And so it came to pass. Signals came from the East bearing four gifts (!) The great Hi-Fi guru from the North, known to all here as J.N., arrived with sage council, and after drilling holes in the oak floor (gulp) for cables, plus a few secret incantations muttered by Alastair (coinciding strangely with his checking the solidity of my Mana Soundshelf with the top of his head), we were ready to listen.

I reckon Naim should produce a briefing pamphlet which you have to read before listening to an active system. Having made a change from single 250/passive SBLs to 2x250s, Active SBLs some years ago, plus recently being exposed to Jon Honeyball’s active DBLs I was partially prepared for the difference in sound, but it was still a bit of a shock. You would naturally think that adding another sodding great big NAP500 would give you twice the volume, twice the slam, indeed twice of everything.

The first reaction is one of disappointment. Everything sounds very smooth, almost laid back and polite at first. Turning up the volume just makes the system, well, louder, but totally unforced. The sound’s so totally different & unexpected you really have to discard your experience of the previous system as quickly as possible. Then it becomes a bit easier to get to grips with the changes that have been wrought.

For my initial impressions, there now follows a list of clichés, and phrases which I’ve filched from elsewhere, for which I make no apology. The soundstage has become much wider. As volume increases, the speakers disappear into a broader soundstage. With the passive SL2s & single 500 you felt as though you were in the front couple of rows of the auditorium. Now, it’s as though you’re about ten rows back. Bass is more profound, very clean . Sharp drumbeats leap out & make you jump with their sudden impact. Vocals, which were already superlative with the single 500, are even better.

There’s a significant increase in low-level detail. The sound is faster; music moves along at an almost breakneck pace. There’s a three-dimensional quality to the sound. (At one point a series of sharp percussive sounds which I’ve never heard from a particular piece of music before seemed to come from about twenty feet from the left and above ceiling height. This turned out to be some builders banging nails into next-door’s bargeboards)

Since the system was changed on Wednesday I’ve not had too much time for a long listening session but last night I settled down for a couple of hours with some of my old favourites. Unfortunately they’re all married now so I resorted to listening to some music instead. As the evening wore on the system settled down, and the sound became quite sublime.

One of the surprising things I discovered was that my CD555 had almost caught up with the sound quality of my LP12/ARO/Te Kaitora Rua, and indeed on comparing my (admittedly rather old) vinyl copy of “The Wall” with the Mobile Fidelity CD version, the latter was definitely more enjoyable, and the coldness that to my ears afflicts CD has all but vanished.

Naturally the system is playing as I type this, but I’m continually distracted by the sound so it’s been a slow process.

The active stuff is on home demo at the moment, so I’ve got a bit of time to decide whether it’s for me or not. Is it worth the substantial extra outlay? I can’t really say at the moment. I’m certainly seriously impressed, and I confess it won’t be easy to let the system go.

I’m pinning my hopes on a Lottery win. Pretty vain ones, considering I never buy a ticket…

How are you powering the SNAXO?

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Bell:
How are you powering the SNAXO?

Supercap.

Hello tonym,
I went active with a more modest system earlier this year. At first I also felt that some of the excitement had been removed from the music.
The active system which I had bought second-hand through my dealer had been in storage for many months, also the speaker cable and connections were many years old and past their best.
So new speaker cable was ordered and fitted by my dealer. What a revelation! Also the passing of time has enabled the system to start giving of it's best. I hear all the same plusses such as wider sound stage etcetera.

Funny thing is that now after 4 months the music just comes shining through.

So I suppose I must say...GO FOR IT!!!

Happy listening and congratulations.

Bob

Hi Tony,

When all is said and done, there is nothing quite like being active. Enjoy your home dem.

Very nice setup tonym. I have been active for a couple of years now, Allaes and 250s. I would find it difficult to return to the passive version of this system. With the 552 and 2 500s I might never leave the listening room.

Regards
Matt

my experience of going active with 52, 2x250, and sbl's was extremely positive right from the start. i suppose i knew what to expect after comparing with 2x135's passive @ Grahams.

when all was OK, i was in blissful heaven. unfortunately, bad mains spoiled the party every now and then -- and an active system is extemely sensitive to that, or so i thought at the time. (my passive 252/250.2 was similarly afflicted)

now i have a handle on mains, i would definitely consider active again when funds allow -- its a case of "once heard, smitten". when the time comes, i will compare with passive 300.

if you can afford it Tony, go for it!!

enjoy
ken

Chaps

I am quite prepared to be shot down on this, but I really think that since the introduction of the 500, going active on other power amps is a bit out dated.

