imaging, sound stage, neutrality

need some power - particular about room positioning

comming out of the initial break in period, and enjoying these speakers so much more. the tweeters may still need some break in, but overall sound quality has improved dramatically over the month.

i recently found that bringing them 2.5 feet from the rear wall really opened up the sound and helped with mid clarity at loud(er) volumes.

DETAIL, IMAGING, SOUNDSTAGE, REAL MUSICAL SOUND, BUILD QUALITY and everything else!!!

None (Beat your heart out JBL)!!

Building an audiophile sound system requires time.

Last September I bought an excellent amplifier. After listening to a number of amps I bought an AVM evolution A2 amp. (AVM is a small german company which builds audiophile components) It combines audiophile qualities with a moderate price and excellent build.

To accompany this excellent amp I was looking for a pair of speakers. While reading both english and german hifi magazines I came across a number of interresting speakers.

First up were the B&W nautilus 805 and the Acoustic energy AE1 mk2. The B&W was a delght to listen to. It had almost everything I was looking for. It had detail, imaging, soundstage. What it lacked though was sparkle and the feeling of musicality. I found it to be to warm and laid back. The overall feeling I got was to look further for a different speaker.

Next up was the Acoustic Energy AE1 mk2. I can be brief about these speakers. They have sparkle, speed and build quality. What they lack is Detail, soundstage, imaging. They were no comparisson to the B&W's.

The Elac 310i Jet were much lower priced than the rest of the speakers. I was atracted to them because they have an aluminium casing and a jet tweeter. The speaker had a great soundstage. What it lacked was body and detail. This resulted in a lack of musicality.

Now came the two biggest contenders. The JBL ti2k and the Dynaudio contour 1.3 mk2. I had the opportunity to listen to these speakers in A-B comparisson.

I had read many reviews about the JBL ti2k and in all the reviews they were praised. In all the magazines they were positioned above the Dynaudio's. Furthermore they were sold in germany at half price of here in the netherlands.

What luck!! At my hifi shop (where I bought my amp) they had them for sale at a price less than in germany. I simply had to try them. I wanted to hear the difference between the JBL's and the Dynaudio's.

Man, were they dissapointing (the ti2k's of course).
They had everything against. The titanium tweeter was much too bright, they sounded too flat (no feeling of space), they sounded too analytical (the music didn't sound as it should have sounded). After a hour or so I got really tired of listening.

Meanwhile I was switching more frequently to the Dyn's. HOLY CRAP what a speaker. It sounded extremely musical whith a feeling of space (not only in width but also in depth) . Vocals were excellent. Detail was great. The bass was surprising. It sounded just like music should sound like. Balance is everything!!

A couple of days afterward I was stil thinking about the Dyn's. I have to own a couple of these beauty's. I'm now looking out for bargains. But whithin now and a couple of weeks I will be the proud owner of these baby's.

At this price nothing can beat them. PURE MUSIC!!!!!

Similar Products Used:

JBL ti2k, Elac 310i JET, B&W nautilus 805, Acoustic energy AE1 mk2

Ok, here is the report of my overnight comparison between the Dynaudio Contour 1.3 Mk II and the nOrh marble 4.0 (and the marble 7.0 too). Got them home
last night & immediately switched them in to my main music system. Listened to about half of an Ani Defranco CD, but noticed that there had to be
something wrong - they did not sound anything like what I remember from when I demoed them extensively a year and a half ago before I took the leap of
faith & ordered the nOrh 7.0. The 1.3's sounded dull, closed in, with sloppy bass. What gives? Then it hit me - the 1.3's were a 4ohm load & the multiamp is
not designed to work very well with low impedence loads. So, out goes the Multiamp, and in goes the Bryston amp. Ahhh, much better, just how I remember
them - punchy, percussive bass, detailed mids, slightly forward, and extended, smooth highs. Very very nice indeed - I really like this speaker. So, I listened
to them all night without switching out to any of my other speakers. The 1.3's were very well broken in, because they were demo's from the dealer, but I am
convinced that part of the "break in" process is the listener acclimating to the sound of a new speaker. So I gave myself that first night to "acclimate" myself
to the 1.3's. Ani Defranco, Johnny Cash, Vivaldi on original instruments, Holly Cole, Dianna Krall. I gotta tell you, I could very easily live with this speaker long
term. It has a very nice tonal balance, and has good detail without being bright (not an easy thing to pull off). If you are looking for speakers in the $2500
price range, these are a must audition - they are that good.

