Here's one for debate...

in the meantime, there appears to be quite a strong vote for passive 500 from which you can always upgrade to active 500's in the future -- boy, i wonder what that is like??

enjoy

ken

I've heard the NBL driven by a pair of 135s, and it was very good. I haven't heard it with a 250, though.

If you like the way your 804s sound, then my guess is that you wouldn't like NBLs. Therefore, the 500 is probably your next best step. However, if you're not devoted to B&W's personality, then you may find that the NBLs are the way to go.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

David

enjoy

ken

David

This really is a no-brainer. By all means, have fun with the demo, but I think you'll come out with a 500.

I agree with others here that the 804 is alright, but limited in some ways, particularly speed (where the NBL is pretty darn good of course). However, the 250, for all its benign character, is not as fast as some would think. So you're in a swings'n'roundabouts situation where you trade the ability of your speakers against that of the amps.

My personal opinion is that the 500 will grab the 804s by the b*lls and make them do what's appropriate, whereas the 3x250 will simply be compounding the weaknesses of the 250. Yes, you'll have active operation on your side, but my experience with the lower distortion levels of the 500 tell me that it will win the day.

The added benefit with this solution is that once you've finished paying off the 500 you'll be able to consider many more options for speakers than you would if you were limited to the capabilities of the 3x250s. Thus you could look at NBLs, DBLs(?) Mezzo Utopias, Wb Act1, etc. With the active 250s in place your main option would be to upgrade the amps which then would mean either going to 135s (similar problems to the 250, just less so) or one 500 at a time (a mixed blessing with the less capable amps in the system). Doesn't make sense to me.

Incidentally, if you do go for the 500, once it's all run in and you're blissfully happy, ask your dealer to lend you a run of DIN-DIN Chord Anthem between CDS2 and 52 for a few days. We have found that the extra cleanliness of the 500 exposes the standard Naim interconnect somewhat. The anthem really opens things up without ruining the PR&T we all love in Naim systems. It's a surprisingly good upgrade - but for 500 systems only. Other Naim systems are best wired with the standard interconnect I find.

Finally, I appreciate you're happy with your source, but I find myself asking 'has this man heard what a really good cartridge can do in his system?' The difference between the Klyde and any of a number of cartridges in the £1200 price range is astronomical and could arguably be more than the rest of the changes you're considering. In the case of the 500 system it's even more imperative, given the extra clean nature of the amp, which would allow a cartridge of that calibre to breathe properly. (And after that you want a demo of a Tom Evans Groove:)

Regards,
Frank.

I think you're mostly spot on about the 500 vs 3x250s but it appears you missed that Nigel would be moving to NBLs active with 3 250s/Snaxo/*cap. In that situation the NBLs might actually win when compared to a 500/804 system. Have to hear them both, though.

Cheers,

Bob

Ride the Light !Ï

Emmanuel

Frank I think the hot weather must be affecting your judgement, this is NOT what we heard with this cable and would not advise customers to use it with our equipment.

I didn't miss the NBL part of the equation. I felt that the benefits of the NBLs were overshadowed by using the 250s. Admittedly, the combination of NBLs, extra 250, and active operation brings things closer, but you still don't get around the bottleneck in the system (if you can call active 250s a bottleneck!). The upgrade path from active 250 to 500 active system is difficult so the benefits of 500 technology will be delayed significantly. I feel that those benefits outweigh those proferred by the 250-based active system.

The extra benefit is that Nigel can biamp with 2x500s if he wants to before having to go the whole hog with the fully active 500 NBL system. This means he wouldn't have to fork out £30k at once (as he has said) much further down the road and he gets the benefits now, and in more palatable stages (big palate!).

Paul - sorry, but I like what the Anthem does in that scenario.

JC - I don't care whether the system is active or passive. All things being equal, active operation has many benefits over passive operation. This is for several reasons:

The distortion levels in the passive crossovers of speakers are about 10 times more than you get in active crossovers.

There is much more wasted power in driving passive crossovers than driving an active one.

System balance is more accurate with an active crossover.

Therefore, if you had CDS2/52/2x180 driving passive speakers in biamped mode. If you bought a HICAP/SNAXO and activated the system, it would be significantly superior to the passive system.

However, it is my argument that the benefits of the active operation are hampered by the roadblock (!) of the 180s. You lose the extra headroom, cleanliness and pace offered by the SNAXO because the 180s can't do it! BUT, if you add a significantly more powerful amplifier, with lower distortion levels and better voltage regulation built-in such as 250/135/500, the power losses in the passive crossover become less significant. The distortion levels in the passive crossover are of less consequence. You benefit from the better power delivery.

