Linn speakers
Posted by: plynnplynn on 15 March 2002
Get yourself a set of s/h SBL's.
10 times better and you can pick them up for about £650.00.
Regards
Mick
quote:
Originally posted by plynnplynn:
I note that Linn speakers Kabers and Keilidh are now available for as little as £350 and £225 with stands respectively. What is the current feeling about matching them with Naim equipment (eg 72/140) passive or active.
Thank you for your contribution. I have been considering second hand SBLs but due to the there only being 3 Naim suppliers in Scotland it is not too easy. People like me thus rely to some extent on on the opinions of others.
On the matter of the name I won't bore you with the full details but it goes something like - I tried to obtain a user name on a well known Internet site - gave up on every combination of my own real name that might make some sense - every name I tried had been taken - thought of a silly name (plynn) and tried it - even it had been taken - and so decided to double it - and so................... Now I use it all the time as I am getting aged and forgetful :-( - better to stick to one name and password for everything. You will even find plynnplynn on eBay.
Thanks again - any other views from anyone
Best wishes
Terry
Try and get the polymer granite stands, as they help tighten things up, as do Mana Sound Bases
My ears couldn't live with Sibilent Box Loudspeakers when I tried them (admittedly a few years ago.
DS
Get the grey tweeters or later and stony stands and you've a bargain, I don't see the point of Keilidhs when Kabers are available at similar prices. And it's much easier to spell 'Kaber'...
One practical advantage of the Kaber over (say) the SBL is that it's more tolerant of room positioning. Kabers can be pulled slightly from the wall and toed in without looking as odd as SBLs would. They are also lower maintenance when it comes to moving and setting them up.
However if you have a suitable room and are at all committed to the Naim idiom then seriously investigate SBL. I don't understand why Mick has traded down to Isobariks.
Paul
I prefer the sound of the Briks in my lounge which is 21 ft x 13ft, however, the SBL's sounded great in the dining room which is about 11 ft x 13 ft.
I sold the SBL's because they were black and will soon buy a newer natural wood finish pair.
The SBL's are a great speaker, but the Briks are something exceptional.
Regards
Mick
But I've never owned them, although I have a yen to have a pair to go with the SARAs and Kans.... The trouble is what to do with them if they don't overall satisfy in the main system?
I believe that a simpler loudspeaker run active is a better (certainly in value terms) approach.
Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Get yourself a set of s/h SBL's.
10 times better and you can pick them up for about £650.00.
Regards
Mick
Thanks Mick
Never heard the SBLs that is the problem. Have you an idea where I could get a pair for £650?
quote:
Originally posted by David Slater:
My ears couldn't live with Sibilent Box Loudspeakers when I tried them (admittedly a few years ago.DS
David
What exactly did you not like about the sound?
quote:
Originally posted by Mick Parry:
The SBL's are a great speaker, but the Briks are something exceptional.Regards
Mick
Mick
Why are you going to buy another pair of SBLs if as you say the Isobariks are better?
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
One practical advantage of the Kaber over (say) the SBL is that it's more tolerant of room positioning. Kabers can be pulled slightly from the wall and toed in without looking as odd as SBLs would. They are also lower maintenance when it comes to moving and setting them up.
However if you have a suitable room and are at all committed to the Naim idiom then seriously investigate SBL. I don't understand why Mick has traded down to Isobariks.
Paul
Paul - and anyone else
Is the set-up of a used pair of SBLs any more difficult that replacing silicone sealant to make a new seal at the 'joins' of the three boxes. Are there any more technical requirements?
The Kabers were mush more refined, but could still 'rock' and produce a rhythm when asked.
I am particularly against speakers that spit - it is unhealthy and just not polite behaviour.
I don't think they would do it in fromt of thier mothers would they?
DS
It's a pity IE6 or info-pop doesn't have one!
DS
I sniff mutant round-earthism.
Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Jez Quigley:
All due respect to the opinions of others etc, but Kabers are to briks as Herman's Hermits were to the Rolling Stones.
