A tale of two preamps
Posted by: Paul Gravett on 27 April 2001
I've posted a couple of messages recently about my upgrading exploits and would like to thank the people that replied with advice.
The situation as it now stands is that I have an LP12 Lingo/EkosII/Kylde for my main source, a 32.5 and a 180, which I bought second hand a couple of weeks ago, and Linn Saras.
Since upgrading my source and power amp, the sound is far superior, but I think I need to look at the preamp too.
The crux of the matter - and what I would like some advice on- is which pre to go for -the 102 or 112? I can only afford the former S/H, but my dealer has one on offer which is nearly new and in mint condition for £900.
Do people think the 102 is so clearly superior to the 112 that I shouldn't bother comparing them. I've heard differing opinions about this. I've also noticed, however, that the 102 doesn't seem to have too many suporters nowadays. Everyone raves about the 82 or 52, but hardly gives the 102 a mention. Recently I even heard it said that sales of the 102 had dropped since the 112 was introduced.
So, what are the strengths of the 102? Would Naim really charge £1200 for a preamp that was simply not very good? Or is it in reality an excellent sounding piece of kit, the perfect partner in a system like mine for the 180, and able to wipe the floor with the 112?
I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.
P
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Mike Hanson
The 102 is a fantastic pre-amp, and it's far better than the 112. The reason you don't hear many people applauding it is simple: it's solidly in the middle of Naim's range. Naim gear is expensive to begin with, and people tend to be in two camps:
- They can barely afford the entry level stuff, so they go for a Nait5 or 112, or maybe even a 32.5 (which is a cracker of a pre-amp, and very cheap used).
- They've got lots of money, so they go to the 82/52 level.
The lack of vocal support for the 102 is indicative of the disappearing middle class consumer.
If you can afford the used 102, then go for it! You won't be disappointed.
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Frank Abela
...and probably the last time - I actually agree with Mike Hanson!:)
The 112 is a replacement to the 72. It has different strengths to the 72, whereas the 102 builds upon the strengths of the 72. I used to believe that the 102 was a bit wild, but I've found out that, in fact, it simply needs a lot of warming up and running in - more than all the other preamps.
I believe the 102's image suffers - as Mike says - because of its positioning. I also believe that sales of 102s suffer becuase of the sheer competence of the 82. It's often the case that when someone is shown the 102, then if they're introduced to an 82, the 102 goes out the window as an option!
The 82 is the best value for money (!) preamp Naim make. You get huge benefits over the 102, but since you can run it off a power amp, the entry fee isn't as ball-busting as the 52. Atv the same time you can take the 82 through several upgrades via 1 hicap, 2 hicaps and supercap, and although you can do a similar thing with the 102, the 82 is much more attractive on the basis that it'll run both rails of the supercap. Crazy when you consider the 102 is less than half the price of the 82, but that's what we see in the shop.
The 102 remains a very good preamp indeed and way superior to the 112.
Regards,
Frank.
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Mike Hanson
quote:
For once ... and probably the last time - I actually agree with Mike Hanson!
Gee, that's funny. I usually tacitly agree with most things that you post, Frank. Maybe I'm posting only disagreeable things. 
Have yourself a good weekend!
-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Only 3 days to Moving May!
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Bruce Woodhouse
Don't forget to add a NAPSC to your 102, new £190 or so but makes very decent difference
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by JRHardee
Make the comparison, by all means. It's your money, your ears and your living room. Aside from sounding much better, the 102 has other advantages. If you ever think about moving up to an 82, you'll probably be able to get more money for the 102 (which you paid less for) than you would for a used 112. You can also think about adding a HiCap when your urges dictate and your budget allows it.
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Paul Gravett
thanks to everyone who took time to reply. It seems the consensus is that the 102 is really a very fine sounding preamp, so I think I will go down that route.
Mike, I think what you say may explain why the 102 seems to receive less attention. But please don't imply I may belong to the band of 'the disappearing middle-classs consumer' - my favourite song is 'Working Class Hero' by John Lennon!
I am also sceptical of the 'choose the 102 because it makes upgrading to an 82/52 easier' approach. I really can't ever envisage spending such silly money on hi-fi, even if it does sound amazing. A want a good preamp in its own right; one that will last me for maybe 10-20 years or more if necessary, and one I will feel I never need to change.
Another thing: what is a NAPSC? Is it a power supply like the hicap, or a fancy piece of wiring or something. I don't think the one I'm considering purchasing has such a thing, but I may consider it later on
Thanks again for your advice. BTW, I have a 32.5 that's in need of a good home. Does anyone have any ideas?
paul
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by davidf
paul, I may lean towards what richard is saying. I had a 32-5, hicap, 250, and saras with lp12, cdx source. I went to a 102/hicap first. There is no doubt that the 102 is significantly better than a 32-5. I then added a supercap to the 102. Another large step up (as it should be at this price!). Finally, bought a s/h 82 to replace to 102. The 82 is much better than the 102- again, as it should be at about twice the price. But... the ability to buy a second hand 82 for not much more than you would pay for your 102 (with the good deal that you are getting) would make me save for the second hand 82. In short, a s/h 82 is a great bargain and will blow away a 102. Just my opinion. Remember, I had the same system that you now own, essentially and so I know what you are hearing now and also, what you could be hearing. regards, david.
