Active vs passive system

Khan,

Read Bark Bear's input very carefully. It's the best advice within this thread. Buy the best pre-amp you can, and speakers that can be run both active or passive. Start with them passive - assuming funds are limited. As more funds become available, buy more power amps and an active filter (Snaxo).

As I say, read BD's post carefully. It's good advice.

Cheers

Don

Re power amps, quality may be most obvious on tweeter or mid (which may depend on the particular drivers involved), however power requirement is less as you go up the frequency range, However in the Naim range the power goes up with the quality, making the theoretical ideal 3* NAP500s (with an unlimited wallet - or 3* Statements with an unlimited bank account...)

I think that what ATC do is have the same quality of amp, but with power delivery tailored so saving the cost of the mid and treble amps. (N.B. this is not making any inference about which of Naim and ATC power amps might sound better than the other.)

Halloween Man,

if you go back to the early days of Naim they always advised that going active was the ultimate end game for system building. However, due to their revealing nature one should have the very best source and pre available before considering going active. Naim speakers were generally designed to be actively driven. Paxo’s were then an add on components allowing passive playback until you were ready to go active.

Thus, the highest expression of a Naim system was an active one using their own ‘speakers with an LP12, then CDS and so on. They also recommended using their best power amps passive before going active. So a 250, or later a pair of 135s would be duplicated  (or triplicated?) to go active, ie the best power amp they made for each drive unit. Anything else was sub optimal.

To the OP I would also follow DBs advice along with the purchase of some good condition SBLs for a low cost experimental ‘speaker.

I only heard an active system once, a Forum member living in Tonbridge Wells back in the day. CDS, 52, 2x250 into SBLs. Simply magical.....

Stu

Exactly, perfectly matching power and crossover to driver. ATC integrate their own custom power amps, crossovers, and drivers to give as best match as possible. Naim do not offer this. I'm not saying one brand sounds better than the other, that is subjective, but I do believe ATC offer bang for buck when it comes to active setup - less redundancy, no over spec'd amps, expensive casework etc. No doubt there are also compromises with ATC design - cramming all that into a small space.

As I said previously, ATC offer a sound quality that is very hard to beat. I also do not doubt for a second that an active Naim system will sound superb but I would personally want to audition both before making a decision. My humble SCM40A actives with Hugo TT make me feel privileged every time I listen to it, it's unreal (in that it sounds so real).

All the best to all 

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

With ATC you are either Active or Passive. With Naim, you can gradually develop your system, as funding allows, starting with passive then moving to active.

Quite a few people found that running  a pair of 135s into a pair of active Bariks, supported by a pair of 250s provided an excellent presentation. Far better than anything ATC produced IMHO.

OTOH, ATC did produce some excellent drivers for their speakers. And ISTR that Naim used some of these in some of their speakers, but I could easily have got this (fact ?) wrong !

Don Atkinson posted:

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

With ATC you are either Active or Passive. With Naim, you can gradually develop your system, as funding allows, starting with passive then moving to active.

Quite a few people found that running  a pair of 135s into a pair of active Bariks, supported by a pair of 250s provided an excellent presentation. Far better than anything ATC produced IMHO.

OTOH, ATC did produce some excellent drivers for their speakers. And ISTR that Naim used some of these in some of their speakers, but I could easily have got this (fact ?) wrong !

In my experience, ATC make excellent speakers and they're a very good company. Not quite to my taste, sounding a bit clinical to my ears. You're quite correct on that last point Don - ATC made the 15" bass drivers for my DBLs, and will still repair them should something go wrong (usually the rubber surrounds).

Hi Don, the earlier ATC speakers with the SEAS and Vifa tweeters could sound quite dry and analytical... I rather liked it.. but not everyone’s cup of tea. The newer consumer range with new  ATC tweeter and crossover have a very different presentation that feels altogether more organic and emotional... it did take a bit of getting used having come from the analytical camp.. but I firmly enjoy their new presentation now.

