advertisement


NAP 90 versus NAP 160

many thanks for your generous help, Malcolm - much appreciated. the 160 is now in its full glory with the bias re-set and SOA sorted, and the tantalum beads and the 560Rs are just on their way, too :)
to note, though, those 3.3mF elkos I referred to do seem to be factory-fit judged by the soldering (look, quality) and that the whole amp is obviously untouched - BTW the main PCBs say PA 2/5
 
I had nap160 and nap 90 at the same time.160 is a clean winner in every way.Now I have 250 and sometimes I like my 160 back.Little more in bass with my sbl's is what I got but I lost beautifull high freq.I think the best combo will be 250 for the bass and 160 for high in active mode.
My 160 was ser no.5xx ,bolt down with blue ITT capasitors 10.000mF.After recaping amp sound much better.
Enjoy in great amp
 
Hi Guys:


It seems the NAP160 has become a popular little Amp.

I’ve just finished fixing up and replacing the suspect parts on my NAP 160 (serial number # 000291) and I am currently “soak testing” it on some less expensive speakers. I hope to swap it out with my olive 250 in the next few days, as I’m curious to hear the differences.

Here are some photos, I have included Links to the original hosting site because I suspect there will be an issue with the host site and external linking.

The outside case.
image.php

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl....php?mode=medium&album_id=1065&image_id=25546

The internals.
image.php

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl....php?mode=medium&album_id=1065&image_id=25537

The circuit boards.
image.php

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl....php?mode=medium&album_id=1065&image_id=25536

The PSU.
image.php

http://www.vinylengine.com/turntabl....php?mode=medium&album_id=1065&image_id=25535

misterc6: Thanks for the info and It seems you are correct in your observations about the circuit variations. My unit does have the slight variation on the SOA transistors. Also, the resistors that go from the biasing network / VAS stage to the drivers are different from most of the published versions. I have 43 ohm on the "+" side shunted with a 470 ohm and 470pf L-C network and on the lower "-" side is a 270 ohm with a 470 ohm and 470pf L-C network. Originally mine had slightly different values for these parts on lower "-" side on the right hand board when compared to what was on the left hand board. I've since replaced them so they are now the same, reset the bias and it all seems to work a treat.

I have left the 560R (left) verses 750R (right) on the current source as the Offsets on the speaker output are still very low and I want to keep it that way.

HAPPY LISTENING.

LPSPinner
 
I've had my 160 up against so many NAPs and some others, I always come back to it; it's charm is it's lucidity, it has the velvet touch.

If there is a flaw, it's slightly underpowered.

It really is the star of that era and is better than many many more expensive amps.
 
Don't go replacing those L-C resistors willy nilly - they're often changed from default values to keep the amp stable under all loads and may have been changed in testing. These amps are run at the edge of stability and those values are the minimum needed. I still often have to tweak them after servicing.

If it works, and DC offset is within tolerance then don't go changing things. Really. Unless you have the test gear to verify it all.
 
LPSpinner said:
Hi Guys:


It seems the NAP160 has become a popular little Amp.

I’ve just finished fixing up and replacing the suspect parts on my NAP 160 (serial number # 000291) and I am currently “soak testing” it on some less expensive speakers. I hope to swap it out with my olive 250 in the next few days, as I’m curious to hear the differences.


LPSPinner
Click to expand...
I am curious too,please write something about it.I am also wondering should I give a chance to olive 250 or upgrade my nac72 with 82,or it is better to go bac on 160.What a trilema.It is problem to find it in my coutry to find it and compare.
 
L&N republican said:
I am curious too,please write something about it.I am also wondering should I give a chance to olive 250 or upgrade my nac72 with 82,or it is better to go bac on 160.What a trilema.It is problem to find it in my coutry to find it and compare.
Click to expand...

Hi Again: Sorry to resurrect this old thread but I was reminded about the question in the last posting after googling another similar matter.

After quite a few months and box swapping around my system I still like the NAC12 / NAP160 combo. It’s seems a little smoother or more relaxed than the later “OLIVE” gear (which happens to be my favorite maim period for look and sound) but I am not in any hurry to sell my 72/HiCAP/250 or even my NAP140 (yes I now have 3 naim power amps).

