Need help... Nap135's or New Nap250??

Is this such a difficult question??

;-)
Charles

I have never had the dem of two 135's against the new nap250 so I cannot be objective. However, what I can say is that the new 250 is a much better amp than the old 250, has more control and finesse as well as being more capable of driving difficult speakers in large rooms.

I am sure there must be someone who has done the 135's V new250 dem out there who can comment. I appreciate that getting a dealer dem of the two options will not be easy.

Charlezz,

I went to the new 250 from 2 old style 250's(125's) and I like it very much.
The new 250 is more transaparent, subtle, delicate, and powerful. It is also MUCH heavier.
Hope this helps.

Vern

Charlezz

you don't yet need a 250 or 135's. You need first, an XPS, and second, a CDS2. You can then sort out the power amps later.

Trust me.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Charlezz,

I prefer the sound presentation of the new Naim kit rather than the old Naim kit. I would therefore go for the new 250 rather than the 135s.

The chances are that your dealer could demonstrate this difference quite easily. And he could also demonstrate the cds2/xps2 suggested by Rico so you could decide which components make the better improvement for you.

I would be inclined to get the 250 before spending more on the cd player

Cheers

Don

IMHO you are correct to be focusing on replacing the 180. Yes an XPS will improve your source but I do not think you are suffering from "not enough information being gotten off the source". I think the issue is weakest link.

I've posted several queries on this same topic in the last month or so. The general consensus seems to be that the new 250 retains much of the grip and PRAT of the 135's but conveys lots more detail. IMHO, if you can afford it, buy it. Having said that, I will tell you that I recently put a pair of 135's into my very humble system and am delighted with the transformation. I'm running 3.5, 72/hi. YES I know that a CDX or CDS would be better. I owned a cds for over a year and it is a great source. But my upgrading decisions are very much a question of how much money is available but it is also a "family decision". My spouse (God Bless Her) has a limited ability to understand why anything anywhere in the system needs upgrading. After all "you bought the best, right?" Having had my amplifier die, it was comparitively easy to get the approval to replace it. 135's are very reasonably priced right now. For less than the price of a new 200 I bought a pristine pair.

Either choice will satisfy. If you buy 135's priced right, you should be able to have comparitively "free hifi" for years to come. If you buy a new 250 you'll have state-of-the art amplification for a long long time. You can't go "wrong".

Down the road when funds are available, a CDS2 would likely finish the system for a good long time...

Markus
--------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlezz:
Hello , I have got a CDX/Nac52/Supercap/Nap180/BW803 and intend to change my amp.
I don't have enough money to buy a Nap300 , so I have the choice between Nap135 or a New 250.
What is your opinion?

The following upgradings will be XPS2, and then perhaps new speakers (802 for instance...)
Charles

---

A pair of 135s probably have more transient power than the new 250 and it probably makes the system sounds more punchy. B&W speakers are smooth and quite polite, you may consider this issue. I have the B&W 805 driven by the olive NAP250 (very recent model) and like it very much. I would imagine that the B&W 803 speakers need a lot more power than the NAP180 can provide. Keep in mind that the NAP135 or 250 are regulated power amp which means they have much better control on transient power than the cheaper Naim model (non regulated, this includes the new NAP200).

can anyone say "mullett"?

Some days I really miss Vuk.

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

PS - yes Tuan you are right about the regulation thing. Strangely though, an old re-capped 250 was rather more than "woried" by a new 200 recently. Not just mutton dressed as lamb this new 200, more a wolf in sheeps fishnets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlezz:
Is this such a difficult question??

;-)
Charles

---

Doucement, doucement....

thsi is not such a difficult question but I must apologise for everyone that did not instantly stop work to advise you. The fact that this exact same question has been asked within the past two weeks is no excuse.

However, the fact that you actually posted on that thread does puzzle me somewhat.



Zut alors.....

Mike

On the Yellow Brick Road and happy

Chaps

Rico is right, Vuk would be turning in his grave seeing some of these replies.

