advertisement


NAP 160 Questions

J

Jackytwoshoes

pfm Member
I've got a chrome bumper NAP 160.

I was told that this doesn't perform nearly as well as the NAP 180 or 250.

Is this the case?

What options for upgrading do I have with the NAP 160?
I have no evidence of it ever being re-capped or serviced- would this have a profound effect?

Thanks

Jack
 
The 160 is well regarded, a lot of folk prefer it over the others, a service will breathe new life into it and it will be good for many more years.
What is the rest of your kit?
 
Bought a 'bolt down' 160 a couple of months ago that had never been serviced. I actually liked the sound it made even then whilst powering a 32.5 though noticed certain notes on Mr Zimmerman's blues harp seemed to excite a resonance!

Had Class A service it and with the 32.5 now powered by Hi Cap it sounds excellent; very lively but very slightly warm, none of the shrillness I'd half expected after reading so many opinions and the blues harp sounds great now.

Rob
 
Jackytwoshoes said:
I've got a chrome bumper NAP 160.

I was told that this doesn't perform nearly as well as the NAP 180 or 250.

Is this the case?
Click to expand...

Definitely not.

Same amplifier circuit in all three. Bigger PSU and regulated rails in the 250 but a 180 is effectively the 160 in olive casing.

All very good and not much between them when working to spec.
 
The NAP160 is a superb amplifier. The 160 and 180 are different to the 250 as the latter has regulator boards.

My order of preference would be 160 first, 180 second and 250 third. Others will disagree.

Your 160 is 20 - 30 years old and would definitely benefit from a simple service.

At the very least you should replace the two (or four), depending on the age of 160, large capacitors in the power supply. If you use the +24V pre-amplifier supply you should replace its electrolytic and two tantalum beads.

On the amplifier boards you should replace all the tantalum beads with good quality (Kemet or AVX) equivalents.

The above constitutes a good basic service which does not alter the 160 at all, but will certainly perk up its performance.

If you wish to go further you should consider replacing the main power supply section with a pair of Avondale MiniCAP6s for a substantial performance boost.

Turning to the amplifier boards, disabling or removing the SOA circuitry will lift a veil from the sound and further improvement can be made by replacing the signal and feedback resistors with higher quality types and considering better types of capacitor for the input coupling, feedback and Vbe positions,

malcolm
 
Having done back to backs quite intensivley I would agree with Mister6 but they all have their merits.

160, sweet and fluid, beautiful, subtle

180, superb slam, attack and well, balls

250, refined, weighty, more powerfull

I could live with any but run a 72/Hi/160 bolt down; nice!

Certainly the 160 is a fabulous amp with a just fan club.
 
Brilliant advice and support as ever, folks!

It's paired with a NAC 32 and SNAPS PSU, and KEF 104ab's. These have been a system their whole life as far as I'm aware, so I should assume that the NAC & SNAPS will probably need a look at too.

I have an intermittent NA321 board (a thousand thanks Malcolm for helping out with diagnosing it, it's been perfect up til Christmas when it went again..) so I think that it'd be a good time to try out some NJ321/729's rather than chase an elusive problem. I've been offered a set second hand so I'll think I'll go for them. After that is there anything I should refresh on the NAC/SNAPS too?

Is there such a thing as a parts list for these items?
 
Gaius said:
Having done back to backs quite intensivley I would agree with Mister6 but they all have their merits.

160, sweet and fluid, beautiful, subtle

180, superb slam, attack and well, balls

250, refined, weighty, more powerfull

I could live with any but run a 72/Hi/160 bolt down; nice!

Certainly the 160 is a fabulous amp with a just fan club.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you should talk of the 180 having a bit more "slam". I really like the sound of the 160 but the only thing I can criticise is that it does seem to lack a bit of punch/balls/slam etc... Perhaps a PSU upgrade would even things out with the 180?
 
Bigger PSU and regulated rails in the 250 but a 180 is effectively the 160 in olive casing.
Click to expand...
No, the 180 is a 140 in an bigger olive case :D

My order of preference would be 160 first, 180 second and 250 third. Others will disagree.
Click to expand...
I agree, I would just rate the 180 in the very last place ... :D

I have a 160 (1983) with light mods (feedback and input caps) and had the possibility to compare it to a 250 olive recapped three years ago. The 160 had more dynamic and the upper frequency were better controlled as with the 250.
The 250 was very good and w/o having a direct comparison I could live with it !
Nevertheless, I observed that with the 160 I listened and enjoyed the tracks until the end whereas with 250 I often skipt the last part of the songs to go to the next tracks ...
 