Halloween Nan,

my post was simply to offer a friendly challenge to your earlier post:

“My view, Naim products are obviously designed for passive setups. Yes, they can be used in an active setup but the thought of using a NAP to drive a tweeter is a little preposterous”.

The points being that Naim are not obviously designed for passive operation, and that their best Naps driving tweeters is not preposterous!

Glad you are happy with ATC which is the ultimate point of all this anyway .

I suspect that if my pockets were deeper I would activate my humble setup.

Stu

tonym posted:
Don Atkinson posted:

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

With ATC you are either Active or Passive. With Naim, you can gradually develop your system, as funding allows, starting with passive then moving to active.

Quite a few people found that running  a pair of 135s into a pair of active Bariks, supported by a pair of 250s provided an excellent presentation. Far better than anything ATC produced IMHO.

OTOH, ATC did produce some excellent drivers for their speakers. And ISTR that Naim used some of these in some of their speakers, but I could easily have got this (fact ?) wrong !

In my experience, ATC make excellent speakers and they're a very good company. Not quite to my taste, sounding a bit clinical to my ears. You're quite correct on that last point Don - ATC made the 15" bass drivers for my DBLs, and will still repair them should something go wrong (usually the rubber surrounds).

Ah ! Thanks Tony, I had that "feeling" that naim used ATC drivers in some of their speakers. My recollection is that they were pretty selective as to which ones got used and even then Naim added weights or did  something to get the sound they wanted. ATC have a good reputation.

As for their sound, Yes ATC were good, but not my cup-of-tea !

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Hi Don, the earlier ATC speakers with the SEAS and Vifa tweeters could sound quite dry and analytical... I rather liked it.. but not everyone’s cup of tea. The newer consumer range with new  ATC tweeter and crossover have a very different presentation that feels altogether more organic and emotional... it did take a bit of getting used having come from the analytical camp.. but I firmly enjoy their new presentation now.

Hi Simon,

I haven't hear the newer range, so it might be more to my liking than of old. We all vary in what we enjoy - fortunately !

stuart.ashen posted:

Halloween Man,

if you go back to the early days of Naim they always advised that going active was the ultimate end game for system building. However, due to their revealing nature one should have the very best source and pre available before considering going active. Naim speakers were generally designed to be actively driven. Paxo’s were then an add on components allowing passive playback until you were ready to go active.

Thus, the highest expression of a Naim system was an active one using their own ‘speakers with an LP12, then CDS and so on. They also recommended using their best power amps passive before going active. So a 250, or later a pair of 135s would be duplicated  (or triplicated?) to go active, ie the best power amp they made for each drive unit. Anything else was sub optimal.

To the OP I would also follow DBs advice along with the purchase of some good condition SBLs for a low cost experimental ‘speaker.

I only heard an active system once, a Forum member living in Tonbridge Wells back in the day. CDS, 52, 2x250 into SBLs. Simply magical.....

Stu

Hard to disagree with that Stu!

We all know it started with Linn and Naim!

The Source was Linn~ LP 12, Linn wasn't noted for their Speakers.

Naim took care of the Middle (the electronics).

As time moved on, Naim & Linn became proficient at manufacturing Speakers and other components.

DBLs & Briks! But this was  years later.

I would say, the the Linn/Naim Empire peaked during the early Ninety's, before the devoice!

(LP 12 > Six Pack > Active Briks)

Now that was an hell of a System DB had!

A Trio of 500,s > Briks!

And a decade ago: CES 2007

Naim Debuts its Reference CDP:

CD555>282>Snaxo>250s>DBLs

To your point Stu, I wouldn't bother with an Active System, less than their middle of the road 282, and their pride & joy regulated 250s!

Just saying, only 30 years experience with Aktiv Linn, 3 years with Naim!

Out!

Allante93!

 

 

Allante93 posted:

We all know it started with Linn and Naim!

The Source was Linn~ LP 12, Linn wasn't noted for their Speakers.

