Considerations: Active? XPS? 250dr?

Can your dealer help demo any of this? I think those are tough choices, no matter what some might say.

If you are keeping the SL2s, then a SNAXO will stand you in good stead no matter what changes at the source/pre area or power amp area. Just remember it needs a power supply too. A FlatCap will do in a pinch but a HiCap or SuperCap even better.

Likewise, an XPS can be used in multiple ways. If you later go down the route of dedicated source and pre, it can be paired with any of the old streamers including the NDS or the new up to the NDX2.

And again, a 250DR is a beast that can partner up to a 552 pre and not embarrass itself in the slightest.

So none of these are bad options at all in my opinion. You could roll a dice and pick one and they would all be correct.

Hi Zen - I do have a dealer that can help but I tend to be a shade leery of it as it will not be in my own space (acoustically treated and to my liking).  I fear that even a home demo would take a good month for all to settle in and give a proper picture of its true nature. I have an HC that would service the SNAXO but yes, an SC would be such a willing participant to deglaze the music and give my ears all that flavor =)

The rules have not changed. Source first I believe in so XPS DR would get my vote. I would Fraim sooner rather than later and when you get the 250DR you could investigate SuperLumina. It really does transform a system.

Just out of interest...... why would you go from 202 to 272?

I got a great deal on it, it removed some serious noise when playing LPs, I wasn't enjoying the node 2 streamer I was trying out and am quite enjoying the 272's streaming capabilities. 

Aerell posted:

I got a great deal on it, it removed some serious noise when playing LPs, I wasn't enjoying the node 2 streamer I was trying out and am quite enjoying the 272's streaming capabilities. 

I see, I am thinking going the other way by splitting the 272 into 202 and NDac. Wondering what  I will gain or miss.

lhau posted:

Aerell posted:

I got a great deal on it, it removed some serious noise when playing LPs, I wasn't enjoying the node 2 streamer I was trying out and am quite enjoying the 272's streaming capabilities. 

I see, I am thinking going the other way by splitting the 272 into 202 and NDac. Wondering what  I will gain or miss.

Why go Side ways with old tech? Just add 555ps that you can use with new 272 in future, it is a jaw dropping upgrade that brings 272 to A whole different level....  you will need a streamer or a source for ndac as well...

 This is coming form a 202/200/hicap then 272/300/555 owner.... 

How nice to hear of another SL2 owner; they are wonderful speakers. In my view the 250 is pretty much the minimum for them, but the 300 is hugely better. I certainly wouldn’t consider active 200s. As Emre says above, a 555PS raises the 272 hugely - in my experience the difference between a 272/555 and 272/XPS is far greater than that between a 272/XPS and bare 272. When I was using a 272/XPS/250 last year I decided on a 555 and 300 rather than a 555 and active 250s for a number of reasons - fewer wires, fewer shelves, future flexibility and the fact that the 300 is just so good with the SL2. 

So, if I were you I’d go for a 250 or 300 and an XPS or 555, depending on budget. 

XPS first, then buy 2 x 250's and a SNAXO !!

Hi Aerell

I had exactly the same 272/200(non DR) config as yourself, but I was never entirely convinced by the SQ of this set up - having come from a SuperNait 1, but of course the 272 has lots of features & goodies.

However, it takes an XPSDR and 250DR to really make this combo come into its own. That's where I am now and its a superb set up. I have had lengthy demos of the 555PS and it is a much more natural and organic presentation of the music than the XPSDR. But I found the XPS more punchy in its presentation so I stayed with it. (and the 555PS is expensive)

I am also an ex SL2 owner, and wouldn't change them.

I'd go XPSDR first, and then a 250DR - in that order.

You say you’re en ex SL2 owner and wouldn’t change them. That doesn’t make sense...

I’d go 250DR first, then a power supply. 

???? AERELL,...Active is always Active,..it gives you a little different level of musical presentation.

But to think about,..what are you for guy.?

With an active system,you must be aware of that you must maintain your music-system more often than a passive one.
I mean then...plug,unplug contacts and other things.
Yes,..all it takes to keep the music system on top.

