Hey all--
Over the last few weeks I have had the chance to hear some different combinations involving the SBL, NBL, and the 500 in both active and passive modes and thought it might be of interest.
I should start by noting I find the relative lack of comment on the NBLs surprising. I think it easily the best looking speaker Naim has made, and while I wish it were more affordable to me I ultimately can't quibble too much about the pricing--which I think fairly represents the performance advantage it has relative to the SBL and the performance relative to the DBL. Having heard NBLs more extensively now I think the 500 powered NBL represents a significant challenge to the DBL.
First: SBLs powered by a single 500 is a pretty dramatic upgrade from a SNAXO/Supercap/4 pack. The speaker is (almost) freed from the only two legitimate criticisms I believe exist: a lack of scale and a relative lack of extension into the 20-40 Hz range. With a single 500 the SBL is transformed--you can hear the amp make the speaker disappear and do even more than we thought it could. When powered by 2 500s in active mode there is again a notable leap in performance, although you can hear that the SBL is being fed too much power--the speaker actually starts to sound like the limiting factor.
The NBL when driven passively sounds to me like it really does need at least 1 pair of 135s to really swing. It does sound very good with a single 250, but it is pretty obvious it needs more power and control--you have a sense that there is a lot more potential in the speaker that is not being taken advantage of. Switching from 135s to a 500 does 2 things: First, it makes the speaker really wake up and second it makes the 135s sound strained and limited by comparison. A single 500 driving NBLs sounds superior to me to a 6 pack driving them. It might be somewhat hyperbolic to call the 500 transformational compared to the 6 pack, but that is how it sounds to me.
Finally, I have heard NBLs driven actively by 3 500s. (I know, life is tough !) That represents the most musical hifi system I have ever heard: It is the most tuneful, clear, dynamic and involving thing I have heard. Subtle interplay between instruments and voices is much easier to hear and follow, although none of it is forced at you--it is there to hear and follow if you want, but you can also just sit back and let everything wash over you. Maybe most importantly is the ability of truly great music to connect on a more emotional and gut level than before.
After all that, having the chance to compare I would go for a 500 driving SBLs in preference to 2 135s driving NBLs. Similarly, I would, at this point, go to 1x500/NBL over 6x135s/NBL. The 500 really is that good--it raises the question of when active is the way to go. The 500 raises the bar very high--I'll be curious to hear the preamp to match it. If it is as much better than the 52 as the 500 is relative to 135s it will be staggering.
Cheers,
Bob
Ride the Light !
Posted on: 04 March 2001 by ken c
bob, what a useful posting!! i read it with keen interest. i am also surprised that there has been a dearth of comment on NBL speakers. may be the owners are now too busy rediscovering their record collections??
i find it incredible that 6x135 active is easily beaten by 1x500 passive driving NBL's! you will recall i demo'd passive 2x135's vs active 2x250 and preferred the active system as, to me, it presented music at a higher emotional plane. i had then concluded that this is an intrinsic property of active systems. this is not to say all the hifi attributes improve at the same time -- i guess some of the comments i have heard about active 250/sbl sounding harsh may be valid, but the emotional experience was so strong that it perhaps overshadowed these hifi faults. to me, one of the reasons why an active system with say 112/150 makes sense if you want to experience the active effect earlier in the upgrade cycle -- however -- such a system may actually exaggerate the compromises at this level -- its then a question of whether these compromises matter to one.
your posting makes me rethink my whole "philosophy" though -- there is now something rather higher up the hierarchy in the 500 that improves its musicality over a fully spec'd 6 pack!!! wow!! (its interesting that a six pack is actually more expensive that the 500 -- more so if you power the snaxo with a supercap -- how was your snaxo powered??)
here is me getting all enthusiastic about your posting when my active system is not even installed yet...
enjoy, and many thanks for an informative posting...
ken
Posted on: 04 March 2001 by Chris Bell
I have done simular comparisons receintly and I can confirm that a single 500 beats both 4 packs and six packs hands down. I too thought a 500 could never beat an active six pack,snaxo,supercap but it did and in every way you can describe. It was as if I was listening to two different recordings when going back and fourth between amps. The 500 is a remarkable piece of technology!
The finest system I have heard so far is a pair of DBLs driven with 3 NAP 500s, and active SBLs (4pack) in the rear driven by the AVI. That was an emotional experience!
Needless to say, I am ditching my 3 pair of 135s in favor of a 500. Any interested parties please e- mail me privately.
Chris Belll
Posted on: 04 March 2001 by Chris Bell
JW,
I have heard 3 different 500 based systems in the Seattle area and one in Portland. I also get to borrow my dealers from time to time--(to study)
FYI: anyone intersted in contacting me privately can reach me at cbell6@qwest.net.
Any 500 users out there care to share their upgrade stories?