Some one earlier posted that the 160 beats the 140 hands down but personally I’m not to sure. For me the 140 represent something of a sweet spot in the naim amplifier range and I’m rather partial to mine. The same goes for my 72. I have had it next to a 102 and there was no question. The 102 was moved on but the 72 is still with me. However, I’m not sure I can answer the question regarding the 82 (or even a 52), the full width naim olive pre-amps are not that common in this part of the world so the opportunity for a direct A/B demo is not going to happen soon. Also; The 82 & 52 would have to be a good deal better to upstage the little 72. The Little NAC12 on the other hand is a real surprise; I am really fond of the 12’s bare-bone minimalism and simplicity, if you only need a pre with 3 inputs and nothing else the little 12 has much to offer.

So to answer the question, personally I would keep the “bolt down case” 160 (and I stipulate the bolt down version as the later chrome bumper 160 is different animal entirely) as well as a 250 but then, I’m a collector of vintage Hi-Fi as well as an audiophile. Having both means I don’t have to choose between one or the other, so I can have my cake and eat it too.:D

Happy Listening:

LPSpinner.
 
...and Mark at Witch Hat (MJS above)does excellent work at a very reasonable price. Highly recommended.
 
LPSpinner said:
So to answer the question, personally I would keep the “bolt down case” 160 (and I stipulate the bolt down version as the later chrome bumper 160 is different animal entirely)
LPSpinner.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. The early chrome bumper 160s had pretty much the same internals as the BD models with the possible exception of an encapsulated bridge rectifier rather than discrete diodes. Later CB models employed an improved H & F transformer that had two, rather than one, centre-tapped secondaries with separate power supplies for each channel rather than the two channels sharing the single supply of the early version. This has to be an improvement. I'm a great fan of the BD 160 but it is outperformed by the later CB models.

Apart from a slightly different circuit board layout the only other change of note was the move away from the BDY56 or BDY58 output transistors to the Naim labelled ones.
 
misterc6 said:
That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation...
...Apart from a slightly different circuit board layout the only other change of note was the move away from the BDY56 or BDY58 output transistors to the Naim labelled ones.
Click to expand...

That’s not what I have seen. I’m not saying the Chrome bumper sleeved is worse or inferior but they are different.

The Chrome bumper sleeved version used the more modern “unified” printed circuit board with the output power transistors soldered directly the PCB. The Chrome bumper sleeved version also used a separate rectifier and smoothing capacitors for each channel.

The original “bolt down” version has a single Power supply for both channels and the output transistors were mounted on the back of the case with connecting wires for each output transistor.

The circuits may be similar but the PCB and internal cable routing was vey different.

If there was a period where the early Chrome bumper sleeved version had the same internal layout as the "bolt down case" then I would expect it to behave in a similar manner to the original "bolt down case" version but I have yet to see such a unit. Here in Australia I have only seen the traditional bolt down case and the later, previously described, Crome bumper sleeved versions.


LPSpinner.
 
I have to say from the several 160s I've had, the bolt down version is the sweeter and more lucid sounding, same goes for the 250.

They have an almost valve like quality.
 
Gaius said:
I have to say from the several 160s I've had, the bolt down version is the sweeter and more lucid sounding, same goes for the 250.

They have an almost valve like quality.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how I feel about my olive 250. Not saying the bolt downs aren't more valve like compared to olives of course as it's been too long since I've heard one, rather, olive Naim compared to most other brands of sand amps on the market. Definitely one of the things that attracts me to the Salisbury Sound.
 
dave said:
That's exactly how I feel about my olive 250. Not saying the bolt downs aren't more valve like compared to olives of course as it's been too long since I've heard one, rather, olive Naim compared to most other brands of sand amps on the market. Definitely one of the things that attracts me to the Salisbury Sound.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting debate. In the 70s a local hi-fi dealer used to demo every pair of speakers on the end of his resident 12/160 combo because he reckoned it sounded like a good valve amp and that's the sound people were happier with. It certainly was easier on the ear than many of the SS amps around at the time.

The olive 250 is one of Naim's 'warmer' sounding amps but there is a price to pay for that warmth in terms of loss of attack IMO. My 110 does not sound 'warm', but it makes most instruments sound more like real instruments than my olive 250, so the big amp is packed away.

The 72 Vs 102 thing is essentially the same tradeoff. The 72 is more warm and 'valve like' but lacks the clarity and definition of the 102. I prefer the 102 every time. I'd love to hear a good 12/BD160 in my system but I'm pretty sure it would sound a bit too mellow for my liking now.

Mr Tibbs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top