Better pre's

My two cents... I've owned both at the same time. No contest, the 102 wins hands down.

Without a napsc though the 102 will sound simply sound like a 72 mk II (not a bad thing...just not what you've paid for). Add the napsc and it's a whole 'nother ball game. The 102 reveals the music more like its big brothers the 82 and 52. Kinda like the jump from a Nait 1 or 2 to 72/hi-cap. The only time I found the 102 lacking ccompared to a 72 was when using a less than adequate source...the 72 didn't reveal the sources' flaws as much.

Why does the 102 sound better than the 72? I'm not an engineer so I'll leave that one for the experts. Now, if you meant in "what way(s) does one sound better than the other"... I'll just say when installed where appropriate, the 102 leaves the 72 in a cloud of dust.

hth,

dave

P.S. My comparisons always used a hi-cap to power the preamps.

I've developed a pretty clear picture about what amp to have depending on priorities. If you want remote control (or a full width case) a used 102 is a great deal. However, if you do not need remote control, given the increasingly miniscule second hand prices for 72's nowadays, the 72 is, in my book, the very "best" second hand value in all the whole Naim kingdom.

Yes, it's an older pre-amp (now), but it sounds every bit a Naim, and it belts out the tunes every bit as well as an 82 (also have owned this), though will less detail and smoothness. Before you all jump on me about that last statement; it's not meant to derogate Naim's better stuff. Rather, I just think Naim's middle stuff is JUST THAT GOOD.

Judd

IMO the 102 offers a great deal for the money.

For the record I have owned 12, 32.5, 102 and 52 but listened to both the 72 and 82 before upgrading the 32.5.

Paul

Was the P9 your source at the time of the comparison? I'm really curious here, when using a napsc w/102 I found about as much similarity between the 72 and 102 as I find with a 52 and 72 comparison. Additionally , I found the 102/napsc to be more of the 52/82 "family" sound than the older 42/32/62/72 "family" sound.

regards,
dave

[This message was edited by dave simpson on FRIDAY 04 January 2002 at 04:59.]

The speakers are PMC

IMHO...the 92R is very, very, close to a 72. Not worth the hassle to exchange. The 102 is worth the hassle, especially if it's a long-term purchase. During my "shoot-out" I used my cd3 (not 3.5) and easily heard the difference between the 72 and 102 preamps.

regards,

dave

Holy cow you're not really parting with the cash are you

It's really bizarre the differences of opinion on the 102 vs 72. It's almost M$&^ vs F&*&^.

FWIW my money went on a 102 (retail) and replaced my 72/FC2. Source was cd3.5/FC2 at the time.

Differences? More music, more bass, clearer/cleaner presentation, more depth, soundstage, whatever, notes, etc. Hell I can't really remember - it just sounded better and worth the dosh.

Gotta say that the 72 looks like a bit of a bargin tho. It's in another league to the 92 you've got and gets a lot better with power bits (FC2/Hicap). But could you give up the remote?

Jay

(Vuk... it would be appropriate now to post a shot of one of your young ladies leaning on a 92R (perhaps clad in leather and licking the 92's AC plug)

Could be one of those situations where at time of purchase you go....'Yeah, no worries. I can live without a remote'

Only to find later that you were full of shit at the time...

Perplexing....

Jun

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

But I never found the 102 to be any better than the 72 in delivering the musical goods.

Why are you thinking of a cheap 72 vs. and expensive 102? How about a 102 vs. a 72/hicap? And since a new 102 is a possibility, why not ask the dealer for a dem (assuming you can get the 72 into the shop).

RC is the joker here. As much as I loved my 72, I sold it to get RC - I moved to an 82,but it ws the RC, not the improvement in sound/music that tipped the scale.

Phil

Charles

Regards
Steve

The 112, though, is a great preamp and outclasses the 72 (IMHO) in all respects. My dealer rates the 112/150 combo as very very close to the 102/180 but at a fraction of the price.

Regarding the merits of the 102 vs. the 72, I'd say that the 72 is comfortable to live with (though the lack of remote is an inconvenience) though somewhat veiled or "forgiving" of less than optimum sources. The 102 is more revealing and hence, will render deficiencies in the source more clearly.

A 72, bought now cheaply, probably won't go down much in value and will provide decades of service. But the more expensive preamps are more expensive for a reason. In Naim's opinion, they sound better. Many comments on this forum have suggested to others considering the 102 to wait and save for an 82. If thats the received wisdom then a 72 might be a good interim step...

Markus

--Eri

Charles

Bloody Hekk!! Didn't think they were THAT Ugly...

What is more beautiful and elegant than a Nat02, an Hicap, 2*Nap135..........

Charles

Now I would agree the 102/82 gestalt is a bit differant than the 32/42/32.5/42.5/72 gestalt. Nevertheless, the 92 sounds like neither one of them. The 72 is much closer to a 1-2 than a 92.

And, given the really cheap prices for used 72's, they are super deals right now.

Judd

Finally, this is the point. The 72 delivers the musical goods at a fraction of the cost. In fact, I really believe after having owned many of the Naim preamps that all one really gets is greater detail retrieval with the better units. Yes yes, I know, there is a bit more. But the thing of it is, even the cheap Naim preamps get the tunes right.

And, OK, the better preamps are more revealing. I guess this comes down to your source, doesn't it.

In the end, though, in my experience none of this means a thing if you are considering a more expensive pre versus a less expensive one and a hicap. No contest at all. I'd take a 42.5/hicap over an 82 without hicap any day of the week. No kidding. anyday.

"But the more expensive preamps are more expensive for a reason. In Naim's opinion, they sound better. Many comments on this forum have suggested to others considering the 102 to wait and save for an 82. If thats the received wisdom then a 72 might be a good interim step..."

This is shortsighted at best. It seems to me the 102 was introduced for market reasons. Naim wanted a full width, modern convenience preamp in the middle of the range to partner its 180. And as for cost, that's an easy one. Here's all the stuff that go into a 102 that a 72 doesn't have, but which cost money and probably do not make the things sound any better: 1) bigger case, 2) remote control circuitry, 3) motors for pots, 4) relays for switches, 5) all those lighted buttons.

In fact, I would guess that given that the 102 only cost $700 more retail than a 72 did, it may darned well have been impossible to get it to sound much better than the 72 when you consider all the other features that went into it.

My opinion . . .

Judd

Anyways, the 72 still has better knob action and i've yet to seriously sit down with a 102, so I'd better shut the hell up.

"Again, can't get what dave's talking about. The 72 is a completely different beast compared to the 92, whereas the 72 and the 102 use basically the same circuits."

Sorry I wasn't clear there... I don't think the units sound the same, just that the 72 (IMO) doesn't offer much of a sonic performance "upgrade" (quantitatively speaking) from the 92R- Naim *really* did their homework on the 92R.

"But the thing of it is, even the cheap Naim preamps get the tunes right."

...until you move up to the next unit in the Naim line...just my opinion;)

regards,

dave