A Naim Speaker Question.

Dear All

It is indeed a long time since I posted here, albeit I still lurk. I see I haven't even changed my Name...:duck:

Some time ago, I 'defected', if that is an appropriate word to use, from a complete Naim system, to ES Sony electronics, as I found the sound/VFM aspect of the ES Kit well outstripped that of the Naim, and I also was venturing into expanding my then 2 channel vinyl/RBCD system into multi-channel SACD/7.1 movies for home entertainment. That was quite some time ago, and since then, all the Naim electronics have been sold; only the SBL speakers remain.

SBL's certainly have their detractors, including Naim users, however they were my ultimate choice after extensive auditions of Dynaudio, Briks etc, and even B&W at the time, as a speaker to best supplement the strengths of the Naim electronics I then owned.

Times change, and I now have all Sony ES electronics, and for 2 channel, the SBL's sound excellent as regards PRaT, overall dynamics, clarity/detail, BUT to my ears they are not the best tonal match for the Sony (and to my mind most non-Naim electronics) being a bit on the thin side in the upper bass/lower midrange, lacking 'richness' and 'fullness'; do not have the polar response/imaging to do justice to a surround sound set-up in terms of blending with other speakers (Tannoy MX2's for surrounds) and in short it is time I feel to move on.

Of a lot of different brands I've auditioned, I keep coming back to B&W. They are also readily available here with good service, which is important both for maintenance/possible repair, and also that should I sell/upgrade down the track, I don't want to be stuck with a brand that is a virtual 'orphan' in this market.

So firstly, may I ask what do walnut SBL's, effectively Mk 11's (these have the later Naim mid-bass drivers, but the back of the cabinet is painted, not surface veneer from what I can see - so maybe that makes them Mk1 1/2 if there ever was such a thing), were bought new by myself through official local Naim channels and installed by the dealer; moved once, and again by the dealer, in mint as new nick, complete with all boxes, manuals set-up templates (shameless sales plug ) etc fetch?

For those members who have had exposure to both B&W and SBL's, or otherwise had a great deal of experience with various loudspeakers and familiar with Naims and B&W's 'house' sound, at what level in B&W's range do you feel I would need to look to either equal or surpass the SBL?

All experienced advice greatly appreciated

Cheers and Thanking you in advance

Jon...

 

You probably need to go as high as the 802's (802D). I have not heard the latest incarnations of these speakers (and they supposed to be much improved in just the area I would criticise) but earlier ones have struck me as a distinctly cerebral, as opposed to emotional, experience. Having said that, much the same could be said of your choice of amplification IMHO. One word of caution, despite the sensitivity and impedance figures quoted by B&W the 802's do need a large amplifier to show their best.

 

That is true ,I used to have a pair of 802's and then some 800d's , they need a lot of current. Keith.

 

If you are ditching the SBLs, that's good. Dreadful speakers, IMO.

I don't like B&W speakers either, and wouldn't recommend them. I would recommend you try ATC actives, say SCM 50 ASLs. You can sell your power amps, too.

 

Hmm...well you would - not a bad idea in its way though. Of course he won't be able to sell off his power amps as they are built into his 'massive mother' Sony AV amp.

 

The only other speakers I'd recommend are Quad electrostatics. Comfortably see off SBLs, and anything by B&W. But, yes, active ATCs are my favourite speakers, and have been for many years.

 

Quad electostatics and SBL's....would sir like some chalk with his cheese?

 

Less chalk/cheese, more shit/Shinola.

 

If that is your preference.

 

As seen in:

 

Interesting comments gents...

Dear Devil, what is it that causes you to feel such unction re the SBL?

Appreciating that you don't like B&W's, if you had to choose between SBL's and B&W's, which might you choose, or perhaps which do you think the lessor of the two evils? And perhaps, would you care to comment which level of B&W do you feel could equal (not necessarily better, but just as good, or equal if you will, in a B&W kind of way) the SBL?