Naim equipment always responds to source first and Charlze's system really does need an XPS to boost the CDX.

That will really outdo any back end improvement.

Once he has the XPS, then he needs to be looking at a pair of 135's.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

Rico is right, Vuk would be turning in his grave seeing some of these replies.

Naim equipment always responds to source first and Charlze's system really doe s need an XPS to boost the CDX.

That will really outdo any back end improvement.

Once he has the XPS, then he needs to be looking at a pair of 135's.

Regards

Mick

---

Hi.

I 've been thinking a lot lately about being in Charlezz's position of whether to start upgrading at the power end and I've come round to the view that in that position one should start with the source. If Charlezz starts there I think Mick's view, and someone else's earlier in this thread suggesting source, would present the best options.

By the way, I've posted on another 'HiFi Corner' thread re. comparing 135's with the new 250 -- basically, I prefer my 135's -- though the comparison wasn't apples with apples (different speakers and listening rooms involved).

Happy up-grading -- and hope you also seriously consider going active some time (if you're not active already).

Thanks and cheers!!

I have heard a CDX/82/Super/135/SBL system which was then upgraded with an XPS.

The system was completely transformed, in a way that dwarfed a later step back from olive 135s to olive 250.

Although the regulated supplies in the 250/135 do give more control, the CDX isn't putting anything like enough control on the signal for this to be relevant in your system.

Expect CDX/XPS/52/180 to sound much bigger/more dynamic/tighter than CDX/52/135.

cheers, Martin

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

P.S. I would then put the system onto Fraim before upgrading the NAP.

It might even be worth demoing the Fraim upgrade instead of (i.e. before) the XPS.

Then the NAP and/or the speakers.

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

There is more than one pathway to the top of the freaking mountain.

If our ultimate target is something along the lines of CDX/XPS/CDS1/2/3/52/250/135/300/500 whatever and we're not infinitely wealthy then economics will play a part in our upgrading decisions. Let's have a little perspective, not dogma, for heavens sake! If a person upgrades something not rigorously following the source first principle, what is broken? Won't the system sound better? I know my humble 3.5/72/hi/135 systems sound fantastic. Do I want a cdx? sure. Have I previously owned a cds? Yes. Am I anxious about an upgrade? NO. In the system that this thread is about is the 180 the weakest link? IMHO, yes. Will an xps improve the sound? YES. Will a 250 or pair of 135's? YES.

FOR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT SOURCE FIRST VERY FEW ON THIS FORUM ACTUALLY ADHERE TO IT STRICTLY. How many people are running CDS3/nait on a fraim? Or CDS3/92/90? Or CDS2/102/140? Huh? Did I miss something here? Isn't there a better source out there than CDX/XPS? When I auditioned the CDS2 I thought it stomped all over the CDX/XPS. Can I afford one? No. Am I going to worry about it? heck no.

All this "Vuk would be turning over in his grave" nonsense makes it sound like "if you don't upgrade your *source first* then "something very bad may happen!" ???

Here are my rules for upgrades (not that anyone cares):
1. Unless you're at CDS3, 552/500, etc. there's ALWAYS something better out there. And if you're at the top of the Naim range, you can always wonder about/audition/fret over Ongaku's and other manufacturers, etc.
2. Music is more important than equipment.
3. There is always more time to upgrade. You can put it off indefinately, unless something is broken.
4. Source first, but also pay attention to the weakest link. Seek balance. Let good deals help point the way.
5. Don't keep auditioning a bunch of stuff. Focus on auditioning music, not equipment. Auditioning equipment might make you preoccupied with thoughts of what you need to upgrade when you listen to your system rather than listening to the music. This would be the ULTIMATE enjoyment down-grade and completely wrong-headed.
6. There will always be another better deal out there. Don't worry about it.
7. Satisfaction and enjoyment are more important than performance, but they are correlated. That is to say you can enjoy systems that are extremely compromised (like your car radio) and this fact is more important than anything else in helping to "fix" how your system sounds than the amount of money you've thrown at it.

