Try a NAP300 on top, NAP300 on mid, and NAP500 on bottom–you might be pleasantly surprised.

And yes–the passive crossover is a helpful reminder as to why you went active in the first place!

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:

And yes–the passive crossover is a helpful reminder as to why you went active in the first place!

indeed!

I agree with peter@cymbiosis -- this is an excellent opportunity for the dealer to do some serious value-add. Check over the system, help move some items around, demonstrate alternatives. This is *exactly* why naim has official dealers.

I would also add that the original poster should find other dibble owners within driving distance, and go visit them for some other insights into how dibbles can sound.

quote:

Originally posted by David Dever:
And yes–the passive crossover is a helpful reminder as to why you went active in the first place!

Maybe there is a good reason some people modify the DBL xovers.

The best modification is to file them under B for Bin. The 20db reduction in distortion cannot be acheived by any other means other than removal. As I have said before, the dibble crossover is fine as a means to an end -- buy dibbles with one 500 now with the crossover, but move to full active asap. they are a "get you up and running" thing not an end-point.

but but but... they are too pretty to put in a Bin.

quote:

[Maybe there is a good reason some people modify the DBL xovers.

I know people who modify the SBL xovers as well.

I know the routine when I heard a passive SL2 to active SL2.

Right there and then, I understood what they are about.

quote:

Originally posted by aht:

Easy if you happen to have a DBL passive crossover lying in the closet, as most of us do...

It's amazing what you can find if only you look

Using the 500s in passive would be a problem as I do not have the crossovers. It would also pain me to see so much hardware sitting there unused (362, Supercap, 300 & 250).

I feel guilty in that I have not experimented with the 300 on mid (ie. a 500(tweeter), 300(mid) 250(bass)) configuration. It takes some work getting to and swapping cables. Something I will try, but it is only possible to do when I have the run of the house to myself...

Ron's thread (http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48019385/m/7551938666?r=7551938666#7551938666) was very interesting. I certainly experienced the same improvement across the whole spectrum when I added the 500 to the tweeter. Looking forward to reading the piece on 500 passive compared to your 500/300/135. I've located something posted 4 Aug 03 and will enjoy reading it later this evening.

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:
but but but... they are too pretty to put in a Bin.

..which further goes to prove beauty is in the eye of the beholder Kuma!

Hi,

Don't kid yourself about active vs passive. Passive is a Compromise and active is music without the distortions and colourations. You don't need to go loud with active to enjoy what is going on. The speed of response and clarity is very lifelike. I suspect that the problems of cable dressing so many leads and equipment stacking are the cause of some people preferring passive.

With an active set there is a lot that can detract from the system but careful cable dressing, so that none of them touch, reaps benefits that you could never anticipate. I only have active SBLs (2x300) but the cable dressing really made a huge difference, I use cotton to suspend some SNAICs and Burndeys to stop them touching other cables, I make sure that signal crosses mains as near to right angles as possible and where there are difficulties, I use bubble wrap and foam to support signal cables, speaker cables and to keep the mains leads off the floor. This is not snake oil (snaic oil if you like) but an active system is so transparent that these changes are clearly audible, more so than a CD5 to 555 change. I also cut the rings and bodies of signal leads and the rings off some SNAICs which bring them almost to HiLine levels - honest ask PB.

Some dealers are VERY good at set up and it is up to you to talk to some of them,

FF

Frank

I think a lot of us start out passive and keep improving on that. When you get to a 552 / 500 with first class sources and speakers what you have is very fine.

At this point a move to active may as you say seem daunting as far as complexity is concerned.... but it IS also about expense. Living with a 500 passive is pretty damn awesome so I guess because we tend to think in tramlines any step to active is likely listed as DBL's with at least 3 X 300's (but more likely 3 X 500's) and appropriate ancillaries (SNAXO362 + Supercap + a lot more Fraim). That is a real chunk of change and for me the dominant deciding factor.

AS a point all the care in setup and attention to detail you talk about does indeed pay dividends AND applies with equal benifit to the perforromance of passive systems.

When you bring those 'active' ears to bear on my passive system in the near future I think you will find it ain't far behind.

regards
Geoff

Hi Gavin L

First of a very warm welcome to the Naim Forum and what an interesting post, you have already a truly great system.

