advertisement


Two mono NAP110 better sounding than CB NAP160?

_webwasher

_webwasher

pfm Member
what´s the difference sound wise between both kind of amplification assuming that all amps are recapped?

thanks for charing your experience!
 
The 110 will sound better because the power 0V returns aren't connected together this causes some interference between the channels, I did a full dual mono conversion to a 160 two transformers etc and it sounded very nice.

Pete
 
Not to hijack this thread-sorry in advance of my question here please-I have read several of the threads about monoblocked 110's. I currently have a Nap-100 and may be getting another one via trading some gear etc., and was wondering about potential benefits of using them in somewhat of a mono-mode, utilizing just one channel of each Nap-100 for left and right. I know that the Nap-100 is built differently in having a single board and being dual mono from the transformer on, but is there much to using it this way compared to just a single Nap-100? Doesn't seem there would be gains in current/drive ability, but curious as to any input on this.

I am surprised in a way that I haven't read about anyone messing around with the Nap-100, although I realise it is a fairly new model and not many available cheap second hand like Nap-110's etc. Would be curious though if this amp lends itself to any type of reasonable "bodging" or not. This note may be better put in the DIY section possibly. Tim
 
Looking at a picture on its internals I would say no, you would need to cut tracks and link the PSUs together.
If you have Bi-wired speakers you could Bi-amp them or flog both and buy a better amp.

Pete
 
Thanks Pete, was more or less the thought I had to begin with, as it all is on one board and no good way to separate things easily.

I do have a pair of Kan2's and had thought about bi-amping, and have done that in the past with older Nap-250's for awhile on the way to activating them. Cannot say the biamping really did much if anything at all, activating was a much better route.

Thanks for your thoughts. Tim
 
110's better, but not enough difference to pay for the change, based on hearing a naim serviced 160 vs hacker capped 110's
 
OP, the 160 and 110 are my favourite amps from that era, given the choice of a 160 or 110 monos I'd take the monos.
 
_webwasher said:
what´s the difference sound wise between both kind of amplification assuming that all amps are recapped?

thanks for charing your experience!
Click to expand...

None within the lower power limit of the 110.

The boards are essentially the same, and the level of inter-channel bleed in the stereo amp is hugely below audible thresholds. The shared power supply in the 160 is sufficient for each channel to deliver full output with one or both channels driven. Both nice classic Naim amps of good performance.
 
It's not as simple as that. There are two different types of 160 for a start. The bolt down type had a single secondary winding of about 400VA feeding a shared power supply. That may have extended into the early CB models but later CB 160s had two separate secondary windings of about 200VA each feeding a separate power supply, one for each amplifier board. The latter giving much better separation between the channels. All 160s had a separate small secondary winding for the preamplifier supply.

By contrast the 110 had a 100VA transformer with a single secondary feeding a shared power supply with the preamplifier supply piggy-backed from it.

There are also subtle component value differences between the boards in a 110 and those in a 160. I also prefer the BDY56 or BDY58 output transistors to the later Naim ones.

Then there's a decision as to whether you retain the existing power supply arrangement or install one of the after market options for which there is more room in a 160 (especially a CB version).

BD 160, CB 160, properly modified 110 monos: I've had all three but I've never been a position to do a direct comparison. I'm currently living very comfortably with a CB160 which has been fully serviced using BHC/Kemet ALS30A main capacitors and it is my favourite of the three followed by the 110 monos. The BD 160 is the sweetest sounding of the three but doesn't have the punch or load driving capabilities of the other two options.

CB160

IMG_0350.jpg


Mono 110s

nap110mono.jpg


BD160

DSCF0188.jpg
 
Just look where all the green 0V lines go back to! every body else wires them back to the Caps 0V just rewiring them makes a 160 sound better.

They do the same in a 250's no wonder the 135s sound better.

Pete
 
Having had two CB 160's recently and a 110, all fully serviced, i have had the opportunity to compare them all. The two 160's sounded different, the first which i sold to MisterC6 was sweeter than the one i kept. They did indeed have different output transistors. The one i kept traded the sweetness for a bit more punch and tighter bass. I loved both and it was a tough choice, i'd say overall a tie, and it would really come down to matching with the pre and speakers. The 110 which i have now just sold was a peach, not quite as good as either 160, but cut from the same cloth in terms of its musical nature. It was maybe faster and tighter sounding than the 160's, it also had a glorious midband.

I can imagine considering how good the single 110 is, that the mono's may pip a 160, but i can't imagine that it would be by much, and of course may end up being a fair bit more expensive. Just my 2p's worth.
 
a lot of feedback - great, thanks a lot.

there are two different kind of cb160: with four vertical and four horizontal (as in misterc6 pic) main caps. is there a difference between them except this detail? which is older and at what sn did naim change this setup?
 
The first CB 160 was produced in 1980 and it was discontinued in 1986. Mine is early, being from the second half of 1980 and originally had the capacitors mounted horizontally with the clamps fitted to the rear panel - you can still see the mountings in my top photo above. Here's another of similar vintage with a different mounting arrangement; this was taken before servicing and the capacitors are the same as were used in the BD160s and early 110s:

DSCF0127.jpg
 
I've seen more bolt-up 160s than sleeved ones, probably a ratio of 5:1. They are indeed quite special.
 
Robert said:
None within the lower power limit of the 110.

The boards are essentially the same, and the level of inter-channel bleed in the stereo amp is hugely below audible thresholds. The shared power supply in the 160 is sufficient for each channel to deliver full output with one or both channels driven. Both nice classic Naim amps of good performance.
Click to expand...

Have you actually heard mono 110s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top