I love 989 Quads, and yes they go places that no SBL has ever gone before, but I'd still be happy to take a pair of 800, or 801D's home over the Quads. They're both very high quality, but different kettles of fish, and suit different rooms and music tastes IMHO. I confess I've never heard ATC actives. Despite having Australian roots, one virtually never hears of them over here, or rather down under here in Australia.

As an aside, my favourite speaker overall - and that is a caveat to favourite, is the B&O Beolab five; hugely, hugely underrated speaker. It needs a Wilson Audio, or better still, some never heard of exotic brand name, and a quadrupling of the price to sell to the atypical audiophile, but it's an engineering and acoustic tour de force, of that there is no doubt.

YNMOAN, my gut feeling tends to agree re 802d's but they are way out of my price range now (having decided to become a near pauper in the shape of a student this year) and so I am hoping to if not better, at least equal the SBL but in a more suitable package to suit my amp and music/movie needs than what the SBL provides, with something a little less high end in the B&W range. I am toying currently with the idea of the new CM9 which I've had a cursory listen to.

As an interesting aside, I'm with you up to a point on the cerebral vs emotional thing re choice of kit etc. However, we all respond in different ways emotionally to music as well I believe. For example, fast paced, tight timing kit such as the Naim I owned, could bring out the rhythmic elements in music with it's leading edge transient attack, almost like no other - very emotionally involving and exciting.

Conversely whilst exceptionally fast with it's transient response, the big Sony mutha doesn't have the leading edge transient attack of Olive Naim, (but then it is smoother sounding for it as well), and so doesn't imbue fast paced rock etc, with the same sense of grip and drive, and accentuated rhythms, most particularly in the bass, where it is 'softer' than the Naims.

However, the big Sony, with it's amazing micro & macro dynamics, wonderful detailing and timbral resolution, can portray not only the elegance and beauty in the sense of say rubato in the line of a piece of music, but bring out the fundamental and natural timbre of an instrument to the point at one listen, where I had tears flowing down my cheeks; I had never heard the music played and presented with such utter realism, naturalness and beauty. And that was something the Naim kit could never do - it could never bring the same level of emotional response on the same piece of music.

So I've certainly found that both amps can be very emotional and involving listening - but in a different way from each other.

Kind Regards and Please keep the comments coming..

Jon

 

Since you have enjoyed the SBLs thus far (and I have heard these speakers at the end of the right kit absolutely sing), then perhaps taking advice over what to replace them with from someone who is a self confessed SBL hater wouldn't be so wise.

Someone with experience in the speakers that you are considering but who also appreciates what the SBLs do well (that you did enjoy) and accepts what they don't do so well (which you now wish to add in) would be a better muse.

I don't know whether these suggestions are readily available in Oz, but if you are looking for some of the missing spaciousness and imageing - perhaps also try to get to listen to some Living Voice and Audio Physic speakers (although bear in mind with the APs that they need a fair amount of space as they are fussy with regards to positioning).

 

I have extensive experience of SBL's and reasonable experience of B&W's (ATC too) - hence my earlier comments regarding them. I've never heard the specific model (which is new) that John is considering but all their (B&W that is) earlier 'reasonably priced' designs have left me most underwhelmed. If the correct amplification is used the top models can be impressive but given the wrong ancillaries they too can easily leave one wondering what all the fuss is about and where all the technology was used.

 

I have only heard them with top of the range Naim gear, and they were dreadful. Thin & no bass. I think the OP may well have sold the wrong parts of his previous Naim system. I don't think SBLs are very useful as a means of judging upstream components.

 

They can sound rather thin it's true and certainly don't have the dynamic strength of scm100's (despite what some of their more ardent fans would like to believe) - no matter what amplification is attached there is a limit to what a drive unit of that size can do in a cabinet volume of that size. However, SBL's can sound pretty open and dynamic (not enough for me to actually buy a pair though) if used in a sympathetic room, carefully installed (no magic required however) and preferably fronted by vinyl. I haven't heard this particular Sony amp but I have heard quite a lot of big AV amps and Sony amplification in general. To be honest, I doubt that the Sony plays to the SBL's strengths.

