advertisement


Naim Nac 92/90 (olive) - Bad reputation for what?????

D

DodgyEars

pfm Member
I've currently got a Naim 92/90 budget system at home. I realise that this combo is not very well loved one by Naim enthusiasts or 'fanatics'. However, for me i think it's a lovely piece of kit. It sounds great, good separation between low, mid, high - pretty realistic sound and a tight bass. In short, it ticks most boxes. Maybe, the build quality could be better. I listen to all kinds of music, ranging from classic to world to electronica - it does a pretty good job.
I used to have Cyrus 2 with PSX before, but seriously this kit blows the Cyrus 2 away.

So, my question is - is the bad rep of the naim 92/90 well deserved?

Note, I'm in the process of upgrading to a naim 72/140 - will keep you guys posted of how that goes.
 
I liked mine, and just a step away from adding another 90, and IXO and going active. Enjoy.

CHE
 
Early NAP90s had a reputation for overheating and frying. This was fixed in later versions but I couldn't tell you when that happened. If it's been serviced it will have had the modification to prevent this.
 
DodgyEars said:
I've currently got a Naim 92/90 budget system at home. I realise that this combo is not very well loved one by Naim enthusiasts or 'fanatics'. However, for me i think it's a lovely piece of kit. It sounds great, good separation between low, mid, high - pretty realistic sound and a tight bass. In short, it ticks most boxes. Maybe, the build quality could be better. I listen to all kinds of music, ranging from classic to world to electronica - it does a pretty good job.
I used to have Cyrus 2 with PSX before, but seriously this kit blows the Cyrus 2 away.

So, my question is - is the bad rep of the naim 92/90 well deserved?

Note, I'm in the process of upgrading to a naim 72/140 - will keep you guys posted of how that goes.
Click to expand...
 
They might seem poor when compared to more expensive Naim amps but that's not the point. Compared to other amps available at the same time and price point, they were fine.

I find it interesting the way people are quick to point out the flaws in amps like the 92/90 while praising the equally flawed Nait.
 
It really doesn't matter what people think as long as you enjoy it - and that's all that matters. The pieces you mention may not be some of the best Naim produced but that doesn't mean to say they can't be enjoyed. You are living proof, as well as loads of other people who enjoyed them. I hope you will not stop enjoying them even if everyone else says they are crap. The upgrade path is fraught with danger and not a guarantee of added musical pleasure.
 
Would be interesting to do a blindfold test between the naim 92/90 and the more expensive models with a relatively similar set-up.
 
I also entered the Naim world with a 92R/90.3 and Credo's and selected those over a range of other kit I demo'd because I liked the sound. I did eventually replace the pre and power with a 32.5/140 (and eventually added a SNAPS2, an IXO, a Flatcap and another 140) and while that definitely sounded better it doesn't mean the 92/90 combination was bad. The only thing I would say was that the 92/90 was better with a non-Naim CD player as I wasn't as convinced I liked the sound when using a CD3.5 as it was a bit too agressive.
 
It would be interesting to see the marginal benefit of moving to more expensive Naim stuff. Surely, at some price-level - you're not getting value for money anymore.
 
92+90.3 = Nait 3.

How it perform is definately up to source & speakers
Room size too of course

I ran a Nait 3/CD3 for years, mostly with Royd and Rega speakers.
Easy load, 89-90db.
Medium sized room
Fronted by a good turntable.

Full satisfaction VFM
Ok a 72/HC/250 were better but my ears soon got used to the Prat.

So reputation ignored
 
I had a Naim 92/90 combo for a short time before getting the 82/80. I thought it was distinctly average. Lean and uninvolving. The 82 was more than a cut above.
 
Nothing wrong with the 92/90. I had one for years, augmented it with a flatcap & used it as a spring board to jump up the range. At one point I had an 82/flatcap/90 & now have a 252/sc into active ATC's.
 
The issue with my brain is that.... it thinks as follows - if I have a system that I paid X for. Now, my next system is Y =4 *X. I would expect that system that costed 4 times more to sound at least 4 times better. Twice as good, just won't cut it I'm afraid.:cool:
 
Cav said:
I used a nait 3, essentially a 92/90 in one box, a CD 3.5 and Royd Minstrels for years. It was always exciting never aggressive.
Click to expand...

I've got a Nait 3 as well and think it's very under-rated given how cheap they can be had 2nd hand. I wasn't overly keen on that with the CD3.5 either (preferring an easier going source) but suspect that'll be down to type of music and personal preference as much as anything. Speakers might also be a factor and while I liked my Credo's with Naim amplification (especially active) I was surprised to find I preferred them with non-Naim amps (they've been used with a Krell integrated but are currently used with an Onix DNA45).
 
Mr Pig said:
The 3.5 is too aggressive.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree, I found the CD3.5 to be extremely good. I ran one with my 92/90 for a long time.

I do agree that the Credos are good, had a active pair for many years before swapping to SBLs.

CHE
 
CHE said:
Totally disagree, I found the CD3.5 to be extremely good. I ran one with my 92/90 for a long time.
Click to expand...

I also think the CD3.5 is a very good CD player and it was great in my NAC32.5/SNAPS/140 system and when I updated that to active. The combination of it and the 92/90 or the Nait 3 (and in both cases with Credo's) I wasn't so keen on though. All the components I thought were individually fine though. I never did any testing to see what was the weak link in that combination but if I had to take a guess I'd have thought it might have been the 90.3.
 
DodgyEars said:
The issue with my brain is that.... it thinks as follows - if I have a system that I paid X for. Now, my next system is Y =4 *X. I would expect that system that costed 4 times more to sound at least 4 times better. Twice as good, just won't cut it I'm afraid.:cool:
Click to expand...

My brain works the same way so that’s why most of my hi-fi gears are mid level and almost never top of the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top