Many moons ago when i daftly upgraded from 72 to 102 i was shocked at how different these two amps are, the 102 is amazingly detailed and with a wide bandwidth of frequencies… but to my ears lacks the musical communication of the 72.
I also discovered that even with the NAPSC and a hicap on the 102, a neat two-box 72+180 communicated the emotion of the music whilst the 102, albeit crisper and cleaner sound, was still very lacking in the foot-tapping involvement of things…
My take is the 102 is merely better hifi compared with the earthy 72 sound where there can be found better musical warmth and emotional connection, and even more so when a hicap is added.
Yup… me too… But then I bought another 72 - to try to work out what was going ‘wrong’. I concluded the 102 had to go. I bought an 82… which I still have and love…!!
Well - firstly - do all users of DBL’s state that their cost-no-object choice of preamp is the NAC72? If they do, you could probably say that there is a synergy between the DBL and the 72. If that’s the case, yes, I agree.
The OP is trying to decide between two preamps that rank towards the perceived lower end of the olive hierarchy. One point of observation is there are four systems containing some of the best speakers ever made (including three 6 pack systems, fwiw) where the owners presumably had the means and the motivation to choose the best possible Naim pre for their ears and they chose the 72.
I’m not aware of any DBL systems with a 102, are you?
Five if you count me. I used a 72/135’5 and Briks for 25years, then got a pair of DBL’s. Used this set-up for a couple of years until my dealer loaned me a 552/500 - admittedly this is better but I still keep my 72/135’s in reserve. Flirted with an 82, and three 52’s plus a 282. One 52 stayed for about 6 months the the others all got moved on accept my trusty 72. As many have said, not the last word in resolution but boy can it hang music together.
