Naim Pre Sonic Differentiation - Voicing of NAC52 (incl. NAC72 & NAC102)

[robdeszan]

Hello All,

Have been trying to somehow systematise the above Naim pre amplifiers to see if a nac52 upgrade makes sense.

I lived the longest with nac102 (hicap+napsc); this is also the pre amplifier that got me hooked on Naim sound. I really enjoyed its bounciness and detail but it was often ruthless on poorer recordings. I found myself selecting the music based on how it was recorded too often.

Years later, I tried a nac72 (&hicap). It definitely swung in the opposite direction: warm and pleasant sound overall (which I can see could be appealing) but lacking in resolution and soundstage to my taste.

Adding RSL boards (my current setup) transformed the 72 - the scale, weight and resolution are now superb, while being easier on bright recordings/without masking the mastering's original character. Not had a chance to listen to an 82 but a lot of people suggest skipping it altogether and going for a 52, which continued to beckon...

So recently I had a chance to hear a just-serviced-to-a-pots8specs nac52 in my setup for a couple of weeks (a friend was going on holiday so I borrowed it to listen and burn-in for him). It certainly added scale to everything and it sounded rather delicious overall, with enormous, deep bass and rich mids. It was the most musical of all naim pres, mastering differences (bright recordings) did not seem to get in the way at all BUT the high frequencies were definitely sweetened and I felt the sound lost a bit of airiness & texture due to this.

Hence this question, for those who have gone a similar route, is this how you found the 52 to be voiced as well?

As a side note, I am also thinking whether because of the increase in "everything" (the 52 really sounded MUCH bigger), my living room's acoustics (speakers fairly close to walls) started to come into play more i.e. reverberation of "fatter" low to mid frequencies and all the extra information was masked due to flutter - the word "congestion" came to mind. The 72RSL sound is nimbler and lighter so less of a problem perhaps?
All of the above were serviced units and tested with the same, serviced, olive nap250 & nDac used as a single source.

Thanks!

 

[NickofWimbledon]

I upgraded to an 82 many years ago. More recently I switched from 82 to 52, keeping the 82 for a second system (still with a serviced olive 250).

By comparison, we found the 82 to have decent detail and air and lots more foot-tapping boogie than a 72 or lesser pre-amps. That includes a good deal more vigour in bass.

Switching to 52 gave no less boogie or pace or bass extension, but a good deal more detail/ quietness/ air/ space.

Everyone’s ears are different, and rooms and systems matter too. However, I don’t think a 52 is less airy or nimble than any of the smaller/cheaper preamps. Fwiw, even though my main system now has a 300DR, I have stuck with a 52, instead of swapping to a 252, and I think several users have 52 and 500 as a combination.

My suspicion is that the greater bass vigour of a 52 may be (at best) taking attention from treble stuff (Joan Baez or Maria Callas?), and (at worst) exciting your room a bit. Is the lack of nimbleness and fine detail more obvious at higher volumes or playing things with punchy bass?

 

[MJS]

Bear with me on this one. I've found a new analogy based on my own experience!

The 82 is akin to sitting in a Boeing 787. Comfortable and gets you to where you're going.
The 52 is akin to an A380. Huge, extremely quiet, feels intimate, and much more refined than the alternative.

All Naim top end pres of the era had the same circuit. The only difference was layout and attention to power supply details and wiring. I've made an 82 with a supercap sound almost as good as a 52 and JJ may still still offer this as a service. This will also work for a 72 or 102.

 

[robdeszan]

Thanks Nick, that's great & appreciate sharing your thoughts. Room acoustics could be at play. Interestingly I find myself turning the volume down with 52 to reduce congestion where with the RSL'd 72 I am happy to crank it up - although I do not tend to listen at loud volume.

Do you find the 52 warmer than 82? Which is more convincing for vocals i.e. that holographic room presence because of "textured" level of detail? I find it to be a good test as our brains are so used to hearing humans.

Another "scientific" evidence is that our dog, who often joins me in the room, will look at speakers with puzzlement more often with the RSL'd72, where with the 52, it pays less or no attention at all. Odd percussive sounds, animal sounds, vocals etc. I think it might indicate that the 72 sounds more real and gets her attention more. The reason I mention it is that the 52 sounded less convincing when it came to realism - hence the mention of colouration in my previous post.

