135's revisited...
Posted by: ken c on 29 September 2003
I know this has been done to death before, but… just to break from heathrow reports...
Sometime ago when I visited my nephew in Bournemouth, I was very impressed with his cdi/72/135/intro system. Sounded quite good. I asked him to bring over his 135’s next time he visited us so i can hear them again. He duly obliged last weekend.
As you recall, I did the active 250/passive 135 comparison at Grahams 2 years ago – at that time active was clearly superior. However, I was excited about the possibility to revisit this comparison in my own listening room and in my own time. So I extracted the passive x-overs from the loft, and connected the 135’s up to my sbl’s on Friday night. I left the system to settle down on radio input overnight to give the whole passive set-up the change to warm-up.
We listened to the passive 135 set-up Saturday evening. here is what happened...
We didn’t make a prior decision as to what music to play – we just played whaveter we fancied as we went along – quite a lot of records, mostly CD, (except Joe Cocker’s “Organic” which was Vinyl). Some of the stuff we played:
(a) The Highlife All Stars (various artists)
(b) Joshua Redman “Wish”
(c) Keith Jarrett “Standards Vol 1”
(d) Eric Beeb “Needed Time”
(e) Mendelsohn “Song without Words”
(f) Victoria “Missa Trahe me Post Te”
(g) Schubert “Die Schone Mullerin” (Hyperion)
(h) Mozart “Clarinet Quintet in A Major K581” (Hyperion)
(i) Joe Cocker “Organic” (on Vinyl)
Part of the time during listening my daughter was there to “help”. She brought her copy of mis-education of Lauren Hill. She has latched on to the idea of an “active” system hook line and sinker after I had given her my half baked explanation to (“daddy, why do you need all those black boxes?”). in fact she was a bit nervous that I was about to take a “backward” step, until I explained to her that we were just messing about, really...
Very soon after we had started listening to the 135’s, I was aware of why I was keen to conduct this test. These amps sounded quite different to the active 250's.
The first thing that struck me vividly was just how “quiet” they were – the silences were much, much darker than with the active 250’s. Sometimes quite startling. Several tracks on albums (a), (b), (g) highlight this well.
The next thing that struck me was the treble – my god that treble is sweet. It wasn’t a matter of quantity – the 250’s in my system manage the same amount (and I can always adjust how much with the active x-over anyway) – but the treble quality (high hats, brush work, etc) sounded much better and truer to the instrument with 135’s than with the 250’s.
The other striking aspect of the 135’s was their warmth and greater sense of ease – giving the impression that there was very little struggle driving the speakers especially with (a). The sound was therefore sweeter – piano had this unfamiliar but refreshing “liquid” character, for example, on (c) and (g).
other positives were more detail -- yes i could hear more with the 135's. several times, i said to myself, "gosh, i never heard that before".
Oh, boy what’s going on here? Did I make a mistake going the active route with 250’s?
With your permission, I will break this rather long posting here and continue in a second instalment very soon.
Till then, enjoy…
Ken
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by Rasher
I always find listening at a dealer's and listening at home vastly different.
Oh dear Ken...where is this taking you?
Rasher (with two nicely warmed up 135's at home waiting for me)
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by Dev B
Ken, I upgraded my passive 135s to passive new 250 Mk2 with great results, more drive, more power, more subtely...you should try this. But I am surprised that yor active is not working to a standard near to the passive 135's. I have heard active systems sometimes can be problematic and on a friends active DBL system I can hear negartive the effect of small auboptimal changes to the SNAXO - is yours working as it should?
regards
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by mctavishmacturbot
Dev, sounds like i should give the new 250 a go - were your 135's reasonably fresh? And are you still running 250 x 1?
cheers
John
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by Martin Payne
quote:
The other striking aspect of the 135’s was their warmth and greater sense of ease
Ken,
I echo Dev's comments. I would expect the active system to be much closer to the 135s, and better in many ways.
It is very easy to mess up an active system. JN had a 2x250 active SBL system on two 4-tier Fraims.
After a lot of nagging I persuaded him to remove the second Supercap from under the SNAXO and stack it on top of the powered stack. The sound cleaned up hugely. It was even better when we re-configured the Fraim as a three-stack and a five.
