“massively enjoyable ,crazy different but both addictive . To me its like hard wiring the music to your brain.Its faster harder hitting clearer more understandable,more real.”
When it’s 5.00am in the morning, and you just have to play one more piece of music… then you’re addicted…totally.
I also have had many active Naim /Linn systems, but a passive Nap 500 beats active six-pack
135’s on DBL and I think the Statement passive outperform 3xNap 500 active,
then active Statement …
It’s up to you or your guess. Sorry, reading you, I guess you probably haven’t experienced this comparison on Iso Linn Pms and B&W 802 - 804. The amplifier stages, the regulation of the 135 and 250 are exactly the same. Two 135 nap = two 250 nap for the 2 tranfos and the 4 CO39 capacitors. The difference is that the 250’s have 4 stages of amplification and regulation, which allows each tweeter and each mid/bass to be amplified separately. The fact that the tweeters have their own amplification circuit is a major advantage. I have been listening to Naim and Linn since 1980, for over 10 years with the then Nac 52, I had the 135 nap on Linn Sara and Linn DMS. With the Linn Dms/Pms, I listened and compared my nap 135’s with 2 second hand bought naps 250’s, from the first listen the naps 250’s propelled and “ignited” the music much more masterfully than the nap 135’s. I regretted not having tried them a few years earlier. The same was true for the friend who had 135’s on his B&W’s, when he switched to 2 Olive nap 250’s, there was no way he was going back to his 135 pair. I respect your statement that 2x135 is better than 2x250, however in practice the result is obviously the opposite, the music is more immersive with 2x250 and even louder with 3x250. All this does not prevent us from loving the music.
For example, at the end of your post, you refer to a friend who preferred two Olive 250s to two Olive 135s. That won’t come as much of a surprise to many, But the 250 is a stereo amp (producing two channels of sound), while the 135 is a mono amp (producing just the one channel).
In order to hear the difference properly, you (or your friend) need to compare a single 250 (two channels) against two 135s (also two channels). The difference will then be very clear.
Just to avoid any confusion, the example that I have given here assumes one, non-active pair of loudspeakers - which neither you nor I have in our respective systems.
I think you’re talking at cross-purposes Graham. You’re discussing a classic single amped system with different amps, He’s talking about comparing a bi-amped system to a single amped, so B&Ws with 2250 driving 4 channels against the same speakers driven single-amped by 2135.
Specifically passive bi-amping, not active.
I was trying to make life simple by removing either his system or mine (neither of which is ‘a classic single amped system’) from the discussion, so that we were just comparing an Olive 250 and an Olive 135.
If I didn’t manage to get that across, there’s nothing that I can add to make anything any clearer.
I have been a long term user of an active Naim system (Snaxo 2/4, HC, 250DR x 2 into SL2’s) The SL2’s were 20 years old and in searching for an upgrade and a box count reduction I listened to many passive set ups (speakers + power amps) in the £75-100k range, including Focal which I did not like. There is no doubt that getting a demo of an active system is not easy, and many £30k+ speakers will not run active at all so the option is ruled out. The truth is I did not hear anything that really improved on what I had.
That is until I auditioned the Kudos Titan 808 running passive with a NAP500. It was an immediate hit for me, however running active with three NAP250DR and all the other bits takes them well beyond a single 500 that I heard on demo.
I recently took delivery of a new Snaxo 3/6, Supercap (Nov 2022) so they were still being made then, and an extra 250DR plus a few other bits, oh and the 808’s which my wife calls the BOBs for obvious reasons.
I have utterly failed on the box count, but the system sounds fantastic and is bringing new life to everything I hear. I truly believe active is best, and my search started with auditions of amp in the speaker set ups such as the ATC range. I would implore Naim to stay true to the active option, as throwing in with Focal would have lost my business.
I probably should leave this bit of the discussion well alone but it’s Christmas and this is a great thread!
Looking at it another way, I think what the suggestion was, was 2x250 at a combined 140 w/channel vs 75 w/channel for the 135s.
Across various threads I’ve seen 2 or 3 x250s being discussed as opposed to 135s and it seems like when scaled up in that way, the 250 provides more flexibility. Presumably it was a cheaper option even if that wasn’t the primary goal.
I’m a 135 user. I’ve not compared 250s used in this way but if I was starting again it’s an option I’d look at.
It is good to hear your experiences. I am going to get a demo of the Kudos 808 at some point. It’s a shame that active is abandoned by Naim. Naim active is very special and the way it is done, all analogue with everything separated is amazing. ATC active I have heard once. Linn active is not good - sounds very clinical. SL2’'s active are really good and it would take something special to improve. Over Christmas, will try the IBLs in the main system active to compare as a try out.
One of the best systems I have EVER heard is 52, 4 x 135, SBL also 52, 6 x 135, NBL (at Naim - and I was asked to turn the volume down from the meeting being held in the room above lol).
Passive is bleh, active dramatically reduces distortion that you can completely hear, the ease of the music is amazing.
Dear Devraj similar for me, one demo show in Bristol where Naim gradually, SBL, went something like 180, 250, active 250 the 135 active, utterly astonishing. Then at Naim HQ similar with NBL, I will never forget that listening experience.
Interesting was the 3 standout tracks played
I scare myself > Barry Reynolds
Theme From Harry’s Game > Clannad
Une nuit a Paris > 10cc this one was shocking in attack and realism, the one where this milk bottle gets knocked over, made the whole room jump!
Well beyond? Dont think anyone thats heard them running both ways would say that, as its very, very close and hard to say what one is running at the time.
For me i still liked the 500dr over the 3 x 250dr’s. The 500dr and 552dr pair are certainly made for each other and this probably makes the difference.
I can see why some might like the 250 way as its easier to access this level over time, rather than the one big outlay. But for me its the 500 way.
3 x 500dr well that could be a completely different result, but at that sort of outlay then i would already be looking at much different amps.
I am sure you are right that 3x 500 would be amazing, but 3x250 and crossover run to about the same as price as a single 500, the difference is that active is (imho) better, at least with this speaker. Also 3x500 would take my box count from 12 to 15, with three large ones. I think my wife might notice that!
Actually the large mass of LP’s acts as a damper on a pretty lively floor (this is an upstairs study 5mx6m). I have moved the 808’s clear of the LP storage so that they are in free space, but I prefer them a little closer to the rear wall (in the picture they are 16cm clear), I think Kudos recommend 20-25cm. First world problems!
Yes the price is almost the same, especially when you add in the cables and extra fraim levels as you certainly dont want to stack the gear at this level.
I like the 500dr better, but it was a real 50/50 split and this just shows that there is no real answer to this one, other than enjoy what you have