NBL vs SL2 vs SBL

Posted by: Norman Clature on 03 November 2002

I currently have CDSII/NAC52/NAP500 (on FRAIM) with SBL's. Despite the accolades being thrown at the NAC552 I believe the next upgrade to do in my system should be directed at the speakers. Not only that I am not ready to splash out the amount required to buy a NAC552.

Comments elsewhere suggest that the SL2 is a substantial improvement on the SBL in performance. However, a while ago I heard one in store demo of the NBL's with CDSII/NAC52/NAP135's and was pretty much impressed with what I heard.

Has anyone done a comparison between the NBL and SL2 ? If so were the NBL's significantly better or not ?

NBL owners seem most enthused about them. But I'd be interested to know whether they are a significant step up from an SL2. I have picked up on mixed thoughts about this elswhere in the forum.

Your thoughts ?

Cheers

Norman
Posted on: 03 November 2002 by Manu
Different speakers for different tastes, situations.
NBL have more weight in the bass (a lot more), they have more authority, more dynamics, they have more subtility and cohesion in human voices.
SL2 have more air and subtility in the highs, they image more!, they are easier to drive (but you already have a 500).
On the practical side: SL2 are easier to position.
With the NBL, you have one more parameter to deal with when positionning: deep basses.
So, NBL are better speakers, no doubts IMO, but SL2 are easier to live with.
It is very important you audition them in your room.
NBL are generally awesome, but simply doesn't work in some rooms.

Emmanuel

All opinions are my own, and reflect those of the organisation i work for, even if not stipulated.
Posted on: 03 November 2002 by Norman Clature
Thanks Emmanuel. All good information.

Did you ever compare the SBL and SL2 ?

If so did you feel the SL2 is a big step up as many people are saying (although a few have suggested they were not impressed enough by the difference to let go of their SBL's) ?

Norman
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by Timbo
I love my SBLs!!
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by jpk73
See the following posts about my SBLs / NBLs:

post 1

post 2

My NBLs are now fully warmed up. I still run them off two 135s, for me this is already much better than active SBLs! And I am absolutely sure that I will not go back to SBLs.

- Jun

[This message was edited by Jun Keller on MONDAY 04 November 2002 at 14:12.]
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by ken c
quote:
Ive taken a strange way but have now ended up with a pair of SL2.


interesting, i am thinking along the same lines. barik -> kan I -> IBL -> SBL -> SL2?

enjoy


ken
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by Jonathan Gorse
Norman,

The SL2 are a very significant step up from the SBL. They offer more and better articulated bass, clearer detail retrieval and create a far more spacious and three dimensional soundstage.

I can't comment on how they compare to NBL, not having had those in my own system.

Jonathan
Back to SBL's and missing the SL2's!
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by Norman Clature
Thanks for all of this insight thus far. It always impresses me on this forum that people give of their time to pass on useful knowledge in order to help out.

I have now just been told by my dealer that within the near future I will be able to demo both the SL2 and NBL's at home. Up to today a demo of both was looking very unlikely, hence my question. So that will obviously be the acid test. I will feedback my findings when it all happens.

Keep the insights coming.

Thanks

Norman
Posted on: 04 November 2002 by Jens
Hi Folks,

It's interesting how perceptions change over time. Maybe when you first get the new speakers, since they do things differently you may not always think the change is for the better. Take the time to read Jun's various posts. When he first got the NBLs he thought they were different, but not necessarily better than his active SBLs. After a little more time it seemed that the NBLs might have the edge afterall. Now-after some months I guess, there's no doubt in his mind-they kill his earlier set up.

I reckon speakers are probably the hardest things to compare. When you improve your source, or your amplification, the impact is pretty obvious. Soundstage increases, there is more PRAT etc. With speakers it's much harder. Some seem to do one thing better than another, at the expense of something else. The only way to really do it is to live with them for a while (at least a weekend) and see if you are happy.

Cheers,
Jens
Posted on: 05 November 2002 by jpk73
Jens, indeed, I agree!

The only thing is that although the NBLs bass is much better than SBLs, the bass now seems to be a little less controlled than with active SBLs...

Hope this would be resolved when going active!

- Jun
Posted on: 05 November 2002 by Stephen Bennett
No one has commented on the SL2's appearance. What an ugly brute! That '70s foam sceen sticking out over the top! The ridge down the side! What's that all about? It's like they have taken the lovely Allees and the quite nice NBLs and asked someone to make them less attractive. If the foam had fitted or been more like the Allae fronts and the front wood flush, they would have looked great.

Can someone explain why they look this way?

Regards

Stephen
Posted on: 05 November 2002 by Rockingdoc
Size, size, size.

If you want small speakers, you won't beat the SBLs.
If size is no object, why not do it properly with DBLs.
Posted on: 05 November 2002 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
SL2 looks georgous in real life!.


And this from a Swede - the people who invented great design in wood!

I'm so dissapointed. wink

regards

Stephen

[This message was edited by Stephen Bennett on TUESDAY 05 November 2002 at 15:05.]