So, here’s the question… why is the DBL PAXO, just as any other Naim paxo, not serviceable?
I’m sure its components degrade with time, as any other kit, but why does Naim not want to maintain them also in tip top condition (or better given the evolution of components)?
Any passive DBL owner ever get to the bottom of this?
Perhaps @NeilS could clarify from the crossover experts if it’s possible or indeed needed?
If they’re physically damaged it would be nice to know if there were a repair option of some kind, but I can understand your comment on potential component degradation, unless downstream components like crossovers are more immune.
I’d have to check if we have the required parts for the DBL, I’m not hopeful somehow.
As to whether it is necessary, I really don’t know. I have not heard of any sonic issues arising from not doing it, nor heard of any improvements from having it done. It’s not a popular request, so that may tell a story?
I’ll look into it.
So, it was Steve Hopkins (a few years ago) who wrote to me that “we have never serviced any of our loudspeaker crossovers” and when I inquired at Class A, Darran told me that “Naim suggested to leave them as they are, servicing not required”.
@NeilS no idea tbh as I had the service done when I bought them. I collected the speakers and freshly serviced crossovers. On the NBL version you can see all the innards quite clearly and there is a lot going on and looks like a lot was replaced. Can’t imagine that having something freshened up to a new specification would not have some benefits, however they maybe slight! The speakers sound great!
If it’s any help I asked Jason, on my factory tour, if it was worth servicing DBL x-overs, he said not to bother, so I haven’t.
Also, logic tells me that if something was massively wrong with a x-over it’s likely you’d hear it on one channel and you could swap the x-overs between speakers to isolate the problem from anything else?
And you see, that’s exactly what bothers me.
To not bother means that the sonic consequences of the inevitable degradation of the components is so minor that it’s not worth it. This also implies that the initial quality of the components mustn’t have been great, to the point that their degradation basically doesn’t cause a fundamental change in the sound.
If Naim had said that the components in the paxo don’t degrade, that would have been different, but they always say don’t bother, it’s not worth it, or simply not required.
Naim is famous for maintaining and servicing their kit, because their kit is made of the best components (per product level and in accordance with their “sound”) of the time and these components need to be maintained to keep on giving their best; they’ll continue to work without servicing, but the point is to provide the best and original sound for the component.
Why not with the DBL (or other speaker) paxos???
It would be nice if Naim cleared the reason for this exception in their servicing approach.
I can’t think of any reason why the components in the N-Sub amp would be immune from the need for servicing that any other Naim amp needs, but mine seems to work fine, so I’m happy not to have the hassle of sending it away for the time being.
Not quite. It’s loosely based on a NAP250/NAPV145, uses similar NA007s but IIRC it isn’t a regulated amp and the transformer is different.
Due to not being regulated I’d guess that servicing requirements are not nearly as critical as with a regulated amp like the NAP250. Then there are the practical and logistical issues, which probably mean its only worthwhile if something has failed or obviously sounding off colour.
“Loosely based on” - getting the fact right always helps! Thank you Richard.
I’m rather pleased it doesn’t have the same service requirements as a NAP250 to be honest mine still sounds fine so I shall leave it well alone!