140 - 180 Sonic Balance

Alexandre

The tonal balance of the 140 is similar to the 180. The 180 is a better amp, though, and should give better grip to your pro-acs. Although I have not heard the combo you mention, I would expect that the 180 should control the 'flabbiness' of the proacs better than the 140.

You don't mention the rest of your system - will you be using a hi-cap, which pre, and what is your source?

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

Hello Rico,

My system is in my profile : Flatcap/CD 3.5/Hicap/Nait 3/ Tuner creek T43/Proac 125. (yes, the Hicap isn't very usefull with the Nait, but we never have enought Hicap, haven't we?)

someneone who really know the naim and the proac products said to me : the proac will do a better job with passive bi amp (not easy to drive)Then, with THIS loudspeakers, 140<180<2x140<2x180... (where is the 250? a little too expensive for me)

Alexandre

Alexandre

You might consider CDX/Nait 3+HiCap into your proacs, lest a system such as 3.5/flat/Nait-as-pre/HiCap/180/Proacs be rather 'mulleted out'.

As an aside, have you tried swapping the position of HiCap and FlatCap in your system?

Seems to me you have created a difficult position in choosing these speakers in the context of your current system - you're trying to improve things with a measure which will undoubtedly improve the system from the speaker's viewpoint, but will undoubtedly unbalance the system somewhere else. This is where the Source First protaganists are coming from, and where most of us have been!

The safest solution (without blowing the type of cash required to transform the system to a strong-fronted system with sufficient grip and finesse to truely rule your proacs**), is perhaps to consider a more reasonable or sympathetic load.

I would not recommend bi-amping in principle, as this would divert further funds to amplification which could be better spent on improving the source. Please note, though, that I have not listened to the proacs in question.

'hope my £0.02 helps.

** - nothing that a CDX/102/hi/180 or CDX/82/hi250 wouldn't sort in a flash!

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

Tu vois bien que je te disais pas que des qneries..... Avec un Nap180, tu tiens mieux tes enceintes qu avec un Nap140, c est clair!

et certes l ensemble Nac82/hicap/nap140 est mieux que le Nac72/hicap/Nap180 mais le prix n est pas le meme!!!

A+

Charles

Thank you Rico for your advices,

You’re right, the nait like Préamp with a 180 isn’t a balance system and i should buy a préam (72, 102 ?) quickly if i buy the 180. But with the Hi cap on the nait, i can wait a little (the nait as préamp sems to be as good as a 92 or a 42.5)

(What means Mullet ?)

Source first is probably a good way, but actually, i am not sure that the « couple » (pair ?) Nait – Proac 125 is abble to pass all the informations readen by the 3.5 and the Flat cap.
As soon as the loudspeakers will be driven properly, i would change my CD (peharps)

My (hifi) aim is to build a balance system as you said, an stop every hungry of upgrade.
The 180 is probably better than the Proac can do, and a 140 could be enought for the proac, but it is difficult to find a 140 in France (too old or too expensive)

And Yes i tried swapping the cap, but i prefer a little the flat on the CD (The CD with the HICAP is pehaprs faster but a little more analitik (less harmonic).
On the Nait, i hadn’t seen (heard) a real difference with Faltcap or Hicap (but my nait doesn’t work without a cap. My dealer helped me whem he put the optionnal préamp boards, then the current (power) is provided to the préamp section by external power supplied, but the amp section is still OK, without a other cable between the Hicap to the power amp section. I hope it is understandable…

Best regards

Alexandre

Hello Patrick,
Hello Charles

To Patrick: do you think, even if to drive the loudspeakers is quite hard, the preamp must be better than the amp ? Does not depend of the loudspeaker ?
You’re right for the price.
I haven’t understood : which loudspeakers had the flabby bass with the linn : the 1.5 or the 125 ?

To Charles,

You’re everywhere : french forum, naim forum… I send you a mail

Best regards

Alexandre

Whilst I'd be the last to desribe the 180 based system as balanced, as a stage along your path to audio nirvana do not discount it entirely.

