Preamps far and near – advice needed!
Posted by: graphoman on 30 June 2001
I own a 32.5, and I've heard the 72 many times (along with most of Naim's other pre-amps). Overall, the 32.5 and 72 sound very similar. Rather than seeming more forward than the 32.5, the 72 is clearer and more defined, and a little fatter. Perhaps you appreciate the slightly-more-veiled performance of the 32.5.
Perhaps your 32.5 needed servicing. Before my 32.5 was done, it had a slightly fuzzy and smeared performance. This really cleared up after servicing. Maybe you liked that effect, or maybe you were just used to it.
Have you still got the 32.5? If so, have you tried dropping the boards from your 72 into your 32.5? I seem to remember someone saying that they preferred the 32.5 with 72 boards more than the regular 72.
Other than that, I'm not sure what to suggest.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
[This message was edited by Mike Hanson on SATURDAY 30 June 2001 at 19:52.]
I suspect that you have got used to hearing the old 32.5 which probably needed a service and now you are finding it difficult to adjust.
I would suggest that you continue playing the 72 for a few more weeks and with luck your hearing will re adjust to it.
If the 72 is over 8 yrs of age, a service may be needed which will improve matters.
If you do get it serviced, I suggest that you send the unit direct to Naim as you will save yourself a lot of money (dealers margin).
Regards
Mick
Thank you, guys, but I can’t go far with that. I may cite Paul Desmond’s answer on my query: “The NAC 72 is more upfront and revealing of good sources than the old 32-5, so I suspect this is what is happening rather than any particular mismatch. Perhaps your ears need to adjust over a period of time!” Here it is, the adjective “upfront” comes, actually, from him and not from me. Now it’s 3 or 4 months over and all I can say is: sorry but my ears can’t be adjusted. That’s why I’d like to know, once again, which preamp/cap combination can be characterized as “upfront” and which not. I’ll be thankful for the particulars.
graphoman
I had a similar system to yourself CD3.5/72/FC2/180/Intros and have recently upgraded my 72 for a 102. I think it's one of the biggest upgrades I've done, I'm extremely happy.
I can understand how some would prefer a 72 over the 102 but to me it feels as though the window to music has been widened and deepened. In comparison, my old 72 now sounds "veiled" and "coloured" (apologies for such wide ranging non-descript explainations, but that's how it sounds to "me"). Just bear in mind that I didn't compare a hi-capped 72 with a 102.
The only problem is that it's also encouraged me to pick a CDX!
Jay (quickly running of money)
cheers
Nigel
Hello John,
sorry but you must have misunderstood my statement, it is not the 32.5 but rather the 72 that is too “upfront” to my ears. I got the black snaic and one special board in the 32.5 that is a good match for cd but I don’t know its type and number. It is interesting to hear that the old 32.5 can be coupled to such a new and expensive item like the Supercap.
>From your remark about a possible Budapest visit (not to mention your name) I concluded that someone of your family must have come from
Hungary. Should it happen that you can visit Budapest then you’ll have your guide in the capital city as well as in the little winetown Eger, I assure you.
graphoman
If the speakers are in the same position, and the music is the same, then there's no reason why one pre-amp would make it sound closer than the other.
However, the concept of distance is interpreted by different people in different ways. With most it's a simple matter of binaural relativity. With others, it's the amount of reverb. With others it might be clarity. Depending on how your brain interprets these various elements, you may think it sounds "closer" because it's clearer. If that's the case, and you don't like it, then you should go back to your 32.5.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
The 72 was narrow bandwidth and quite crude really. You could desribe it as an up-front sound I suppose, though I didn't find it bright. Fun though.
The 102 had a wider bandwidth (must be the wider caser 
)and a bit more detail. Less 'crude' than the 72 but I am not sure I enjoyed it any more. Kind of ho-hum. I would probably get a bit tired of the 72 in the long run though.
The 82 was similar to the 102 - wide banwidth but much more detail than the 102 and all the fun of the 72. Hairs up on the back of the neck job.
Hope this helps.
David
Hi Mike
(you said: if the speakers are in the same position, and the music is the same, then there's no reason why one pre-amp would make it sound closer than the other.)
Well I think there is nothing but just reasons all around why two items (say, preamps) do sound different and, to my brain, some of the important “parameters” is the distance of the (virtual) image. Even so, I thank you for your efforts to convince me.
To: DLF
Thank you David, it may help to see the light.
To: J.W.Szuhay
Hi John,
let’s not bore to death the audience with Hungarian home affairs. Plese send me an email. I was unable to reach yours given in the main coloumn – maybe because I use Macintosh. But usually I get the messages sent to me from Windows.
quote:
I upgraded from 32.5 to 72 (with CD3/HI/250/sbl) and the latter was indeed better in most aspect but I found I could not live with it because its sound picture was extremely up-front, just like sitting in the first rows in the concert hall. I thought it was because of the modest CD3 but now, with a CDS1 in the system I keep preferring the peaceful distant sound of the old preamp.
I understand exactly what graphoman is on about here. The difference between a stock 32.5 and the same amp with the 72 filter boards fitted is actually quite extreme. On its own the 32.5 is a very relaxed and easy to listen amp, that despite its top end being slightly mushy, and its bottom end a little soft is actually a really consistent and enjoyable performer. The thing about a 32.5 in a decent system, and with a first rate source (preferably analogue) is just how easy it is to forget about the hi-fi and enjoy the music. This preamp coupled with a Hicap and 250 is the amp that got me into Naim in the first place, the warm, musical, tight and bouncy sound completely represents 1980s flat earth.
