Hi!

Current system CD3/Nait3/Credos.
My christmas present to myself, will be
an upgrade to 72/140 or 72/180.
I know the technical differences but what are
the hearable things between this two
systems in combination with CD3 and Credos, without a cap.(HiCap comes next year)

I was able to listen to this Systems but they
have been brand new, no warm up, so it was difficult for my ears to hear differences.
I just noticed that both sounded more "arised"
than my Nait.

I know with a 180 i can drive more speakers
than with a 140, but with the 140 i can drive also a lot of speakers. This should not be the
motive to buy the 180. i just want to know the hearable difference in this two systems. What makes the 180 better then the 140.

thank you
and sorry for poor english

Wolfgang

Wolfgang,

As you get a present, try to get the most expensive present available....

Arie

I think you may be better going for the above, as the 72 is being discontinued and the 102 is not quite so desperate for a hi-cap. It should work out at similar money?

The differences between a 140 and a 180 are in the power supplies. A 180 has a bigger power supply, so it can "swing" much more powerful transients (more thud). It also has a higher continuous power rating (because the case is bigger and so it can sink more heat). These differences mean it will go louder and can drive more power hungry speakers. The main problem I have with my 140 is that, if I turn the volume to more than about 10 o'clock, the bass becomes over-powering and flabby (but this is speaker dependent).

The other difference is that the power supply it provides to the pre-amp is better, so it makes the need for a HiCap to power the 72 less imperative. But it's still not as good as a HiCap (only has one 24V DC output, as opposed to 2 with the HiCap).

Appart from these two differences, a 140 is the same as a 180 (they both use the same amplifier boards as the 135). So the main difference you will notice is that the sound will be more "full" (rich) and dynamic with the 180 (because the 72 is happier). The second difference is it gives more punch and goes louder.

Andrew

Hi

I just upgraded from a 140 to a 180 on my dealer's suggestion. I have a pair of Royd Abbots and have been plagued by a slightly muddy, boomy bass since I go them. This situation persisted through 72/140, 72/Hi/140, got a bit better when I went 82/Hi/140 and only went away to be replaced with a powerful, tight bass when I got the 180.

The front ends are CDX and a P9/17D2

So - my advice - get the 180.

Best of luck

Richard

I think the room size is important for a decision about a 180 or a 140.
As I don't live in a large room (no more than
12 x 9 feet, and I don't tell how many meters it is because I'm afraid of Mark Tucker...) the Nait 2 and Nait 3 didn't suffer from lack of power at my home.
I had a probelm with my 140 and the dealer who had to repalce one power section did told me that
the 140 shares the same power sections as the more powerfull amps but the power supply is smaller than in the 180.

I think that it is a question of budget and I don't know how much money you have to add for a 180 instead of a 140, but as many members here are telling, I think it is more logical to put the extra money on a 102 instead of on a 180.

Arie

I have a s/h 72 already. It was a
real bargain, for about 260 Pounds, in best
condition, I´m happy with it.
A 102 or something else comes later.

bye

Wolfgang
The 180 is a "scaled up" version of the 140, and reputedly has a lower-noise power supply for the preamp. Both have dual rectification and capacitors (one set for each channel).

I originally demo'd a 72/140 with some very inefficient speakers and it made good music but had a limited volume envelope. The 180 had considerably more drive. I ran my 72/180 for 4 years (and enjoyed it thoroughly) before I discovered what hicaps do. For a while CD3/72/180, then added a hicap. I have very good memories of this system; it was quite musical and balanced, it didn't draw attention to any weaknesses. I enjoyed it.

Hicaps are really important with the 72; they add depth, timing, transparency. Make the whole system sound so much "bigger" and cleaner and grounded and foot-tappin'-good. The 72 is quite compromised without a hicap, even on a 180 - about half the music disapears - but without it is still good music and quite "forgiving" of lesser sources.

I don't have direct experience of the 140 with credos, but I think a 72/hicap/140 is a musically communicative, involving system with great price/performance. I'd consider the hicap/140 as a good alternative to the 180, especially if you do both at the same time. You could probably live with this for quite a while. Both ways are good, both a big step forward from the nait.

And definitely budget for a decent rack - Hutter & Finite Elemente are two well-regarded European products. Hutter is highly recommended by naim. Good racks make a HUGE difference - more than a bigger power amp. The 72 and hicap are both quite susceptible to their environment. You're wasting your money and missing out on SOO MUCH MUSIC if you don't address this. I learnt the hard way...

FWIW I know Rico on the forum has run 82/super/140, so even the humble 140 isn't outclassed by a good front end. The big steps come at the 250 and 135 level.

Hi Wolfgang

When comparing a 110, 140, 180 & 250 I found the biggest jump going from 140 to 180. The sound seemed so much cleaner, more dynamic etc. etc. - at first I wondered whether there was something wrong with the lesser amps.

I’ve read so many times on this forum (from more knowledgeable people than me, I suspect) that pre-amp upgrades should be the first step. My experience suggests otherwise so I guess different room sizes, source, speakers and ancillary equipment can result in quite different results - in my case the power amp upgrade was more noticeable (to me) than the jump from 62 to 102 (I’m not suggesting the jump from 62 to 102 wasn’t noticeable before anyone labels me a complete idiot).

