72/140-180 vs 112/150 (dealer vs. forum?)

The 112/150 is a great combo. I guess it's a bit better than your 92/90.... but not a huge step up. I would be inclined to recommend you demo both options, let your ears be the judge. I have a philosophy of *big upgrades* better value. Generally speaking.

When I've trialled 112 in past, 102 etc is where my ears led me. I felt that the 112 gives a very polished performance, and focusses you on what it does well... in this aspect you can just get on with enjoying music - it's certainly fun to listen to. The 112 also neatly hides what it's not good at - a clever trick. Changing to the 102 I was instantly greeted by a preamp that makes no appologies for any of its shortcomings, does it's best, and tells you that if it had half the chance it would have been a 52. It has a more warts-and-all kind of delivery in contrast to the 112, which suits me as I don't mind the portrayal of the musicians as "hanging it all out'. Comparitively speaking, of course.

As with most purchases, there are compromises. Your ear will help you select which is the right set of compromises for you and your system. Neither 112 or 102 is a bad preamp.

Do let us know what you hear, and what you decided on!

I hope that makes sense. Or if not, at least entertained you.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

PS - I've not compared a 72 with the 112. Or 140 with 150.

i replaced the 72 in a cds2/72/sc/135x2/sbls system with a 112. i changed back to the 72 in 5 minutes to confirm what i was hearing - that a brand new 112 was killing a warmed-up 72.

Yes, the sound changes up and down and up and down over the warm up period, but when it finally settles, the 72 and 32 may seem to have more body, when in fact this body is just electronic noise.
These new electronics are so fast and quiet that their tautness and precision opens an understanding to music being played.

At the same time, and without direct reference, a 72/140 after 10 years, or a 42/110 afer 20 years, still sounds damn good and very correct musically and pleasant tonally.

but for a cd5 there is no better match than the 5 series electronics, which are inter-optimised.

vik

Thanks Rico and Vik,

Well I asked for it, and here it is- two well thougth out but opposite views. I suppose I'll have to try out both options. In some ways the 72/140-180 option is attractive for the VFM, ugrading what I have now to a 112/150 will cost about $1800 with the trade in! I have to admit I've been wondering if there haven't been advances in electronics over the past 10 years that would favor the 5 series. However, a detailed A/B of the older kit vs the newer kit seems logistically very difficult if not impossible since it would involve getting both setups out here at the same time.

What about upgrades- I know what the classic routs is with the old kit, where do you go from 112/150?

Bruce

From Seattle, Washington

quote:

---

What about upgrades- I know what the classic routs is with the old kit, where do you go from 112/150?

---

The 102/140 is so much more involving. It is an upgrade in itself.

Regards,

Steve.

The proof of the pudding...

Although I get where Vik's coming from, I find the musical performance much more satisfying with the 72/102/140/180 solutions - particularly where the 102 is involved. In my view, the 102/140 is way better than the 112/150.

In your case, I would argue that the 112/150 is different where the 102/140 would be better. And I'd go 102/140 rather than 72/180 unless yo had bitches of speakers to drive.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Nac72/Nap140!!! And with a s/h Hicap..... It kills a Nac 72/Nap180.


Charles

In reality the 112/150 is the decendant and replacement of the 92/90. The fact that the pair is in a contest with a 72/140 shows me the progress naim are making with their new stuff.

Yes, but NAC112/Nap150 is more expensive than Nac92/Nac90!!!
It would have peen a pity if the Nac112/Nap150 was not better...
Charles

[This message was edited by Charlezz on THURSDAY 30 May 2002 at 14:35.]

Christian,

The official line is

52>82>102>112 - the 72 is no more.

If you wanted to include the 72, the official line would be

52>82>102>112>72

However, there are a few on the forum who prefer the 72 to the 112 and, indeed, the 102. I used to be one of them, but not since last year when I did more listening to warmed up 102s. My experience with 102s is that they seem to take longer than most to warm up - no idea why.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

Charlezzzz

I cannot underssssstand youuu.

Stick a SuperCap on a 72 and I'd prefer it to an 82, let alone a 102.

Alex

quote:

---

Stick a SuperCap on a 72 and I'd prefer it to an 82, let alone a 102

---

Yeah Alex, but would that be the 82 you heard in Jason's system or the bag-o-nails you owned?

David

Simon :
So do I...
My english is definitely too bad...

Charles

ps: I have tried to correct my post.

I'm running a 72 on a Supercap this week for a change, and I prefer my 82.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

quote:

---

Does it go on as 52>82>102>112>72...>92>42>32.5>32>

---

Not quite.

I would rearrange as:

52>82>102>112>72>32-5>92>42-5>32>42

The 32-5 and 72 are nearly equivalent (particularly if the 32-5 has the time alignment boards in it).

