52 pre with 300 Amp. Would this be a mullet or a step forward?

Is your current system broken? If it's been recently serviced I'd just leave it as it as and enjoy.

Cheers Adam.  It has all been recently serviced and I am very pleased with the sound.  That said there are times when I would like to hear it at lower volumes but with the same amount of detail and soundstage.  I was just wondering that was all......

It's just physics - lower frequencies require more power to sound well and they trail off faster when the overall volume is turned down.

Perhaps auditioning alternative speakers might bring some joy?

Hi Steve,

Your proposal does not warrant derision.  Far from it.  The NAP300 will bring a calm, effortless level of control, drive and subtle insight that should delight you.  It's a great match.  A pair of NAP135s would bring even more fun, dynamism and boogie than the NAP300 but at the expense of refinement and effortless insight into the subtleties of each note.  The NAP300 can also be upgraded to the 300DR at a later date if you wish.  If you do go the NAP300 route, then I would certainly have the DR upgrade in mind at some point, as the NAP300DR shows a clean pair of heels to both the 300 and the 135s.

Either the NAP300 or the NAP135s would be a noticeable step up from the already excellent NAP250.  Either would be a very safe step to these cloth ears.

Hope this helps, FT

Steve2 posted:

Cheers Adam.  It has all been recently serviced and I am very pleased with the sound.  That said there are times when I would like to hear it at lower volumes but with the same amount of detail and soundstage.  I was just wondering that was all......

Buy a Superlumina DIN/XLR....

Foot tapper posted:

Hi Steve,

Your proposal does not warrant derision.  Far from it.  The NAP300 will bring a calm, effortless level of control, drive and subtle insight that should delight you.  It's a great match.  A pair of NAP135s would bring even more fun, dynamism and boogie than the NAP300 but at the expense of refinement and effortless insight into the subtleties of each note.  The NAP300 can also be upgraded to the 300DR at a later date if you wish.  If you do go the NAP300 route, then I would certainly have the DR upgrade in mind at some point, as the NAP300DR shows a clean pair of heels to both the 300 and the 135s.

Either the NAP300 or the NAP135s would be a noticeable step up from the already excellent NAP250.  Either would be a very safe step to these cloth ears.

Hope this helps, FT

Steve, can't comment on the change from a Olive 250 to a 300 I did change my 250 Olive system earlier last year. I used a 250dr in my new system but upgraded to a 300dr three months ago FT is spot on with his comments the 300dr has so much more grip and control and is a delight, low level listing levels are something rather special well worth investigating.

Hello Mr T,

How good to see you posting and enjoying your music still. I trust the family, house, garden, and work are going well.

Did you finish that 3 way speaker project? I would love to hear them as your previous 2 way pair did you credit.

You would definitely benefit from, and enjoy, a power amp upgrade. Foot tapper's words are absolutely on the money. My main point is one of encouragement. You may recall I went from one 250 to three (active yes, but a type of power amp upgrade) and despite the cost I never regretted it. You won't. And your 52 is good enough to beef up the power side.

Here's a suggestion, why not do it in stages and enjoy the journey? You could get a pair of serviced 135s, and the sale of your 250 will pay for one of them. Run those and perhaps get  300 later, and if you do, have it DR'd after. That way you spread the outlay and get real improvement each time. Its two boxes whichever way you go, so the same. Either two olive ones to complement the 52, or two black ones to complement the CD player. 

Did you ever get a Hi-line over the stock inter-connect between CD and 52. A must if not, really.

Very best regards

David

Hi There,

i am running a 52 with a 300 and it's a good combination imo. I wouldn't call it a mullet.

i was running it previously with  155xs and was really looking for a pair of 135's to keep the olive look but they seem quite hard to come by so I came across a good deal on a 2014 nap300 and went for that. When it comes to servicing time I will upgrade it to DR and that's me done and dusted as far as amplification goes. 

However ive not heard a 250 so can't say if a nap300 would give you the improvement you are looking for. I would reckon it's worth the effort to do the dealer demo.

prem.

I'm delighted with CDS3/555PS DR/52/500. Over several years, I've picked all of it up second hand at 20-30 cents on the dollar.

At this point, I'd rather spend money on travel.

David! 

Good to hear from you also.  I completed the two way speaker project and I am rather pleased with the way they turned out.  They are without doubt the best speakers I have ever owned.  They are 25 mm shorter than the previous speakers so SWMBO was pleased up to a point........  Lots of detail and clarity and more base than the last pair.  I posted a picture on the systems thread.  I am going to have to wait awhile before I take the plunge and attempt to make a three way pair.  You know you are always welcome to drop in/stay if you are ever in this neck of the woods.  It would be good to meet up with Julian as well.

Take care, Steve2

Steve2 posted:

Hi!

First of all, I enjoy my current set up which is CDS3, 52, 250 (Olive), Nat 02 and homemade speakers using Scanspeak drivers.  If I was to move up to a 300 NAP what would or could I expect in the context of my system, applause or derision, a raised eye brow perhaps.

 

I've used a 52/300 combination for 11 years and I have been very happy with it. The 300 replaced an olive 250, the difference being enormous. I have Quad 2805's on the end of them.

Chris

52/300: I have Been using the combo for almost 9 years and very happy with it.  I've heard 52/500 number of times, and it is not at all out of place, either.

If I had a choice between an Olive 250 and 300, I'd take the latter without a hesitation. Now a 3 way active set up with 3x 250s vs. a passive single 300, I'd take the former.

Adam Zielinski posted:

It's just physics - lower frequencies require more power to sound well and they trail off faster when the overall volume is turned down.

 

Yes, though not sure if it is biophysics or psychoacoustics that results in the human ear's sensitivity to bass (also treble but to a lesser extent) falling off as sound level decreases. For those who at times may like to listen at low as well as at higher levels it can be an issue, particularly if they like the tonal balance of the music to remain the same. Whilst for the OP it might be that other speakers could give more bass (no information on which to guess), speakers that would boost the bass at low levels would then be disproportionately bassy at higher kevels.

This brings back the old argument for a 'loudness' function, which, curiously, Naim implemented in their Bentley system but not mainstream hifi (though I seem to recall mention of maybe one unit tgat did have it?) Of course, what is needed is something far more sophisticated than the crude switch-in bass boost that was fairly common on amps in the 1970s, rather requiring to shape tbe frequency response progressively as the volume control is turned down (and adjustable for sound level at the listening position to allow for differing speaker sensitivities and listening position distance), but with digital sources  that shouldn't be insurmountable to design and implement in the digital domain, and it would be without the artefacts of analogue filters.

As for amp.  WHat others say re 300 vs 250 is probably as one might expect, but whether it would affect the relative level of the bass at lower listening levels compared to higher would seem highly unlikely unless one or other is non-linear in gain.