150 vs. 140

Posted by: Mike Sae on 02 November 2001

Why is the 140 more expensive? In what ways is this less powerful amp superior?

Or is the newer 150 the better amp, and being more efficently manufactured, cheaper to boot?

Posted on: 02 November 2001 by redeye

Mike,
Cheers for your response on the P9. Intrigued I am! The 150 has the more etched 'new' Naim sound whereas the 140 has the older more organic and fuzzier thing going on. The 140 is toast I think, already deleted

Redeye

Posted on: 03 November 2001 by Martin Payne

Seem to remember my dealer telling me this week he'd "managed to find a NAP140" for a customer who preferred it to a NAP150.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 03 November 2001 by Steve Toy

I have conducted this test using all possible permetations of 112, and 102 preamps, and 140 and 150 power amps, at my dealer.
Using both the preamps, altough the 140 is less powerful in terms of wpc than the 150 (45 compared to 50, respectively,) the 140 is clearly the more dynamic of the two.
For this reason, I prefer the 140 to the 150.

It's always a nice day for it Have a good one!
Steve.
It's good to get back to normal.

Posted on: 05 November 2001 by Mike Hanson

quote:
I recall that =Mike Hanson= did some listening to a 150 and 112 vs 140 and 72, and he liked the 112 more than the 72

Actually, I believe that was 72/110 vs 112/150 (both with a Hi-Cap on the pre-amp, IIRC). I do prefer the 112 over the 72 (much more sophisticated and detailed), but I found the 110 more neck-and-neck with the 150. The 150 has a great sense of finesse, but it didn't seem to punch out the music quite as well as my 110. (See Alex's comment regarding dynamics.)

Ultimately, it's a personal decision, and can't be made by someone on the forum. You'll have to listen for yourself.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

Posted on: 05 November 2001 by Mike Sae

I haven't done a h2h dem of 150/140, but the consensus seems to confirm what I suspected.

Interesting about the 72 vs 112. Looking at the innards of the 112, I would never have guessed that it'd outperform a 72, being a bag of microchips and all.
But then, that's why i'm not an electrical engineer.

Anyone remember what the old NANA retail price was or a 72? I think it topped out @ 760GBP?