82
Posted by: plynnplynn on 26 March 2002
I have looked at the spec for the 82 for the first time and note that all six inputs have separate listen and record facilities, enabling one source to be monitored while another is being recorded. Since most of us probably long ago gave up on tape, and CD/R is probably not that prevalent, what is the need for the listen and record facilities - or I am I missing something?
Also is the 82 much better than cheaper new options and for example a second-hand 72?
Posted on: 26 March 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
Always wondered about the listen and record bit meself...
As for sound, the 82 is MUCH better than the 72, as reflected in the price.
Scott
Posted on: 26 March 2002 by garyi
Yes indeed a very good question, apart from this facility what is the difference between the 82 and 102?
Presumably most recording can be done via computer now, infact I fancy having a go at 'doing' some LPs in the near future.
Lots more buttons I suppose ;-)
Posted on: 26 March 2002 by Not For Me
It is handy to be able to make a tape / burn a CD of a record whilst listening to the TV.
I have had 42/72/102/82/52, and the last two have this handy facility.
There is more than the extra row of buttons from 102 -> 82. It sounds better.
DS
Posted on: 26 March 2002 by Scott Mckenzie
quote:
Originally posted by garyi:
Yes indeed a very good question, apart from this facility what is the difference between the 82 and 102?Presumably most recording can be done via computer now, infact I fancy having a go at 'doing' some LPs in the near future.
Lots more buttons I suppose ;-)
The 82 sounds a lot better than the 82 IMO, I love the sound of the 102 and probably wouldn't bother getting an 82 in between a 52. The 102 is very lively and forward IMO, which I happen to like, the 82 just seems a bit more detailed, bit more bass weight but doesn't get harsh - in fact seems a bit more mellow.
Scott
Posted on: 26 March 2002 by Andy Kirby
quote:
apart from this facility what is the difference between the 82 and 102?
Hi Garyi
If you open up an 82 and compare it to a 102 and a 52 you will see that the 82's design is much closer to that of the 52.
For example, in the 102 there is only one circuit board where as the 82 has one board for each channel, a seperate right and left, just like it's bigger brother.
I am sure there are many other differences.
I auditioned both the 102 and the 82 and unfortunately had to wait an further year with my 42.5 before obtaining the 82. It really was that much better, IMHO, to the 102.
Regards
Andy
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by David Dever
as do all the other ones...
The 102 uses PCB-mount DIN sockets and the volume / balance pots are mounted to the same board; on the 82, you get the extra attention to detail in these places (wired and thus decoupled sockets, and the fully-shielded / -isolated pots board).
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by Andrew Randle
Martin,
I wonder if Stephen King has ever seen an 82 naked? 
Andrew
Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by Mick P
Dr Randle
Stephen has made the very sensible point that a 82 sounds considerablely better than a 72 or 102.
It is the sound that counts.
The 82 must be amongst the top 1% of audio amplifiers and if anyone cannot detect a difference in sound between it and a 72, they need another hobby.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by Phil Barry
Ok, Ok, the 82 SOUNDS better than the 72. And after a lifetime of upgrading and/or wanting to upgrade, I am regularly ravished by the musical experience provided by my 82/2 hi/250 and therefore feel no need to move to a 52.
Anybody who discounts the 72's ability to play music needs a different hobby, or at least is in a different hobby than I'm in.
Yes, the 82 is ravishing on more recordings than the 72 was - but the 72 is a GREAT preamp.
Phil
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by Andrew Randle
quote:
The 82 must be amongst the top 1% of audio amplifiers and if anyone cannot detect a difference in sound between it and a 72, they need another hobby.
Oh I could detect a difference. It just wasn't my cup of tea.
Maybe it was revealing that the Ikemi was an underperforming sample used in my listening test...
Andrew
Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by Andy Kirby
quote:
My 82 only has one board, well one board for the audio stuff, plus boards for the vol control, digital stuff etc.
Sorry Guys, must have been tunned out that day at the factory.
I could've sworn..........
Cheers
Andy
Posted on: 27 March 2002 by Rico
Phil - well said!
quote:
I dont know why you blokes bother you seem to know so much about hifi, why on earth do you think Naim released the 82 because it dosn't sound better than the 72 and 102,why don't you just grow up.
Steve - what happened, did someone run over your cat?
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 28 March 2002 by calum scott
Terry,
Robert has the 82 on dem, or certainly used to. Give it a listen and you can make up your own mind. It's not just about the facilities it offers it just sounds a lot better.
Calum
Posted on: 28 March 2002 by plynnplynn
quote:
Originally posted by calum scott:
Terry,Robert has the 82 on dem, or certainly used to. Give it a listen and you can make up your own mind. It's not just about the facilities it offers it just sounds a lot better.
Calum
Thanks Calum
Might just do that
Terry
Posted on: 28 March 2002 by Justin
The 82 DOES "sound" better than the 72, but it does NOT make "music" any better. It has more detail, tighter bass, and is a good bit more refined (with appropriate material), but is NO better at making music. It's no dig on Naim's better stuff. It's just that the cheaper stuff is SOOO good.
I found that when I owned the 82, I listened to music less because more of my disks sounded like ASS. My good disks sounded better. My not so good disks sounded like ASS.
Judd
