Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

NAXO 2-4 help needed please

Discussion in 'd.i.y.' started by Sevyp, Sep 2, 2015.

  1. Sevyp

    Sevyp New Member

    I purchased a NAXO 2-4 (olive) that had been modded by Naim to have an xover @ 100 hz. I want to return it to original spec for some Naim SBLs I want to "go active" with. I need help with component values, components to change out or the sbl spec values and BOARD LOCATIONS opposed to the schematic. Even a high Rez photo of a NAXO 2-4 board marked up with component values allowing me to compare to mine would help. I could also email a high res photo of the board so someone could annotate where component changes need to be made . Any guidance would be appreciated, I am open to suggestions on the best way to accomplish the goal as long as it is diy.
    I have spent quite a few hours researching and have downloaded mcbride's schematics but don't really know how that relates to component positions on the board itself . I've also read in one of many forums that his schematics are based on "very old NAXO" units so that adds even more confusion.

    Any help the naim gurus on this forum can provide is greatly appreciated. I have links below to hi Rez pictures of my board below I can email them to anyone if that would be useful. Please advise. Cheers!
    Sevy
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/ryituf29711w5a7/photo sep 01, 2 34 55 pm.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/u968kn6tjdwupcz/photo sep 01, 2 35 14 pm.jpg?dl=0

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/3clrnakajbrp28x/photo sep 01, 2 36 19 pm.jpg?dl=0
     
  2. MJS

    MJS Technical Tinkerer

    I'd like to know too please, it's one of the very few pieces of info I don't have.
     
  3. timH

    timH pfm Member

  4. colasblue

    colasblue pfm Member

    I used to have one of that design. The filter R's & C's follow the McBride schematic I seem to recall. the only difference is that one filter has had each half of the circuit split and separately decoupled.

    I might just have an internal pic of it somewhere (not sure).
     
  5. suzywong

    suzywong Wot, no electrons?

    Make me an offer for my spare olive (fully working) NAXO and you can have one to play with.

    :D
     
  6. stackowax

    stackowax pfm Member

    Not sure if this would help but I could send you hi-rez photos of mine and you could compare it to yours and at least see if there are differences and go from there. I can't say with 100% certainty that mine has not been modified (I bought it used), but I have no reason to believe that it has.
     
  7. Sevyp

    Sevyp New Member

    I am grateful for all of your replies, thank you.
    timh
    I checked out the pics but the pic clear enough to slightly see component values was a was a Naxo 3-6 . It had different components and more components. i really need to compare apples to apples and thus I need naxo2-4 pics. Interesting link though with the teddy regging.

    Stackowax
    please please send some hi rez photos of your Naxo 2-4 Board. Thank You in advance.

    Colasblue

    Thanks I am not sure how that changes the layout but if you would be so kind as to send a high rez pic of theNAXO 2-4 board, that would really help me out. How many components are we looking at changing per channel and are they limited to resistors and caps or other components as well?
    Everyone, thanks again for your input. cheers. Sevy
     
  8. hp1

    hp1 pfm Member

    I have just had a look at the neil mcbride site and would say that the schematics for the sbl naxo appear to be correct.
     
  9. gary1064

    gary1064 pfm Member

    Slightly off topic, but just a thought. Mark at Witch Hat converted mine from vertical to horizontal amping. That way you can use one stereo power amp for the mid/bass drivers and one for the tweeters. The original configuration of the NAXO is one amp for the left speaker and one for the right, which implies that your amps should be closely matched if not identical.

    Maybe worth doing whilst you have it open? It's easy enough to revert back to standard wiring if ever necessary.
     
  10. PigletsDad

    PigletsDad pfm Member

    Each filter section (left high pass, right high pass, left low pass, right low pass) has its frequency set by 3 resistors and 3 capacitors. No other parts should need to be changed.

    Altogether, for both channels, and high and low pass, 12 resistors and 12 capacitors will need to be altered.

    Minor layout and circuit changes in other parts of the circuit are irrelevant and can be ignored.
     
  11. suzywong

    suzywong Wot, no electrons?

    A very easy mod....I did my NAXO, because i have mismatched amps, and subsequently changed it back when I put in the SNAXO, I wired in similar fashion.
     
  12. gary1064

    gary1064 pfm Member

    Indeed, easy enough. Did you find much difference NAXO to SNAXO change? Apologies to the OP....
     
