Why I returned to S-400s (this is long, please do something else if you have spare time)

Posted by: Massimo Bertola on 11 March 2017

Well, just to introduce the proper climate for such an uninteresting topic (please leave now, reader, if you think you know how this is going to end), my friend Dr Mark, who will be staying with us for a few days in April, has expressed the hope to still find the Ovators here when he arrives.

More seriously, I am eager to share the reasons for this choice of mine, because they equally divide between acutely sensible and unbelievably silly, and it will be up to the reader's acuteness to tell which is which.

In casual order (but who can say if chance rules when thoughts can only come to the threshold of the conscious mind one at a time and some form of hierarchy obviously takes place?):

– I cannot stand plain parallelepipeds; after 80 years or so of speaker design, is there a real necessity to design a squared coffin just because it's cheaper, then fill it with costly (?) drivers and wrap it with specious motivations (we designed them using Naim amps) ? What's more – as I have learned in 64 years of attentive aestheticism – everything (including discs and sopranos) sound exactly how it looks, and I always know, when I am facing a parallelepiped, that I'll get that sound. This made me exclude ProAc, Kudos, Spendor, some Focal, Monitor Audio, sadly Credos, and an infinite numbers of others.

– The same for semi-parallelepipeds: like when makers add a slope or a voluptuous curve to suggest that they have gotten rid of stationary waves while cunningly adding to the beauty. Like, say, Apertura, or Wilson Benesch, or some Thiel or B&Ws or Usher; or Cantons, which make such a wide range of models to flag almost all the quoted categories. Not to mention, last, the most dishonest concept of all history of loudspeakers: Sonus Faber and its medicine man claim that imitating the shape of a violin will make a loudspeaker sound musically. Absurd, mystifying.

– All loudspeakers referring to musical or, worse, Operatic terms. So, let's take Norma and Pavarotti and Cremona and Liuto and Callas and so on and let's fill a container to the brim, destination hyper-space.

– Speakers whose enclosure costs more than the sum of all drivers, claiming the use of aerospace, hi-tech medicine, military-grade materials as resolutive (hey, knowing that I am listening to something whose assemblage technique comes from the way they assembled weapons used to make tabula rasa of mid-eastern villages populated with women and children gives me a real thrill..) for the (usually) unprecedented performance of the design. So, thanks Wilson, Magico, YGAcoustics, you can continue your personal triangular war to sell the costliest speaker on Earth but I won't be in the audience.

– Harbeth. I swear to that guy I sometimes quote improperly and uselessly, I did everything I could to like them. I tried, and I tried and I tried, but I can't get no... You know the tune. Harbeth claims the best midrange on Earth, but then try to have tight, tuneful bass or the sound moving a few mm outside the speakers. Alan Shaw has my unconditioned admiration when he explains the reasons behind his design, and even more when he posts that he has spent a Sunday taking long walks in Lindfield, taking beautiful pics of that idyllic village and ending the day with a pint at the local pub. He's a very smart guy, but I need some adrenaline once in a while.

– Stand mounts. It is enough for me to take a look at the System Pics thread of any audio forum on the Planet Earth and the will to live abandons me a little. This will not justify the unforgivable acquiescence with which many (too many) owners of audio choose what their wives choose (the mere facts that choosing a loudspeaker is much more difficult than choosing a wife [and, anyway, it's much less often done while being drunk] should establish some hierarchy after all), but it is a given fact that stands for small speakers are among the ugliest things ever invented. It took Naim to design a graceful foot for the N-Sat. For that, it took Naim to design a stand mount so graceful, curvaceous, elegant to be able to make the LS3/5A and its absurd history, comparable to the one of the dinosaur being revived from a mosquito in Jurassic Park, disappear forever. And yet, the LS3/5A is still around while the prettiest small speaker ever made is discontinued. If I hadn't bought five pairs of them I sometimes would almost believe they never existed. The world is a strange place. Before someone at Naim patiently remind me that they were discontinued because they didn't sell enough, well think of me: two of the five pairs I bought new.