Everything is heard,..So the slightest flaw becomes a source of irritation.
Are you more a comfortable guy,who just wants your music system to "take care of it self",..so I would avoid an active system.
This is something to consider,before taking a decision to "go active".

I myself have been running active music systems since the beginning of the 90 century,.. And you must more often,.."maintaining" an active system.
You need to be aware of this,..so it depends as I said above.....what are you for the guy.!

Otherwise.."Source First" applies,..as several here have said.

/Peder ????

Thanks, everyone. You've certainly given me a lot to think about.

HH - could you expand on why a 200 active wouldn't be considered and a 250 is minimum? 

Peder, could you elaborate on care/feeding of active system? Perhaps I am ignorant in the Naim world, but a specific built crossover, another set of speaker cables doesn't sound awful to me?

Budgetary considerations may be the larger factor as differentials in the states between 555/xps and 250/300 are very significant. But it is refreshing to hear that such a gap is evident in SQ gains. 

I am definitely enjoying my all-Naim system and intend to keep it homogenous. 

I’ve always believed that one big one is better than two little ones. Get as good a passive system as you can, and then go active. 

If you go active, and get it right, you'll have a very revealing amp/speaker setup, which makes 'source first' that much more important than with a passive system. So whichever way you go, I really think you need a source upgrade first. With a 272, the only options you have there are to add a PSU, and that certainly makes a big difference to my ears. My preference (other than for the extra boxes) would be for a separate source and preamp, but 272/XPS is still nice.

The cost effective way to go active is to climb the upgrade ladder passive until you reach the highest level you expect to go for, then make the jump. That's not today that active with lesser power amps isn't worthwhile, just that climbing the ladder costs twice (or 3 times) as much if you do it do it in an active system. But that's just simple maths! 

hungryhalibut posted:

I’ve always believed that one big one is better than two little ones. Get as good a passive system as you can, and then go active. 

I STRONGLY disagree. 
2 x 250's sounds (to my ears) instantly preferable and better than a passive 300 through active SBLS.
Also, 3 x 250's sounds instantly better than a passive 300 through active NBL's.
I would not be surprised if 2 x 200's sounds better than a passive 250, although I note the different sound characteristic of the 250 compared to the 200 and the reality of active 200's could be different.

Active with lower spec electronics vs passive with top end ones is never an easy choice as both will provide significant-but very different-improvements. Price-wise it may also be equivalent-the cost of adding a Snaxo, a couple Snaics or a Burndy, its power supply, another power amp, another run of NACA and another level of Fraim will often be more expensive than going from a 282/Hicap/250 to a 252/SC/300. 

Active also adds a whole new level of complexity when it comes to physical hookup as well. 

The one speaker I have had most active vs passive experience with is the Linn Tukan-which at the time was around an $800 speaker with $200 stands. But through its obvious coloration it was remarkably revealing of any changes in hardware. 

For instance it was to my ears almost unlistenable with the 82/180 (no Hicap), where it's tendency to stridency was most unpleasant. Adding a Hicap was very nice, replacing most of the stridency with inflection and detail. Replacing the Hicap with a Supercap and an extra Snaic added dynamics and grip, while replacing the 82 with a 52 was transformative, opening up a musical palette that was not even hinted at with the 180-fed 82. 

Still staying in the passive domain, we then replaced the 180 with a pair of the 'ava rara' Exposure XVI monoblocks. That was a Holy Toledo moment that gave the Tukans a midrange credibility that the 180 seemed to strangle. And the subjective impression of true bass emerged for the first time. Then we tried replacing the XVI with a pair of 135s (I had almost a warehouse of audio gear back then). That introduced a little more snap at the expense of the amazing midrange articulation that the XVIs had. Either was much more than acceptable. 

The owner very quickly purchased a 52 as pretty much every combination we tried with the 52 was better than any combination with the 82. And for while used the 52/180, but could not forget what more advanced power amps did, so he got a 250 shortly thereafter. 

