Going active

Franz K posted:

I would challenge the view that passive statment poweramps will eclipse an active 500dr setup, yet depending on speakers. 

I only say this because a friend of mine went from active DBL's with 3X500DR's to a full Statement system with DBL's. I heard the before and after, which was nothing short of astonishing. It could be that the S1-Pre had more of influence than the amps but the system easily accounted for the re-introduction of the passive x-overs.

Geko posted:

Franz K posted:

I would challenge the view that passive statment poweramps will eclipse an active 500dr setup, yet depending on speakers. 

I only say this because a friend of mine went from active DBL's with 3X500DR's to a full Statement system with DBL's. I heard the before and after, which was nothing short of astonishing. It could be that the S1-Pre had more of influence than the amps but the system easily accounted for the re-introduction of the passive x-overs.

Geko, this is truly an interresting find and I would love to hear more about it, maybe not just me..;-).  It reminds me of the situation years back when the claim was that DBLs driven by a single passive 500 would exceed an active 135 sixpack.  I find active DBLs are really special. I have had them passive for years and just recently went active with 3x500DR and the difference it made is huge. Maybe you or your friend can comment more on this "transition" from active 500DR DBLs to passive full statement DBLs. I would think that an active S1pre/3x500DR/DBL setup is more "fun" than passive S1pre/S1poweramp/DBL with the POX being reintroduced.

Cheers, F

Excuses to the OP, I dont intend to shift this thread to another  issue here.

Franz - perfectly happy with your diversion

HansW posted:

Sorry, misread the first post. I thought the SL2s had been purchased already.

Hans

No need to apologise

Comparing like for like passive/active systems is really hard. First there are not many of the type where where you can just add in the bits to go from passive to active. And if you are lucky enough to get a comparison going is very time consuming to swap from passive to active.  Long term live ins with them are the only way to get indoctrinated into the active cult.

I was lucky enough to do this with Kans, Sara’s, Isobariks and latterly Majik 140s. Also I have been up and down the active ladder, and sideways (Meridian, Mark Levinson) and to the outer limits with single way designs from Jordan, Stax, Quad and essentially one ways, (via bi amping Appogee and Magnaplanar and bypassing filters). 

So basically a loon I is. So far I have been hooked. And the current thinking of all things being equal a passive 500 out doing 2 x 300s (or wherever you are on the ladder), doesn’t accord with my experience. 

There is a quality that a good active system has that I have never experienced with passive set ups, no matter how brilliant they’ve been. It’s the “speed”. So satisfying. But things do change, so I will have to be open to things as I progress up the ladder again.

Just getting back to the OPs initial query, I wouldn’t get too hung up about “wonky “ set ups. Some of the most engagiing active systems I’ve heard have been very twisted. Just have fun and overdose on “speed”.

Franz K posted:

Geko posted:

Franz K posted:

I would challenge the view that passive statment poweramps will eclipse an active 500dr setup, yet depending on speakers. 

I only say this because a friend of mine went from active DBL's with 3X500DR's to a full Statement system with DBL's. I heard the before and after, which was nothing short of astonishing. It could be that the S1-Pre had more of influence than the amps but the system easily accounted for the re-introduction of the passive x-overs.

Geko, this is truly an interresting find and I would love to hear more about it, maybe not just me..;-).  It reminds me of the situation years back when the claim was that DBLs driven by a single passive 500 would exceed an active 135 sixpack.  I find active DBLs are really special. I have had them passive for years and just recently went active with 3x500DR and the difference it made is huge. Maybe you or your friend can comment more on this "transition" from active 500DR DBLs to passive full statement DBLs. I would think that an active S1pre/3x500DR/DBL setup is more "fun" than passive S1pre/S1poweramp/DBL with the POX being reintroduced.

Cheers, F

Excuses to the OP, I dont intend to shift this thread to another  issue here.

Yes, apologies to the OP for the diversification.

