NBL's: Class B?

You know better, I know better, we all know better. Kindly put Sphile where it belongs.

Cheers,

Bob

PS--That sigh of relief came from Chris K of NANA who will now not have to waste his valuable time explaining Naim to those who just don't get it.

I haven't read the review, but am sometimes amused by the way they try so hard to justify their unbalanced and sometimes warped views on the equipment they review; and when it comes to Naim components in general, the tendency is almost always to judge it based on the context of their systems, which not surprisingly were often clearly a mismatch.

Nothing really wrong with basing their views in the context of their systems - all reviewers do that - but the concern is whether they understand fully (or can't be bothered with) Naim's philosophy in the first place, ie their components are designed to work optimally in a Naim system, not out of (with perhaps the only exception being the CDSII). They should be aware of this, but somehow haven't been excercising the "system context" option. I suspect it could be impractical and "boring" if they had to transport an entire Naim system to the reviewer's place for every Naim review. Wouldn't be logical either. Nevertheless it still proves an interesting read to see how a Naim component fares in the context of a more "universally applicable" system. But we all know almost instinctively where the views would be headed...

I have been following their reviews on Naim in particular over the years, and the systems that the Naim component was "chucked into" were very often not ideally matched... Michael Fremer's review of the CD2 a couple of years back was rather spot on, but the system context in which he heard the CD2 was certainly not.

So I am resigned to the fact that their reviews have to be taken with an unspecified number of salt pinches.

Having said that, of all the reviewers, I do have better trust for Martin Colloms. It's a personal view of course, but I have found him to be relatively impartial in general, and truthful so far. His review of the NAP 500 was informative, seemingly not very favourable at first reading, but it was honestly balanced, and although the 500 for him missed the bull's eye, he did say that in the Naim system context, it was definitely more at home. I also appreciated his saying something to the tune of the 500 offering us Naim afficionados state-of-the art, reference calibre music replay : sounded balanced and fair to me.

Of course, the 500 will always be OUR "hero", as are the NBLs, DBLs, 52, 01 and rest of the Naim chain we so cherish, no matter what the others say.

Bob perhaps sums it all up best : you know better, I know better, we all know better...

Happy listening all; the music's still groovy.

Philip Pang

naimniac for life

naimniac for life

For one thing, the review was written by Paul Messenger, and done in the context of a serious Naim system: CDS2, 52, 135s, which he owns. You're not going to find a better review context than that, certainly not from anybody else writing for Stereophile.

The review itself is quite honest. The problem comes in that the OTHER reviewers for Stereophile drool all over stuff that can't carry a tune in a bucket, and give that megabuck gear "Class A" ratings. Paul Messenger knows about DBLs. I presume he would put them in class A. So for him, Class B is pretty high marks.

If all the other reviews in Stereophile were written as honestly as Paul Messenger's NBL review, Naim products would stand out among the crowd more than they already do. It's all in the context. Don't get worked up about it

quote:

---

Chris and I had a phone conversation about this review a couple of days ago, when we got Stereophile in the mail. He was, of course, disappointed by the review. I didn't think it was so bad.

---

And it wasn't-consider the fact that it measured as well as it did...most of the people who frequent this forum will understand the significance of most of the measurements, compared to the other speakers reviewed in the October issue.

Frankly, any press in the States (amongst three magazines) is good press, as long as it's honest. The mere fact that a product might make it through the mill is significant in itself...

And, when a reviewer has to resort to musical terms, it's a pretty good sign that they've been distracted from the usual icy analysis.

Dave Dever, NANA

[This message was edited by David Dever, NANA on FRIDAY 22 September 2000 at 06:58.]

Ahhh, now that the cat's out of the bag... I'm a little surprised, as he did an NBL review for
Hi-Fi Choice just recently - do they not sell copies of these in the States?

Philip Pang

naimniac for life

I have heard the NBLs with both 135s and 500 (but neither in active mode) and so have some sort of comparative reference. PM seemed to find the NBL too "forward". Others have said this too (at the demo I heard with a 500). Now I use SBLs which may explain why I like the NBLs (although I think they are very different overall) and don't find them too "forward" at all.

IMO the NBLs are brilliant with a 500 but I think pretty damn fine with 135s too. I would really like to hear them active at one point with 250s/135s and see how this compares to the 500. I believe that Cliff is the only person to comment on this so far.

By the way, anyone else see that very negative/almost funny Mana review in Hi-Fi Choice - I think (I was browsing at the newstand). The reviewer claimed that the Mana "effect" is purely additive and that you really don't need to put your equipment on the stand at all - just have a Mana stand in the same room as it will sing/ring along just as well creating that special Mana sound!! (Vuk, try this at home!)

Obviously not a Mana fan.

Paul

In the reviewer's defense, the NBLs aren't that great, especially for the money. At ten grand in the US, I would have expected better. Granted, I've only heard them at a dealer and only hooked up to a CDX / 52 / 135 rig, but the overall performance is not something that I would fork over that type of money for. It's excellent sound, mind you, but not the best I've heard and not worth the dough.

I can think of a number of speakers I prefer that cost much less. Some ProAcs, some Monitors, Totems, Avalons (yes, Avalons, but just the Opus, though they cost more), and some others. Of course, I'm generally more of a two-way kinda guy so I'm naturally predisposed to not be especially impressed with a three-way.

