I don't like SBL's

Posted by: david needham on 20 March 2004

Hi

I've just ordered my next upgrade. Current sistem: CDX2/202/PSC/200/Flatcap2 into 15yr old Rogers LS6a2's on sand filled Target HJ15 stands.

I went to listen to an XPS2 - having been surprisingly underwhelmed when I last listened to it. I think the problem then was that I was upgrading from a CD5, and the dramatic difference between that and the CDX2 just blew me away

. I guess that for similar money I was expecting a similar earth-shattering difference when I added on the XPS2. This time however, I couldn't belive how wrong I'd been. Having had a few months to get used to what the CDX2 could do, I was aware of certain shortcomings, particularly with very complex music. The XPS2 sorted all those issues out, to the extent that when I went back to listening to the same piece of music without the XPS2, I couldn't quite accept how much I didn't like the bare CDX2

. Do NOT do this dem if you can't afford the upgrade - it'll really p**s you off!

Next however we got on to talking about my speakers and the fact that £5K of CD player into £500 of speaker may not be the most balanced sistem, and I might be limiting what I could get out of upgrades with my old faithful Rogers. So we hooked up a pair of SBL's to see what that famous Naim synergy could do. BLEAUGH!! I couldn't belive what I was (wasn't) hearing. I'd not heard SBL's before and admittedly my expectation were high from reading about them on the forum. But these made the music flat lifeless and one dimensional. In fact they didn't make music at all. All the "grunt" had gone from the sound. OK so there was a definate improvement in clarity and separation of instruments, but I hated everything else about them.

As I couldn't afford a full blown speaker upgrade on top of the XPS2, I didn't start listening to lots of alternatives (the SBL's were £695 second hand). However I did briefly listen to a pair of Shahinian Compass's, and they were much more what I was looking for. Perhaps they're the way to go when I've saved up some more pennies

.

So what a surprise - "source first" wins out again over "balanced sistem".

David

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Mr.Tibbs

"So what a surprise - "source first" wins out again over "balanced sistem"."

Sorry, I don't agree.

You need to hear what a really good speaker can do, only then will you realise just how good a system you have. What's the point in having an excellent source, only to squander most of the benefits at the vital last stage?

Mr Tibbs

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by blythe

You said yourself that initially, you weren't blown away by adding the XPS2, however, after listening for some time, you can't go back to the bare CDX2.
I strongly think that if you listened to SBL's for a period of time, you'd find your Rogers sound very "bloated" or "overblown" and boring if you switched back to them.
Yes there are other speakers out there with different characteristics and hopefully you'll find the one that best suits you.
Try some Shahinnians or Royds etc.
Sorry, but Rogers don't float my boat and I feel they are the weakest link in your system.

Computers are supposed to work on 1's and 0's - in other words "Yes" or "No" - why does mine frequently say "Maybe"?......

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by JohnMak

I am so surprised that anyone could not like SBL's.

I am still over the moon with the used pair I got recently and every visitor to my apartment prefers them over the Dynaudio's and is amazed at the superb sound they produce.

We really are all different huh?

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by andy c

Hi,
My sbl's have seen upgrades from a system that was CD3.5/102/180 thru cd3.5-hicap/102-napsc-flatcap/180 to now CDX2/xps2/282/hicap/180.

Also the system has changed racks and been given a mains upgrade - the sbl's revealed all this easily.

But, if ya don't like em and have your mains and rack sorted, then ya simply don't! and fair dues to ya for saying it.

In that case have you tried Neats - NB and a few others on this forum swear by the synergy between these speakers and Naim.

andy c!

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by david needham

Andy

Thanks, yes Neat do seem to be one of the most popular matches. I'll have to give them a listen. I was impressed with the Shahinians, just not in a position to splash out another £2-3K. Mains is done - 3x 6mm spurs (yes I know it should be 10mm.....) and rack is Ash Designs.

