Beside Kudos, as far as i know, Naim did Snaxo specs for Vivid Giya.

Any chance to see an active version of Focal Sopras ?

Regards

Roberto

Good points. I've been asking myself if active operation has a future, despite its audiophile advantages.

It's remarkable that Naim still have the SNAXO in the product range, although there are no Naim speakers anymore. I think it shows that Naim still consider active operation to be an important improvement. It's just very difficult to adapt the SNAXO to different speaker models.

My hope lies in digital crossovers, e.g. the Linn Exaktboxes, which can be taylored precisely to individual speakers by software. If you have a look at Linn's website, they already support some speakers from B&W, Kudos, KEF, JBL, PMC, so apparently it's possible to have these speakers without passive crossover.

I wonder what Naim have learned from the Bentley project in this regard. I believe the project involved a lot of DSP etc, so Naim might also be able to develop some kind of digital crossover with that knowledge? It's probably just not very high on their agenda.

I’d love to hear what my SL2s sound like active but wonder if I ever will given the quantity and cost of the additional boxes required.

I guess there are plenty of folk out there who either have existing speakers that are capable of active operation or who are happy to buy pre-loved active speakers as they move up. For these customers, at least, I think it’s worth Naim keeping the Snaxo products in its portfolio as I doubt it’s a material cost issue.

Regards

David

The biggest advantage of an active system is the fact it needs so few boxes and cables to implement. The biggest disadvantage with Naim active is the large number of extra boxes and cables it takes to implement. 

The second advantage of active is the fact that each amplifier can be exactly specified around its individual speaker driver. The second disadvantage of Naim active is the fact that all amplifiers are generic with no consideration given to the specification of the loudspeaker its driving...if you want a large, powerful amplifier driving woofers, by default you get a large powerful amplifier driving tweeters

The third advantage of active is the pricing vs a passive equivalent. The third disadvantage with Naim active is the very high cost of implementation, due to all the extra boxes and cables. 

Related to #3 by the time you’ve paid for everything required for a Naim active system,  you could in all likelihood buy a far better passive system for the same money. 

The main reason today for Naim active systems is to provide an upgrade path to customers already heavily invested in the brand.  Its not a system that most people would buy from scratch, due to all the above

Blackmorec posted:

The biggest advantage of an active system is the fact it needs so few boxes and cables to implement. The biggest disadvantage with Naim active is the large number of extra boxes and cables it takes to implement. 

The second advantage of active is the fact that each amplifier can be exactly specified around its individual speaker driver. The second disadvantage of Naim active is the fact that all amplifiers are generic with no consideration given to the specification of the loudspeaker its driving...if you want a large, powerful amplifier driving woofers, by default you get a large powerful amplifier driving tweeters

The third advantage of active is the pricing vs a passive equivalent. The third disadvantage with Naim active is the very high cost of implementation, due to all the extra boxes and cables. 

Related to #3 by the time you’ve paid for everything required for a Naim active system,  you could in all likelihood buy a far better passive system for the same money. 

The main reason today for Naim active systems is to provide an upgrade path to customers already heavily invested in the brand.  Its not a system that most people would buy from scratch, due to all the above

When comparing a Naim active system with active speakers with internal amplification from a speaker manufacturer, one could also point out some disadvantages of the latter concept:

The amplifiers are located within the speaker which is probably not an ideal place regarding mechanical isolation.

Further I don't think that speaker manufacturers can build better amps than Naim who have more than 40 years of experience.

And while you can keep your Naim amps when switching to a different speaker manufacturer, you can't do so with active speakers with integrated amplification. This makes upgrading more expensive. 

The two active systems I have heard have sounded sublime. I like the fact that I could add a 300, Snaxo, Hicap and some A5 to improve my system even if it is unlikely due to space constraints and cost.

Agree they seem to be rather uncommon these days, even aspirationally.