JC - The first time I heard this was actually in a Linn system something like yours about 10 years ago. We had a Karik/Numerik/Kairn/Kabers. We drove them actively with 3xLK100s and passively with one Klout. The Klout was a lot better. It had better pace and rhythm - and it added clarity, focus, freedom, detail, depth, you name it. The benefit of using a proper power amp over three broken ones was absolute. I feel that a similar thing happens with Naim amps. Until recently, I was only really happy with activating 135s or 250s at a pinch if really necessary (though I prefer passive 135s to active 250s for the reasons cited above). The 500 just brings the whole argument back into focus. It's a totally new development as opposed to an evolution of practice as the 135 was. Therefore, you can't get what the 500 does by going active with the older designs.

So no - I have no problem with active operation, but I believe it's to be used when optimum passive operation has been reached. There is one exception to this. A room with a strong resonant behaviour (such as a square 12 foot room) would benefit from treble or bass frequency adjustment. You can't do this with passive operation so active is a candidate to help control the situation.

Regards,
Frank.
PS Nigel - I'll be very interested in your results...

If I had your money then I would

1) Sell the B&Ws

Either

a) Buy the NBLs and save for a 500 later
b) Buy a DNM 3C Six/2x DNM PA3S/Living Voice OBX-R

If you haven't listened to system b, then you have missed out. It's like buying Naim without listening to Linn.

Dealers like Loud & Clear, Definitive Audio and Midlands Audio Exchange will be able to do the dem for you.

Oh, and woodface, without Nigel's so-called parading of his wallet he wouldn't have found this out.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

My budget has never changed - it's about deciding what the best thing to do with £10k is.

Others,

Thanks for your discussion and I will let you know what I find.

Nigel

quote:

---

but I could do without sharing the angst of whether you will be spending £10k or £30k!

---

Oh the pain of it all [mopping beaded brow]!

Remember this, it's guys like NigelP that keep our favourite hi-fi companies afloat and products available for us to buy when the time is right.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on FRIDAY 29 June 2001 at 17:07.]

[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on FRIDAY 29 June 2001 at 17:08.]

You can match active crossover components to closer tolerances than those in the higher power passive crossover. So left/right balance should be better in active than passive mode.

The active crossover can be adjusted in situ to tailor bass/treble output depending on location, so the system balance can be adapted to the room.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

quote:

---

Andrew, I think you will find it is probably the bread and butter products that keep naim afloat

---

Do you only want a "bread and butter product?"

Without all those rich people buying SBLs in the 80's and 90's, you wouldn't be owning any.

If you want verification of that, then look what at happened to the IBLs.

Also, Naim would not produce their high-end products if there wasn't a market for them. If it wasn't for guys like NigelP there would never be a product like the NAP 500 available for the public.

It's something to aspire to, guys like you and NigelP provide me with enough time to save for such goodies.

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;

[This message was edited by Andrew Randle on FRIDAY 29 June 2001 at 17:08.]

The benefit of having the discussion is that (hopefully) there will be a resolution when Nigel has the demo - a personal resolution he will publish (won't you Nige?:). Also, enough debate has occurred that any other viable options would have been discussed (thus making the demo more interesting or relevant for Nigel).

The debate would have been just as valid if Nigel was trying to choose between going active with 150s versus going with a passive 250. The difference is where in the chain, but the arguments would be similar and the debate just as valid.

Also, this is an interesting discussion since active operation is relatively rare, so it introduces the concept to those not in the know. As you know, threads tend to have a life all of their own and go on tangents which are fun to explore. It hasn't happened this time, the thread remaining remarkably on point, apart from this question of whether it's worth having.

As to which products make or break Naim, I wouldn't want to hazard a guess unless I had their sales figures in front of me. Personally I think Naim depends on all its customers just as much. The high end customers are important since they bring in low volume high revenue deals, but on the other hand the "low end" customers are the high volume lower revenue market.

The one thing that supports your "bread and butter" theory, is that many customers go through various stages of the upgrade path. So this year's entry level customer is next year's mid-level or high end customer.

Regards,
Frank.
All opinions are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any organisations I work for, except where this is stated explicitly.

not quite sure this is quite "in topic", but just felt like saying it anyway...

i am also looking fwd to reading your report NigelP.

enjoy

ken

Andrew

Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;