Go up the thread 5/6 posts. And then 6/7. You’ll see.
1 Like
Super. How did it compare to the one just sold?
There is something very cool about the look of them 
The 140 is fairly effortless, not that the 90 was any slouch, there is just more. More air, deeper bass etc. The 32.5 is a little bit more refined than the 62 but the 62 is very good. Also the 32.5 has more possibilities with changing the daughter boards which should happen this week hopefully.
2 Likes
And not forgetting that the 32.5 looks so cool…
1 Like
So, back in the day, was a 62 more expensive than a 42, and a 140 more expensive than a 110, or vice versa? I’ve no idea how the numbering system worked.
Anyone got a CB-era price list they’d be able to share? Maybe mid/late 80s?
Mark
There was a fairly recent thread where a lot of Naim price lists were collected. OCD Alert! Old Naim Price Lists
The numbering scheme was as follows:
Preamps - the 2 stood for 2 channel, and the leading number was the order of launch (or more precisely design as the 52 came out after the 62 and 72 due to issues), so the first stereo preamp was the 12, the second was the 22, the third the 32 and so on. So no clue as to price or quality.
Power amps - the number is the nominal rated power into 4 ohms. So the 140 was 70wpc into 4 ohms (2*70 for stereo), the 110 was 55wpc into 4 ohms, the 135 as the mono amp was 135wpc into 4 ohms and so on.
1 Like
Nice! Always thought the 62/140/Hi-Cap was the sweet spot (in terms of performance vs outlay) in the CB and Olive range.
3 Likes
The NAC62 was the replacement for the outgoing NAC42.5. Likewise the NAP140 was the replacement for the NAP110.
Little interesting snippet: From 1982, the NAP110 used the classic Naim NA002 output devices (same as with the NAP160). The CB NAP140 used Sanken 2SC2922 output devices, as did the earliest Olive units until uprated to NA001s (as used in the NAP250) in 1990. However, there is a NAP140 that used NA002s - NAP110s could be upgraded to NAP140 spec at the factory but maintained use of the NA002s output devices.
3 Likes
So are you saying that there is ONE NAP 140 out there that has the NA0002 fitted? A special build? The 110 is thought by many to be the sweetest of the CB NAPs is the NA0002 partly responsible for that?
And then that leads on to… did the converted 110s sound different to the standard 140?
No, I’m sure there must be quite a few now. Indeed, I myself have a NAP110 that’s standard and a NAP110 that has been serviced and upgraded to NAP140 spec. I’ve not directly compared them though.
2 Likes
Sound Anchor desktop stands. Also using AV Options Twisted 56 speaker cable because of its flexibility.
I am feeding the Mojo with my iPhone or MacBook. Nothing special. I am using an Amazon Basics USB cable. I suppose I should get a better cable.
I have both a 110 and a 110 that has been converted to a 140. The 140 has a different power supply, otherwise as far as I know the two amps are the same. The examples I have do not sound the same and I prefer my original 110. I certainly like the way a good 110 sounds.
1 Like
Hopefully have a 110 on the way soon so will be able to compare with original 140. Should be interesting.
1 Like
A 110 converted to a 140? they are not using the same transistor, Santek VS NA002… so how is it possible ?
It’s basically a service and power supply upgrade - i.e. the NAP110 gets a new NAP140 power supply.
How did I miss this thread! Lovely photos all. To me the CB gear is some of the nicest Naim have made, I just love it. Now to post some pics…
3 Likes
Yes this is THE thread for you, Lewis!
Your Instagram is a bit quiet nowadays (as is mine), always loved the pics there - the CB boxes and parts, the LP12 and the various lovely Tannoys (and of course the Habitat cabinet).
Maurice
Which is older; gold logo or white logo chrome bumper.
I have a gold logo NAT101 in daily use.
It is my understanding that the plastic output transistors were used in the NAP 140 for only a short time.
@rockingdoc Neither, the gold is discolouration and was more prominent in models from certain years. I want to say 87/88 but I could be wrong! @Richard.Dane would probably know though!