" in any way shape or form.
He also has a 150, and we've occassionally tried in in place of the 250. There's no question, the 102/Hi/250 is a much better sounding system!
Of course, 82/Hi/150 beats it.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 12 August 2001 by Steve B
I used to use a 42.5/HiCap/250 and I certainly didn't consider it nasty in any way.
Steve B
Posted on: 12 August 2001 by Mike Hanson
quote:
I used to use a 42.5/HiCap/250 and I certainly didn't consider it nasty in any way.
Sorry to be a naysayer, but I've owned a 42.5, and it was actually quite nasty compared to the 32.5 that replaced it. I suggest you make this very affordable upgrade posthaste. You'll be very happy with the improvement.
BTW, I also owned a basic 42. The 42.5 was much closer in performance to the 32.5 than the 42.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
