A mullet 92/250 but a great sound !!
Posted by: Boz on 02 August 2002
An observation for those who want to upgrade but can't afford to do pre and power at the same time.
I have wanted to upgrade my 92/Hi/90.3 for a while now but couldn't afford to replace Pre and Power at same time and want to end up with 82/2*Hi/250 so I went for a listen this week at my dealers with identical source and speakers.
Sure 82/2*Hi/250 sounded better than my existing set up but the jump wasn't life changing as I had been led to believe and to my ears not worth the £4,300 it would cost new (excluding sale of existing gear), the 92 with a Hi really stands up well and is often overlooked in favour of older style amps.
I tried 82/2*Hi/90.3 compared to 92/Hi/250 and the latter won hands down for overall control and improvement in sound from top to bottom, the bass was much more weighty but more controlled and faster. The 82 was crisper and slightly more transparent but I lost the weight of sound.
Sure when funds allow I will get an 82 (or even a 52/super as the new style gear replacing the green style means there may be some real bargains around !) but for anyone else in the same boat try the 92/Hi/250 combo it really does sound great...to my ears at least (and the dealers who were surprised themselves!!) perhaps it just gels with my source and speakers ????
I have CDX/CDPS/92/Hi/90.3 into Royd Abbots for those intersted in rest of the gear
Regards
Boz
David J Bostock
I have wanted to upgrade my 92/Hi/90.3 for a while now but couldn't afford to replace Pre and Power at same time and want to end up with 82/2*Hi/250 so I went for a listen this week at my dealers with identical source and speakers.
Sure 82/2*Hi/250 sounded better than my existing set up but the jump wasn't life changing as I had been led to believe and to my ears not worth the £4,300 it would cost new (excluding sale of existing gear), the 92 with a Hi really stands up well and is often overlooked in favour of older style amps.
I tried 82/2*Hi/90.3 compared to 92/Hi/250 and the latter won hands down for overall control and improvement in sound from top to bottom, the bass was much more weighty but more controlled and faster. The 82 was crisper and slightly more transparent but I lost the weight of sound.
Sure when funds allow I will get an 82 (or even a 52/super as the new style gear replacing the green style means there may be some real bargains around !) but for anyone else in the same boat try the 92/Hi/250 combo it really does sound great...to my ears at least (and the dealers who were surprised themselves!!) perhaps it just gels with my source and speakers ????
I have CDX/CDPS/92/Hi/90.3 into Royd Abbots for those intersted in rest of the gear
Regards
Boz
David J Bostock
Boz great post.
However. A very good and knowledgable friend gave me some advice one day.
My answer to upgraditis (and its important to point out I was not unhappy with my 92/90/FC set up) was to get another 90 and an active crossover to make things even better.
His advice. "gary don't piss around with all that untill you have sorted out the pre-amp.
Now I don't fully subscribe to this mullet theroy as it seems to be based purely on the cost of an item. But one thing is for sure sir, the 92 is now strangling your system to death.
I got a 102 to replace the 92 then I got the 180, the 102 made the 92 sound like micky mouse and although I must admit I never heard a 92/250 I can only shudder to think of the information you are missing.
In other words get thee a better pre amp soon, even if it means selling the 92/250 to fund a 102/180.
Yes I am serious.
Glad you are enjoying it though
However. A very good and knowledgable friend gave me some advice one day.
My answer to upgraditis (and its important to point out I was not unhappy with my 92/90/FC set up) was to get another 90 and an active crossover to make things even better.
His advice. "gary don't piss around with all that untill you have sorted out the pre-amp.
Now I don't fully subscribe to this mullet theroy as it seems to be based purely on the cost of an item. But one thing is for sure sir, the 92 is now strangling your system to death.
I got a 102 to replace the 92 then I got the 180, the 102 made the 92 sound like micky mouse and although I must admit I never heard a 92/250 I can only shudder to think of the information you are missing.
In other words get thee a better pre amp soon, even if it means selling the 92/250 to fund a 102/180.
Yes I am serious.
Glad you are enjoying it though
Steve you can kiss my 
snigger
snigger
I guess I'm not as familiar with some customs on this forum yet. 
He he, they are there peoples. get over to google and type in smilies.
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
I got a 102 to replace the 92 then I got the 180, the 102 made the 92 sound like micky mouse and although I must admit I never heard a 92/250 I can only shudder to think of the information you are missing.
In other words get thee a better pre amp soon, even if it means selling the 92/250 to fund a 102/180.
but this is what I am saying if I like what I hear then surely that is the point of all this isn't it, don't get me wrong I really wanted the 82/250/2*Hi to blow the 92/Hi/90.3 out of the water (I even shut my eyes !) but although it was better by a margin it was not a leap that in my eyes at least made it worth it.
It is easy to read this forum and get all frustrated because you only have an "entry level" system but properly supported and with a source first approach you can get fantastic results that's all
Boz
The 250 arrives tommorow perhaps it will sound crap in my room !! and I'll take it all back.
David J Bostock