i currently have an olive nac 102 with and mm phono card and and nap 180.
is it worth upgrading my preamp to an nac 72 or would it be a rather small change? hard to demo back to back here.
I had a 72/hicap/180 but really wanted remote so bought a used 102. After a few weeks of listening to the 102, and desperately trying to like it, I put the 72 back and in an instant I was in love with my system again. The 102 was duly sold.
I would definitely recommend the 72 over the 102.
13 Likes
Get an 82…
4 Likes
I have 72/HC/140 and 82/SC/250 The 72 is fantastic, but lacking the remote. 82 sounds better to me but that might be as much down to the SC and 250 I run it with. Both will sound better than a 102.
I’d try finding a Napsc to power the lights and switching on the 102. It’s not expensive and should make the 102 sound a lot more natural. I’m not sure I’d bother swapping a 102 for a 72. They are different rather than better or worse. An 82 would be conclusively better, but costs more money. The 102 would really benefit from a Hicap (as well as the Napsc).
2 Likes
A 72 is simple and inexpensive, so even if you have another preamp it’s still worth keeping a 72. If you get tired of listening to 102, 82, or even 52, putting back the 72, which sounds simple and natural, and less hifi, can refresh your listening experience.
7 Likes
@HungryHalibut is spot on.
Four things that will make a 102 a 72 beater;
It really does need an NAPSC to work as well as it can.
A HiCap isn’t essential, but improves the 102 more than it does the 72 over just the basic supply from a power amp.
The 102 is quite microphonic compared to the shoebox preamps. The better the support, the more it will show its potential.
The 102 has a more advanced 0V star ground system than the 72, which gives it greater clarity/transparency. This demands higher quality sources to avoid a negative result.
4 Likes
72/140 was for me the honey in the olive series.
10 Likes
sounds like 82 if i want a remote??
2 Likes
If you look at the motherboard of the ground star of a 102, it naturally has more return circuits because of the additional components dedicated to the digital controls, each relay, the 2 volume and balance motors + the complex circuits of the front panel. All these additional circuits do not concern the discrete components of the main analogue sound circuits. In comparison, the 72’s motherboard appears simpler, with less on-board electronics. It contains only the essential elements for good signal pre-amplification, with fewer interference factors.
‘Back in the day’ when I bought my first Naim amp; my budget maxed out at either a 102/140 or 72/180 combo. I listened to them both for several hours back to back and bought the 102/140.
For me the 102 was better than the 72 (fronted by a CD3.5). It’s a much maligned pre amp I think - but I loved mine.
7 Likes
None of which changes the fact that the 102 has a more advanced 0V system for its *audio circuits *
The original NAC102 sales leaflet provides some insight into its development. It was clearly conceived and built to offer better performance than the outgoing 72, though for reasons already stated it didn’t necessarily achieve that performance in some systems.
“Experience gained during the years of research and development of our state-of-the-art nac 52 has been employed to provide novel engineering solutions in the quest for performance and flexibility.”
It’s entirely in keeping with developments that a new brochure focuses on the latest devices. However, it’s up to each individual to determine the best performance. Remote-controlled preamps require more complex electronic logistics. Manual preamplifiers such as the 42.5, 32.5, 62, and especially the 72, are still highly regarded for their simplicity and musicality.
I’ve owned a 102, and it’s true that it’s a good preamp, but it’s a shame that the Din sockets attached to the box are soldered directly to the motherboard, which can be noticeable when listening. On the Nac 82 and 52, the Din sockets are wired to the input circuits, just like the small Nac.
Long term I’d pick a 72
Your phono cards won’t match though, these can be sold to help finance a purchase, Napsc likewise.
Still I’d add a Hicap.
2 Likes
You can buy and sell a 72 for basically the same number, so I’d think trying it out would be easy?
The 102 is the only Naim preamp I have never liked. 82 was much better.
2 Likes
When I ran a 6-pack active DBL system, I tried out quite a few preamps to front the 6xNAP135.
42.5/Snaps…compressed as hell through the DBL’s.
42.5/Hicap…better, but still rolled off at the frequency extremes.
42.5/Supercap…hey, this is beginning to sound like fun.
102/NAPSC/Hicap… yawn
102/NAPSC/Supercap…much MUCH better. Better than the 42.5/Supercap.
I did not try the 102 without the NAPSC, as that is the way I borrowed it.
If you use the 102…you probably NEED the NAPSC before even messing with external 24V power supplies.
2 Likes
i DO have the hicap and NAPSC, to clarify.
i think i need the remote feature. so sounds like an 82 is the right path for me, since a super cap is out of my budget.
1 Like
I don’t know what the official Naim line is, but I imagine they regard(ed) the upgrade path as 72 to 102, not the other way around.
Many years ago I went from 72 to 102. I didn’t do a comparison, my system had been boxed up for the best part of a year, and I had moved house when I got the 102.
That said, I was quite happy with the 102 for several years, and I appreciated having the remote. In hindsight I feel like it was, at best, a sideways move in terms of sonics. This impression was reinforced more recently, when my dealer lent me an ancient, unserviced 72 while my 552 was off being DR’d. I was bracing myself for a letdown after installing it but I was amazed at how good it sounded, so much so that I bought it, even though I have no immediate use for it. It didn’t compete with the 552 - way less detail and bandwidth - but it was such fun to listen to.
With the benefit of experience, if I was starting over, I’m not sure I would bother with anything between a 72 and a 552 but, if I was in your situation and looking to improve on a 102, I would be looking at an 82 or 282 at a minimum.
4 Likes
The 102 was the successor to the 72, with revised track layouts, relays and source selection circuits. In terms of analog pre-amplification, the potential of the input and gain circuits remained in line with the 72’s design.
In my opinion, compared with the 72, the 102 opens up the stage wider, the separation of channels is more felt, it’s brighter, I ended up finding the 102 more demonstrative, more hifi, drier. Then I moved on to a finer 82… and then a 52 …
In comparison, the 72 is more matte and less ambitious, but I still like it musically with 2 good sources, Lp12 se Radikal 2 and CDS2.
3 Likes