Neat Petite vs. Royd RR1

Judd

John

The Petite's primary strength is versatility. They do everything a Kan can do, but better (when driven properly) and also have the ability to do all the round-earth things as well. My only real criticism of them is that they do need good amps and also that (like most standmounts of its size) they sound a little bass light without wall-reinforcement. The Gravitas isobaric subwoofer-stands allow you to upgrade the Petites to something resembling a cross between an SBL and a pair of Isobariks in concept, and add subtly to the balance (and also the loading) making everything that big more wholesome.

Can't speak for the current Royds, but previous demos have left me slightly on the favourable side of indifferent, but that's no doubt as much to do with dealer's amps and demo rooms than any flaws in the Royds.

But I would urge you to try both, although I suspect the Neats won't do it for you unless you can get yourself to around the 250 or 135 mark.

John

quote:

---

Petites...

...need a 250 or above to do them justice.

---

I don't understand why the Neat Petite is allegedly such a pig to drive. According to the Neat site (www.neat.co.uk) they are 8 Ohm and 86db efficient, in other words about the same as a Kan I or II.

Over the years I have had so many people tell me that Kans are absolute pigs to drive that I actually came to believe it myself. I have finally discovered this is simply not the case, what Kans need is a really excellent source, a decent sounding amp, and good system set up. My 20 watt Nait 2 drives them fine, and whilst it certainly ain't a powerhouse it is a great amp, ok a 52/500 would be way better, but you get my point. I have heard Petites sounding really good driven by a Densen Beat integrated.

Is Bob S out there (I strongly suspect he lurks!)? He is the one who would know!

Tony.

I've heard Petites sounding fantastic on a 72/140 in the right situation. Rob Doorack (of 'Listener' magazine) uses them on the end of a Nait 3. Of course, he uses an excellent (vinyl) front end too, which helps.

The Petite will always improve with better partnering equipment. However, there is no reason to suppose that the 180 is not 'up to the job'.

Hope this helps,

Bob/Neat Acoustics Ltd.

quote:

---

I thought that speakers were controlled by the power amp. How would the front end be significant?

---

Standard front end first ideology: If you want to make a system better improve the source. An amp or loudspeaker can only reproduce what it is fed in the first place. I have found that if you want more scale, dynamics, punch, and most importantly music just improve stuff upstream.

Tony.

quote:

---

Standard front end first ideology

---

...until I heard my humble 140 seriously rocking when sourced by a CDX. Switching my CD3 for a CDX did much more for the apparant power of the system than switching the 140 for a 180. Deeper bass, much more slam, etc.

- GregB

Insert Witty Signature Line Here

BTW, the RR1 blows the Petites out of the water. Much more communicative, better frequency extension, more coherent midrange, etc. Don't get me wrong: the Petite's a good speaker, but the RR1 is something special.

The RR1 is also a very compact floorstander, so you don't need to worry about a stand, etc. Finally, it's designed to run with grills on, so you don't have to worry about curious fingers.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-

quote:

---

Why not borrow a pair from a dealer...

---

A quote from my original post:

quote:

---

I have to order the speakers sight unseen, as my dealer doesn't stock either. He's accommodating in terms of trading up, so I've no problems with not auditioning first.

---

I'm thinking maybe I should save for a 250 and worry about speakers later. It's ironic that the notion of massive "Naim watts" doesn't apply with speakers that actually sound good with Naim. But, "Creek watts"?
OTOH, some of my hifi heroes suggest I'll be fine.

That said, I should really act on speakers soon as there's no telling how long the Neat/Royd distributor will last in Canada.

There's more I want to say, but i'm off to work...

L8R,

Mike

In my experience (as Bob says) they just get better and better with better amps. The reason I mentioned that I recommended a powerful amp is that that is my experience - when looking for new amps I took them to the dealers and tried all manner of amps, Naim and otherwise, and consistently the speakers performed best with the powerful amps, regardless of the quality of the amplifier. That's not to say they won't work with a less powerful amp, it's just that when you've heard what they can do with a more powerful amp you won't necessarily be satisfied with any less.

I still regard them as a speaker in a million.

John

John

Enjoy!

John

Anyway, I was just going to mention that the little Creek, if you look at the bench testing Stereophile did, was able to deliver tremendous peak current and double down into low-impedance loads (i seem to recall maybe 380 watts into 1 ohm at 1% THD, at least in an instantaneous measurment). I don't think Naim can do the same.

--Eri

The concern was not a lack of slam or timing, but that of color.

For what it's worth, I also had my spica TC-50's on hand (a constant in my system for 8 years up until recently). And again, maybe they were not fully broken in. But they could not touch the spica's in the areas in which Spica's excell (Rob Doorack my disagree, as he has forsaken the Tc-50's in favor of the Neats). This I could not bring myself to do.

In the end I listen (not entirely happily) to a pair of SBL's on the end of a 250. I thought that even when I had them on the end of a 180, they soundly outperformed the petites (again, though--the break-in thing). You may disagree.

However, I don't think that anybody should buy a speaker of the SBL/Neat/Linn persuasion without an in home audition. In my experience, "Flat earth" type loudspeakers are an acquired taste, which many will never acquire. In my experience, a Neat (and SBL's, Kans, etc.) is unlike most speakers, and therefore can be a bit of paradigm shift for a new purchaser.

