135s vs new 250mk2..anybody??
Posted by: ben r on 22 April 2004
hello anybody listened to this comparison, be interested in results
Posted on: 22 April 2004 by J.N.
Hi Ben
I've used two pairs of passive 135's (CB and Olive) and now have a 250 Mk2.
Clearly I prefer the new 250, but (as ever) it's a matter of personal taste.
The 135's have a very fast, snappy sound emphasising leading edge information at the expense of a rather two dimensional sound-stage.
The new 250 offers a more sophisticated, three dimensional sound, and is a tad laid-back and sweeter (but not slow) by comparison.
Does that help?
I've used two pairs of passive 135's (CB and Olive) and now have a 250 Mk2.
Clearly I prefer the new 250, but (as ever) it's a matter of personal taste.
The 135's have a very fast, snappy sound emphasising leading edge information at the expense of a rather two dimensional sound-stage.
The new 250 offers a more sophisticated, three dimensional sound, and is a tad laid-back and sweeter (but not slow) by comparison.
Does that help?
Posted on: 22 April 2004 by ben r
yes thanks for the input, I have never heard the 135s,so thanks, Ben r
Posted on: 23 April 2004 by Wolf
This is a good topic, I have wanted a 250ii for a year now after buying my 82 last year. Now on Audiogon I see a s/h 135 for sale for less than the 250ii. but I have very limited space so I think I'll have to stick with the plan of a 250. One extra box and one extra plug needed is a bit too much.
glenn
Life is analogue
glenn
Life is analogue
Posted on: 26 April 2004 by Wolf
Well, now I'm really stumped I see on Audiogon that a 135 that probably needs a recap will end up costing me about 4 grand USD total including shipping and recaping, and a new 250II will cost me $4500. I hear that the new gear has more rounded presentation which I must confess I like the idea of. Yet, I have no way to compare these two systems with my gear to make up my mind. Oh the headache! Some one B_____ slap me to get me out of this quandry.
glenn
Life is analogue
glenn
Life is analogue
Posted on: 26 April 2004 by Stevea
quote:
Originally posted by Wolf:
Well, now I'm really stumped I see on Audiogon that a 135 that probably needs a recap will end up costing me about 4 grand USD total including shipping and recaping, and a new 250II will cost me $4500. I hear that the new gear has more rounded presentation which I must confess I like the idea of. Yet, I have no way to compare these two systems with my gear to make up my mind. Oh the headache! Some one B_____ slap me to get me out of this quandry.
glenn
Life is analogue
Toss a coin, buy one and never listen to the other.
Steve
Posted on: 26 April 2004 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by Wolf:
Some one B_____ slap me to get me out of this quandry.
Given some of what you listen to, I say get the 250-2 and be (very) happy. I can't see being disappointed with it.
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Posted on: 27 April 2004 by J.N.
Hi Todd
Good to see you haven't lost the faith (I've looked at your profile).
No more problems I trust?
Good to see you haven't lost the faith (I've looked at your profile).
No more problems I trust?
Posted on: 27 April 2004 by Top Cat
FWIW my dealer rates the 250-2 as a better all-round musical amp over the NAP300 - which is a strange thing to comprehend in my case having heard neither...
I'd go for the 250-2. And will, probably. If I decide to change from my 250-1.
John
I'd go for the 250-2. And will, probably. If I decide to change from my 250-1.
John
Posted on: 27 April 2004 by Todd A
quote:
Originally posted by J.N.:
Good to see you haven't lost the faith (I've looked at your profile).
No more problems I trust?
Not only have I not lost the faith in Naim stereo gear, I've recently added a new Hi-Cap 2 to my main rig. (I'll have to update my profile.) I'll probably get around to detailing my impressions of it sooner or later (I just got it Friday, so it ain't done breaking in).
There is something of a problem though: the replacement 250-2 I got sounds slightly different from the one I originally had. That is, it sounds better: fuller, richer, with more grip and drive, though with a slight (very slight) decrease in detail. It makes me wonder if perhaps I should upgrade my pre-amp. I can't afford that right now. That's the problem.
"The universe is change, life is opinion." Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by Top Cat:
FWIW my dealer rates the 250-2 as a better all-round musical amp over the NAP300 - which is a strange thing to comprehend in my case having heard neither...
I don't agree with this. I have demmed the NAP300 at home for some time and IT IS IN ANOTHER LEAGUE IMHO to the 250-2, which is aa bit better than the 135s
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Top Cat
Maybe, Dev. We both know who we're talking about, and I'm only reporting what he told me whilst chatting about various bits 'n bobs t'other day. He felt that the 300 wasn't as musical as the 250-2, which he felt was surprisingly close to the 500, albeit with a slightly different character and less control. He stocks 250-2 and 500, skipping the 300 it would seem.
