olive 250 vs 200/250mk2
Posted by: Action on 08 October 2003
Hi all
I've just upgraded my 72/hi/250 to 202/stageline/napsc/hi mk2/250.Now the problem is the 250, the dem i was given included the 200, which didn't come up to my 250 (1997),the dem of the 250/2 was only 30-35 mins ad I was unsure if it sounded better or just different,has anyone spent longer on this comparison and if so could I share your views .
ps II took my 250 to the shop so a small on/off consideration should be allowed for .
yours
Mike
I've just upgraded my 72/hi/250 to 202/stageline/napsc/hi mk2/250.Now the problem is the 250, the dem i was given included the 200, which didn't come up to my 250 (1997),the dem of the 250/2 was only 30-35 mins ad I was unsure if it sounded better or just different,has anyone spent longer on this comparison and if so could I share your views .
ps II took my 250 to the shop so a small on/off consideration should be allowed for .
yours
Mike
Posted on: 08 October 2003 by NB
Hi Mike,
Your old 250 will sound a little rougher at the edges than the new 250. The new 250 is definately smoother has more refinement and has grown up a little.
If you prefer the overall sound of the new kit then the new 250 is for you. However if you think the new kit is a little laid back for your tastes then stick with the old 250.
Regards
NB
Your old 250 will sound a little rougher at the edges than the new 250. The new 250 is definately smoother has more refinement and has grown up a little.
If you prefer the overall sound of the new kit then the new 250 is for you. However if you think the new kit is a little laid back for your tastes then stick with the old 250.
Regards
NB
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Paul B
Graham:
I have had a somewhat similar experience except with the 300. My dealer claims the new amps require a lengthy burn-in which is most likely true but IMO the newer amps do not time like the old series (from what I have heard so far). I compared 300 and 135s. The 300 imaged better, was more spacious but the 135s clearly were ahead in timing. However, it was not so bad that I won't give it another try at a later date. At this point though I am not convinced that the new 250 or 300 are right for me.
On the other hand, it is interesting that the timing issue did not occur with the 500 when I heard that beast compared to 135s.
Graham, in your situation, you should seriously consider going active with another olive 250 instead of new 250/300.
Paul
I have had a somewhat similar experience except with the 300. My dealer claims the new amps require a lengthy burn-in which is most likely true but IMO the newer amps do not time like the old series (from what I have heard so far). I compared 300 and 135s. The 300 imaged better, was more spacious but the 135s clearly were ahead in timing. However, it was not so bad that I won't give it another try at a later date. At this point though I am not convinced that the new 250 or 300 are right for me.
On the other hand, it is interesting that the timing issue did not occur with the 500 when I heard that beast compared to 135s.
Graham, in your situation, you should seriously consider going active with another olive 250 instead of new 250/300.
Paul
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Dev B
Graham,
Something must be wrong as the new 250 is a step ahead of the old 250. Mine didn't take too long to warm up and even out of the box had more authority than the 135's they replaced. I know this is subjective though!
regards
Dev
Something must be wrong as the new 250 is a step ahead of the old 250. Mine didn't take too long to warm up and even out of the box had more authority than the 135's they replaced. I know this is subjective though!
regards
Dev
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Emil F
Graham
That's wrong. There is no bass, balance and timing with the new series the first 6 weeks, except for the first 60 min.
You should do the demo again in 4 or 5 weeks. Otherwise somebody is trying to sell you old kit.
Regards,
Emil
That's wrong. There is no bass, balance and timing with the new series the first 6 weeks, except for the first 60 min.
You should do the demo again in 4 or 5 weeks. Otherwise somebody is trying to sell you old kit.
Regards,
Emil
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Dollan:quote:
Something must be wrong as the new 250 is a step ahead of the old 250.
Why does something have to be wrong? Maybe the new 250 isn't as good as the old one in some respects, certainly Graham seems to think so. I've got an old 250, and from what I've heard of the new one I'm in no hurry to change it.
Jamie
Jamie,
You come across as a bit arrogant in your postings. I did say that this is subjective.
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Allan Probin
I recently had the opportunity to compare the 250Mk2 with a pair of 135s and think I can relate to some of what Graham has said but my interpretation is a little different.
“Flabby bass and no timing” ?
