ARO - again?

That’s a very interesting set of choices/preferences. I’m encouraged that you found the SME better than an LP12. My LP12 went a while ago as I just couldn’t get the bite and impact from vinyl that I get from CD and flacs but I still hadn’t/haven’t heard anything that quite hits the spot that an LP12 does. I’ve never had a 52 at home but every time I’ve heard one it has just been so reliable. I also think, for me at least, it irons out the final quibbles I had about that era of 250, which is the one I’m used to and like best. Not that I don’t like the classic one (? I think I’ve got that right). Paul once lent me a 282/SC/250 for a show and I was dead impressed at quite how sophisticated it was. Really astonishingly measured, controlled and detailed, which actually wasn’t quite what I’d expected but it was unquestionably very good. Now, are active Kans still Linn speakers? I kinda wouldn’t say they are. I can put those two drivers in a box, build it just as well and you’ll get the same thing. (Actually, I could probably match the drivers better than they did back in the day. I wonder if any of us matched drivers in the 80s, aside from KEF, of course. It makes surprisingly little difference - obviously excluding gross errors.)

I wouldn’t worry one iota about that deficit in clarity versus modern stuff. Modern clarity is often tiring and is often achieved by using aluminium or similar drivers. I’ve been that route and it’s a dead end. Naim’s choice of paper coned drivers is the right one (and that’s from someone who has used plastic coned drivers for decades). They’re lighter, better damped internally and they interact with the surround far less. That tiny sensation of not having quite the last soupcon of clarity is exchanged for more and richer detail, with more body to everything. I was quite a late convert to paper for anything that involves midrange and was a little disappointed with myself for it taking so long to recognise its qualities.

1 Like