Passive vs Active SL2's

Thanks for posting that, James. Though I read it some while ago it’s good to read it again. Last year, when I bought my 300, I did ponder going active with two 250s. It’s interesting that the review found that the 300 was sufficiently better than the 250 that it significantly narrowed the active advantage. The SL2 is an amazing piece of engineering and so different to the serried ranks of me-to boxes that one sees when visiting a hifi shop these days. Sure it’s a bit coloured in places, and sure it doesn’t have the image depth of an off the wall design, but as a speaker that simply gets out of the way and lets one connect with the music, it’s very hard to beat. It’s not an impressive hifi speaker, but instead a great music maker. I’d always take the latter. 

The fact that (at least as of this time last year) Naim still used the SL2s to voice its electronics says it all for me....

They still do, along with DBLs, Ovators and Focals. 

james n posted:

No i've not suddenly seen the light, but i thought a few of you (as there are a number of SL2 fans on here) might be interested in this Hi-Fi Critic article on passive vs active SL2 loudspeakers. It's quite a few years old now but makes interesting reading especially regarding the design and engineering of the speakers. A good read. 

James.

thanks james -- good read -- hadn't come across this article before

enjoy

ken

Thank you, James.

Why can't the originator be liked?

'Like' the thread instead.

Its a great article that had some influence on me going active with my SL2s.