2x135 passive vs 2x250 active with sbl's

Posted by: ken c on 31 December 2000

i dont want to restart this debate, but can someone remember the bottom line to the various discussions that went on in this forum as to relative merrits of passive 135's vs active 250's with sbl's. if so, grateful if you could send this to me. many thanks.

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 31 December 2000 by Ron Toolsie

Heard that very comparison at NANA a few years ago. The 250s were used with a Snaxo/Supercap. Source was CDS1, preamp the 52 and speakers the SBLs.

There was no mistaking the benefits of going active even with lesser power amps, with a more rhythmic and detailed and articulate vocals and top end. The passive 135s sounded more squashed and compressed, but to my ears were more tuneful than the active 250s in the lower registers. BOTH systems produced an excellent result, albeit different.

Overall it comes down to a matter of tastes. Passive 135s are quite a bit cheaper than springing for the additional cost of Snaxo/Supercap.

The best of both worlds is of course active 135s, but that is a no-brainer.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

http://homepages.go.com/~rontoolsie/index1.html

Posted on: 01 January 2001 by ken c

ron,

many thanks for prompt reply. i think i will start with 2x135 passive and grow from there.

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 02 January 2001 by Uwe Supper

Hi Ken,
I am afraid I can't help you with your query, since I have never heard active 250s; however I am sure you won't be dissappointed with the 135s (passiv) - which is what I have. Do you still own your CD2, or did I miss something?
Good to see the "very early" participants of the forum are still around.
Cheers
Uwe

Posted on: 02 January 2001 by ken c

uwe, many thanks. yes, i still have my cd2. however, as you will from another post a comparison with a recently serviced cdi rather embarrased my cd2. so, i am rather weighing my options right now.

nice to hear from you uwe.. i will update my entry in systems analysis.

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 03 January 2001 by ken c

any views (preferrebaly based on actual listening comparison) on 4x135 active vs 1x500 passive with sbl speakers, or, of course, 6x135 with nbl's. the second hand value of 135's (silver line) is in the order of 800 sterling, so this package of amplication is still less than nap 500 (3200 for 4x135 and 4800 for 6x135).

enjoy...

ken

Posted on: 03 January 2001 by Bob Edwards

Ken--

Here's an easy one: SBLs when driven passive with a 500 totally outclass active 135s. In turn, active SBLs with 500s are that much better, although you can hear the SBL actually being the limiting factor--a first for me. SBLs active with 500's are otherworldly good.

The 500 is possibly the best stereo component of any kind that I have heard--it has to be heard. Given the tenor of this thread I would suggest waiting for a 500 if at all possible.

Cheers,

Bob @ Qwest

Ride the Light !