The 300DR seems to be getting some bad press here ! I changed from 4 x 135’s to a pair of new 300DR’s 2 years ago and after the fairly lengthy running in period have never regretted it. Better bass and more detail and excellent PRAT.
Although I liked the 135’s well enough I was not too happy running 25 year old amps when the rest of my " Classic " system was relatively new. The 135’s were serviced regularly but the majority of the electronics were still 25 years old and not touched during the servicing.
I’m running a vinyl only system. Tangerine LP12 into 552, Snaxo with S’capDR, and the 300DRs into SL2s
6 Likes
A second vote of enthusiastic support for the 300DR. And this from a long-standing owner of NAP135s.
Best regards, BF
1 Like
Intuitively (if I read your comments correctly), I wouldn’t advocate 135s downstream of a 552, given the additional detailing and ‘bandwidth’ (to grab a word) which the 552 provides, which could get lost in what are generally mid-range focused amps (unless this presentation floats your boat). This is where the 300 comes in, as it has lots more detail than 135s, which to some ears seems to make it sound softer - hence why several Forumites skipped over the 300 (as mentioned above).
In @mkng 's case, the Olive 135s are downstream of a 52 and while a 52/300 will be/is very good, I’d stick with the 135s f.t.b. and make sure there is an adequate home demo of a 300 (should be DR now) before parting with cash - not a change to be made on a pre-loved basis without audition. Of course, we all hear differently and have differing tastes as to what we like.
1 Like
Yes HL I’d agree on that count. I ran the 135s with a 52 for 15years before the 552 arrived and remember being slightly disappointed with it. There was certainly better performance from it but I was expecting more with all the hype surrounding it at the time. Quite possibly the 300Drs have allowed the 552 to show was it’s really capable of doing at last.
2 Likes
Re the last part - I think so.
I remember when the new Classic Range was introduced and the time when 500(pre DR) in passive mode was being compared to 6 x 135 in to DBLs, the former to many ears being better. IIRC, the change in sonic presentation of the dual-mono 300 as compared to 135s was noted and I’m not sure Naimites as a community were prepared for more detail and, shall we say, the often subtle sophistication of the 300 
I had a similar feeling having changed my NAC52 for the NAC552DR before getting the NAP500DR. It was only after swapping the NAP135s for the 500 that I realised how good the pairing was. But I also believe it shows just how good the NAC52 was. Having heard a number of systems employing the NAC252, although not at home, that belief has been reinforced.
1 Like
I have a Nac52 paired with Nap300 non dr and I find it an excellent combo.
However I’ve never heard nap135s. I went from a nap155xs to nap 300.
At the time I was using Guru junior speakers and with those speakers the Nap300 didn’t appear to be a massive upgrade. I’ve since changed to Proac Response 2.5 and everything now sounds very good.
If you are happy with your system I would stay put.
Hi all,
I just want to update on this topic as I got a decent s/h 300DR so I went for it.
I Immediate notice it has more balance sound in the mid-high va the rather roll-off mos-high in the 135s. Bass wise is VERY punchy/dynamic. In my listening room was a little bit too much, but overall control of my ProAc 1SC is much better hence I am able to enjoy the much fuller spectrum sound in a lower volume vs 135s.
I then ordered a SL XLR between my SC-NAP300DR. This instantly resolve the too punchy bass and more transparent airy mid/high.
Overall of pair with NAC52-SC(olive) , to my ear 300DR is a big step up, especially you have a full SL loom.
Anyone with a similar experience? Care to share if any? Happy listening.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.