Erik

Bruce,

Looking at the NANA price sheets for the US, a new 112/150 combo is $2600. A new 102/180 combo is $4600. Neither includes a separate power supply.

If it were me, I'd keep these numbers firmly in mind when I looked here.

A pair of (unrecapped) 135s for $2000. Various (recapped) old style hicaps for $600. Given that 32-5s generally go for about $400, $3000 could get you a pretty fine (and matching!) 80's style set. True, the newer pre-amps would outclass it in the detail/imagery category, and you'd have to get those 135s serviced eventually. But for the bass authority you say you want, and for for a mighty high groove factor generally, this older stuff would deliver some serious fun for a (comparatively) modest outlay.

Anyway, I know where my money would likely go, if I were in your shoes

I spent tonite with a 112, my 92, and guess what, an 82 hooked up to my lowly 90.3! Quite the listening fest with a bit of a split opinion. The first clear point is that the 92 showed quite well-more like a younger sibling than the cousin I had imagined. The 82 was the favorite, but not by much- the 112 was great. In fact, it was good enough to convinvce me that the 112 and maybe 150 is the upgrade ladder to move towards. Granted it's pricier compared to a 140/102, but I think that some good things have happebed over the pat ten years

From Seattle, Washington

quote:

---

...32-5>92>42-5>32>42

---

Are you sure that 92 is better than 32/42/42.5?

- Jun

I'm pretty well tied to the older line, but if I were buying from scratch now, I might buy the 112/150, even at new prices. I would think that future upgrades to fill in the price range between the 552/500 and 112/150 will be better than the old stuff, as good as it is.

As for the 92, I would think, based on listening to the 62 and 92 and based on dealer comments. 92 = 62 = 42.5 = 42, assuming the equipment has been properly maintained. I know thw 62 = 92, as far as my ears are concerned.

Phil

I too first bought the 92r/90.3 combo and was thrilled for a year. But then my dealer had a used 150 so I traded in for it and there was a distinct impression of more power, 20WPC, but also a bit more clarity and umph.

I also started out with the CD 3.5 and when I upgraded to the CD5 there was no question about clarity. Tho I know the old liners generally think you're loosing PRAT.

Now I'm thinking of jumping ahead and getting the soul of my system to be a s/h 82 with my more revealing series 5 gear. I'd love a new 282 but that's out of the question. Perhaps if I wasn't on this forum every other day or so I'd be happy with my own gear. Maybe I should ignore the forum after I get my 82........Nah, too much fun!

And cannibalized a fair bit of the potential market for 102/180's. It is THAT good.

Keep your options open, but you can trust your local Naim dealer in Seattle (I know him well and he is one of the best in the world--no kidding). His advice about what sounds best is reliable, but understandably, he does have an agenda which is to sell you what he can sell you. His prices for the used equipment will be higher than what you see elsewhere but he does provide very decent trade-in value if you upgrade within a set period (at least I think he still does this).

Markus
A big fan of Bob Levin and Hawthorne Stereo...

I think it's worth re-iterating Rico's initial comment that the 112 (and the 150) are very good at not making a meal of what they are not good at.

I've had a 102 in my system for a while, and it is obviously better than the 112, but going back to the 112 did not, once the initial shock had passed, leave one irritated by what is missing, unlike many of the earlier products.

It allows you to enjoy music, and I can see why many would not like its presentation. Equally though, many, like me, would be able to live with this combo for years (mine's 2 years old at Xmas) without hankering for an upgrade.

It also has features not present on even the 552, so if practicality is also an issue, it wins hands down.

I often compare the 150 to my early experiences with a Nait1 - it just seems to take whatever is thrown at it, without getting flustered. I've run one of these flat out into stupidly demanding speakers until the thing was virtually incandescent, without a hint of harshness. I found that quite astonishing and something the earlier designs could not have done, in my experience.

I cannot imagine many people starting on the ladder at this point being disappointed with their purchase.

Andy.

Just to set the record straight, I did change to a 112/150 shortly after I wrote this last spring, and have been extremel happy with the change, as I have detailed in several posts.

I would highly recommend the 112/150 to anyone. I personally prefered it to a 102 in my system, but that is strictly a matter of personal taste.

And yes Markus, I also think that Hawthorne is truly outstanding.

Now, I'm on a slow but steady speaker quest...

Bruce

Bruce

Seek out a pair of Apogee Centaurus Minors or Apogee Slant Six's. Bob L doesn't care for these but give them a try. The transparency of Quads in the midrange and treble and the grunt of Epos 11's in the midbass and bass. I've never looked back.

Markus


------------

I have had the luck recently of living with a 112-150. Have to say its very rewarding.
The only thing I would say the 102/180 has on it is more presence in terms of slam etc, which is envitable considering the amp sizes.

Its worth noting the 112-150 was with a hi cap though.

every new product I have heard has sounded fantastic and with the new case work has to be worthy of serious consideration.