Posted on: 27 April 2001 by Paul B
Praise for the 102 has not been this consistent in the past. I think that a greater number are beginning to realize what a great preamp and bargain this one is. I certainly agree with those who believe the 102 is significantly better than a 32-5. I replaced my 32-5 with a 102/NAPSC three years ago and never regretted it (both with a Hicap). A year ago I replaced the Hicap with a Supercap and the results were stunning. However, I just replaced the 102 (offers now accepted!) with a 52 only a week ago and I have to say that the 102 does not really come close at all. The 52 really is brilliant.
Paul
Posted on: 30 April 2001 by Frank Abela
Richard
You said:
Remember that the 32.5 used to be Naim's top pre-amp until 52 came along.
Yes, and when the 52 first came out it was a basic motherboard stuffed full of daughter boards. A new 52 is completely different to an old 52, and a damn site better sounding with it! It should be borne in mind that the 52 has been an ongoing development for Naim. It's only in the last couple of years (or 3) that it stabilised completely in design.
The 102 and 82 are cut down versions of a modern style 52 and are quite ahead of the 32.5's game since the whole principle of design is different.
Regards,
Frank.
Posted on: 01 May 2001 by Martin Payne
quote:
when the 52 first came out it was a basic motherboard stuffed full of daughter boards
Frank,
AFAIK the daughter boards are only to allow confiuration of some of the inputs (phonos on input 1 & input & output for sockets 5 & 6).
Still I don't dispute that a new 52 is much better (although I've never done a side-by-side comparison).
cheers, Martin
Posted on: 01 May 2001 by David Dever
quote:
kit like the 102 or 112 doesn't look great value for money in comparison with a good 32.5
Hmmm... I think that the 112 (sales plug aside) is fantastic value for the money when you consider what a NAC 32-5 last sold for as new, let alone a NAC 92R--and no moving parts, connector pins, or unnecessary phono facilities, all in a full-width case. (After all, what could you put next to a small-case preamp that wouldn't degrade its sound quality?)
Dave Dever, NANA
Posted on: 02 May 2001 by Tony L
quote:
I think that the 112 (sales plug aside) is fantastic value for the money when you consider what a NAC 32-5 last sold for as new, let alone a NAC 92R--and no moving parts, connector pins, or unnecessary phono facilities, all in a full-width case.
Would someone please explain what an unnecessary phono stage is? I have always found them to be pretty damn useful!
The fact that the 112 needs a Stageline / Prefix + PSU / 3rd party phono stage before it can play vinyl actually brings it very close to the 102 price bracket, which I feel is a little short sighted of Naim.
Time to start a source poll I think…
Tony.
Posted on: 02 May 2001 by mr saucisson
Perhaps the use of a Stageline is to avoid the problems resulting from inserting phono cards into a preamp. Going the Stageline route allows the unit to be purchased and powered from the 112 and then upgraded by the addition of the external power supply. The provision of the 2nd supply on the flatcap2 fits very well with this. You could then change the Stageline for a Prefix and Flatcap2 2nd supply for a Hicap as the final steps.
Considering that the previous upgrade path has required purchasing internal cards at £90/pair, and then splashing out on a Prefix and power supply at £600ish minimum, then taking the loss on the cards, the new step by step approach seems to be good. I would certainly go this route if my 72 could power an external phono stage itself.
Talking of phono stages, has anyone heard the Creek jobs (OH9?) Rega Fono or Eos? I am looking for a MM stage, as I cannot use a MC here in the sight of the Crystal Palace transmitter. Hence, I want to get one reasonably cheaply until I leave London and it is worth upgrading to a P9 and MC cartridge (using the saving in house prices!
Cheers
Ben
Posted on: 02 May 2001 by David Dever
quote:
Would someone please explain what an unnecessary phono stage is? I have always found them to be pretty damn useful!
Phono facilities, not a phono stage--by no means am I anti-phono, except in the presence of analog extremists...
On a NAC 32-5 (or original NAC 72), for example, the second set of BNC sockets (or RCA sockets, depending on preference) often goes unused--not a lot of us have the dosh to spend on two identically-configured tables (or would bother without a crossfade fader, ha ha) at a significant performance level. For CD-only users, you end up left with only one "pure" (no tape output) DIN socket--so where do you put that Naim tuner?
This is even more disheartening when you open a NAIT 3 or NAC 92 (non-remote version) and see how much space was allocated to fit phono cards that often goes unused--I'd rather have the DIN socket and better circuit layout that would even improve the performance of an outboard phono section...
Dave Dever, NANA
Posted on: 02 May 2001 by NigelP
Paul,
This is exactly what I have as well as my CDS-II and I can tell in no uncertain terms that the 52 opens this little combo up like you would not believe. If you want a preamp that you want to keep for 10 years - then listen to this first please!!! When you have the 52, you can do practically anything you want with power amp and speakers and it all gets better from there. I just think it would be a shame if you didn't realise the potential of your front end.
Nigel