I urge an in home audition. $1700.00 is a hell of a lot to spend on a speaker sight unheard.

Judd

Your Nait 2 experiment sounds interesting, keep us posted?

Justin,

A paradigm shift sounds like the ticket, as no speaker has really done it for me yet. Your profile mentioned Proacs. I assume you ditched those for your SBLs?

I like the Credo, but it's too big for my room, plus i get an uneasy feeling with cabinets that big at that price range (resonation). Room interaction notwithstanding, it's time for me to move to smaller, soildly counstructed speakers.

I await the next issue of Hifi+ (locally) and the Royd RR1 review. If the guy says something like "we couldn't get the Royd to open up until we plugged in the 200 watt Crimson monos", then I'll be able to write that one off

My search for a new loudspeaker has brought me far and wide. I think I've heard everything (well, not "everything") and am still not entirely happy, despite having made a major commitment into a pair of SBL's.

Problem was, perhaps, too long with one speaker (the TC-50), which doesn't go high (and lord knows, can't go low), but simply does EVERYTHING right in the midrange. Plus they imaged very VERY well, which (despite all the claptrap you read on the forum about the deliterous effects of imaging) impart that one special quality in a loudspeaker after which I still searh -- presence.

I have read it called "intimacy" on this forum (and several other places). In my mind, it is the speaker's ability to project a palpable "presence", a visceral "beingness" to the music which to my ears, always sounded more real than anything else I've heard to date.

Others who have owned the Spicas will agree that these singular gems never deserve the injurious comments dropped on many of thier American counterparts (great sound, bad music). The Spica's were quick as the dickens and were incapable of dropping a beat.

Proac Tablette 2000 signatures seemed (on first blush) to improve on thier quality in every way. BUT, as I have found so often with small ported designs, the bass bloom (boominess) wears quickly. An engineered hump around the knees always turns my stomach after not too long. Mercifully, the Spica's didn't have this, didn't do this.

The SBL's, on the other hand, have seductive qualities of thier own (read "attractive" God knows, there's nothing "seductive" about SBL's). Oh that bass. What TC-50's did to the midband, SBL's did to the bass, and then some. So present. So palpable, precise and real (sounding). and AND, an extra 3 octive on top (Ah I kid you not--the proac's sound chopped off in comparison).

But damnit. I can't get the buggers to let loose the gates of confinement. I struggle with a dry, detached musical presentation which, in contrast to the proacs, which always presented the musical event "right here", presents the music event "over there". It's trapped in the speaker, right there 1 foot in front of the front wall. AHHAHAHA. You know what I mean? The SBL's (with my amp, my preamp, my power supply and my cd player) simply won't let the event out of the box (well, the upright bass and high hats are permitted to recreate "off the main grounds" so to speak), but everything in the middle must stay RIGHT THERE IN THE BOX.

Somebody wrote here several weeks ago that what he missed most when going to the SBL's was the "intimacy" he as a listener shared with the event, while listening with his other set of speakers. Going active, he asserted, restored this aspect to the SBL's. I may try it.

Everything else, I just love. And I'm working on the rest.

Judd

I've always wanted to hook them up to the Naim, but I'd need to cut off the Naim plugs. In any event, the reconing probably destroyed the IB seal.

As for SBLs, your description matches my impressions when I heard them. Paradigm shifting at its best. Consequently, I haven't heard anything since that's made me happy.
SBLs are out of the question for me, as I wouldn't touch them until I'm at the XPS/180 point never mind my flexy Gyproc walls and flexy ceiling. By then the SBL replacement will be out.

I talked to the dealer today and he reckons I'd be happier with the RR1. I'm still preoccupied with this decision...

The 50's are completely sealed. No boom at all. BUT, they need 18 inches behind and 18 on either side. Not to prevent boom, but to open them up. Against the wall, they sound like, well. . .like shit.

Judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Sae:
For curiosity's sake, if a 40 watt Creek gives 380 watts @ 1%THD @ 1ohm what does a NAP140 give @1 ohm?

---

I believe the relevant specs (for transient power output) are:-

NAP150 250VA
NAP150 200VA
NAP180 300VA
NAP250 400VA
NAP135 500VA.

NAP500? Well, it's a secret, apparently.

cheers, Martin

--Eri

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eric Barry:
IThe old school Naims don't. 140 has 45 watts into 8 ohms, 70 into 4 (as opposed to 90). 250 is 70/125 into 8/4.

---

The NAP500 is 140W into 8 ohms & 250W into 4, which is 10% short of doubling up.

cheers, Martin

Using a CD Player it sounds fine. In fact I would rather buy a better CD player first than another amp. However, the relatively poor phono section simply isn't good enough for my LP12/Ittok.

I intent to have a listen to a Nait 5/Stageline and the Densen B100 intergrated this week.

IMHO the RR1's would sound superb with a good front end and a 140.

Steve B

For those who have never heard them, the TC-50s were / are something special. The bass didn't go much below 65 Hz if that and they wouldn't play very loud. For best results you had to sit with your ears at precisely the right height, even with the lower edge of the tweeter opening in the thick felt blanket on the front panel. The speakers had to be pointed right at you. The lucky soul sitting in the TC-50's tiny sweet spot was rewarded with a midrange that was considered among the 2 or 3 best ever, at any price. The TC-50's midrange was seriously compared to that of Quads. The Spica's imaging was astonishing too, and unmatched by all but a few speakers.