from 72 to 102
Posted by: Simo on 12 June 2003
Hi everybody,
i'd like change my 72 with a 102, many peoples told me 102 is just a 72 with remote...
this is the principal reason for change, can anyone tell me if there are or what are the differences?
thanks
Simone
ops, my system: cdi-72-hi-140- proac 1.5
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Tuan
No way. The 102 is light years ahead in term of resolution. You must power it with a highcap and a NASPC or dual highcaps or a supercap to see its potential. The 102 MUST be powered by at least a high cap to see its quality.
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Thomas K
What struck me in a direct comparison was that the 102 was more transparent and perhaps leaner sounding.
Thomas
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Hammerhead
Skip the 102 - get an 82. Much more musical, much more resolution. Bit more cash, granted, but you'll be happier for longer.
Steve
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Alco
quote:
Skip the 102 - get an 82. Much more musical, much more resolution. Bit more cash, granted, but you'll be happier for longer.
So many people, so many choices/opinions...
I recently swapped an 82 for a 72!
regards,
Alco
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Hammerhead
quote:
Originally posted by Alco:
I recently swapped an 82 for a 72!
That's because you're a bit strange, Alco
Steve
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Simo
quote:
Originally posted by Alco:
quote:
Skip the 102 - get an 82. Much more musical, much more resolution. Bit more cash, granted, but you'll be happier for longer.
So many people, so many choices/opinions...
I recently swapped an 82 for a 72!
regards,
Alco
yuo're not the first, i went in naim world by a person who say:
"buy a 72-140 it's a kind of special thing, later put a hicap on the 72 and you can drive 90% of speakers......"
he like 72 more than 82
in my experience i've listen only 92 and 72.
thanks for all reply
Simone
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Simo
quote:
Originally posted by Simo:
quote:
Originally posted by Stevie Dempster:
Skip the 102 - get an 82. Much more musical, much more resolution. Bit more cash, granted, but you'll be happier for longer.
Steve
i'd like this, but now it's hard to go for a 102 too
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Alco
quote:
That's because you're a bit strange, Alco
...guess so Steve
It's not that I got the 72, because I prefer it over the 82, but I also don't prefer the 82 with a huge margin over the 72. In fact, imho the difference was way too small to justify the price difference (even s/h)
So, that's whay I swapped the 82 for a s/h 72 and a new Quadraspire Q4.
So, if I had the choice between 72 & 102, I would only consider the 102 for it's remote
regards,
Alco
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Simon Matthews
I suppose these things are always subjective, however for me a 82 totally destroys a 72 in all departements.
Of all the upgrades I have made the 72 to 82 was one of the ones that always sticks in my memory for the profound way in which it improved the communication and performance of my system. Just my 2p worth.
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Mat Bon 0013
Simo,
Keep the 72 get a HiCap and spend the rest on some music.
Regards
Mat
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Phil Barry
I don't hear any point in swapping a 72 for a 102, unless you really want remote control.
When I had money burning a hole in my pocket and a 72/hi/140 in my living room, I looked very closely at an 82. I had one at home for a few days and decided that the improvment wrought by the 82 just didn't justify the cost.
What DID provide real satisfaction was replacing the 140 with a 250. My LP12/72/hi/250 was WAY better in every way that the same system with the 140 - then the 82 made real sense, and the 82/2 X hicap made real magic.
I'm basically a source-first kind of guy, but I'm glad I went with the 250 when I did.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Robbie
Simo,
A NAC 102 doesn't give very much improvement over a 72,let alone even a 62. For real improvements look for a 82 with 2 hicaps or a NAP 250, as mentioned by Phil.
Regards,
Rob.
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by Laurie Saunders
I guess that in its time, the 72 was Naim`s top preamp. Then came the 52,.....followed by "watered down" versions of the 52, the 82 and 102. I guess that there is an element of truth in the theory that the "top" preamp of any era will always be special. I owned a 72-hicap-140, and agree with above comments...it was a "special" combination, able to drive many speakers (it drove my Isobariks to antisocial levels for hours without ever cutting out). When I got the 82, it was obviously technically better, yet never seemed so satisfying.....I had to go to the 52 for that, which at the time was also the best preamp Naim could make (I still have it)
This is why I am not totally convinced by reports that moving to a 252 would be a wise move, though many report that it trounces a 52. I will bide my time and go straight to a 552....currently Naim`s "best"..when (and if ) funds allow
Laurie S
Posted on: 12 June 2003 by garyi
A recently used a 72 and 102 in my own sistem.
The 102 is simply better.
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by Simo
Thanks guys,
i belive there isn't big improvment from 72 to 102 btw the remote, i agree with nap upgrade if you can turn up the volume
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by Stephen Bennett
I did the same move last year. My thoughts. NAC102, NASPC and HiCap.
Vinyl. Not a lot in it. The 102 isn't worse than the 72 on records, but I can't say it's better either.
CD. There's a huge improvement here. I think the 102 has a better quality CD input than the 72. The sound is less 'constrained'
The remote is a nice thing too
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by MarkEJ
The "special" ones:
32.5, 72, 52, IMHO.
You lose money when you change boxes. Sticking to one-time flagships gets you a big difference with minimum hops. All the others are just compromise to fit a price point, really.
Best;
Mark
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by Phil Barry
Stephen,
I don't see how something can be better on vinyl than on CD. It just doesn't make sense to me. But your observation explains a lot of the differences in opinion on these 2 preamps.
I never liked CD (until I got my CDS 2 years ago). So in comparing a 72 to a 102 in a shop, I was probably insensitive to improvement in CD playback. At home I listen mainly to vinyl, and if the improvement is slight, I would perceive the 102 to be poor VFM.
So maybe a preamp can be better with one medium than with another.
Thanks for writing.
Laurie and Mark make excellent sense.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Phil Barry:
Stephen,
I don't see how something can be better on vinyl than on CD.
Phil
I didn't say that. I said that the 102 was better on CD than the 72, but on Vinyl performance was pretty matched. I assume you meant that after reading the reast of your message.
The 72 was designed before the CD was in common use. My early 72 didn'y have a CD input, just an AUX and Tuner (I used tuner), but the later one had a CD input. The 102 was still better though!
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by Mike Sae
Gentlemen,
Just think of the 72 as Prince Harry and the 102 as Prince William.
William may be heir to the throne, but Harry is the more interesting one.
Posted on: 13 June 2003 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Sae:
Gentlemen,
Just think of the 72 as Prince Harry and the 102 as Prince William.
William may be heir to the throne, but Harry is the more interesting one.
But William is the one Britany fancies. If he ever is up for the King job, I want to see him have a DNA paternity test. There is
no way that he is Charles son.
Stephen
