Nap 250 DR vs 135's

FYI I have been lucky enough to of had a number of hours with the 250dr. Just asking other peoples opinions.

I would be interested in any thoughts experience also. I currently have nac52/Supercap and 155xs power amp. I could soon be transferring to a much larger room so was contemplating 135's to keep it all olive or a nap250dr. I've not heard either combination so far. I use Guru Junior speakers currently but these may also change due to the larger room.

I'd be looking to make a change away from the Credo's before thinking about whether 135 are still better than a 250DR (I do not know the answer).

Have you thought about auditioning new speakers that are more revealing and using that as a forum to see whether a 250DR does things the 135s don't (or vice versa)?

IMO the dr has great grip and detail as does the 135's. The dr is more laid back and is well suited to an all dr kit, where's the 135's would be better suited to olive eg my setup 52 etc. my credos do amazing things to a point but the cds2 52 135's do more amazing stuff....just for me imo I prefer the olive up just makes your eyes blink when that rim shot hits, where the the 250 dr is closer to....sorry to say perfect Naim hifi. But just lovely in sayin that.

feeling_zen posted:

I'd be looking to make a change away from the Credo's before thinking about whether 135 are still better than a 250DR (I do not know the answer).

Have you thought about auditioning new speakers that are more revealing and using that as a forum to see whether a 250DR does things the 135s don't (or vice versa)?

For me I'll be sbl's or SL2's, this is my Nirvana.

ill have to jump on a plane to demo a set of decent speakers so this forum and it knowledge is priceless

I'm confused as to why you are asking the question. 

Never heard the 250DR but the 2 x 135 set up is considerably better than the 250 IMHO. Doesn't answer your question but that's my 10 cents worth.

What's your impression after a few hours?  Why don't you borrow a 250DR and test it at home - you may be the first with a definitive opinion.

bluedog posted:

Never heard the 250DR but the 2 x 135 set up is considerably better than the 250 IMHO. Doesn't answer your question but that's my 10 cents worth.

What's your impression after a few hours?  Why don't you borrow a 250DR and test it at home - you may be the first with a definitive opinion.

Oh I have my opinion but I'm sure its not to everyone's liking. I could say that the 250Dr is far ahead of the 250.2 it's mine blowing imo. But I really like the olive 250

Hungryhalibut posted:

I'm confused as to why you are asking the question. 

Because I googled it and nobody has ever asked the question. Every other combination has been compared and rated but this subject. 

And I think they are kinda close ito one another n grip and detail. 

I own the 135's, i have tried a 250DR and i used to own 250.2. While a DR version is much better than it's predecessor, it didn't make me to change my 135's I've also used my 135's driven by 282/SC DR and it worked very well :-). 

A NAC-N 272 and two 135's could be an interesting alternative to the current 272 / 250DR hot combo, especially if someone wants to update their older 32 / 72 pre to have streaming capabilities. Although I guess the extra box count is counter productive to the simplified Pre / Streamer & Power amp approach. 

New brains, old brawn so to speak. Those three boxes would look rather elegant from a visual perspective, never mind the sound potential!

As we are talking about black/olive gear. Is anybody using a 552 with 135's? I wanted to change my 72 to 52 but some possibilities appeared and now i'm going for a nice 552..

A few years ago i upgraded from 72 to 552 [with 2 x 135s] a nice progressive step up, this arrangement remained for almost a year while i pondered the option of another 135s to go active with my SBLs, or remain passive with a 500...

The simplicity and synergy of remaining passive with a 500 won out, a noticeable and appreciative upgrade in lush sonic Q, albeit expensive.

I think the problem, if we can call it a problem, is that a 552 with 135s can leave one happy but [psychologically] feeling an itch to scratch; go classic for more compatibility, or go active which can blow the budget and create more upkeep faff. With SBLs still wonder if i made the right choice with 1 x 500 passive, perhaps it's just too wonderful and easy to live with, and in the interest of budget and the search of the end game, i'm not sure either way is wrong, and a 552 with 4 pack active SBLs may differ with more pros and more cons.

One advantage of using a 250 with 552 is a later date option [when budget allows] of easier transition potential to go active with another 250.

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

A few years ago i upgraded from 72 to 552 [with 2 x 135s] a nice progressive step up, this arrangement remained for almost a year while i pondered the option of another 135s to go active with my SBLs, or remain passive with a 500...

The simplicity and synergy of remaining passive with a 500 won out, a noticeable and appreciative upgrade in lush sonic Q, albeit expensive.

I think the problem, if we can call it a problem, is that a 552 with 135s can leave one happy but [psychologically] feeling an itch to scratch; go classic for more compatibility, or go active which can blow the budget and create more upkeep faff. With SBLs still wonder if i made the right choice with 1 x 500 passive, perhaps it's just too wonderful and easy to live with, and in the interest of budget and the search of the end game, i'm not sure either way is wrong, and a 552 with 4 pack active SBLs may differ with more pros and more cons.

