82 Character compared to the 52

quote:

---

Does the 52 have the same character as the 82, or is it less forward sounding?

---

You're in luck! The 52 is free of the 82's youthful exuberance. In fact, the very first thing I noticed when changing from the 82 to 52 was how more relaxed and natural it felt.

Regarding the 102 versus 82, the 102 is missing much of the body and slam of the 82. If you find that quality unbearable, then I could understand you disliking the 82. However, I definitely prefer the 82 over the 102 by a long way, even with it's somewhat brash nature.

I'm just happy that the 52 does everything that the 82 does well, yet executes it with much more finesse and a natural ease.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

My best advice is: if you think that one day you will be able to afford the 52 then wait for that day and skip the 82, especially as you've already got the S-Cap.

Phil

I've never heard an 82, so cannot comment on it's sound, but I can say that a 52 does not have a forward "pushy" character.

I only picked mine up today (a week later than planned!) and so it's only been connected up 4hrs or so. Frankly, it is astonishing, and enough to make anyone question the idea of source first. Even from the TV or a crappy Sony tuner, music seems to come through with a confidence almost bordering on arrogance - the subtle changes in pitch and timing which were never noticeable before suddenly seem to drive the music in a completely different way. This is a truly wonderful piece of kit.

I did 72 to 102 upgrade dems about a dozen times, and was never convinced - this was so, so different. It's not cheap, but nonetheless is fantastic value. If you have a good front end, as you seem to, you owe yourself nothing less!

Ben

Ben Hicks seems to have some experience in that direction. Hi, Ben – would you kindly describe the difference between the 72 and 102 with respect on the “distance” of the sound stage from the listener?
graphoman

Absolutely agree, 72 is much more forward, but I do still really like it - and prefer it. I feel it builds on the 32.5s strengths, adding detail. Big difference is that 72 really must have a hicap, it is audibly "unhappy" without it.

102 v 72

I do not think that the big difference lies in the soundstage. I am not a disembodied heads floating behind the wall fan, to my ears and brain it's nothing short of freaky, especially when you're the worse for wear. None of the Naim kit I have heard does "soundstage" as the term is often used, although the 52 seems to be making a better stab at it as it warms up. The musicians all seem to be plastered across the back wall. This may e a result of the way I set my kit up, ie for PRaT, not imaging and soundstage.

For me, the difference between 72 and 102 is emotion, the former conveys it, the latter does not seem to do so as effectively. However, 102 is also clearer, with more extended frequency extremes, although for me, these do not add hugely to the music. I suspect that the 102 may well be able to open out the layers of the soundstage, if set up to emphasise this - although I never tried it.

Graphoman - what kit what have you at the moment, and what are you trying to achieve, this may allow me to answer your question a bit better. I think I'm probably waffling on without adressing what you are after.

regards

Ben

quote:

---

would you kindly describe the difference between the 72 and 102 with respect on the “distance” of the sound stage from the listener?

---

As you walk up the pre-amp chain, distortion is reduced. This distortion, coupled with the pre-amp's attempt to include more or less detail, can create an occluded sound, which can make it seem busy, intense, and sometimes "closer" to the listener. As that distortion is cleared away, the sound becomes more relaxed, and doesn't seem to reach out quite so far. IOW, it's not so "in your face". Is this what you're talking about?

To me, the 72 and 82 sound "closer" than a 102 did. The 52 is back close to the same perceived "position" as the 102. The 32.5 is a little further back than the 72, but not as far as the 102 and 52. It's hard to say for sure, though, since I've also been changing rooms throughout this period, which I think has a large impact on this effect. Also, the concept of the position of the soundstage is something that seems to be affected more by speakers types and their positions, than by changing pre-amps.

quote:

---

I'm utterly baffled by the suggestion (in another thread) the the 32.5 does rhythm better than an 82.

---

The 32.5 does PRaT very well, but it's sorely lacking in many other areas. Since PRaT is its strength, it's very obvious to the listener. The 82 is a far better pre-amp in every way (even PRaT). However, the advances in alternate areas are so far ahead of the 32.5, that the lesser PRaT improvements seem diminished in comparison.

If you want simple music, where PRaT is the primary (only?) focus, then the 32.5 is a great little amp. If, however, you want details, tonal nuances, a great sense of phrasing, impressive dynamics, good bass control, etc., then it's disappointing compared to the 82. Some people claim that they don't really care about all of that extra stuff, but I'm not one of them.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on FRIDAY 31 August 2001 at 22:30.]

102 is more detailed than 72 but also a bit more edgy, forward and less relaxed.

Sorry, but I can't find any area where I prefer 102 to 82, except the price

Claus
(who just upgraded to 52 )

quote:

---

If you want simple music, where PRaT is the primary (only?) focus, then the 32.5 is a great little amp. If, however, you want details, tonal nuances, a great sense of phrasing, impressive dynamics, good bass control, etc., then it's disappointing compared to the 82.

---

But occasionally one must also regard the price and alternative fund spending. Imagine if you will LP12/Ittok/DV20-X/Lingo/82/S-Cap, and LP12/Ittok/Troika/Lingo/Linto/VPI cleaner/Mana Ref Table/32.5/S-Cap. This is the change I'm making, I'm confident that I will achieve greater details, tonal nuances, a great sense of phrasing, impressive dynamics, good bass control etc etc.

Going back to the original question. All Naim preamps before the 52 are like guests at a party dressed in ever finer degrees of apparel making ever more interesting conversation. But throw open the French windows and there's one guest who's just sitting admiring the view. That's the 52.

I think that you really need to find a way of listening to this little beauty yourself. If you're thinking spending this kind of money then you really should make every effort to get in front of one and for a long time. The 52 quite simply IMHO the best thing that Naim makes. It is about as neutral as a preamp gets and I cannot imagine how Naim could improve (oh now there's a thought ). The best I can sum up a 52 is:

quote:

---

The music flows and the sounds take you to another plain

---