180 v 250

Mark when I got my 180 I was warned that its an unruly beast, to me that equates to big dynamics.

I have also heard constantly that the 250 is more refined, I read smoother.

Perhaps in time you will here the more subtle benifits of the 250.

In the mean time give us your 180 for 300 quid or less.

nice try garyi!

However, with LP12 on the way I suggest you plump for a 250 - there's real synergy there!

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Mark,
I am assuming that the 250 is new. You will find that it takes some time to get run in and warmed up. The 52 really will change things. The 250 starts to show you what it is capable of and will easily beat the 180. Stick with it. If you don't like it, I am sure that there will be a long queue waiting to buy it from you!

Regards,

Nigel

Finding that 'better' kit sounds 'worse' is a classic sign that a mullet is developing. On the face of it there's nothing wrong with your equipment, but it may be worth going through the system with a fine tooth comb, or (perhaps preferably) getting your dealer to do it. A fresh ear can make finding system problems easier.

Paul

Do not give up on the 250 - imo the 250 takes quite awhile to settle in from new. During that period, which I believe is actually closer to several months - especially if you play largely at low levels - the change will be dramatic.

Adding the 52 now will complicate the whole process as it will have to run-in too and again I believe this will take several months.

My advice (from an owner of a 52/250 who went through a similar questioning when upgrading) is to let it all settle for six months from installation of the 52. Try to "exercise" both by playing at high levels occasionally (to me, subjectively, this seemed to help the process but it may not in fact). Of course, leave the system on all the time, too! I used my 02 to keep it playing as much as possible.

If after six months you feel something is still not right, I would look elsewhere in your system for the problem. The 52/250 should be performing superbly at that point.

Paul

The idea that going up the latter a bit at one end renders the rest of your system obsolete at the other is absurd. When is this insanity going to stop.

The 250 and 180 are differant beasts. I went from a 180 to a 250. I prefer the 250 "on balance", but not in ever area--PRAT being one of them. First, the 250 is warmer, which may give the impression (as real as dirt to the person listening) that it is slower. It's also smoother and more refined. It had more weight and simply does NOT run out of steam when the lesser 180 does. BUT, to my ears, the 180 seems a "bit" more exciting. I happen to think the 180 is a bit cold at times, and perhaps a bit unruly. But, it IS exciting to listen to. Still, for my money, I like the 250 better (for my money, I like the 140 better than the 180--but that is another can of worms).

Also, I find the differences between a 250 and lesser Naim power amp to be considerably enhanced when used with a speaker like the sbl. Despite what is often said here, I think the sbl is somewhat difficult to drive well, and it effectively seperates the men from the boys when it comes to power amplifiers. (maybe not so difficult to drive, but "revealing", perhaps). The differences between the 250 and the lesser Naim amps are less pronounced (at least in my system) when driving some other kinds of speakers (Neat Petites or spendors, for instance).

Judd

Thanks for the comments guys. Anyone out there actually prefer the 180 to the 250? Some points of detail to add about my system - the 250 was not new when I acquired it (manufactured Aug 2001), the hardware is on Fraim and I have SBLs. I guess I need to be patient especially once the 52 arrives. I'm also thinking maybe my dealer should have warned me about the warmer (duller?) character of the 250 instead of simply saying it's a no-brainer over the 180 (which I had assumed). BTW I used to have a CDI which when I heard partnered with a 250 sounded brilliant - now there I can see the 250's warmth complementing the leaner qualities of the CDI over the warmer sounding CDX. Like many postings on this forum I was sorry to part with the CDI, but needs must if my ultimate aim is a CDS2!
Mark

Mark,

Thanks for the post, I thought I was the only one and actually going mad!

I preferred a new 180 to a new 250. The only thing I preferred about the 250 was a clearer (stereo image/loss of tonal definition, sorry I don't know the right words to describe it but it's the thing you get from the really expensive type of hi-fi with lots of room treatments etc) sound which was matched and maybe surpassed by adding a second 180 and running both in mono. I know this may sound strange, but it really does work!

However, a caveat is that I have not "lived" with a 250 and like all things Naim, therein probably lies the truth as others have pointed out.

I have had a chance to compare with well run in 135s and the 180 sounds more like the 135 than the 250 to my ears (of course the 135 is much more refined, how much depends on the speakers).

Incidentally, I believe that NANA (and Naim HQ?) consider the 180 better sounding than the 250 for the dual mono configuration so you are not alone in your observations.

Jeremy

You are not daft or mad. You hear what you hear.

The 250 IS better; IF everything else is right.

You have SBL's and Fraim, which would suggest that you like a lean fast sound. I would guess that you have a room problem which is thickening and 'slowing' the sound. The 180 'cures' this by sounding leaner.

Get the room issue sorted and you will prefer the 250. I presume it's new?

My experience is that power amps sound quite different as they 'warm-up'.

Switch on - A bit raw but pretty good.
24 hours - Smoother but thick and slow.
3 days - 90% there.
7 days - 100%.
2 months for the full effect with brand new kit.

My experience of 82 to 52 was of a much more sophisticated sound which was 'presented' rather than 'thrown'. Don't expect a 52 to sound faster than an 82. It conveys loads of detail but in a structured, layered manner.

Someone on the conference once kindly described the 82 as having a 'youthful exuberance' by comparison.

I run active 250's into SBL's and have Fraim. I cannot use the system in the 'logical' place in my lounge as it has a bloody awful bass hump around 40/50 Hz; so use it in a smaller room, with acoustic panels to tame the room.

I suspect if you do a search on "180" with James Jong as author you will find his views on the 180-250 changeover.

Me? When faced with the demo, I bought the 250. I understand what it is that some prefer about the 180.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

No, I'm not convinced that a 250 is always better than a 180.

One interesting point. When the Allae:s were demoed at my dealer this winter (with CDX/XPS/102/HI-cap/250) I from the beginning presumed that they where using a 180. After some listening it came to me. This must be a 250! I checked, and it was.

There is a distinct difference between them, but I have problems putting it into words. Verbally describe how Hifi sounds is not easy. So I won't!

My conclusion is that they sound different, but I can't decide wich one is the better, so I use a 180 as it's cheaper.

It's much easier with the pre amps. A 52, for example, sounds better than a 82. Period.

JohanR