A Naim Speaker Question.

Permission granted....lol

Wrong bits - perhaps you're right; the thing is though, whilst recognising Naim front end gear does sound very good, to my ears the big digital Sony does a better job of reproducing music than an NAP500; my NAC72/Hi-Cap/NAP180 was simply not in the running. Unfortunately I don't have room for two systems, otherwise I might have kept it all, but as it stood, parting with the electronics seemed the wisest move. They actually remained in situ for almost a year, barely used, as I almost invariably preferred the digital Sony, so it seemed a waste and I decided to part with them whilst there was still some value remaining in them.

Had I owned a pair of speakers equal to or better than SBL's, my decision may have been different, or perhaps more likely I would've just sold the lot in one go.

I am interested in the new CM9 B&W's, so second hand is not really an option. 800 series B&W possibly, albeit very rare, however for 800 series money, I feel I would much rather pursue an active solution, such as ATC's, or B&O Actives, or the likes of Lyngdorf. But for the time being at least, my budget is a lot more comfortable with the likes of CM9's.

As a matter of interest, and being as objective as you can, what is it that distresses you so about SBLs? And having flat earth tastes, do you feel from experience that the likes of a new B&W midrange speaker, such as the CM9 would at least equal, if not better them?

Best Regards

Jon...

 

I've never heard a pair of SBLs sound tonally correct. There's no real deep bass, which is hardly surprising given the size of the midbass driver. The midrange sounds thin & bleached to my ears, and the top end sounds "etched". The whole effect is synthetic. Plus, they have a limited dynamic range, can't image very well and can't really handle loud volumes without distress. No "balls" to them. I think they were grossly overpriced when new, and the SL2 has carried on in the same tradition.

I haven't heard the new B&W, but I had a demo of some big floorstanding ones (on sale at around £15,000 IIRC) a couple of years ago, and thought they sounded rather muffled, "safe" and generally uninspiring. Polar opposite of SBLs. I would shop around if I were you. Try and get a home demo if you can.

 

Not even close to what I'm experiencing here with SBLs. I've owned several speakers in the past including briks and large transmission lines (Fried Model M/2s) which are dynamic, go deep in frequency and have no problems sorting instruments at high volumes. My SBLs are slightly scaled down versions of these speakers. They easily have the ability to shake the concrete slab floor in my basement listening room using a single 250 and without stress or distortion.

 

They've probably set off a room mode - the usual explanation behind "floor shaking" phenomena.

 

Room mode or not, it only happens with speakers in this room that seem to have low frequency extension.

 

Most room modes aren't very low. I'm talking about bass that's felt rather than heard. Try Massive Attack's "Unfinished Sympathy", the intro.

How big is that "bass" driver? ;-)

 

Don't have anything by Massive Attack, but you can feel the deep growl and resonance of the bass, guitars and bass drum in your gut in Smashing Pumpkin's "To Forgive" off Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness. That's also a slab shaker with the SBLs;-)

I find their quality of bass more than makes up for any short comings in quantity or depth and sounds quite natural and realistic compared to an actual upright bass. In contrast, most other speaker's bass performance seem overblown, thick, distorted and artificial compared to what you hear at a live event with acoustic instruments. I suppose if you simply attend events with electronic bands you want to replicate that overblown bass and treble most PAs put out so phatter probably sounds best.

regards,

dave

 

I'm pleased to say I don't have anything by Smashing Pumpkins, and shocked to hear Massive Attack have passed you by. I guess Tricky and Portishead no-go, too? Maybe we can meet in the middle with Gilbert O'Sullivan.

[You have a room mode, and no bass, dude.]

 

Several weeks ago, one of my friends at work played some Massive Attack for me during shift hand-off/smoke break. I can't recall the tune but it was rather good.

FWIW, I listen to more classical and traditional jazz vs pop these days so I'm completely out of touch with most everything produced in the genre over the last two decades.

Gilbert O'Sullivan--just looked him up on Wiki...errr, no thanks.

I'll keep my room mode if that's what it is. Evidently it's quite talented as it reproduces all the frequencies of real bass instruments and only when they are present on the recording ;-)

 

GOS was a joke.

 

I know;-)

 

For more evidence of the pain SBLs cause (before you even switch on the music) check out this:

http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/48019385/m/3312946327

<ROFLCOPTER>

 

As mentioned earlier, they are not plug 'n play.

 

For £2000 (passive, all those years ago) I would expect speakers to be "plug 'n be amazed", not "fiddle about for hours, get paranoid, and end up completely pissed-off". But that's just me.