Jez
Perhaps an explanation of your thoughts on this would be useful.
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Errm. Rubbish.I sniff mutant round-earthism.
Paul
Thanks for your comment Paul but a more detailed explanation of your thoughts might be more useful to participants in this thread.
Flat earth: judges hifi using music based criteria.
Round earth: judges hifi by how it sounds.
There are many closet 'Round Earthers' here, you can tell because they use words like 'slam', 'etched', 'air', 'space', 'depth' and other equivalents of 'a nice tone'.
Isobariks sound nice and can have loads of bass. They also look good and were aspirational objects for a generation of hifi fans from the late 1970s to the late 1980s. Better loudspeakers have been produced since.
The chap whose opinion I stole worked for Linn and had a choice between Kabers and Isobariks. He had the Isobariks for professional reasons and the Kabers for personal. I've forgotten his name so I can't get into too much trouble...
Paul
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
What do you think I meant?
Paul
Paul
To be honest I hadn't a clue what you meant. I now have a better feeling for what you meant thanks to your explanation. Being relatively new to the Forum and not having been a regular participant until a few days ago I have not yet fully assimilated the hifi 'code' and terminology. I am however trying to do so.
Best wishes
Terry
Paul (Occasional supporter of the 'paying your dues' school of hifi thought)
I have used 18' runs of K400 with my 32.5/90 for perhaps 5 years. First with Keilidhs and recently with Ninkas with no problems. Even when playing fairly loud for a period of time the 90 never gets more than barely warm. My understanding from my dealer is that the properties of K400 are similar to Naim speaker cable. While I am keeping my eyes out for some used NACA5 and am sure that should be on my shortlist for any upgrade and provide very significant improvements, I find it difficult to believe that the K400 could be doing any harm. Any thoughts among you more experienced Naimites?
Cheers,
Garth
P.S. any ideas why my "sign off" always includes some extra letter after my name? Now of course it probably won't do it.
Technophobe.
a
While I don't really feel qualified to weigh in on audio gear matters to any degree, as a very dedicated classical pianist, and, for much of my life, a professional musician, I do feel I know something about how live acoustic - particularly classical solo piano - music sounds and it seems to me that it exhibits both "round" and "flat earth" characteristics. I agree that rhythm, pace, timing, and dynamics etc., are more important than tone, timbre, weight or physical prescence, to the reproduction of music in the home. However acoustic instruments do have certain specific tone colours, weight, frequency response, and timbre, and do not sound like they are coming from 2 boxes. Surely the best playback systems would incorporate elements of both "flat earth" and "round earth" criteria?
Please note that I think the preoccupation with "soundstage" as espoused by Stereophile et.al. has nothing to do with music and I would take a good mono recording anyday over one of those artificially mixed stereo-soundstage specials anyday. I also think that my Rega/Naim/Linn system sounds very natural, and most importantly, involving - I gather that these manufacturers are generally considered in the flat earth camp. I don't find the PRAT elements hyped up nor do I find it lacking in tone, timbre, etc. although, of course, all elements could no doubt be significantly improved as mine is a modest and somewhat imbalanced system. In contrast, I think many of the far more expensive systems I have heard at dealers are bloated, disjointed, embalming devices.
Garth
Wallowing in the lushness and getting off on the slam is perfectly acceptable to 'the flat earth according to me' (but keep the getting off private...).
However when it comes to judging hifi systems, is 'more lush' or 'more slam' better or worse?
TFEATM (and probably others I cannot speak for) suggests that it is possible to use more musical criteria to judge a hifi.
It boils down to following tunes, whether you can still follow a tune in the background when a soloist is emoting out front, whether the contrast between the chord progression and the lyric is clearer or not, stuff like that.
The corrollary is that a system that wins in a 'tune' test is better.
And when you have that better system installed at home, just wallow in the lushness.
