Adding a 250.2 DR to a 300 DR biamping MA 200 PL

If I were in your position,  which I'm not, I wouldn't do that. 

My personal experience of biamping is that it was an experiment that led nowhere, other than to realise that resources and box count can be put to use better in other ways.

Trade in for a 500DR maybe?

I have tried biamping NAP 200 and NAP 250 DR and wouldn't recommend it. I have now reverted to a single 250 DR. It's a potpourri of mess by using two different amplifiers and/or speaker cables. In a biamp setup, the lesser amp will affect the performance of the superior amp, thus dragging the overall performance down. If you really have to do it, ideally it would be using identical amps and speaker cables, and the speaker cables have to be in the same length.

It is also not cost efficient to use two identical amps vs. a single (superior) amp, hence a single stereo amp is usually recommended for superior sound quality.

It would be interesting to compare a single 500 DR and two NAP 300 DR in biamp configuration, though the latter will introduce a lot of boxes along the way.

I first biamped my system in the mid to late 1970s.  That was with two early Naim amps (NAP 120) and the improvement was immense (the speakers were Naim 602 (still have them) ).  Very much better than the single 120.  Then I had SBLs, biamped with 250s at first and later with 135s.  I never tried the SBLs passive, but I suspect that the biamp setup would have been better.  Now I have S600 Ovator with NAP 500, passive.  Very good, but I would love to try them active - can't afford another 500 plus xover, though.  I heard DBLs with 6-pack, and they were amazing.  It would be very interesting to try the BMR from the S800 with the ATC driver of the DBL, with suitable xover and biamped - I bet that would sound superb.  ATC make some very good drivers (and 'speakers).

In ideal conditions I believe a proper passive biamp setup will outperform a single stereo amp setup. The only issue is the added cost of the biamp system. Biamping is usually not cost-effective when compared to a single higher quality amp hence it's not a common route for most people.

If you seriously want to exploit what your system is capable of (especially 252 and 300DR) I would change the speakers.

Monitor Audio have a somewhat scooped lower mid-range - they sound good with general hi-fi but Naim show their limitations. In other words they afre far from neutral. Adding yet another power amp is not going to slove the problem - if anythig it will make it work.

By the way - this is the first time I've heard that NAP 300DR lacks current to drive any speakers. MA200s and MA300s are very easy to drive. 

I think the issue is that if you look up the specifications of the MA speakers, the company says that the recommended amplifier power is 100 to 250 watts. And the poor old NAP300 only produces 90W. So of course, they don't match, if you believe reading the specifications is the way to build effective systems. 

I'm intrigued that the OP says that the speakers are designed for biwiring. If some tracks appear to show that, how on earth do they do so? Biwire terminals are just a fad and serve little purpose. When I asked PMC why they fit biwire terminals I was told that it's a fashion thing.

I'm sure the 300 can drive the MAs admirably. If the sound is great, where's the problem? One thing the OP could do if the original biwire links are in use is to get some decent jumpers, or ideally to wire the speaker end of the cables in an F connection. Far cheaper than getting another amplifier. 

I have Kudos C10 with jumper wire. Curious as to what F connection is and advantages. Googling brings up tv aerials. 

Apologies if this is a bit off subject.

Cheers

Mike

Have a look in the FAQs. 

Consciousmess posted:

Good morning.  Firstly.......

Now, the PL200s require 100 W and the 300 DR only pumps out 90 W.

The sound is great, but these are speakers suited for bi-wiring.  (Some tracks appear to show this.) Yes I've read opinion on passive bi-wiring, but these speakers are designed for it.

Bi-wiring vs Bi-amping

1st, your Speakers may very well be designed for bi-wiring, but you amps don't like  bi-wiring.

2nd, In the context of Naim, a Naim Forum, when The Big Fish and Mr. Richard Dane refer to Bi-Amping, they are talking Active Bi-Amping with Naim's Snaxo. 

Naim's Speakers can't be Passively Bi, or Tri- Amped.

{{Can your PL 200s, be Passively Bi-Amped?}}

Linn's Isobariks fits both criteria, active & passively Tri-amped.

Quotes on your topic, on bi-wiring:

Amusing closing point and thanks. Been busy upgrading...

But this time I will follow forum advice, and as I bought the 300 DR brand new, it will retain trade in value for a bit.  Hmm. Thanks for the words...

Consciousmess posted:

Amusing closing point and thanks. Been busy upgrading...

But this time I will follow forum advice, and as I bought the 300 DR brand new, it will retain trade in value for a bit.  Hmm. Thanks for the words...

Wow, that was quick!

Are you ok? LOL.....

Take care, my friend!

FAQs, Thanks HH!

I ran a pair of PL300s with a NAP300 for a number of years and a very good combination it was too. There's watts and a Naim watts don't forget

If the 300 needs more juice why wouldn't you trade it towards a 500? Is 500 >> 300+250 in £€¥$ terms?

Simple solution: sell the speakers and buy s-400's.

Or Sopra 2s...

Compared to active, passive bi- or tri-amping can only give a partial improvement because the crossover components are still in the signal path, therefore I don't really see the point, unless it is a temporary halfway house before adding an active crossover.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Compared to active, passive bi- or tri-amping can only give a partial improvement because the crossover components are still in the signal path, therefore I don't really see the point, unless it is a temporary halfway house before adding an active crossover.

Agreed, FAQs very helpful!

Looks like the pl200s are 4ohm speakers, so you're actually getting 150wpc out of your 300... 300/2 is 150wpc into 4ohm speakers.