The conclusion is that a home dem is essential before you spend that kind of money on new equipment. For second hand I suppose you might be allowed to "borrow" the amps before you pay for them - I did with my first 62/110 set up.

Have fun!

Garry

The biggest jump I found on the Amp ladder was the 180 to the 250(a real grin to the face upgrade). I had a 90 for ages and the only way to get anything that was better in all departments was to buy a 250. May as well save on the 180 and buy a 140 then get yourself a better pre or a HiCap for the 72. Then save like mad for a 250.

Regards

Darren Miller

I agree with Darren on getting a 140 and skipping to a 250 from that base.

A hicap on the 72 will probably make a much bigger improvement than going from a 140 to a 180.

Phil - never really liked the 90 or the 180

Garry Mettam said

quote:

---

I’ve read so many times on this forum (from more knowledgeable people than me, I suspect) that pre-amp upgrades should be the first step.

---

Well, it's true. To a point.

Anyone doubting the source first principle hasn't heard Matthew Robinson's CDS2/82/Hicap/140/SBLs. This combination easily made the best music on the sanity side of the high-end equation. From my own experience, the biggest jump in amplifier performance was going from 102/Hicap/NAPSC to 82/Hicapx2. Only the move from 250 to 135s comes slightly close.

If one already has a 72, then going for the 140 first, and saving up quicker for a Hicap followed by a 82 would make a lot of sense. Going to a 250 with a *cap is technically impossible, unless the music of silence thrills.

My $0.02.

James

Personally I found the upgrade from 140 to 135s to be less of an improvement than going from 102/HC to 82/HC.

In answer to the original poster - the 140 is a fantastic amp and I would always choose that over the 180 unless I really needed the extra power of the 180 because of my room and/or speakers.

Actually if I could afford 72/180 then I would get 102/140 which is about the same price.

Matthew

Hi all!

Thanks for your suggestions.

Had now a home demo with both amps and my current cd3/72/Credo.
The 140 was warmed up by my dealer,the 180 lost
his virginity at my home.
After three days the 72/140 combo made great
music, I`ve tried it with and without a borrowed Flat-Cap.
I liked both, there was no real weakness, every evening i`ve damped light,closed my eyes and enjoyed music.
The 72/180 combo,witch is running next door in this moment, sounds "unwarm-uped", like my warm Nait3.
Sometimes i have a bit sharpness, the instruments are not natural, no body.(won`t say the nait sounds not natural)
No doubt, this will come after the warm up period (Its running now since 60 hours), but the main problem is too much bass.
Somebody said buying a 140 or 180 also depends on the room.Mine is 5x4 meters and the 140 bass sounds much better for my ears.I need a bigger house for the 180.
If there is not happening a wonder on the 180 in the next 48 hours, i will go the 72/140 (hicap in a few month) way. I think this will be a system where i can easy live with for a while.
Later i will look out for a 102 or 82 and do the
"houseupgrade"

Thank you very much
Wolfgang

James

Thanks for being gentle with me!!

I will admit that I have read about what makes a good hi-fi far more than I have experienced it by comparing different products. Source first is something I zealously preached and practised for over 15 years but my last upgrade shattered those beliefs. After 10 years of contentment with LP12/62/110/Codas, I decided to upgrade the pre-amp (remote was important) and replace my 20 year old Codas. I didn’t have the time or patience to try out all the permutations. My dealer recommended the 102/180 and comparing to my own 62/110 and a 72/140 I thought the difference was significant. I did compare 62/110, 62/180 and 102/110 and I found the biggest "difference" in sound was with the 180. Maybe the difference I heard is not "musically" as important to many other people but for me it made the lesser power amps sound muddy and unclear by comparison. I know that may appear over the top but remember I only wanted the 102, the 180 was another £1,000 I didn’t want to spend!. If I could have done without it I most certainly would have.

I find it hard to believe that this experience is such a rare occurrence. Surely some of you "experienced" guys have heard this? (I see that Wolfgang prefers the 140!). I will add that the dealer did encourage me to listen to an 82 but I declined as I didn’t want to find the 102 was rendered "unlistenable" by comparison!! Maybe that would have brought source first back into focus - I don’t know.

I do *know* that I like the music my system makes so I am happy anyway!

Regards

Garry

Garry

I upgraded from 42.5 to 32.5 and from 110 to 160.
I think the preamp gave the biggest performance upgrade BUT NOT BY MUCH. The improvement between 110 to 160 was really staggering as well. In fact, as I write this I am really not sure I am correct, it was really so close. I don't see anything wrong with you finding the jump to 180 giving you the upgrade you wanted.

Brian

Andrew Dunn said

quote:

---

Apart from these two differences, a 140 is the same as a 180 (they both use the same amplifier boards as the 135).

---

Is this true? (Sorry Andrew)

David

Hi Garry,

It`s not me that prefers the 140, it`s my room.

I had several home demos in my short hifi career.
Nait3, Nait3/Flat,140,180,250/72 (so my dealer is not realy happy with me )
One thing i have learned is, the room is very important.

Regards,Wolfgang