So, how do the marble 4.0's compare? Well, to try to get as close as possible to an accurate view of both speakers, I set them up both with a sub, and then
without a sub. So, out comes the RS SPL meter and the Stereophile Test CD. Measured from 20hz to 1khz, the 1.3 by itself measured +/- 1.5db from 1khz to
80hz, was 5db down at 63hz, back to +/- 0db at 50hz, then back down to -5bd at 40hz, and it dropped off the chart below that. With the sub on &
integrated to the best I could do, the response was +/- 2db from 1khz to 63hz, then +3db at 50hz, +4db at 40hz, +4db at 31.5hz, and +1db at 25hz. With
the 4.0 without a sub, it was +/- 1db from 1khz to 80hz, then dropping off rapidly below that. With the sub hooked in and calibrated, I got the exact same
readings that I did for the 1.3. Acoustically I have a pretty good room, a bit of a bump in the low end, but nothing too egregious. With the 1.3 the sub was
crossed over at 60hz & was set at -6.5db. With the 4.0 it was crossed at 80hz & again was set at -6.5db. Overall SPL's were calibrated to within 1db of each
other, so that loudness would not influence results. This was pretty easy, actually, because both speakers seem to have the same sensitivity. So, now that
everything was set up & calibrated properly, the question is, how do they sound?
Dynaudio 1.3Mk II and marble nOrh 4.0 comparisons
done
You are logged on as: Tyson



Reply | Search | Help | Log out | Preferences
(registration not required to post)

Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Previous Reply | Next Reply

AudioREVIEW Message Boards All About Speakers Dynaudio 1.3Mk II and marble nOrh 4.0 comparisons done


Current Message


Tyson
Feb-20-01, 05:07 PM
"re: Dynaudio 1.3Mk II and marble nOrh 4.0 comparisons done"
Well, first I need to tell you what music was used in the evaluation. I will just list the CD's I used in my evaluation here & report general observations of each
speakers sound after that. CD's used were: Holly Cole's "It Happened One Night", Buena Vista Social Clubs "Introducing Ibram Ferrer", Reid Paley "Revival",
Vivaldi's "Le Cetra" performed on original instruments by Europa Galante, Johnny Cash "Unchained" and "Solitary Man", Chris Isaak "Baby Did a Bad Bad
Thing" from the Eyes Wide Shut soundtrack, Fionna Apple "When the Pawn", Diana Krall "Love Scenes", Mozart "Piano Cto #25" performed by ASMF conducted
by Neville Marriner and Brendel as Pianist, Brahms "Piano Cto #1 & 2" w/Berlin Philharmonic and Eugen Jochum cond & Emil Gilels on piano, Beethoven Piano
Sonatas w/ Ashkanazy on Piano and Perlman on violin, and last but not least, Bach "Sonatas and Partitas for solo violin" performed by Milstein. I listened to
each piece extensively before switching to the other speakers, as I wanted to give myself plenty of time to absorb the "flavor" of each one's presentation.

On vocal music, artists like Johhny Cash, Buena Vista Social club, etc, I noticed that the 1.3's were quite smooth, had very good high end extension, and good
differentiation of the different sounds of the instruments in the band. Putting on the 4.0's, the highs seemed about the same, mids were not as laid back
sounding, wider soundstage & more seperation between instruments. Also, on the 1.3's, the vocals seemed a little overblown, a little larger than life. On the
4.0 the voices sounded smaller, but were more precise & natural sounding. Not as smooth as the 1.3's, for sure, but I thought they really caught the grit in
Cash's voice better. Overall the 1.3's were fuller and smoother sounding, while the 4.0's were more forward and detailed in the mids, with about the same
highs.

