DBLs Active...good move ??

Is that at new prices - could you do a compromise 552/250 x 3 etc pre-used?

I don't know the answer and look forward to hearing other views.

I started listening to DBLs with 250/300/500, and the 250 (olive) sounded a bit flat.  I do wonder if passive 500 really gets them moving.  Currently making the most of 500/300/500.

I had a sixpack for my cherry dbl, wonderful but eight boxes in the room. I have the 500 now, I am very very glad and only two boxes (referring to power amplifiers and snaxo, supercap).

Good move....yes!

Pre owned 552 Is stretching it..my limit is 40k Australian...

Not interested in 6 pack 135s or non DR 250s

A new 252 is available here at a great price but have never heard one..

owed the 52 In 1991with 135s / SBLs..sold all that in 2005

I have never experienced active naim..v

Is your original question typed correctly as a 500 costs about the same as 3 x 250 DR + supercap + SNAXO + Burndy + extra speaker cables so putting a 552 on the front of a 500 makes that much more expensive than the active option with a 252.

I think in terms of price a closer comparison is

552 + 300 vs 252 + 500 vs 252 + active 250's

I found with NBL's that starting from 52 and 300 it was best to buy the 552 first and then the 500 so I would think of the 3 options above 552 + 300 will be best but that was with NBL's and before DR but I think the 552 is so good that preamp first will still hold true

Gavin L posted:

I do wonder if passive 500 really gets them moving. 

hardly (IMHO)

Have you listened to an active system? If so, you will know whether it is a "must have" or not. If you haven't, then you should - you'll pretty quickly know if it's a direction in which you have to go, or not.

packerman posted:

Is your original question typed correctly as a 500 costs about the same as 3 x 250 DR + supercap + SNAXO + Burndy + extra speaker cables so putting a 552 on the front of a 500 makes that much more expensive than the active option with a 252.

I think in terms of price a closer comparison is

552 + 300 vs 252 + 500 vs 252 + active 250's

I found with NBL's that starting from 52 and 300 it was best to buy the 552 first and then the 500 so I would think of the 3 options above 552 + 300 will be best but that was with NBL's and before DR but I think the 552 is so good that preamp first will still hold true

I'm a Active fan, Been Full Blown Aktiv with Linn, Karin/Linn XO with Bingo Card/ 3 x LK 280's/Briks!!!! 

In the process of going Active with Naim!  I tend to agree with Packman & Martin.L 

What is Naim's Strong suit? 

Naim amps can swing transients in a way other similarly powered amps just cannot do.

What is Naim's Achilles heel? 

Most would agree, lack of Power!

That being said I would lean more towards 3 x 250.2's 

Within your Budget, it appears the packman has narrowed it down! 

140 watts, less known 90 watts, might not be enough to get the full benefits of the DBL's. 

But 80 watts per driver might just do the job! 

JMHO! 

The Armchair QB!!!!

The DBLs are very efficient speakers.  An NAP500 can readily drive them beautifully, passive or active.  Active has a definitely different sound from passive and I am among the many who prefer the active.  The 250s work beautifully in active on the DBLs.  The idea that Naim lacks power is not an opinion I would support.  Naim does not show high wattage for power amps, but the power is available with high current capacity so the performance is there and is much better than amps with much higher wattage ratings. 

I asked my dealer the same question; active with 135's or passive with a 500 - and if you're in the second hand market probably more or less the same cost?

His considered opinion was that the 500 was the better option. I took his advice and have to say that I'm glad I did. The 500 in my system with DBL's is just simply a revelation.

While I cannot comment on DBLs I can attest to the major improvement on going active with NBLs. No comparison on passive with a single Nap 250. Space is an issue with so many boxes.

Mark Gilbert posted:

The DBLs are very efficient speakers.  An NAP500 can readily drive them beautifully, passive or active.  Active has a definitely different sound from passive and I am among the many who prefer the active.  The 250s work beautifully in active on the DBLs.  The idea that Naim lacks power is not an opinion I would support.  Naim does not show high wattage for power amps, but the power is available with high current capacity so the performance is there and is much better than amps with much higher wattage ratings. 

DBLs are indeed very efficient. I once tried a pair in passive mode with a NAP 200. The rest was NAC 52 and CDS 2. 

A lunatic allocation of resources but the effect was rather fine. Of course the limitation with the 200 would be absolute volume of sound, but for me that was not important. The DBLs were making a wonderful quality with the 52 set just shy of nine o’clock in a quite large room!

Whilst the same speaker driven with three NAP 500s, CD 555 and NAC 552 [etc] were undoubtedly more impressive, this difference would be more important to some people than others.

Anyone considering going active really should do at least a retailer demonstration of it. 

