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: 03 October 2003 by Mark Gilbert
Ken -
I do recall the portion of your message considering the active with 2x250 and 2x135 and I'm sure it was disappointing to have almost had the chance to hear it. My message was just encouragement to get the information you need, from dealer or naim, and try it personally. If I, for example, had a certain amount of money I didn't want to exceed for a while then the 250/135 active combo might help me focus on source improvements more easily than a full amp swap.
Good luck and EnJoy!
Mark
Posted on: 03 October 2003 by jpk73
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...?

When I went from 4x135s/SBLs to 2x135/NBL: after a short time I liked passive NBLs better than active SBLs and couldn't imagine to go back to SBLs. 6pack is again a huge improvement!!
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Minky
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Edwards:
The only time I've EVER heard SBLs be the weak link in a system was actively driven by 2x500s.

As Bob has started, I will continue (I wouldn't have been brave enough otherwise).

Going from 2 to 4 135's with SBL's is mind-blowing but the next move for me would be 552 or CDS3, simply because after trying 2 500s active against a 4 pack I actually preferred the 135s. After this I thought that Naim had lost the plot - that the 500 was all marketing and no trousers. What I realised later (with the aid of NBL's) was that the 500 IS a fantasic amp but that the SBL's were already "pedal to the metal".
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by NB:
Only audition the CDS3 when funds are available!

The CDS3 is a stunning piece of kit and once heard must be purchased Wink



NB speaks soothly.

Last night I had an eight hour exposure to JNs partly-run-in CDS3 (into 202/newHi/new250/SBLs).

I wish I hadn't ... cards maxed out already.

With apolgies for being unoriginal, it is another ball game compared to a CDS2.

The only real question is how Naim managed to get such a God-awful din out of it at the show (compared to what it is capable of)?

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com

[This message was edited by Martin Payne on SATURDAY 04 October 2003 at 12:50.]
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by StuartA:
... I use CDS3/252/300 into SBLs. Should I go any further it will probably be a 552 and not the '89 SBLs that change. Just my 2p, but do try either the CDS3 or the 300 for a safe upgrade first.

Regards,

Stu.


i guess i am wrong that the sbl's max out at the 135 level as you are using them with the better 300. what did you have before the 300?

i wonder what upgrade path is consistent with a logical "weakest link" approach? you see, right now, i really do not feel that the cdsii is the weakest link -- but i know from last weeks tests what very significant musical improvements are possible from a 135 quartet. where next after that? dunno... probably a dem will reveal the next weakest link...

many thanks for your thoughts...

enjoy

ken
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Last night I had an eight hour exposure to JNs partly-run-in CDS3 (into 202/newHi/new250/SBLs).

I wish I hadn't ... cards maxed out already.

With apolgies for being unoriginal, it is another ball game compared to a CDS2.


i guess one of the things i ought to do at some point is a dem of speaker change (to assess whether there more coming from cdsii that the sbl's are simply throwing away) or cdp change (to assess what the sbl's would do with a better feed).

advice well taken, not a demo to do when the bank manager is in a bad mood.

i wish i had been at the heathrow show so that i could also be totally put off by the reportedly useless sound of the cdsiii there Big Grin.

IIRC, your speakers are already maxed out, so a decision on better source for them is that much easier.

enjoy...

ken
Posted on: 04 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Going from 2 to 4 135's with SBL's is mind-blowing but the next move for me would be 552 or CDS3, simply because after trying 2 500s active against a 4 pack I actually preferred the 135s.


interesting... so your experience is that the sbl's max out before the 500 level? and stuart's experience is that they are OK at the 300 level.

IIRC, i think bob edwards reported similar findings -- certainly that the sbl's dont quite cut it with nap500. of course, i may be misquoting you bob; apologies if so...

enjoy

ken
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Bosh
Ken

I can happily confirm that my SBls (94 vintage latest drivers) were well able to reveal the significant improvement of:

135 to 500
52 to 552
CDS2/XPS to CDS3/XPS2

This is not ot say that a new pair of speakers could not also be a significant improvement just that if you like what the SBLs do, they've still got an awful lot to offer you

PS - I did seriously miss the 2nd pair of 135s when went from 4pack to passive 135s (I sold them to fund the Fraim purchase before I got the 500)
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
PS - I did seriously miss the 2nd pair of 135s when went from 4pack to passive 135s (I sold them to fund the Fraim purchase before I got the 500)


ah, interesting. "active" operation does bring a certain something which is hard to live without. what did you miss in the temporary set up when you had 135's driving the sbl's?

you appear to have gone through serious upgrades -- but i note that now you are passive with the 500. missing anything? another instance of sbl's being able to handle superior signal from the 500's!!!

your analogue side is exactly the same as mine -- are you still using the hicap to power prefix? i had sort of heard that it was better to power from 552.

is your system fully run in now? fabulous system you have there... how do you find the fraim?


enjoy...

ken
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by StuartA:
Ken,

I used an Olive 250 before the 300. Have fun finding your solution.

Stu.