I'm not sure what more I can say, except that the Statement (vs active 500's) gave a more fundamental change in the way music was presented. Much the same way as going from a stock 500 to a 500DR does. It's like the DNA of the replay system changes completely. Describing the way the Statement presented music almost becomes meaningless. It was so natural and gave so much acoustic information related to the venue of the recording that it was more than slightly unsettling! I think it's only when you hear a Statement in a well-sorted domestic setting that you fully appreciate just how good it is. And I must be rather lucky because this is the second (domestic) Statement system I've heard. The other one was running Ovator 600's that were, pretty convincingly, out-performing my DBL's.

As I think I mentioned, I've have run an active 135 six pack system myself but I don't think I could go back to them after hearing what a single passive 500DR does!

Would I go active with 3 x 500DR amps? You blooming bet I would!

"The other one was running Ovator 600's that were, pretty convincingly, out-performing my DBL's."

That's interesting.  I have S600s and though I like them very much (run on the end of a non-DR NAP500) I don't think they sound as good as a 6-pack DBL system I heard many years ago (so age and memory could be factors, though I don't think it's my memory).  I also borrowed S800s plus NAP500 a while ago - which was better (of course) than my S600s, I still felt that the DBLs were better.  But then this is my (somewhat strangely-shaped room) as opposed to the rather excellent (large Georgian) room I heard the DBLs in.

I hope one day to get the 500 DR upgrade...

Geko posted:

Franz K posted:

I would challenge the view that passive statment poweramps will eclipse an active 500dr setup, yet depending on speakers. 

I only say this because a friend of mine went from active DBL's with 3X500DR's to a full Statement system with DBL's. I heard the before and after, which was nothing short of astonishing. It could be that the S1-Pre had more of influence than the amps but the system easily accounted for the re-introduction of the passive x-overs.

I'm afraid I also share Franz K's scepticism. The standard Naim DBL passive crossover's a real restriction here. Out of interest, I did try to go back from my active 3X500DR/ DBL system to single passive 500DR recently, and was quite dismayed by the drop in sound quality.

I've used active systems for many years, and try as I might, I can't get away from the unique things active brings in terms of speed, clarity, and rhythmic drive. I've not heard Statement/passive DBLs, but I've heard Statement/Kudos 808 a fair few times, and depite the obviously great sound, I still prefer my active DBLs.

I was comparing how the 600's with a Statement sounded against my then passive DBL's with 135's - I was actually in the process of buying his old NAP500. The bass the 600's were producing was staggering as the owner had absolutely no fear when it came to volume levels.   

tonym posted:

Geko posted:

Franz K posted:

I would challenge the view that passive statment poweramps will eclipse an active 500dr setup, yet depending on speakers. 

I only say this because a friend of mine went from active DBL's with 3X500DR's to a full Statement system with DBL's. I heard the before and after, which was nothing short of astonishing. It could be that the S1-Pre had more of influence than the amps but the system easily accounted for the re-introduction of the passive x-overs.

I'm afraid I also share Franz K's scepticism. The standard Naim DBL passive crossover's a real restriction here. Out of interest, I did try to go back from my active 3X500DR/ DBL system to single passive 500DR recently, and was quite dismayed by the drop in sound quality.

I've used active systems for many years, and try as I might, I can't get away from the unique things active brings in terms of speed, clarity, and rhythmic drive. I've not heard Statement/passive DBLs, but I've heard Statement/Kudos 808 a fair few times, and depite the obviously great sound, I still prefer my active DBLs.

Tonym,

Please don't get me wrong I'm not against the principals of an active system and would advocate its use wherever possible. I can well imagine the drop in SQ going from active back to passive, even with something like the NAP 500DR. I'm just not totally convinced that in all cases an active system will out-perform a passive system. I'm reminded of my first venture into active systems in the 1980's. I had a rather nice set of active Meridian M2's. My dealer suggested that I borrow a 32/Snaps/110 and a pair of Kans as he said it would easily out perform the M2's. I told him that I thought he talked rubbish. Two weeks later I owned my first passive Naim system.  

Chaps, 

First back to the op‘s initial question, and my suggestion would be just go for it ie active, even wonky, it’s relatively easy with a two way speaker, and not much risk to go wrong. 

With respect to active vs passive in the context of 3x500dr/dbls vs Statement I have the feel we have mainly speculations or indirect comparisons at the moment with too many uncertainties. Although not an easy task the only way to come to a fair conclusion is to do a direct comparison .. so someone ought to do it ..???? all it needs is a well settled domestic 3x500dr/dbl system and an enthusiastic statement dealer ..

