NAP250 first edition
Posted by: Bas V on 28 October 2000
Hi!
I can get a very early NAP250 for UKP 235. Should I buy this, if working correct, or is this too old? And what does this look like? I am planning on upgrading my pre-amp to a 102...
Regards, Bas
Posted on: 28 October 2000 by Martin Payne
Bas,
nah, too old...
Now, if you can just tell me who's selling it so I can buy it instead!!
(Did I fool ya? OK, I thought not.)
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 28 October 2000 by Bob Edwards
Bas--
For 235 UKP you almost can't afford not to get it provided it is working. Allow funds for a Naim service and you will have the second best stereo amp available.
Cheers,
Bob
Posted on: 28 October 2000 by John Schmidt
I recently had a ca. 1982 250 serviced for $250 Cdn - about £100, I think. If the unit you're considering is much older than this it may also have different output transistors, as these were changed sometime around 1981-82. Replacing these costs about twice as much replacing the capacitors. If you email the unit's serial number to Naim, they should be able to give you a more precise estimate of what it would cost to bring it to current specifications. Even in the worst case, this seems like a no brainer. Unless you're worried about Vuk calling you a mullet head.
Cheers,
John Schmidt
"95% of everything is crud" - Theodore Sturgeo
[This message was edited by John Schmidt on SUNDAY 29 October 2000 at 02:05.]
Posted on: 29 October 2000 by Martin Payne
John,
IIRC VUK bought a s/h 52 because one come up at a price he couldn't refuse.
This sounds like another prime example.
I see the 'mullet' as allocating budget inappropriately - the sale of the newer NAP90-3 should make this pretty much a free upgrade.
I second the advice to budget for a service unless it's been done within the last 6-10 years. This will be a further huge 'upgrade' - in the future if funds don't permit at the moment. An e-mail to Naim will suggest a ballpark price.
I seem to remember that an original 250 held itself up pretty well when Paul Messenger compared it to a new one.
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 29 October 2000 by David Dever
quote:
I can get a very early NAP250 for UKP 235. Should I buy this, if working correct, or is this too old? And what does this look like?
I presume that this is a "bolt-together" 250 dating prior to 1979-80...unless you've got quick access to a VERY sophisticated Naim service facility, I'd probably recommend against it.
Many of these older units have never been serviced within the last fifteen years, during which time many procedures for extending their usable life (and performance) have been established--some of which require a substantial amount of labor to accomplish, thus making its purchase not such a bargain.
As always, you get what you pay for.
Dave Dever, Service Manager, NANA
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by Phil Barry
Hmmm...I always thought of the reverse upgrade snappy as an honor, something to be sought out. You mean it's something different?
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by hifidaddy
When Naim wasn't yet as popular as today, my dealer in Cologne had 110, 160 and 250 power amps. In 1984, when the 160 was upgraded to a bigger torodial transformer, the dealer began telling that the 160 "is more musical than a 250". I asked why, and he told:
"the torodial in the 250 has more voltage to feed the voltage regulators, so it must have less current, as the wattage ratings of the transformers for both the 160 and the 250 are equal. So the 160 has much more current available."
Well, there must be something, that the flat earth Naim Retro Junkies are looking for single supply 110 and 160 power amps.
regards,
Hartmut from Munich
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by Tony L
I would go with it, but before parting with the cash take the lid off and have a look for capacitor leakage.
An old 250 may not be quite as good as a new one, but for 235 quid it’s a stunning amplifier, and one hell of a lot less than a 180 second hand.
For the record, I personally prefer any well maintained 250 to any Naim amp below it - the regulated power supply gives a level of refinement that the smaller amps can't quite match. To my ears the 180 may well be brighter, but the 250 is better. Significantly. You are getting a 250 at a 160 price, assuming it is not trashed / modified etc it is a true bargain, and you have a nice upgrade to come when you re-cap it later on.
Tony.
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by Eric Barry
In my addendum to the Flat Earth Point awards, I suggested that preferring a lesser model won FEP points. My reasons: the lesser models are usually more midrange forward and have less bass and harsher treble, but without losing rhythmically, the lesser models have fewer round earth qualities, and they are cheaper, all Flat Earth values.
However, the 72/102 is exempt because, by reputation at least, the 102 is harsher than the 72, and thus flatter earth.
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by BrianD
*************************************************
I can get a 160 cheap (aprox. 160£) I know it is VERY old, does anybody know the aprox service expenses……….and then is it worth it ?
*************************************************
Per
I had my 1984 NAP 160 serviced just a few months ago for £110.
The NAP 160 is one of those fantastic Naim bargains. I compared it with a NAP 180 at time of purchase. The difference in cost was affordable so I could have bought the NAP180. I chose the 160 because, for me, it was much better than the 180. For £160 + service cost I would buy it.
I also agree with others on this thread that 'more expensive' doesn't always mean 'better'. It can just as often mean 'different'. 