You really have to consider very carefully how you have changed your system setup.
An active system can have very good depth, and should also give you loads of detail.
cheers, Martin
E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by ken c
Ladies and Gentleman: second instalment as promised. I hope I didn’t keep you waiting too long -- many thanks for your patience.
So far, the 135’s were winning hands down. Mesmerising treble, hypnotising warmth, intriguingly dark silences – what more could one ask for?
But it wasn’t all beer and skittles…
We played my daughter’s “Contrabasso Scherzando” – a classical double bass solo CD that I bought her for her birthday. She also plays double bass in the county youth orchestra. Her immediate reaction – "the double bass doesn’t sound as authentic as on the active system". “Sounds a bit wrong” she said. Hmm..?? Next, Lauryn Hill’s “To Zion”. Sounded great, but our attention was drawn to a rather full bass line, which lacked definition somewhat - hard to follow.
On Eric Bibb’s “Where Shall I Be” the track had somehow lost some of the interest – we didn’t know why – it was OK, but we sure didn’t feel like playing it to the end.
As I reconnected the active system, I was beginning to form a view of the differences between these systems. The very sweet treble of the 135’s was hard to forget – and those dark silences – that sense of ease.
The 250’s had been on all the time so there were no warm-up issues. Nevertheless we didn’t listen to the active system till a few hours later.
Let me state straightaway that the two systems did sound quite “different”. The passive 135 duet is very good indeed, until you listen to the active configuration -- and another world opens out for you.
On the active system – the interest and engaging character of Eric Bibb’s “Where Shall I Be” was back in truckloads. The focus was very much on the WAY he was playing the guitar – inflections and all. Also there was a lot more of the acoustic captured by the active system – much, much more. The track also sounded a little faster on the active system – it soon finished before we knew it!! There was also a lot more emotion on the title track – “Needed Time”.
Next, Joshua Redman’s “Wish” to see what we would feel about the treble. This was to be an interesting exercise because we found it very difficult to focus on the treble – there was so much else going on musically. To be honest, what there was, was nowhere as good and shimmering as on the 135’s – but this aspect of the track became subdued in other aspects. the saxophone... drums...
On the Highlife CD, it was obvious that the active system wasn’t as detailed and as easy going – I could hear more through the 135’s, but the active 250’s did more with the slightly less detail that it presented. In terms of musical nuances – much, much more. The tune in that talking drum!! However, the 250’s didn’t have that great sense of ease – there seemed quite a bit of musical tension and effort in its presentation. “No prisoners” kind of scene. Greater slam but noisier background on the 250’s.
It was also easier to pick up and follow individual vocal lines on the 250’s – Schubert’s German Mass in G showed that clearly – and also Opus “Cantate Domino”. The harmonic structure was clearer – so was the lyric. Tunes were more emphatically etched.
Piano was not as liquid as on the 135’s – but the liquidness was replaced by a very authentic woody resonance that made piano sound like piano. In truth, you could also hear that on the 135’s but with a bit of effort. Another interesting difference.
Before I finish, I must report that all the differences between the two systems were greatly magnified on vinyl!!! The inflexions and hoarseness (sp?) in Joe Cocker’s voice on "Organic" was captured a lot better on the active system.
So, where does this leave me? I was half entertaining the notion that I could sell the SNAXO and its Supercap and use the proceeds to part fund a CDS3 purchase – but I am notgoing to do that. One side result of this listening test is that my SBL’s are NOT the weakest link in my current system.
What would be nice would be 135’s treble, sense of ease and detail – and warmth – but active’s much greater musicality – which I think means a 4 pack system for me. So I am in the market for trading in my 250’s for 4x135’s. Anyone downsizing? I know there are these new kids on the block - 250MkII, 300, etc… before I part with my money – I will probably give these a listen -- but my initial hunt is for a quartet of 135's.
This was an interesting test, if a little nerve-wrecking. Active does make a very significant musical difference…
Thanks for reading…and for the various comments… I now know why people may have different preferences on active 250 vs. passive 135.