Stu

I think it's wrong to suggest that speaker manufacturers can't produce decent amplifiers just because Naim have 40 years experience. If you get the chance, listen to PMC active studio monitors, couldn't do a comparison but I was well impressed. If they looked abit more domesticated and I had the money..... After all, not all decent speakers work well with Naim amps, or you could say not all Naim amps work well with all decent speakers. It's horses for courses, we all hear music differently. As an example, and to me and my wife's ears, not all PMC speakers work well with Naim. Some people rave over 20/23's, to us they were awful on the end of Naim. Yet the 20/24's sounded like they were a match made in heaven.

I committed to my active Naim pathway fairly early with Credo then SBL and now SL2. I have run  each system passively too at some point for interest and I know which I prefer by some distance

I think if Naim still made loudspeakers they would still be marketing the active route for them.

I have the impression that system synergy is important for active systems. So when Naim made the whole pathway these were an option with great performance and also made business sense.

If companies tend to only make 'speakers, or alternatively only  the amplification then it is maybe not surprising that they don't offer active upgrades. It would see to me likely to be hit and miss in terms of performance and would be a niche offering perhaps not worth the R+D.

As for Focal, I doubt the active upgrade was designed in prior to the merger. SBL's etc had easily accessible and removable crossovers after all.

Bruce

It's good to see manufacturers like Kudos allowing an easy move to active operation (pull out a few links and off you go) and working with the various manufactures to develop the crossover configurations. Give the Focal / Naim tie up, it's surprising that this has not given rise to a range of active capable focal speakers (and accompanying Snaxo). Perhaps the market is just too limited ?

There is also the view of "build it and they will come".

The Linn approach, allowing one active box with many user self service configurations, is envious. I honestly cannot see SNAXO having a meaningful future unless Naim figure out a way to make it more flexible and user self service within the analogue realm.

And if they did, there'd be one more real active player on the field and then presumably more speakers to choose from. The options are just too limited currently to take SNAXO serously as anything but a legacy item. 

If this is to ever succeed, it needs to be self-service and have a range of speakers to choose from. Few people will flock to Kudos unless they already prefer their passive offering. 

Active always had a box count problem. But the choice was larger and you could go active with modest speakers and amps. Maybe I'm just remembering things through rose tinted goggles but it seems a shame where we are today. Kudos active feels like a last gasp, not a reaffirmation of Naim's support for active.

More than new streamers, Unitis, power amps, whatever; what I'd live to see is a radicalky rethought active offering that put SNAXO as 2.0 back on the table.

True - Yes you could go active easily as back in the day you had the likes of Arcam and Nytech working with Linn and ARC to produce simple active systems. The slimline Naim range (92, 90.3 etc) allowed active on a smaller budget with the IXO crossover. The main issue with the lower cost active systems was whether you'd get better results with a passive system from higher up the range for a similar cost and less boxes.

Indeed. Good point. I used to hanker after an all Linn Aktiv Kaber system. But my current passive setup is better. That could be for various reasons. My source is better than a Karik/Numerik ever was, as is my preamp over a Kairn. I suspect everything else is better now too. 

And yet, the idea of being able to go active with a simple shoebox system today with someghing like PMC 25.21 if I had a dinky room seems very apoealing.

There are active systems - with active crossovers and multiple power amps including SNAXO/ NACs) and there are active speakers, with the active crossover and amps built into or attached to the speakers (e.g. active ATCs or PMCs).Both are alive and well, though Naim seems pretty dormant in the market at present - that doesn’t mean there isnt a place for Naim, but maybe they don’t consider it a big enough market at present to be worth actively (sic!) pursuing.

Digital active crossovers are very much on the rise, and understandably as they offer very easy flexibility and tailoring to different speakers, even easy enough for a user to set up, with not only crossover frequencies, relative levels and phase adjustable, but also crossover slopes, and even frequency response tailoring if a driver has a non-level response, or even to compensate for, say, bass shelving caused by wall proximity. And all with direct drive and control of the soeaker cone by the power amp. That is a challenge to the likes of SNAXO, which  has certain fixed design features (I guess including slopes), and even tailoring of crossover frequency and phase seemingly a factory job. How SNAXO and a decent digital XO compare in terms of sound quality if compared side by side I have no idea, but it could well be that even if they inferior in absolute terms, given that SNAXO isn’t available for most sowakers, it is very possible that a speaker driven actively using ANOther digital active XO will sound better than the same soeaker driven passively.

i started a thread last year comparing ATC and PMC drivers (PMC + ATC mod and tri-amping), which necessitated doing it active. As part of that I actually have both a digital XO (Behringer DEC2496 - low cost, but with good reputation) and an analog one (ATC EC23 - very well renowned and expensive when new). My intent when I get time is to compare them, and report in that thread.

