advertisement


NAP180 vintage

Howdy

Howdy

pfm Member
If I remember correctly the legend goes that the latter specimen of NAP180 were worse than earlier. Supposedly Naim intentionally started to make 180s sound worse so they could easier sell their new model NAP200. I think @MJS said on these pages that this not true.

So, is there anything to this story?
Are earlier NAP180s different to later produced ones?
Should one avoid latter NAP180s for any reason, did Naim change something in latter amps (for whatever, not necessarily sinister reasons) and by which year?

Or if I'm buying NAP180, should I just buy the newest one I can find, what my intuition tells me to do?

I'm thinking about upgrading my NAP140 to NAP180, speakers are Harbeth P3ESR and Spendor S3/5 (first, non-R version), likely future speakers ProAc Tablette 10.
 
Did any Nap 180 contain Holden & Fisher trafo ?
these might sound a bit softer but H&F ceased trading back around when Nap 180 were launched (if memory serve) mid 90'ies or bit earlier.

I recall Nap 180 were identical to Nap 140 apart from larger cabinet and size of transformer.
 
NAP180s only ever contained Nuvotem transformers. H+F went out long before the 180 was thought of.

To my knowledge Naim has never hobbled a product during a production run. They went out of their way to maintain the same sound signature during the life of the product in the 1990s.

The NAP180 was a parts bin amp. Transformer from the hicap, modified 140 power supply, and NAP250 amp boards and case. The 140 used a transformer with a single secondary winding whereas the 180 uses dual windings. Remember that the 140 is a 110 with separate capacitors for each channel instead of having shared ones. The 110 is more musical however, probably because said capacitors are right next to the amp boards.

If you don't mind it not matching then I'd take an older NAP160 over a 180 any day.
 
Thanks for your reply, very much appreciated.

MJS said:
The NAP180 was a parts bin amp. Transformer from the hicap, modified 140 power supply, and NAP250 amp boards and case.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand everything, but I thought NAP180 was NAP140 with a better power supply, didn't know about NAP250 amp boards (or what that actually means).

MJS said:
Remember that the 140 is a 110 with separate capacitors for each channel instead of having shared ones. The 110 is more musical however, probably because said capacitors are right next to the amp boards.
Click to expand...

As much as I liked NAP110, I preferred NAP140 by quite some margin. That was with P3ESR. And NAP110 was serviced by Class A, NAP140 is not serviced.

MJS said:
If you don't mind it not matching then I'd take an older NAP160 over a 180 any day.
Click to expand...

Yes, I kinda mind the non matching.
And also, I though the 180 would just give me more of 140, without changing its character, which I obviously like. I believe that NAP160, although highly praised, is quite a different beast altogether. Perhaps sometime in the future, with NAC12.

And one other thing. I've noticed that one particular very late (2000) NAP180 has a purple back panel, with black label over it, the back panel of earlier olive Naim is black. When did this happen?
 
Hi, you don't mention your source and preamp, perhaps better scope for improvements there? Upgrading the pre (and/or psu options) tends to make a much bigger difference than going from 140 to 180.
 
RoryL said:
Hi, you don't mention your source and preamp, perhaps better scope for improvements there? Upgrading the pre (and/or psu options) tends to make a much bigger difference than going from 140 to 180.
Click to expand...

Naim-serviced NAC72. Preferring NA boards to NJ. No economical way to improve current state of my LP12.

But it's not just an upgrade itch. I will keep the 140 for future 2nd system when paired with another 72 to replace Onix OA21s.
 
Sounds good. I've got a system where 82 replaced 112 then 180 replaced 90. Latter is a decent upgrade but the former was Flipping Heck. I can still slot the 90 into either of my systems and it never disappoints, quality upfront is the key.
 
Yes, the 112 was probably the worst pre-amp Naim made - it has little in common with its brothers.
 
2 or 3 years ago I posted the following and in the ensuing thread MJS said, as he just has, that Naim has never "hobbled a product during a production run". I would like to think that was the case.
I believe JV had died and perhaps Mark had left Naim by the time that the NAP200 replaced the Nap180. On the other hand it might be said that just prior to the release of the NAP200 the "production run" of the 180 had ended and they were selling off old stock of 180s!

