NAP150

Posted by: Chris Metcalfe on 01 August 2000

Anyone noticed the NAP170 has suddenly become the NAP150?

I don't think I saw this mentioned on the old forum. So, more a replacement for the 140 than a 180-competitor?

Posted on: 01 August 2000 by Mike Hanson
Since the 140 is being retired, I suppose it makes sense for the new one not to cannibalize the sales of the 180. I'm just curious if the power is really based on the "150" moniker (i.e. 75WPC into 4 ohms), and not on the original "170" (i.e. 85WPC). IOW, is it only a name change, or is it also a spec change? Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-


Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 02 August 2000 by Rico
has naim confirmed that the 140 is being retired? Or is that just a North America thing?

Rico - musichead

Posted on: 02 August 2000 by Mike Hanson
This message from Mark Tucker (http://conference.realwebsite.com/Forums/Index.cfm?CFApp=16&Message_ID=56371) indicates that the 112/170 will not replace the 102/180. However, I was not able to find the statement that they will replace the 72/140. However, I can't see them keeping these components in the line-up. At some point, you've just got too many types of boxes to assemble. Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-


Smilies do not a forum make.

Posted on: 02 August 2000 by Kevin Hughes
The 72/140 are both retired. Naim admited it somewhere on the old forum.

Kevin.

Posted on: 02 August 2000 by Paul Stephenson
Kevin, the 140 has not been dis-continued, the 72 will be soon.
Posted on: 02 August 2000 by Rico
At least we can see the <new feature> static filter hasn't been switched on here! #; )

best

Rico - musichead

Posted on: 02 August 2000 by Paul Stephenson
Stefano, the unit is still in the final development stages, more info later but I can say we are expecting the combo 112/150 to be pretty hot.
Posted on: 03 August 2000 by Paul Stephenson
"reply to a post some 15 days before it was made!" yep Neil my registration is thet date.
Posted on: 04 September 2000 by Ulrich Hohn
Will the new NAP 150 power amplifier faster signal transition times than the great NAP135?

Ulrich (senior member)

no, pauls.

[This message was edited by Paul Stephenson on MONDAY 04 September 2000 at 14:58.]

Posted on: 04 September 2000 by Mike Hanson
Paul, you've gotten into the habit of responding to queries by adding editorial comments within the poster's original message. Why don't you just add a new message, like everyone else?

Oh, I know why! Because the readers may not associate the comment as a response to that message. As the editor, you have that right. It's too bad the rest of us don't have that ability. We are doomed to cast our messages to the winds of chance, hoping others on the forum are lucky enough to follow the thread of the conversation amidst the shouting match.

BTW, I'm still working on finding you a host for the old software. Let's hope that I'm successful, because this sucks! Catch you later!

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Smilies do not a forum make.no posts like these do! pauls

[This message was edited by Paul Stephenson on MONDAY 04 September 2000 at 15:22.]

Posted on: 04 September 2000 by Paul Stephenson
I have replied once or twice in that way, I would hardly call that a habit. It was appropriate to do it. Thats why I have the admin badge.
Posted on: 05 September 2000 by Kevin Hughes
quote:
I have replied once or twice in that way, I would hardly call that a habit. It was appropriate to do it. Thats why I have the admin badge.

This really winds me up as well Paul, it is hard enough find new messeges as it is without this sort of thing. Please stop it.

Kevin.