My new pre. . . what's up with the gain?

Justin. Chill my friend.

The gain control on the 112 is digital rail, which means it can realistically go all the way to the end. I frequently had it at 3pm when I used one for a few weeks.

I must admit it takes some getting used to.

Also the gain itself is very smooth, on an analouge one its all over the place, so between 8 and 9 it would jump significantly but between 10-11 it wouldn't.

On the 112 its a regular increase in volume across the range so in order to get the 'volume hit' you somtimes need to really turn the volume UP!

There's nothing wrong having the pot at 12 O'clock. We old phono users always had to have the pot somewhere between 12 and 2 o'clock for decent volume.

Anyway you can alter it to your liking when you get the remote so why worry?

Steve B

I was concerned that this was not just a sensitivity issue, but rather a more grave problem. I thought it odd that EVERY input would be set to the same super low gain.

As it is now, it does not strike me as quite right. But, i will not know for sure until I have the remote.

Judd

Jason,

With the 112 you can set each input to any level you like (i think it's called unity gain). I personally like my CDX/112 set so the volume control will go to its limit. To me it sounds better than having it set to max at 12 o'clock and also allows for easy (small) increases in volume. I also don't have to worry about my daughter (she know's better) or one of her friends (or mine) cranking the knob and ...;-)

regards,
jim

Hi Judd,

What was your sistem before the 112/150, and how does this compare. I'm guessing the old sistem was a 72/140.

cheers,

Dan

You are indeed right. I had a 72/140 combination before this one. The reason for the change principally came down to the remote control and also getting a pretty good deal.

I know better than to make a judgement so close to have it in the listening room for the first time. I'll post something next week once I have the 112 situation sorted.

I'll say this, though: I am completely and utterly satisfied with the sound of the 150 when being driven by a mere 42. I may not even bother with the 112. I could use the $$$ anyway--and it saves me from having to find a stageline.

Judd

quote:

---

As it is now, it does not strike me as quite right. But, I will not know for sure until I have the remote.

---

It's definitely normal, I'd say.

It's actually harder to go back the other way, my 32.5 seems so twitchy in comparison!

Listening at 12 o'clock is quite normal for a 112, you will notice it gets quite a bit louder soon after that point. My 32.5 barely gets to 1/4 volume for similar levels

It gives a superb sesitivity to the adjustment though, and you can always tweak the levels to suit your own habits later on, with the remote.

I'd be amazed if you think the 42 is as good though. The 72 is a different argument

Andy (long term 112 owner).

Folks,

Through using an AV2 quite a lot recently, which incorporates the resistor ladder volume control, it certainly does take some getting used to but ultimately I prefer it. Pity I'll have to go back to the old way of doing things once I've saved up for my new pre-amp.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jcc:

With the 112 you can set each input to any level you like (i think it's called unity gain).

---

The unity gain business is a nifty way that Naim pre-amps can drive a stereo power amp for music but also make that power amp available to a multi-channel system. Basically if you set the AV input on the pre-amp to unity gain, the volume control is bypassed and the signal is passed through without any change to its size.

So the volume of the five or seven or whatever number of channels is all controlled from your AV processor. 2 channels are piped straight through your pre to your nice Naim amp and main speakers. Yet the integrity of your 2 channel hi-fi isn't compromised when just listening to music. Nicely thought out!

Cheers,

Richard.

I'm gonna catch hell for this, but here goes:

Well,

I have lived with the 140/112 combination for about a week now, which I think is fairly long enough to make some initial impressions know.

The combination replaced a 140/72 compliment with MC phono boards. I have on hand a snaps PSU (converted to dual rail) and a nac 42. Initially, the 112 arrived without a remote control, the previous owner having lost it. However, he arranged to have a brand new remote sent to me, which I received just one day after receiving the unit. I mention it only because upon firing up the new combination for the first time, I was struck by how little gain it had—rather it might have been better to say that one must use a greater portion of the range of the volume dial on the 112 than on either the 72 or 42. Alas, the previous owner did NOT reduce the input sensitivity of the 112. Decent volume simply does not com on unit 11 o’clock. While I did most of my listening on the older pre-amps at 9 o’clock, the 112 is comfortable at 11:30 or so. So be it.