Naim took care of the Middle (the electronics).

As time moved on, Naim & Linn became proficient at manufacturing Speakers and other components.

DBLs & Briks! But this was  years later.

I would say, the the Linn/Naim Empire peaked during the early Ninety's, before the devoice!

(LP 12 > Six Pack > Active Briks)


 

 

Oh ! Time flies. Naim were in Salt Lane. Julian had a few people working for him and I don't think even Paul S was on the team but I do recall David Becks ? and he of Audio Voice (is that the right name? ).....(hope this post doesn't get moderated !)

The Nac 32 was top of the range with the Nac 12 a bit less versatile and slightly less expensive. The 32.5 hadn't been invented yet. The Nap 160 sounded sublime and would power the 32 or the 12 but there was an optional NAPS (not yet the SNAPS) which improved things but was essential if you went for the 250 power amp.

Speakers, and this is the point of this trip down Memory Lane, were Linn Isobariks in either the DMS version or, if you went for the 3x160 or 3x250  the PMS version together with the NAXO (not yet the SNAXO) for an active set-up.

Now I can't be certain of the precise date, but it was probably 1977/78.

Those Linn Isobariks knocked the socks of Naim's attempt at their first loudspeakers, and i'm not referring to SBLs.

The front end was the well noted Linn/Grace/Supex but OMG Linn were also well noted for their Isobarik speakers.

I love looking back on this golden era. Most of the old truths still have validity to my way of thinking. Source first and all that! Briks and Sara’s were indeed the active choice of many. Kans, then IBLs and SBLs made the best use of the improving sources and electronics.

Heady days if you believed the Earth was flat....

Stu

stuart.ashen posted:

Halloween Man,

if you go back to the early days of Naim they always advised that going active was the ultimate end game for system building. However, due to their revealing nature one should have the very best source and pre available before considering going active. Naim speakers were generally designed to be actively driven. Paxo’s were then an add on components allowing passive playback until you were ready to go active.

Thus, the highest expression of a Naim system was an active one using their own ‘speakers with an LP12, then CDS and so on. They also recommended using their best power amps passive before going active. So a 250, or later a pair of 135s would be duplicated  (or triplicated?) to go active, ie the best power amp they made for each drive unit. Anything else was sub optimal.

To the OP I would also follow DBs advice along with the purchase of some good condition SBLs for a low cost experimental ‘speaker.

I only heard an active system once, a Forum member living in Tonbridge Wells back in the day. CDS, 52, 2x250 into SBLs. Simply magical.....

Stu

Would that have been Tom Alves, who used to post here many years ago?

Don Atkinson posted:

Correction (I think !)

It was David Beck (rather than Becks)

and it was Audio Vois (rather than Voice) and Ian Keaney

But the gist is the same.....viz.....Linn Isobarik Speakers were well noted.

Yes it was Ian Keaney and yes, it was Audio Vois.  I believe they produced one or two pre and power amps, reasonably well regarded by the reviewers.  There was the V21 Pre-amp and V210 Power amp.  Very similar to the Naim amps of the time, with the same Holden and Fisher transformer, used DIN connectors etc.  Didn't last long as a company, I believe, I suspect partly because they tried to expand into the USA too soon.  I know Ian briefly, sometime around 1976 or so when he was still with Naim.  He sold me an electronic crossover of some sort - long, narrow circuit board, in a long narrow case with bolt-down top.  From memory it would have been about 12cm wide.  It was my introduction to active systems, and was excellent.  I had early Naim speakers then, from which I removed the crossovers, and I have a NAP 120.

I think that they were registered at 24 Park Square East London NW1

stuart.ashen posted:

Halloween Nan,

my post was simply to offer a friendly challenge to your earlier post:

“My view, Naim products are obviously designed for passive setups. Yes, they can be used in an active setup but the thought of using a NAP to drive a tweeter is a little preposterous”.

The points being that Naim are not obviously designed for passive operation, and that their best Naps driving tweeters is not preposterous

Glad you are happy with ATC which is the ultimate point of all this anyway .

