New speakers for me - The results.

Posted by: Tony L on 30 January 2002

This is going to be a bloody long post, so I apologise in advance…

I spent a very enjoyable evening with Bob and Derek from Neat yesterday. At about 7:30 they turned up with a van full of speakers. As I wanted to keep within certain budget / system synergy constraints I opted to listen to the Mystique, Petite, and a pair of IBLs they had knocking about at their factory. My ex-drummer mate Roger was around to lend an ear (singular) to the occasion.

What I hoped to learn from the proceedings threefold:

1. Is the aspect of my systems performance that I don't like down to the speaker / room interface?

2. Is the fact that I much prefer listening to some music rather than other stuff I like equally down to my current choice of speakers?

3. Is the Nait really good enough for what I want out of my system?

As many who hang out in the Music Room will have noticed, I have very wide "taste" in music - I can find stuff I love in just about any genre, so point 2 above is critically important to me. As this is the case I chose a quite diverse range of music to play. Here is the playlist, though not every single track got played on every single speaker.

Dexter Gordon 'One flight up' (vinyl) - One of my favourite Blue Notes. I used the first 5 minutes or so of Tanya. It’s a great example of the Blue Note sound, I love Blue Note records - my system has to do them well.
Mogwai 'Come on die young' (vinyl) - A absurdly good recording of a great post rock band, one of the best rock recordings I have ever heard. I used track 2 side 2.
Firehose 'It Matters' from 'Ragin' full on' (vinyl) - Unique pre-grunge / post Beefheart stuff from about 84 on SST records. My ultimate timing test, this band can turn on a sixpence rhythmically, and this track has it all.
Can 'Vitamin C' from 'Ege Bam Yasi' (vinyl) - This is me remember, I have to play some Can.
Grace Jones 'Slave to the rhythm' (vinyl) - Track 2 side 1. Great deep and solid bass line and excellent groove.
Grooverider 'Mysteries of funk' (vinyl) Side G track 1. Excellent jazzy drum 'n' bass. A stunning cut with some ultra deep and tight bottom end (some notes are completely below the Kans bass rolloff!).
Mahler '9th' Bernard Haitink on Phillips (vinyl) - About an inch and a half in on side 4! (notice my eloquence with classical music). I am not a massive classical fan, but would like my system to do it well all the same. I have about 100 classical albums. Classical does not work on my system as it stands.
Billie Holiday 'Songs for distingue lovers' (vinyl) - Track one side one. Fabulous swinging jazz. A truly stunning piece of vinyl.
Frank Sinatra - 'Songs for swinging lovers' (original mono vinyl) - I bought this when I had the ProAc Tab Sigs, and this is the one record that they did stunningly well. I never enjoyed it since. A system has to do Frank. Right?
Kings of convenience 'Quiet is the new loud' (CD) - Track 4. Small scale acoustic stuff. A beautifully recorded CD of some quite remarkable music.
Lambchop 'What another man spills' (CD) - Track 1. Excellent piece of alt.country with a really cool slightly post rock feel.

Right, onto the speakers - remember I the following is purely my perspectives on the following speakers performance in my room driven by my system. I am not stating absolutes.

First up Kan IIs. Where to start with a speaker that I have used for the best part of 13 years off and on (and way more on than off), and in about six different rooms. I know exactly what they do and what they do not do. They are not too happy in my current room (hence this whole listening session). The Dexter Gordon sounds too light in the bottom, and really draws the listeners attention to the brass and snare. They sound very open and detailed, but very biased towards the midrange. The Kans absolutely love the Firehose track, and also do Mogwai, Can, Lambchop, and Kings of convenience really well indeed. Their forte is IMHO rock music in a small room, and in that context they are hard to beat at any price. They absolutely hate Mahler and Frank, sounding very wrong tonally on either.

Next in was the Mystique. Immediate culture shock. I was simply not prepared for the sheer difference in presentation between these and the Kans, it took a couple of tracks to adjust. Tonally the Mystique is far darker than the Kan, and it has one hell of a lot more bass extension - I would say at least an octave more, and I do not use that term lightly like many reviewers… I'm a bass player! Once I began to adapt to the new presentation I realised beyond any slight shadow of a doubt that my plan to change speakers to fill this room was correct. So that is question one answered conclusively. I initially thought the Mystiques to be a bit shut-in, but after a few tracks worth I began to think of them being flat and the Kans being too brightly lit in the mid. The Mystique is not a speaker that shouts "look at me" at all. It is IMHO remarkably well balanced. The whole speaker is beautifully integrated right from the top to the bottom, and they really worked in my room showing a really, deep powerful and controlled bass that was totally free of boom. I spent a hell of a lot of time with this speaker and played all of the albums listed above, all were dealt with evenly - I could not catch these speakers out. I really like the Mystique, they suit my system and room fantastically well. I had the feeling that I could happily play any musical genre and that the system was in total balance.

