Don’t know how rare they are but luckily I’ve got one like that too. It does make life easier.
1 Like
As a 300 owner, if I were in the mindset to upgrade I think I would look at active speakers before I’d blindly opt for a 500.
ATCs would seem an obvious choice to demo from my forum experience.
They may well not be to my liking but at this level of expenditure I think I’d be mad to rule them out.
.sjb
2 Likes
Not. Even. Close. The leap from the 300 to the 500 is much larger than that between the NAP90 and the 135s.
The tweaks are very simple and mainly just common sense but where I didn’t really notice these things running 135’s they became very important with the 500. A Fraim is mandatory and you need to run it one shelf or more up from the base. The power supply must be separated from other power supplies by at least one gap above and below. Burndy cables must not touch the floor, themselves or anything else. Junk the standard din/xlr’s. Super-lumina or an alternative becomes a must have. Use a power line. Finally, feed it the best possible source you can then sit back and enjoy what this amp is truly capable of!
2 Likes
Thanks for the note, sounds like I have this covered except for the Fraim, I am on the Fraim Lite but highly doubt the Full Fraim will make any audible difference.
You may be mistaken, I have a stack of replaced Fraim Lite to attest to it. It started with just one under a CDX2 but somehow it found its way under the superline and wasn’t going back so I needed another for the CDX2…
With 500 series? I’ve never gone back to Lite to find out but every other setup wrinkle seems to matter more.
I have noticed you’ve partnered the NAP500 with the NAC52. How do you find this setup? Especially when compared to the nap135s Is the NAP500 a faster amplifier than the nap135s?
I also used a 52 with my 500 for a while. It’s not a 552 but then not much is. However, it does a pretty good job and it’s worth remembering that Naim demonstrated the 500 for a while with the 52 before the 552 was completely developed.
I’d be pretty sure that the difference between the Fraim-lite and a full-fat Fraim would be noticeable with 500 level equipment unfortunately.
1 Like
interesting you say that. The 552dr is a brilliant pre for sure. Its sounds more powerful, warmer in the more accurate way and has great prat. The leading edges sound more powerful on a 552dr, but i would argue that the nac52 has better timing. I can follow the beat of a track better on a 52 than i ever did on a 552dr. Both were connected to nap135s. So having said that I am intrigued about how it would match with a nap500. Also the nap135s were faster, better prat and more powerful in their delivery than the NAP300 while loosing out on noise floor and detailing.
I find the NAP500 very different from the 135s (which were active into SBL initially, then just two into Ovator S600) - more body, authority and delicacy. Also quieter in the quiet bits. The whole setup is not as good as I remember a 6-pack DBL with 52 front end, but that was many years ago, and my hearing is not, of course, what it was then (about 35 years ago, I think). But it is very good, and much better than the 135s, which were, of course, pretty good themselves.
2 Likes
Changing from the 135’s to the 500 I was initially astonished at the extra speed and dynamics I was getting. Having had an active system in the past I was surprised that a passive system could surpass these levelS but the 500 seemed easily capable. This introduced so much more drama to every track played. Adding the 552 seemed to enhance this even further.
On the subject of 52 vs 552 I think the 552 just shows you what’s missing from a 52 at both frequency extremes, realism and in tonality. I could still live with the 52, I rate it that highly but the 552 just pushes the envelope a little more.
1 Like
Very interesting. I had the impression from older threads that the NAP500 was not as fast as the 135s. I’m intrigued now.
My hifi journey has got me to a place where I consider servicing and support as part of my decision process. I know the NAP500 is much more expensive to service than nap135s. And a conversion to DR spec is out of the question for my pocket.
1 Like
That is my experience, too. The 300 didn’t quite do it, but the 500 did. While I’d love to go active again (can’t afford it any more) I am very pleased with what I have.
The conversion to DR is icing on the cake - but the non-DR 500 is still excellent.
You’re so right. I think the last time I had a loudness control was 1977. It has just hit me that this is the reason for 43 years of constant upgraditis. With a little bit of bass enhancement I would have saved a fortune.
1 Like
I’m not sure the service is more expensive? Isn’t it 2 x around £330 for a pair of 135’s where it was around £550 to have the 500 serviced?
Are you sure it’s £500 I had thought it was a lot more. Maybe I was confusing myself. I think the DR charge is a 4-5k. I thought the servicing was around 1k for 500nap
Hi Geko, I paid £ 5.6 K just over a year ago to get my 500 serviced and DR’ed. The last bit was more than the icing on the cake- expensive though. ATB Peter
1 Like
Again, not entirely sure but I seem to remember it was £1k if you have both the power supply and amp serviced i.e. £550 each unit. Then I think DR’ing was another £1,700 on top?