I suspect that if my pockets were deeper I would activate my humble setup.

Stu

Hi Stu, I can appreciate what you are saying and perhaps preposterous was too strong a word but I cannot accept that a 140w dedicated amp costing £20k such as NAP500DR is necessary to power a pair of tweeters. I'm sticking with my belief that that such an amp is primarily designed for passive use in mind. Naim do not even mention active use on the product page.

Now, if Naim were to develop the built in electronics for naim/focal active speakers that would be interesting 

ATB, hm

 

Halloween Man posted:

Hi Stu, I can appreciate what you are saying and perhaps preposterous was too strong a word but I cannot accept that a 140w dedicated amp costing £20k such as NAP500DR is necessary to power a pair of tweeters. I'm sticking with my belief that that such an amp is primarily designed for passive use in mind. Naim do not even mention active use on the product page.

Now, if Naim were to develop the built in electronics for naim/focal active speakers that would be interesting 

ATB, hm

 

You're struggling under a burden of ignorance: you've never heard the difference using a 500DR makes driving a tweeter in a Naim active system compared with lesser amps or, I suspect, an active Naim setup compared with its passive equivalent.

I can understand where @ halloween man is coming from , from a gut/wallet reaction it does not make sense......at all. However, my best system was active SBL,s with NapP250. I am now retired starting again........active is on my radar, as the sound is amazing to my ears. But we are all different, and as a recent post mentioned...that’s a very good thing.

 

 

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

A delayed follow up to my post yesterday (thread disappeared for a bit...)

 

Re active crossover, SNAXO is the obvious for a Naim system, but only if Naim can supply to meet the crossover requirements for the particular speaker. ATC can supply their own, of course precisely tailored to their own speakers. There are others available, though information about the setup requirements is needed, and /or adequate measurement capability (and some come with that built in) - which also provides the capability for a degree of tailoring to the room.
i am playing with an ATC EC23 analog active XO, and a Behringer DCX2496 digital one (which I am reporting on separately in the thread PMC + ATC mod and tri-amping.

 

Whatever the choice of active vs passive, it is as always important to be sure that the speakers sound good to you, in your room. Given the speakers have the largest effect on the overall character of the sound of a system of any component, I believe that is a more important consideration than whether they should be active or passive. Having found speakers that sound good, active veg then has the potential to make them sound better compared to passive. (Of course, that choice could hit on active in the first place, in which case the choice S already made...

Willy posted:

Back in '85 or'86 I was at a party at Julian's house. His personal system was active Isobariks, driven by a six pack of 135s.

Willy.

Trying to replicate the above System!

2nd to last Briks: 75XX +

Black Box 250.2 ? 

HCDR/282 +

SC 2/Snaxo 362 +

Cdx2 ? 

Not there yet!

But Passive Tri Amped Briks ain't Bad!

Allante93!

 

PS. Memory Lane:

Linn Aktiv:

 

 

Davej, it may well have been Tom Alves but it was a long time ago and I can’t be sure. Seem to remember the guy was moving to Scotland from T. Wells. If he still lurks here then a hearty ‘hello’!

Halloween Man, I would agree that the investment needed for a top Naim active system would be preposterous to most. Impossible for me to justify certainly. My comments are simply about SQ, and the historical design and advice guidelines given by Naim from early in their history.

HNY all.

Stu

Innocent Bystander posted:

A delayed follow up to my post yesterday (thread disappeared for a bit...)

 

Re active crossover, SNAXO is the obvious for a Naim system, but only if Naim can supply to meet the crossover requirements for the particular speaker. ATC can supply their own, of course precisely tailored to their own speakers. There are others available, though information about the setup requirements is needed, and /or adequate measurement capability (and some come with that built in) - which also provides the capability for a degree of tailoring to the room.
i am playing with an ATC EC23 analog active XO, and a Behringer DCX2496 digital one (which I am reporting on separately in the thread PMC + ATC mod and tri-amping.

