bi-amping.

Also a second 200 is not a huge expense. I guess not that much less than buying a 250 s/h and then selling the 200, but 2x200 is possibly more oomph.

Common wisdom is that an amp higher up the range would produce better results than bi amping with two 'lessor' amplifiers. However, I have not tried it and really not qualified to state what would be better. You will need a second interconnect and two sets of speaker cables that would need to be factored into the equation

Homemade cables, so not a large expense at all, especially as system sits between the speakers.

Sorry hijacking my own thread, of course, the other side is do I look at adding a power supply to the 272. 

Using PMC twenty.23

Perhaps you missed, check FAQs!

Topic, What is an Active System:

{ "FAQs, Thanks HH!

Thanks :-) 

So naim ethos is no (with regards to bi-amp). Simple answer.

How about active Statement?

Stephanie Gelder posted:

Thanks :-) 

So naim ethos is no (with regards to bi-amp). Simple answer.

"Finally, for what it's worth, bi-wiring and bi-amping (do not), whatever the hi-fi press or any other manufacturer might tell you, provide (similar) performance to a [properly designed] active system. Any of our franchised dealers will be more than happy to demonstrate this to you."

(Beachcomber) I assume you are either posting in the wrong thread or have issues....? 

Beachcomber posted:

How about active Statement?

Only 300K GBP in Mono Blocks! LOL....

Beachcomber posted:

How about active Statement?

Like most companies, NAIM has done a turnaround on just about all of it's "philosophy" statements (no pun intended).  Fancy power cables - no way - makes no sense.  Fancy interconnects -no way - makes no sense.  Directional cable - no way - what idiot came up with that idea (all quotes from Julian himself).  

Same with Linn and their early excuses for the rather chintzy subchassis/armboard interface - now we have a $3000 Keel with integral armboard!

It's little wonder that the skeptics want double blind evaluations and comparisons. 

sktn77a posted:

Beachcomber posted:

How about active Statement?

Like most companies, NAIM has done a turnaround on just about all of it's "philosophy" statements (no pun intended).  Fancy power cables - no way - makes no sense.  Fancy interconnects -no way - makes no sense.  Directional cable - no way - what idiot came up with that idea (all quotes from Julian himself).  

Same with Linn and their early excuses for the rather chintzy subchassis/armboard interface - now we have a $3000 Keel with integral armboard!

It's little wonder that the skeptics want double blind evaluations and comparisons. 

Yes, and No, to stay on Topic and quotes let go back in time! 

OP''s Topic Bi-amping!  Which can be confusing!  But to keep it simple Bi-Amping, Two Amps. 

Not to be confused with Bi-Wiring, which can easily be done with one Amp! Julian knew that was a gimmick used by cable manufactures back in the day,  And even if you bring it up to date, the speaker manufacture can just as easily implement as single wire construct, that could have the same impact as the  bi- wire construct. 

But in the end, its about the Speaker, Can your Speaker, can your speaker even be implemented into an Active System. 

The Ovator 800s & 600's yes, the 400s, No! 

In Any Event lets go back to an Interview with Julian, very brief, which one can easily see, which came first, out of simplicity:

""Vereker: You have to have them away from the wall, but since we've only got a couple of pairs, we haven't had the opportunity to go around in all the different rooms to see what happens. They don't seem to be particularly critical. They just need to have air behind them. In one of our listening rooms, which is very, very small, it was quite surprising how nicely they worked.

At the moment, we haven't got the passive crossover, so they're tri-amped using the Naim external crossover. But there will be two versions, and you can order it either way. Inside the bias box which lives inside the speaker, there's space to put an internal passive crossover so you can use it either way. An economy-minded consumer could start out with one small Naim amp and later change over from passive to active crossovers. People who are not into enormous levels will be pleasantly surprised.""

 {Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/co...#2dauQ7hzWlQMhrlp.99 ""}

So with that Vein of Thought, The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same! 

The Purist Route, even though the Gap has been narrowed is from an external calibrated crossover, to the amps, then directly to the Drivers! 

@ the OP, So if you are curious about your 272 being Bi-Amped, First off are your speakers up to the Task! 

It might be costly, with and additional 250 DR, and preferably and SCDR, and The Snaxo, but when its all said and done, yes it will be of better SQ! 

But at what Price!  Perhaps an Passive 252, with one single 300 DR, might bring more to the Party! 

In the Meanwhile, Enjoy your Music! 

Allante93! 

You haven't told us what your speakers are.

Well... if I do I'll just get the piss taken out of them with the only suggestion being statement amps :-) 

PMC twenty.23 as per about the 5th post in the thread where I did put them :-)

sorry  that sounded more grumpy than I meant it to sound. As per the previous post not looking down the fully active route :-) 

Some of the posts on this thread seem to be away with the fairies. The twenty.23s are super speakers. When I first got my 272/250 I had the PMCs and the system worked really well. I wouldn't bother biamping them, but would aim for a 250DR. An XPSDR can come later. Get F connections on the speaker leads to dispense with the nasty biwire links. It'll make an audible difference. 

