DBL/6x135/52.... where to upgrade?
Posted by: Ron Toolsie on 22 July 2003
This may be of some interest to a limited selection of people out there (attention Jun Keller).
As some of you already know I started off on the active route circa 1996 with the then top of the line CDS1/52/Snaxo/SC/6x135/DBL setup.Great power, insight and lots of fun to listen to. Not really the last word in absolute finesse and delicacy though. Indeed I found that my previous speakers (the wonderous Sonus Faber Extremas)had a certain gestalt and beauty in them that was not to be found in the active DBLs. And for a while the view was nice, being able to survey the surroundings from the kingdoms highest peak. Of course it doesnt take much to have the highest elevation in the Flat Earth World. This state of overconfidence did not last long as the CDS1 became the S2, the NAP500 was introduced, the 52 became bettered by not only the 552 but the 252, the NAP300 positioned itself between the 135 and the 500, the CDS3 took over the baton from the CDS2 etc etc. A couple of years ago I decided to have my CDS1 transmuted to the CDS2.
CDS1 to CDS2 In my opinion an upgrade that has no significant downsides. Everything the CDS1 did very well the CDS2 did even better, while most of the failings of the CDS1 (inablity to musically track complex recordings, subjectively peaky vocals, threadbare texture of bass notes and what can only be kindly referred to as quirkyness of track acess) seemed vastly better. It is true that the sum of the parts made the CDS2 seem very slightly 'dark' or rather less spotlit than the CDS1- a trait that some of the true believers decried was loss of pace. Not so I. For the very attractive CDS1-CDS2 innard upgrade that Naim offered, I was very pleased with the overall results, and never wished I had the CDS1 signature back.
Current conventional wisdom suggests that the next 'upgrade' would be to replace the 6x135/active with a single NAP500/passive x/o, but for people such as myself and Jun, we have so much vested in the extra black boxes we look for alternative pathways. And as I have already opined, the price of a single NAP500 is not really that much less than 3xNAP300, while the latter would still allow me to receive all of the benefits of an active crossover.
Now on to the next upgrades (in chronological order in which I auditioned them).
552/6x135 vs 52/6x135 I had the 552 in my system for only one long afteroon. If you recall my original post I declined the dealers offer to leave it there all weekend for fear that I would end up e-baying one of my kidneys. The 552s greatest strength over the 52 was what it did NOT do.... it lacked the now obvious colorations that the 52 imparts, sounding entirely seamless with more than a hint of round-earth qualities interdigitating with its wonderful flat earth ones. In a nutshell, it offered a very seductive sound, and one that seemed very tonally, rhythmically and spatially accurate. Eventually when the 52 had to be re-inserted I intellectually missed what the 552 was doing in the context of the 6x135/DBLs pairing, but I did not feel that the 52 was by anymeans unlistenable.
52/6x135 vs 52/1x300/4x135
Yes, I bought a NAP300 sight unseen, because I just knew that the venerable 135s had to be a bottleneck, or at least one of them. With the configuration of the Snaxo 3-6 (but not the current Snaxo 362) the amps for the LF and MF had to be identical and the NAP300 could only be inserted driving the tweeters- which was the recommended configuration anyway. The details of this upgrade can be found in a more expansive form in one of my earlier postings, but I have to say this was a very significant upgrade. It still almost astonishes me that having a better tweeter amp can subjectively improve the entirespectrum. There is no doubt that even the low bass notes became tighter, more rhythmic and with less overhang. Voices, brass instruments and percussion were just so much more credible. Yes folks, the NAP135s were a great amplifier in its day, but by current standards seem to turn the leading edge into a bleeding edge. And the irony is that fully 67% of the NAP135s were still resident in the active system- their most pervasive colorations seemed to be smitten by simply replacing a single pair of them at the most critical site- the tweeters.
So now my 'reference' system is the CDS2/XPS1/52/1x300/4x135 with the Snaxo/SC and DBLs being for now a non-variable. Into this system I did the next change.