Chris Bell, Seattle
Posted on: 04 March 2001 by Chris Bell
Gad, here we go again!
Mana? Huh? Where did that come from? Once again Vuk, you butt your head into conversations that have nothing to do with the thread. I remember when I was an advocate of Mana's products and you would jump all over me. So what gives? Must you always be the center of attention? If memory serves me this thread has nothing to do with Mana Acoustics and their products rather it is about NBLs and NAP500 experieces. Perhaps you should READ the thread next time before responding!
Must you always be the bully on the playground? I for one am getting sick of this!
Chris Bell
PS: Please lets not turn this in to a Mana vs whatever thread. I would like to continue the conversation about the NAP500s. I think we have covered the rack topic enough for now.
Posted on: 05 March 2001 by Simon Matthews
Vuk,what is the 500 to do with stands? Oh no - I don't want an answer - yawn...
Posted on: 05 March 2001 by ken c
marcus,
quote:
I recently went from 250/sbl to 2x250/snaxo/hi-cap/sbl. The improvement is worth every penny. Now I hear that a single 500 sweeps the floor. Amazing, what did Naim actually do with the 500? New kind of transistors?
sounds like you have what (hopefully) will be installed in my home this thursday. i am loking fwd to it -- as i was very impressed with the active 250's in the demo against passive 135's.
now we hear that nap500 passive is better than ANY active system using lower naim amplifiers? the mind boggles...
enjoy...
ken
Posted on: 08 March 2001 by Martin M
I'm trying to think of a loudspeaker that wouldn't sound lively and dynamic if it were 'goosed' by 3 NAP500s.
I've always got the feeling that people seem to fall two camps: DBL people and NBL people (or should I say men, women - usinf my wife as a representative sample seem to fall into NBL only).
DBL people can find NBLs small and 'fey' sounding while NBL people find DBLs PA like and overbearing.
The main problem with DBLs is finding a room big enough to exploit their (or what I perceive to be)strengths - scale of sound, bass extention, volume capability and volume independant character. Get that right and they swing better than any NBL set-up I've heard. Most people with DBLS have big rooms (notable exceptions being our Singaporean friends!), allowing some distance to had between you the loudapeakers (needed bacuase of the wide baffles) and your ears and the walls behind them.
If you have a typically sized British living room the DBLs could be at least visually overbearing, sonically too. Therefore I can understand the preference to NBLs.
So, in my opinion, the NBLs represent a pragmatic answer to the question of how to provide an upgrade path for Naim SBL owners how have a 'normal' sized room.
The DBLs on the other hand seem a 'no-holds-barred' attempt on the state-of-the-art when measured by Naim's well established design criteria. Therefore to say that NBLs are 'brave new world' and DBLs are 'old-hat' is mis-guided. They merely represent different answers to different questions.
Myself, being a big room big sounds kinda guy believe that DBLs have the potential to allow my system to sound better (when measured by my normal criteria) hence will bypass NBLs in favour of DBLs.
Posted on: 10 March 2001 by Bob Edwards
Hey all--
I think the difference from the DBL to NBL is that the NBL has more midrange presence while the DBL has a faster bass and greater weight. The DBLs more extended and weightier bass make it sound like it has less midrange presence when I think it has just as much as the NBL. I would still give the DBL the edge overall, but what I find remarkable is how close the NBL comes to the level of tune offered by the DBL.
On the active/passive question--I am with Ken C--I'd rather have SBLs active with 250s than passive with 135s. They are more tuneful, controlled, dynamic and emotional. The fact that a passive 500 is better than 4 or 6 packs is simply astonishing to me, but there you go.
Cheers,
Bob¿
Posted on: 11 March 2001 by Philip Pang
Naim's top two speakers are both equally communicative, but having heard them carefully on both occasions, in both passive and active versons using 135s (haven't quite done the 500 rounds yet), I still prefer the DBLs for their ability to communicate with me at a more emotional level. They do have a sense of scale and weight that makes everything come to life, but then again, the NBLs also do that, although at a different level for me.
I'm not sure "dull and lifeless" come to mind on the occasions I heard the DBLs in passive and active versions - they sound quite the contrary, even when compared to the NBLs. It begs the question whether they were set-up and driven properly.
The NBLs are very elegant, compared to the broader DBLs, and certainly look more aesthetically pleasing. One thing I do love about them is the fact that you don't have to bother so much with assembling them; just unscrew the transit bolts, position them and fire away! For most mortals, the DBLs and SBLs on the other hand could be a royal pain in the ass when it comes to setting them up properly ... (Man_???)
There's also the issue of cost, space, taste and the wife (if she exists and matters).
If it were me, in terms of absolute performance, the DBLs do it almost revelatorily. I know I'm waiting for mine, with a 500 in tow somewhere in future.
Right now, I'm happy with my SBLs.
Good listening; the music's still groovin'.
Philip
naimniac for life