I have also been thinking whether the recent service is a factor - lack of sufficient burn in? It was serviced and had pots8 replaced - not sure how long is long enough but I sometimes think it is more about users getting used to the sound.

I mean a lot of sonic qualities are eventually blurred in memory the more you listen but the differences are most pronounced when switching from one amp to the other after a few days. If I did not have the two amps the differences would be blurred. Although I did find myself switching tracks more with 52 too, another indication that perhaps it was not entirely engaging.

 

[Gervais Cote]

Reading this, I would keep the 72 with its aftermarket boards !

 

[robdeszan]

The 82 is akin to sitting in a Boeing 787. Comfortable and gets you to where you're going.
The 52 is akin to an A380. Huge, extremely quiet, feels intimate, and much more refined than the alternative.

All Naim top end pres of the era had the same circuit. The only difference was layout and attention to power supply details and wiring. I've made an 82 with a supercap sound almost as good as a 52 and JJ may still still offer this as a service. This will also work for a 72 or 102.

Hah, feelings that music evokes are difficult to express and see where you are coming from with this analogy

As a seasoned technician and ex Naim-employee when do you know a 52 nears an 82? What sort of sound qualities separate one from the other? That's what I am trying to gauge.

Or when is a particular sample of the same model a dud? Or where has the servicing gone wrong perhaps?

 

[robdeszan]

Reading this, I would keep the 72 with its aftermarket boards !

That is the plan. 52 is legendary - hence the inclination to try it. Perhaps my expectations were too high?

Across the years though I have seen quite a few posts by people who have reached the top of the Naim ladder just to ditch Naim completely.

 

[NickofWimbledon]

Thanks Nick, that's great & appreciate sharing your thoughts. Room acoustics could be at play. Interestingly I find myself turning the volume down with 52 to reduce congestion where with the RSL'd 72 I am happy to crank it up - although I do not tend to listen at loud volume.

Do you find the 52 warmer than 82? Which is more convincing for vocals i.e. that holographic room presence because of "textured" level of detail? I find it to be a good test as our brains are so used to hearing humans.

Another "scientific" evidence is that our dog, who often joins me in the room, will look at speakers with puzzlement more often with the RSL'd72, where with the 52, it pays less or no attention at all. Odd percussive sounds, animal sounds, vocals etc. I think it might indicate that the 72 sounds more real and gets her attention more. The reason I mention it is that the 52 sounded less convincing when it came to realism - hence the mention of colouration in my previous post.

I have also been thinking whether the recent service is a factor - lack of sufficient burn in? It was serviced and had pots8 replaced - not sure how long is long enough but I sometimes think it is more about users getting used to the sound.

I mean a lot of sonic qualities are eventually blurred in memory the more you listen but the differences are most pronounced when switching from one amp to the other after a few days. If I did not have the two amps the differences would be blurred. Although I did find myself switching tracks more with 52 too, another indication that perhaps it was not entirely engaging.

It did take 1-3 weeks before I was sure the service had helped my 52, so the service issue may be relevant. I also agree that memory is fickle, and that a 52 is less obvious in some ways than other preamps, and it certainly doesn’t have the relentless and singleminded focus on boogie that an 82 has, and it won’t make everything sweet/ warm/ friendly like an unadorned 72 can.

I wouldn’t be without my 52 unless I was offered a swap to a 552, and even then I’d be wary as they seem to be more sensitive to location and cable dressing and that sort of thing. One reason for my liking the 52 so much is that female vocals and simple acoustic music seem more believable and each better singer/ instrument better separated in space than with other preamps. A 252 is even quieter so small details get through better, but they are to me a bit less involving, so the 52 seems a good compromise between 82 and 252.

Otoh, if your ears say something different, you should believe them rather than me.

 

[Gervais Cote]

That is the plan. 52 is legendary - hence the inclination to try it. Perhaps my expectations were too high?

Across the years though I have seen quite a few posts by people who have reached the top of the Naim ladder just to ditch Naim completely.

I feed my Avondaled NAP 110 and my other NAP 110 with Phoenix boards with a 1990 Classe Audio CP 35 and my Naim preamps and Hicap will be for sale soon.

I have all the Naim’s PRaT, it’s now more open and female voices and cymbals are now truer than true.