  13. suzywong

    suzywong Wot, no electrons?

    I started from here: NAC102-Supercap -> NAP250 -> SBL (PAXO)

    Last Xmas I acquired a NAXO & Hicap, and setup the active SBLs with a 30 year old Meridian 103D amp on the mids and my 250 on the treble.

    NAC102-SC -> NAXO-HC -> NAP250 -> trebles
    -> M103D -> mids

    I did try swapping the two amps but preferred it this way - which is, of course, the "official" way!

    I was pleased with what I heard with the active system. Always been a fan of actives. :)

    Then I got a bargain on ebay - Olive SNAXO 2-4, link plug & Burndy for £210. So I spent a pleasant afternoon ringing the changes, with my usual "test" tracks.......

    102-SC -> NAXO-HC
    102-SC -> SNAXO-HC
    102-HC -> SNAXO-HC (second HC, borrowed for the trial, from my Headline)
    102-HC -> SNAXO-SC (SNAIC+link plug)
    102-HC -> SNAXO-SC (Burndy)

    I thought that SNAXO over NAXO did give a worthwhile uplift

    Although I felt that the the NAC "lost" something when the SC was removed, my prefered combination was........wait for it.......

    102-HC -> SNAXO-SC (Burndy)

    So it was not much of a surprise in the end.
     
  14. MJS

    MJS Technical Tinkerer

    Wiring a NAXO vertically also has the advantage that it's much more difficult to get the (tweeter frying) wiring wrong as the socket marked HF only ever has HF on it, and likewise for low or mid frequencies.
     
  15. stackowax

    stackowax pfm Member

    Sevyp--If you are still interested in the HiRez photos PM me your personal email and I'll send them along.

    I think Flickr compresses photos so the resolution probably isn't as good as the originals but here they are on Flickr.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  16. colasblue

    colasblue pfm Member

    And your next (and highly overdue) move is to buy an 82 sir!

    If you wire the SC up correctly (and certainly not the way the naim burndy is configured by default) you can run the 82 and Snaxo at the same time from the SC without using any regs to do two things at once.
     
  17. suzywong

    suzywong Wot, no electrons?

    OOOh, you are a naughty boy! modifying a Burndy to run two bits of kit......you'll be run out of town on the green forum. Sheriff Dane will be gunning for you.....:D:D:D


    I don't suppose you'd have the wiring diagram for such a heretical cable would you?:rolleyes:

    Mogami cable, d'you think?



    The next purchase will be another 250.....then the preamp, which gives an interesting couple of paths.

    starting from the existing NAC102-Hicap, then I could go either:

    NAC82-Hicap
    NAC82-Hicap-Hicap

    or

    NAC102-Supercap
    NAC52-Supercap
     
  18. colasblue

    colasblue pfm Member

    I'm sure I can post a pic.

    My burndy is an old grey one which was originally for a CDPS and I used it for power only and got the sig into the snaxo by alternative means.

    I don't think it makes very much difference what cabling you use for the power supply side of things.

    I've moved on to a Snaxo 3-6 since then with a real black burndy.

    It's actually better to have a separate PSU on the 82, but if your budget is a bit limited doubling up with a Snaxo 2-4 is a reasonable compromise.

    The burndy only runs the Snaxo, the 82 is powered by the normal two sockets it uses on the back of the SC.
     
  19. suzywong

    suzywong Wot, no electrons?

    @para 1: Briks or DBLs?

    @para 2: agreed. budget is dependant upon whatever I can negociate with the Keeper of the Privy Purse (currently negociating for a late model Olive 250); and one new Olive box every six months is achieveable...... LOL

    @para 3: Interesting....Does that mean that the +24V supplies to the Burndy are NOT doubled up on the two DIN sockets that would supply the 82?
     
  20. colasblue

    colasblue pfm Member

    1) NBL's actually (I'm one of the 200). Briks not my cup of tea and DBL's a bit too big

    2) Fully understand

    3) Yes 82 needs 4 audio rails, Snaxo 2-4 needs 8, SC has 12 (+3 digital/relay only)

    Bit of a result Naim never wanted you to know about for 82 owners!

    Don't tell anyone but my attempt to replace my 82/(then 2xHC now 1x APX4) with a 52/PS failed dismally. the 82 P****ed all over the 52.

    1st level is down to number of independent rails, then you can get excited about the quality of those rails IMHO
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice