quote:

Originally posted by munch:
Did any of your friends use one of the Audio 42 xovers with there SBLs?
Munch

They didn't, they modified the Naim xover with HDG components and also tried a DIY xover with HDG component.
According to them the improvements were huge.

Regards,
Edouard

Thanks Edouard for that info.
Regards Stuart.

quote:

Does this mean that passive full Naim system can sound quite better upgrading the cross over of the Naim speaker?

It's possible that one can minimise xover distortion and insertion loss by modding existing xovers.

There are many more passive speakers out there than active ones.

I think that all things are equall, ultimately an active set up is better than passive ( not just Naim, but for all speakers ) but the system set up and dialing can be complex in that most endusers will not benefit from th epostive effect of going active in the first place. The possibility of user errors are greater with active, in which case one is better off using a single 300 or 500 than less than an optimally set up active 250s.

quote:

I think that all things are equal, ultimately an active set up is better than passive

I'd need to hear the difference with speaker I like, but the choice of speaker is so limited.
However high quality components in the xover are quite costly and I suspect only few passive speakers do get the best.

quote:

Originally posted by Edouard:

quote:

I think that all things are equal, ultimately an active set up is better than passive

I'd need to hear the difference with speaker I like, but the choice of speaker is so limited.
However high quality components in the xover are quite costly and I suspect only few passive speakers do get the best.

Thats the thing Edouard, high quality components for xovers are not that costly

quote:

Thats the thing Edouard, high quality components for xovers are not that costly

Well, then why is there such a huge price differential for the various levels of Art loudspeakers, and also Living Voice? They both charge thousands for crossover upgrades that involve silver wiring, custom Kondo capacitors, etc., etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Edouard:
However high quality components in the xover are quite costly and I suspect only few passive speakers do get the best.

I am not certain if costly parts are all it takes to get a good passive xover.

A good designer knows how to use the right parts in conjunction with his/her design criteria and I suspect a lot of trial and error involved which can be passed on to the final retail pricing.

There seem to be different school of thoughts to which passive xover is *better*, too. ( it varies depending on who you talk to )

The best thing to do for Naim speakers, no doubt, is to be driven active, but that's challenging for most either due to the cost, setup and physical space that they take up in a normal domestic environment, so it's no surprise that some folks want to tweak the passive xovers to come closer to the real thing. ( if it can be done, that is )

quote:

Originally posted by aht:

quote:

Thats the thing Edouard, high quality components for xovers are not that costly

Well, then why is there such a huge price differential for the various levels of Art loudspeakers, and also Living Voice? They both charge thousands for crossover upgrades that involve silver wiring, custom Kondo capacitors, etc., etc.

I don't know about the cost of the parts for crossovers, but let's face it, there are large price differences that seem questionable in most aspects of domestic Hi Fi.

What I do know, from hearing the different Living Voice options and owning ART Emotion Signatures myself, is that the improvement is very large over the standard crossovers.

I agree totally with Kuma. In an ideal world active is preferred. But there are compromises even then. If, like ATC, you use on board amps then there is a considerable vibration issue to be resolved. Not to mention the PA type styling. If you go the Naim route it gets very expensive and not everyone wants a stack of boxes and cabling - all of which introduce their own issues.

If, like me, you don't want a mock up of the NASA Command Centre in your room, or can't get along with the ATC/Meridian solutions, then more transparent crossovers give you an attractive option.

Steve

quote:

The best thing to do for Naim speakers, no doubt, is to be driven active, but that's challenging for most either due to the cost, setup and physical space that they take up in a normal domestic environment, so it's no surprise that some folks want to tweak the passive xovers to come closer to the real thing. ( if it can be done, that is )

Hi Kuma,

Exactly my point. I am lucky that I have very cheap speakers (SBLs are such extreme VFM if they work in your room) and could afford an extra 300, 242 and power supply. In my room, I must have speakers that work close to the wall and I don't think that conventional speakers (active or passive) would work.

In my appartment in Poland, I have much more space and find passive Saras to be . I could be tempted to start a speaker quest but I also have a set of passive SBLs there and a spare 250 here and so I can try the active/passive comparison when I get a round tuit.

By the way Kuma, I am trying out the Akiva with the Linto loading on the Superline using a loading plug that Julian H sent me if you know what I mean??

FF

quote:

Originally posted by Ron Toolsie:
The short answer is go passive with the 500...it is so much better than the 300 and vastly better than the 250, that the inclusion of the latter two, even with a supercapped Snaxo will limit the end result to a greater degree than the PAXO does with a single 500.

For MUCH more detail, see my similar dilemma, except I was using a 1x500, 1x300 and 2x135s in an active DBL system in this thread

Upgrading active DBLs

Read your link and followed your advice: keeping the 500 on tweeter, moving the 300 to mid and the 250 to bass. Interesting results! I remember how it was when I added the 500 to the system and the sound seemed lighter, completely and significantly opening up the sound stage, in the way adding a supercap to the active cross over does, only more so. Well, with the 300 now in mid, the sound seems a little firmer, punchier, and more detail.

There are downsides though, and I do notice a little loss in the base. It is hard to put my finger on it, but it is not quite as exciting as before. I remember the benefits of adding the 500 to the tweeter seemed to improve the lower frequencies too, but not really in adding the 300 to the mid.

Initially moving to 500/300/250 was quite exciting and overall, I think, an improvement. I am interested to see how I get on with a bit more listening.

I hear your advice about switching to 500 passive. I listened to 500 passive on B&W 801's (not sure the exact model), when I demoed the CDS3 (using the 555PS). At the time I had the DBLs on 250/250/300. The 500/B&W sounded good, and the CDS3 was clearly better than my old CDI (the switch I was considering), but the passive setup lacked the excitement of my active system. I'd be interested to hear if you think this setup would be significantly different to a passive 500 DBL.

Now - back to the original question: adding another 500 or changing the CDS3 for the 555? The power amp switch has given me a taste of what I could expect by having 500/500/300 on the DBLs. Will the 555 give back a little of what I lost on moving the 300....?

Depends on how long it will take you to complete the upgrade to 500x3 and 555.

Upgrading the power amps will improve all your sources.

The 801 and DBLs are two polar opposites...I would venture to guess that a pair of DBLs driven by a NAP250 would have more get up and go than an 801 driven by a 500, so it is not suprising that you preferred your hybrid-driven active DBLs.

If you were to compare your 250 to the 500 on about any speaker, you would no longer contemplate using the 250 in ANY system by choice, especially in a high resolution active one. As I mentioned in my initial thread, I feel that active DBLs are only a sensible option with a minimum of NAP300s on all drivers.

quote:

I hear your advice about switching to 500 passive. I listened to 500 passive on B&W 801's (not sure the exact model), when I demoed the CDS3 (using the 555PS). At the time I had the DBLs on 250/250/300. The 500/B&W sounded good, and the CDS3 was clearly better than my old CDI (the switch I was considering), but the passive setup lacked the excitement of my active system. I'd be interested to hear if you think this setup would be significantly different to a passive 500 DBL.

quote:

Originally posted by Ron Toolsie:
The 801 and DBLs are two polar opposites...I would venture to guess that a pair of DBLs driven by a NAP250 would have more get up and go than an 801 driven by a 500, so it is not suprising that you preferred your hybrid-driven active DBLs.

If you were to compare your 250 to the 500 on about any speaker, you would no longer contemplate using the 250 in ANY system by choice, especially in a high resolution active one. As I mentioned in my initial thread, I feel that active DBLs are only a sensible option with a minimum of NAP300s on all drivers.

quote:

I hear your advice about switching to 500 passive. I listened to 500 passive on B&W 801's (not sure the exact model), when I demoed the CDS3 (using the 555PS). At the time I had the DBLs on 250/250/300. The 500/B&W sounded good, and the CDS3 was clearly better than my old CDI (the switch I was considering), but the passive setup lacked the excitement of my active system. I'd be interested to hear if you think this setup would be significantly different to a passive 500 DBL.

Ron-
How do I say it??

Marc / Ron ...any comments or corrections on my previous post

Geoff

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:

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.

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:
The possibility of user errors are greater with active, in which case one is better off using a single 300 or 500 than less than an optimally set up active 250s.

Get a better dealer then...

quote:

Originally posted by Ron Toolsie:
If you were to compare your 250 to the 500 on about any speaker, you would no longer contemplate using the 250 in ANY system by choice, especially in a high resolution active one. As I mentioned in my initial thread, I feel that active DBLs are only a sensible option with a minimum of NAP300s on all drivers.

Sorry, cant agree with that. My 6x135s sound fantastic. And the first 10 years of dibble production had the 135s as the reference amp. You cant just write off the high end of the olive era that way.

Especially when 6 135s will cost 5 grand. Which is a lot less than 3 x 300s, and a country mile less than 3 x 500s.

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:

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

Geoff-
You are correct. Cardas litz,Cardas caps,and assorted ditties are used. I think it took 6 full versions and in between each even more minor changes to get it to where it is today.
I do not remember how many changes we went through to just the brand of resistor we felt sounded best.
I know I have reduced the noise floor more than 20 db with all the mains work,and new xovers.

quote:

Originally posted by kuma:

quote:

Originally posted by Edouard:
However high quality components in the xover are quite costly and I suspect only few passive speakers do get the best.

I am not certain if costly parts are all it takes to get a good passive xover.

A good designer knows how to use the right parts in conjunction with his/her design criteria and I suspect a lot of trial and error involved which can be passed on to the final retail pricing.

There seem to be different school of thoughts to which passive xover is *better*, too. ( it varies depending on who you talk to )

The best thing to do for Naim speakers, no doubt, is to be driven active, but that's challenging for most either due to the cost, setup and physical space that they take up in a normal domestic environment, so it's no surprise that some folks want to tweak the passive xovers to come closer to the real thing. ( if it can be done, that is )

Costly? if better and cost more? Use them..To model an xover is a ton of work(read time and money for r and d).The sky is the limit on how much you want to spend on the best sounding components.

quote:

Originally posted by munch:

quote:

Originally posted by Edouard:

quote:

I think that all things are equal, ultimately an active set up is better than passive

I'd need to hear the difference with speaker I like, but the choice of speaker is so limited.
However high quality components in the xover are quite costly and I suspect only few passive speakers do get the best.

Thats the thing Edouard, high quality components for xovers are not that costly

Hey Munch!
A single 4.7 cap from Cardas is over $250 bucks a pop! If you used only Cardas in the bass for a DBL it would be a cost of(can't remember exactly how many mf it takes)somehwere about $10,500 dollars for the bass alone.

Marc,
I was having a LEG PULL with my post about the cost