Third up was the Petite. This sounded far more familiar, I stand by what I have said in the past that the Petite is a slightly wider bandwidth Kan with a far flatter response. I felt I was back on home turf in a way. That strange tweeter is amongst the best I have heard anywhere, it is remarkably extended and clean, in fact I was surprised my self with how much treble extension I have left in my ears! The way they do brushwork on cymbals is amazing. The bass is a little tighter and a lot less extended than the Mystique, and somehow it did not integrate to my room as well. Like the Kan it favoured the rock and smaller scale stuff I played, though it definitely faired way better with Dexter Gordon and Billie Holiday than the Kans, and they were great fun on Can, Mogwai, Grace Jones and Firehose. Frank was not quite right though, he sounded to lean. I insist that Frank be kept happy with any future speaker choice. I liked the Petite a hell of a lot, and I would rate them as a stunning choice in a slightly smaller room. They also left me with the feeling that they were just a little too revealing for my system, they weren't exactly shouting 52 / 250, but they did slightly hint at it. I would recommend any Kan fans out there with high end stuff up front give a listen - they really are better Kans.

Finally IBLs The pair in question are a really nice condition black ash Mk 1. I know I'm going to piss some people right off here, but I don't like 'em! The top end is fabulous, the tweeter does cymbals etc nearly as well as the petite, certainly they are more open here than either the Mystique or Kan II, a lot of this is tonal balance though, they are very bright. Its lower down where things go a bit pear shaped (remember I am only talking about my system / room here). The IBL is way more coloured than the Kan! The mid band / upper bass sounded hollow in a really bloody weird way, and they really did not have enough bass to drive the room. Low notes sounded overdamped and artificial. The Mahler was hopeless. Frank was not happy. I would like to hear a pair in a small room with rear wall reinforcement, I suspect if the bizarre tonality could be straightened out a bit they would be excellent. They are really fast and tight, and the top is excellent, but that ain't enough for me. I very much prefer my Kans. I have obviously not done a great sales pitch on these, but I strongly suspect they are available if anyone wants them - they are in stunningly good condition. For the record the Neat dudes reckoned the IBLs sounded way better at mine than they had done anywhere else!

So, I'm buying a pair of Mystiques! I will land a pair as soon as I get my next job. They answered all my three questions. The system just felt right, the synergy was back, it was full range, fun, and could play absolutely anything I threw at it from Dexter Gordon to Grooverider to Mahler to Firehose to Kings of convenience to Can etc, it played them all equally well which is so important to me. The Mystiques really did Frank too, what more can I ask.

There were no differences of opinion between those present, we all liked the Mystique in this system and room context. So, finally, that’s my bloody hi-fi done.

Tony.

[This message was edited by Tony Lonorgan on WEDNESDAY 30 January 2002 at 11:10.]

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Alex S.

I'm gald that your love affair with Kans is over, all good things come to an end, and with careful planning they can get even better.

quote:
My ex-drummer mate Roger was around to lend an ear (singular) to the occasion.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope he didn't slice one off in a fit of artistic angst.

Alex

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Tony L

quote:
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope he didn't slice one off in a fit of artistic angst.

No, he has been totally deaf in one ear since a childhood. The ear in question is a bloody good one, though he has been known to mutter that his Gale 401s ain't got enough bass (I have never heard a speaker with more!). The really bizarre thing is that he can work a mixer really well in stereo!

Tony.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Andrew Randle

...and some Sam Fox records. P9, CDX, and now Mystiques, you're halfway to reaching "God-Status".

Andrew

Andrew Randle
Currently in the "Linn Binn"

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Dave J

Hi Tony,

Congratulations. Don't know how we'll spend our evenings now that you're sorted, we'll miss the thread and its offshoots - it's been better than Dallas!

But what a great service from Bob and Derek. Is this what ordinary mortals might come to expect from Neat?

