NAC 202 versus 82

The 82 is miles better. 

+1

+3. 282 is a marginal improvement over the 82. No VFM.

Ensure you get a Pots 8 model if you choose an 82.

G

That's what I thought you'd all say! It seemed a very odd suggestion from a dealer to me. Pots 8 82 (after 250) was where I was heading given all previous advice.

Very odd indeed. 

Loki posted:

That's what I thought you'd all say! It seemed a very odd suggestion from a dealer to me.

Grows his business directly though, and Naim's. An 82 might grow his business but not straight away, unless by chance he was able to find you one sharpish.

C.

I've heard a friend's 82 quite a few times. That has the Pots 8 and I must say I've always thought it comparable to the 282 I had in my system.   

It seems the right occasion to ask: what does Pots 8 mean?

Thanks

M

Christopher_M posted:

Loki posted:

That's what I thought you'd all say! It seemed a very odd suggestion from a dealer to me.

Grows his business directly though, and Naim's. An 82 might grow his business but not straight away, unless by chance he was able to find you one sharpish.

C.

Indeed, my worry too. Bring back BADA!

Massimo Bertola posted:

It seems the right occasion to ask: what does Pots 8 mean?

Thanks

M

The Pots board is a circuit board that sits behind the front panel, to which the volume and balance knobs (the potentiometers) are attached. Pots 8 was the latest and best board. You can tell if it's Pots 8 because Pots 8 is written on the board in felt tipped pen. Life was simpler then. 

For (most) Naim Dealers, a sale of a 'new' 202 makes much more sense, to their bottom line and their business generally. Perhaps only a minority, who do deal in 'pre-loved' items extensively, might disagree and see the bigger picture. 

Looking around many dealers have various pre power combos on reduced sale

There might be new range just around the corner ?

Dealers will generally only know about a new Naim product a few days before Naim announce it publicly with an embargo date on that info. Any sales would be due to hunches rather than knowledge.

Hungryhalibut posted:

Massimo Bertola posted:

It seems the right occasion to ask: what does Pots 8 mean?

Thanks

M

The Pots board is a circuit board that sits behind the front panel, to which the volume and balance knobs (the potentiometers) are attached. Pots 8 was the latest and best board. You can tell if it's Pots 8 because Pots 8 is written on the board in felt tipped pen. Life was simpler then. 

Thanks, I vaguely suspected it was something with potentiometers, it seemed strange it could be about cooking gear.

M

I have both NAC 202 and 282 though I have not listened to the 82. This may sound contradictory. What I do find is although the 282 brings more than the 202,  when switching back and forth between these preamps the sound signature is almost the same. It's just that the 282 is more illuminating, more dynamic and the 202 sounds flatter in comparison. Another analogy is the 282 sounds like someone had inserted a tube inside the 202, making it more illuminating and tube-like in its presentation.

I believe the Olive 82/250 and 202/200 cost almost the same in the used market. Personally I would go with the former only if the condition of the units both interior and exterior is good to excellent. Otherwise, the 202/200 isn't too shabby and is capable of sounding great with a good source. Also, I would not mix the NAC 202 with an olive amp or vice versa to retain the uniformity in the aesthetics.

Thanks Ryder, but if the 282 is the better amp, and the 82 its predecessor, then my logic says the 82 is the superior of the 202, and therefore, the better deal. I have CB, olive and black, in my mongrel system, although moving towards olive/black is my quest!

I don't think there is a huge difference between the 282 and the 82. And that is as a 282 owner. The changes are mainly incremental and evolutionary. Where the 252 is a really good rethink of the 52, the 282 is more of a revision.

I would take a (serviced) 82 over a 202 any day.

Loki posted:

Thanks Ryder, but if the 282 is the better amp, and the 82 its predecessor, then my logic says the 82 is the superior of the 202, and therefore, the better deal. I have CB, olive and black, in my mongrel system, although moving towards olive/black is my quest!

No problem Loki. It certainly makes more sense to go with the Olive 82 since you currently have a mix of CB and olives. If I could turn back time, I would also go with the Olive 82/250 rather than the 202/200 assuming that the 282 is essentially an 82 with a new black casing, provided that the Olive amps are in mint condition both working and cosmetic. However, the 202/200 are still enjoyable in their own right, just not as poised and refined as the 282/250 DR which I surely enjoy a lot. 

I have an 82 (Olive of course) - fully serviced & with all things working - and I love it. In fact I loved it, even before it was serviced (by Class A), when I first heard it at TomTom. I had had a 102 for a few years and was never happy with it. I have no doubt about an 82 being (far) superior to a 102 - and I would imagine to the 202 also.