I should like to note at the onset that these two pieces (the 150 and 112) were the first of the “new” series gear that I have ever had in my living room. The build quality and general fit and finish of the exterior case-work is nothing short of marvelous. The pictures do not do it justice (looking to me rather plasticy). But in the flesh, it is solid, heavy and smooth. The boxes are built to a high standard with which I can find no fault. I am less convinced by the “suspension” system Naim claims to have employed in this gear. The boards “float” (with no sense of any sort of “spring” forcing them this way or that) on slightly undersized posts. To that end, the snaics and interconnects one attaches to the sockets (which float by din (hey—a pun) of their being attached the floating boards) also become part of the suspension—no? In any event, I have no idea what effect (good or bad) any of that has on the sound, so I will just let it go.

It is my impression that as an amplifier, the 150 is a masterpiece—a true and genuine improvement over the 140. So impressed am I by the way that it sounds, I suspect (nay, I know) that it does certain things I wished my 250 did back when I owned one of them. It is smooth and beguiling, but also hugely powerful. It mines details in an altogether more meaningful way than, say, the 102 did for me. I simply hear more—not by way of mere brightness—but by way of genuine resolution and transparency (ah, a round earth word that I am happy to use). But it is also simply and utterly in every way as fast and agile as the 140, and every bit as fun to listen to. It has better bass. Both deeper and more detailed. At first, I thought the bass slightly slower and more ponderous than that of the 140. But I have come to think, instead now, that it was the 140 that truncated bass detail. In my mind, attack is every bit good, but sustain is markedly better. And with a better sense of sustain, there is to my mind a greater sense of bass detail. It was the sort of revelation of bass detail I experienced when going from a 140 to a 250—yet, perhaps, without the grunt of the 250.

To that end, I find the 150 as smooth and detailed as the olive 250, but without the older box’s unending power and slight propensity to warmth. I don’t want to be misunderstood on this point; on balance I think the olive 250 is a better amplifier (to say nothing of the new black 250) than the 150, but I am also of the opinion that the 150 does certain things (things that I like) that the olive 250 simply did not. I shutter to think what the new 250 sounds like. I am impressed with the new 150. I am keeping it.

I am not at all impressed with the way the 112 sounds—and in fact am somewhat disappointed. So disappointed was I that I invited another Naim-o-phile over to have a listen to it versus my old 42 (unmodified). In isolation with the 150, the 112 is pleasant enough, sounding every bit as good as Naim should sound, with perhaps an added measure of midrange warmth and pleasure that I was told the new gear can exhibit. In my mind, however, the 112 does not do as well as it should with bass lines. They were not to my recollection as easy to follow as I remembered them with the 72 and 42. bass seemed somewhat slower and less defined that I remembered it otherwise being. And perhaps, just perhaps, I felt that the combination simply was not as dynamic as I thought that it should be.

Having substituted the 42 for the 112, my suspicions were confirmed. The 42 was simply better in my room with my gear. It was not as colorful—for sure. The 42 has a rather more “stark” (which is to say slightly grey and hard) presentation than the 112 does. The 112 is more colorful and sounds “bigger” by comparison. But, the 42 is also considerably more dynamic. EVERYTHING simply hits harder and is more fun to listen to. It also does a better job of separating out instrumental lines. Guitar licks are better differentiated from their background “noise”. Instruments are better “projected” out from the speaker as separate events. The 112, on the other hand, seems to congeal to some extent the different instruments being played. Things that should pop out, like particular plucks on an upright or raps on a skin drum—which I know from experience are there—are muted through the 112. They just don’t come out with the proper amount of relief from their backgrounds. My friend concurred with all of this.

We put the 112 back into the system and played it some more. It was good. It sounded like Naim gear (and in fact improved on the older stuff in all the ways we had been reading about)—and both of us concurred that as a combination it sounded good. We agreed that we could live with it happily. But at the same time, the 42 sounded better—which is to say that it was more fun to listen to—and that on balance we would rather live with the 42/150 combination. . . on balance, that is, unless one takes into account the remote control and the aesthetics.

This is the rub for me. The 112 looks really great. And I upgraded from the 72/140 combination principally because of the remote control (I’ll mention, by the way, the 150 is sooooo much better in my mind to the 140, that on balance the 42/150 sounds better and is more enjoyable that the 72/140).

