Hi @sktn77a
Yes, I was referring to bi-amping passively, as that was the method the OP was proposing. Apologies as that was not clear.
In fact, I used to biamp when I had B&W 802s many years ago and I thought two 250s improved on one, but that speaker presents a pretty tough load. When the 500 came out and I tried that on the B&Ws I found that one 500 was more than equal to 2 x 250.
I guess it’s speaker dependent, and I don’t know the OPs speakers, but I found, as Richard Dane states that one better amp was better than 2 biamped.
1 Like
Yes I did bi-amp with two Nap 500’s. You need a special “y” cable from Naim which splits the signal from the 552 two wys.
I thought it gave a big increase in sound quality. It was much cleaner and clearer and there was a big improvement in the soundstaging.
3 Likes
I think there are one or two misunderstandings here that need clarifying.
First, the Hicap has nothing whatsoever to do with the power amp. It’s sole purpose is to power a Naim preamp, and it’s possible to use it as an optional upgrade to the preamp in a Supernait.
As for passive biamping, if Naim thought it was such a dreadful idea they wouldn’t provide a dedicated biamp output on the Supernait. So it certainly has its place, but lets be clear about what that is. With passive biamping we are talking about quantity, not quality. The second amp is there to provide extra power and this can be very useful when you have power hungry speakers but do not wish to climb the expensive Naim separates upgrade ladder.
What I would do is this: ask a Naim dealer to set up a demo comparing your system with an additional power amp (200 or 250, or whatever your budget will stand) with a 282/Hicap/200 or 250. As you already have a Hicap the straight exchange of a Supernait for a 282 is not such a huge leap, and you will only need a single set of speaker cables.
Do not be confused by the rated power output of the SN3 and 250 being the same at 80W. The 250 is considerably more capable with demanding loads, mainly to its regulated design.
Finally, your sources are a big consideration in this decision. Improving amplification makes a system much more revealing of its source quality, and if you are going to need a better source that may involve significant additional cost.
4 Likes
Richard, I agree with what you say! Passive bi- or tri-amplification is interesting with some speakers if the crossovers are well designed; I listened to B&W 802 and 804 at a friends house. With two Nap 250’s it was far superior to a pair of Nap 135’s. I have Linn Isobarik DMS/PMS, external crossovers, the Isobarik sound much better with 2 or 3 nap 250’s compared to 135’s.
I like the active(Snaxo3-6 S-cap) with my Linn PMS, but also the passive tri-amp.
Interesting, I was also of the impression that bi amping also isolates the back EMF produced by drivers, especially bass drivers, from interacting with the other drivers in the same speaker, although I agree that any benefit from such an increase in hardware might not be thought to be cost effective.
According to my experiments and feelings, for both active and passive, I have always found that a top amplifier was preferable to 2 bottom amplifiers (nap 180 before 2x140, nap 250 before 2x180; on SBL) but 2x250 before mono naps 135. For 35 years I used this practice, with my Naim speakers, IBL, SBL, SL2 and PXO passive crossovers. Except in active.
In 2015, with the bi- or tri-ampl passive, on the B&W 802; 804 and Linn Isobarik, the involvement in the music is the indispensable priority, the quantity is suffered, it is always a constraint.
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.