 

Funny, I can finds several things to criticize about my SBLs but "thin" only comes to mind when comparing to typical speakers on the market. Compared to live music, their performance in the midbass sounds just about right with respect to 'thickness'.

FWIW, JV estimated that only 25% percent of SBL owners actually ever heard what the speaker was capable of. The biggest problem, according to JV, is not the seal but making sure the bass driver box sits firmly on all four spikes without rocking--at all. In my room, for example, just one of the pair's bass driver box rocking makes the midbass and low frequencies sound like a distorted, out-of-phase Kan on steroids (stage-wise.) Get 'em setup right and they rival briks in usable low frequency extension on a slightly smaller scale.

regards,

dave

 

As a matter of interest, why fronted by vinyl - is it because you prefer vinyl to other/later sources, or do you feel the speaker is perhaps voiced to be at it's best with vinyl, given that would've been the main source available when it was originally designed - certainly Naim didn't make CD players at the time of the SBL's genesis.

I think you're right re the Sony not playing to the SBL's strengths - in some ways/music genres. It's a very exacting sounding amp in its transient response; by that I mean it tracks what the music is doing better than what my Naim kit did. In other words it can play music with say blindly fast octave jumps and arpeggio runs (Martha Agerich in Listz's B Minor Sonata for example) with the shape, texture, inflection and tone of every note clearly heard and intact, with a sense of effortless ease in the way the music is presented - the Naim would just hammer away very impressively but miss all the filigree work on the keyboard, and give me a glimpse of the notes, a broad outline if you will, but not the whole box and dice of the piece as the Sony easily lays bare.

Conversely, listening to a treble (boy soprano) as against the tonal quality of a woman soprano in say Faures requiem, again the ability of the digital amp to portray the textural, and timbral differences in tone, and the ravishingly beauty of the line, is something the Naim electronics don't get near.

However, change the diet to large scale orchestral, or dramatic film scores, rock, pop, fast paced Jazz etc, and the Naim/SBL combo 'rocks' and drives in a way that doesn't make the Sony sound slow, or off the pace, but just not having the same amount of grip and muscle if you will.

The Sony times well; the Naim maybe a fraction better, especially in the bass on such material, and yes, I'd have to say on such material the Naim electronics matched with SBL's brings out the strengths of the speaker more than the digital Sony matched with the same speakers. It's just a more synergistic match on that sort of musical genre IMV.

However, I also can't but help feel something like a good B&W, would play to the strengths of the Sony presentation re tonal timbre, spatial perspectives and nuances of dynamics more-so than the SBL - after all IMHO these aspects tend to be weaknesses of the SBL design. And hence another reason to be thinking of change - not that the SBL's are bad, but ultimate synergy in terms of an amp/speaker match.

I incidentally once tried my Tannoy MX2's (surrounds) up the front on the end of the Sony, and I did feel the tonal balance/combination was a lot better than the Sony/SBL; but, I missed the detail and clarity by comparison, so it was an experiment for a few days, but I was happy to put them back in the surround position after that.

Cheers

Jon..

 

That looks like spin/damage limitation. Even if it's true, it demonstrates what a half-baked product the SBL was.

 

You are essentially correct in your interpretation of my comments regarding the need for vinyl as a source (although CD has improved in both the respects I am about to criticise). CD can exhibit a distinctly hard edge to the upper mid/lower treble and lack finesse at the very top. In addition, it can sound quite tonally congested and instrumental colour becomes bleached, lacking separation, when similar sounds are played simultaneously (i.e. during busy passages). None of these qualities (particularly the hardness) play to the SBL's strengths. The former issues exacerbate a rather unforgiving quality in this range of the SBL's and the later issues stop the SBL from revealing its strengths.

I'm not convinced by the 25% claim either - makes for a good quote though.

 

Naim products of the past aren't for those expecting a product to work straight out of the box.