 

[Woodface]

Don’t forget other brands exist & may give you everything you need. I went from 82/hi-cap to 252 Supercap. It’s a long time ago but definitely more of everything & a better balance. It’s easy to get stuck on one path.

 

[MJS]

As a seasoned technician and ex Naim-employee when do you know a 52 nears an 82? What sort of sound qualities separate one from the other? That's what I am trying to gauge.

The 52 has what feels like a lower noise floor and much more 'refined' sound. It's the best qualities of the Naim pre-amps without the hard edges. It's really hard to explain.

 

[Rob Stockman]

Hello All,

Have been trying to somehow systematise the above Naim pre amplifiers to see if a nac52 upgrade makes sense.

I lived the longest with nac102 (hicap+napsc); this is also the pre amplifier that got me hooked on Naim sound. I really enjoyed its bounciness and detail but it was often ruthless on poorer recordings. I found myself selecting the music based on how it was recorded too often.

Years later, I tried a nac72 (&hicap). It definitely swung in the opposite direction: warm and pleasant sound overall (which I can see could be appealing) but lacking in resolution and soundstage to my taste.

Adding RSL boards (my current setup) transformed the 72 - the scale, weight and resolution are now superb, while being easier on bright recordings/without masking the mastering's original character. Not had a chance to listen to an 82 but a lot of people suggest skipping it altogether and going for a 52, which continued to beckon...

So recently I had a chance to hear a just-serviced-to-a-pots8specs nac52 in my setup for a couple of weeks (a friend was going on holiday so I borrowed it to listen and burn-in for him). It certainly added scale to everything and it sounded rather delicious overall, with enormous, deep bass and rich mids. It was the most musical of all naim pres, mastering differences (bright recordings) did not seem to get in the way at all BUT the high frequencies were definitely sweetened and I felt the sound lost a bit of airiness & texture due to this.

Hence this question, for those who have gone a similar route, is this how you found the 52 to be voiced as well?

As a side note, I am also thinking whether because of the increase in "everything" (the 52 really sounded MUCH bigger), my living room's acoustics (speakers fairly close to walls) started to come into play more i.e. reverberation of "fatter" low to mid frequencies and all the extra information was masked due to flutter - the word "congestion" came to mind. The 72RSL sound is nimbler and lighter so less of a problem perhaps?
All of the above were serviced units and tested with the same, serviced, olive nap250 & nDac used as a single source.

Thanks!

Not got a 52, so cant comment on that... But, I do have a 72 with RSL boards. And going from a newly serviced hicap to an Avondale PS or a Teddycap (I had both - sold the teddy later on) greatly tightened and extended deep bass and made the soundstage wider, deeper while keeping that superbly fuid midrange. Worth a try in the interim.

Certainly it takes a good 3 or 4 weeks for full burning in for naim units in my experience.

 

[sktn77a]

My experience over 50+ years is that we acclimate to a sound (eg the NAC72) and anything different just doesn't sound right. The 52 is probably closer to accurate but because you are used to the 72's perhaps overly bright presentation, the 52 sounds a bit "off". Living with the 52 over an extended period is probably the only solution. Going back to the 72 after that time interval will answer your question.

Having said that, I've tried numerous speakers upgrades over the years but whenever the LS3/5a comes back into the system, it's always an "Aha!" moment.

 

[robdeszan]

My experience over 50+ years is that we acclimate to a sound (eg the NAC72) and anything different just doesn't sound right. The 52 is probably closer to accurate but because you are used to the 72's perhaps overly bright presentation, the 52 sounds a bit "off". Living with the 52 over an extended period is probably the only solution. Going back to the 72 after that time interval will answer your question.

Having said that, I've tried numerous speakers upgrades over the years but whenever the LS3/5a comes back into the system, it's always an "Aha!" moment.

I can certainly relate to that and could well be true. I also find you lose track of the quality of your system at times and start taking it for granted. Listening to different, or lesser, equipment can be grounding.

I am also conscious of the fact that for many years I tried to compensate for the extreme detail of the 102 but by balancing the system accordingly, for e.g. having a pair of mellower speakers, Harbeth's 7es3 which I have had since 2010 with no inkling to change. Perhaps, the nac52 - being on the warmer side - has now accentuated the speakers' smooth nature. Although, I really have not found them lacking in detail orr speed. Like I said before, I am pretty sure the room acoustics could be at play so would need to experiment more in that area first. I will also add that Hearing the 52 via tape-out and a pair of headphones (a pair of woody Audio Technicals, which are known for being airy, and a Yamamoto headphone amp), it is an improvement and a much more satisfying listen over the RSL72 which sounds leaner in direct comparison.

