I have never had the opportunity to hear both versions of the SBL side by side (and probably never will). I have heard both separately in identical systems (and of course in different rooms). I own the early SBLs which I liked from the very first time I heard them (when the SBL was brand new).
IMO the newer SBL is not as bright or forward-sounding (less mid-range emphasis perhaps) than the older variety, plus the more recent SBL seems smoother. I am told that the bass goes lower with the new drivers but I cannot say I have noticed.
Despite the accolades regarding the new drivers here, I have never felt a great desire to change my SBL as I felt the difference is not as great as a source/preamp or amp upgrade. I have never felt that the difference between my system and that at my dealer's was due to the drivers. Perhaps I have missed something, though.
I wonder if the older SBL, which must have been designed before the days of the CDS was intended to suit the reproduction of the LP12 (or other turntable) and the new drivers more suited to digital replay. Then again, perhaps not. I wonder if the differences are similar to those among the early editions of the Kan and subject to personal preference.
Anyone else sticking with the original SBLs?
P.S. What I would really like to do though is trade for a pair of NBLs!!
Paul
Posted on: 18 February 2001 by David Dever
quote:
I have never had the opportunity to hear both versions of the SBL side by side (and probably never will). I have heard both separately in identical systems (and of course in different rooms). I own the early SBLs which I liked from the very first time I heard them (when the SBL was brand new).
The pair I re-built for my own use (about three years ago) was shown in Chicago in 1986--definitely early cabinets / stands, etc.
quote:
IMO the newer SBL is not as bright or forward-sounding (less mid-range emphasis perhaps) than the older variety, plus the more recent SBL seems smoother. I am told that the bass goes lower with the new drivers but I cannot say I have noticed. I wonder if the older SBL, which must have been designed before the days of the CDS was intended to suit the reproduction of the LP12 (or other turntable) and the new drivers more suited to digital replay. Then again, perhaps not. I wonder if the differences are similar to those among the early editions of the Kan and subject to personal preference.
- Naim uses a different cabinet maunfacturer for the SBL
- the wood veneer wraps completely around the enclosures
- the stand tubing has changed
- the bass driver is now made in-house
- the PAXO crossover is currently wired with NACA 5.
These would easily be classified as improvements in every sense, not just a change in preference (or due to the inability to obtain better/older parts).
To be honest, if you feel that the SBL is a better medium- to long-term speaker for your situation, perhaps you might upgrade to a newer pair (or at least update the bass drivers)--there is a definite difference.
Dave Dever, NANA
Posted on: 19 February 2001 by Martin M
There is no doubt in my mind that the SBL is now a far better loudpeaker than it used to be. It is strange that none of Dave's list (other than the new drivers and the mysterious 'new foam') are included in the product history for the SBL.
Now Dave, would you agree with me that the DBL is a far better loudspeaker then when introduced? If so, can you list the improvements that this has undergone please.