What you may not know is that the Naim DBL loudspeaker system was actually designed to be used actively, adding a passive crossover was a major compromise to the performance of the loudspeakers but did make it possible to embark upon an upgrade path to an active setup in the future. However, the DBLs have now been around for some 20 years and the introduction of first the NAP-500 and later the NAP-300 power amplifiers provided a significant challenge to long held ideas in as much that a single NAP-500 driving DBLs passively was viewed by some to be superior to an active arrangement of say 3 x 250s. This was later followed up by a major upgrade in the active crossover design (Snaxo 362).

I was fortunate enough to have to hand a pair of DBLs, 3 x 500s 3 x 300s & 3 x 250-2s, the active and passive crossovers and over a two to three year period decided to have a “play”. It will not surprise you to learn that the very best results were found using a CD555/555PS into NAC-552/552PS, Snaxo 362/Suprcap2 with three NAP-500s sited on three Naim Fraims, and the worst results was a single NAP-250-2 driving them passively.

That still left a lot of unanswered questions as there were a lot of potential combinations between those two points. Driving the DBLs passively it became obvious that as you moved up from 250-2 to 300 and eventually 500 each upgrade produced a significant upgrade in sound quality, no great surprise there.

Going active with identical power amps produced and interesting observation, if the power amps were of differing ages they sounded best organised in the following order, newest power amp driving the tweeters, next newest the mid and the oldest driving the bass. This is further borne out where a mix of Naim power amps are used; best results were consistently achieved by sticking to the rule your best power amp on the tweeters next best on the mid and the lesser on the bass surprising but true.

In your particular arrangement I would therefore recommend trying the 500 on the tweeters, 300 on the mid and put the 250 on the bass.

As to your next step, well in my view of first importance is to first make sure you are getting the best out of what you already have before embarking upon any new purchases as has already been said elsewhere the setup is crucial including equipment positioning, cable dressing etc.

This may well lead to your next purchase actually being a Naim Fraim, rather than either another 500 or CD555 head unit, we were recently in Vienna setting up active DBLs, getting the Fraim, cable dressing & layout of the components right was almost as significant an improvement in the system as adding in the Superline and setting up the LP-12 correctly.

Once this has been achieved, hopefully with the help and advice of a competent dealer then would be the right time to evaluate whether the next upgrade should be CD555 head unit or another NAP-500 either of which will bring significant improvements but in different ways and you are likely to want to add both with a third 500 to follow.

Keep us posted it will be fascinating to follow how this one turns out.

Warmest regards

Norman
Partner - UHES

Hi Geoff,

I was comparing the same speaker, active and passive and tried to understand Ron Toolsies preference for one 500 against 3 x 300s?? Certainly the plumbing involved in an active system takes some thinking about and patience to get the best out of it.

Of course set up is the one area that is sadly neglected in a lot of systems. I have always been extreemly interested in your posts as they often show the simple things that you have done to make improvements to your system and they really work,

FF

I can't wait to hear your system with the Kharmas and I am sure that they and the 500 will be simply terrific,

FF

quote:

I was comparing the same speaker, active and passive and tried to understand Ron Toolsies preference for one 500 against 3 x 300s??

IIRC, Ron's passive xovers have been modified by a third party modder.

quote:

IIRC, Ron's passive xovers have been modified by a third party modder.

Kuma..Both Ron and Marc Newman have indeed substituted a specialist designed crossover and have them seperated from the DBL speaker cabinets.

If I have it right Marc was using litz wire from the crossover into the speakers.... but just to confuse things even further Marc runs 2 500's passive , one per channel with only one side of each amp in use as a pseudo monoblock with appropriately Naim modified PS burndy connections.

I have heard Marc's sytem a couple of times and it is excellent, but since I have never heard a straight passive DBL 1X 500 system with std Naim passive crossovers I have no point of reference for comparison.

Maybe Marc & Ron will comment.

regards
Geoff

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:

quote:

I was comparing the same speaker, active and passive and tried to understand Ron Toolsies preference for one 500 against 3 x 300s??

IIRC, Ron's passive xovers have been modified by a third party modder.

Does this mean that passive full Naim system can sound quite better upgrading the cross over of the Naim speaker?
I know friends who did change the passive xover of SBL's and did the comparative demo, according to them the SBL with the modify xover sounds way better.

Regards,
Edouard

Edouard,
Did any of your friends use one of the Audio 42 xovers with there SBLs?
Munch

Stuart,

I'll find out and then tell you.

Thanks.