Cheers

Dave

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by garyi

Damn, I lose the bet.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Lars

This is great news for me. I'm also thinking of changing my Kan II:s for something else, whithout having to upgrade my amp. I've been looking for a small nice looking floorstander and this could be the answer! I'm using a nait 3 which I'm about to replace by an incoming nait 2 (new style). It seems to me that the nait 2 had no problem handling the Mystique's. Is this correct Tony or are you going for a bigger amp?

My problem is that Neat speakers doesn't seem to have a distributor in Sweden. Is there any Swedes out there who knows more about this?

Rgds,

Lars

It Kan be done!

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Tony L

quote:
It seems to me that the nait 2 had no problem handling the Mystique's. Is this correct Tony or are you going for a bigger amp?

I had to turn the Nait down from the volume used with the Kans to keep the volume the same. The Mystiques are definitely more efficient than the Kan IIs, as were the other speakers here.

The Nait sounded great with all these speakers, and showed no signs to my ears of compression / lack of grip, though please bare in mind I listen quietly (never above quarter too on CD). The Nait is fine, in fact its more than fine, it’s a bloody stunning little amp. Remember mine is pretty much due for a recap too…

Please post your findings when you compare the Nait 2 to the 3, this is something I have never done.

Tony.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Lars

How much do you pay for a pair of Mystique's in the UK?

PS. Interesting about the volume, I thougt the sensitivity was 86 dB for both KanII and Mystique (at least according to the Linn/Neat), but in the real world I guess the sensitivity of a speaker could be +/- 1 dB even in the same batch speakers. I guess the most important thing is that the pairs are matched.

Rgds,

Lars

It Kan be done!

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Tony L

quote:
How much do you pay for a pair of Mystique's in the UK?

About 800 earth pounds I think.

quote:
PS. Interesting about the volume, I thougt the sensitivity was 86 dB for both KanII and Mystique (at least according to the Linn/Neat), but in the real world I guess the sensitivity of a speaker could be +/- 1 dB even in the same batch speakers. I guess the most important thing is that the pairs are matched.

The measurements for both are probably taken at 1Khz, a point where the Kan has loads of output! God knows what the Kans efficiency would be if it were measured at any point under say 100Hz. The Mystique is dramatically more full range, so sounds way louder for a given volume.

Tony.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by bob atherton

Well done on sorting out your new speakers. I enjoyed your detailed findings. You have absolutely in no way pissed me off about the IBL's. The thing that I really have a problem grasping is that you found them to be more coloured than the Kans.

Sure they may have an individual presentation, highs, lows etc. etc.,.....but as a Kan & IBL owner I am very surprised at you finding the Kans less coloured.

Enjoy your new babies.

Bob.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Simon Jenkins

Tony,

Shame you didn't get to use MK 2 IBL's, would have been very interesting to see how much closer these were to the neats, especially as an IBL' mk2 user myself.

Simon

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Tony L

quote:
Sure they may have an individual presentation, highs, lows etc. etc.,.....but as a Kan & IBL owner I am very surprised at you finding the Kans less coloured.

Two points that may explain this:

1. I use Kan IIs, and they really are quite a bit less coloured than the Mk 1s.

2. I have used Kans for over 13 years, so have probably built up quite a large immunity to them - they are after all the speaker that I have heard most of my records for the first time on. I do not claim to be impartial!

The Kan was definitely in the most favourable position in this shoot out, I have heard them in many different rooms over the years, so I really do have an indication of what they are capable of. I have in the past had Kans sounding absolutely stunning in some of the smaller rooms I have owned, so in some ways I was inadvertently comparing one instance of the IBL against 13 years experience of the Kan - not fair I am sure you would admit!

Attempting to remove past experience from the picture, and purely going on yesterdays shoot out: There is absolutely no doubt that the IBL is better at the top end, the treble region is really open, detailed, and clear, and much more extended than my Kans, but they screwed the voice up to my mind really badly. Kurt Wagner from Lambchop sounded like he was singing down some kind of cardboard tube in comparison to the way my Kan IIs do his voice. The IBL had a really weird tonality, the only way I can describe it is to think of a guitar phaser effect, but with it locked in one position not swirling (I even checked all the connections as I thought something was wrong). The bass sounded ultra-fast, quite tuneful, but totally false, hollow, and empty.

