When is the right time to go active?
Posted by: Mats S on 20 November 2003
Hi all ,
When is the right time to get an active (Snaxo 2-4 or 3-6) system ? Just how advanced front-end is recommended before even considering this step? Regards
Mats
When is the right time to get an active (Snaxo 2-4 or 3-6) system ? Just how advanced front-end is recommended before even considering this step? Regards
Mats
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by Bob Edwards
Mats--
You already know it is a difficult question to answer, so I'll spare you that diatribe... What context are you asking the question in?
It depends on you, your system, and how sensitive you are to what active brings to the table compared to what a dramatic passive upgrade would bring. For example, a 52/250/SBL system, with appropriate sources, benefits more from a 500 than going active with a 4 pack of 135s/Supercapped Snaxo (IMO, obviously...). On the other hand, I personally prefer active 250s to passive 135s.
Front end: Generally speaking, I think you need to have a top flight source (LP12/Aro, CDS1/2/3, CDX/XPS, etc.) before you even think about going active. And I don't mean for the list to be comprehensive--if you've got a source you think is as good as the above I'd say you're set. Active operation, properly done, really reveals everything about what is in front--and if the source isn't up to it the active system will sound worse than the passive.
Preamps: I think you need to have something like a 82/2 hicaps or supercap (preferably) as the minimum preamp. I, and others here, have heard active systems fronted by 32.5s, 72's, etc, and have heard them sound terrific, but not as good as a passive 52 system. The preamp, along with the source, really is key.
Power amps: I've heard terrific active systems with 140s, although I also thought a passive 250 was noticeably better in the same system. Generally speaking, the fully regulated power amps (250, 135, 250Mk2, 300, 500) work best in an active system and I hear a large difference from the non-regulated to the regulated amps. So I'd suggest at least 250's, though, as I said above, I've heard active systems with 140s work beautifully.
That said, it also depends on what is available, especially if you're in the second hand market. Then, easy availability of relatively inexpensive power amps, crossovers, hicaps, etc., make going active a more economical and a more reasonable proposition. So if all you need is another amp, a crossover, and power supply for the crossover, and you can source all of them reasonably, go for it! Just be prepared to spend TONS of time setting it up correctly. Just as there is more potential with an active system, there is more potential to screw things up...
Best,
Bob
You already know it is a difficult question to answer, so I'll spare you that diatribe... What context are you asking the question in?
It depends on you, your system, and how sensitive you are to what active brings to the table compared to what a dramatic passive upgrade would bring. For example, a 52/250/SBL system, with appropriate sources, benefits more from a 500 than going active with a 4 pack of 135s/Supercapped Snaxo (IMO, obviously...). On the other hand, I personally prefer active 250s to passive 135s.
Front end: Generally speaking, I think you need to have a top flight source (LP12/Aro, CDS1/2/3, CDX/XPS, etc.) before you even think about going active. And I don't mean for the list to be comprehensive--if you've got a source you think is as good as the above I'd say you're set. Active operation, properly done, really reveals everything about what is in front--and if the source isn't up to it the active system will sound worse than the passive.
Preamps: I think you need to have something like a 82/2 hicaps or supercap (preferably) as the minimum preamp. I, and others here, have heard active systems fronted by 32.5s, 72's, etc, and have heard them sound terrific, but not as good as a passive 52 system. The preamp, along with the source, really is key.
Power amps: I've heard terrific active systems with 140s, although I also thought a passive 250 was noticeably better in the same system. Generally speaking, the fully regulated power amps (250, 135, 250Mk2, 300, 500) work best in an active system and I hear a large difference from the non-regulated to the regulated amps. So I'd suggest at least 250's, though, as I said above, I've heard active systems with 140s work beautifully.
That said, it also depends on what is available, especially if you're in the second hand market. Then, easy availability of relatively inexpensive power amps, crossovers, hicaps, etc., make going active a more economical and a more reasonable proposition. So if all you need is another amp, a crossover, and power supply for the crossover, and you can source all of them reasonably, go for it! Just be prepared to spend TONS of time setting it up correctly. Just as there is more potential with an active system, there is more potential to screw things up...
Best,
Bob
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by pcm
NOW
YOU WILL NOT REGRET IT
pcm
YOU WILL NOT REGRET IT
pcm
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by garyi
Depends what money you have!
An active four pack 135 system was utterly decimated by a single 500.
An active four pack 135 system was utterly decimated by a single 500.
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by vimal
Not TRUE
Posted on: 20 November 2003 by vimal
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by garyi:
Depends what money you have!
An active four pack 135 system was utterly decimated by a single 500.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well setup active offers a lot more, than a passive will ever do.
I use 6X135 and I have tried a 500 to replace the 135s.Will never go back to passive willingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by garyi:
Depends what money you have!