The post is aimed at trying to understand the accepted (or per-design) improvements in nac52 over the 'lesser' preamps in Naim's hierarchy. The idea to try a 52 was not so much because the RSL'd 72 sounded bad or needed improving but it was more of a curiosity to see whether it could be bettered and, at this level, I find things often sound "different" rather than better in absolute terms, and that's before we even consider preferences and subjectivity in perception of sound...

 

[MJS]

I have a 72 and a confession to make. I have redesigned most of the boards inside. I strove for the Naim house sound but by using better biasing techniques, modern components, film caps etc. I love it. The 729 board was made into a dual-rail active filter board that can be any active filter you like, so have another box full as a NAXO equivalent and active SBLs. If enough people are interested I could consider selling some.

 

[James]

I

Bear with me on this one. I've found a new analogy based on my own experience!

The 82 is akin to sitting in a Boeing 787. Comfortable and gets you to where you're going.
The 52 is akin to an A380. Huge, extremely quiet, feels intimate, and much more refined than the alternative.

All Naim top end pres of the era had the same circuit. The only difference was layout and attention to power supply details and wiring. I've made an 82 with a supercap sound almost as good as a 52 and JJ may still still offer this as a service. This will also work for a 72 or 102.

I have owned and used all of the four preamps in question. Starting with the NAC102, I found it was a diamond in the rough. It had plenty of boogie, but could sound unrelentingly edgey. A Hicap and NAPSC helped somewhat.

Next came the NAC82. When I got it, it sounded like a veil to my music was lifted. It was more detailed and authoritative than the 102/HC. It had two Hicaps attached, and I thought I was generally much happier with it.

Then the NAC52/Super arrived, and it totally blew my mind, such was its finesse, subtlety but also its gravitas and grip. It is hard to explain why I found it such a beguiling thing of wonder. When I upgraded my NAP135s to Densen B-350s, I should have kept the 52 instead of getting the B-250 preamp.

Finally, I got the NAC72 (together with NAP140) in part exchange when I sold the 52 to a good friend. In comparison, I found the NAC72 soft and veiled. Maybe it was the 140 or the NAT02 attached to it, I cannot be sure. But I did not rate it. I understand a lot of the NAC performance is dependent on the power supply. Maybe the NAC72 needed a Hicap to give its best, and was crippled by the onboard PSU of the NAP140.

 

[Gervais Cote]

I

I have owned and used all of the four preamps in question. Starting with the NAC102, I found it was a diamond in the rough. It had plenty of boogie, but could sound unrelentingly edgey. A Hicap and NAPSC helped somewhat.

Next came the NAC82. When I got it, it sounded like a veil to my music was lifted. It was more detailed and authoritative than the 102/HC. It had two Hicaps attached, and I thought I was generally much happier with it.

Then the NAC52/Super arrived, and it totally blew my mind, such was its finesse, subtlety but also its gravitas and grip. It is hard to explain why I found it such a beguiling thing of wonder. When I upgraded my NAP135s to Densen B-350s, I should have kept the 52 instead of getting the B-250 preamp.

Finally, I got the NAC72 (together with NAP140) in part exchange when I sold the 52 to a good friend. In comparison, I found the NAC72 soft and veiled. Maybe it was the 140 or the NAT02 attached to it, I cannot be sure. But I did not rate it. I understand a lot of the NAC performance is dependent on the power supply. Maybe the NAC72 needed a Hicap to give its best, and was crippled by the onboard PSU of the NAP140.

To me, the NAC 72 really needs a Hicap or an aftermarket power supply AND some aftermarket boards as well to give its best.
Teddy Pardo, Avondale and Neil Jadman are among the best partners for a 72 or a 32.5
And when you do so, the 72 becomes a hell of a preamp that’s very difficult and costly to better !

 

[robdeszan]

I

I have owned and used all of the four preamps in question. (...)

Thanks for sharing the impressions James.

