2 x NAP 500 vs 1 x NAP 500 DR

Having recently had my 500s DR'd, it's clear that the result is a very different amplifier from the original 500, so it's difficult to answer your question. I did try to run my DBLs on a single passive non-DR500 recently but it was a considerable step down from the active setup & I swiftly changed back again. So do you have three 500s? If so, you're best off waiting until you can afford to have them all DR'd.

running 2x500 mono into passive DBL is a waste of time. The issue here is the passive crossover. Removing that is a vast improvement, way bigger than any change of a 500 running one side only

No Tony, currently only one 500 but I may have an opportunity to get a second, and hence my question: better 2x  500s vs. 1 x 500 DRed

sbilotta posted:

No Tony, currently only one 500 but I may have an opportunity to get a second, and hence my question: better 2x  500s vs. 1 x 500 DRed

Ah, OK. Well, I've no doubt if you're used to a passive 500 then a DR'd 500 will sound considerably better. But I wouldn't mess about with anything other than going for a full blown active system with three 500s. It really does transform these speakers. If you can get a second 500 I'd personally hold fire on the DRing, try & find a third 500 & go active with these. It'll certainly top a single DR500 passive.

Thanks Tony, that is indeed what I'm inclined to do, if things work out.

I DR'd my 500 a few months ago... massive improvement.  It's a different amp, more headroom and greater detail.  009 transistors from the Statement amp.  I must have had the only good set of passive DBL crossovers, as mine sounded fantastic.  If I still owned them today I'd have AV Options rebuild and cryo them.  

Thanks Chris. Yes, If I lived in the States or the Chicago area I'd do the same, as i have tried here in Italy and even UK but to no avail, given that Naim states that the DBL paxos don't need servicing...

Wondering if giving each 500 mono amp its own PS (via two nap 500s) would boost the DBLs performance more that DRing and using a single 500 ...

I'd take single 500DR over any combination of passive 500. Its a different animal. A reminder that my worst to best rating scale for the big naim amps is 500 -> 300 -> 300DR -> 500DR. 

Odd that as Naim advised that a  non-DR 500 was superior to a  300DR when I enquired concerning my active DBLs.

Hardly an unexpected response from Naim. I don't have personal experience of the difference but my dealers preference echoes Jon in that he rates the 300 and 300DR over the non DR 500. That's on the basis of musical enjoyment, recognising that the 500 is more detailed etc. It's a similar thing to the 282 v 252 debate I think.

Likewise, Mark, in the sense that a dealer I sometimes use often says things like, 'Well today's 200 is probably better than an olive 250 and possibly a 250.2, anyway'. I've got him to clarify this and he adds that the pre would be a suitable one such as NAC282 and HC. Again I've no personal experience. To defend him, he's wanting to shift new.

C.

Jonn posted:

Odd that as Naim advised that a  non-DR 500 was superior to a  300DR when I enquired concerning my active DBLs.

<shrug>

Marksnaim posted:

Hardly an unexpected response from Naim. I don't have personal experience of the difference but my dealers preference echoes Jon in that he rates the 300 and 300DR over the non DR 500. That's on the basis of musical enjoyment, recognising that the 500 is more detailed etc. It's a similar thing to the 282 v 252 debate I think.

I never found the 500 to time well. 300 always did. 300DR is wow. And 500DR is super wow. 

Others will doubtless disagree about 300 versus 500 etc, not that this bothers me one iota. 

Jonn posted:

Odd that as Naim advised that a  non-DR 500 was superior to a  300DR when I enquired concerning my active DBLs.

Yep, that's what I reckon too.

Christopher_M posted:

Likewise, Mark, in the sense that a dealer I sometimes use often says things like, 'Well today's 200 is probably better than an olive 250 and possibly a 250.2, anyway'. I've got him to clarify this and he adds that the pre would be a suitable one such as NAC282 and HC. Again I've no personal experience. To defend him, he's wanting to shift new.

C.

Well supposed all three are in good serviced nick I'd choose olive 250, 200 and at last 250.2 - an amplifier I didn't like much, impressive at first hearing but ultimately tiring, thick and blown hifi.

Dealers usually recommend where they can provide a sale so personal experience preferred

B

jon honeyball posted:

Marksnaim posted:

Hardly an unexpected response from Naim. I don't have personal experience of the difference but my dealers preference echoes Jon in that he rates the 300 and 300DR over the non DR 500. That's on the basis of musical enjoyment, recognising that the 500 is more detailed etc. It's a similar thing to the 282 v 252 debate I think.

I never found the 500 to time well. 300 always did. 300DR is wow. And 500DR is super wow. 

Others will doubtless disagree about 300 versus 500 etc, not that this bothers me one iota.