Tonewheelkev
...I can dream!!
Using my VII Pre with a Rothwell 'Headspace'......
Bob Edwards
pfm Member
I have a 3010S2 preamp and use it with a Rega Aria Mk3. Works brilliantly with the P6/Ania (as you'd hope and expect!).
Allaboutmusic
pfm Member
Did you compare to the exposure xm3 or the optional phono cards? I have the MM phono card in my 3010S2D and it’s very good, however at some point I will change to MC so Aria, xm3, internal and potentially gold note could be options
Bob Edwards
pfm Member
I haven't. Part of the reason is that the Exposure phono card is $500 USD in the US, and I was able to get the Rega as a demo for $1k USD. And the Aria obviously does MM and MC, so I don't have to have both cards and switch them in and out . . .
Rushboy
pfm Member
I recently asked a trader about this. He said the XM was a clear improvement. But dealers talk a lot.......
Seanm
pfm Member
Aria for me too, into the 3010s2d, sounds great to me with both MM and MC. I haven’t compared it to a lot else though: an Edwards MC3 and the internal MM board. Preferred Aria to both on balance, mostly for its slightly fuller-bodied sound.
Robn
pfm Member
Yep have used 21/19/7 into 18 Super with Arkless 640. Sounds lovely, will compare in a few days with the MC setting on the 7.
Wilson
SCTV half wit
Robn
pfm Member
First choice Quad ESL63 with occasional breaks for KEF104/2s
rontoolsie
pfm Member
There was a time when I owned 6 NAP135 as well as a pair of the rare Exposure XVI monoblocks. I compared the XVI vs the 135s many times both slotting them into the active 6-pack system as well as passively with an array of speakers I had at the house, as diverse as Linn Tukans to Sonus Faber Extremas.
The NAP135s were faster and slightly drier in sound with a less rounded bass than the XVI. The XVI however gave a more realistic midrange than the 135s, and for a few months I used the XVI as the midrange amps of the DBL's with the 135s driving tweets and bass units.
I eventually felt guilty for not using the full brace of 135s, maybe I was submliminally missing something?? So I lent the XVIs to a friend along with a 42.5/Hicap and some prototype 2-way speakers, where he very, very happily used them for a year or two.
I also compared the 135 and the XVI with the IV-regulated at the dealer and both outdid the IV...by quite a margin too, which sounded a bit ploddy by comparison.
BTW, the Extremas sounded quite insipid driving them with only one pair of monoblocks....passively biamping them with 4x135 was one of the biggest upgrades I have made in my long audio journey. So much so, that I entertained getting another pair of XVI just to see how that worked out-but it seemed a bit extreme having 10 monoblocks, so I never pulled the trigger.
I wish I had held onto the XVI as I am sure that with a little tweakery, they could go to a much higher standard.
Anyway, when a NAP500 arrived, it was massively better than either the 135 or the XVI.
The NAP135s were faster and slightly drier in sound with a less rounded bass than the XVI. The XVI however gave a more realistic midrange than the 135s, and for a few months I used the XVI as the midrange amps of the DBL's with the 135s driving tweets and bass units.
I eventually felt guilty for not using the full brace of 135s, maybe I was submliminally missing something?? So I lent the XVIs to a friend along with a 42.5/Hicap and some prototype 2-way speakers, where he very, very happily used them for a year or two.
I also compared the 135 and the XVI with the IV-regulated at the dealer and both outdid the IV...by quite a margin too, which sounded a bit ploddy by comparison.
BTW, the Extremas sounded quite insipid driving them with only one pair of monoblocks....passively biamping them with 4x135 was one of the biggest upgrades I have made in my long audio journey. So much so, that I entertained getting another pair of XVI just to see how that worked out-but it seemed a bit extreme having 10 monoblocks, so I never pulled the trigger.
I wish I had held onto the XVI as I am sure that with a little tweakery, they could go to a much higher standard.