 

Whatever the choice of active vs passive, it is as always important to be sure that the speakers sound good to you, in your room. Given the speakers have the largest effect on the overall character of the sound of a system of any component, I believe that is a more important consideration than whether they should be active or passive. Having found speakers that sound good, active veg then has the potential to make them sound better compared to passive. (Of course, that choice could hit on active in the first place, in which case the choice S already made...

I know what sound active veg creates and I don’t need it coming from my speakers too.

stuart.ashen posted:

Davej, it may well have been Tom Alves but it was a long time ago and I can’t be sure. Seem to remember the guy was moving to Scotland from T. Wells. If he still lurks here then a hearty ‘hello’.

HNY all.

Stu

Tom certainly left for a quiet life in Scotland and he was certainly old school Naim and deeply committed to show us (and failing) that SBLs did do “proper” bass. Tom also left here in something of a high dudgeon, so though it’d be great to see him back, it’s perhaps unlikely.

Tom was a lovely bloke and a much missed member of the TW Riders (committed to causing amps to shut down, and drive neighbours wild across Southern England, now retired).

tonym posted:
Halloween Man posted:

Hi Stu, I can appreciate what you are saying and perhaps preposterous was too strong a word but I cannot accept that a 140w dedicated amp costing £20k such as NAP500DR is necessary to power a pair of tweeters. I'm sticking with my belief that that such an amp is primarily designed for passive use in mind. Naim do not even mention active use on the product page.

Now, if Naim were to develop the built in electronics for naim/focal active speakers that would be interesting 

ATB, hm

 

You're struggling under a burden of ignorance: you've never heard the difference using a 500DR makes driving a tweeter in a Naim active system compared with lesser amps or, I suspect, an active Naim setup compared with its passive equivalent.

I just don't think you're getting it Tony. My view, right or wrong, which I'm entitled to without personal insult, is that the current Naim lineup is designed primarily for passive use first. I've made no comment on sound quality of any Naim components or system.

Happy New Year to all 

yeti42 posted:
Innocent Bystander posted:

 

Whatever the choice of active vs passive, it is as always important to be sure that the speakers sound good to you, in your room. Given the speakers have the largest effect on the overall character of the sound of a system of any component, I believe that is a more important consideration than whether they should be active or passive. Having found speakers that sound good, active veg then has the potential to make them sound better compared to passive. (Of course, that choice could hit on active in the first place, in which case the choice S already made...

I know what sound active veg creates and I don’t need it coming from my speakers too.

A recording of Day of the Triffids?

 

pesky iThing autotext!

Halloween Man posted:
Halloween Man posted:

Hi Stu, I can appreciate what you are saying and perhaps preposterous was too strong a word but I cannot accept that a 140w dedicated amp costing £20k such as NAP500DR is necessary to power a pair of tweeters. I'm sticking with my belief that that such an amp is primarily designed for passive use in mind.

{Naim do not even mention active use on the product page.}

 

Now, if Naim were to develop the built in electronics for naim/focal active speakers that would be interesting 

ATB, hm

 

I just don't think you're getting it Tony. My view, right or wrong, which I'm entitled to without personal insult, is that the current Naim lineup is designed primarily for passive use first. I've made no comment on sound quality of any Naim components or system.

Happy New Year to all 

1st off, I agree with you (HM), Stu, and others that's a lot of amp $$$ to drive a single driver in an Active System!

But remember, the Individual that partakes in an Active System is seeking Audio Utopia.

I'm kind of  new to Naim, just been around 3 years, but on a many occasions I've been directed Naim's FAQ:

What is an Active System?

"We believe that the best way to do the job is to intercept the musical signal as it leaves the pre-amplifier and use a powered [active] crossover (an electronic filtering network) to separate the highs from the mids and the lows. This, naturally, means that we need to use more power amplifiers: one for each band of frequencies. And more loudspeaker cables, of course: one from each amplifier to its dedicated loudspeaker driver connection. 