ATB from George

if i had the space for them, i would have NBLs or DBLs -- but the fact that i would need another amp and a different active x-over probably would quickly pour cold water on any such thoughts... if only because, theoretically, i would also need 3 pairs of speaker leads and 3 pairs of DIN-XLRs. I'm pretty sure this would take me even close to nirvana, but, hey ho!

enjoy

ken

Passive DBLs driven by a single 500 using the standard PAXO were easily better than actively driven by 500, 300, 2x135 with Snaxo 362-Supercap, both options using a 552 upstream. 

In my installation the DBLs did not really come to tune until some Mana Sound Base 3s were placed under them. 

Although I have not tried it, two of my friends ended up passively driving DBLs with one 500 per side, running only a single channel of each. This was judged to be significantly better than  just a single 500 and circumvented the 500s shared-between-channels transformer design. 

Passive or active, the DBL does what probably no Naim speaker-before or after it- did. 

Posted by George Fiske:

"Whilst the same speaker driven with three NAP 500s, CD 555 and NAC 552 [etc] were undoubtedly more impressive, this difference would be more important to some people than others."

Even though I can't confirm George's comments, I agree that an Active System betters an Passive System.

Even though the Legendary DBLs are considered to be an efficient Speaker, It wouldn't surprise me, if they were bettered, when powered by a Statement.

My point!

More unobstructed Naim Power!

140 watts with internal XO:20K

3 x 140 watts with external Snaxo:75K

746 watts with internal XO:240K

I would love to give the latter, a listen!

In closing, remind you this is an ongoing debate, where in the end individual preference is the winner!

Just my two cents!

The Armchair QB!!!!

Hi Ron,

I'm quite interested in hearing more about using 500 as a mono amp. 

Do you still believe it sounded better that way and "how much" better?

//Jonas

Jonas Olofsson posted:

Hi Ron,

I'm quite interested in hearing more about using 500 as a mono amp. 

Do you still believe it sounded better that way and "how much" better?

 

//Jonas

Forgive me OP, for getting off topic, but Jonus have Posted on Chord Music, if so what is The heading!

DBL with passive crossover is like a racing car with an anchor thrown out the back.

DBL was designed with 6x135, which is what I use. SNAXO352 really benefits from supercap DR.

3x250 = lesser than 6x135

3x250/2DR however, might be very interesting and probably outdoes 6x135.

3x300DR better still, almost certainly.

Theres a reason why the DBL (and SBL) crossover hangs off the back. It makes it easier to disconnect and throw away...

:-)

Hi,

well my thoughts are that it is highly unlikely that anyone has compared 250DR active with 500 passive into DBLs, let alone mixed this with a 'parametric' comparison with a 552/252. So, you're pretty much on your own.

I do own active DBLs (albeit with a SNAXO 362 which is officially 10 better than Jon's....). All the passive ones I heard for my tastes have sounded a bit muted by comparison - albeit I've never heard Ron's 'uber' crossover. But then I don't listen for more bass, articulate midrange, sweet treble etc etc.....so for me active DBLs sound more like a great band having a great time than passives. Or perhaps they had more caffeine or something else.  For example, old Motown records sound amazing on them, and you don't get many people saying that too often.

I guess it's always going to be down to a matter of taste but from my position, having owned an active system with 135's, is that a passive 500 takes me to places that the active system only hinted at.

The active/passive conundrum has been going on for longer than I care to remember. In fact I was running active Meridian M2's for a long time then my dealer lent me a 32/110/Snaps combo on Kan's and it easily outperformed the active system - and by quite a large margin!

I thought Naim always said that passive with 135's was a better option than active with 250's? 

Whats 10 between friends?

I did try a single 500 passive into my DBLs when I first got them, and very fine they sounded too. But I've always run active and, as expected, adding another couple of 500s really transformed them. It's difficult to predict but I'd bet going with three 250DRs will trump the single 500.

I forgot one!

Even though the Legendary DBLs are considered to be an efficient Speaker, It wouldn't surprise me, if they were bettered, when powered by a Statement.

My point!

More unobstructed Naim Power!

140 watts with internal XO:20K

2 x 140 watts internal XO: 40K

3 x 140 watts with external Snaxo:75K

746 watts with internal XO:240K

The Legendary DBLs, Active or Passive?

An ongoing debate, where in the end, the winner is Individual Preference!

For sake of Argument, please indulge !

A. The Passive Crossover

B.  Naim Power

Argument for an Passive System!

Assuming Optimum Setup!

Consider A:

The internal XO within the DBLs, outperforms the Naim Snaxo!

Consider B:

Assuming no bridged or Bi/Tri Amp and new Style amps:

135's/250/300/500/Statement

No argument surely an Statement would outperform a 500!

Hence, The overall argument hindges on the internal XO outperforming the external Snaxo.

Argument for an Active System!

Simple, if one is an Active Fan, they believe a (Snaxo/SC DR/ Burndy)/2003 Naim Technologies, might outperform (DBL) 1991 Naim Technologies incorperated within the internal crossover.

Albeit at a substantial cost!

Your Call!

The Armchair QB!