– Now, the difficult part: previous Naim speakers. I have had many, if not most of them. I have owned two pairs of SBLs, one of Arivas, I have tried here the Allae (screaming), the Credos (unfortunately belonging to the parallelepiped type, and sounding too much ProAc-style), I have had five pairs of Sats the last of which is here and won't go anywhere (they have great qualities, but lack some important others), and two pairs of Ovator S-400. I have heard (and quickly laboured to forget) the NBL, and my only encounter with the DBL was in the carpentry of Naim where a pair was playing driven by an olive Nait2. Playing is perhaps too much; they seemed to talk, in a sort of tuneful and mannered way. In the end, the SBL is a masterpiece of its time, but it's not its time anymore and I don't belong to the Cult Of Vinyl. I adore the mess one has to pass through for the setup, I like the silicone and the pads thing, I love everything about them but they look like little robots and we are in 2017. I also liked the IBLs, but never had the nerve to buy some – I mean, would you date Björk lightheartedly? So, one morning I simply found myself with a brand new, triple boxed, immaculate Luxman L590 AX II that had took me exactly three days (hey, you, who believe that you must give months to a piece of equipment for it to reveal its true nature, have you ever tried to conduct an orchestra and have milliseconds to decide if an instrument, or a section of instruments, is playing the right notes, is in tune, goes together and is playing the way then composer intended?) to decide it was not for me. So I went to my dealer, who is sufficiently greedy to promote the costlier things and let the really good ones gather dust in a corner until the proper buyer appears, who still had a gorgeous pair of Rosewood S-400s unemployed, so to speak. And told him straight: my Luxman for your Ovators. I knew I was perhaps losing something, but it's Spring here, and I am convinced that these are the only speakers I could reasonably have. Plus, they are beautiful, and I am very happy that Naim was the only one able to make a quadrangular coffin look like a really cool (or posh, like HH would say) piece of furniture. So, who cares?

Best

Max

 

 

Posted on: 30 April 2017 by joerand

Just to close out my home audition with the 400s - they went back. My thoughts are that the 400s are wonderful speakers for musicality and they sure know how to rock. The clean bass provides the PRaT and opens up the BMR's stunning clarity. The speed is addictive. Unfortunately, the overall tonal balance didn't work for me. Vocals and mids were too forward for my ears and the highs were a little too rolled-off.  I also noticed occasional glare. The flat soundstage had good width, but no real height, dimension, or imaging.  Given the superb bass delineation and musicality, I could have lived with the soundstage and even the occasional glare, were it not for the forward mids and their lack of body and timbre. Maybe the drivers could have been crossed-over a little higher? Maybe a traditional mid driver and tweeter in place of the BMR unit?

I can appreciate why owners of 400s are passionate about them. If they work in your room, with your system, and to your ears there's probably not better VFM for a speaker out there. No reason they shouldn't be considered a world-class speaker. The build quality and looks are great and I had no problem placing them in my room.

Now my journey continues to find a speaker that works for me. At the same time I recognize that there really is no perfect speaker out there. I thought that plugging my Totem Sttafs back in after a few days with the 400s would be a let down. To my surprise I was right back on track with those slim but musical little two-way towers.

Posted on: 30 April 2017 by Massimo Bertola

Joe,

funnily enough, I don't recognize my S-400s in any part of your description. This proves to me how room, gear and ear dependent they are.

Anyway, I, for one, am not passionate about them: I bought mine because they were Naim, they had to be floor standers and they looked beautiful. How they sound is a matter I don't want to take too seriously, for now; my hypohedonia gracefully helps me to maintain the amount of time and money I spend for audio within reasonable limits.

M

Posted on: 30 April 2017 by Ravenswood10

I like my S600s because for the first time other members of the household can't place ornaments on them! I may one day replace them with Focal Sopra 3s for the same reason - they don't look as good as the Ovators though

Posted on: 30 April 2017 by Massimo Bertola
Max_B posted:

How they sound is a matter I don't want to take too seriously, for now;

Which doesn't mean I don't care how they sound, or even do not like them. I love them for a mix of all the mentioned reasons. They have adapted themselves to a not easy acoustical environment nicely. If I'm asked now, I wouldn't want any other speaker than those, now.

Posted on: 30 April 2017 by GraemeH

The room interaction issue is so important. CDS3/555PS & 252/300 with S600 was flat, shut-in and uninvolving. Goodness knows why but I took a punt on an unheard pair of S400 and they are brilliant in the same space.

G