Which modern speaker can match the Sbl?

I recently moved from SBLs to Ovator S-400s, and while I'm happy with the Ovators, I can't bring myself to get rid of the SBLs. So they'll hang around until the distant future when I can put together a 2nd system, most likely with age-appropriate gear.

Once smitten...

XULYDE MD1

Moderated Post:  Please do not post unauthorised commercial links in the Hifi Corner.  Thanks. 

love_leeloo posted:

XULYDE MD1

Nice try Julien, and so true.  

Chag -

I'm using Dynaudio X32's that were suposed to be a temporary measure but they are sounding great and may well stay longer.

Agree with John.  Liked SBLs but they didn't excite me until I heard them active ca. 20 or more years ago.  But purchased used IBLs and still run them active with 250s, full loom LP12 with ARO/Aktiva and 52/SC.  Looking for a used SBL to compare both the IBLs and SBLS active.  Listen mostly to quartets and opera and like the speed of the IBLs.  Any thoughts on how the two speakers compare activ?

Ira

jon honeyball posted:

Alba1320 posted:

FWIW, back in the day, Naim's recommendation was for passive 135s in preference to active 250s.

FWIW, that wasnt JV's recommendation. And he recommended 2 x 250 rather than 4 x 135, saying that he was more than happy to sell someone 4 x 135 if required, but couldnt really see the point.

But this was some 25+ years ago, and only my memory. Others may well remember it differently. 

Ah! Audio memory. Personal memory! I was fortunate enough to be a Naim dealer for a decade. A very distant decade... 1977 to 1987. 

JV was very forthright with recommendations. And active was the way to go in the 80's. But he was also a pragmatist and you know Naim, (as like everyone), has to move current product. So what's available "now" is definitely better than what's old. No matter what year you pick. And it's not all hype either. Those boffins actually know stuff and generally advance the state of the art.

Had the pleasure of Mr Verekler telling me how ordinary my system was, (tri amped Isobariks and everything by the flat earth bible), just after Naim introduced SBLs. 

So I tried a pair of active SBLs at home with 250's. Better than The Isobariks in some ways, (speed, vocals, basic PRAT metrics), but lacking in gravitas. Bass! Chest thump! Scaring the cats rigid.

 I subsequently downsized to Kans, (house, kids, car sort of were getting In the way of my addiction), did stupid things with amplification as I climbed back on the upgrade path and ended up over a decade later with active SBLs. Karma? Well I thought I had achieved Nirvana. But unfortunately I fell, and as the gods always punish the smug I sank to a crap Marantz sacd/receiver and Jamo speakers. Stopped listening to music and read books. Sigh.

But now I have returned to a humble but reasonable system, a 172/200 and S400s. Only stream from my NAS.

 I suspect that the 172/200 would best a 32/HiCap/250 circa 1985 and the S400s would be a more liveable option than SBLs. Because I am loving my music more than ever. Got the widest music collection ever. Hardly ever watch tv. Real pointers to where it's at.

Which leads to my point. I know that Audio memory is very unreliable. But the current sound is better in so many ways than I can remember. And I do get to hear some active Isobariks occasionally. My acid test is "excitement ". If I just have to play another tune... and another... and .. smile!

This excitement with the music is especially strong when I stream a good modern recording. Just listening to Neil Cowley made me jump out of my skin, (and also prompted this essay). Stunning. 

Modern stuff actually has improved. If you look at decent gear that is. The greats of the past still perform but don't get hung up on that imperfect audio memory. 

PS. Can't corroborate the comment regarding 250s being as far as you need to go with SBLs but sounds right. And the true believers always went active if they could.

Fred 11,

I owned SBL,s for 17 years going from passive 250 to active. Had the mid driver up-grade but apart from that they were as new when I px,d them for what I paid for them.  Now have SL2,S. These were the best speakers for me as I wished to remain 'active'. I have had them for about 10 yrs and they have shown all my up-grades to date. There is no-way I would consider changing them. They are perfect for my LP12/CDS3-555ps based system. 

