Nait3 vs. 32.5

Posted by: Mike Cole on 27 April 2001

OK, I've seen so much stuff about the 32.5 with 72 boards that I have to ask. Is the 32.5 that much better than a Nait3? Would a 32.5 and, say, a used 140 be a *lot* better? I currently have a pair of Credos on the end of my Nait and, on a good day, it sounds absolutely great. I am thinking of possibly upgrading, but if I do, I don't want to spend a lot of money and the above combo should be within reach.

Mike

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Chris Brandon
Hi Mike,

Your proposed combination of 32.5 (72'd and board pulled) and 140 should considerably outperform the Nait3.

The 32.5,once 72'd,really is one of the Hi-Fi bargains of the centuary.

The 140 is both musical and well respected.

But,I have to point out that although you can power the 32.5 from the 140,it will only really start to "sing" when a Hi-Cap is used to power the 32.5. (but even used as a basic pre and power only,I would still expect it to outperform the Nait3.

I believe you would be pleasantly supprised at what the 32.5 (72'd) /Hi-Cap/ 140 is capable of

Regards

Chris

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Tony L
quote:
Would a 32.5 and, say, a used 140 be a *lot* better?

Yes. You don't even need a 140, IMHO a 110 would easily beat it. And when you eventually get a Hicap you are in a totally different league. Given the choice of a 32.5 / 140 and a 32.5 / Hicap / 110 I would choose the later, it would probably only cost about 100 quid more if you shop well (i.e. Loot).

If you are buying a 32.5, try and find a serviced one with the 72 boards already in, as it will save you a fair bit of money later. A bog standard 32.5 goes for about 150-200 quid, one with 72 boards goes for possibly 50 quid more. IMHO that is 50 quid very well spent.

Tony.

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Mick P
Mike

I totally endorse everything Chris has said.

There is a significant improvent in performance over the Nait 3 and the 32.5 is a virtual 72 at half the price. Its only downside is that it is black rather than olive green, however, you may consider that an advantage.

Despite their age, most are well cared for, mainly because they have been owned by audiophiles, and the going rate is between £150-£200 depending on how well you negotiate. I paid £170 for a mint one 3 years ago.

You will be very pleased with it and I still use mine in my secondary system and I love it.

Regards

Mick

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes
What would be the going rate for early, unserviced, 110's?

Thanks,

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Greg Beatty
OK - more heresey from the Massive Downgrader razz

I did the Nait 3 vs. 72/hicap/140 demo about 3 1/2 years ago and went with the 72/hi/140 combo. Odd thing was that the 72/140 alone (no hicap) wasn't that much better - only marginally so to my ears AND the addition of the hicap brought some negatives with it. The hicap definitely afforded a performance boost but is also added some hashiness to the system. Through the very-revealing ProAcs we were using, this never went away in owning the kit for 3 years.

Maybe it is down to Grey v. Black SNAIC (I had grey, never tried black in my system), but a friend of bought a Nait 3 never had this problem.

Also, I'm not sure the differece is better than a source upgrade. My system did things the Nait 3 system would not, but I bet a CDX/Nait 3 would beat a cd 3.5/72/hi/140 system in many if not all areas.

What source(s) are you using?

- Greg

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Eric Barry
I've used 32-5/140, 32-5/Snaps, 32-5/Snaps2, 32-5/hicap/140, all pieces except the Snaps2 were unserviced.

All are better than what I've heard of the Nait, an should be as both the pre and power of a 32-5/140 are substantially better than what's in the Nait.

About the hicap: my system started singing with the snaps. A fundamental improvement that made me want to listen more. It caused much less instances of harshness or tinnyness. The bass was deeper and much more satisfying. The mids were much prettier, and the treble much more natural. Dual railing and recapping made it more hi-fi--tighter and cleaner, but didn't touch my soul.

The hicap transformed the sound, making it much more hi-rez, but wasn't as big a jump for my enjoyment as the snaps, though soundwise it's further from snaps to hicap than from bare to snaps.

Black snaics were also a fundamental change, making everything fuller, less harsh, more lifelike--as big to me as a snaps. Never tried 32-5/140 with black snaic. But with the hicap, putting in the black snaics made the system so much more tolerant of poor recordings, so much less hash and glare, deeper, more detail (but more natural), etc. Greg, it's a shame you didn't try the black snaics.

--Eric

Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Greg Beatty
I would have liked to have tried a Black SNAIC, but I reasoned that the Grey SNAIC had been standard for, what, 20 years? And Naim built its reputation using the Grey SNAIC.

So, while the Black may be better, I decided it wasn't likely to transform things and I wasn't liking what the Naim stuff was doing. So it went.

And there are no good dealers around, so...

Maybe someday...

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

Posted on: 29 April 2001 by Mike Cole
Thanks for the replies. Looks like the 32.5 along with a Hi-Cap is a winner. I hope to eventually get up to a classic Naim system - 72/Hicap/250. This will be a long way down the road though. I will also try to get a pair of Kans. I sold mine a long time ago at a time when I was getting into tube gear.

Greg -

My sources are a CD3.5/FlatCap and an LP12/Valhalla/Ekos/17D2.

Mike