I really wanted to like the IBL, they were by far my cheapest option, and I have always greatly respected JVs views on all matters hi-fi, and he absolutely loved them. I am sure it is to a large amount a room synergy thing, but either of the Neats I used simply took them outside and shot them. I knew within a few seconds that they were not working for me.

Tony.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by bob atherton

I understand where you are coming from. I think my room & system were just made for IBL's. The room has an inherent bass boom problem & the tightness of the Naim's in THIS room works perfectly. I can quite understand how things could be different in YOUR room & system.

At the moment the IBL's are passive with one 250, I am just about coping with this but looking forward to getting the active rig back up again. I think a NAIT might not be enough to get that IBL magic.

I did an Ittok, Ekos & Aro dem years ago & the Ekos clearly came out on top. Not just me but the other 3 people in the room also felt the same. I'm quite prepared to believe that in different circumstances the Aro may have won the day, but one has to get the kit that sounds right.

Best wishes,

Bob

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Nigel Cavendish

Tony

Glad the "angst" is nearly over.

I listened to a pair of Mystiques at a dem of my 3.5 and found them very similar to my Royd Minstrels. The Mystiques had better treble, the Minstrels better bass but only marginally in each case. If you happen across a second hand pair of Minstrels it might be worth a go...

cheers

Nigel

p.s. hey! you like a ported speaker!

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Andrew L. Weekes

As a fellow Kan user with I believe a similar outlook your findings are very interesting, thanks for taking the time to post your detailed analysis.

The Neats will be on my try list, when I finally decide I want more bottom end from a Kan-like speaker.

One quick question for either Bob or Tony are the Neats a boundary loudspeaker - I cannot have anything that doesn't work hard up against a wall, in my relatively small listening environment.

For this reason IBL's or SBL's were looking to be my favourite candidates, it seems there are so few speakers I'm aware of that work in this room.

For example Credo's boom like buggery unless almost 0.5m away from the wall, at which point it becomes difficult to enter or leave the room!

Thanks,

Andy.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Tony L

quote:
p.s. hey! you like a ported speaker!

Scary isn't it! They don't sound ported at all, I quizzed Bob and Derek about this, and the port is very low Q and not really used for bass reinforcement, more as a controlled vent to the box. It is not the kind of port that typically sticks a low drone note at the point the driver / cabinet roll off to give an illusion of bass. The proof is that it works, and that is not something I say often about ports!

Tony.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Tony L

quote:
One quick question for either Bob or Tony are the Neats a boundary loudspeaker - I cannot have anything that doesn't work hard up against a wall, in my relatively small listening environment.

They work quite close to, but not hard up against the rear wall. I let Bob and Derek plonk 'em and they ended up somewhere between 6-10" inches away from the back wall. They are not an imposing speaker, and I suspect that if you use the far larger Kan stand base as the foot print you have now then the Neat would only be a few inches more forward. I notice they ended up way closer to the rear wall in my room than Mike Sae has his judging from his web page. They did not actually feel that much more physically imposing in the room than the Kans.

Tony.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Joe Petrik

Tony,

Glad you found a speaker that meets all of the Lonorgan criteria. The contenders had a tall order to fill so I was a bit skeptical you would find something you prefer to Kans. The good news is you did and for under a thousands pounds.

As you know I had the Mystiques on an extended home dem last year and was more than impressed -- they do justice to all kinds of music and, what's more important, they do music. The only reason I didn't buy the pair is that they didn't beat the Sorcerers on everything. (I'm at that stage in hi-fi-dom where an upgrade has to be across the board since partial upgrades always cost more over time.) Plus I heard Vuk's Elites at around the same time, so I know what the better Neats can do.

Joe

P.S. Oddly, I had the same problem with the Petites -- they are better than Mystiques but didn't work in my room. And I'll probably lose some FEPs for admitting this publicly but I never got on with Mark 1 IBLs when I tried them a decade ago.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by ken c

i used IBL's either side of a bay window a long time ago, after Kan 1's. coming from Kan 1's they lacked the "get and and boogie" of the Kan, but they had this very sweet and refined top end which i missed, even when i upgraded to the big brothers later. one of the reasons i upgraded is my obsession with "scale" -- they sounded lightweight in the bay window area -- about 6" from the small bit of back wall i had.

i still have my Kan 1's.

tony L, congratulations on finding the speaker that provides music in your home. i dont know anything about neats, but i know my dealer uses a neat at home.

my next speaker change is a much simpler one -- the sbl replacement -- might also give the nbl a careful audition while i am at it.

enjoy

ken

ps: i like your point about a hifi system being able to play styles "across the board". i will have more to say about this later...