Returning to the closing question the of the OP: I don’t believe that passive crossovers can be as good as active with direct drive and control of the speaker by the power amp., and it is up to Naim whether they develop SNAXO to enable it to be used with more speakers. But somehow I doubt that Naim will i troduce a user-tailorable digital SNXO (nDAXO?) in the near future.

Innocent Bystander posted:

There are active systems - with active crossovers and multiple power amps including SNAXO/ NACs) and there are active speakers, with the active crossover and amps built into or attached to the speakers (e.g. active ATCs or PMCs).Both are alive and well, though Naim seems pretty dormant in the market at present - that doesn’t mean there isnt a place for Naim, but maybe they don’t consider it a big enough market at present to be worth actively (sic!) pursuing.

Digital active crossovers are very much on the rise, and understandably as they offer very easy flexibility and tailoring to different speakers, even easy enough for a user to set up, with not only crossover frequencies, relative levels and phase adjustable, but also crossover slopes, and even frequency response tailoring if a driver has a non-level response, or even to compensate for, say, bass shelving caused by wall proximity. And all with direct drive and control of the soeaker cone by the power amp. That is a challenge to the likes of SNAXO, which  has certain fixed design features (I guess including slopes), and even tailoring of crossover frequency and phase seemingly a factory job. How SNAXO and a decent digital XO compare in terms of sound quality if compared side by side I have no idea, but it could well be that even if they inferior in absolute terms, given that SNAXO isn’t available for most sowakers, it is very possible that a speaker driven actively using ANOther digital active XO will sound better than the same soeaker driven passively.

i started a thread last year comparing ATC and PMC drivers (PMC + ATC mod and tri-amping), which necessitated doing it active. As part of that I actually have both a digital XO (Behringer DEC2496 - low cost, but with good reputation) and an analog one (ATC EC23 - very well renowned and expensive when new). My intent when I get time is to compare them, and report in that thread.

Returning to the closing question the of the OP: I don’t believe that passive crossovers can be as good as active with direct drive and control of the speaker by the power amp., and it is up to Naim whether they develop SNAXO to enable it to be used with more speakers. But somehow I doubt that Naim will i troduce a user-tailorable digital SNXO (nDAXO?) in the near future.

Bryston did exactly that with the BAX-1 Digital crossover but alas, it is programmed only for their own loudspeakers..

feeling_zen posted:

Have passive crossovers really improved so vastly much to close the gap?

In a lot of way no - there are some materials physics for the components and how they have to be used to cause a filtering function with a high-voltage high-current into a low impedance (complex inductance) load that is always going to be less than ideal, compared to the same job done before the Power Amp with low-voltage very low-current into a high resistive load.

So the filtering will always be better Active - but does it matter? To my ears it still does in terms of perceived speed, immediacy and a light-tough/low distortion presentation of the music. But there is a far higher cost to Active in terms of financial outlay and number of physical boxes to support in a domestic setting.

From a purely business point of view you would want to offer better Passive speakers that can be driven by a range of power amps and make your money as a company that way, as that is what most people want to buy in terms of their financial outlay and domestic harmony, so that is what is provided. If the company wants to also support the dedicated enthusiast that is prepared to spend more and have a room full of boxes then the would commercially offer this only partially as and when possible. This is exactly what Naim do and it is no surprise to me.

The Kudos crossover development and testing was done by somebody in their own time and cost and presented into Naim as a no-brainer thing to offer, as it required no development costs, utilized an existing product with a few new filter component values and had a number of customers lined-up waiting to buy it. Naim wants to make money and produce good HiFi that does music, but the money part has to support the latter goals, so you have that product.