OK. many thanks.

i intend to trade in the 250's for a 4 pack. i really wish the 2x135's had trounced the active system because then i would have been in a position to tradein the snaxo+supercap+cdsii towards a cdsiii. never mind...

enjoy


ken
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Bob Edwards
Ken--

SBLs driven actively by 2x500s is better than 4x135s--there is more music to be had from SBLs than 4x135s can provide (!). However, with two 500s, you can (finally) hear the limitations of the SBLs. I don't know that activating SBLs with 500s is worth it--I'd have to compare that to something like a single 500/NBL passive.

If I were your dealer, I would suggest trying the following three items in ascending order of price. First, the new SNAXO. While I've not heard it--I'm going off of Ron's description--it seems a logical and (relatively) inexpensive step. Next would be the CDS3--source first is always a safe way to go. Finally, a 552. It might be as big a step over the 52 as the 52 was over the 72--it certainly offers that margin of improvement.

Best,

Bob
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Minky
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Edwards:
SBLs driven actively by 2x500s is better than 4x135s--there is more music to be had from SBLs than 4x135s can provide (!)

Bob,

This may well be the case but my experience with 2 500s (from zero to two weeks old) was that the system was too bright. It gave me a headache, and rather than being disappointed when they were forklifted out and my 135's went back in I was relieved. Sure there was more detail, control, etc (much less than there should have been though, which is why I now think the SBL's were struggling to keep up) but so what if you can't sit in the room with it ?
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by ken c
bob, many thanks. i would have to agree, even without listening that 2x500 ought to be better than 4x135's. i guess the question is more whether 4x135 active is better than 500 passive into sbl's, but this question is largely academic as i cant afford a new 500 right at this minute whereas i can probably stretch to a quartet of used 135's, unless of course a passive 300 would be better, rather doubt it, but will have to have a listen. simlarly the question re: active 300's vs passive 500.

you make good upgrade suggestions -- i definitely need to talk to my dealer so i can be sure of an optimum upgrade path.

enjoy

ken
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Bob Edwards
Ken--

SBLs passive with 500 is better, IMO, than active with 4 pack....

Minky--I should have included "IMO" in my comment. Though I understand 500's take a while to break in.

Best,

Bob
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Emil F
Minky

Bob is right. My experience with 500 is that there is less bass till week 6. In this period it sounds bright. No bass, no balance, less PR&T, therefore the headache. But after that!

I made a home demo with a 500 on week 3. It didn't have more bass than my 250. Two months later there is no more doubt about what 500 can do. But you must know it.

Emil
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Minky
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Edwards:
SBLs passive with 500 is better, IMO, than active with 4 pack....

Bob,

I thought that "IMO" was always implied in these matters. Smile

I would be really interested in doing the passive 500 vs active 500s into SBL's comparison. Unless you are Bill Gates or barking mad you wouldn't want to spend the equivalent of a BMW 318i on the extra 500, snaxo and supercap unless something profound was at the end of the tunnel. I wish I had tried one 500 passive against my 4-Pack. I have a feeling that the outcome would have been "interesting".
Posted on: 06 October 2003 by Minky
quote:
Originally posted by Emil F.:
Bob is right. My experience with 500 is that there is less bass till week 6. In this period it sounds bright. No bass, no balance, less PR&T, therefore the headache. But after that!

Emil,

That explains a few things. Yes, I do know how the 500 evolves from new but into NBL's my new 500 went from fantastic to stupendous. I think that NBL's are an easier load than SBL's so maybe they let a baby 500 breathe a bit easier out of the box.
Posted on: 07 October 2003 by Bosh
Ken

Having aclimatised to active (4) 135s I found going back to just 2 lost a significant amount of transparency, ease and fluency to the music.

The other drawback with passive is the need to warm the SBL crossovers up for at least 30 minutes to get the best from them


I initially continued to power the LP12 prefix from a Hicap to save having to re-build the Fraim when I got the 552 (the LP12 SNAIC was too short). 3 weeks in I moved to 552 prefix power and I can confirm it is significantly better (although it does marginally degrade other inputs, but not by as much as it does with the 52)

Having had the wife veto the Mana aesthetics and not happy with putting the LP12 on a wobbly QSpire I compared Fraim in a home demo to the Tripod(electronics)/Audiotech wallshelf (LP12/CDS) setup used previously about 2 years ago and the Fraim was significantly better
Posted on: 07 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
I initially continued to power the LP12 prefix from a Hicap to save having to re-build the Fraim when I got the 552 (the LP12 SNAIC was too short). 3 weeks in I moved to 552 prefix power and I can confirm it is significantly better (although it does marginally degrade other inputs, but not by as much as it does with the 52)


bosh many thanks. yeah, the prefix snaic is very short -- which forces you to have its *cap power supply quite close to the lp12, or, if you are powering via pre-amp, to arrange so that this lead can reach the appropriate input at the back of the pre-amp. i gather that snaic lead needs to be that short for music reasons.

i envy you with your 552, but i can play sour grapes by saying that i prefer the way the 52 looks, especially with that very special old naim logo which is a lot better than the new one. oh yeah, really feeble stuff...

enjoy...

ken
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by headline
quote:
Originally posted by Bosh:
Ken

I moved to 552 prefix power and I can confirm it is significantly better (although it does marginally degrade other inputs, but not by as much as it does with the 52)



WADR, altho. I 've yet to audition a 552 (it's going to happen very soon if I rightly understand my local dealer's intentions) I've learnt from running my 52 (previously an 82) that powering a prefix from a HiCap, but most preferably from a Su perCap, is a vast improvement for the Prefix and a liberating factor for the 52's performance overall. I.e., always seek to power everything independently of the p/s. in the P.A. It might cost more but the rewards are definitely worth it!

