Active vs passive system

Don Atkinson posted:

For those who are unaware.....UCL = University College London..............

.....and I Think it's a great quote !

It was on the Naim forum before:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...39#70272142532817439

The Dean of UCL must be reading this forum :-)

Willy posted:

Halloween Man posted:

tonym posted:

Perhaps Naim see no distinction in designing an amplifier to be used in a passive or an active system. In this case their amplifiers are neither designed primarily for passive use or primarily for active use but simply to be the best, in their view, at any particular price point. 

Assuming that your issue is with using a 140 watt amplifier on a tweeter then it raises the question "could Naim design a less powerful amplifier that sounded as good as a 500 for use on tweeters in an active system?" I'm not so sure they could. Imho a key element of the improvement in the he Naim sound as you move up the amplifier range is the ability to deliver higher transient power, more quickly, to better accelerate the drive unit voice coil and diaphragm thus better reproducing the music.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!$$

{Of course in an active system getting the passive crossover out of the way, in my experience, allows the amplifier to better do this.}

Willy.

Going out on a limb here, I bet Julian's personal System was kick ass, way back in 1985!

Furthermore, I bet Naim's Debut of its Reference CDP, Active System was kick ass:

2007 CES > CD555>282>Snaxo>250>DBLs!

I sure would like to here DB's Over-kill Active S1 System, can't be that Bad!

I agree with you Willy!

"Of course in an active system getting the passive crossover out of the way, in my experience, allows the amplifier to better do this.

Willy."

Allante93!

PS. Nice Tone Willy!

Ardbeg10y posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

For those who are unaware.....UCL = University College London..............

.....and I Think it's a great quote !

It was on the Naim forum before:

https://forums.naimaudio.com/to...39#70272142532817439

The Dean of UCL must be reading this forum :-)

Well, If Brian Cox was an occasional contributor (before he became truely famous) I guess the Dean of UCL would be just as welcome !

I have activated Linn Isobariks, SARAs, and Kans. I also lived with active SBLs and even had a pair of Meridian M2s. Used Mark Levinson electronics including their cross over into Magnapan MG2s. Krells into Infinity speakers. All marvellous. 

If I had the cash I would punt on some S600s with lots of black boxes.

Yes source is critical but.... there has been a quickness and drive in the active systems that just grabs me. I admit to being a prat with a pathalogical need for speed.

We all have our preference. I suspect that a NDS/252 front end with 3 x 250 on active S600s would be more my preference to say a 300 using passive S600s. Simular dollars.

My M2s were blindingly quick, as were the kans. Sure there were some serious issues with balance but I didn't mind.

As for active SBLs, I wish they were in my lounge again.

Where are your active SBLs at the moment? If you got rid of them, what did you replace them with? I presume the replacement was better.

Steve95775,

I have them ????.

...Activated and sounding boss.

Camlan posted:

I have to say that I find it hard to believe some of the posts on this thread.

Since my first Naim purchase over 30 years ago, the holy grail has always been active and if you have ever heard it you would know why.

I currently have 3 250DRs driving NBLs and have for a while been nervous about the lack of active options should the NBLs fail (this was before the Kudos option). Accordingly I asked my dealer, whose opinion I respect, whether I should look to go 500DR passive with my current speakers to 'future proof'. The very short answer, and bear in mind this was turning down a potentially profitable sale, was NO.

I accept that the expense and the box count is not for everybody but to suggest that Naim products are designed for passive set ups just beggars belief.

My dealer feels exactly the same, active is the way to go- I too have NBLs w/3 250.2s  perfect for a room 15x28'

Ghettoyout posted:

Where are your active SBLs at the moment? If you got rid of them, what did you replace them with? I presume the replacement was better.

 

I have no idea! Over the years a lot of gear passed through my lounge. Being a dealer meant that I could move between systems easily,  and also we used to think that extended home used was a great way to appreciate what equipment really could do.

I have a friend who has some active Isobariks in great order, and get quite nostalgic when I hear them. 

Whilst there used to be a strong Linn/Naim following here in sunny Perth, I am not sure what the real state of play is a present. Certainly now as a lowly purchaser it feels a bit like belonging to a small enclave of loons.

arb76 posted:

Steve95775,

 

I have them ????.

