Active/Passive Power Amp pecking order
Posted by: smike42 on 18 November 2003
OK so we've had the preamp order but this one is more complex. Let's assume we have a pair of NBL's at the tail and a CDS3 552 at the front end (my dream for a few years time)
What's the right order in between
Poorest Olive 140
Best 3 x 500
I sit in the active camp and currently have 3 x chrome bumper 250 but which is the right order to proceed?
My guess would be
1. Olive 140
2. Black 150
3. Olive 180
4. Black 200
5. Olive 250
6. Black 250
7. Olive 135's passive
8. 300 passive
9. Olive 250's active
10. Olive 135's active
11. 500 passive
12. Black 250's active
13. 300's active
14. 500's Active
I've read posts on the 6 pack vs 500 and the 500 seemed to win but has anyone tried/got views on these other combos. In particular, is it possible to change one power amp at a time in an active system so could I go say one 300 with 2 x 250 then two 300 and one 250 then finally 3 300's or is it best to "drop" back to passive with the 500 and just dream about spending over £20k in one lump to get active again.
In vfm terms £15k for 3 x 300's seems a lot but can £30k for 3 x 500 ever be justified?
Thanks
Mike
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by Paul B
IMO passive 500 will easily surpass the "lesser" amps when used with NBLs. 500/NBLs really work very, very well together (and I'm sure active 500s/NBLs are even better).
I have not heard active NBLs but from my experience, active olive 250s with SBLs or active 135/SBLs are preferable to passive 300/NBLs or passive 135/NBLs. From what I have heard, a passive 300 does not do what a 500 is able to do easily, which is surpass an active system with a smaller amp.
In other words, I prefer an active system with olive 250s or 135s as it is to my ears better than passive until you get to the 500.
Paul
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by ken c
I sit in the active camp and currently have 3 x chrome bumper 250 but which is the right order to proceed?...
i suspect the only reliable ranking, in the absence of extensive listening tests, is that the active combo will be "better" than the equivalent passive -- certainly in my case, there was no doubt that a 2x250 active was A LOT better than a single 250 passive. doh!!!
as to where you go from now, mike YOU will need to dem 1x300 passive vs a sextet of active 135's - i suspect either will be an upgrade to your current set up, but i am guessing as i have not done the dem (yet... right now i have an active duet of olive 250's and am considering either active 250 MkII's, or 4x135's or passive 300). i have sbl's which are now part of the furniture in my office and are unlikely to go anywhere soon, unless the SL2's prove to be a lot better...
as others have said, if you are currently active, its hard to go back to passive, but i gather the bigger amps (300 upwards) make up for a lot of what is lost -- but its best to acertain that for yourself...
let us know...
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewThomas:
At the risk (once again) of sounding like a shill for Billy Woodman...
I went from Aktiv Isobariks (3xLK280/SPARK) to ATC Active 50's and have never looked back... The ATC's are just vastly superior to Isobariks (I know, I know, I'm wasting my time). And for £7.5K amps/crossover included the 50's are a relative steal. _Go hear a pair - trust your ears_ 
You could take the money you'd save on naim amps and get a better front end, should you feel so inclined.
My work here is done
Andrew,
_Go hear a pair - trust your ears_ you really are a Hypocritical Tosser. And no just because you put in a smiley doesn't make it the least bit humourous.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 19 November 2003 by jpk73
active 135/SBLs are preferable to passive 300/NBLs or passive 135/NBLs
I went from 2*135/SBL to active SBL/135 to passive NBL/135 to 6*135/NBL active. Each step was a huge improvement. When I went from active SBLs to passive NBLs I was not quite convinced at the beginning, but after a short warm up period the NBLs were so much better in every respect.
- Jun
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by Bob Edwards
Mike--
Tom A. put it well--it's not that simple.
Although I've not heard a direct comparison, I would be ASTONISHED if active 250 Mk2s were better than a passive 500. That is how good the 500 is.
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewThomas:
quote:
Originally posted by syd:
Andrew,
_ _Go hear a pair - trust your ears_ _
you really are a Hypocritical Tosser.
I would be a hypocrite if I had claimed there was no difference between _speakers_.
[This message was edited by AndrewThomas on WEDNESDAY 19 November 2003 at 22:27.]