Swapping back to 72 after a few days, made me realise how less expansive it sounded in comparison to a 52 but those differences dissipate eventually too. I think a good measure of how good an amp sounds is when you end up glued to your seat, listening through entire songs and albums without skipping.

To me, the NAC 72 really needs a Hicap or an aftermarket power supply AND some aftermarket boards as well to give its best.
Teddy Pardo, Avondale and Neil Jadman are among the best partners for a 72 or a 32.5
And when you do so, the 72 becomes a hell of a preamp that’s very difficult and costly to better !

Absolutely agree, although, for the sake of no fuss playback I found a hicaped 72 to be "the great equalizer" & it could be very appealing blanket for music reproduction of varying sonic quality with the caveat of masking the subtleties in good masters too. There is a lot to like about this amp: the small form factor, the design inside, the easy upgrade options...

I use my RSL'd 72 with a TeddyPardo hicap and from what I understand, Kit Ryan employed on-board regulation in his plugin designs as well. Given how easy is to install them, anyone with a 72 should at least try aftermarket boards.

 

[Cesare]

72/72 + boards and 82 here. I've not owned a 52.

All of these amps use the same basic circuit, with the differences being related to how the power supplies are configured. It's therefore no surprise to find that changing power supplies is the main factor in the differences in performance, not the preamps themselves.

I also read a while back that Julian believed there was more variation in each model than between the amps themselves - I don't have a link for this quote, but it's an interesting point, that variation between examples of these amps (when leaving the factory!) may make more difference than you'd like to believe. So, people who had a 72/82 they they highly rate may very well have a good example of these, and people who don't rate them may have only heard poor examples.

If I were you, i'd also try the supercap on the 72 you own, to see if that also sounds different compared to the 52. This is another direction you could consider, sticking with the 72 you like and changing the power supply.

 

[robdeszan]

All of these amps use the same basic circuit, with the differences being related to how the power supplies are configured. It's therefore no surprise to find that changing power supplies is the main factor in the differences in performance, not the preamps themselves.

I also read a while back that Julian believed there was more variation in each model than between the amps themselves - I don't have a link for this quote, but it's an interesting point, that variation between examples of these amps (when leaving the factory!) may make more difference than you'd like to believe. So, people who had a 72/82 they they highly rate may very well have a good example of these, and people who don't rate them may have only heard poor examples.

I wonder if it was this interview: https://audiocounsel.co.uk/brands/naim/malcolm-stewart-interviews-julian-vereker/

MS: Going back to the ‘folklore’ for a minute, may I ask about sonic differences between the NAC32 and NAC62 preamps? Some people claim that the NAC32 is vastly superior but I have to admit I’ve never detected any great differences between them.

JV: Because of system hierarchy we decided that there was no point in economising with the preamp – that it’s best to make it the best one can, and just alter the facilities. Essentially the performance of the current preamplifiers is the same. They do not sound the same, and no two will sound exactly the same, but in terms of absolute performance they’re pretty much on a par. You may prefer one in one situation yet prefer the other in another situation but to isolate which one is better is pretty difficult. lf you are listening to fifty preamps in our dem room and there’s a mix of 62s and 32s you may well find that there are some 62s that work better than 32s and vice versa. You might prefer a whole batch of 62s to another of 32s. Next week it may well be the other way round. The differences between the two preamps are not that large: there are probably bigger variations between a current 62 and one from three months ago. There has to be: we use, for example, three different suppliers for our printed circuit boards. We have to because we use over 80,000 PCBs each year. They do sound slightly different but that’s not to say better or worse.

I think that "no point in compromising" statement might have rang true in the 80s but the crippling of PS circuits in later (business) models is a different matter. Sample variation seems to be openly admitted on Naim forum but more for the old 32/62 era equipment; is this because of this interview, though?

I recognise that manufacturing tolerances exist (production processes are challenging enough and, as we have seen here, the sonic qualities we are trying to capture here are somewhat fleeting) but they should not cause the same model to sound vastly different (or unlike the model it is "trying" to be). As the manufacturing technologies progressed you'd hope tolerances tightened. How do Naim deem a product do be right then, through measurements? Collective listening sessions and votes?

On that note, if these things happen with new products, how much attention to quality components is paid at continued servicing? I wonder how many people's equipment sounded different (or worse) after Naim's recommended regular service then?