XPS1 vs XPS2
Like the 552 did over the 52 (but to nowhere as large a degree) the XPS2 showed the XPS1 to be colored, somewhat pedestrian at the bottom end and to lack some space around (and within) notes. In addition it allowed slight variations in the envelope of the notes to become much more apparent-a facet that is not immediately obvious on a quick a/b comparison, but becomes very important with time.
So now, I'm up to the level of the CDS2/XPS2/52/1x300/4x135. I felt that the next thing to be replaced would be one more pair of the NAP135s. While I was toying with the idea of adding on another NAP300, I got the opportunity to snap up a slightly used NAP500. While this was on its way to me, I ordered one of the new generation Snaxo 362, as this will allow me to horizontally activate the DBLs with three different model number amplifiers (the 135s, the 300 and the 500), something that cannot be done with the older Snaxo3-6.
Anyway, yesterday the NAP500 shows up...but the Snaxo 362 is still intransit from NANA. So last night I could only try the NAP 500 on the tweeters, although my initial plans were to use the 500 on the bass units- my long term goal was to have 1x500 (bass units) and 2x300 (mids and tweets. And here we go..........
1x300/4x135 vs 1x500/4x135.
Read above and see all of the changes I have made. Take their magnitudes and then add them up. What you then have maybe roughly approximates the literally astonishing (aka jaw-dropping) experience that the 500 effects.
Dare I say this is a far, far larger improvement than the 552/6x135s were. In the same ways the 1x300 thrashed the 135s driving only the tweeters, the 500 triumphed over the 300, but to a way greater level. What I heard last night was a complete revelation. The entire frequency spectrum has again been rectified to one that is much lower in colorations. The top and middle spectra have a completely unforced and very life-like texture. A great wealth of detail is just basking the room...tiny little echoes, spurious noises in the background and waves and waves of glorious sound that just has me transfixed in sheer admiration. How many times have I made an upgrade so large, I just wanted to call up everybody I knew and tell them...'you just gotta come over NOW and hear this!'. Maybe two or three times, and folks- this is one of them. The DBLs low end has also taken on an unprecedented degree of tune- something I would have thought would have been the case had I used the 500 to drive the LF units. I can only shake my head in disbelief.
I have to seriously re-evaluated my initial plans. Based on the overwhelming superiority of the 500 over the 300 when driving only the tweeters it makes me wonder if a speaker passively driven with a 500 is better than the same speaker actively driven with any other amplifiers (maybe even including 3x300). Based on the initial results, I will almost not certainly remove the 500 from its tweeter duties. However tonight I will try out (with the Snaxo 362) the 500(bass) 135(mids) 300 (tweeters) against what I think will be the preferred pairings of 500 (tweets) 300 (mids) and 135 (bass).
My jaw has dropped.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
As some of you already know I started off on the active route circa 1996 with the then top of the line CDS1/52/Snaxo/SC/6x135/DBL setup.Great power, insight and lots of fun to listen to. Not really the last word in absolute finesse and delicacy though. Indeed I found that my previous speakers (the wonderous Sonus Faber Extremas)had a certain gestalt and beauty in them that was not to be found in the active DBLs. And for a while the view was nice, being able to survey the surroundings from the kingdoms highest peak. Of course it doesnt take much to have the highest elevation in the Flat Earth World. This state of overconfidence did not last long as the CDS1 became the S2, the NAP500 was introduced, the 52 became bettered by not only the 552 but the 252, the NAP300 positioned itself between the 135 and the 500, the CDS3 took over the baton from the CDS2 etc etc. A couple of years ago I decided to have my CDS1 transmuted to the CDS2.
CDS1 to CDS2 In my opinion an upgrade that has no significant downsides. Everything the CDS1 did very well the CDS2 did even better, while most of the failings of the CDS1 (inablity to musically track complex recordings, subjectively peaky vocals, threadbare texture of bass notes and what can only be kindly referred to as quirkyness of track acess) seemed vastly better. It is true that the sum of the parts made the CDS2 seem very slightly 'dark' or rather less spotlit than the CDS1- a trait that some of the true believers decried was loss of pace. Not so I. For the very attractive CDS1-CDS2 innard upgrade that Naim offered, I was very pleased with the overall results, and never wished I had the CDS1 signature back.
