Going active with old NAP250, new NAP200, SNAXO 242 and SBL's

No doubt this will change your system and possibly for the better (I have active SBLs but not in your intended configuration - I doubt that anyone has). The question is could the money be spent elsehere produce a better result.

Other possibilities in order include:

1. replace CDX with CDS2
2. replace 2 Hicaps with Supercap (keep one Hicap for later use with Snaxo)
3. replace 82 with 52
4. purchase olive 250 to match existing 250
5. purchase olive SNAXO ( use amps in old configuration - one amp drives both treble and mid/bass of one speaker - not 242 configuration - why Naim has changed to this I don't know)
6. replace Hicap for SNAXO with Supercap + Burndy interconnect

The above will prove to provide excellent results in a "traditional" active Naim system (traditional = olive system).

Hope this helps.

Paul

Paul,

Thanks for your array of suggestions. I have thought of some of them but I think for the money spent that going active at this stage would not only give good immediate results but still allow several of the upgrades you mentioned. No doubt I'd rather go for the CDS3 or the 552 but..ouch!
I rationalize this is the most cost effective way to go and still get a considerable upgrade in sound.

Rich:

If I were you, I would first buy another used olive 250 with a similar serial number to your own (close so that sonics are similar in performance). These are selling quite inexpensively now on the used market and probably would be cheaper than a 200 and probably better performing (the olive 250 certainly outperformed the old 180 which the 200 replaced). You can then temporarily use the two 250s in mono format (using one channel on each amp only). These are sometimes called 125s in this format and will bring you quite close to the performance of a pair of mono 135s (I have done this - it works well).

Next I would find a used Supercap to replace your two Hicaps. If you plan on going active with your two existing Hicaps, one will have to be taken away from the 82 and used for the new Snaxo anyway. This will definitely result in a drop in performance for your 82 and overall a worse result (in other words - don't do it). However if you get a Supercap, your 82 will perform MUCH better and you will free up a Hicap for use with a Snaxo (used olive), which you buy next to go active. Later you could replace the 82 with a 52 and CDX with CDS2 and the Hicap with a second Supercap for the Snaxo.

My feeling is that if you go active with your plan, it may not be entirely satisfactory. Existing wisdom of the "olive days" was that you needed at least a 82/Super plus a pair of 250s before going active. Some might also insist on a CDS2 and 52 first as well. However, your decision may rest upon what used equipment comes available.

In the end though, I highly recommend going active. It is the way, I believe, that you will obtain the highest performance of your SBLs short of going 552/500 (which I have not heard with SBLs). IMO an active olive series 52/250 outperforms passive 252/300 with identical sources.

I have been through most of these changes myself over the past few years as I moved to an active system. The end result is worth it.

Paul

Paul,
Why do you imply the workings of the Snaxo 242 (separate drive treble, bass) is not as optimal as older 2-4? Seems like a separate drive for each box of SBL would be more ideal.
Please elaborate. THX

Naim always claimed previously that the better configuration for active amplification in an active (two-way) system was with one amp driving both drivers (treble/mid-bass) in one speaker (say left speaker) and the second amp doing likewise with both the other speaker's drivers (say right speaker). Although I have not experimented with this (and perhaps more common) configuration (one amp driving both tweeters the other amp driving both mid-bass drivers) such as in the new Snaxo 242, others have, and I don't believe any have stated on the forum that the latter (the new 242 configuration for example) is better. Naim appears to have been "right" about this up until now. So the change to the "new" active configuration is quite a surprise.

As far as I know, Naim have not stated on the forum why they have moved to this "new" (for Naim) active configuration. The "problem" (if there was one) with the older configuration was that it required two identical amps such as two 250s. However, the "new" configuration would allow for two different amps as you have been planning to do. It certainly makes it easier (perhaps) to move into an active setup. However, the important question should be which configuration sounds better or more accurate? Until people start using the new Snaxo, we won't know. Perhaps the new Snaxo is so much better than the old Snaxo that the configuration is of little significance. My suggestion for you to purchase an olive Snaxo was based largely on cost (as used should be cheaper and a used olive Snaxo may be quite a bit cheaper now that Naim has replaced it). It would also match (looks may be important to you) all of your other gear.

Paul

[This message was edited by Paul B on THURSDAY 17 July 2003 at 16:41.]

I have had a similar upgrade experience going from CDX to CDS2 and passive 135 to six pack. I would say go for the source first approach. The improvements are immediate. Not the other way round.

david

Yeah...but......you see the CDS2 is a quantum leap in $$$$$ while my going active at this stage is a lot less. More bang for the buck maybe!? Anyway, the source upgrade first is the ideal way to go but maybe not always the most realistic at any given point in time, yeah? Someday....