Anyway, when a NAP500 arrived, it was massively better than either the 135 or the XVI.
david ellwood
Kirabosi Kognoscente
The exposure has more in common with the older naim (12s/160 era) which I prefer.
what model exposure common with 12s/160?
Ptah
pfm Member
I haven't done a direct comparison but have heard both in my system at different times and now have the XM3 which I'd say is better and gives you more flexibility.
Luca
pfm Member
In the '80 and '90 years I tried to all the Exposure range and to drive my Rogers LS3/5a I chose VII, XII and VIII super. Several times, I listened to the top of the range regulated power amps but I didn't like them more than unregulated ones. So I enjoy my Exposure combo since the '90 years without issues. They are a perfect matching for my small Rogers, better than my Naim 72+HICAP+140.
Last edited:
John
Rack’em Up!
I went from Naim 42.5, Snaps, 140 to Exposure 15 and felt the Exposure was much better. LP12/Ittok/Troika and Quad ESL speakers at the time.
In 1983 I stumbled across Exposure amps when I wasn't even looking for anything new to try.
I was most likely heading down a QUAD, Meridian or NAIM path from my humble A&R A60 and a helpful Exeter dealer who pushed NAIM big time.
A faulty VII pre VI psu and VIII amp sounded so good that with free parts from Exposure (selector and volume pot) and other fuses/bits and bobs they really sang my tune.
I was using LP12 Itok Asak DC and HB1 'speakers also a friends B&O turntable and highly regarded KEF 'speakers were tried to compare.
Over the ensuing years I have had extended periods with everything from IV (multiple types) through to XXI (all the Roman numeral products) and have kept and use:
XIV pre IX psu XVI dual mono into Ovator 600 for my main system. Exposure XM7 used/tried as digital extender and headphone use.
XIV pre IX psu 3x IV dual reg (late model) into NAIM NBL (snaxo teddycap) old main system now second system.
AV system work in progress again: IX psu 2x V active crossovers 4x IV dual reg NAIM SBL front and rear. Trying IV single (non-reg with psu) active/passive into NAIM IBL as sides and Naim SBL center.
Kept as spares or to change out in the above systems various:
XI pre, XII psu, XVIII super stereo, XVIII super mono as to good to let go and for a study or bedroom system in the future maybe!
I have heard other amplifiers from valve to solid state but still remain with Exposure.
I was most likely heading down a QUAD, Meridian or NAIM path from my humble A&R A60 and a helpful Exeter dealer who pushed NAIM big time.
A faulty VII pre VI psu and VIII amp sounded so good that with free parts from Exposure (selector and volume pot) and other fuses/bits and bobs they really sang my tune.
I was using LP12 Itok Asak DC and HB1 'speakers also a friends B&O turntable and highly regarded KEF 'speakers were tried to compare.
Over the ensuing years I have had extended periods with everything from IV (multiple types) through to XXI (all the Roman numeral products) and have kept and use:
XIV pre IX psu XVI dual mono into Ovator 600 for my main system. Exposure XM7 used/tried as digital extender and headphone use.
XIV pre IX psu 3x IV dual reg (late model) into NAIM NBL (snaxo teddycap) old main system now second system.
AV system work in progress again: IX psu 2x V active crossovers 4x IV dual reg NAIM SBL front and rear. Trying IV single (non-reg with psu) active/passive into NAIM IBL as sides and Naim SBL center.
Kept as spares or to change out in the above systems various:
XI pre, XII psu, XVIII super stereo, XVIII super mono as to good to let go and for a study or bedroom system in the future maybe!
I have heard other amplifiers from valve to solid state but still remain with Exposure.
Tonewheelkev
...I can dream!!
Have a couple of IV's....one very early.....both unregulated!
Fascinated to learn just what the regulated aspect brings to the table.?
Hoping soon to go 3-way active into a pair of Briks.
...and I can see you have the fabled V....don't see many of them around!
Which iv standard or xviii super sound better?