Current conventional wisdom suggests that the next 'upgrade' would be to replace the 6x135/active with a single NAP500/passive x/o, but for people such as myself and Jun, we have so much vested in the extra black boxes we look for alternative pathways. And as I have already opined, the price of a single NAP500 is not really that much less than 3xNAP300, while the latter would still allow me to receive all of the benefits of an active crossover.
Now on to the next upgrades (in chronological order in which I auditioned them).
552/6x135 vs 52/6x135 I had the 552 in my system for only one long afteroon. If you recall my original post I declined the dealers offer to leave it there all weekend for fear that I would end up e-baying one of my kidneys. The 552s greatest strength over the 52 was what it did NOT do.... it lacked the now obvious colorations that the 52 imparts, sounding entirely seamless with more than a hint of round-earth qualities interdigitating with its wonderful flat earth ones. In a nutshell, it offered a very seductive sound, and one that seemed very tonally, rhythmically and spatially accurate. Eventually when the 52 had to be re-inserted I intellectually missed what the 552 was doing in the context of the 6x135/DBLs pairing, but I did not feel that the 52 was by anymeans unlistenable.
52/6x135 vs 52/1x300/4x135
Yes, I bought a NAP300 sight unseen, because I just knew that the venerable 135s had to be a bottleneck, or at least one of them. With the configuration of the Snaxo 3-6 (but not the current Snaxo 362) the amps for the LF and MF had to be identical and the NAP300 could only be inserted driving the tweeters- which was the recommended configuration anyway. The details of this upgrade can be found in a more expansive form in one of my earlier postings, but I have to say this was a very significant upgrade. It still almost astonishes me that having a better tweeter amp can subjectively improve the entirespectrum. There is no doubt that even the low bass notes became tighter, more rhythmic and with less overhang. Voices, brass instruments and percussion were just so much more credible. Yes folks, the NAP135s were a great amplifier in its day, but by current standards seem to turn the leading edge into a bleeding edge. And the irony is that fully 67% of the NAP135s were still resident in the active system- their most pervasive colorations seemed to be smitten by simply replacing a single pair of them at the most critical site- the tweeters.
So now my 'reference' system is the CDS2/XPS1/52/1x300/4x135 with the Snaxo/SC and DBLs being for now a non-variable. Into this system I did the next change.
XPS1 vs XPS2
Like the 552 did over the 52 (but to nowhere as large a degree) the XPS2 showed the XPS1 to be colored, somewhat pedestrian at the bottom end and to lack some space around (and within) notes. In addition it allowed slight variations in the envelope of the notes to become much more apparent-a facet that is not immediately obvious on a quick a/b comparison, but becomes very important with time.
So now, I'm up to the level of the CDS2/XPS2/52/1x300/4x135. I felt that the next thing to be replaced would be one more pair of the NAP135s. While I was toying with the idea of adding on another NAP300, I got the opportunity to snap up a slightly used NAP500. While this was on its way to me, I ordered one of the new generation Snaxo 362, as this will allow me to horizontally activate the DBLs with three different model number amplifiers (the 135s, the 300 and the 500), something that cannot be done with the older Snaxo3-6.
Anyway, yesterday the NAP500 shows up...but the Snaxo 362 is still intransit from NANA. So last night I could only try the NAP 500 on the tweeters, although my initial plans were to use the 500 on the bass units- my long term goal was to have 1x500 (bass units) and 2x300 (mids and tweets. And here we go..........
1x300/4x135 vs 1x500/4x135.
Read above and see all of the changes I have made. Take their magnitudes and then add them up. What you then have maybe roughly approximates the literally astonishing (aka jaw-dropping) experience that the 500 effects.
