NAC102/NAP180 or NAC112/NAP150

Posted by: Robby on 18 February 2002

What would be a better buy:

A secondhand (about 2.5 years old) NAC102/NAP180 or a new NAC112/NAP150.

Any opinions?

Also if i bought second hand when would I need to service the NAC102/Nap180?
Thanks

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by Steve G

quote:
Originally posted by Robby:
What would be a better buy:
A secondhand (about 2.5 years old) NAC102/NAP180 or a new NAC112/NAP150.
Any opinions?
Also if i bought second hand when would I need to service the NAC102/Nap180?
Thanks

Bo brainer - the NAC102/NAP180.

A 2.5 year old pre and power won't need serviced for several years.

Regards
Steve

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by Steve B

Depends what the source is.

I borrowed a 102/180 a while back and found my Cambridge CD player too harsh to listen to after a short time. It sounds much nicer through the 112/150.

My LP12 sounded better through the 102/180 though.

Steve B

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by max in hampshire

I was faced with a similar choice a couple of weeks ago.
Going for either 112/150/flatcap or 102/PSC/180 - both with CDX/Allaes there was no doubt that 102/PSC/180 brought out a harshness that I rapidly found unacceptable. To my ears the whole set up was better 112/150/flatcap.

Cheers

Max

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by Phil Barry

I usually equate 'better' with 'more accurate'.

The 112/150 may be more listenable, and therefore a better match to what a listener may want, but I wouldn't call it unqualifiedly 'better'.

Phil
from 'I'd choose more listenable myself', Illinois, USA

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by garyi

Humm, I think I see where al is coming from. I am using an old Ariston CDP at the moment and its very harsh, infact I am worried I am doing the speakers harm.

But the TT sounds fabulous through this combo. I have a flatcap connected as well though.

It really is a good combination and I love it.

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by John Bailey

I did a similar demo at a dealer a few weeks ago (see my thread on this). Whilst I haven't heard the NAP150 the NAC112 put in a very lacklustre performance compared to the 102.

102/180 without any hesitation.

Posted on: 18 February 2002 by Jay

To my ears the 102/180 is in a different world. Especially when you add the NAPSC and a Hi-cap.

But like the other folks have mentioned, you need balance. The right choice for you will depend on whatever else you have in your system, what your long-term goals are (if you have any ) and what your listening environment is like.

If it helps I have a bare CDX, P25 and Credos and no harshness. In fact listening last night to Ryan Adams - Gold I had just the opposite.

You don't need a CDS2 and 52 to get a chill down your back

Jay

Posted on: 19 February 2002 by DLF

Max,

I play my CDX through an 82/Hicap ATC active system and it isn't harsh. I have heard a CDX through a 102/180 and that wasn't harsh so the CDX may not be the problem. Now, if you want harsh try an LP12 with a K9 .

David

Posted on: 19 February 2002 by naimless!

cdx...harsh? with 102/180 clean and revealing certainly definately not harsh...system balance is the key....let your ears decide...the 112/150 is a great combo partnered with cd5 or other cdp's around this level but i dont really think is up to the demands of the cdx...imho...i had the same dilema in october cd5/112/150/fc2 or cdx/102/180? both systems were good and i then tried various combinations...source first seemed to be golden rule, the 112/150 didn't let you know what the cdx was doing..and the 102/180 could only reveal what the cd5 was feeding it...you've gotta dem the stuff......pedro

Posted on: 19 February 2002 by Greg Beatty

...that CDX's can be tricky to setup.

Wrong settup -> Harsh

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here