Better pre's

Are you saying that there are differences in sound between the 92 and 92R?
New one on me dude. Thought they'd simply grafted on the motorised volume pot.

What gives??

The two I borrowed in the past were night and day. Don't know why either. Maybe there were other changes inside or maybe the 92 (non-R) I borrowed was defective...'course I also drank in those days;)

regards,

dave

...just what you need - more choices,

dave

[This message was edited by dave simpson on SATURDAY 05 January 2002 at 04:43.]

A 112 demo should be easy to arrange. You'll be glad you did.....

Cheers,
jim

One fewer input on a NAC 72. One (or two) fewer DIN inputs on a 72. The 72 uses electronic switching that the 32(-5) does not possess; the 102 takes this one step further.

The 72 is discontinued. All shoebox preamps are now "vintage" pieces.

Buy a full-width preamp. Be happy. Convenience is not a bad thing when it's been coupled with better performance.

Dave Dever

P.S. There are layout and other front-panel switching-related changes in the -R version of the 92. Remote control is good, it is 2002 after all...

Maybe just hang in there 'til later in the year and see what new goodies these guys are gonna come out with..
Pretty obvious that the range is in the process of a major overhaul. Most of what we know will probably be toast shortly.

At very least may pick up el cheapo 102 as the completists update themselves

And Dave is right..Remote control is all good

Unless Naim really feel they have a better handle on things now it'd be a pity to see 'em turn into 'an Arcam' and re-jig the line every 10 months or so...

Having said that tho' it does seem they are on the march with the new 5 series technology leading the procession and banging the drum.

Hard to see 'em keeping the stuff we know and love.

If it ain't broke....

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave simpson:

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.

---

How much difference is there between the 92R and the 92? I've got a 92R and to me there really isn't very much between it and my 32.5. The 92R is a little bit more detailed and perhaps the phono stage is better. The 32.5 is a little warmer sounding.

I use the 32.5 in my main system but only because I need a remote control in the living room system. Standard wisdom seems to be that the 32.5 should be clearly better than a 92 but what about the 92R?

Regards
Steve

It's been a while since I did the dem, but quite a bit of difference Steve. Might be worthwhile checking one out (against a borrowed 92 that is).BTW,what's your source.

regards,

dave

[This message was edited by dave simpson on SATURDAY 05 January 2002 at 14:33.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dave simpson:
BTW,what's your source.

---

Dave,

Sources are CD3.5, Thorens TD160MkII/Modified RB250/Ortofon MC1 Turbo and a Sony Minidisc player feeding a Meridian DAC. I occasionally run a 2nd CD player as well, a Micromega Leader II.

Regards
Steve

I would have thought the cd3.5 would have shown more differences between the 32.5 and 92R in your rig (not familiar with your other sources.

Curious... ever turn-off and *disconnect all other sources except the one being used?

regards,

dave

*includes AC plugs from outlet as well as any interconnect to preamp. Can be quite revealing.

For the record, it is not my position that remote control, all it's curcuitry and modern convenience is bad. Quite the contrary. Nor do i suggest the 102 is not as good as the 72.

It's only that if you don't need remote, I think the 72 on the used market is a better value than the 102 because it sounds just as good.

BTW, see Vuk's most recent thread.

Judd

Lots of gubbins inside too, compared to the 92.

snigger. I said gubbins.

quote:

---

Unless Naim really feel they have a better handle on things now it'd be a pity to see 'em turn into 'an Arcam' and re-jig the line every 10 months or so...

---

Round 'bouts '89 or so, Naim went from the "classic" black/silver to the present day 'look'. That was 13 years ago.

My buddies (including me)said "Why'd they do that? I won't buy that stuff." Looks like they did have a handle on things and the new 5 Series continues to support that idea.

Arcam's Alpha range was successful for a number of years.

No need to accuse Naim (or Arcam) of typical Japanese hi-fi marketing tactics.

Enjoying the music.jim

I'm not 'accusing' Naim of turning Japanese, don't think they'll ever turn into Sony! Thank God!!

But you must admit the 5 series (incl the 500) have met very mixed reviews among the 'brotherhood'. If a new 102 arrives in due course one would hope it sounds lots better and isn't just sporting the new livery. And hopefully NOT twice the price.

There is a theory out there that Naim will never be taken truly seriously in the US until their pricing is on a par with Levinson et al. It'd be horrid if they were to reposition themselves at the price point of '...if you have to ask Sir, you can't afford it'

Now that would truly suck.

...and bollocks to Arcam

I've wrestled with this one for a while. Ultimately I think the 72 is the more completely realized sounding unit, while the 102 overreaches somewhat. Joe Petrik said it well quite some time ago--the 102 has several more units of detail but is only a one unit more organized than the 72.
Consequently the 102 presents more information than the 72 but the 102 is not as seamless as the 72, even though the 72 does not extend as far (especially in the treble) bandwidth wise as the 102.

To hear the difference between the 102 and 72 (and 82, for that matter) play a record or CD with a ton of high frequency information. The 102 sounds confused when things really get going. The 72 doesn't even try to reproduce some of what is going on and consequently sounds better put together, more coherent. The 82, in contrast, not only presents even more detail than the 102 but is also considerably more organized, and does not get confused by (almost) anything played through it.

I think the 72 represents, along with the 82, the best preamp value on the used market. It is more than good enough to inform one of changes upstream and has a certain rightness to its presentation. Interesting that Naim went all the way to the 52 as the flagship, past the 72.

Cheers,

Bob