On classical music, it depended on what was being listened to. On the Vivaldi, the 1.3's sounded better than the 4.0's. Again, the soundstage was not as wide
as the 4.0's, but within that soundstage was quite a bit of variation on where different instruments were, the slightly different sound between various violins
that played variations around the line were more clearly heard, the tonal qualities between the violins and other stringed instruments were heard more
clearly. In this music, the 1.3's were very impressive. They were a bit "slower" sounding, but this had the overall affect of giving each instrument a bit more
room to differentiate itself.

Next was Brahm's Piano Concerto's. I expected the 1.3's to outclass the 4.0's like they did with the Vivaldi, but this time it was a different story. The 1.3's had
a terrible soundstage - all the instruments seemed to clump around the speakers themselves, and there was not nearly as much tonal variation amongst the
various instrument groups, really, only the piano and the horns had much distinction from the other instruments. With the 4.0's, the overall tonal variations
between instruments was about the same as with the 1.3's. But, the sound did not clump up around the speakers, it spread out widely and evenly, giving
more of an impression of a large orchestra. Other than the difference in soundstage, both speakers performed about the same on large orchestral pieces like
this. The 1.3's were a bit muddier sounding on large orchestral works.

Now, when it came to upbeat, rock tracks like Chris Isaak "Baby did a Bad Bad Thing", shockingly, the 4.0's were much better than the 1.3's - with the 1.3's
(which sounded very good, BTW), I was sitting there noticing the good depth, seperation of instruments, etc. With the 4.0's, I was rocking out in my chair, foot
tapping wildly, playing air guitar, the whole bit. Also, again the 4.0's had a much wider soundstage (huge soundstage on this track), the 1.3's again covered small inflections in his singing, sounded a little bloated, and overly smooth). Another thing I noticed about the 2 speaker - when you
turn up the volume, the 1.3's treble comes out more & more, while the 4.0's midrange fills out more & sounds richer than at low volumes. Again, on both
speakers, highs sounded about the same to me.

So, how did they sound on female vocals? Well, on Holly Cole the 4.0's sounded quite good, there was a nice breathy quality to her singing, vocal inflections
were very clear, in fact, the vocals seemed spot on. With the rest of the band, same story - wide soundstage, instruments quite distinct from one another, etc.
On the 1.3', Ms. Coles voice was too large sounding, the inflections were still quite apparent, but her voice seemed a bit lower in tone, but it did sound more
"$eductive", lu$tful is maybe a better term. Soundtage a bit pinched, partly because it was narrower, but also because everything seemed "bigger". That was
great on the piano & standup bass, as they are large instruments, but Ms. Cole seemed "oversized". Depth of soundstage was better on the 1.3's. On Ms. Krall,
the 1.3's sounded their worst - her voice sounded hollow & there was way to much "echo" around her voice. The 4.0's her voice did not sound hollow, it had a
lot more solidity, but it does sound like she was recorded in a huge, cavernous room - the reverb and echo behind & around her is terrible. I never realized it
before, but I guess this is a pretty terrible recording of the vocal track. The rest of the instruments sound fine. One other observation on these speakers that
held true on all CD's is that the 4.0's sounded a bit more forcefull in the upper bass, while the 1.3's differentiated between notes a bit better.

Well, that is the review. At lower volumes and with small band classical music, I definitely liked the 1.3's better - their texturing of each instrument was just
something the 4.0's could not replicate. But on female vocals, Jazz, large orchestral, and most especially rock at higher volumes, I preferred the sound of the
4.0's.

One thing that was quite obvious in comparing the 4.0 and 1.3 (and 7.0) is how much cabinet coloration is noticable, even on a very well done speaker like
the 1.3. In fact, if the 1.3 had a cabinet as inert as the marble norh cabinets, I am sure that the 1.3 would have handily outdone the 4.0 on almost every
count. The drivers them selves seem to be better on the 1.3, but they are degraded (IMHO) by their cabinet. The drivers on the 4.0 are not very expensive, nor
do they spec out super great, they actually should not sound as good as they do, but I think nOrh just got lucky putting these 2 drivers together in this
enclosure. They just seem to be synergistic way beyond what you would think, based on their price.

