You may well be right and so I will see if I can get it set up, and if it seems to offer very little extra I may return it.
You currently use a SNAIC4 from 102 to 180.
You will use that same cable to go from FC to 180.
You are expecting to get a SNAIC5 with your FC. You will use that to go from 102 to FC.
2 Likes
Silly question, but do you think the Flatcap will offer more than just the NAPSC? Or have I fallen into the unnecessary upgrade trap. No doubt if I had bought a HiCap the question would not be raised.
They do different things. The Napsc powers the lights and switching, whereas the flat/Hicap powers the rest. The supply in the 180 is as good as that in the Flatcap, which is why the FC is a waste of time. It was designed to power the more lowly 92, Nait 3 and CD3.5. For the full sized boxes such as the 102, you want a Hicap.
1 Like
They actually perform different functions. The FC powers the analogue signal path. The NAPSC powers displays and relays.
The FC is not an upgrade to the NAPSC, you would use both.
The FC scores over the PS in your 180 by providing two +24V secondary supplies, whereas the 180 can only provide a single +24V secondary. In the world of Naim preamps, the mantra is “the more secondary supply rails, the better the sound”.
Try it out, and let us know what are YOUR thoughts - coz in reality, that’s all that counts.
Oh yeah,……and Enjoy! 
3 Likes
One final question. My ignorance may seem silly, but I’m a long way from being an audio nut. I just like music and I became a Naim fan when I bought a Nait 3 in 1995 (I still have this BTW and it is set up in my work office! Crazy but true). I moved on to a used 90/92 pair which I was more than happy with. Then I bought a pair of speakers which were too demanding for the 90/92. I went back to the dealer and they suggested an ex-dem 102/180 combination which was an unbelievable upgrade.
I bought them in April 2003 (though I now realise they were made in 2001) and the NAPSC came with the pair. In fact, I never even had the box for the NAPSC and it arrived with a few scratches so in my mind there was always a slight niggle. I always thought it was the cheap option, which I now realise was not the case.
At times I thought about selling the 180 and buying a 250 but I tried to resist any further upgrades. And so for 20 years the 102/180 combo has been brilliant. They’ve had one service in 2015.
So here is my final question(s). Given that the 180 can power the 102, why is the NAPSC still needed? Presumably the FC can simply replace the two way process from the 180? Indeed, could I unplug my NAPSC now, or would I require the SNAIC 5 cable? Is that the key difference?
Many thanks for all your replies. It has been very interesting.
As mentioned earlier they power different sections of the Pre-Amp. The NAPSC powers the switching, lighting and power for the volume and balance controls.
The 180 powers the part of the pre-amp that play music.
The NAPSC should always be plugged in to get the best from the 102.
1 Like
Because the NAPSC & FC perform different functions in the 102. Many people believe the 102 sounds “better” if both are used.
For sure, the 180 could supply all the power needs of the 102, by fitting the supplied link plugs (the small round one and the larger paddle.
However may believe that the SQ is improved by
a) installing a dedicated Preamp PSU, such as your incoming FC.
b) using a NAPSC to power the “non-audio” circuits in the preamp.
You can spend a happy Sunday afternoon, trying all combinations:
102 + 180
102 + NAPSC + 180
102 + FC + 180
102 + FC +NAPSC + 180
To determine whether you have a preference 
I did exactly that several years ago.
Enjoy!
3 Likes
The 102 is a strange beast in that it can run with the 180 power supply only, the 180 plus napsc, the flatcap or hicap, or the fc or hc plus napsc.
In essence there are two power rails in the 102. They are best powered independently, but can run from a single power source with the link plug fitted.
Best sound is with the best two power sources you can afford, napsc plus one other.
1 Like
The Napsc is not needed as such, and the 102 can work happily with just the 180. But to me, and to most who hear it, the Napsc makes things sound better. You can try it for yourself, just remove the Napsc and insert the link plug in the Link 1 socket.
1 Like
Many thanks; I think I finally understand. I should have done this research before buying the flatcap. The HC is probably too dear for me right now (squeezed middle is putting it mildly) so I’ll give the FT a try and knowing me will probably keep it rather than going through the hassle of returns.
You have been really helpful - many thanks.
I may try some of these combinations, and I’ve unplugged the NAPSC in readiness!
1 Like
Yes, silly to sell the NAPSC (which was my intention) if it adds to an improvement.
If you unplug the NAPSC then you have to install the paddle shaped link plug.
BTW do you have the user manual for the preamps? If not, I would suggest you have a trawl round the internet & download a copy. It show how to connect up the various combinations.
2 Likes
When I was playing around with my setup, I installed a NAPSC, and wondered what all the fuss was about. But when I removed it later on, I certainly noticed a difference - not huge, but “something had gone missing”.
Another tip that has been mentioned is to site the NAPSC well away from the preamp; such as on the floor! Some have reported improvement to the SQ.
1 Like
Yes, I have the box, manual and paddle.
Should you decide that it’s not giving you what you want on the wonderful 102/180, the slimline olive flatcap would be brilliant on the Nait 3 in your office at work.
1 Like
I was thinking about that, but it would mean buying another SNAIC and they are not cheap…
Have a look on ebay etc.
Has the forthcoming FC been serviced do you know?
1 Like
Someone asked that earlier. Not that I know of so it was my intention to have the FC and 102 serviced at the same time.
1 Like