An active four pack 135 system was utterly decimated by a single 500.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A well setup active offers a lot more, than a passive will ever do.
I use 6X135 and I have tried a 500 to replace the 135s.Will never go back to passive willingly.
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by Erik
I prefer a passive 500 to a sixpack on DBLs. For me, a 500 in that setup offers everything a sixpack does plus a whole lot more.
/Erik
/Erik
Posted on: 21 November 2003 by vimal
quote
I prefer a passive 500 to a sixpack on DBLs. For me, a 500 in that setup offers everything a sixpack does plus a whole lot more.
/Erik
For me the reverse is true.
I had the 500 only for a weekend, and it was fully warmed up (I think).I couldnt wait to get back to the 135s.
I prefer a passive 500 to a sixpack on DBLs. For me, a 500 in that setup offers everything a sixpack does plus a whole lot more.
/Erik
For me the reverse is true.
I had the 500 only for a weekend, and it was fully warmed up (I think).I couldnt wait to get back to the 135s.
Posted on: 24 November 2003 by Mats S
Hi Bob, others
The active system context I have in mind is to have two 180's, a CDX2 W/O XPS and a 102/Hi-cap/NAPSC. But after reading your advice and other comments, I think I should continue the Passive road another power amp upgrade or two. And pre-amp upgrade as well. I won't buy a 282 though, as it did not impress on me. Not for that money at least.
/Mats
The active system context I have in mind is to have two 180's, a CDX2 W/O XPS and a 102/Hi-cap/NAPSC. But after reading your advice and other comments, I think I should continue the Passive road another power amp upgrade or two. And pre-amp upgrade as well. I won't buy a 282 though, as it did not impress on me. Not for that money at least.
/Mats
Posted on: 24 November 2003 by Thomas K
Mats,
The active system context I have in mind is to have two 180's, a CDX2 W/O XPS and a 102/Hi-cap/NAPSC. But after reading your advice and other comments, I think I should continue the Passive road another power amp upgrade or two.
Following a recent change in my system I would think that's the best option.
Over the years I went from Nait - 72/140 - plus Hicap - plus IXO and 2nd 140 -- plus Snaxo and Hicap. Active has a distinct character that sets in at the very start and stays an inherent part of the sound for any upgrade to the amps/Xover section. It's alluring.
Nevertheless, I always had a niggling doubt about the 140s' ability, even in active configuration, to do SBLs (or perhaps even the room) justice. Last week I changed from active 140s to a new 250 Mk2, using old, borrowed Credo Xovers (upside down on the window sill because the cable lengths are wrong for the SBL).
It an hour or so to get used to passive again, and the new amp's sound in general, but on the first day in the evening, after a rest, I sat down to listen to music instead of the new "sound". EVERYTHING that is musically crucial is vastly improved, the only thing I lost was some separation.
I suspect that, as Bob has said, the difference between regulated and non-regulated amps is just as big as that between a good passive and a good active system, but essentially more important. So save up until you've at least "reached" the regulated, err ..., amp camp.
Thomas
The active system context I have in mind is to have two 180's, a CDX2 W/O XPS and a 102/Hi-cap/NAPSC. But after reading your advice and other comments, I think I should continue the Passive road another power amp upgrade or two.
Following a recent change in my system I would think that's the best option.
Over the years I went from Nait - 72/140 - plus Hicap - plus IXO and 2nd 140 -- plus Snaxo and Hicap. Active has a distinct character that sets in at the very start and stays an inherent part of the sound for any upgrade to the amps/Xover section. It's alluring.
Nevertheless, I always had a niggling doubt about the 140s' ability, even in active configuration, to do SBLs (or perhaps even the room) justice. Last week I changed from active 140s to a new 250 Mk2, using old, borrowed Credo Xovers (upside down on the window sill because the cable lengths are wrong for the SBL).
It an hour or so to get used to passive again, and the new amp's sound in general, but on the first day in the evening, after a rest, I sat down to listen to music instead of the new "sound". EVERYTHING that is musically crucial is vastly improved, the only thing I lost was some separation.
I suspect that, as Bob has said, the difference between regulated and non-regulated amps is just as big as that between a good passive and a good active system, but essentially more important. So save up until you've at least "reached" the regulated, err ..., amp camp.
Thomas
Posted on: 24 November 2003 by Martin Payne
quote:
Originally posted by vimal:
I had the 500 only for a weekend, and it was fully warmed up (I think).
It wasn't.
JV reported very early in his experience of the NAP500 that it was preamp or CDP-like in taking a very long time to warm up, unlike the olive NAPs.
My dealer has said the same.
Martin (six-pack owner in denial)
E-mail:- MartinPayne (at) Dial.Pipex.com. Put "Naim" in the title.