Active statements anyone?

Franz, thanks. Am going to try the 250dr out in my unitiqute/ nsat system in my study to start with. Then I am going to have a listen to a local’s active 2x250dr SL2 system and then try a dem with my own speakers on active. If I ever get organised (ha ha) I will swap my 300 for the 250dr to check how a single 250dr sounds compared to the 300 - I think that will be quite informative.  If I go wonky active then the aim will be to get to 2x300 in time though I will need an extra level of naim... unless I can stick my unitiserve and lingo to the side somehow 

Long term active user here, and advocate. I'm a bit confused exactly where this thread has ended up but my one observation is that I'd rather have 2 x 250 into SL2 than 2 x 300 into SBLs. DR or not. I own both speakers by the way, and have run both active. See my profile.

I'd also rather spend money on a Supercap for the SNAXO than the bigger power amps if cash was tight and an SL SNAXO connection cable is exceptionally worthwhile in my experience, and cheap in comparison to the other stuff we are talking about. I'd consider these two steps almost essential to unlock the potential of a good active system irrespective of the power amp side so include these in your plans and budget.

If you have 250+300 in an active system the usual advice is use the better amp on the HF side. Not sure I recall why!

None of my system is DR'd. Still sounds bloody amazing.

Bruce

there are speakers that were designed to sound their best as passive speakers and have very good crossovers.

and very good they do sound with naim amps

.... yes active is great, but quite expensive.

I'm ok with passive.

I’m not sure any speaker was designed to be better passive than active, or even proven equal (even if manufacturers might claim that) - tather tgey may be designed to be the very best that the manufacturer can do passively, restricting it to passive for better marketting because where is very much in the minority (for reason of the extra amo cost if nothing else)

Bruce,

“I'm a bit confused exactly where this thread has ended up but my one observation is that I'd rather have 2 x 250 into SL2 than 2 x 300 into SBLs. DR or not. I own both speakers by the way, and have run both active.”

That is very interesting as I have always preferred SBLs. I think it’s a bit like olive lovers over the classic range. Less neutral but more engaging. I really wanted to like the SL2s when they came out and was ready to buy them. But the Sibbles float my boat even now.

Stu

Thanks, Bruce. That’s very helpful advice.  The cash isn’t so much tight as being something to spread out a bit. I have a policy of doing occasional, large upgrades - so I am on my third pair of speakers in 32.5 years, third TT - the person I got the 250dr cheap From is on his fifth pair of speakers in two years and decided to call a halt while he had some money left

And Stuart, thanks for reminding me that my ears are to be the judge of SBLs v SL2s. I bought my SBLs without hearing them and have not been disappointed but I need to check

I'm sure we could manage a thread on SBL vs SL2 oif we wanted. They are quite different in some ways and I can certainly see why some may prefer the SBLs.

Although I personally prefer the SL2s even a really tidy pair of SBLs are amazing value, and still very special in a good active system. I cannot imagine ever parting with either actually.

have fun listening

Bruce

Running wonky active is something I have had a lot of experience with and I would advocate it as a means to an end.  I would certainly recommend active with the 250/300, as a stepping stone to getting to 300/300.

If anyone is interested, my journey is below.  Against conventional wisdom, I have always put the better speaker on the bass - which is a matter of taste.  It is true, however you do it, it is very much a compromise.  But there is something addictive about the pace active brings.

Now I have finally made it to 3x500, the biggest thing I notice is how it all comes together, fantastic PraT, and less of a tendency to listen to the system and more getting lost in the music.

BTW - fully endorse the comments on the SCDR for the SNAXO and the SL cable between the SC and the 52.  It certainly is a journey...

