Think the pinnacle of Naim speakers was the DBL, not exactly pretty
How many of these do you see for sale
And more often than not the DBL owners are full active 3x500 and 552 or S1, read through the forum
I’ve heard the 808’s at a very well respected shop in the midlands with an exceptional TT. Mine
Got to say the 808’s are a million miles away from the DBLs, and I was seriously considering buying them when they came out
I think I would only look at the M6 as a possible replacement, 9 out of the question
But even the 6 needs to be away from the wall which then means a new house just for the speakers, which would add a new dimension at least for the speaker placement threads
When I bought my dibbles I knew I was buying my last speakers
Not heard anything to change that opinion
I listened to DBLs only once in a demo and this is long time ago. So I can’t give a statement to difference between DBL and Titan 808.
I owned NBLs for 16 years and replaced them with 808 one year ago. Both speakers were/are driven in an active Naim system. The 808 are for me perfect followers of the NBL. They deliver more in all aspects soundstage, bass performance, details of the recordings, etc.
My speaker journey has had only a few stops and changes …
First serious speaker was Mordant Short Pageants, then I got the Linn / Naim bug and bought Linn Kans.
Moving abroad gave me more disposable income and along came active SBLs; they lasted about 15 years and were replaced by a pair of secondhand s600s.
What do i like about Naim speakers is hard to define. I was seduced by the concept of active speakers when I bought the Kans in the mid 1980’s and I have not waivered since. Unless I down size my home and lifestyle, and inherit a fortune, I won’t change my speakers again.
This is something I have pondered and the conclusion I’ve come to is that the SL2s do bass very accurately. If bass is there on the source recording you will get it from the SL2s but what they won’t do is create overblown “hifi” type bass when it isn’t there.
I remember years ago some advert saying something along the lines of “if you can’t tell if it’s a Gibson or a Fender you aren’t listening to Mission speakers”. Last night were were listening to Mountain’s Nantucket sleighride and my missus says “Gibson Thunderbird” and true enough on research Felix Pappalardi used a Thunderbird for it’s recording. Not bad for an instrument that is often buried in the mix and hearing the bassline is a challenge let alone identifying the instrument
No even half-decent speaker creates bass that is not there! Certainly nothing that could possibly by any stretch of the imagination be called high fidelity. The question is, when there is low bass - e.g. low C on a 5 string bass guitar or doubke bass, or a Similarly low sustained pedal bass note, do they reproduce at at the same relative intensity to the rest if the music as it is in the recording? (Or, as the relative level in the recording is usually unknown, as it is live.)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