Tom

Perhaps it was all down to setup, but I can't imagine that it would make a speaker that sounded so lifeless, sound absolutely brilliant. I'm sure I could be wrong though - I've not much experience with different speakers. By the way, have you read Bill Bryson's book "Troublesome Words"? I'm sure it would be up your street

.

Mr Tibbs

quote:
Sorry, I don't agree

But you weren't there! I was expecting the SBL's to do more for my sistem than the XPS2. They just didn't, and that's what I heard.

Blythe

quote:
I strongly think that if you listened to SBL's for a period of time, you'd find your Rogers sound very "bloated" or "overblown"

Yes, good point. I tried to work out whether what I was hearing was colouration, or at least overfamiliarity with what the Rogers provide. I guess an extended home demo would be the thing to help decide. Obviously the speakers are - on paper at least - the obvious thing that needs upgrading. I just wanted something with more "welly" than the SBL's gave. Perhaps the larger Shanihian Arcs

David

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Alex S.

Tom's SBLs do sound amazing but if you're unconvincable you should audition the Neat MFS or Shahinian Arcs.

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by J.N.

Hi David

I too, love my SBL's and would reiterate that set-up is critical.

However; they ain't for everyboby and the room plays a part of course. In a room that had a harsh and bass light acoustic signature, they wouldn't sound right.

Sounds like you'd be happier with the PMC/Pro-Ac thang?

It's a warmer, more three dimensional sound but lacks the ultimate grip and drive of a Naim speaker.

Good luck.

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Bob Edwards

David--

I was all set to reply and then read JN's post. I agree with him completely.

I would also say "Good for you for actually listening to them!"

Best,

Bob

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by andy c

quote:
had both a 180 and 250 when I got my SBL's so I thought I'd really see if it's true what I'd been told - that a 250 is the minimum to effectively drive SBL's.

Graham,
I don't think it's as exact a science as you suggest. Whilst I accept that in my case the probable next upgrade is a 250II I use my sbl's via a 180 and, as I have posted before, they sound brill and have revealed the countless changes made further up the chain.

Another question - I may be think but I take it these sbl's subject of the thread were not tried at home...? If they were not then you could be missing out!

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Boekster

I think you need to get used to the Naim sound they produce. At first, I didn't like the Allaes. They were very dry and dull. But once you get used to them they just sound damn good

. Somehow they do make music, in their own, Naimish way. Take some time to get used to them. Try a home dem for a week or so. Then you know what the SBL's are capable of

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Ron Toolsie

The devil is always in the details. I have had the very same pair of DBL's sound both beyond reproach and also like a poor PA system, with the very same hardware-but in two different rooms. It is important to remember that speaker placement, the room and room treatment ultimately affect the performance to a greater degree than even a 102 to 52 upgrade. Far cheaper too, but requires the end user or delegate to spend time, thought and effort rather than just plumbing in another black (or olive) box.
I personally have never heard the SBL's sound good, even when I used the 52/4x135/Snaxo/Supercap, but the room they were in was an unknown commodity. A great system in a bad room is a bad system. An entry level system in a great room is a good system. Yes I have heard a slimline system with Intro speakers in a sympathetic room outperform musically my then DBL-6pack system in a very poor room. For the price of maybe a Hicap I was amazed what in-wall (and subfloor) insulation coupled with some Mana Soundbases did. Far, far more than when I upgraded from an 82 to 52.
Personally I think that anybody using ANY naim speaker on suspended wooden flooring without Mana soundbases is getting extremely poor value for money- the smeared sound that can barely carry the tune is only a ghost of what can be obtained. Before I put Soundbases under my DBLs I would be lucky to purchase new music three times a years. Now it is almost every week. With a poured concrete floor the Soundbases are probably less needed and predicatable.

Post script...in reference to the posting above.. why is it when I used to record my 50 quid Yamaha classical guitar with 12-quid Phillips microphones into a 200 quid Aiwa cassette deck I got a far more credidible sound than any LP I played on my turntable at the time- even the hallowed LP12.