It's the electronics that drive my speakers that matter. That's where Naim is superior.

Bravo to you for voicing such an opinion here ! That said, I find myself in complete agreement with Vuk--but let me explain a bit !

I have owned ProAcs (the 2.5s and Studio 1), have heard every Avalon made, and my local dealer is a Totem dealer. I (and others, probably) would be interested to hear from you two items: which specific speakers (from those manufacturers) you have heard that are better than NBLs; and in what specific areas of performance you deem them better in.

Cheers,

Bob

PS--Vuk--I think he is in the running for a Snappy

Now, as for the other speakers, I prefer the Monitor Studio 20s, yes the 20s, to the NBLs. Why? Clarity, clarity, clarity. And, oh, I don’t know, “low-level detail retrieval,” “timbral accuracy,” “blah, blah, blah.” And - how to write it? - just an “ease of presentation” that the NBLs lack. While I like the pushy sound of Naim electronics, I don’t want it in my speakers. This preference for Monitors should not come as a surprise when you consider that I currently use 700 PMCs.

The same general description goes for the ProAc Response 2.5s. Yes, the very 2.5s you mentioned. And even the horrendously affordable Response 1.5s! And as for Totems, I've heard the Mite and the Model 1 (I believe it was the signature version, but I can't remember) and liked them a whole lot, too. Why? Same reasons, basically. I like my speakers smooth sounding.

Oh, and one thing specific to the NBLs, aside from the fact that they’re particularly unpleasant before broken in, is that the bass has a “springy” or “boingy” quality to it. That’s the best way I know how to describe it. Didn’t like it. Doesn’t sound like the live drums and bass that I’ve heard.

Now the above defenses of my tastes may not be sufficient for everyone, and, well, I don’t care. The point is, for those who missed it: I just prefer other speakers, and I most adamantly do not sit around and analyze the sound of every speaker. I sit and listen to the music. Hence, the quotation of familiar review babble; I have to point out how silly it is to pinpoint all of the reasons why speaker X is better than speaker Y. That defeats the whole purpose of using Naim gear, doesn’t it? I just prefer the overall presentation of other speakers, particularly two-ways, and can’t itemize every reason why – I don’t jot them down while sitting in a Ribbon Chair or anything. I prefer the music that comes from small boxes, the Avalons excepted. Perhaps it’s that there’s a more coherent presentation (no quotes here) that even the very best three-ways can’t duplicate. Perhaps it’s my general aversion to bass reproduction, most of it unconvincing and overpowering. I don’t know. But I’ll take the Studio 20s over the NBLs. Now if someone were to give me a pair of NBLs I’d take ‘em, but I could not drop ten grand on them, even if I had the disposable income.

This is probably still insufficient for some. I accept that. You see, I just haven’t spent – or wasted? – as much time as others neurotically comparing gear and hunting for the correct adjectives and phrases to describe why Monitors sound better than Naim (GASP AGAIN!!!). I spend my shopping time at the local CD shop deciding which set of Scriabin piano sonatas to buy next. Now there’s something to spend time doing!

And come on guys, it’s not like I said I like Wilsons, or Wilsons driven by Krell. (I had a bad listening experience with these products, so do forgive me if you – generically – like that stuff.) If that happens, just block me from the site.

[This message was edited by Todd on FRIDAY 29 September 2000 at 16:56.]

tw

Thanks for replying--I hope you will forgive Tristram (sp?) for, I think, referring to you. I hear what you are describing when you talk about other speakers ref the NBLs (don't own them, I have SBLs, and have not heard MA speakers in a LONG time). Actually, I agree with a lot of what you wrote, and I think it illustrates that different people will listen for (even if unconsciously) different things. To put it more colloquially, different things will float different boats.

I think the only speaker I would actually address is the ProAc 2.5. It is a great speaker at many things, offering superb smoothness, extension, grip, detail, and just a gorgeous sound to listen to. Having owned a pair for 3 years and swapped to SBLs, I think I finally just got bored with the 2.5s--they were not offering to me as much musical insight as SBLs do (even if SBLs passive don't sound as "pretty"). However, IMO this is merely a reflection of taste colored by my musical experiences over the years.

Again, thanks for replying--good stuff !

Cheers,

Bob

To me these speakers have an innate speed and ease of drive which makes the best of whatever signal they're fed. They give excellent results even with a CD3 as source, but show massive improvements as the source gets better.

By comparison, sn SBL seems to require an impeccable input - anything less will be ruthlessly revealed. I think this stems from their control, which needs a lot of driving to come alive.

I've heard the NBLs twice. A pre-production pair at the factory on 6x135s sounded superb - seamless, natural, neutral, with tremendous clarity and openness. There was a bit of a treble sting on peaks, and something was not quite right in the bass, but there was something fundamentally right about the sound. This was, after all, not the full production speaker.

At last year's Hammersmith show (with production speakers and 3xpre-production NAP500's) both the treble and bass issues were completely absent. My only complaint about that sound was the absence of sub-bass, something this year's passive 500/DBL system did with incredible ease at the expense of some room problems in the mid bass. I now wonder if the SNAXO last year had the bass knocked back very slightly to cure the room problems at the expense of some bass weight.

In two different top-flight systems the NBL has acquitted itself admirably. I think it would be a superb marriage of the strengths of the Isobarik and the SBL, both of which can be blinding in a well setup system.

Martin

Arthur Bye