Rant off. Now go get yourself at least a 250 to replace that 180.

Markus
-------

Adhering strictly...

I'm currently running a full monty naimed LP12 including a supercapped prefix into a mk1 nait (on a fraim) and KanII's. Utterly superb. Source first works.

Steve

Steve,

I didn't say that no one was doing it. I said that few were. I'm sure your system sounds fantastic. Source first works. So do other ways, though not *all* other ways.

Markus
------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Markus:
FOR ALL THIS TALK ABOUT SOURCE FIRST VERY FEW ON THIS FORUM ACTUALLY ADHERE TO IT STRICTLY.

...

All this "Vuk would be turning over in his grave" nonsense makes it sound like "if you don't upgrade your *source first* then "something very bad may happen!" ???

---

I speak from experience, having run an Arcam CDP, then CD2, then CDX into 52/six-pack/Isobariks.

It's just not a sound that you can sit down in front of and forget all the problems. There is *always* something nagging about the sound, and a better source resolves this.

The normal phrase used is that the down-stream components are too "revealing". I really do feel that this is too polite a term - 135s and high-end flat-earth speakers are ruthlessly demanding, like a Prima Donna. Only the best signal will do, and without it, the system will often sound like an ugrateful brat.

cheers, Martin

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by kan man:

I'm currently running a full monty naimed LP12 including a supercapped prefix into a mk1 nait (on a fraim) and KanII's. Utterly superb. Source first works.

Steve

---

I'm also convinced source first is the way to go, at least with vinyl but how about CDplayers? Many here seem to be convinced that in a CD based sistem you might be better off many times upgrading the preamp before the CD player. Is that because the differences between CD players are smaller than between turntables?
I suppose there are many here who own both topflight turntables and CD players that maybe can help clear things out. I have heard so many times the improvement a better turntable gives in to a cheap integrated to be convinced that source first is the way to go with vinyl but I have hardly any experience with better/more expensive CD players. Any thoughts?

My limited experience with CD players suggests that the differences are much smaller than with vinyl so perhaps the source first approach is a little less relevant. That said, it's only the top flight players that do it for me. A CDX is very good and I can understand why most people would be very satisfied with one but there is something about the CDS1&2 that I've not heard in other players. I would be prepared to sacrifice in other areas to get it (whatever it is).

Btw I've not Lonorganised my system, it's just that my 250 is in for service. It's going to be an interesting contrast to get the primary amplification back in.

Markus - all the really big upgrades I have had have been from source or preamp. This may be because Kans don't need lots of power (although they are ruthlessly revealing) and I agree that some speakers simply won't work well without muscle. My argument is really the other side of what you said - not many people are running an expensive cd with cheap amp/speakers but this may be because not many people have ever bothered to have a dem. I've heard my Kans with a CDSII/52/500 and I much prefer my LP12/52/250. Source first....

Regards
Steve

And we all have our own priorities.

Right after I bought my LP12 Linn came out with the Ekos tone arm. I heard the dem, recognized that it was superior and promptly put it out of my mind. I'm never going to persuade my other half that we should spend $2000 on a new arm.

The Lingo dem was equally compelling but again, is very unlikely to happen, for me. My LP12 is "good enough". Not the best, by any means, but good enough that I don't sweat it.

When I owned the CDS it so happened that my wife found my beloved Apogees too incongruous with our furnishings so I ran a pair of Sara's. I always felt that I never really heard the ultimate performance of the cds, that the Sara's were somewhat compromised and lacked transparency, or, another way to say it was that the high frequencies were somewhat rolled off and the tweater was not super fast.

Better sources make for better sound and better preamps transmit more of that sound to the amplifiers. No question. I personally consider the 72 to be somewhat veiled. Perhaps this is why I can stand to listen to my 3.5 through the 135's. But as far as having to grit my teeth to listen to my system, it just isn't so (for me).