Seriously, active SBLs when new would have been more expensive than ATC 50 ASLs. The SBLs' performance doesn't even begin to compare.

 

Regarding expectations...I can't blame you; however, they are what they are.

Ironically, EVERYTHING the owner needs to know about assembly is in the owner's manual but no one reads it thoroughly (or believes it) until after they bodge setup. Experience is the best teacher;-)

Can't comment on the ATCs...haven't heard 'em.

 

Gentlemen; an update:

Yesterday I visited a dealer and had a comprehensive listen to the B&W CM9's driven by a Marantz CD player, and Rotel ICE power 15 series pre/power (120 watts per channel) and my own CD's. The speakers were placed about 1 and a bit metres out from the back and side walls, in a room that was quite heavily damped with kit lining the walls, and curtains behind. Discs used included Hyperions Curls - a sampler of classical music from the Hyperion label including organ, choir, boy sopranos; solo piano; piano and male voice; string quartet; full orchestra and solo organ. Also a large Caville Coll organ at St Eustache cathedral, Paris; the concert organ at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam; James Taylors 'October Road' and Fourplay 'Between the sheets' selected tracks.

On all recordings the way in which instrumental and vocal tonal timbre and colour was revealed was well ahead of what I am used to hearing from the SBL's. Additionally spatial perspectives were much closer to real life. For instance, on the Hyperion disc, one of the tracks has organ, choir, and two boy sopranos, recorded in a large church. With the SBL's, the sound is spread accross the wall between the speakers, with good seperation between soloists, choir and organ. However, the choir appears to be in front of and louder than the soloists, and the organ 'somewhere' in the mix. There is a good sense of 'depth' to the mix, but apart from clues of ambiance, there are none as to 'where' the recording took place.

With the B&W's, you could 'see' the choir stalls and 'hear' clearly one boy soprano to the left, and the other to the right, with the choir correctly placed behind, and the organ placement behind that, much as one would expect to hear it in real life. Certainly the sense of ambient clues gave rise to the feeling that one was hearing a real live musical event in a real life church, not some abstract unidentified venue as is conveyed with the SBLs.

This difference in presentation, i.e. tonal timbres and spatial perspectives was a very clear and noticeable advantage on all the material I used for audition.

Given that I have come from a Naim system which majored on drive, grip and 'prat', and now have an amp which is even better in terms of transient response (albeit not forced in any way) I paid close attention to musical dynamics. Without the ability to do an exact A/B back to back, I'd rate my current system of digital Sony/SBL's about the same as the ICE power Rotel/B&W combo, which kind of lays to rest comment I've read on PFM about B&W's being 'slow' and laid back etc.

Additionally, given some observations made elsewhere, I also paid close attention for 'boom and tizz'. On the tizz side of it, there was basically, none. Indeed I thought the tweeter somewhat ahead of the Scanspeak silk dome one used in the SBL for a sense of naturalness - cymbal high-hats and ride came across extremely well on the James Taylor, and Fourplay discs. Unlike many earlier B&W's I've heard, there was no sense of poor integration/timing between the tweeter and midrange - it was virtually aurally seamless to my ears - certainly no worse than my 2 way SBL's in that regard.

As to 'boom' Well I guess it depends upon how you describe boom. The fourplay recording has some extreme bass, as does the Caville Coll organ recording (Dorian, no compression and full level down to 16hz). At no point did the bass 'get out of control' or provide a one note effect. Overall pitch clarity and ability to clearly delineate twixt bass kick drum, and electric bass was seemingly on par with the SBL's; however on some of the organ work at very high volumes, i did detect some slight sense of muddle and lack of clarity in the bass, in that one had to concentrate to pick out the pitch of the bass line, and in that regard I did think the SBL slightly better - but again only a back to back A/B could show clearly by how much - in isolation and not concentrating heavily on the sound, I doubt it would cause problems.

As well, on some of the Fourplay tracks, on some bass notes, I did note a kind of 'thumpy' sound quality, which to my ears sounded as if it was very slight cabinet colouration adding to the sound - but then, electric bass is not acoustic bass, so it is hard to say, but certainly I'd say that overall the SBL's have a slight edge in bass clarity and lack of relative colouration in the bass region generally. Certainly they are 'leaner' and 'dryer' in the bass, and on male vocals, I did notice some slight sense of chestiness also with the B&W's which is absent in the SBL's - perhaps cabinet coloration again?