Of course, I have heard neither 250-2 or 300 so can't comment from experience. I had a chance to hear the Dynavector L300 with HX1.2 with the CDS3 and that was nice. Not remotely in the same league as the 552/500 but good nevertheless. However, maybe the HX1.2 is worth considering as I believe it's not so far away from new 250 prices.
John
Of course, I have heard neither 250-2 or 300 so can't comment from experience. I had a chance to hear the Dynavector L300 with HX1.2 with the CDS3 and that was nice. Not remotely in the same league as the 552/500 but good nevertheless. However, maybe the HX1.2 is worth considering as I believe it's not so far away from new 250 prices.
John
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by James:
All those who have actually compared 135s with the new 250, just how fresh were the 135s in question? I just had my 7-year old examples (S/N 163XXX) recapped and I'd swear they now lack absolutely nothing. I'd be most interested in comparing a run-in but still fresh 250.2 against a similarly baked pair of 135s.
Anyone?
James
James, My 135s were re-capped about 6months before I compared. I don't buy anything without an auditon and had both side by side in my system for a month before I sold the 135's. It's easy enough to do the comparison, but I would suggest that if you want to give your system a total transformation, try the NAP300 and maybe think about getting rid of your MAna or at least modifying it to lessen the effect.
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Jack911
quote:
Originally posted by James:
I just had my 7-year old examples (S/N 163XXX) recapped ...
Interesting, by my calculations 163*** is about four years old, not seven. Are you sure you don't mean 133***?
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Laurie Saunders
James
did you get the "new caps"?
I have used my 135s since 1996, and would guess they are due for a recap....they still sound fine to me.
Was the improvement large?
Laurie S
quote:
I just had my 7-year old examples (S/N 163XXX) recapped and I'd swear they now lack absolutely nothing.
did you get the "new caps"?
I have used my 135s since 1996, and would guess they are due for a recap....they still sound fine to me.
Was the improvement large?
Laurie S
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by redeye
quote:
Originally posted by James:
All those who have actually compared 135s with the new 250, just how fresh were the 135s in question? I just had my 7-year old examples (S/N 163XXX) recapped and I'd swear they now lack absolutely nothing.
Anyone?
James
Thats good James. So if everything in the garden is rosey why fret about 2nd hand values?
red
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by Wolf
Well, life took a twist, I emailed my dealer and he is going to sell me his almost new CDX2 for current prices. New prices in effect Friday because the dollar has lost value. I'll have to wait for the 250ii.
glenn
Life is analogue
glenn
Life is analogue
Posted on: 28 April 2004 by graphoman
your email address seems not to work. Would you drop me a line to graphoman@mail.datanet.hu?
graphoman
graphoman
Posted on: 29 April 2004 by sean
T.C.,
I don't know if I'd believe him on the 300 front. I think it's because of the speakers he favours that like a bit more power than the 250 or 300 provide. So using 2x250 makes the speaker a much easier load. A 250 is not as good as a 300 and a 300 is not as good as a 500, simple plain facts when used with the right partnering equiptment. Having said that I have only heard a 300 once through SBLs and it did sound very good indeed.
Sean.
I don't know if I'd believe him on the 300 front. I think it's because of the speakers he favours that like a bit more power than the 250 or 300 provide. So using 2x250 makes the speaker a much easier load. A 250 is not as good as a 300 and a 300 is not as good as a 500, simple plain facts when used with the right partnering equiptment. Having said that I have only heard a 300 once through SBLs and it did sound very good indeed.
Sean.
Posted on: 30 April 2004 by Allan Probin
What we need are a few 250 Mk2 active vs 300 passive comparisons.
"Going Active" doesn't seem to be as popular as it once was. Thats probably because until a few years ago a pair of 135's were as far as you could go on the passive route. Now we have the NAP300 and NAP500 the decision on when to switch from passive to active isn't quite as clear cut anymore.
Allan
"Going Active" doesn't seem to be as popular as it once was. Thats probably because until a few years ago a pair of 135's were as far as you could go on the passive route. Now we have the NAP300 and NAP500 the decision on when to switch from passive to active isn't quite as clear cut anymore.
Allan
Posted on: 30 April 2004 by ben r
Allan that is a good one, technically the lone 300 should sound better than 2 250s..anybody heard that one ??