Dare I say this is a far, far larger improvement than the 552/6x135s were. In the same ways the 1x300 thrashed the 135s driving only the tweeters, the 500 triumphed over the 300, but to a way greater level. What I heard last night was a complete revelation. The entire frequency spectrum has again been rectified to one that is much lower in colorations. The top and middle spectra have a completely unforced and very life-like texture. A great wealth of detail is just basking the room...tiny little echoes, spurious noises in the background and waves and waves of glorious sound that just has me transfixed in sheer admiration. How many times have I made an upgrade so large, I just wanted to call up everybody I knew and tell them...'you just gotta come over NOW and hear this!'. Maybe two or three times, and folks- this is one of them. The DBLs low end has also taken on an unprecedented degree of tune- something I would have thought would have been the case had I used the 500 to drive the LF units. I can only shake my head in disbelief.
I have to seriously re-evaluated my initial plans. Based on the overwhelming superiority of the 500 over the 300 when driving only the tweeters it makes me wonder if a speaker passively driven with a 500 is better than the same speaker actively driven with any other amplifiers (maybe even including 3x300). Based on the initial results, I will almost not certainly remove the 500 from its tweeter duties. However tonight I will try out (with the Snaxo 362) the 500(bass) 135(mids) 300 (tweeters) against what I think will be the preferred pairings of 500 (tweets) 300 (mids) and 135 (bass).
My jaw has dropped.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Ron,
A most enjoyable read as always. Just let me say thanks in advance and please don't ever stop posting.
I remember the first time I heard NBLs. I had seen pics of them and heard about them on the conference but and was really looking forward to being "wowed". On the end of passive 135s, they left me unimpressed. I was rather disappointed. But then I heard them on the end of a mighty 500. What a revelation! Forget about all the adjectives, flat-earth vs round-earth etc, it just sounded incredible. Just like you said, the whole audio spectrum was enhanced and the bass was deep, tuneful and oh so controlled. That's what I expected from the NBLs. I don't know what a six pack would have sounded like but I doubt it could compare with the 500. I can only imagine how good Benford's active 500 setup is, probably so good that he can't find time to post
After hearing the 552 in Antonelli's system, I still believe the 500 is a required first step -- it's just that good.
A most enjoyable read as always. Just let me say thanks in advance and please don't ever stop posting.
I remember the first time I heard NBLs. I had seen pics of them and heard about them on the conference but and was really looking forward to being "wowed". On the end of passive 135s, they left me unimpressed. I was rather disappointed. But then I heard them on the end of a mighty 500. What a revelation! Forget about all the adjectives, flat-earth vs round-earth etc, it just sounded incredible. Just like you said, the whole audio spectrum was enhanced and the bass was deep, tuneful and oh so controlled. That's what I expected from the NBLs. I don't know what a six pack would have sounded like but I doubt it could compare with the 500. I can only imagine how good Benford's active 500 setup is, probably so good that he can't find time to post
After hearing the 552 in Antonelli's system, I still believe the 500 is a required first step -- it's just that good.
And the plot thickens....
The new Snaxo 362 arrived this afternoon. I unboxed it, took it upstairs and placed it next to the old one. Before I plugged it in I spent some time listening the to 1x500(tweeters)/4x135/OldSnaxo. As was the case last night, the 500 continues to stamp a great degree of authority and finesse when used in this configuration. Once I had regained some familiarity with the 500-supercharged sound I replaced the Snaxo3-6 with the Snaxo-362.
1x500(tweeters)/4x135/Snaxo362
Well there is absolutely no doubt that the latest Snaxo is better than its progenitor. In comparison the older Snaxo has a moderately compressed, boxy colored and spatially flattened perspective. The new Snaxo seems to offer the very same types of improvements that the XPS2 does over the XPS (and probably is more similar to the 52 to 252 change), but is immediately more obvious. In which case this may possibly mean that it is a larger improvement over the old Snaxo than the XPS2 is over the XPS1. And for a far lower cost too. Yes, with the new Snaxo362 in situ the presentation seemed be more relaxed and unforced, and not run out of steam, yet to be every bit as dynamic. It didn't take long to notice that the bottom end of the DBLs was even firmer and more in step with the remaining registers. Any person with a Snaxo-based active system should run, not walk to their dealer.
