Active 135's with SBL's

Posted by: Neil Bennett on 31 August 2001

Posted on: 31 August 2001 by Dev B

Welcome to the forum.

I would get a CDS2 before you do anything. 135's active into SBL's are a great upgrade if you can get the 135's second hand.

You can assemble an active system really easily (i.e connect everything up) but adjusting the SNAXO takes time and patience. Start with the SNAXO on flat, warm the whole system up (takes about three weeks), leave the the cover off the SNAXO and start experimenting.

I would also sort your LP12 out before going active. I wouldn't bother with the new bearings on the Ekos if your bearings are fine anyway, just make sure the cartridge is in good condition (i,e not worn out).

Also you may want to plug your lingo into another spur away from the Naim electronics (or have the Lingo modded - speak to Andrew Weekes - the Lingo screws up the sound of Naim systems)

Posted on: 06 September 2001 by Neil Bennett

Thanks for the enthusiasm on active solutions. Has anyone directly compared the 4x135's with a 500 passive?

Posted on: 06 September 2001 by ken c

Has anyone directly compared the 4x135's with a 500 passive?

i think bob edwards(?) has. and his conclusion was that passive 500 was better. makes you think what active 500 would sound like. but this is one demo you probably have to do yourself and come to your own conclusions.

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 06 September 2001 by Martin Payne

I've never heard a NAP500 with SBLs, but I have heard reports that as well as getting the most from them it also shows up their limitated volume potential.

A bit like 135s with Kans - so capable, but the dynamics can also stress them out.

I guess this wouldn't be so much of a problem in a small room, or if you don't want lots of volume.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 06 September 2001 by Martin Payne

quote:
Originally posted by ken c:
makes you think what active 500 would sound like.

Ken,

I would be stunned if, having got to 1x500 & SBLs, you wouldn't get a huge lot more by replacing the SBLs with NBLs or DBLs rather than getting a second 500.

They'rrre great.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 07 September 2001 by Allan Probin

quote:
I would be stunned if, having got to 1x500 & SBLs, you wouldn't get a huge lot more by replacing the SBLs with NBLs or DBLs

Agreed. Having listened to 500/SBL and 500/DBL, the DBL system is just soooo effortless.

For anyone intimately familiar with the comparison between Kans and SBLs the difference between SBLs and DBLs is very similar.

Both are superbly fast and communicative but in comparison one has much better weight, scale, perspective, refinement, dynamics and just all-round effortlessness. This comparsion can be applied to Kan vs SBL or SBL vs DBL

Allan

Posted on: 07 September 2001 by ken c

this is "day dream" time -- i am nowhere near even considering the dizzy heights of the 500 yet. heck, my 350 active system has not settled down yet!!!

but this is good fun anyway. martin, you say:
I would be stunned if, having got to 1x500 & SBLs, you wouldn't get a huge lot more by replacing the SBLs with NBLs or DBLs rather than getting a second 500.

ahhhhh, interesting. so i guess the weak link when you have 500 moves from amplification to the speakers --- i.e. the 500 is far too good for the SBL's?? i can well believe that, but i don't know for sure till i audition, which will not be soon.

allan p: Agreed. Having listened to 500/SBL and 500/DBL, the DBL system is just soooo effortless.

so, how do you rate the NBL's. have you listened to them at all?

so you guys are suggesting 250/sbl -->500/dbl --> 3*500/dbls. some upgrade path!!!

enjoy

ken

Posted on: 07 September 2001 by Martin Payne

I know someone who was looking to upgrade from active 250 SBLs.

He compared the NAP500 with SBLs against DBLs driven passively off one channel of each 250.

He bought the DBLs, and I was very impressed with them, but there was something not quite right about the overall sound. The passive NAP250s weren't really up to the job - maybe 2x135s would be better, or a third 250 & active?

However, the NAP500 followed fairly soon after.

When I first heard pre-production NBLs on 6x135s at Naim's demo room I was very impressed. There were aspects to the sound which just weren't right, but there was a tremendous sense of realism & resolution which I had not realised was possible from a Naim system.

Martin Colloms' NBL review (or was it the NAP500 one?) reckoned the NBL perhaps had even better imaging than the DBL. I can understand where this statement came from.

cheers, Martin

Posted on: 08 September 2001 by Bob Edwards

Neil--

Listen to Dev and get the CDS2 first.

After that, I would personally go for a 500. I've heard the same SBLs powered by active 135s/SNAXO/Supercap (and set up perfectly) and a single 500 passive is quite dramatically better. SBLs active with 500s is better again, but you hear the SBLs as the limiting factor (!). The flip side is that going active for you would be a lot cheaper, and does represent a substantial upgrade in performance.

You really have to hear both.

Cheers,

Bob

Ride the Light !

Posted on: 10 September 2001 by jpk73

Hi!

Today I compared my SBL with active IXO/2*90 and with 2*135 passive... I don't know what was "better", but I know I would stay active, maybe with 4*135 or 2*250...?

Next week I will listen to a friends DBL and demo 6*135 against 3*250!

I want soon upgrade my 92/IXO/90; is 82/Hi/Snaxo/2*250 "enough" for SBL or is 52/Snaxo/4*135 again a really huge improvement over 82/Hi/Snaxo/2*250?

BTW: are there differences between oldstyle-135s and new-design-135?

Thanks in advance for your advice!
Jun

Posted on: 10 September 2001 by Martin Payne

quote:
Originally posted by Jun Keller:
BTW: are there differences between oldstyle-135s and new-design-135?

The newer 135s have a more up-front, dynamic, leaner sound. Older ones are warmer, more easy-going, possibly less demanding of the front end?

This is caused by different transformers, but I understand the new tranny was introduced only shortly before the new cosmetics.

cheers, Martin