Enjoy
Ken
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by Dev B:
Ken, I upgraded my passive 135s to passive new 250 Mk2 with great results, more drive, more power, more subtely...you should try this. But I am surprised that yor active is not working to a standard near to the passive 135's. I have heard active systems sometimes can be problematic and on a friends active DBL system I can hear negartive the effect of small auboptimal changes to the SNAXO - is yours working as it should?
regards
i will give the new amps a listen sometime ... and if i go this way, it may then be time to change quite a few of the other components. meantime, a pre-loved 4-pack would be grand. i havent worked out how this works out in relation to a single 300 for example.
i know active systems can be problematic and finicky. i think my snaxo is adjusted OK. the problem i had was with non-matched 250's -- this dogged my system for a while.
many thanks ...
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by ken c
actually, whle i had the 135's, i could have connected a psedo 4 pack system with 2x250 on bass and 2x135 on treble, but i wasnt sure of the wiring -- by the time i got a reply from naim, who were obviousy busy at the show (thanks richard) the 135's had gone back...
i am not sure how much of a step fwd that would have been from 2x250, but would have been interesting nevertheless. distinct disadvantage is that it would have shortened listening tests.
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 29 September 2003 by Ron Toolsie
The active 250 vs the passive 135 will always be an exercise in frustration. How do you decide on which compromise is acceptable when you know deep down that there is no acceptable compromise. You want the swings of one with the roundabouts of the other. In retrospect I have found the differences between a good amp and a great amp rather larger than between passive with good amps and active with merely good amps. What we all strive to is active system based around the finest and nothing less.But going active should probably be the LAST step, rather than an intermediate one. Far better with a 552/500/passive than a 52/6x135/Snaxo/SC/Burndy/4 extra runs of NACA5 active for about the same expenditure. Compromises, once identified become immediately intolerable. And the compromises of a mullet active system seem to be far greater than that of a higher spec passive one.
Also note that the original Snaxo in retrospect (and comparison with the latest generation ones) is rather dull and leaden, and a significant portion of the theoretical benefits of going active are bottlenecked by it. The latest Snaxo 362 is as almost as far ahead as the original Snaxo as is the 300 to the 135s. BUT....still better to use a passive 500 than maybe even active 300s with the latest Snaxo. Maybe in the same way that a decent passive preamp can sometimes greatly outperform a decent active one, then too a halfway decent passive x/o can allow the very significant gains of a superior power amp to shine though.
I will shortly have much to say about the state of the passive crossovers with regards to theoretical and practical ablities limited by design, price points and implementation. Watch this space.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Posted on: 30 September 2003 by Dev B
quote:
I will shortly have much to say about the state of the passive crossovers with regards to theoretical and practical ablities limited by design, price points and implementation. Watch this space.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Ron, say it!,say it! - looking forward to a good read.
regards
Dev
Posted on: 30 September 2003 by ken c
ron, i think you have put it a lot better than i did. the fact that a 135 is a better amp than the 250 cannot be gainsaid -- also the fact that active brings significant musical gains. however, active with lower amps means you may have to accept some compromises -- its then a question of whether one can live with these compromises.
i trully love my active 250 system, (and as an aside, i found i love my sbl's even more) but with 135's, its a question of "once bitten, smitten". there is no denying that the inferiority of the 250 in relation to 135 cannot be masked by going active with 250's, although the benefits of active are still there to behold.
for someone with a single 250, the active route is a definite upgrade. for someone with an active 250 system, passive 135's is a sideways move -- you will gain some and lose some. conversely, if you have a passive 135 system, going active with 250's is also a sideways move. each of these moves could be considered slightly "downhill" depending on what you consider important. given where i am, i definitely would not go passive with 135's. the next significant step is definitely active 4 pack -- in which i expect to gain the musicality and drive of active, but the ease, detail, darker backgrounds and fantastic treble of the bigger amp.
however, with the new stuff, i know the plot is thicker than that. how does a 4 pack compare with passive 300? i reckon i can get a 4 pack for £6000, which probably works out to something like £4000 or more with the 250's tradein. a single 300 is pretty close at £4750.
of course, for the time being i am ignoring the benefits that a cds3 might bring to my system as is, but this is only one source -- i also play vinyl, a lot... so the amp decision makes more sense right now. and oh, there is the 552... fortunately i cannot afford that right now, so that decision is made for me.
thanks for your comments guys -- it sounds like we are on the same wavelength. i look fwd to reading your passive xover report ron...