Around this time the IXO was introduced, and I got one on loan from Naim and took it over to his place along with an extra 250. And from the very first note it was patently obvious that something special was happening-even with the low-brown IXO active crossover (this was a 3-series budget component). So he purchased the IXO and the extra 250. 

One day I carted over four NAP135s and we replaced the 250s, with one pair of 135s at a time. First on the tweets-which was another giant step forward, and then on the midbass units-which paradoxically improved the presentation of the top end too, as well as giving a whole new grip on the low end. 

But he didn't buy a quartet of 135s...instead he got a Snaxo 242, which was better than the IXO, but not by much until the Snaxos Hicap was replaced with a Supercap-and THEN we were in business. 

It turned out that Linns way of making the Tukans to be both passive and active capable was not to have two different versions (like the DMS vs the PMS Briks for instance) but to still have an internal crossover within the Tukans that could be converted to active use by swapping a pair of connectors on the crossover board, that had PCB traces that bypassed the passive crossover components, but still relied on PCB traces through the crossover. 

So, we wondered what would happen if we hardwired the double set of binding posts in the Tukans directly to the individual drivers, using the same internal wiring that Naim used for their DBLs. So NANA supplied some of this mystery wire (its provenance is quite interesting) and we did exactly that. Out  came the crossover and we were left with the worlds first pair of active only PMS Tukans. 

Suffice it to say that this was a bigger improvement than moving from the IXO to a Snaxo. Active systems are so revealing that even the few cm of solder traces carrying the speaker-level signals were detrimental. 

Now we had the best sounding pair of Tukans I ever heard. The removed passive crossovers were equipped with fly leads so they could be inserted to the back of the speakers and restored passive use. 

So with the ability to hotswap between passive and active versions, I had to try them passively with the 552/500. This was also a highly entertaining endeavor, giving then a subjective low end that was even better than 2x250 active. But the boogie factor and dynamic contrasts were still better with the active 250. Typically a passive 500 beats active 250s (or even active 135), but there was something that active Tukans did very right, even when using 'only' an IXO and a pair of 250s. I think a large part of that had to do with the very poxy passive crossovers that the speakers came with. I did consider having a set of bespoke passive x/o fabricated for the Tukans, but I never got around to that project. 

I also have a lot of experience with active vs passive DBLs with a multitude of amps ranging from 250, 135, 300, 500 as well as a few  non Naim amps (Boulder, tube gear etc), but that is a story already told. 

So back to the initial question...unless you are able to conduct a listening test and have to choose one or the other  based on advice or presuppositions-go active!

I was encouraged when Jason from naim did the nd555 demo at acoustica to learn that he has active SL2s at home  powered by 300x2 - I have SL2s with a single 300 and have most of the bits now to go active, though the number of shelves for 2x300 active is a bit mad!  Will be done in the next few weeks - been waiting for room to be decorated before going ahead with the last stages 

my approach has been to take a very long term view - in early 2010 I set my aim at getting to 52/300/nds level (was 102/180/cds2 at the time) and it’s taken me 8 years. This year added SL2s to replace SBLs (which are now in my study) and got a second 300 and snaxo, Fraim and associated bits. 

Living in Lancs - that will be a very special system :-)

blythe posted:

I would not be surprised if 2 x 200's sounds better than a passive 250, although I note the different sound characteristic of the 250 compared to the 200 and the reality of active 200's could be different.

I did this comparison some years ago and indeed found 2x 200 better. Although I could appreciate the qualities of a single 250, the 2x 200 made more fun. It's difficult to explain what active does. One effect is IMO that you don't have to turn the volume up so much to make the music understandable.

Newell and Holland in their book "Loudspeakers" list a dozen or so fundamental disadvantages of passive crossovers. And, to my understanding, many of those shortcomings of a passive crossover are independent of the amplifier, because the passive crossover sits between amplifier and drivers and most of the harm it does will still happen with a better amplifier. E.g. potential crosstalk between inductors within the crossover should be the same regardless if driven by a NAP 200 or a NAP 500. Or compression due to heat in the inductors. It's probably possible to construct excellent passive crossovers that minimize those effects. But these will cost a.) a lot of money and b.) it still makes more sense to separate the high and low frequency signals in the signal domain and not the power domain.