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Mike Sae

Well congrats! What finish will you be getting?

quote:
I spent a very enjoyable evening with Bob and Derek from Neat yesterday. At about 7:30 they turned up with a van full of speakers.

Mother of pearl, that's some fine service. Do they live close by?

I'll e-mail the CEO of Harman International and invite him to bring some Revel speakers over, as I'm curious as to their compatibility with my NAP140.

quote:
I let Bob and Derek plonk 'em and they ended up somewhere between 6-10" inches away from the back wall

Mine are about 20" inches, but every room is different, eh? Did they place them closer together than normal? BTW, what's all this inches nonsense? As subjects of the Empire we should be talking centimeters!

quote:
Tonally the Mystique is far darker than the Kan

Interesting, I found the RR1 and Credo to be darker than the Neats. The Kan must be quite the halogen lamp.

quote:
I had to turn the Nait down from the volume used with the Kans to keep the volume the same.

Did you have to fluff the volume much going from Mystiques to Petites?

Did the subject of Mana soundbases come up at any point?
When they come in, please do post some pics. I can hardly wait.
How many FEPs do I get for predicting Tony's new speaker?

Smugly yours,

mike

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Mike Sae

quote:
Oddly, I had the same problem with the Petites -- they are better than Mystiques but didn't work in my room.

Care to expand on this? I suppose it wasn't a small-speaker-in-a-big-room issue, as your Royds are up the the job.
I don't recall ever reading of your Petites experience.

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Bob Edwards

Tony--

Congratulations on finding your next speaker! Selecting a speaker can be highly problematic, especially when you have a speaker that is fantastic at what you value most highly. Enjoy!

Cheers,

Bob

Posted on: 30 January 2002 by Keith Mattox

Like the others, I didn't think a speaker would ever beat the Kans in what you were looking for.

I heard a pair of Elites at the local dealer North of San Francisco. They're on my short list for whenever I think of new speakers, though I'm also saving my Kans for when I get a better room for them.

Cheers

Keith.

Posted on: 31 January 2002 by Joe Petrik

Mike,

quote:
Care to expand on this [Petites being better than Mystiques but not working]? I suppose it wasn't a small-speaker-in-a-big-room issue, as your Royds are up to the job.

Demming the Petites was frustrating. Within a few seconds I could tell they rightfully deserved their reputation as music makers. But the problem was they didn't have enough bass in my room. Well, let me clarify.

If I placed the Petites where they sounded best musically, the bass was too thin. If I moved them closer to the rear wall to reinforce the bass the sound got fuller but the bass went one-notey. I suspect the rear porting might be responsible for this.

The Sorcerers, on the other hand, just get more full sounding the closer you put them to the rear wall, until the last few inches where they also go one-notey. Sorcerers are ported in the front so I suspect you can put them closer to the rear wall before the reinforcement works against you.

In short, I could get the Sorcerers to provide a full sound -- well, within what's possible from a 4.5-inch driver in a shoebox -- and still play tunes but I couldn't do the same with the Petites.

I talked to Mike Pranka, the U.S. Neat rep, about this and he thought the dedicated Gravitas stands would help ;-) but that would have put the Petites way out of my price range.

quote:
I don't recall ever reading of your Petites experience.

I didn't want to say anything publicly because I thought it would come across as damning for Neat when the real problem was that the Petites simply didn't work in my room. (Room mismatch is a possibility with any speaker. I've heard Briks sound bass-shy in some rooms and I know it ain't the speaker's fault! And I've heard Kans sound boomy in another, which ought to violate the laws of physics or something.)

Joe

Posted on: 31 January 2002 by Top Cat

...but on re-reading your original post, I got the impression you preferred the Petites. Any reason why you ultimately chose the Mystiques?

I have always sung the praises of Neat speakers and the Neat guys are among the friendliest and most helpful people you will ever meet. Wonderful company, deserves to be much more widely known in this industry.

FWIW, I'm a wee bit disappointed you didn't go for the Petite - it would be nice to have an ally in here ;-)

TC '..'
"Girl, you thought he was a man, but he was a Muffin..."