2nd Hand NAP500 !
Posted by: Martin D on 26 June 2001
Martin
What I want to get across is that for me the 500 does the MUSIC thing delightfully, everything just sounds right and effortless. I always thrilled at the prospect of hearing a six pack and I believe there are some inherent advantages to active systems, BUT the 500 in passive mode is just such a leap forward that for me the music advantages were too difficult to ignore
"Last year, a chap in Derby did just what you wrote" Spookey !!
I don't know the guy, and I don't know why he liked Krell, but different people have different tastes. I like some of the thing Krell does, like deep, deep, well controlled, tunefull bass and a relaxed, well rounded natural sound - perhaps he did too ?
I also like some of the things that Naim does, like play tunes, with instruments that kind of remind you of the real thing, and (when the power supply is on form) bring you emotion that is hauntingly real.
Perhaps I'll just have to buy both systems 
Cheers
Don
quote:
There are three signal outputs available from a Supercap. I could use each one to drive a pair of 135's and feed the signal to the ES30 drivers. AFAIK there is just one capacitor in line with the tweeter. Every other driver is directly linked, and uses the build of the voice coil and the mechanics of the driver itself as a form of filter.
I have exactly this arrangement, except the hardware involved is down a few levels! Our Roksan RokONE speakers (2-way) also dispense with a conventional passive crossover, with just a single capacitor in the tweeter wiring. We have 2 x NAP160s which are non-identical, so one drives L & R tweeters, and the other drives both mid/bass units. The 160s run from sockets 1 & 2 of the HiCap. Works well!
Obviously if I was starting from scratch or buying new, it wouldn't be the best use of funds, but the second 160 was an unmissable bargain, and the combination is a very happy accident.
It'd be interesting to try a Snaxo to see if more components in the signal path could improve the result!
Best;
Mark
(an imperfect
forum environment is
better than none)
Just to clarify. Are you guys saying that because the X-over systems in your speakers are very direct, bi- or triamping is virtually the same as running them actively? I have Epos 22s which can be triamped. I guess this would apply in this instance? Any comments (I have no idea about the types of X-over these speakers have).
Cheers,
Jens
quote:
Just to clarify. Are you guys saying that because the X-over systems in your speakers are very direct, bi- or triamping is virtually the same as running them actively? I have Epos 22s which can be triamped. I guess this would apply in this instance? Any comments (I have no idea about the types of X-over these speakers have).
Jens, sorry for the delay in repying ... I've been away. Just to clarify, AFAIK all the older Epos's - and this holds for your ES22's - have no electronic crossover. Each driver unit is wired directly to the 4mm sockets with the exception of the tweeter which has a single capacitor to act as a high pass filter.
So I'm guessing that a multi amped passive setup with these may sound better than an active setup as there is no need for a SNAXO (i.e. more eletronics) in the signal path.
Active: LP12/geddon/ARO/KontrapunktB/Groove/52/supercap/supercap/SNAXO/2x500(!)/SBL
Passive: LP12/geddon/ARO/KontrapunktB/Groove/52/supercap/500/SBL
Results of the differences were inconclusive. The passive system had a lot less resolution, was messier, was flatter. But it was faster, punchier and more involving. It also appeared to have more 'swing'. The results also varied from track to track and genre to genre. Weird. We want to play some with the SNAXO before making a definite conclusion on which is better.
But if I were looking to spend £13k (Supercap/SNAXO/500), I would definitely not be thinking active because the difference is not substantial enough, whereas a pair of DBLs passive would give me much more in every sense of the music. No brainer.
This also means that if I were doing passive 135 versus active, then the results would be the same - i.e. not to go active but to consider other alternatives - in this case a bigger power amp. Although it's a bigger leap to the 500, that would be better money spent than the active setup in my view. The differences made by the active crossover are simply not substantial enough by comparison I believe.
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.
I'm not claiming to be an expert on active 500 systems, but I suspect some of this "disappointment" could be down to setup ?
I'm just today getting my 500 fired up and getting to grips with the problems associated with accomodating the beast. I'm stuck at the moment with only two racks - a two-tier for the CDS and 52 head units and a four-tier for everything else. Having squeezed the 500/500PS into the four-tier, along with the XPS and Supercap the whole thing looks a shambles. Its one big mess of interconnects, Snaics, Burndys, Speaker cables and mains cables (and I've only got one source !!). Its looks like a rats nest and I just knew instinctively before I started listening it wasn't going to be a success. On top of all this, the equipment in the four-tier probably weighs in excess of 100lbs.
I've gone from 2*135's to the 500 and right now I'm getting all the HiFi things, like increased detail, weight, dynamics and so on, but its just not quite there yet on an emotional/musical level. I'm not too worried, I'll soon be getting a third rack so I can put the 500/500PS in a rack of its own and spread things out in a more optimised way.
Knowing now what its like trying to setup a passive 500 system, going to an active system must be a magnitude worse. The cabling behind the racks you've got there must be a nightmare. I can't really see how you could get away with less than about 4 racks without getting into a real tangle thats just going to strangle the system.
Not that I don't disagree with your conclusion about how best to spend £13k, its just that I'm sure that when properly setup an active 500 system would not be found lacking in any area when compared to the passive system.
Would be very interested though in any quircks, tips or tricks you've experienced with seting up the 500 that you could share.
