Any folks prefer active Naim no matter what, and if so, why?
By that I mean, does anyone prefer active to any model of superior passive Naim amp they’ve tried? - i.e., the benefits of active are just too important.
I’m also intrigued by a recent post on the forum that claimed modern passive crossovers are now so good that active operation has less benefit - sorry, can’t recall where I read it or who it was. Do most folks agree with that?
I don’t and said so in the thread .
Active is great but it does demand so much more than passive; more money, (many) more boxes, more Fraim, more cabling, more effort in getting things just right, and more frustration when things go wrong. However, when all is right, it can be astoundingly good.
Having said all that, I recall comparing at the factory active DBLs driven by a mix of NAP300s and NAP250s against a passive NAP500. The passive NAP500 was preferred, which was not what I expected…
Yes but active DBLs with 500’s is something very special isn’t it Richard?
Yes, indeed it is!
I greatly depends on whether someone likes the speakers passive first.
The choice of speakers is severely limited and in my opinion, having a great active experience demands that you actually prefer those speakers passive still more than other passive options.
Active for the sake of active (i.e. having very little choice in the speakers) is not the way to go.
It was probably me that said passive crossovers had improved a lot. I think this is true, but didn’t claim they were superior. What I did claim was that the speaker manufacturer has a bit more control over the end user experience with their own crossover. Going active, unless both speakers and amps are the same manufacturer can be bit of the wild West.
The OP is referencing “Naim” active, but this is largely a moot point. It doesn’t exist any more. They haven’t made speakers for years and there are no OEM tweeters or BMRs to be had for repairs of legacy products without some after market mods. Which really renders the concept of “Naim” active as “not applicable”.
There are of course fully active Naim active systems out in the field. Many in fact. But as an offering no longer on the table, the lifetime left on that is very finite. Which I am very sad to say as I think active was a great path forward but the SNAXOs were too restrictive to too few speakers. It probably needed a pluggable board approach similar to the SuperLine and a more generic any speaker approach to be flexible enough to still be a viable product.
I think this is very true, active improving a speaker but its essential character remains, and that is what should drive speaker choice.
It is, however, relevant to recognise that where active speakers sold as such (with amps and active XO built on or in) are there can be other drivers (pun not intended!) including surety of amp matching and box count, and of course are the opposite in terms of system complexity.
I only have experience of my own SBL’s and NBL’s plus current Kudos Titan 808 speakers.
In the context of the SBL’s, I ran them with one 250 and at upgrade time, tried a 300 Vs 2 x 250’s.
I compared them not knowing which I was listening to, as my dealer set it up in my own home without me knowing which setup I was hearing.
I listened to one setup and it was a marked improvement over what I used to hearing (one 250).
He then set up a different configuration and within seconds I knew I preferred this second configuration and told him so. He smiled and then said “come and look” and it was the active 250’s.
I had a similar experience when I changed to NBL’s, comparing a 300 to active 250’s and again, the 250’s were my preference.
I’d say there was a more lifelike presentation, vocals really came forwards, there was more “drama” and excitement to the music, more like “being there” with dynamics and expression previously unheard (or felt).
When I first heard Kudos 808’s I thought they sounded great but as the dealer went through the amplifiers, including the 500, they sounded better and better and then, when he finally connected Statement, I had a total revelation as the dynamics and “live” feel suddenly came into focus and I just “got it”. That would be a real end game for me but, the cost of Statement is currently prohibitive.
I’m currently content with active 250’s into my 808’s.
So, in a nutshell, Active all the way for me, unless you can afford Statement.
ATC have done a great job with their active speakers, view of one is they outperform their passive versions.
Naim active with cross overs, power supplies, power amps and extra fraim by contrast looks a bit of a faff….
I like the approach of a steaming pre with active speakers.
Gary
Thanks everyone for your replies.
I should have been clearer - I meant Naim amps but not specifically Naim speakers as well.
I’ve heard a modern Naim system with active Kudos speakers (very good) so knew that was possible.
I’ve changed the thread title.
This is what I’ve heard and was wondering to what extent other people have experienced the same, especially as I’ve not been able to do proper comparisons.
Good point. Perhaps it comes down to how the speaker was developed as I doubt it can be optimised for both approaches.
The Kudos Titan crossover is very good. I enjoyed it tremendously with S1/500. However 3 x 500 was still a big leap forward. Full Statement passive territory . It’s not just about the quality of the crossover though. Driving each frequency with separate amps has to be heard. Of course the source and pre should come first. I think I’d rather go S1/500 than 552/3 x 500 active. All truly great when optimised.
I don’t believe speakers are optimised for passive versus active. I’m not even sure how you would. What I mean is, if the speakers available as active options are’t ones you would choose if passive was the only option on the table, active isn’t likely to change that.
Having heard a lot of active Naim and Linn systems, I can say that active is a lot better. But a pair of SL2s are atill SL2s. As is a pair of Keilidhs either still Keilidhs. If you preferred passive Spendors, PMCs or whatever to passive Naim speakers, going active with SL2s makes no sense. In other words, active is the icing on the cake. Not the cake itself.
It’s not something I know a lot about but the couple of people I know that have designed speakers have made a great many decisions along the way. I would have thought that these decisions are made in either passive or active mode and, therefore, the resulting speaker would offer an advantage to the corresponding mode, at least to some extent.
I’m not in a position to refute that. But I’ll be honest and say I struggle with the notion. It’s like saying that the drive unit and/or cabinet design choice of any speaker with an active option is compromised in one mode of operation.
You might look at some of the other discussions on this. Views differ.
I moved my olive system over to a SNAXO 2-4/SC with 4x135s to make my SBLs active. It was hard enough to find the boxes in the market but TomTom helped out with some top quality items that were not even listed on their website. Then the room needed re-arranging, there was extra racking, cables etc, and making sure everything was hooked up, siting the SNAXO correctly etc all left me wondering if I’d done the right thing!
The resultant sound is excellent. Not a step change equivalent to the cost and effort though IMHO. That said I’d not willingly go back.
The other thing I’d say on the equipment front is that I later added a sub because my room is not SBL friendly. For the cost the risk was worth taking. On a ‘barely even on’ basis however the impact of the sub was excellent in terms of stereo depth and imaging. I suspect 2 would be even better!
Having said all that, this also made it clearer that regardless of source, some recordings are better than others and while some albums leave you hooked in a way you’d not heard before, others have you reaching for the off button.
Likewise. The PMC active modules cost me half of what I got selling my 300DR and the speaker/amp combination sounds a good deal better imo.
G
I noticed a big improvement when I went active with my Kudos Titan 606 loudspeakers. More detail, deeper bass and wider soundstage.
However as previously mentioned, I had to get a shedload of kit to do this.
Was it worth it to do so? Yes, is the basic answer.
Back in April, went to a Kudos Sigao Drive Crossover demo day at Cultured Audio, where the passive and active Naim / Kudos was demonstrated and again, a big improvement similar to the above.
As you can see from my Signature, we have moved on from that into a one box Linn active system.
If you can and have the space to do so, going active is worth considering.
DG…
Out of curiosity, did you try a NAP 300 instead and if so, what did you think?