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 30 September 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske:
The issue of accurate string-bass production is of some interest to me as an ex-player.
When I demonstrated the NAP 300 in the summer I found just this parallel between the 180 and the 300. The old amplifier made a very pleasant and full sonority, beside the 300, which conspired to be even and far more accurate as to the "authentic sound" of the intrument, while perhaps sounding slightly lighter. This went with seemingly endless depth (at least as far as you can hear!).
If you are looking at a change then IMO it would be interesting to at least try a 300, and if you do please come back and report. The Thread was NAP 300 versus 180.
Fredrik Fiske
i dont know to what extent what we found could be considered general. instruments definitely sounded more authentic on the active system, and as i said, we were more aware of musical nuances on the active system. but the active 250 was drier, faster, less relaxed, and treble was far behind.
my primary search right now is for a quartet of 135's, but enroute, i will consider 300 (and maybe also 250MkII). when i do so, i will try to report my findings -- though i suspect some people have done this already -- i.e active 135 vs passive 300.
the nice thing is that i am still happy with my system as is -- so i am in no hurry at all.
enjoy...
ken
Posted on: 30 September 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by Fredrik Fiske:
It is a funny thing, but even after the 300 went back, I soon got over the bonus of the 300. The old 180 was a very nice amp, but what I could not get my head round was the Castle Harlechs after the SL2s. I sold them and for a while (due to housing constraints) am going to be loudspeakerless! Though I have found some tidy SBLs, and so till the housing situation changes and the 300 comes, I am in an Headphones or Tivoli situation.
Fredrik Fiske
you may or may not know. my next upgrade was going to be SL2 in place of the SBL's. i may still do this, but as i said earlier, the recent experiments have indicated to me that the SBL's are NOT the weakest link in my system right now. so it probably sensible to look upstream for "improvements".
you liked the SL2's? there have been a few negative reports on this forum. i havent listened to it yet -- will do so when it comes time to retire the sbl's. i have very little to choose from as the nbl's (and therefore dbl's) are too big for my office.
i am glad you continued to be happy with your 180 after exposure to the 300. its nice when things turn out like that. i take it you demoed the 300 with SL2's, but you are going to use it with SBL's? yes? i hope your 300 comes soon and you can start enjoying your music and telling us all...
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 30 September 2003 by Jens
Ken,
I think you've got the right idea given where your system stands. However, I reckon you could get a 4 pack for UK3000 or UK3500 at max these days, so I think your upgrades will be cheaper than you think.
Cheers, Jens
Posted on: 02 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by Jens:
Ken,
I think you've got the right idea given where your system stands. However, I reckon you could get a 4 pack for UK3000 or UK3500 at max these days, so I think your upgrades will be cheaper than you think.
Cheers, Jens
jens, thanks for your endorsement. 4 pack at that price would be great. so far i have seen them going at something like 1500 each from dealer second hand offers and sites like loot. suppose depends on age, condition etc... i will keep looking.
enjoy...
ken
Posted on: 02 October 2003 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by ken c:
quote:
Originally posted by Jens:
Ken,
I think you've got the right idea given where your system stands. However, I reckon you could get a 4 pack for UK3000 or UK3500 at max these days, so I think your upgrades will be cheaper than you think.
Cheers, Jens
jens, thanks for your endorsement. 4 pack at that price would be great. so far i have seen them going at something like 1500 each from dealer second hand offers and sites like loot. suppose depends on age, condition etc... i will keep looking.
enjoy...
ken
ken, my experience suggests that a CDS3, XPS2 or Fraim would be a better move than more 135's. Source first and all that If you can - do the dem. regards
Posted on: 02 October 2003 by neil w
ken contact me privatly
neil.g.g@btopenworld.com
0191 3703734
cheers neil
Posted on: 02 October 2003 by Bob Edwards
Ken--
I thought you put it very well when you said 135s passive are sideways from active 250s and vice-versa. Like you, I've preferred active 250s, while recognizing the strengths of the passive 135 route.
I would not change SBLs until you go to NBLs or DBLs, which I remember are out for your room based on size. The only time I've EVER heard SBLs be the weak link in a system was actively driven by 2x500s.