A few years ago, going active with six 135s was considered the ultimate and then to everyones amazement, a passive 500 eclipsed it.

So instead of buggering about, why not go for a 500.

Regards

Mick

Yes,

Happy listening I just can't get out of the room since I added a 242 and a pair of 300s to replace a 24 and 250s. When I do leave the room the sound in the other rooms is better than passive.

I don't know about going to a pair of 500s though, the 300s are more than good enough but if anyone wants to bring a pair of 500s on holiday with them then we can try. I have heared both 300s and 500s passive and IMO the 300s have their own strengths viz a vi the 500s particularly with an easy load like SBLs.

The cables on my 300s are burning in nicely and the clarity, open-ness and lack of colouration has to be heared to be believed.

Best regards
Frank

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

I am quite prepared to be shot down on this, but I really think that since the introduction of the 500, going active on other power amps is a bit out dated.

A few years ago, going active with six 135s was considered the ultimate and then to everyones amazement, a passive 500 eclipsed it.

So instead of buggering about, why not go for a 500.

Regards

Mick

Hi Mick,

I prefer my DBL's active. The 500 was amazingly musical, but in my room (which is huge) I found that the passive crossover struggled at high playback levels, whereas with a six pack and Snaxo that passive crossover bottleneck is removed and the music is much cleaner, more controlled and dynamic, and can play very loudly without the fear of damaging any crossover components!

Until I can afford 3 x 300's or 500's, I'll stay with the active 135's. It works best for me in my room.

Regards,

Mickey

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

I am quite prepared to be shot down on this, but I really think that since the introduction of the 500, going active on other power amps is a bit out dated.

A few years ago, going active with six 135s was considered the ultimate and then to everyones amazement, a passive 500 eclipsed it.

So instead of buggering about, why not go for a 500.

Regards

Mick

I would have to agree with you there Mick. A single 500 will outperform any number of smaller amps,

Regards

PB

Does this not depend on the quality (or otherwise) of the passive crossovers?

I can see how a 500 would perform as Mick and PB suggest provided the problem isn't with the passive crossover themselves. If the limiting factor is the crossover - no amount of better quality power amp is going to fix that and going active would seem to be the solution.

Anyone done the direct comparison at home?

Steve

never heard a 500, so cant really comment. however, i will be keen at some stage to compare 2x250.2 active to passive 300, and when funds allow, 2x300 active to 500 passive. the choice is not always so clear cut. i know i preferred 2x250.1 active to 2x135 and by some dodgy extrapolation, i suspect i will like 2x250.2 active to 300 passive, but i dunno right now. i suppose we have to fix an important variable -- the speakers. are we talking about sbl's or sl2's, etc...

of course, my guess is that 2x500 active is the baddest ultimate...

enjoy
ken

enjoy
ken

quote:

Does this not depend on the quality (or otherwise) of the passive crossovers?

i think thats likely a key issue steve...

enjoy
ken

quote:

of course, my guess is that 2x500 active is the baddest ultimate...

enjoy
ken

I suspect that you are right on the money here.

Matt

Ah good... another one turned to the dark side of active...

muhahahahahahahahahahahaha

darth vader

am i right that in the new naim speaker range, you need at least sl2 for active operation. i have been assuming up to now that allae had detachable passive xover but just checked and this doesnt seem to be so...

enjoy
ken

I would think SL2 was the minimum that you would want in order to go active, unless people like buying boxes for fun.

Better passive speakers would surely give you more for much less outlay at that level.

Steve

quote:

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

I am quite prepared to be shot down on this, but I really think that since the introduction of the 500, going active on other power amps is a bit out dated.

A few years ago, going active with six 135s was considered the ultimate and then to everyones amazement, a passive 500 eclipsed it.

Regards

Mick


I would have to agree with you there Mick. A single 500 will outperform any number of smaller amps,

Regards

PB

The weather must be very good for kite-flying at the moment

Rob

Hi Rob

Yes it looks like that and for fishing about as well,

Frank