Paul
I think perhaps I was unclear and maybe playing devil's advocate a little bit. I AGREE WITH YOU. I agree that rhythm, pitch, pace, timing, and dynamics etc., are more important than tone, timbre, weight, or physical prescence - although its nice to get that too, as long as it does not affect the PRAT etc, and as long as it does not become a "hi fi" affectation. As I said in my posting, "I think PRAT, dynamics, pitch, etc. are more important to reproduction of music in the home than timbre etc."
I am absolutely against euphonic "Hi Fi" sound systems. I often listen to classical music with the score and the most important thing is to hear everything. All the instruments, all the melodies, and all the rhythmic precision, and the subtlest dynamic gradations. As I have studied and performed some these works for years, I know from the inside the musical importance, and the many hours committed by the musician to execute these details. The most important thing to me is the communication of the performer's intentions and the emotional thrust of the music. All of the above is pretty much what you said in effect, I think.(?)
I also prefer mono records to gimmicky "soundstage" spectaculars - which has got to get me some flat earth points. Comparing my budget rega/naim/linn/ system - with its components which probably would be loosely considered "flat earth"- I said, " In contrast, I think many of the far more expensive systems I have heard at dealers are bloated, disjointed, embalming devices". I.E. My puny little flat earth system packs a far bigger musical punch than these overpriced "round earth" musical boats parading as stereos. I think we all know who the prime offenders are.
As an aside: In another posting on this forum I pretty much trashed a CD12/6 pack Klimax/Active Keltik system and said I thought my Naim based $3000CDN runt excelled it in terms of communicating MUSIC. That should get me at least 100 fep points shouldn't it, or maybe some kind of Naim points?
I think we are pretty much on the same page. BTY My dream fantasy system is LP12/Armageddon/Aro/Prefix/ CDS2/XPS/52/SC/6 pack/DBL, AND A GREAT ROOM!
If you are ever in in Victoria, I would be happy to host a listening session in my considerably humbler
digs. I do have a great music collection however.
Flatly,
Garth
P.S. I have probably gone on a bit here but, as a newbie, I would hate to get a "round-earth-mullet"
reputation. Okay, I'll just shut-up now, unplug one of my speakers and listen to the Naim recording of Charlie Haden and Chris Anderson.
quote:
I agree that rhythm, pitch, pace, timing, and dynamics etc., are more important than tone, timbre, weight, or physical prescence
I'm (this month) a Flat Earth fundamentalist. I don't see how one can comparatively judge a system on rhythm, pace, timing or dynamics. Too many words....
quote:
The most important thing to me is the communication of the performer's intentions and the emotional thrust of the music. All of the above is pretty much what you said in effect, I think.
But how do you know what the performer's intentions were? I'm advocating judging on more specfic grounds, no reference to any imagined reality required. The assumption is that a system that plays tunes better will communicate the emotional thrust of the music more accurately, but that one cannot determine that 'this system gives me more emotional thrust and is therefore better'.
quote:
Okay, I'll just shut-up now, unplug one of my speakers and listen to the Naim recording of Charlie Haden and Chris Anderson.
No need to go that far.....
I'm playing a relatively ancient dodgy Pickwick compilation of Jan and Dean/The Beach Boys/etc stuff. £2.25 in Woolworths 20 or more years ago. Sounds great, even with an Ekos and Linn loudspeakers. Two girls for every boy!
Paul
"but how do you know what the performer's intentions were?"
How true!! I guess you never really do unless you sat in the recording studio and heard the performnce in person during the recording. I guess I would have to limit myself to certain solo classical piano pieces which I have studied and feel I understand the composers intentions, the communication of which, is the goal of great interpreter and should be evident when through the playback system.. I.E given a good recording of the Beethoven Appassionata there should be a diminuendo from the pp trill in the third measure to the dominant chord in the fourth. Very subtle. In Bach preludes and fugues, the contrapuntal elements must be clearly heard and articulated but also with very sublte dynamic shadings and articulation. etc. etc.
Cheers,
Garth f