As painful as it might be, I think you need to look at either a CDS3 or 552. You could also consider a new SNAXO or even a pair of new 250s, which really are stunning. But to render a fundamental and satisfying upgrade, I think you need to look further upstream...
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 02 October 2003 by Mark Gilbert
You already know it's worth looking into the possibilities of the 300. Considering what you have, and the interest in 4-pack 135s, I could recommend another potential that is a smaller change to your existing condition.
You could add two 135s, configure your 250s to operate as mono amps (best done by unplugging two internal wires on each 250), and you'd have a combination that is Very close to the quality of the 4-pack 135s but for the price of two 135s. You also don't take any "loss" on trading in your current 250s.
I did this myself and it allowed me an inexpensive upgrade to DBLs (I realize you don't see this as an option but the capability of an easy transition to a three way speaker - still actively configured - is great flexibility IMHO). I'm waiting for a day when I can afford upgrading to better amp(s) but this is a great setup in the interim and choosing this way allowed me to achieve better overall results with the money I could arrange.
I'll note that my choices were made before the 500 or 300 were manufactured so it's good to explore other options in today's environment.
EnJoy!
Mark
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by jpk73
Dear Ken!
The Difference between active and passive 135s is again quite huge! I think you will be very happy with 4*135s!
- Jun
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by Jun Keller:
Dear Ken!
The Difference between active and passive 135s is again quite huge! I think you will be very happy with 4*135s!
- Jun
jun, many thanks. i know you speak from experience of your 6-pack and thanks for the endorsement. as a matter of interest, what did you have before the 6 pack -- i.e what did you upgrade from -- i.e what did you have before the 6 pack? how are u finding the nbl's active...?
enjoy...
ken
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by neil w
ken wrong e mail
neil.g.w@btopenworld.com
i have 4 very recent 135 you know the rest
neil
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
ken, my experience suggests that a CDS3, XPS2 or Fraim would be a better move than more 135's. Source first and all that If you can - do the dem. regards
dev, i believe in source first too, except i look at it from the point of view of "upgrade weakest link first". before the detailed 135 vs. 250 dem
at home, i had felft that the speakers were next on the upgrade craze, only to realise that there was a lot more that the sbl's were capable of, if given the right signal.
i have identified the 250's as
a weak link in my system -- of course, not necessarily
the weakest link. you are suggesting perhaps the CDSII or my supports could be the weakest links. you are probably right. expect right now i am so intoxicated with the possibilty of having the advantages of 135's with the added musical benefits of active, which are now quite clear to me.
i will dem the cdsiii one of these days. and knowing what i know now, a home dem is
mandatory.
many thanks for advice...
enjoy...
ken
[This message was edited by ken c on FRIDAY 03 October 2003 at 14:48.]
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
You could add two 135s, configure your 250s to operate as mono amps (best done by unplugging two internal wires on each 250), and you'd have a combination that is Very close to the quality of the 4-pack 135s but for the price of two 135s. You also don't take any "loss" on trading in your current 250s.
mark, actually, as you probably recall, i had the opportunity to try that combination when the 135's were around (i.e using the 250's as mono 125's). however, i wasnt sure of the wiring -- and i didnt want to take any risks. i seem to recall that the signal cables to nap250 are different from those to 135's (something like the former is stereo and the later is mono... i am not sure). i did email naim audio and my dealer but they were too busy with the heathrow show -- by the time i got an answer from richard -- the 135's had gone. pity.
y're right, could be a way to save money.
i kinda suspect that at the 300 level -- the sbl's may become the weak link. dunno... of course a dem is the way to decide -- but so many permutations and so little time...
thanks for suggestion mark. its a good one that i wish i had been able to try...
enjoy...
ken
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by NB
Quote:-
i will dem the cdsiii one of these days. and knowing what i know now, a home dem is mandatory.
_________________________________________________________
Only audition the CDS3 when funds are available!
The CDS3 is a stunning piece of kit and once heard must be purchased
Regards
NB
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by neil w:
ken wrong e mail
neil.g.w@btopenworld.com
i have 4 very recent 135 you know the rest
neil
you probably didnt know that naim do not allow private sales adverts on this forum. i guess i more or less invited this -- apologies.
would have been enuff to ask me to mail you -- which i have done...
enjoy...
ken
