You may forget that we are not on a generalist forum… your many answers to questions are certainly tinged with common sense with other brands of hifi, be careful not to conclude from a truth if there is has no experience 
A coherently rendered instrument is an instrument that preserves its integrity without being “cut off” in several places by a filter.
Thank you for the above, but in practice how does one know that the instrument was coherently rendered?
I am a little unclear what you are getting at?
As I said, if the most important thing is coherence, then even a 2-way speaker is not ideal. A 3-way speaker can be better on an overall balance of compromises, even if coherence is not as good. In the case of the subject of this thread, my impression from comments made by a range of people who have heard both is that the 40 is better except where room limitations (likely due to size) come into play - though that does not mean some people won’t prefer the sound of the 2-way 19 over the 3-way 40 regardless of room.
I was primarily thinking of spatial coherence, as that was my assumption based on Crifo’s observation re instruments, however my comments also relate to phase, a single driver also ensuring phase coherence, whereas phase coherence between multiple drivers is not automatically assured, and depends on a variety of factors in the design.
I note Crifo’s subsequent definition that he /she meant it as not being cut off in several places by a filter. Indeed, in a speaker crossover the signal is cut off from one driver (more or less sharply) - but not cut off from the listener because it passes to the other driver. That of course is where the spacial lack of coherence occurs, and phase coherence may suffer - and that is just as true at the crossover to a tweeter in a 2-way speaker as it is between mid and bass in a 3-way, just that with most instruments the tweeter crossover is above the highest fundamental so only the harmonics affected - but still affected.
It is when the dynamic envelope is intact (Attack, Sustain, Release), that we know that an instrument has kept its integrity while remaining punctual in time
Not exactly, because there is much more fundamental information to destroy in the medium up to 2Khz than outside this area
I had noted that there are few instruments with note fundamentals above tweeter crossover frequencies My point was that if to you coherence is the most important factor, why put up with it even only on the few fundamentals that high and on harmonics (which after all are what give character to the instrument), when you could choose a speaker with a single driver and no crossover, giving total coherence right through the harmonics?
Might it be because to you the other compromises of a single driver speaker are more negative? Just as may be the case with the other compromises of some 2-way systems for some other people.,
1 Like
My opinion is based on the original question (Nap500 or ATC active).
For my part, keep a single element Naim, for example the preamplifier, to go to the end of single brand assets.
If Naim had offered a broadband speaker, that would certainly be the way to go, but they never did it.
OK, so Naim for pre, power and speaker for you - but that has nothing to do with the question of coherence of a 2- vs 3-way speaker that you raised!
The question the OP raised is Naim preamp into Naim power amp into Neat passive speakers, or Naim preamp into ATC active speakers. In other words, a Naim power amp that integrates perfectly with the Naim preamp but driving passive speakers (of another brand), vs a Naim preamp feeding an ATC active crossover and power amps integrated perfectly with ATC’s own speaker drivers, and with no passive crossover.
Given the Neats’ large number of drivers (bass, bass- mid, tweeter and super-tweeter), and being a passive design, I wonder if their coherence might be poorer than the ATCs, while the lack of passive crossovers will help the ATCs (as will that midrange unit!) - but possibly the ATCs’ bass may not be as good. I don’t know as I hsven’t heard either, but I’m looking forward to learning how they stack up against one another,
I do not speak English and presumably Google translation can not do it for me.
We do not seem to understand each other and anyway you know … so have a good trip.
We agree that we either do not understand each other fully, or we have a different idea about this thread!
Such is life - enjoy anyway!
1 Like
If you want to go supercap/552 to atc, do you go:
single din to 2 xlr (split) or
two din to xlr cables?
I would suggest also considering the Dutch & Dutch 8C active speakers. They are on my list and have many potential advantages.
1 Like
Did you mean Supercap/252? The 552 uses its own PSU.
I ment 252/supercap or 552ps connection. Isn’t it possible to do the same on both (using single or two connections)?
My dealer expected me to use a split cable (and I did for the home demo period of 2 weeks), but with my own pair I ordered two separate cables and have used these for a year now. Not sure I could hear any difference, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. So I’d say choose whichever you think will look better.
Well if you have never liked Naim speakers then it is very easy to believe. From the same era as SBLs, I’d take aktiv Linn Kabers in a Naim system any day of the week.
1 Like
You can do either if its din to din to twin xlr, use the din nearest to the burndy cable…it sounds better
If Naim speakers are not liked, why continue with this brand?
For me, it does not make sense …