The new 250 has a more powerful bass presentation than 135s, making the 135s sound lean and comparatively faster. This doesn’t necessarily make the bass from the new 250 flabby but it does tend to expose room problems more easily. Using the new 250 into SBLs firing across the width of my room did result in an unacceptable boominess that wasn’t triggered quite so readily by the 135s. Moving the speakers around so as to fire down the length of the room cured the excessive bass response of the room and revealed a very deep, tight and tuneful bass.
The 135s have a fast, attacking, exciting sound that I thought portrayed rhythms better than the new 250. The new 250 had better inner detail, was more tuneful and fluid and came across as more relaxed and effortless. Perhaps 135s won out on the macro dynamics whereas the new 250 won out on the micro dynamics. I can’t say that anything about the new 250 made me think “Christ, the timings out!” but perhaps what you are hearing as timing I am hearing as rhythm and as I said, I thought the 135s have the edge here.
I have huge respect for the 135s and would rate them about equal but different to the new 250. The fact that this level of performance can now be bought for half the cost of a pair of 135s when they were discontinued has to be seen as some kind of achievement for the new 250. I would have thought, based on my comparison with 135s, that the new 250 was noteably ahead of the old 250.
Allan.
“Flabby bass and no timing” ?
The new 250 has a more powerful bass presentation than 135s, making the 135s sound lean and comparatively faster. This doesn’t necessarily make the bass from the new 250 flabby but it does tend to expose room problems more easily. Using the new 250 into SBLs firing across the width of my room did result in an unacceptable boominess that wasn’t triggered quite so readily by the 135s. Moving the speakers around so as to fire down the length of the room cured the excessive bass response of the room and revealed a very deep, tight and tuneful bass.
The 135s have a fast, attacking, exciting sound that I thought portrayed rhythms better than the new 250. The new 250 had better inner detail, was more tuneful and fluid and came across as more relaxed and effortless. Perhaps 135s won out on the macro dynamics whereas the new 250 won out on the micro dynamics. I can’t say that anything about the new 250 made me think “Christ, the timings out!” but perhaps what you are hearing as timing I am hearing as rhythm and as I said, I thought the 135s have the edge here.
I have huge respect for the 135s and would rate them about equal but different to the new 250. The fact that this level of performance can now be bought for half the cost of a pair of 135s when they were discontinued has to be seen as some kind of achievement for the new 250. I would have thought, based on my comparison with 135s, that the new 250 was noteably ahead of the old 250.
Allan.
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Dev B
Allan,
Great post, as ever! In my room - 135's were bass light compared to the new 250. The newer amp had more detail and authority. The 135's while being a superb amp was more Mana-esque if you knwo what I mean.
regards
Dev
Great post, as ever! In my room - 135's were bass light compared to the new 250. The newer amp had more detail and authority. The 135's while being a superb amp was more Mana-esque if you knwo what I mean.
regards
Dev
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Action
Hi all
OK if I was slightly unsure before????
..in the theory of free hi-fi...sell 250.buy 135's suck it and see if Ilike em cos I caan always px them in the end>>>
OK if I was slightly unsure before????
..in the theory of free hi-fi...sell 250.buy 135's suck it and see if Ilike em cos I caan always px them in the end>>>
Posted on: 09 October 2003 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Dollan:quote:
Originally posted by Dev B:
Jamie,
You come across as a bit arrogant in your postings. I did say that this is subjective.
You say I come across as a bit arrogant, yet you're the one telling Graham there must be something wrong with the 250 just because he doesn't like it as much as the old one. I completely agree with him, so is there something wrong with the one I heard, too?
Jamie
JAmie,
Firstly it is not my intention to come across as arrogant - my apologies to Graham if this is the case. However, I have no wish to enter into an argument with you either except to make the observation that you seem to want one.
I will close by saying I did say this is subjective and if you like your amp or anything else that's fine with me - becasue I couldn't really care less.
Dev
ps. While typing this it's just occured to me that you are probably Marco trolling or something!
Posted on: 13 October 2003 by Paul Ranson
From GrahamJ's report it seems possible that he may need to look at his system setup, perhaps as simple as moving the speakers about a bit. A better amp revealing other issues IYSWIM. If he can make the system sound great with the new NAP250 it will probably also sound better with the old....
Yours arrogantly,
Paul
Yours arrogantly,
Paul