CDI / NAC82 / NAP180 / SBL

CD2 / NAC82 / NAP180 / SBL

CD2 / NAC52 / SNAXO2-4 / NAP250 / NAP250 / SBL

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC52 / SNAXO2-4 / NAP250 / NAP250 / SBL

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC52 / SNAXO2-4 / NAP250 / NAP250 / SB

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC52 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 / NAP250 / NAP300 / DB

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 / NAP250 / NAP300 / DBL

CDS3+CD555PS  / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 /  NAP300 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 /  NAP300 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP300 / NAP500 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 + SCDR / NAP300 / NAP500 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 + SCDR / NAP300 / NAP500 / NAP500 / DBL + full SL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 + SCDR / NAP500 / NAP500DR / NAP500 / DBL + full SL

In the light of that I withdraw my cautionary note about wonky.

interestingly Naim advice seems to be to put the better amp on the mid or treble (I’m not clear which, I assume mid as that’s the most critical for clarity) - of course irrelevant when only 2-way, when it is simply the top. However, there are other arguments, in that the one with the best grip on bass (i.e. the 300 in this case) should be on the bass as that is where control may most be noticed, or that bass requires more energy (power) so the most powerful best on bass. Interestingly the specialists that make active speakers like ATC and PMC use less powerful amps on mid and top - however, I think they use amps with the same character, just different maximum power capability. But it is a simple matter to try both ways round and decide which sounds best to you - and the 250 and 300 have tbe same gain, so theoretically at least nothing else needs changing.

Thanks, Gavin. Very helpful!

When I was running wonky power amps on my SBLs, I actually tried NAP250 and Meridian 103D both ways round. I found that I preferred the 250 on the trebles and the 103D on the mid-bass. 

It is for others to pontificate as to which is the “better” amp

Gavin L posted:

Running wonky active is something I have had a lot of experience with and I would advocate it as a means to an end.  I would certainly recommend active with the 250/300, as a stepping stone to getting to 300/300.

If anyone is interested, my journey is below.  Against conventional wisdom, I have always put the better speaker on the bass - which is a matter of taste.  It is true, however you do it, it is very much a compromise.  But there is something addictive about the pace active brings.

Now I have finally made it to 3x500, the biggest thing I notice is how it all comes together, fantastic PraT, and less of a tendency to listen to the system and more getting lost in the music.

BTW - fully endorse the comments on the SCDR for the SNAXO and the SL cable between the SC and the 52.  It certainly is a journey...

CDI / NAC82 / NAP180 / SBL

CD2 / NAC82 / NAP180 / SBL

CD2 / NAC52 / SNAXO2-4 / NAP250 / NAP250 / SBL

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC52 / SNAXO2-4 / NAP250 / NAP250 / SBL

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC52 / SNAXO2-4 / NAP250 / NAP250 / SB

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC52 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 / NAP250 / NAP300 / DB

CDS3+CD555PS / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 / NAP250 / NAP300 / DBL

CDS3+CD555PS  / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 /  NAP300 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP250 /  NAP300 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 / NAP300 / NAP500 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 + SCDR / NAP300 / NAP500 / NAP500 / DBL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 + SCDR / NAP300 / NAP500 / NAP500 / DBL + full SL

CD555 / NAC552 / SNAXO362 + SCDR / NAP500 / NAP500DR / NAP500 / DBL + full SL

 

Galvin, 

a Little bit off topic but du you run a tt as well ..? 

Innocent Bystander posted:

In the light of that I withdraw my cautionary note about wonky.

interestingly Naim advice seems to be to put the better amp on the mid or treble (I’m not clear which, I assume mid as that’s the most critical for clarity) - of course irrelevant when only 2-way, when it is simply the top. However, there are other arguments, in that the one with the best grip on bass (i.e. the 300 in this case) should be on the bass as that is where control may most be noticed, or that bass requires more energy (power) so the most powerful best on bass. Interestingly the specialists that make active speakers like ATC and PMC use less powerful amps on mid and top - however, I think they use amps with the same character, just different maximum power capability. But it is a simple matter to try both ways round and decide which sounds best to you - and the 250 and 300 have tbe same gain, so theoretically at least nothing else needs changing.

Yes, the only way to approach this is to try it yourself. When I first went active with my DBLs, I did try a 250 with my existing 2X500s. I tried this driving bass, mid & tweeter, and it sounded best driving the bass. But even then I was conscious of the different amp wherever I put it, even though I jiggled with the channel gain controls in the SNAXO. That's just my opinion, in my own system though.