In Honor of J.A. Toon's Excellent Topic

Date: November 10, 1998 04:47 AM
Author: Jawed Ashraf (Jawed@cupidity.force9.co.uk)
Subject: 135s versus 250s

Just over 2 years ago, I did a dem with CDS, 52, SBLs to choose my upgrade from a passive 250. I went into the dem with the intention that I wasn't going further than 2x250s active for some time.

I'd just bought the Audio Synthesis CD player (slightly cheaper than a CDS due to a friendly discount from Audio Synthesis) and was so overjoyed with the new music it brought that I felt a commensurate amplification improvement was justified.

Six months earlier I'd bought the 52 and 250 to go with my SBLs and the low-price CD player I already had. I was trying to buy a two-Hicap 82 or 52 and a 250 or 2x135s, all second-hand. It was proving difficult to find the gear. And when I got extra money through a matured savings account, a little persuasion to buy new from my dealer worked wonders. (ZERO regrets about going this way.)

At that time I knew I was going to sort out my CD player, but my expenditure plans were more like £1000-£2000, rather than the £3700 that a CDS cost back then (roughly).

So, yeah, you could argue my ideas were topsy-turvy with regard to the source. Looking back, I can't think why I thought I might only go for something like a CD2, but there it is. In fact it is mighty puzzling. I suppose I was trying to spend money on a £2K+ CD player, plus second hand pre-amp and power amps.

The reason I'm telling you all this (apart from the fact I'm sat here at work with literally no work to do) is to give you an idea of my thoughts, motives and spending intentions. Because ultimately you can look back at my upgrade-career and say "hmm, that's just wrong".

I suppose that summer, between buying the 52/250 and the CD player, I decided to throw caution to the wind. I'd been contracting for nearly a year and was seeing cash that would make the system more balanced. So I evaluated CD players on the basis that I wouldn't spend any more. But I was completely bitten by the upgrade bug and decided for "just one more" upgrade.

So, back to the dem. Really all I was trying to do was check that 2x250s active was worth it over 2x135s passive. I wasn't thinking in terms of owning 4x135s for years to come. This really was the end of all this extravagance.

Listening to the 2x135s in that dem was the first time I ever really listened to them under conditions I felt happy with. I'd started with a 250 and knew the instant the CD pits of Uncertain Smile came under the laser that the 135s BLEW AWAY a 250. Ouch. The 250 simply sounded sick, and a right royal waste of time by comparison.

I didn't need to listen for very long. This was all about communication, verve, interest, passion, control.

So then I had 2x250 active. Same song, low volume, one speaker working (as the dealer connected the cables to the speakers) I knew that this was a whole new presentation. This was treble finesse and dynamic freedom in spades. I had the whole of Uncertain Smile and that was it. I just didn't need to think about it any more.

2x250s brought all the same communication, verve, interest, passion and control to the music. I didn't feel like I was losing anything with the 250s.

(We also tried briefly connecting a Supercap up, to power the SNAXO. This seemed like a small improvement at the time, but one that I simply didn't have the financial interest to pursue.)

The dem was, for me, pretty short. Maybe an hour. I knew where I was going. 2x250s active. No further for a few years. I had serious saving to do (for pretend things like a rotten old age and a house in which to rot).

Now of course, I know more about the way 250s and 135s sound. I know that in that dem I didn't spend time listening to the finer parts of the way 135s play versus the active 250s. Having 4x135s at home, and having listened to active 135s through DBLs versus active 250s through DBLs, I now understand pretty thoroughly the frazzle that a 250 brings.

The frazzle basically hides the complete shape of notes, and brings a degree of uncertainty to timing. It makes the 250 sound less committed to the message, in a detailed way. It also makes the 250 play voices in a less than pure way, almost like the voice is fighting itself. Many people complain of grainy treble in systems and I think this is often heard as grainy or even gritty voices. You have to be careful not to confuse the singer's natural grittiness with what the system is doing. That's hard and I don't know how to answer that, but suffice to say that most singers you hear have a grittiness in their voices, and systems that hide this in their mellowness, or treble roll-off, are taking a different route through the compromises of hi-fi.

What was plain in that dem though was the extra dynamic freedom and ease of *presentation* that the active 250s brought. Refinement on a grand scale, even if, ultimately, inner refinement was sacrificed to the passive 135s' authority. Deep down passive 135s play you a more wholesome piece of music. I guess I went for a little "back-end" balance and chose presentation. Aided by the fact that I wasn't attuned in those days to the finesse of 135s, nor did I give the dem enough time to find out.

So, in terms of compression, the active 250s are way better than passive 135s. The trade-off is ultimately about balance.

I have this theory about Naim systems: they are a trade-off between communication and presentation. You start off with more communication, generally with Naim and gradually add refined-presentation. Of course all upgrades also improve communication but sometimes you can go too far with presentation over communication.

For example, I think that a 72 is about communication. I think that a "bare" 82 is mostly about enhancing presentation. I've had, during several dems, to virtually fight off the dealer's descriptions of the tonal richness and the harmonic correctness of the 82. Primarily because these things don't directly bring me enjoyment and also because at the time I was bored by the 82. Things like Hicaps and Supercaps and better sources always bring more communication, first, but with at least as much presentation. Maybe it is worth me saying that I still find myself at least partly mystified by the concepts of tonality, in general. That violin might sound wonderfully nutty, or that triangle might glow in its purity but those things always come to me last.

With 250s and 135s, it is, in a way, easier to compare one model passive and active. If you do that, then in the case of a 250 you get an overwhelming addition of communication and presentation. I personally haven't demmed passive 135s versus active 135s, so I can't give you an idea of the degree of change. What I can say is that 2x250s to 4x135s active is, again, overwhelming on both counts.

If, logically, you are thinking money and the 40-45% premium of active 250s versus passive 135s, then it's worth considering that, in detail, 250s give I suppose slightly less communication than 135s, but massively better presentation in terms of dynamic freedom, lack of compression, finesse with guitar strings, cymbal "rightness", scale of voices and acoustic instruments in general.

There are presentation faults with the 250s (because passive 135s do a few things better and because active 135s are so much better!) but I think on balance, for me, the 2x250 route was the best choice at the time. Though being fanatical about voices, there's a slim chance that if I revisited that dem, I'd choose the frazzle-free voices despite the overall lack of dynamic freedom of the 135s and lack of treble finesse in the guitar strings/cymbal department.

Some day (soon) I'm gonna start mucking about investigating what happens with a single channel 250 versus a 135 (i.e. using 2x250s mono). The reason being that if you have 2x250s active, the first step towards 4x135s active is to buy 2x135s and configure your system with all four amps, using just one channel of each 250. I did this and the result was phenomenal.

The moral of the story is, obviously, proceed with caution! If you really feel, in the heat of a 2x135s versus 2x250s dem, that you'll never have 4x135s, then you needn't feel guilty about the wonderful things either option doesn't quite do. If you're going for 4x135s, then just plan out your expenditure over time and see how things look. Some people think that the prime directive is never to trade a component-in, as it "wastes" money. Others think that serious enjoyment is better sooner than later, even if it means trading some boxes down the road.

And, as you all probably know, it is because of these experiences that I firmly believe that the upgrade returns from Naim are not diminishing.

Insert Witty Signature Line Here