So in terms of the OP question 'Are Active systems making themselves irrelevant' then they themselves are not, as they are still better - but if the question was 'Will a HiFi Company make more profit by concentrating on Passive systems rather than Active?' then the answer is Yes.

DB.

The best speakers I’ve heard recently were all active with internal amps , 2 from ATC (25 Pro and Classic 50) and Dutch and Dutch 8c which were probably  the best of all . 

I initially thought of the damping / isolation issues of internal amps but the Pros must outweigh the cons as  the sound quality was stunning. 

I think this type of system is very relevant today and more so in the future as I can’t see younger generations wanting multi box systems.  It is the route I will take shortly mainly due to a reduced box count without sacrificing Sound Quality. 

As DB says passive systems are undoubtedly more fruitful for Hi-Fi Companies. 

I have to write this all the time someone is writing that there are no ways to use the snaxo anymore. There is a world outside the UK you have to live with the fact and maybe even learn to like it. All audiovector 3 and 6 models can be made to work in an active Naim  setup. Out of the 4  friends I have who are Naim users, 2 have active systems like I have. So in my part of the Naim world active is normal not passiv.

Sorry Claus - forgot about Audiovector which have a more limited presence in the UK. 

James

Something I would like to see in more Pre- and integrated amps are high-pass main and full range auxiliary outputs. This would make 2.1 channel systems with passive main speakers and powered subwoofers a worthwhile alternative. Most, if not all, subwoofers have their own low-pass filters, while the high-pass would ease the work for smaller speakers, like the ProAc Tablette 10, for example. It has to be adjustable in a small range, perhaps from 30 to 70 Hz to be useful for a certain amount of speakers. 

The lack of fiery debate or comment in 24hrs answers the question as far as I am concerned. Active crossover systems may be alve and well for others like Linn and Devialet and even Bryston (user definable analogue crossover), but this is clearly dead as far as Naim are concerned, whether they see it that way or not.

Clearly there is little support for more than a handful of speakers currently in production, and the lack of debate here indicates it is not something people give much thought on anymore with regards to Naim.

Unless they have something massive hidden off stage in the wings beyond the current offerings, SNAXO has no future that I can see. Which is a massive shame.

This is a massive shame because a fully maxed out active system will always beat a fully maxed out passive one, forget about dollars and box count, active must always be better, it just simply has too many advantages over passive.

I suppose, for the rest of us, we can always insert one of these between our power amps. If I ever get speakers that happen to support active crossovers, I may in fact consider this non Naim approach. I think the benefits of active crossovers should outweigh the disadvantages of using a non Naim component at such a critical point in the signal path. Bryston 10B-STD. Though you will need 2 of them for 3 way speakers and a careless child's hand could do some amazingly expensive damage to your speakers.

Honestly, the above is kind of what Naim need to come up with to stay in the Active game. 

The current situation for a lot of active systems with digital crossovers is a dog's dinner:

Digital source -> DAC -> preamp -> ADC -> DSP Crossover -> multiple DACs -> multiple poweramps -> drive units
just doesn't make any sense.

If you want to do digital crossovers, the only sensible solution is:
Digital source (S/Pdif) -> DSP signal control / Crossover  -> multiple DACs -> multiple poweramps -> drive units

That's approximately what Linn Exakt does. They have their own version of SPDIF however, it's the Exakt protocol and its transported over Ethernet cables.

feeling_zen posted:

Clearly there is little support for more than a handful of speakers currently in production, and the lack of debate here indicates it is not something people give much thought on anymore with regards to Naim.

Unless they have something massive hidden off stage in the wings beyond the current offerings, SNAXO has no future that I can see. Which is a massive shame.

Well, for a fair few of us, the SNAXO has a great future continuing in our active systems. It's a pretty durable component, very unlikely to go wrong, and has been emphasised in this thread, there ain't no substitute for a good active system. I suspect my current active amp/speaker setup will outlast me; it responds very well to changes in source and does all I could possibly want for music playing kit.