Thanks and cheers..
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
I.e., always seek to power everything independently of the p/s. in the P.A. It might cost more but the rewards are definitely worth it!


in general, this is true, but apparently, with the 552, its better to power prefix via the preamp vs a separate *cap. i havent done the test myself but have heard this from people whose views i respect.

one day, i will listen for myself...

many thanks for comment...

enjoy

ken
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by ken c:
bosh many thanks. yeah, the prefix snaic is very short -- which forces you to have its *cap power supply quite close to the lp12, or, if you are powering via pre-amp, to arrange so that this lead can reach the appropriate input at the back of the pre-amp. i gather that snaic lead needs to be that short for music reasons.



Yes, I was told this, also. It's a standard length, I think, but much of it is hidden inside the body of the LP12.

It's a shame, because a longer SNAIC would be much more convenient for me.

cheers, Martin

E-mail:- MartinPayne at Dial.Pipex.com
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Don Atkinson
ken,

IMHO, the only real decision you have to make is the choice between a passive 300 (inevitably new) and an active 135 4-pack (inevitably 2nd hand).

the diversions into cds3/552/500/Sl2s are just that - diversions, lots of different reasons, but just diversions.

for example, david antonelli has recently posted elsewhere that he prefers a cds2 with a better pre/power than a cd3 with a less expensive pre/power. you have also given reasons eg power amp improves both vinyl and cd, 552 is VERY expensive etc etc.

a pair of 250s and a pair of 135s should be the same price, like for like. so buying 4 x 135s should set you back no more than 2 x 135s net ie after selling your 250s. (unless you go for the longer life of newer boxes, which we WILL assume). lets say £3,000 net (eg 4x£1,250 less 2x£1,000). you might also consider powering your SNAXO with a supercap (unless you already do so)

a 300 will set you back £4,750, less what you get for your SNAXO/hicap/250/250 (shall we say £3,000) ie £1,750 net.

other figures can easily be substituted to justify the funding, but the listening is more important, as you know.

I think my steps would be as follows:

buy a decent 135 4-pack
once convinced that 4x135s are worth it, and are better than 250/250/135/135 etc sell the 2x250s.
home dem a 300 (and 500 for future refernce?)
decide whether to keep the 135s or the 300
if the 135s go, you get (most of) your 4x135 money back and you sell the SNAXO/Hicap. this easily funds the 300
you enjoy, (either way)

i wish i was faced with this dilema....

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by Don Atkinson
ken,

just an after-thought.

the age of the 250s and 135s could be important. newer boxes ones might have better slew rates (for example) than older ones. this could introduce 'lag' which would be emphasised if older 250s were driving the tweeters and newer 135s were driving the woofers (or vice versa etc)

i think you'll get my drift

i would still be inclined to go for the best 4 pack i could comfortably afford, and make sure they were all of the same vintage.

cheers

don
Posted on: 11 October 2003 by ken c
quote:
the diversions into cds3/552/500/Sl2s are just that - diversions, lots of different reasons, but just diversions.


don, many thanks. this is in line with my thinking too.

i have in fact found some very good and good vintage 135's for about £6000, but i need to sell the 250's to finance this purchase (non-dealer, otherwise a trade in would do it...) i also need to convince "she who must be obeyed" -- but i am well practised at this (back up in case of lightning hit??? Big Grin Big Grin etc etc...)

i think you are also correct about "diversions". of late i have been trying to attach some substance to my "weakest link" theory by assigning arbitrary relative quality numbers to each of the components of my system. from which it should then be easy to allocate funds where i can get biggest bang for the buck.

my first stab was as follows (left out some of the detail for simplicity at this stage):

cds2(18); xps(17); nac52(20); scap(18); nap250(15); sbl(25) and vinyl: lp12(20); XXII(17)

you can sort of see what i am getting at. the weakest(??) link from the above arbitrary allocation is the 250 and limits the quality of the cd system to 15. there is a lot of upgrade potential upstream before i need to touch the sbl's -- good. i believe 135's will take the quality level to 18.

however, the above first stab already has contradictions to what has been reported in this forum. from the above, changing xps to xpsii ought not to make any difference to above system, but it does, reportedly. similarly, these numbers suggest that i probably dont need to touch the 52/scap for a while -- but people with similar systems have reported substantial improvements by introducing the 552??

so, this approach, though an interesting exercise, has got me going round in circles -- the numbers probably cannot be treated independently -- there is probably some correlation, dunno...

what we get up to justify spending money...!!!

thanks for advice...

enjoy

ken