As it stand now, I have no idea what sorts of decisions and thought processes go through a company’s collective head when it decides to bring a new product to market. As it stands now (again, knowing nothing) I am inclined to think that the 112 was something hastily thrown together to compliment the nait 5 and 150 as a combination (I’m sure I will be told the 112 was designed first, or some such other). But that is just my feeling. I don’t think it is up to the same standard as the 150, and I suspect that it is taken, en mass, from the nait 5, virtually unchanged. I’m sure I am wrong. But I am unimpressed with it in any event. I think it is that volume control. Who’s with me? Bueller. Bueller??

Judd

quote:

---

But I am unimpressed with [the 112] in any event. I think it is that volume control. Who’s with me? Bueller. Bueller??

---

No arguments here. I demmed my 32.5 + hicap against a 112, 102, and 82 (each with a hicap) at my dealer about four years ago. The 112 was a definate step backwards, no question. The 102 was at best a sidegrade; certainly nothing that would justify the thousands it would have cost me. The 82 was better but, again, not worth the price. Like you, I found the smoothness of the new amps (compared to the 32.5) a let-down; even the 102 seemed muted to me. Admittedly it was only an in-store dem, but still -- yuck.

So here I am with my trusty 32.5, now approaching the start of its third decade with me. Naim did a just fantastic job with this thing.

So Justin, is a 72+hicap a possibility for you? I bet it would not be far off the price of the 112. I happen to think that this combo looks quite good, assuming the hicap is olive. Chrome bumper looks even better. Admittedly no remote, but come on -- that's girlie-man sh*t .

I'm grateful my 32.5 has just exactly the gain settings it does. With a Klyde MC and K-boards in front, and 135s and 'Briks in back, I can, and do, turn the wick to 5:30 (full stop) with impunity. It's loud enough, and if I could adjust the gain I would -- and quickly break my stereo and ears. As it stands it's just right at protecting me from myself.

Eric

Yes,

If I decide to let the 112 go (still may keep--I don't know) I will probably source ANOTHER 72. The 72 is great. My favorate Naim pre to this day.

Judd

Thanks Judd- a nice long post that's also interesting.

quote:

---

The build quality and general fit and finish of the exterior case-work is nothing short of marvelous. The pictures do not do it justice (looking to me rather plasticy).

---

Almost as good as the Rega clamshells, eh?

quote:

---

But in the flesh, it is solid, heavy and smooth.

---

Freud must be spinning in his grave

I'd like to ask Eric's question again. Why isn't 72/Hi a possibility? 72/Hi/150 may very well be the final solution.

OK, so there's no remote. Is it possible to reconfigure your setup so that the preamp is within arm's reach?

72/hi is a possibility. I think that combination with the 150 would sound very very good, considerably better than the 72/hi/140 combination, principally because the 150 is so much better.

I will probably eventually put such a system together. Right now, though, the 42/snaps/150 combo sounds great too.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
I'm gonna catch hell for this, but here goes:


I am not at all impressed with the way the 112 sounds—and in fact am somewhat disappointed.
Judd

---

not at all surprised at your findings..i hear a lot of praises of the 112 but have found that pre to be dissatisfying..i don't know how anyone coming from a 72 would enjoy a 112.. but of course i am biased..

"So what ya gonna do when the novelty has gone.."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
72/hi is a possibility. I think that combination with the 150 would sound very very good, considerably better than the 72/hi/140 combination, principally because the 150 is so much better.

Judd

---

72/hi/250 is the solution i currently have and can not praise it enough..especially when consider the $$...i too consider the 102 a sidestep at best and the 82 may be 'better' but not for the $$.. i will eventually get a 52 but definitely not a priority..will focus on the source first..

"So what ya gonna do when the novelty has gone.."

Judd,

Thanks for the very informative write-up. I have wondered how the new line would fit with the old line - sounds to me as though the new amps at least are worth considering. Looking over audiogon of late the price differential between a 102 and 72 seems to be around $400 (i.e. about $600 vs.$1000). Although its a sidestep, you get a remote and perhaps a better aesthetic match.
You'll have to let us know if you end up getting rid of the 112.

cheers

Dan

If you are considering 72/hi/150, you might as well start off by replacing the SNAPS with a HiCap.

I've never heard a 112/Hi, but it might change the character of the preamp?

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com