I have heard systems that set my teeth on edge or just sounded "wrong". But I consider all Naim cd players to be fairly excellent sources. I don't, however, consider the CDX/XPS to be the equal of a CDS/CDS2. Haven't heard cds3 yet but believe, via *faith* that it's pretty awesome.

I think the point I'm getting at is that virtually every time someone posts on this forum asking for advice the answer is either,
A) "I just bought a cd5/nait 5/ blah blah blah" what should I do...
Answer "You fool, too bad you spent all that money on the cd5, perhaps your dealer will take it back, you really need a cdx..."
B) "The sound of my system CDX/82/supercap/90 is falling apart when I turn it up. My listening room is the size of a football stadium and I'm driving Sara's. Should I upgrade my amplifier?"
Answer, "No, with your 82 you really need to put an xps on your cdx. Once you do you'll be amazed at how plucky the little 90 will sound..."

OK, I exagerate, but NOT MUCH.

In too many cases I read posts that seem to describe systems that clearly need more power. Or that are "good enough", source-wise, that 99.9999% of the people in the world would think that the source is pretty f--king incredible. But the answer is so often focused on the source.

Disagree with my statement that few on this forum truly subscribe to source first? Read the systems descriptions and see how many maxed out vinyl spinners there are, and how many cds 1/2/3 there are.

Markus
==

Markus

You are completely correct - but only in the eyes of those who have the same priorities as you. Exactly the same can be said of me.

I would suggest that there are far more source first advocates than would be deduced from the kit they use. I didn't follow a fully source first upgrade path yet I advocate it as a general principle and have come to that way of thinking as a result of the steps I have taken. Even the ultimate source first advocate reaches a point when they can't get a more appropriate source and then starts looking at amps etc if the money hasn't run out.

The trick is not to discount advice but to understand where it comes from and how it matches your own musical priorities. From what you've said it seems clear that you are in the balanced approach camp and most likely that you are not a flat earther.

I described the LP12/nait/Kans system as utterly superb. It has a rolled off top end with splashy ragged treble, a tonally warm character, over emphasised mid bass and is very veiled (all relative to a 52/250). I don't think you would like it at all but I'm pretty sure I could name individuals on this forum that would. Anyone asking for advice has a vested interest in understanding the different viewpoints and priorities and matching them to their own values. This is all as subjective as deciding on the best colour to paint your living room and probably causes just as much bickering.

Regards
Steve

Steve,

Your statement "Even the ultimate source first advocate reaches a point when they can't get a more appropriate source and then starts looking at amps etc if the money hasn't run out..." is right on. I, too, subscribe to source first. At times that has meant running my LP12 through a receiver. At another time it meant, due to lack of funds, running my system through the vintage Dynaco, an amplifier that, for all it's well deserved reputation is, after all is said and done, is only worth about $300-400 on the used market. When I chose to insert the 3.5 into my system a year ago I was applying the "source first" principle to the best of my financial ability at the time.

We all only can do the best we can and at some point (and it is at a different point on the source stair-steps for each of us) we have to pick a pre-amp, power amp and speakers. Performance, sonic and musical priorities, VFM, whether we're buying new or used, what we are able to 'dem at the time, the systems we've heard, all these factors will affect our decisions.

It seems that we're only able to recognize the limitations of the various links in the equipment chain when we are able to compare a lesser piece to a greater piece. I'd love to be able to take the time to compare multiple systems with the funds allocated according to various alternate criteria but haven't ever really had the chance to do so. Word on the forum here seems to be that, once you hear the better gear, it can be tough to go back to the lesser gear. For now, I'm at a point where I can just set it and forget it. And I place a high value on contentment...

Markus
--

A happy ending then!

If Charles is still with us you have the choice of front end or back end improvements (an exercise in the obvious) and your challenge is to identify which best fits with your priorities. Good luck and happy listening to all.

I'm off for a pint.

Regards
Steve