One advantage of using a 250 with 552 is a later date option [when budget allows] of easier transition potential to go active with another 250.

Debs

Thank you That's an interesting view. I'm also thinking of SBL's or some Naim bigger speakers as using n-Sats i felt in love with their speakers....

Twinslaver posted:

naim_nymph posted:

A few years ago i upgraded from 72 to 552 [with 2 x 135s] a nice progressive step up, this arrangement remained for almost a year while i pondered the option of another 135s to go active with my SBLs, or remain passive with a 500...

The simplicity and synergy of remaining passive with a 500 won out, a noticeable and appreciative upgrade in lush sonic Q, albeit expensive.

I think the problem, if we can call it a problem, is that a 552 with 135s can leave one happy but [psychologically] feeling an itch to scratch; go classic for more compatibility, or go active which can blow the budget and create more upkeep faff. With SBLs still wonder if i made the right choice with 1 x 500 passive, perhaps it's just too wonderful and easy to live with, and in the interest of budget and the search of the end game, i'm not sure either way is wrong, and a 552 with 4 pack active SBLs may differ with more pros and more cons.

One advantage of using a 250 with 552 is a later date option [when budget allows] of easier transition potential to go active with another 250.

Debs

Thank you That's an interesting view. I'm also thinking of SBL's or some Naim bigger speakers as using n-Sats i felt in love with their speakers....

I really enjoy the older Naim speaker. They are slowly making me deaf. Awesome!

naim_nymph posted:

.................

I think the problem, if we can call it a problem, is that a 552 with 135s can leave one happy but [psychologically] feeling an itch to scratch; ..................

Debs

My experience was exactly the same as Debs. Having run 52 / 135s / SBLs for many years I surprised myself a few years back by picking up a well run in 552 DR when I was least expecting it. The 552 / 135s  were brilliant but as Debs correctly noted, the itch to get the natural partner for the 552 was in the end irresistable and I succumbed about 18 months thereafter.  If this is where you want to end up then using the 135s as a stepping stone will not disappoint but the itch will be there sooner or later.

What has been a constant in all this is the SBLs which continue to amaze in their ability to keep up and display all the nuance of the much more expensive electonics up front. I wonder if getting the 500 DRed at some point will finally take them to the end of their tether, but I doubt it.

Enjoy your 552 !

SBLs and a 300 are also excellent imho.

Stu

naim_nymph posted:

 

I think the problem, if we can call it a problem, is that a 552 with 135s can leave one happy but [psychologically] feeling an itch to scratch;

very well put -- and my experience almost exactly. i ran 552/4pack into SL2's for a while and was very happy. how i then ended up with 552/2x500/SL2s must be due to this "itch" you refer to. i have been looking for an explanation why i did this upgrade -- thanks for offering one!!!

enjoy

ken

500 is different from every Naim power amp below it.

It is the only Naim power amp other than statement, that is bridged, and the reason for this, is that the negative of the speaker terminal, where strong currents can return, do not flow back into the signal earth, creating distortion. The signal earth is the zero point and reference against which music is amplified.

This is a problem faced by all other amps, from other manufacturers, so the NAP 500 is quite special.

I once auditioned my 250 DR against an non 500 DR, and only took a few seconds to hear the superiority of the Nap 500

Ali - bridged amps are not that uncommon - but as you say I think it and the Statement NAP are the only bridged amps in the Naim portfolio. Bridged amps tend to be more common in high power set ups where the differential mode of application can allow for greater power with reduced voltage power lines.. and yes because of this it transfers the ground plane modulation to the power line bussbar modulation - and on a common ground system this is less of an issue.. but it does have a down side in as far as the driver distortion is effectively multiple by two... but if sufficiently high quality in the grand scheme of things - double some minutely small is still minutely small...

S

I need to re-do this test 250DR vs NAP 500, as at the time my 250 DR was still not fully run in.

250.2 and DR are very heavy Naim boxes....... not motivated to carry it from my home at all, only to have the NAP 500 show it a very clean pair of heels again.

analogmusic posted:

I need to re-do this test 250DR vs NAP 500, as at the time my 250 DR was still not fully run in.

250.2 and DR are very heavy Naim boxes....... not motivated to carry it from my home at all, only to have the NAP 500 show it a very clean pair of heels again.

You must be a "glass half full" type if you hope DRing a 250 makes a 500. If the 250 wins, you have saved a lot of cash. Some of this can then be spent on an ear syringe

Dave

I'm not a glass half full type, just was curious what a NAP 500 sounds like compared to a 250 DR.

I've done the NAP 500 vs NAP 250.2 test, and surprisingly the 250.2 was not humiliated by the comparison, the bass was not the same, but High's were to my ears quite close.

Not the same with 250 DR. Highs were clearly better on NAP 500, but bass about the same.

Hence my run in comments.

The glass is always refillable