Another document worth reading regarding "active vs passive" IMO is the following: https://www.tnt-audio.com/cass...eakers_intro1_e.html

"It's probably possible to construct excellent passive crossovers that minimize those effects. But these will cost a.) a lot of money "

Yes, I've been there. I ended up with a passive crossover that cost about what a Snaxo/Supercap would ( but without the cost of the extra amps etc) that I felt lost nothing against a three-way active system  using the same speaker. Why so expensive?? Well you replace each  $1.50 capacitor with ones that costs $200 and a $5 inductor with $100 ones, $0.25 resistors with $40 ones and spend a hundred hours or so modeling the optimum transfer function based on time gated measurements of the native response of each driver while mounted in the cabinets. Add to that the cost of flyleads made with expensive Litz cable terminated with a dozen Naim dual 4mm plugs. Unfortunately this is what it takes for a passive system to outdo an active one. 
BTW, just buying very expensive components because they are more expensive is no guarantee. I spent probably $1000 on different brands of resistors and capacitors and listened to each, changing only one component at a time before selecting the actual brands of the components. I ended up selling the expensive 'also-rans' like Mundorf Supreme and Hovland capacitors, massive tape wound inductors at a large loss adding to the final cost of the project.  

Aerell,

I have various Naim systems at home, and they were not able to express one kind of music for me: Organmusic. I've been reading a lot on this forum, and based on various arguments, I've jumped into the dark and bought Active Ovator 600's about 1.5 year ago.

The active ovators are driven by 2xNap 200 and I'm quite low on source. At the very moment, I use the internal Dac of my Supernait 1, and my Mac is the transport (optical cable). To some, I might be stupid, but it conveys the music very well. The link provided by JFritzen above reflect my findings well.

The character of the Nap 200 is shown nicely in this setup: an agile sound.

I used to call taking the Ovators active as my best source upgrade. The thing is that taking them active is feeling like a source upgrade - tho it isn't a source upgrade. It made the music clean, transparent and the control is much, much higher. As you possibly know, organ music has a high amplitude. Very low bass and loads of overtones. This complex music gets played very well.

Maybe going active before a maxed out souce is not a mad idea.

Be aware, the difference between good and bad recordings will become much more obvious. I don't listen to any kind of compressed music anymore on this setup, whilst I happily listen to Spotify on my Nac 72 / Nap 140.

I consider to replace the SN1 by a Nac272 + 555 once funds allow, but I have no urgent need and money needs to be saved first for a good Turntable in my case.

I would get the 250DR first then better power cables, they almost always make a big difference. Later, the best PS I could afford for the 272; you have some 6 options to choose from here.

Aerell posted:

Hey folks,

 

I've recently switched from a 202 to a 272 (super pleased with that decision!).  The rest of my system is as follows:

200 (non-DR) amp

SL2 speakers (beautiful)

Rega P6 w/Ania cartridge (lovely).

NACA5 (as expected.  quite like it).

Salamander rack - going to eventually get Fraim but will make that tail end of upgrade journey

Looking at next steps available to me, I am a bit uncertain as to the smartest upgrade route.

 

Options are :

1. XPS/555ps (I'd probably prefer go XPS but the 555 does have far future considerations).

2. adding a 200 and SNAXO for my SL2's

3. 250DR and keep SL2's passive.

 

I could be insane and do 2 of the 3 but we just had a second baby and wife would eviscerate me as we're both on maternity/paternity leave.

 

Thoughts on path?  I'm quite intrigued by my readings about DR'd passive vs non-dr'd active.

Go active ,2xNap200 active will easily out perform a passive 250 DR 

Such interesting feedback - ranging from go active all the way to this will outdo this to source first.

It really does seem like gains are to be had at any step that are definitely significant.  

Auditioning properly is what makes this process so difficult due to time investment needed to truly sink it all in.

I'll keep truckin'!