Jackytwoshoes said:
It's interesting that you should talk of the 180 having a bit more "slam". I really like the sound of the 160 but the only thing I can criticise is that it does seem to lack a bit of punch/balls/slam etc... Perhaps a PSU upgrade would even things out with the 180?
Click to expand...

The 250 gives the authority / weight / slam...call it what you will. But this is achieved at some loss in dynamics, at least to my ears, over the smaller, unregulated, power amps, which I find a bit more bouncy and fun (doesn't stop me running a very nice CB 250 though ;))

The beauty of the 160 is its combination of the open, fast sound of the unreg'd amps, and a power output heading towards 250 territory. Some might call this a compromise, I call it a great balance.

The 160 already has something of a cult status, and I think as time moves on it will become even more sought after. For what it does, I don't think there is anything in the Naim range to touch it.

If you want a richer tone with more weight, stick an avondale psu on the 32.5. There's a TPX in classifieds for £275, which is a great price. 32.5 / TPX / 160 would surely be a very cool system.
 
I had a 160 CB and an olive 140 for comparison, both unserviced. loved the 160, but found it a little harder/cold sounding than the 140 so stuck with that and sold the 160. I then recapped 140 with kendeil caps (the big reservoir ones) which gave it a bit more refinement and bass weight: Id suggest a 160 with similar kendeils in would be an absolutely ace match soundwise. Also these (2 iirc) may be bolt-top types which would facilitate recapping hugely- cant be certain. I just asked Les at Avondale for 'a set of kendeil for a 140/ and a few other caps for a general recap'. easiest way i found, and most helpful he was too.
 
I'll give Les a call.

1000RPM said:
If you want a richer tone with more weight, stick an avondale psu on the 32.5. There's a TPX in classifieds for £275, which is a great price. 32.5 / TPX / 160 would surely be a very cool system.
Click to expand...

I have a NAC 32 which is single rail. Will that work with a TPX?
 
Jackytwoshoes said:
It's interesting that you should talk of the 180 having a bit more "slam". I really like the sound of the 160 but the only thing I can criticise is that it does seem to lack a bit of punch/balls/slam etc... Perhaps a PSU upgrade would even things out with the 180?
Click to expand...

Yes it would, my Hicap makes a big difference but a service on your Snaps and 32 can mod them to dual rail which would be a step forward.

Adding an Avondale PSU will overly smooth things out and certainly not increase any slam.

Not wishing to ignite the Naim/Avondale flame here, just my experience and preference.....
 
One last thought good speaker though it is, they are on the cosy side of things, a change to something more detailed down the road would also liven things up; obvious contenders being Epos ES11 &14s, Rega Ela 1.5s.
 
Returning to the 140/160/180 discussion the main difference between them is in the power supply area.

The transformers are 200/430/500 VA respectively.

The 140 and 180 both use the NAPS140/3 board but the 180 has more capacitance. I know that the 180 has 4 x 10,000 uF and believe that these are 4.700 uF in the 140.

Bolt down and early CB 160s had a single transformer winding with a beefy bridge rectifier and a pair of large capacitors. Later 160s had two transformer windings, two bridge rectifiers and two pairs of capacitors.

Another feature of the 160 transformer is a separate winding for the pre-amplifier supply whereas the 140/180 piggy-back this from one of the power windings.

The amplifier boards are all of the same basic design except for the feedback and Vbe capacitors. The 140 has 47 uF for both whilst the 180 has 68 uF for Vbe and either 68 uF or 100 uF for feedback.

It is these features that create the differences in presentation between the three.

malcolm
 
Gaius said:
Not really, the 180 is more powerful, and has the same transformer as the Hicap giving a better power supply, accross the board a better amp than the 140.
Click to expand...
And the caps values are greater 4 x 10.000uF instead of 4 x 4.800 IIRC but so what ...
Look at the PSU structure ... exactly the same as the one from the NAP140 and completely different from the 160 !
For me, the 180 is not a better amp than the 140 it is a different one.
Keep your 160 and give him a service and enjoy :)
 
180 is to 140 as 160 is to 110.

Did the 180 ever have Sanken plastic output devices though?
 
binnie said:
Look at the PSU structure ... exactly the same as the one from the NAP140 and completely different from the 160 !
Click to expand...

No, the power supply circuit/configuration is the same in all three. The only, minor, difference is that the 160 is hard wired rather than pcb construction.

Both the later 160 and 180 have two 27.5 - 0 - 27.5 V windings each feeding a bridge rectifier and a pair of 10,000 uF, 40 V capacitors. The bridge rectifiers are larger with a higher rating in the 160. The difference in the physical dimensions of the capacitors is down to improvements in their manufacture over the years.

The 140 has exactly the same circuit with lower value 4,700 uF capacitors.

malcolm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top