I believe the 202/282/252 series are essentially re-engineered versions of their predecessors, to ease modern manufacturing - so less (or no) hand building and more by pick & place robots. As always, with Naim, I believe this would have been an opportunity to improve things - which would have been taken. 

So, @Loki - go 82.... you won't regret it, in my view.... 

ianrobertm posted:

I believe the 202/282/252 series are essentially re-engineered versions of their predecessors, to ease modern manufacturing - so less (or no) hand building and more by pick & place robots. As always, with Naim, I believe this would have been an opportunity to improve things - which would have been taken. 

Ian, I'm not sure how you come this conclusion. I highly recommend you go and visit the factory and see just how much hand building goes into these pre-amps - the wiring floor is a beautiful sight if you appreciate what goes into the boxes. On the 282 and 252 particularly there's a heck of a lot of precision wiring and soldering that takes place.  Certainly compared to their predecessors (102/82/52) there's no reduction in hand wiring, in fact there's probably marginally more of it what with the addition of RCA phonos as well as DINs. 

Just to be clear, the ROBIN auto insertion machines for the PCBs arrived in 1987.  These provided not only greater efficiency but also better consistency as well.  For all that, they only work well with the smallest componentry - anything bigger can only be reliably fitted by hand.

Richard Dane posted:

ianrobertm posted:

I believe the 202/282/252 series are essentially re-engineered versions of their predecessors, to ease modern manufacturing - so less (or no) hand building and more by pick & place robots. As always, with Naim, I believe this would have been an opportunity to improve things - which would have been taken. 

Ian, I'm not sure how you come this conclusion. I highly recommend you go and visit the factory and see just how much hand building goes into these pre-amps - the wiring floor is a beautiful sight if you appreciate what goes into the boxes. On the 282 and 252 particularly there's a heck of a lot of precision wiring and soldering that takes place.  Certainly compared to their predecessors (102/82/52) there's no reduction in hand wiring, in fact there's probably marginally more of it what with the addition of RCA phonos as well as DINs. 

Just to be clear, the ROBIN auto insertion machines for the PCBs arrived in 1987.  These provided not only greater efficiency but also better consistency as well.  For all that, they only work well with the smallest componentry - anything bigger can only be reliably fitted by hand.

Richard,

I had concluded this, based on what I had read on here - which is, of course, not a reliable source. Deliberate use of the phrase 'I believe' - not claiming that I know. I have visited the factory - twice - once recently and once back in the late 80's - and the auto insertion machine(s) were there. I am fully aware of the detail inside the units - I was amazed at how jam packed the newer items were - such as... the SuperUniti, etc. Hardly any spare space there...!  I also saw the metal work for the Statements, which compared very well to that used for the EEC's for Civil Jet Engines (which I am familiar with). 

From an engineering viewpoint, I would be very surprised if Naim's engineers had not relaid out & revised all the PCB's used, when the 200 series preamps were designed. Making use of the latest advances in component design - so more SMD's, that their predecessors. Do so, would - in my view - make them easier/quicker/better to build.

Perhaps my memory is incorrect, in this respect...? As I said, its only based on my readings on here. No offence intended.. 

IanM 

The current pre-amps are all still through-hole. Naim still think analogue circuits sound best using traditional through-hole components.  They only use SMD boards where they work best (i.e. digital circuitry) and only for analogue where there's no space for through-hole or the cost/performance ratio becomes more advantageous to do it that way.  

FWIW, I have both NAC82 and NAC52. NAC52 is primary pre-amp but the 82 is more "up in Your face".
It is very engaging but can also be a little bit exhausting in the long run.
I love them both

MNn posted:

FWIW, I have both NAC82 and NAC52. NAC52 is primary pre-amp but the 82 is more "up in Your face".
It is very engaging but can also be a little bit exhausting in the long run.
I love them both

On the comment about the NAC 82 or 282 sounding "in-yer-face", I suppose that depends on the loudspeakers as well. I have read some comments about the spot-lit nature of the 282 that has caused listening fatigue on certain systems, and I suspect that may have got something to do with lean, fast or bright sounding speakers. In my system, the 282 is matched with smooth and warm sounding Harbeth loudspeakers, and the macro-dynamics (of the 282) are very much welcome. Engaging sound without listening fatigue.

When matched with faster or leaner speakers such as Linn Kan or Naim speakers, I would then be able to relate to the 282 sounding a little enthusiastic. For this reason, some folks tend to stick with the "flatter" or more neutral/accurate sounding NAC 202.

From some posts, I can deduce that the NAC 282 is more on macro-dynamics while the NAC 252 does the micro-dynamics and detail better. Not too sure how different is the NAC 52 or 552 when compared to the NAC 252 or 282 though.