In answer to the original question, there was no difference, apart from the larger transformer, between the old and new 180 samples. The performance difference appeared to be down to the way the output stage bias had been set. If you are competent to check and adjust the bias then get a later sample -it's all a bit newer!
If you don't want to delve inside the case then perhaps budget for a service by witch hat or class A and buy accordingly.
It's probably time to replace the power supply caps on a 180 by now anyway if not already done sine the 39.3 volt supply on my newer sample was getting rather close to Naim's choice of 40 volt rated capacitors!


peterm said:
I recently bought a 180 with the intention of fitting a pair of LesW's new boards to drive my shahinian obelisks as recommended some time ago by MJS. I found that my 250 didn't produce much (any!) output from the tweeters in the obelisks and I gather the regulator boards in the 250s and135s can be incompatible with the 2 ohm load resulting from 4 parallel connected tweeters. My old 180 did a much better job than the 250 so it seemed a good plan (and reasonably cost neutral) to sell the 250 and use the proceeds to buy a 180 plus a pair of Les's boards.

My old 180 (used in a second system) is an early version, the serial number dates it to 1993 whilst the "new" one appears to date from late 2001.

On receiving the newer one I looked inside and found it had a 500va transformer rather than the 430va version in the old one, I was pleased.
When I connected the new amp in place of the old one I was less pleased - I thought the stylus needed cleaning on my cartridge (it didn't). The new amp is much less dynamic than my older one (it doesn't really matter since I'll be ditching the NAPA boards in favour of Les's) and I see why some say the 250 is a better amp than the 180. I didn't hear any difference when I replaced the 180 with a 250 some years ago but I would have done if my 180 had been the one I just bought.

This begs the question - did Naim downgrade the 180's performance to stop it stealing sales from the 250, or is it just sample variability?
Does anyone have similar experience or information (perhaps someone who was at Naim at the time!)?
Click to expand...

peterm said:
I've now got round to looking inside the amps to compare them.
The older one with the smaller transformer runs the boards at +/- 37.9 volts, the later one +/- 39.3 volts.
I next checked the bias current using LesW's instructions (multimeter connected in the +ve supply to the board with no load connected and no signal input).
The recommended range is 36 to 38 ma, the old one measured 37.5 on one channel and 40.5 on the other. Since it is suggested not to exceed 40 or else risk thermal runaway I tweaked the higher figure down to 37.5 to match the other channel.
The newer amp had 30.3 and 30.8 ma bias currents! I increased them both to 37.5 to match the other amp.
I have now listened to both and they sound the same, my earlier reservations about the newer model have been resolved.

I'm suspicious about the low bias on the newer model, both channels were similar suggesting they had been deliberately set that way but it certainly sounds better with the higher settings.
Click to expand...
 
So, was that one off bad example or is there anything more to it? Are there more cases of improperly set up 180s and does year of production have any role in this?
 
I stand corrected. I honestly can't remember Holden and Fisher transformers in the NAP180.
Naim's choice of 40v caps for 230v transformers that yield ~40v on rectification was a bad one. I have seen many XPS power supplies with dead caps because of this.
I always used to fit 50v replacements.
 
The Naim method of checking/setting the bias of almost all the early (1970s - 1990s) amplifiers is to set them to 7.0mV across the two 0R22 resistors (in series) in the output chain with the amplifier cold.

 
I've just checked:
Nap 180's were launched in 1992, same year as H&F ceased trading so Naim might have used old stock in very early made Nap 180.
If your's have serial 76xxx-83xxx (Naim 1992 made S/No) it might contain a Holden & Fisher trafo.

The picture in post #9 is not very clear on my screen, does it say S/No 78xxx ?
 
Howdy said:
So, was that one off bad example or is there anything more to it? Are there more cases of improperly set up 180s and does year of production have any role in this?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it was a one-off.

In many posts about servicing Naim amps people have said that after a service "it sounded like a new amp". Could this be why?
 
Thanks for the input, especially to @MJS @misterc6 and @peterm .
I pretty much decided I'll buy year 2000 NAP180 (if the one I'm looking at is still available) - my last single market/farewell-to-UK purchase, before looming customs and taxes...

I'll probably ping you guys when I will try to check if everything is OK with it and for tips about caps replacements.

Just curious, what's with the purple back panel as seen here, I've only seen black so far.

180.jpg
 
I've seen a few olive Naim pieces with the anodized chassis a purplish hue, starting sometime in the late '80s/early '90s. My own NAT02 for one. Not sure if they started out this way, or if the finish was somewhat light sensitive. I had purchased the tuner used, although it wasn't very old when I got it.
 
A similar issue has come up (on the Naim forum) with regard to the "Classic" series black boxes, with the front panels developing a purplish tinge over time. IIRC something went wrong during the anodising process with some batches at the (Swiss ?) case manufacturer.

Mark S. might have more info.
 
Last edited:
I’m not familiar with anodized aluminum but I had a similar situation on industrial parts that were black oxyde and the manufacturer back then told us the cure was not 100% finished when the product was shipped to us. The process then kept going on for years and we got a similar discoloration mixed with a light oxydation/blemish ending up with a similar color as the picture above. The corrosion protection was effective anyway so no big deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top