In one thread you you state that there is no difference between cables, the surfaces the equipment stands on, mains arrangements etc unless scientifically proven using DBTs, and now you are telling a person to trust their ears, exactly what all your detracters have being saying all along. Your still a hypocrit.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by Phil Barry
This subjectivist has never done a DBT. I'd much rather find something that sounds more like real music to me than what I already have and that is within my budget and meets my vfm requirements. I hear a lot more music doing it that way, compared to trying to do DBTs.
Bur then I'm probably really an objectivist (not in the Rand-Branden sense) who simply thinks the currently available, so-called objective tests don't tell us much that's important.
Phil
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewThomas:
quote:
Originally posted by syd:
In one thread you you state that there is no difference between cables, the surfaces the equipment stands on, mains arrangements etc unless scientifically proven using DBTs, and now you are telling a person to trust their ears, exactly what all your detracters have being saying all along. Your still a hypocrit.
What you have failed to understand about DBT is that the test is such that people can _only_ use (and therefore trust) their ears.
If the phrase "trust your ears" was taken to its logical conclusion (expecially by subjectivists who use it), they would only participate in (and purchase equipment based on) DBT..
Are you saying that you actually conducted a DBT in the dealers or in your home before buying all of your equipment?
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by gusi
Tom
I agree that the 500 is great. I heard at the dealers too many times.
Interestingly in terms of price, for an 3 way speaker, it sits somewhere between active 250s and 135s (+naxo and hicap).
So when considering going active on briks/nbls/dbls the seemingly unaffordable single 500 becomes a viable alternative.
I haven't heard an active system yet so I can't comment on its merits.
Gus
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by AndrewThomas:
What I am saying is that people who use the phrase "trust your ears" and yet refuse to participate in double blind testing are the hypocrites.
[This message was edited by AndrewThomas on FRIDAY 21 November 2003 at 04:33.]
As far as I can tell nobody on this forum has actually refused point blank to take part in double blind testing. Indeed many of your detractors in an old thread became quite interested in setting one up but seemed to get bogged down in the logistics of it all. Mostly they don't think it would change their minds one way or the other. Perhaps you could organise one and invite people to come along to it.
I'd still like an answer to my question
Are you saying that you actually conducted a DBT in the dealers or in your home before buying all of your equipment?Yours in Music
Syd
I must apologise to the originator of this thread for stealing it and will continue on a more appropriate thread.
See
DBTs and Hypocrisy[This message was edited by syd on FRIDAY 21 November 2003 at 07:06.]
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by gusi
Never seen or heard a 300. So I can't argue on that one.
Gus
Posted on: 24 November 2003 by smike42
Gus,
I heard one 300 and it sounded very good - I've never heard a 500 though. For me my 3 active chrome bumper 250's with briks sounded better than that one 300 with NBL's but the 300 dem wasn't in ideal conditions (the Naim dem room at Salisbury), but some of what the 300 system did was brilliant - I think active systems have more finesse. I await my new kit and lounge to get back to listening to music rather than typing about it.
Smike
Posted on: 25 November 2003 by ken c
quote:
Originally posted by AllenB:
IMHO the 250Mk2 is above passive 135's.
Others will disagree.
Regards
Allen
allen, this is interesting!! you are not even talking of active 250II's right?
enjoy
ken
Posted on: 25 November 2003 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by AllenB:
IMHO the 250Mk2 is above passive 135's.
Others will disagree.
Regards
Allen
Absolutely. No question.
regards,
Dev
Posted on: 26 November 2003 by Dev B
quote:
Originally posted by AllenB:
Active could be a very interesting prospect, especially if your speakers only require 2 x 250's (sadly the NBL's would need three). Active 250 Mk2 against a 300 passive would be something i would love to hear of anybody's experience.
regards
Allen
Me too. The question here will be does the mechanical separation of the 300 give more music and control than active 250s. I suspect 300s are a bit like 500s they need time to give there best and what they give is only revealed in the best set up systems (a bit like the 52). On dem active 250s might have more obvious drive, but Naim do seem to be favouring passive systems with stronger amps nowadays.
Bascially I have no clue and would be interested to learn more, but from where I sit right now 250-2 is pretty darn close to the 300, but I think a 300 has more to give especially with complex music and louder volumes.
regards,
Dev
Posted on: 03 December 2003 by smike42
quote:
Originally posted by Dev B:
but Naim do seem to be favouring passive systems with stronger amps nowadays.
Dev
Where do you get that from when their top system is active 500's driving DBL's?!
Smike