Brian
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by Bas V
Hi!
The serial number is 10xx. So I presume the NAP 250 is from 1982? I think this is a good sign, or isn't it?
Regards, Bas V
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by Tony L
quote:
The serial number is 10xx. So I presume the NAP 250 is from 1982? I think this is a good sign, or isn't it?
If it is from 1982 it will have the extruded case, i.e. not the blot on top. This is a good vintage, the only major thing that has been changed since is that the transformer was up rated in 1984 when the 135 came out. Assuming this amp is in good nick, I would jump at it.
Phone Naim, they can tell you whether it has ever been in for servicing etc.
Tony.
Posted on: 30 October 2000 by Chris West
Bas wrote;
quote:
The serial number is 10xx. So I presume the NAP 250 is from 1982?
Sorry Bas, but when I was testing 250's back at Naim in '82 the serial no.s were in the 7000 range. 10xx would be mid to late '70's and definitely a "bolt together" version, which is quite a different animal from the "extruded case" 250. First generation 250's usually need more (sometimes much more) than a re-cap to be considered healthy. Without an informed (i.e. done
by Naim) check-up, the value of this piece is anyones guess.
regards
Chris.
Posted on: 31 October 2000 by Bas V
Hi Chris!
What about the serial numbers that Niam give then?
i.e. 000016 - 006933 1982
006944 - 011998 1983
011999 - 019752 1984
That's why I presumed it was from 1982?!
Regards, Bas V
Posted on: 31 October 2000 by Bas V
Hi!
Thanks for all the good advice! I have just contacted Paul Desmond. The NAP 250 dates from 1977 and can't be brought to newest specs. I think I won't buy it then. When it has to be serviced, it has to be shipped to England, making it all a bit pricier! Maybe I'll try to get the price down a bit, so I really can't go wrong!
Thanks again!
Regards, Bas V
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Rico
Richard
don't fret, you too can get the 'skinny' on this. Joe Petrik immaculately defined Flat Earth Points (or FEP's) in a recent thread.
To locate this lengthy and engaging thread, do enlist the assistance of the forum "search bicycle" : enter Joe Petrik as author, 2000-09-01 as posted since, check 'whole message'... this should net you a bunch of posts, amongst which you should see many with the thread name of "calibrating the FEP scale". Click on this, and get reading, it's certainly a good laugh, and you'll discover also why Tony Lonorgan is now referred to as 'El Presidente', as pennance for his 255 FEP's.
Sorry for the lengthy search bicycle directions, but either the rider's crap, or the bike's buggered. 
Rico - musichead
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Greg Beatty
Here are serial no.s from Naim's website.
Serial number
Year of
manufacture
000016 - 006933
1982
006944 - 011998
1983
011999 - 019752
1984
019753 - 026689
1985
026690 - 031999
1986
032000 - 041484
1987
041485 - 049945
1988
049946 - 060867
1989
060868 - 069924
1990
069925 - 076367
1991
076368 - 083272
1992
083273 - 093739
1993
093740 - 105143
1994
105144 - 117211
1995
117212 - 128626
1996
128627 - 139322
1997
139322 - 150454
1998
150455 - 161170
1999
161171 -
2000
And here is the link:
http://www.naim-audio.com/html/product_history/_nav/product_history_fs.htm
- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Bas V
But Greg... these numbers are incorrect then, don't you think? When I looked up the serial number, which was 10XX, it seems to be from 1982, but it is in fact from 1977. Can you explain that?
Grrrr
Bas V
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Eric Barry
are the difference in the serial numbers.
Anyway, I'd bet a 1977 250 is worth 200-ish pounds for sure. Don't you think it's beat a 1982 160, for instance. Maybe not the final step, but probably worth it. Can you listen before buying?
--Eric
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Bas V
Hi Eric!
I think it can be quit good, but I cannot listen to it... I don't know how it compares to my 90/3.Do you know what it looks like?
Regards, Bas
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Tony L
quote:
I think it can be quit good, but I cannot listen to it... I don't know how it compares to my 90/3.
Any remotely working 250 or 160 will absolutely kill a 90.
Tony.
Posted on: 03 November 2000 by Greg Beatty
...about the serial numbers.
Naim was in business before 1982, but the serial number record on the site starts with 0 in 1982.
How odd.
- GregB
Freedom is not in finding the Holy Grail but in stopping the search for it
Posted on: 06 November 2000 by David Dever
If I recall, the NAP 110 / NAC 42 range started with its own range of serial numbers in 1979...at one point, I believe, each product may have had its own range of assigned numbers, until the lists converged around 1982, from whence (methinks) they've been assigned on a work-order basis, i.e., as they are produced.
Therfore, it would be possible to have two units with similar ranges of serial numbers that could have been made up to six years apart (this based on the internal production lists), prior to 1982--hence the confusion.
Hope this helps,
Dave Dever, NANA
(back from vacation & surf)