Demerits? Well the slight sense of Bass colouration on some material as mentioned. The other was a strange one that caused a bit of head scratching. At first, the system seemed rather shut in, not 'open' and lacking dynamics. However, after about 1/2 hour, either the sound improved, or I and the salesmen got used to it, for after that neither of us noticed that effect, and the system had been connected and turned on from dead cold. Usually my own kit takes about 20 mins to 1/2 hour to come on 'song', so I put it down to that reason.

In some ways, I thought the SBL's 'clearer' for lack of a better word than the B&W's. However, measurably, the B&W's are flatter in their frequency response by a considerable margin over the SBL, and the SBL commits the most 'sin' by being very forward in the upper mid range/lower treble, which in part may account for the sense of 'clarity'. Additionally my room is on the under-damped side, and that of the auditioning room was very much over-damped. Either way, I'd have to say for resolution, which is different from clarity, the B&W easily won in the midrange and treble. There was much more musical detail to be heard, mainly as mentioned earlier in the form of instrumental and vocal tonal timbre and colour.

In conclusion then I'd say the CM9's are noticeably ahead of the SBL's in terms of the way timbral detail and tonal colour is revealed - i.e. resolution, most especially in the midrange and treble. Dynamics I'd broadly consider equal. The SBL's are marginally ahead on bass clarity and lower colouration. However, and more subjectively though, I found the CM9 to be a much more broadly capable speaker IMV - it had a sense of refinement, smoothness and tonal richness in the sound that the SBL can't get near, whilst offering broadly equal merit as regards fun and excitement re dynamics, and adding an additional dose of realism via the much better spatial perspectives.

And lastly of course, as at least 50% of my use is for multi-channel purposes, a real and viable way forward of building a matching set of speakers all round at relatively reasonable/affordable cost. They represent an excellent value for money compromise, and in this market very good bang for the buck, whilst fulfilling my aesthetic and multi-channel needs.

As you can tell, whilst they are not perfect, I liked them a lot.

To be sure, a speaker that is a little more open, with less bass colouration would be nice, but that means in the B&W floor-standing range a jump to 804s and a doubling of price. Not worth it to my ears, unless one was going active which an 804s is not. At this point, whilst I'm still mulling it over, and have two other short listed options to investigate, I am fairly sure I will put the SBL's up for sale.

Regards

Jon..

 

Hi Jon,

Thanks for the update and pleased to see that the CM9s are hitting the spot - in most areas at least.

One thing I would say is that it can take some time adjusting to speaker tonal balance and this is particularly true when moving from a speaker such as the SBL which has a quite distinct presentation.

The comment regarding bass is interesting.
The Naim speaker is leaned-out at LF and pretty dry by most standards. Moving to a speaker able to put some flesh on the bottom end takes a little acclimatisation.

Similarly, the SBL bass/mid driver is peaky at the top end and so sounds subjectively faster and more lively than some speakers. Again you 'unlearn' the acceptability of this characteristic over time.

Don't be afraid to use the tone controls on the Sony amplifiers.
A little adjustment may just do the trick once you've adjusted to the speakers.

Good luck with them.

regards,

 

As always Rob, I find your advice and comment particularly insightful and helpful. I certainly did at times find myself making ongoing mental comparisons to the sound of the SBL's that I am so familiar with, and had to keep reminding myself that I should be thinking more in terms of does it sound more like real music than what the SBL manages, to which the overall answer was yes - with some caveats as mentioned in the bass.

I certainly thought the presentation was very different, as was the tonal balance, and would indeed take some acclimatisation.

Upon recommendation I am going to try and check out Spendor, and my other option I've shortlisted on price and reputation to listen to is the active AVI 9.1's with sub, if possible. There appears to be a distributor here and I have emailed them.

On engineering terms I would prefer a well executed active over a similarly well executed passive design, however in the case of the AVI's I also have to think of service in case of breakdown, and resale in this market should I ever be in a position to afford my dream speakers, (B&O Lab Fives) or possible active competitors such as the Linkwitz Orions. The other drawback with the AVI's is that they are designed mainly for computer sources and 2 channel, so there is no matching centre channel speaker, which poses a few (but not insurmountable) problems re a multi-channel role. The price quoted here + 10% GST is within A$150 of the CM9's street price per pair, and a multi-channel set-up of active 9.1's plus sub is not inconceivable as long as the necessary connections could be made.

I liked the CM9's a lot, but feel if I am going to make a change, I owe it to myself to check out a couple of competing options in the price range I am able to contemplate.

Thank you again for your insightful and helpful comments.

Kind Regards

Jon...

 

I've only ever heard those at shows so not the best conditions.
Pretty decent though even under those conditions and the designer Martin Grindrod is a clever chap and knows his stuff.

I'll be interested to learn your thoughts on them after a listen.