Allan
[This message was edited by Allan Probin on FRIDAY 20 July 2001 at 00:55.]
frank, i'd be very interested in your finding when yoiu get round to comparing 2x250 active vs 2x135 passive, all else equal. assuming of course this is what you were alluding to above.
fwiw, when i did this dem moons ago, the active 250 option was so much more musical it was a really obvious no-brainer. i do understand that once cant extrapolate to 500's, so although results with 500 surprise me, i dont doubt your assessment.
allan p: congratulations on your 500 purchase. let us know how you get on in the next few weeks, and
enjoy
ken
quote:
I'm not claiming to be an expert on active 500 systems, but I suspect some of this "disappointment" could be down to setup ?
In my humble (!) tri-amped 250s setup on DBLs, even minute adjustments on the active crossover (all six trim pots) radically affect the performance of the system for days, this exclusive of crossover warm-up.
It helps to have a test jig handy (Audio Precision ATS-1), to normalize the settings side-to-side (about 0.02 dB at reference 3V p-p), as left-to-right channel balance becomes very noticeable at close proximity in my smallish 11' x 14' room, where the speakers have been placed for optimal L-R tonal balance.
It also helps to have some experience adjusting a S-NAXO in various systems as, often, subtractive adjustments make a more significant difference on the sound (and transient performance, sideways) of the system.
Having had an active system (in various configurations: speakers, crossovers, amps) for the last five years, I can clearly say that it is easy to screw up without judicious use of taste.
Dave Dever, NANA
i suspect this may be very relevant in my even humbler 2x250 active sbl system. are you suggesting that the effect of any adjustment will take a few days to bed in? and that in the meantime, the system may not sound as intended?
your room is almost the same size as my office wherein my system resides -- normaly i listen from my desk which is right in the middle of the speakers -- i am hardly 1 metre from either speaker...
It also helps to have some experience adjusting a S-NAXO in various systems as, often, subtractive adjustments make a more significant difference on the sound (and transient performance, sideways) of the system.
even more intriguing now. so, reducing for example the bass trim ports to remove boom might actually end up negatively affectly speed of the system?? does this effect wear off in time? i guess my question is, without all the gear you mention, is it possible to adjust those pots in any a/b fashion using ones ears only??
look fwd to hearing from you...
enjoy
ken
ps: i have also always wondered why (a) the trim pots have to be so small -- a larger size would be more user friendly and allow one to make fine adjustment more easily. (b) the trim pots are not outside the snaxo box (covered in some clever way so no one accuses naim of providing tone controls) so one can adjust without switching things off -- my snaxo installation is such that i cant pull it out without disconnecting it first.
[This message was edited by ken c on FRIDAY 20 July 2001 at 17:18.]
quote:
reducing for example the bass trim ports to remove boom might actually end up negatively affectly speed of the system??
Actually, sometimes the other way round--it really depends on the room. These are all small adjustments, mind you.
As for adjustability, I've always wanted to have (made?) a right-angle non-conductive flat-head screwdriver-type tool with which to make adjustments with–one would use the handle, if you will, as a delicate means of adjustment (longer torque arm); ideally, this could be paired up with a lid that had been drilled with six holes in it + a template sheet denoting where the factory (or your previous) settings are, as with a sundial!
The other side of this is, perhaps the fewer, well-thought out adjustments you make, the better?
Dave Dever, NANA
you may find it useful to run the system with the sleeve removed from the SNAXO with the feet screwed in.
I run mine like this when I'm setting the system up, and I can adjust pot levels even in the middle of a track.
cheers, Martin
P.S. someone posted that their SNAXO sounded better this way, but PLEASE DON'T TRY THIS WITH MAINS POWERED KIT. Also, I once managed to drop a paperback book into my naked NAXO - so beware!
funny you should mention this. i was thinking of exactly the same. are you going to make one then? i think it would be very useful as you can then easily calibrate each setting and know precisely what the effect of each measured change is. right now its well nigh impossible to know just how much of a small change you have made.
martin: you may find it useful to run the system with the sleeve removed from the SNAXO with the feet screwed in.
many thanks -- i have thought about this but felt rather nervous leaving the snaxos insides exposed. but if i ever need to adjust these trim pots again, i will take up your suggestion.
enjoy
ken
Years ago I made just the type of screwdriver you have in mind (I think!)
I took one of those little 'electrical' screwdrivers that have a red/blue/yellow or green plastic handle (they are about 3 or 4 inches long).
I warmed the flat blade end (gas torch), then with the aid of a vice, a pair of pliers and a hammer, I gently bent the blade through 90 degrees, about half an inch from the tip.
I then pushed some heat-shrink tubing over most of the blade and 'hey-presto'- a screwdriver for getting into really tight spots and with a fair amount of leverage!
Screwdrivers are only 50p a shot so you could try a few without going bankrupt. File the blade tip if the SNAXO pot is very narrow.
I still have mine (blue handle)
Cheers
Don
i had a dream. i saw a snaxo with these trim pots adjustable from outside the snaxo box. they were reasonable sized knobs available hidden behind a recessed area in front on the snaxo, to the left of the on/off switch. the recessed area was only accessible when you clipped open a flap. there were 6 clearly graduated knobs/pots available for both 2-4 and 3-6, except that the mid range pots were not active for snaxo 2-4. the graduations were numbered 1-12, as in a clock. this special "snaxo for dummies" was slightly more expensive, and some people of the forum claimed it didnt sound as good as the old one.
then i woke up.
well, i should only very rarely adjusts these pots, so perhaps the present arrangement is more than adequate, if a little unfriendly...
now, where was i??
enjoy
ken