Ron
Dum spiro audio
Dum audio vivo

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Paul Davies

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Tibbs:
"So what a surprise - "source first" wins out again over "balanced sistem"."

Sorry, I don't agree.

You need to hear what a really good speaker can do, only then will you realise just how good a system you have. What's the point in having an excellent source, only to squander most of the benefits at the vital last stage?

Mr Tibbs

Sorry Mr Tibbs, but I don't agree with you. Sure, a good speaker on the end of an excellent source will sound better than more modest speakers on the end of the same source. But every time I have done the comparison between source first and a more balanced way of dividing up the budget, source first has been much better. In the balanced system, the music sounds compressed and undynamic compared with the source first system.

That's why I think that the first stage is much more vital than the last stage.

Or, to turn your question around: What's the point in having an excellent pair of speakers only to squander their benfits by revealing shortcomings in that vital first stage?

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by Mr.Tibbs

"In the balanced system, the music sounds compressed and undynamic compared with the source first system."

It's interesting you should say that – interesting, because by changing my Epos 14's to the Ergo III's, I now have a level of scale, dynamics, resolution and bass quality that simply couldn't have been achieved by box swapping upstream.

"What's the point in having an excellent pair of speakers only to squander their benfits by revealing shortcomings in that vital first stage?"

A properly balanced system won't show up deficiencies in the source, rather it will make best use of the combined abilities of the component chain. Source first will never achieve greatness, because the weakest link in the chain determines outright system performance.

Source first is fine at entry level, but the further up the ladder you go, the less sense it makes to ignore the speakers and keep changing boxes. There are too many people out there throwing everything at the source, who'll never hear how good that source really is.

Mr Tibbs

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by andy c

quote:
Andy, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear with my last post. If you had a 180 next to a 250 with your SBL's, you would know what I meant

Hopefully by the end of the year....

Posted on: 20 March 2004 by bec143

I'm with Mr T on this one!

A good source is a good thing to have, but a change of speakers, in a system that can handle it, can just abolutely transform what you hear in a way that no change of boxes can.

Bruce

Posted on: 21 March 2004 by Goldstar

David,

I have a pair of SBL's on loan from my dealer until the new SL2's arrive.
The SBL's sounded o.k.but it took many weeks before they started to really sing. So maybe you didn't give them enough time.

Regards Robert

Posted on: 21 March 2004 by garyi

The simple answer here is something was wrong. Most people have an opinion in the SBL but no one has ever said they we lifeless!

Posted on: 21 March 2004 by P

quote:
Most people have an opinion in the SBL but no one has ever said they we lifeless!

Exactly.

P

Posted on: 21 March 2004 by Scribemole

Sorry but I really have to agree with David. I bought SBL's as an 'upgrade' to my Intro2's. Thanks God I didn't get rid of them. I couldn't get the SBL's sounding anywhere near what everyone here raves about. In fact they sounded exactly like the last time I heard them in a shop. I think lifeless sums them up. Lack of projection and no involvement. It was far too easy to watch TV, read, eat etc whilst they were running. The music was there somewhere but the artist wasn't. Intro's don't appear to be too highly rated on this forum but in my room at least, you can't ignore them. You just have to listen. I couldn't wait to get rid of the SBL's. And yes I tried every possible location, Yes they were on Mana, Yes they had enough power. 135's.
No I'll stick with the Intro2's every time. Rather live with a great underrated speaker than a box bound overrated one.

[This message was edited by Scribemole on Sun 21 March 2004 at 18:30.]

Posted on: 21 March 2004 by Rich Jerskey

All,

I started out with my SBL's with a single 250, a 102 pre, a single HC and a CD3.5 and I guess I thought they sounded a bit thin at times (depending on what was playing). The interesting thing is that I've added another 250 (active), gone from 102 to an 82 and on to a 252. Gone from a CD3.5 to CDX to CDX with XPS to CDS2. What I'm getting at is the SBL's have surely risen to the occaision that each upgrade step presented. They just sound great no matter what kind of music I throw at em on the trusty old CDS2. I'm sure you need a minimum amp/pre-amp combo to get them to come into their own but once they do you become a big fan of them. well...at least I did, I don't even dream of SL2's....yet.

