Yet another speaker question. But mine is relatively specific: Anyone have any experience with the Intro IIs?

Posted by: Todd A on 02 February 2001

Well, I’m in sort of a dilemma here. I want to upgrade my main speakers - currently MA 700 PMCs, which I will keep – but I have run into Ye Olde financial brick wall. Funds for an upgrade are severely limited at this time, and I fear they will be for a few years. You see, my wife is demanding that we buy a house, and complying with her wish to do so will deplete my budget. And I really have no choice in the matter.

Anyway, I can spend up to around $2000 (about £1000 after tariffs and markups). Problem is, most of the speakers I really want cost more that that. The new MA GR 20s cost about $3500. Can’t get those. Sonus Fabers cost too much, and, quite frankly, I don’t like the new drivers as much and I noticed that the company is cutting costs by remaking the cabinets with a little less walnut. That blows the WAF. Vienna Acoustics sound a little too warm, though the price for the Bachs is right ($1500). I’ve contemplated some ProAcs – namely the Repsonse 1 SCs or Tablette 2000s, both of which I rather like – and I may be able to get a sweet deal on a pair of MA Studio 6s (probably around $1600 with glossy Rosewood – very high WAF), but these would essentially give me (maybe) a little more of what I already have: great detail and transient response, but not as much scale and oomph as I would like longer term.

So, based on what’s available in my area – and I will not make full day- or weekend trips to hear something that may or may not be better than what is available where I live – I may have boiled it down to the Intro IIs or Joseph Audio RM22si Signatures. To be certain, the Josephs are more round earth than the Naim, but they do everything I want very well and they fit in my budget. My concern here is mostly about the Intro IIs. Has anyone here listened to these long term and formed an opinion on their relative strengths and weaknesses? Would they be good speakers for me? (I do plan on a lengthy in-store demo this weekend and an in-home demo in the next few weeks.)

Of course, this depends on what I want, right? Well, I value PRaT, clarity, detail, and transient response the most. I must emphasize that speed is very, very important to me. I want to add scale and some bass extension, as well. The other hi-fi attributes – you know, “imaging,” ”soundtstaging,” etc – would be nice, but they are definitely not as important. And what I buy must be a two-way. I have yet to hear a three way costing less than about five grand that does it for me. So, do the Intro IIs sound like a good fit for my CD3.5 / Nait 5 / FlatCap2 rig, or is there something I am missing.

(Now some of you may recall a post I made a few months back stating that there are better speakers than the NBLs for less money, including some of the speakers I mentioned above. I still stand by that statement, but I also must bow to Financial Reality in my next purchase.)

Posted on: 02 February 2001 by P

I think you just awarded youself a Snappy type award for your last (bracketed) comment.

Come off it

You expect anybody to advise you with that sort of loaded agenda?

Really?

Please

Posted on: 02 February 2001 by Steven Phee

I got my pair of Intro IIs last year and have to say am extremely pleased with it. Sure the Credos are better, but twice as good as the Intro IIs (to warrant a price tag 2x as high)?... nah, don't think so.

My system consists of the CD3.5/Flatcap/NAC102/PSC/Flatcap/2xNAP140 (passive bi-amp). With the Intro IIs, it's simply great.

Steven

Posted on: 05 February 2001 by Andrew L. Weekes

I used a pair of these recently, whilst demming the new 5 series kit (112 / 150).

As I couldn't be bothered to take my Kans for the dem (too much aggro to move and set-up) I opted for Intro 2's, as I hoped the Naim speakers would do what I wanted.

My impressions of them are slightly coloured, as I feel they were not optimally set-up, being too far from a solid wall (I suspect they work better close to a room boundary like Kans). They were a couple of feet from the window end of a large demo room. The 5 series kit was also new and needed more time to run in (it was only unboxed on the day of my dem).

Nonetheless they were very musical, reproducing the rythm and timing information that a good system portrays very accurately, but I found them a little lacking in drive at low frequencies, I suspect as a direct result of their positioning within the room. They worked well with a wide range of music, easily revealing the differences when a Flatcap 2 was added to the CD5, then the 112. They certainly produced enough low frequency energy in this format to make bits of the room buzz in sympathy.

I'm not particularly sensitive to tonal errors in any Hi-Fi component, providing that the tonal aberration doesn't draw attention to itself (i.e. excessively bright (painful) treble or boomy bass) but I feel that I could live with a pair if I didn't have Kans, and was looking for a speaker in this price range.

They also showed the benefits of CDSII / 52 / 500 with ease.

Andy.

Andrew L. Weekes
alweekes@audiophile.com