Eventually it was time to bring in the NAP300 into the mix to join its bigger older brother and its smaller much older uncle.
1x500(tweeters]/1x300(midrange]/2x135{bass]/Snaxo362.
Replacing the pair of 135s on the midrange units with the NAP300 was nowhere near the quantum leap I got from swapping out the 300 for the 500 on the tweeters. Which is not to say that there were not improvement to be had. Vocals, especially female ones took on a richness that was largely missing on the 135s. The bottom end sounded paradoxically a little bit lighter and rather firmer. And the soundstage moved a foot or so further backwards from the plane of the speakers. I would put the improvements from the 135-to-300 on the midrange units somewhat beneath the Snaxo3-6 to the Snaxo 362. I should however point out that in the process of swapping in and out amplifiers I was obliged to power down not only the Snaxos supercap, but all of the power amps too, so there is no doubt a warm-up issue enters this rather convoluted equation.
And that is it for now... tomorrow I intend to try out the 500(bass drivers)/135(mid drivers/300(tweeters) and see what balances of strengths that may offer.
Oh, Sean- I do have a CDS3 on order. Since May actually. The demand by those higher up on the waiting list (such as yourself) as pushed back the projected delivery date to maybe sometime in August. I auditioned the CDS3 in the NAP300(tweeters)/4x135/OldSnaxo and was very impressed with its merits over the CDS2. I think I will be absolutely stunned by it in the context of the current system.
It may seem to those who do not know me that my fixation is all with the audio hardware and not the music it is all supposed to reproduce. This is absolutely not the case. I have a deep knowlege about certain musical genres that sometimes borders on encyclopaedic. Thre reason I articulate my audio experimentations in this forum is because 1. There are other readers of this very forum who may value what I say about the hardware and 2. This is a forum dedicated to audio discourse. I do agree however that citing the music being played during the evaluation of the hardware is a useful thing. At times I do exactly that, as can be witnessed in several of my earlier postings about the 552, or incrementally upgrading the 112/150/CD5. In this particular instance I felt the body of text would already be approaching the unreasonably long, so I elected to not give a running note-for-note audio commentary and instead to distill hours of listening into mere hours of writing.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
The new Snaxo 362 arrived this afternoon. I unboxed it, took it upstairs and placed it next to the old one. Before I plugged it in I spent some time listening the to 1x500(tweeters)/4x135/OldSnaxo. As was the case last night, the 500 continues to stamp a great degree of authority and finesse when used in this configuration. Once I had regained some familiarity with the 500-supercharged sound I replaced the Snaxo3-6 with the Snaxo-362.
1x500(tweeters)/4x135/Snaxo362
Well there is absolutely no doubt that the latest Snaxo is better than its progenitor. In comparison the older Snaxo has a moderately compressed, boxy colored and spatially flattened perspective. The new Snaxo seems to offer the very same types of improvements that the XPS2 does over the XPS (and probably is more similar to the 52 to 252 change), but is immediately more obvious. In which case this may possibly mean that it is a larger improvement over the old Snaxo than the XPS2 is over the XPS1. And for a far lower cost too. Yes, with the new Snaxo362 in situ the presentation seemed be more relaxed and unforced, and not run out of steam, yet to be every bit as dynamic. It didn't take long to notice that the bottom end of the DBLs was even firmer and more in step with the remaining registers. Any person with a Snaxo-based active system should run, not walk to their dealer.
Eventually it was time to bring in the NAP300 into the mix to join its bigger older brother and its smaller much older uncle.
1x500(tweeters]/1x300(midrange]/2x135{bass]/Snaxo362.
Replacing the pair of 135s on the midrange units with the NAP300 was nowhere near the quantum leap I got from swapping out the 300 for the 500 on the tweeters. Which is not to say that there were not improvement to be had. Vocals, especially female ones took on a richness that was largely missing on the 135s. The bottom end sounded paradoxically a little bit lighter and rather firmer. And the soundstage moved a foot or so further backwards from the plane of the speakers. I would put the improvements from the 135-to-300 on the midrange units somewhat beneath the Snaxo3-6 to the Snaxo 362. I should however point out that in the process of swapping in and out amplifiers I was obliged to power down not only the Snaxos supercap, but all of the power amps too, so there is no doubt a warm-up issue enters this rather convoluted equation.