Rich J

Posted on: 22 March 2004 by Noel

David,

I don't expect there was that much wrong with the SBLs, but the tonal balance of SBLs and LS6a2s couldn't be more different.

The HJ15 stands are an excellent match for you speakers and I think you're probably getting the most out of them. This will have reduced the cabinet boom to a degree, but their upper mid 'chestiness' will still show through. The Rogers are coloured, slow in terms of timing and have an uneven frequency response. The treble unit Rogers were using at that time was underdamped and the integration between the treble and mid/bass was not good.

Although it sounds like I'm slating these speakers, it is not my intention. I'm trying to point out the areas where its differnt from the SBLs. In comparison the treble on the SBL would sound a little recessed and flat. The bass would seem thin and overdamped. There would appear to be a dip in the midrange. The speed and pace of the SBLs can be disconcerting.

I used to sell Rogers speakers in the late 80s and can see why people liked them. They are warm sounding, fairly dynamic, open speaker. No one could accuse the SBLs of being warm sounding. Most of the speakers you will hear now will sound very different to the Rogers. Later Castle and Spendor have built significantly on their strengths and reduced their weaknesses. Given that you have a limited budget I would look at second hand Castle speakers as a serious option. You're moving from one end of the speaker spectrum to the other and I'm not surprised you didn't like the SBLs. Like many things in life, they're not bad, just different.

Noel.

Posted on: 22 March 2004 by Rockingdoc

Exactly. This isn't about "good" and "bad" speakers. The Rogers can be very appealing in some circumstances. They are warm and full sounding and I would suggest have a calming effect on the edginess present in many Naim systems when something isn't right (e.g. mains).
It may be that careful attention to apparently small details up the chain could transform your experience of the SBLs. I find my Naim system unbelievably twitchy and temperamental at times, sometimes unlistenable, which often turns out to be just a combination of; needing a re-cap (current insoluble problem), dirty interconnect contacts, cable dressing, listener/speaker position, room furnishings and mains. The SBL shows all this ruthlessly in a way the Rogers won't.

I feel that I should confess that three years ago I was posting venom about pathetic bass-light SBLs on this forum. I have grown to love them (in a small room).

Posted on: 22 March 2004 by david needham

Noel

Thanks for that. Your comments are really helpful, and hit the nail on the head.

quote:
In comparison the treble on the SBL would sound a little recessed and flat. The bass would seem thin and overdamped.

That's exactly what it sounded like to me. As I said, I've not heard SBL's before, and I guess it was a bit of a shock after all the great things I've read on this forum.

I think the best thing for me is to wait for my XPS2 to arrive

, then once its settled in and I'm used to what it brings to my sistem, I'm going to have to think again about speakers.

Having got used to the "warmness" (?colouration) of the Rogers all these years, I think its going to be difficult finding something with their qualities, but which have improved precision and (gasp) image. Oh my god - have I turned into a round-earther as well as a SBL-hater now!!?

David

Posted on: 23 March 2004 by Laurie Saunders

quote:
Having got used to the "warmness" (?colouration) of the Rogers all these years, I think its going to be difficult finding something with their qualities,

Sounds to me that a pair of ProAcs would fit the bill quite nicely

Laurie S

Posted on: 23 March 2004 by Neill Ferguson

All,

I always find speakers a bone of contention in any system. There are so many makes out there and varied prices they really are a hard choice to make. I have had the pleasure of spending a couple of days with SL2's and can honestly say i don't think there worth the 6k asking price!!!. I do think there are better speakers out there for less. One thing I would love to find out is how compaines come up with there asking prices for kit. Before you all jump in and say, research, production etc there ain't that much in a Naim speaker to cost the asking price some comments and information would be nice????

Neill