The pre-amp numbering was originally the number order in which they were designed being the first digit and the second digit referred to the number of channels. Hence, the NAC82 was the eighth pre-amp designed and was two channels (stereo).
The power amp numbering was based upon the power output of two channels into a 4 ohm load. Hence, the NAP110 was rated at 55w/channel into 4 ohms.
Don’t forget the three digit preamps. 282 is 82 version 2 etc. it’s all loosy goosy though. 332 is 32 version 2 but there is zero common pedigree. Similarly 72 has nothing really in common with a 272. And to confuse it further, they had a 172 which was not a precursor to the 272 but and entry level streaming pre.
And the NAP250 now provides a good bit more that 250w into 4Ohms.
I think it’s fair to say, it made sense twenty years ago, but less so now.
I see the opportunity for a discourse on whether if it was a 380, it would sound better than a 350!
Tin hat and ear muffs on in readiness…while rushing to the bunker.
Well ATC have a very consistent approach to their speaker numbering. It is just the internal volume of the cabinet in litres. So my SCM 40s have a 40 litre internal volume.
But where’s the fun in that? Isn’t it just a bit strait laced and boring compared with the fun of trying to figure out the charms of Naim’s idiosyncratic numbering system?