Active kans
Posted by: miles on 11 May 2003
I was wondering if anyone could give any opinions on my following options.. here goes..
At the moment I have a nait5 and a pair of Kan2s w. Kan2 stands.(A good change from my B&W 601 S2s.)
I'm interested in going active with them but do not know whether, firstly, using 2 Nap180s would be worth the extra over 2 Nap140s and, secondly, whether I would be better off spending the money on a nap250 and run passively.
Also, would buying a naxo/snaxo w. psu be worth the extra over an ixo?
And finally... if I did go active would it be better to use Kan1s as I have read that the crossover in these is not as good as in the 2s and as such it would be a shame to butcher the kan2s! (I would be able to have a wood finish as well!!)
Well thats it - any opinions would be very gratefully received.
Thanks for your time,
Miles
Posted on: 12 May 2003 by mathew farley
I thought i'd offer my limited advise as its not nice being ignored... From what i've read going active with 140's beats passive 135's... I also read somewhere that the mid-bass drivers were changed to long throw designs at some point and the tweeters were changed. Im interested myself, im going to do a google search on kan's and see if i can dig up some history
Posted on: 12 May 2003 by mathew farley
Posted on: 12 May 2003 by mykel
Posted on: 13 May 2003 by miles
Well, thanks for the info - was beginning to think I had broken some etiquette rule of the forum hence why noone was replying...
Posted on: 13 May 2003 by mathew farley
There's only one rule, don't mention blue tack!
Posted on: 13 May 2003 by mathew farley
Oh no i've done it again.
Posted on: 13 May 2003 by Phil Barry
Bottom line: the preponderance of opinon is that you will get better results by staying passive at least until the 250 level, and that a SNAXO/PSU will beat an IXO by a substantial margin.
There is some controversy over Naim theory on going active; I have never read any comment that someone preferred the performance of an IXO over a SNAXO/PSU.
*********************************************
I really have to comment on this, because I think there's a lack of critical thinking here.
Matthew, this is the first time I've ever read anything that suggests 2 X 140 is better than passive 135s.
I am troubled that you seem to have drawn a conclusion from one article, without looking elsewhere for other views and/or corroboration. Even this forum offers lots of comment.
And McBride is clearly an enthusiast - and enthusiasts often miss critical factors. We have ample examples in public policy - perhaps a non-controversial illustration of the problems caused by enthusiasm is heroin, which was introduced as a cure for either opium or morphine addiction.
This forum can be searched on 'active vs. passive' to find a lot of lively discussion. There is a small monority that prefers active at all costs, but there is perhpas more solid info in the current 'active SBL vs passive NBL' thread.
Naim theory is that you should max out source before going active. I believe Naim theory also holds that passive 135s are better than active 250s, although there's a significant body of opinion that the reverse is true.
A few years ago, HiFi News, I think, compared active 90s to a passive 180 or 250 and concluded the passive 180 was, on the whole better.
Naim theory has served me well, by and large. I left the path when I replaced my 140 with a 250, instead of upgrading my 72, but other than that, I'v gotten a lot of enjoyment from following the line.
I know a passive 250 beats a single 140 in every way I can think of or hear, which conforms to Naim ideology. Perhaps 2 X 140 + SNAXO/'cap would beat a 250 - it should, it's more expensive. But perhaps putting the money in the front end would offer an even bigger improvement.
In any case, with Naim, I have always found the more expensive piece (i.e. new list price, not actual selling price) to sound better than the less expensive piece, so I would expect a SNAXO/PSU to sound better than an IXO. Isn't that your experience?
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 15 May 2003 by mathew farley
Like i said, i "read" somewere that active 140's beat bare 135's. I did not say it was a fact. Sorry if i did'nt explain this properly...Also don't believe anything you read in hi-fi mags
[This message was edited by mathew farley on THURSDAY 15 May 2003 at 21:06.]
Posted on: 15 May 2003 by Phil Barry
Matthew, Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to write in a way that totally prevents misinterpretation.
I agree with you on not believing anything read in hifi magazines - unless it's been verified by one's own ears. One can cautiously believe something that's been heard by someone whose ears you trust, but even that is iffy.
How do you feel about trusting what you read on the web?
At least if a hifi mag publishes an article, you know someone thinks an opinion is worth some money, however little.
IMO, stuff written on the web - unless supported by numerous independent sources - is about as trustworthy as grafitti wriiten on the walls of public toilets. Hence my (over)reaction. If you have a dofferent opinion, so be it - I'd be interested in reading it, but we'd probably have to agree to disagree.
Regards.
Phil
Posted on: 15 May 2003 by mathew farley
Phil,...Mc bride is well respected in the diy hi-fi circles, I chose to leave a link to his page because he wrote some interesting facts as well as opinions... As far as hi-fi mags go, if someone offered me £10,000 to write an article exagerating the performance of there kit i'd try my hardest to help them out, I'm not saying this is a fact, but it does go through my mind when i read hi-fi mags...Kind regards Matt