My brother recently aquired a 160 very cheaply, and he is using this with a Nait 3 (i.e. NAC92) pre-amp. He intends to upgrade it to 180 spec very soon.

I'd never describe it as balanced, in a financial sense, but the NAC92 sounds better than many give it credit for, and the system as a whole is musical and enjoyable. If the 180 is a good price it will probably last you through many upgrades to come. Certainly a NAC92 is no worse than an old 42, something that would have been used with such amplifiers before the advent of better pre's.

If you don't plan any further upgrades, I'd follow the advice previously offered to try and obtain a better pre, at the expense of the 180.

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes

all of these suggested improvements centring on Alexandre's amplification will still most likely see a largely unbalanced system where the shortcomings or weaknesses of the 3.5/flat are proressively further exposed. This will not diminish Alexandre's "upgrade hunger", unfortunately. The 82 is a fab pre - but it will not solve the problem.

This is what the Mullet System does! One keeps attempting to re-balance the system until, funnily enough, one ends up with a beautifully balanced system, and then continues to slag off the "source first apologists" while preaching "system balance". Recognise anyone around here?

Alexandre - Mullet is a description of that 80's Canadian haircut, short and spiky on top, long at the back. In this case, the phrase has been used to desribe "short at front, long at the back" systems eg Arcam 6/72/Hi/250/NBL would be pretty-much "el muletto", if you get my drift.

I trust you all find my advice as amusing as the spirit is which it is given, and it is to some use!

Rico - all your base are belong to us.

Thank everybody for yours advides.

Yes Patrick, the 180 will be one step before a better préamp.
The second hand choice is a 72, but does someone have heard 72 /Hi + 180 ? Because 72/Hi/250 or 102/Hi/snaps/180 are well-known for their sound quality, but what about the 72/hi/180. Does it sound a little harsh (harsher than the 102/hi/180 ?…)

But I am not hurry, and i agree with andrew : 92 (nait 3)/Hi is already a good préamp for making music. My 125 are quite news, and i préfer to wait and be sure about the sound failures of my system. And latter, i will hear a better pré.

Alexandre

Alexandre,

I was in a similar position as yours some time ago. I had a CD 3, Nait 3R + Flatcap and SBLs. I was thinking about adding a power amp and use the Nait as a preamp. The "source first" brigade warned me and they were right. I tried a NAP 250 with my Nait 3R powered by the Flatcap as preamp. The result was very disappointing, nearly unlistenable. Dark and dull, uncontrolled bass. Then I tried a NAC 82 powered by the Flatcap and I used the power amp section of the Nait as power amp. Wow, there I finally understood the logic of the source first. Details, image, controlled bass etc. From this experience the last thing I would upgrade in my stereo is the power amp. You'll be surprised to hear what the power section of your Nait is capable of with a better preamp.

Ciao!

Willem

Funny thing is I'm Canadian. I have heard the term many times before, knowing it means pretty much "ass backwards" but I did not know that it was derived from the famous "hockey hair" syndrome.

Geez, what you learn from a forum 1/2 way around the world about your own country.

mykel

Rico,

quote:

---

Mullet is a description of that 80's Canadian haircut, short and spiky on top, long at the back.

---

Are you sure it's a Canadian invention? I'm not denying that this abomination to coiffurists wasn't dotting the Canadian landscape during the '80s, I'm just questioning the likelihood that such polite and civilized people as Canadians would introduced it.

The hairstyle is also called the "Kentucky Waterfall" and the "Tennessee Top Hat," suggesting that it could be an American invention.

Another possibility is that the haircut had multiple, simultaneous, independent origins. Unfortunately, and for the first time ever, that great suppository of human knowledge -- the Web -- has failed to provide an answer.

Joe

Joe I think you'll find all you want to know and somethings you don't here

www.mulletsgalore.com

Johnh