Thanks

I keep looking at eBay and second hand NAP300's must stop looking!

Ooh! I don't know; I found a s/h NAP300DR on t'internet and haven't regretted buying it for one single moment!

My exxperience of bi-amping in my early audiofool days was not a happy experience. The music became 'dismantled' somehow.

Much better with a good single, mono or active amplification.

G

Many moons ago, having acquired a NAP 300, I tried bi-amping, using my existing 250.2.

It was not a happy experiment, and I reported at the time that music had become "oppressive" and leaden footed, which description was confirmed by several forum members.

It does seem to hold true that a superior amp will outperform a bi-amped combination of two lesser amps, so, as others have suggested, I'd keep looking at a 300 instead ........... it's a super piece of kit, and there are occasional bargains to be had when folks do as I did, and move up to the DR version.

dave marshall posted:

Many moons ago, having acquired a NAP 300, I tried bi-amping, using my existing 250.2.

It was not a happy experiment, and I reported at the time that music had become "oppressive" and leaden footed, which description was confirmed by several forum members.

It does seem to hold true that a superior amp will outperform a bi-amped combination of two lesser amps, so, as others have suggested, I'd keep looking at a 300 instead ........... it's a super piece of kit, and there are occasional bargains to be had when folks do as I did, and move up to the DR version.

Many years ago, Julian new the Active route was the purist route!

Hence, his proto type, did not employ an passive crossover!

But later the bias box was supplemented with an passive crossover, but initially, it was the external active crossover!

 Julian's upgrade Path:

Naim's Speaker ran passively with one Amp, then when funds permitted, an additional amp with Naim's external crossover!

{{Repeat Naim Speakers can't be Passively Bi-Amped!}}

HH, and Mr Richard Dane, has mentioned on several occasions, that Naim Speakers, can't be Passively Bi-Amped!

My Question, again, What Speakers are being used.

I started with a single
LK 280, then upgraded to Passive Bi-Amped Briks, than upgraded to Full Blown Aktiv Briks!

Of course, the latter was the cat's meow, but upgrading from a single LK-280 to a Spark on the Bass and mid, and LK-280, on the tweeter, was quite an improvement, to say the least!

But that was Linn's upgrade path, the Isobariks CAN be Passively Bi & Tri-Amped, whereas Naim Speakers CAN'T.

So I,m using LINN'S Upgrade Path with my Briks:

Passive Bi-amped > Passive Tri-Amped

Then NAIM'S upgrade Path with my Briks:

Passive Tri-Amped Briks> Active Snaxo Briks!

The Question that begs to answered, what Speakers are being used when bi-amping with Naim's Amps????

Allante93!

PS. It can't be Naim's Speakers!

Richard Dane posted:

Well, for the benefit of others and just to avoid any possible confusion here; while it's true that you can't passively bi-amp a pair of SL2s, you can actively bi-amp them by removing the passive crossover and using an appropriate active crossover and additional amp(s).  Same goes for SBLs, IBLs, later Intros, Credos and Allaes. DBLs and NBLs can be actively tri-amped in a similar way.

The point here is that in the realm of Naim, when Naim refer to bi-amping and tri-amping, it's taken as read that this means active rather than passive.

Allante93 yet again asked what speakers I told you at least twice pmc twenty.23 . 5th post was first time and second was a few up!! 

Also as I said I got the idea it's no x posts ago hence saying drooling over a 300.... second ha d as opposed to a new 250.... 

 or would you like to repeat yourself for the nth time.

I am unclear as to the advantage/cost benefit of passive biamping (two amps in parallel connected to the two pairs of connections on the back of the speaker with the links removed, so utilising the speakers' own internal crossover: probably some benefit, possibly depending on how susceptible the amp is to intermodulation distortion! But not the full benefit of active triamping e crossover in the speakers.

However, PMC speakers generally seem to have crossovers that are removeable, so with a bit of simple DIY and adding an active crossover you could go fully active bi-amp, which almost certainly will be distinctly advantageous compared to your current system (though I would not presume to guess how it would compare to passive with a single much better amp).

Regarding active crossover, Snaxo is the obvious choice, but a cheap alternative reputedly surprisingly good for its cost is the Behringer DCX2496, which could be good for an i terim play before taking the leap with Snaxo.

dave marshall posted:

Many moons ago, having acquired a NAP 300, I tried bi-amping, using my existing 250.2.

It was not a happy experiment, and I reported at the time that music had become "oppressive" and leaden footed, which description was confirmed by several forum members.

It does seem to hold true that a superior amp will outperform a bi-amped combination of two lesser amps, so, as others have suggested, I'd keep looking at a 300 instead ........... it's a super piece of kit, and there are occasional bargains to be had when folks do as I did, and move up to the DR version.

Was that passive or active bi-amping?