This is, of course,

{more expensive than any passive system arrangement}

but we are convinced - as are many satisfied customers - that the results justify the additional expenditure. Active systems typically sound more precise, clear and controlled than passive systems. The result is music that sounds more like music and less like a hi-fi system. In part this is because active systems inherently produce less distortion than passive systems. [Sorry, for being technical but it's a fact!]"

Of Course, I'm an Active fan, but Pre-loved 282/250 Active Fan!

But if money was know object, what the heck!

Active Statement, with David Wilson Speakers!

Or Perhaps an $15K tone Arm (Stu)!

When its all said and done, this is what we do:

Spend Thousands on subtle differences that aren't detectable by the Norm!

But Remember, we aren't the Norm! LOL...

Allante93!

PS. A word I learned on the Forum

Apodictic

It's not what you say, but how you say it!

I'm a work in progress!

Enjoy you Music, The Why!

Happy New Year To All!

Halloween Man posted:
tonym posted:
Halloween Man posted:

Hi Stu, I can appreciate what you are saying and perhaps preposterous was too strong a word but I cannot accept that a 140w dedicated amp costing £20k such as NAP500DR is necessary to power a pair of tweeters. I'm sticking with my belief that that such an amp is primarily designed for passive use in mind. Naim do not even mention active use on the product page.

Now, if Naim were to develop the built in electronics for naim/focal active speakers that would be interesting 

ATB, hm

 

You're struggling under a burden of ignorance: you've never heard the difference using a 500DR makes driving a tweeter in a Naim active system compared with lesser amps or, I suspect, an active Naim setup compared with its passive equivalent.

I just don't think you're getting it Tony. My view, right or wrong, which I'm entitled to without personal insult, is that the current Naim lineup is designed primarily for passive use first. I've made no comment on sound quality of any Naim components or system.

Happy New Year to all 

I see you've slipped in the word "current". But it still doesn't wash because most of the current Naim amplifiers, preamps, electronic crossovers and power supplies were originally around when Naim marketed whole systems, which were designed primarily for active use. Nothing insulting in my previous post, you haven't heard the effect of putting an expensive amplifier on the tweeter, so you don't know.

Halloween Man posted:
tonym posted:
Halloween Man posted:

Hi Stu, I can appreciate what you are saying and perhaps preposterous was too strong a word but I cannot accept that a 140w dedicated amp costing £20k such as NAP500DR is necessary to power a pair of tweeters. I'm sticking with my belief that that such an amp is primarily designed for passive use in mind. Naim do not even mention active use on the product page.

Now, if Naim were to develop the built in electronics for naim/focal active speakers that would be interesting 

ATB, hm

 

You're struggling under a burden of ignorance: you've never heard the difference using a 500DR makes driving a tweeter in a Naim active system compared with lesser amps or, I suspect, an active Naim setup compared with its passive equivalent.

I just don't think you're getting it Tony. My view, right or wrong, which I'm entitled to without personal insult, is that the current Naim lineup is designed primarily for passive use first. I've made no comment on sound quality of any Naim components or system.

Happy New Year to all 

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.

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

Yes. And that's probably the nub of much of what we hear.

If it were otherwise, Naim would be the sole suplyer of hi-fi systems !

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.

To my surprise, after a recent listen to the active SCM50's with 272/XPSDR, I had the same impression as Don. Was a bit disappointed because I'd liked the idea of the active ATC route. Obviously just not to my taste, not the actives anyway

Mayor West 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.

To my surprise, after a recent listen to the active SCM50's with 272/XPSDR, I had the same impression as Don. Was a bit disappointed because I'd liked the idea of the active ATC route. Obviously just not to my taste, not the actives anyway

I have been sooo tempted to claim "Great minds Hear alike !" but then...........

.......i'm also aware that  "Fools seldom differ !"

and even more so, on one of the displays at UCL "Great minds DON'T think alike !"

so I won't.

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.

×
×
×
×