And that is it for now... tomorrow I intend to try out the 500(bass drivers)/135(mid drivers/300(tweeters) and see what balances of strengths that may offer.
Oh, Sean- I do have a CDS3 on order. Since May actually. The demand by those higher up on the waiting list (such as yourself) as pushed back the projected delivery date to maybe sometime in August. I auditioned the CDS3 in the NAP300(tweeters)/4x135/OldSnaxo and was very impressed with its merits over the CDS2. I think I will be absolutely stunned by it in the context of the current system.
It may seem to those who do not know me that my fixation is all with the audio hardware and not the music it is all supposed to reproduce. This is absolutely not the case. I have a deep knowlege about certain musical genres that sometimes borders on encyclopaedic. Thre reason I articulate my audio experimentations in this forum is because 1. There are other readers of this very forum who may value what I say about the hardware and 2. This is a forum dedicated to audio discourse. I do agree however that citing the music being played during the evaluation of the hardware is a useful thing. At times I do exactly that, as can be witnessed in several of my earlier postings about the 552, or incrementally upgrading the 112/150/CD5. In this particular instance I felt the body of text would already be approaching the unreasonably long, so I elected to not give a running note-for-note audio commentary and instead to distill hours of listening into mere hours of writing.
Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo
Great thread Ron !
I just read all of the posts. God you guys are good
I have always maintained that the next step from 52/135's is a 500 because awesome though the 552 is (and 52/500 to 552/500 is in many ways more dramatic than 52/135 to 52/500), 552/135 just doesn't leap out at you in the way that 52/500 does.
Some people think that the 552 is a better pre-amp than the 500 is a power-amp. Couple that with the source-first philosophy and the argument for the 552 is (on paper) pretty compelling. Now listen to both combinations. I think that the results defy logic because 135's are a much bigger bottleneck to the 552 than the 52 is to the 500. Put a 552 with a 500 and remove all bottlenecks and WOW. They seem to magnify each other's qualities.
When I heard what a 500 did vs passive 135's into NBL's my answer to the question of whether I should get 4 more 135's or go passive with one 500 was "why would I want to multiply all that grunge by 3 ?". Cruel but true. Having said that it is still hard to believe that one humble 500 can take on an army of 135's and win convincingly. That would make it the Bruce Lee of the power-amp world ! Give it a try Ron and let us know what happens. Please ?
I just read all of the posts. God you guys are good
I have always maintained that the next step from 52/135's is a 500 because awesome though the 552 is (and 52/500 to 552/500 is in many ways more dramatic than 52/135 to 52/500), 552/135 just doesn't leap out at you in the way that 52/500 does.
Some people think that the 552 is a better pre-amp than the 500 is a power-amp. Couple that with the source-first philosophy and the argument for the 552 is (on paper) pretty compelling. Now listen to both combinations. I think that the results defy logic because 135's are a much bigger bottleneck to the 552 than the 52 is to the 500. Put a 552 with a 500 and remove all bottlenecks and WOW. They seem to magnify each other's qualities.
When I heard what a 500 did vs passive 135's into NBL's my answer to the question of whether I should get 4 more 135's or go passive with one 500 was "why would I want to multiply all that grunge by 3 ?". Cruel but true. Having said that it is still hard to believe that one humble 500 can take on an army of 135's and win convincingly. That would make it the Bruce Lee of the power-amp world ! Give it a try Ron and let us know what happens. Please ?
Mark,
I believe this has been discussed before on the forum.
We tried comparing one 500PS against 2 500PS's on a single NAP500 and the single 500PS was unaninimously preferred. (Much to the disappointment of Sales...)
Richard
I believe this has been discussed before on the forum.
We tried comparing one 500PS against 2 500PS's on a single NAP500 and the single 500PS was unaninimously preferred. (Much to the disappointment of Sales...
)Richard