DBL/6x135/52.... where to upgrade?

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