Adding the 72 boards makes the sound a lot more 'new Naim', in that they let more info through, and tighten both frequency extremes up a good deal. Amps from the 72 onward have some kind of "phase correction" circuitry that the earlier amps do not, and this definitely changes the way the amps sound a great deal, especially in relation to imaging. To my ears the 72 boards push voices and instruments right out into the room in front of my Kans, whereas the standard boards set everything back behind the wall.
The reason I have eventually replied to this thread is that I have been fiddling about with my system a bit recently. In my new room the sound is very clean, though a bit over tight / lean and far too analytical for my ears. I recently landed a old but tidy Nait 1, and a few weeks ago I flung it in my system for a listen. From a hi-fi perspective it was obviously not as good as my normal 72'd 32.5 / Hicap / 250, but there was something about it that I just loved - it just played the music without drawing too much attention to detail, ultimately I couldn't live with it as my main amp as it does tend to loose control on complex passages of music, but it is a really great amp non the less.
Last night I though I would return my main amp to its original spec as an experiment to see if I could get what I liked from the Nait without loosing what I liked with my main amp. I stuck the original 32 boards back in, and put back the original grey SNAIC, and I am going to run it that way for a week or so before reversing it out bit by bit. First impressions are that it is far more relaxed and less analytical, far less lean sounding - double bass has far more weight and power, though I have lost out quite a bit in terms of treble detail and clarity (though I'm not actually that bothered).
I have to admit that I thoroughly enjoyed playing music last night, and I flung a load of challenging records on the P9, including stuff that really has not worked since my flat move. The whole sound and feel of the music actually took me right back to what I always wanted in the first place, right back when I first "went all flat earth" in about 1985. A decent source played through a 32 / Hicap / 250 / Kan system always really communicated the music, not the hi-fi, and this is exactly what I am trying to achieve. Will let you know what I think when re-evaluating both the changes in a week or two when the old boards have fully warmed up (they have not really been used since I had them recapped with the preamp a couple of years ago), it is always more interesting reversing out a tweak.
Just to pre-empt a flame war, I am not arguing for old style being better than new style, nor am I reversing my previous recommendation for the 72 boards. There is however some real magic in the stock 32.5 / Hicap / 250 combo that I have missed, and its damn good to revisit it.
Tony.
quote:
Its very interesting to hear you say this Tony, since I seem to remember you laughing at me hysterically when I suggested I may prefer the 32.5 buffer boards to the 72 ones (having upgraded my 72 to 32.5 status).
Probably was me, it’s the kind of thing I used to do. I am definitely becoming more moderate now… the more systems I hear, and the more I learn about setup, the less I am prepared to believe in absolutes. I have so often heard something work fabulously in one situation and sound crap in another (Mana, Music Works, Quadraspire, cross head screws etc, etc) that making blanket recommendations now seems naïve.
quote:
My conclusion is that the 72 is far more involving in its musical presentation, but it does sound rather unnatural. In other words, its far flatter than a 32.5. Incidentally, using a 32.5 does not make you a round earther, since further phase changes are carried out by the NAP.
I think phase is a really significant thing - I was really delighted with what the 72 boards did when I first got them, though at that time was using a different and possibly more phase correct speaker (ProAc Tabblette 50 Sig), and had a very different room. I accepted my findings at that time, and have never actually re-evaluated them until a few days ago. I still understand the good aspects of their performance, though in my current situation the negatives seem more obvious.
The room I am in now seems to somehow strangle the bass with the 72 boards, it sounds like it actually cancels out some frequencies - so dry and tight that it almost lacks the fundamental bass note, the harmonics are there, but with no weight. This is also certainly not the first time I have heard a Naim system sound this way. The 32 boards seem to sound far more phase correct in this room, everything sounds truer and fuller from top to bottom and the fundamental sounds true, despite the sound ultimately not quite having the level of detail resolution of the 729 boards. The timing is a little more relaxed, though Kans are naturally so fast I have a little room to play with!
I suppose ultimately I am crudely attempting to balance the phase shift in the amp, whatever phase shift present in the speakers, with any out of phase reflections in the listening room. Its nice to actually have a parameter to fiddle with! Another perhaps more obvious possibility is that with Kans IIRC being originally designed around the 32.5 / Hiacp / 250 combo there is a just a plain "rightness" about the sound, and some of that is what I am hearing and enjoying so much.
Tony.
quote:
Perhaps you could, if you haven't already done so, move your Kans along the backing wall to varying distances from the side walls to see if it makes a huge difference to your tonal balance.
I have done this, and have got them in what to my ears sounds like the best location. I don't want to try them in the 'across room' position, as it would really mess up the room design, and mean that all my record storage would have to be in another room which I don't want.
As it stands the system is actually sounding very good now, I gave it another serious listen last night. The old boards are obviously warming up nicely. I am still missing a little extreme top end and low bass definition, but otherwise it is sounding great - definitely not strangled. I still have plenty of playing to do, In a weeks time or so I will reverse out both the boards and the SNAIC individually to attempt to understand what is each is contributing, and which combination I prefer, and I also want to add more Mana at some point, I am currently just using a rack on its own (phase 0). I want to add at least one Soundstage.
I would love to play around with a SPL meter - Rico, have you still got it?
Tony.