Fred11. If you are unable to get a nice pair of SL2,s I would hang on to your SBLs. Mine were still sounding great at 17 years of regular use and had many more years left in them.

Improve your source and your speakers will sound even more magical!

Tony.

steve95775 posted:

jon honeyball posted:

Alba1320 posted:

FWIW, back in the day, Naim's recommendation was for passive 135s in preference to active 250s.

FWIW, that wasnt JV's recommendation. And he recommended 2 x 250 rather than 4 x 135, saying that he was more than happy to sell someone 4 x 135 if required, but couldnt really see the point.

But this was some 25+ years ago, and only my memory. Others may well remember it differently. 

Ah! Audio memory. Personal memory! I was fortunate enough to be a Naim dealer for a decade. A very distant decade... 1977 to 1987. 

JV was very forthright with recommendations. And active was the way to go in the 80's. But he was also a pragmatist and you know Naim, (as like everyone), has to move current product. So what's available "now" is definitely better than what's old. No matter what year you pick. And it's not all hype either. Those boffins actually know stuff and generally advance the state of the art.

Had the pleasure of Mr Verekler telling me how ordinary my system was, (tri amped Isobariks and everything by the flat earth bible), just after Naim introduced SBLs. 

So I tried a pair of active SBLs at home with 250's. Better than The Isobariks in some ways, (speed, vocals, basic PRAT metrics), but lacking in gravitas. Bass! Chest thump! Scaring the cats rigid.

 I subsequently downsized to Kans, (house, kids, car sort of were getting In the way of my addiction), did stupid things with amplification as I climbed back on the upgrade path and ended up over a decade later with active SBLs. Karma? Well I thought I had achieved Nirvana. But unfortunately I fell, and as the gods always punish the smug I sank to a crap Marantz sacd/receiver and Jamo speakers. Stopped listening to music and read books. Sigh.

But now I have returned to a humble but reasonable system, a 172/200 and S400s. Only stream from my NAS.

 I suspect that the 172/200 would best a 32/HiCap/250 circa 1985 and the S400s would be a more liveable option than SBLs. Because I am loving my music more than ever. Got the widest music collection ever. Hardly ever watch tv. Real pointers to where it's at.

Which leads to my point. I know that Audio memory is very unreliable. But the current sound is better in so many ways than I can remember. And I do get to hear some active Isobariks occasionally. My acid test is "excitement ". If I just have to play another tune... and another... and .. smile!

This excitement with the music is especially strong when I stream a good modern recording. Just listening to Neil Cowley made me jump out of my skin, (and also prompted this essay). Stunning. 

Modern stuff actually has improved. If you look at decent gear that is. The greats of the past still perform but don't get hung up on that imperfect audio memory. 

PS. Can't corroborate the comment regarding 250s being as far as you need to go with SBLs but sounds right. And the true believers always went active if they could.

 

 

What a great post! Fantastic reading. With all respect for your experience and knowledge selling Naim I do think some people find older stuff have certain charms the new ones do not. I used to own 202-200-Ndx but prefer my former system. Really great you enjoy music and your system that much!

regards Fred

Montone posted:

Fred 11,

I owned SBL,s for 17 years going from passive 250 to active. Had the mid driver up-grade but apart from that they were as new when I px,d them for what I paid for them.  Now have SL2,S. These were the best speakers for me as I wished to remain 'active'. I have had them for about 10 yrs and they have shown all my up-grades to date. There is no-way I would consider changing them. They are perfect for my LP12/CDS3-555ps based system. 

Fred11. If you are unable to get a nice pair of SL2,s I would hang on to your SBLs. Mine were still sounding great at 17 years of regular use and had many more years left in them.

Improve your source and your speakers will sound even more magical!

Tony.

 

Thank you Tony! 

I have been thinking about the same, its good to read about your experience. SL2s are really hard to come by. Great you are so satisfied!

fred