What’s so bad about Naim Speakers?

The only ‘bad’ thing about Naim speakers is - they like being active! :rofl:

Or too expensive

I haven’t had the option to hear a 808 in passive mode with a NAP 500DR to get an impression of the difference to my active system with 3 x NAP 250 DR.
I only listened to a 808 in passive mode driven by a Statement. This was a clear improvement compared to my active system.

1 Like

The options on speakers driven in active mode are limited. In my opinion the 808 have a lot in common with the NBL Naim sound I liked enriched in all aspects. So for my decision there was no need to search for alternative speakers.

1 Like

I thought that the orthodox view is one 500 passive is better than 3 x 250´s active and one statement better than 3 x 500´s active for about the same price considering crossovers, cables and fraim cost. Does anyone disagree with that ? Where you end up partially depends on where you started from of course.

Wonky active like I have to save money only really makes sense with Ovators and the BMR doing mid and treble plus two bass drivers. If my S800‘s blow up or get too old I am not sure what I would do.

There’s a current thread on active:

Impossible to answer. Depends on the speaker, how good the passive crossover is and so forth. If we’re talking Naim speakers, then yes I guess it might be true. I’d not make a wider generalisation though.

I think it requires a 1:1 comparison which is difficult to set up. I’m with active since 30 years and I like it. Especially when listening with low volume active delivers a homogene sound within the whole frequencies.
If somebody has reached that level of system what we are comparing we all have to spend a huge investment for minor improvements. So In my case I’m more and more questioning if I want to spend the money for other stuff :wink:

1 Like

Same here. I’d also challenge the orthodox view, unless by orthodox you mean uninformed. There can’t be that many people who have had the opportunity to compare 3 x 250 vs 500. I’ve gone the active route which is definitely preferable in my opinion with Isobariks. Although more modern speakers may display less difference between active and passive, at that level the difference becomes less a blank statement of better vs worse and more a case of different. There are champions of both camps here who do have the comparative experience.

Hi…I love both the ibl and sbl…close to the wall is a major requirement. I have a lovely pair of black naim ibls’ and am the original owner and could be persuaded to part at the right price? Verekers favourite speaks for smallish rooms. Do need good source and amps.

For what it’s worth I own SBL’s, Intro’s and also reviewed the SL2 for HFN. That generation of naim speakers really were pretty unique - they were blindingly fast and managed to have a very transparent top end that was only rarely harsh. They also had the benefit of being ‘backs to the wall’ designs which in my experience are easier to accomodate in a typical British house. As for the looks I have to say I remain a fan - in particular the slanted front of the SBL/DBL and SL2 is very attractive to me.

Their flaws though are that their extremely dry bass response can make them sound lean, especially on less well recorded material like a lot of 80’s rock (REO Speedwagon, Heart, A-Ha, T-Pau etc) whereas they sound incredible on things like Tracy Chapman, Tanita Tikaram and the like. I think it’s fair to say the bass is very tuneful, it just isn’t really fulsome or even realistic and the presentation (at least on the SBL in my room for around 20 years) lacked a certain weight and scale.

From the little I have heard of the Focal range they seem to be cut from an entirely different cloth and are a more mainstream in their sound - closer to B&W than naim’s original speaker line in my view.

For my part I discovered ATC and fell totally in love, I just felt I had found the sound I had been searching for all of my life. My SBL’s were too good to sell and so they currently operate as rear surround speakers for cinema in the main system. They’re in near mint condition in beech, I bought them for full retail cost around 1999 (£2550) and I doubt I will ever part with them as my wife and I bought them together just after we met so they hold a lot of memories! Meanwhile my ATC SCM40 MK2 passives continue to amaze driven by the NAP250. They do everything the SBL’s do in terms of speed and agile bass but sound a lot more ‘full bandwidth’. Ironically in some ways they remind me of DBL’s!

Jonathan

14 Likes

I have recently changed from pmc 20.23 to passive atc scm 40, the pmc went lower, but much leaner/dryer sounding whereas the atc is much fuller sounding capable of truely trouser flapping experience, both speakers will not reproduce bass that is not in the mix. I think it’s down to personal preference on dry vs fuller sounding , you’d need to hear the original recording on the mastering equipment (unlikely) to say if a particular speaker was presenting an accurate reproduction of an cd/lp afaik both pmc and atc are used in recording studios at least the professional versions, I don’t know if this has any bearing in comparison with Naim speakers.

“Need to hear the original recording on the mastering equipment” … where the recording is the reference, the amplifier and speakers used by the mastering engineer are not necessarily more “right” than the listener’s own system at home. They may sound better, they may sound worse. It’s a case of … whatever sounds best to the listener, is best. (Not to say there won’t be some degradation of the recording as it travels along the path to the listener’s source equipment, but there’s no legislating for that).

I agree with you, at the end of the day it’s down to what sounds best to you

4 Likes

Couldn’t resist the topic but it’s a bit like throwing raw meat to sharks! Guided by the helpfulness of others in this community, I realise my current room doesn’t favour my SBLs but I love the sound on the whole - they are so clear and articulate and depending on the source, give good bass. Good, but not great. Agile, detailed, sufficient for the room if I’m honest, but not hefty, and I prefer the bass to blow me away. Love the looks. I’d have to spend a chunk to replace them - and I can only really put speakers against the wall for reasons of space and domestic harmony…

I’d try and sneak in some DBLs if an upgrade was planned. I’m going to check out the new ‘active’ thread too - I suspect the SBLs could still give more, so will look for pointers.

[quote=“CalamityJack, post:147, topic:15477”]
I’d try and sneak in some DBLs
[/quote] :joy::joy::+1::see_no_evil:

1 Like

The SBLs can be quite wonderful driven actively. Have done so with 4x135s and 2x300s. They just get better with the better the amplification.

I always liked SBLs after attending a Naim evening in a Chadderton hotel when SBLs were the new product. The first track played was Thirteen Question Method by Ry Cooder played on an LP12/Ekos/Troika IIRC. Active with 135s.

Sadly I was never in a position to get a pair. :flushed:

Without this ending up being an SBL thread, I wanted to add that my SBLs were brilliant with my Nait2. Bass was tight and mids detailed. In some ways better than my 250.

I suppose, what I’m trying to say is, I think they are a good speaker. There are undoubtedly better speakers out there but they work for me and have no urge to change them.

I think Naim did well with these, and the fact that there is a debate says a lot.

1 Like

Must admit from a business perspective I’ve never understood that. The cost of a bigger amp is always going to be less than 2 (or 3) of the smaller amp plus SNAXO/SCAP. So it never makes sense to go active with anything less than a 500DR setup?