...Activated and sounding boss.

I absolutely hate you right now!

Yes the Active Family is alive and kicking!

We are all aware with each others system, and the Speakers associated with Naim's Snaxo!

Just to Naim a few!

Naim:

SBL/NBL/SL2/DBL/(Ovator)

LINN: 

Briks

Kudos:

{808/707}

Focal: 

Yes, Active Naim can be expensive.

However, if one forgoes the Modern 20K Plus Active Speakers, is it really that expensive!

Allante93!

PS. That's a lot $$$ to disregard the crossover!

So what of the active speakers options. I’m finding it very difficult to understand which new speakers offer active setup. 

Would I need to purchase vintage Naim or Linn speakers only?

Or brand new Kudos !

Khan posted:

So what of the active speakers options. I’m finding it very difficult to understand which new speakers offer active setup. 

Would I need to purchase vintage Naim or Linn speakers only?

Higher level ATCs and PMCs are available active (with built-in amps), or have the terminals necessary and have crossovers readily removed to enable them to be run actively, and in some cases can be purchased without the crossovers - both current models and older ones. I believe that in current models these options apply to at least ATC SCM40 and upwards and PMC IB2 and upwards. My older PMC EB2i is an example of another one readily converted.

Peakman posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

My experience of ATC was a rather dry and somewhat monotonous presentation.

How interesting as that was the very opposite of mine.  Towards the end of last year I spent over two hours at Acoustica comparing ATC SCM 19s in active and passive (with 250DR) form fronted by a bare 272.  The last word I would use to describe the speakers in either setup was "dry" and they were only monotonous if the music was.  The active 19s were a good deal tighter than the passives, particularly in the bass, and I enjoyed them so much that, when domestic circumstances permit, I am planning to go back to listen to compare the active 19s with SCM40As with a view to a possible home demo of one or the other.  I guess we are all different thank goodness.

Roger

Not sure 19 vs 19A is the best comparison, give the later is a stand floor. I would be interested in SCM40 (fronted by 250DR and 272) vs SCM40A (fronted by 272). Anyone could comment on this?

Dan.S posted:

Peakman posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

My experience of ATC was a rather dry and somewhat monotonous presentation.

How interesting as that was the very opposite of mine.  Towards the end of last year I spent over two hours at Acoustica comparing ATC SCM 19s in active and passive (with 250DR) form fronted by a bare 272.  The last word I would use to describe the speakers in either setup was "dry" and they were only monotonous if the music was.  The active 19s were a good deal tighter than the passives, particularly in the bass, and I enjoyed them so much that, when domestic circumstances permit, I am planning to go back to listen to compare the active 19s with SCM40As with a view to a possible home demo of one or the other.  I guess we are all different thank goodness.

Roger

Not sure 19 vs 19A is the best comparison, give the later is a stand floor. I would be interested in SCM40 (fronted by 250DR and 272) vs SCM40A (fronted by 272). Anyone could comment on this?

Hi Dan

My understanding (but I stand to be corrected) is that the drivers in the 19A are "contained" in a similar space to the passive version.  The lower part of the cabinet is more like an enclosed "stand" which also houses some of the electronics.  So I don't think that this was really a comparison between a standmount and a floorstander.  I also thought I had read somewhere that one of the drivers was different between the active and passive versions, but a rep from ATC who was there at the time assured me this was not the case.  So I believe this was a fair comparison between active and passive versions of the same speaker.  Incidentally, I did listen to the passive 40s (which I did not prefer to the passive 19s) and had initially intended to go on to the active 40s but ran out of mental energy, which is why I put the audition off for another day.  However, I have not done the exact comparison you mention.

A final point is that there is a strong element of personal taste in all this and I would very strongly urge you to make the comparison yourself before shelling out serious money.  There was another listener there throughout the session (same music, almost the same seat) who's preferences were the exact opposite of mine.  He found the active 19s so revealing that he felt that he would end up not listening to more than half his collection.  The 'A peril of actual "Hifi"...' thread suggests that other listeners may have taken a similar view.

Roger