The last observation - appearance of both speakers. This one is easy - the 4.0's look waaaay cooler than the Dyn's. The veneer on the 1.3 is only good, but
the finished, polished marble and curvy $exiness of the 4.0 is just in another league. Side by side, the 1.3 looks a bit pedestrian and dull. Not that all MDF
veneered speakers look dull (for example Monitor Audio's Studio line is spectacular, as is nOrhs wood finishes). This is a personal opinion of course, as are all
aesthetic judgements, so I am sure some people will disagree.

Oh yes, I pulled out my wifes camera & took lots of pictures - I will post them all when I get a scanner in house (may be a little while, but you will get to see
them).

PS, after reading over my review again, I almost changed a good portion of it in order to throw the 1.3 in a better light - I felt that people just would not
believe my conclusions on these 2 speakers because of the huge price differential. But, I am keeping it like it is, not going to change a word. I call them like I
hear them even if it might cause some a bit of a controversy with some people.

Overall I am giving the 1.3 Mk II's 4 stars because they are very good speakers. But for value I am giving them 3 stars since the 4.0s are only $700

The usuals. Sound quality, power handling, bass response (for bookshelf, they are impressive).

Not the most efficient guys on the block. Picky about what you pick to drive them with

Hands down, I love these speakers. For the money, they beat everything else out there. I was all ready to purchase a set of B&W nautilus 805's, but someone advised me to check out dynaudio before purchase. I auditioned the Contours and purchased them one week later. Since them, no problems whatsoever.

If I had to complain about anything, it would be that these are not the most efficient speakers on the block. 86 DB in 6 OHM load makes for a "funky" load to drive. But I'm using a bryston 4B-st for this task, and that works quite fine.

If you are in the market for a set of bookshelf speakers, I highly recommend the Contour 1.3's. Excellent. Just make sure you have proper "hardware" to drive these guys, or else you will not be truly satisfied. Then again, is the audiophile crowd ever TRULY satisfied with any product? :)

Associated Equipment:

Electrocompaniet EC 4.7 preamp
Bryston 4B-ST
Theta Miles
Myryad MT-100 tuner
Nakamichi DR-10 cassette
Tara labs Air for all speaker and interconnects (except tuner and cassette, using RSC prime's)

Similar Products Used:

B&W nautilus 805, Dunlavy SM-1

Incredible coherence, more than adequate bass response.
A very musical speaker. Very dynamic at normal/high listening volumes.

Sensitivity means that they need power to drive them.
Also maans that at low volumes they are not very dynamic

Overall, these are the best speakers I have ever owned and that includes quite a few audiophile quality speakers.
Their bass response for a monitor speaker is astonishing. Those that say they do not get adequate bass from these need to change their front end equipment.
The treble is delicate and completely revealing without being bright and forward.
There is something that sounds just right when one listens to these.
Treble is not as liquid and sweet as the B&W 805's, but have mmuch better bas and overall are much more dynamic and musical. Totem 1's sound bright compared to these. M.L's are nearly as dynamic. Apogees don't sound as coherent, but are equally detailed.
An outstanding speaker.
Assoc. equipment: Krell 300i, Theta Chroma, Elite PD65,
Acurus phono, Audioquest.

Similar Products Used:

Acoustat, Apogee, Martin Logan, Magnepan, Metaphor, Paradigm, Tannoy, Totem, B&W 805's

Bass response,Midrange clarity,Dynamics,Balance

Transparency-Also a strength-see review

Upgraded from Epos ES-11 to Dynaudio Contour 1.3 mkII.As both speakers are similar sized, but sound so different, I thought the best way to do this review would be to do a comparison.

The Epos speakers have a soft high-end, smooth midrange, and light, slightly loose, but non-boomy bass.These characteristics produce a very pleasant musical sound that is forgiving of harsh or brightly recorded music.They aren't as dynamic or articulate as the Dyns though, and even casual listeners have noted that the bass response was a little light.Yet despite their faults I've always felt that even the pickiest audiophile would enjoy music played thru them. The Es-11's have been discontinued for some time but I'm sure the new model is fine and represents a good value as the Es-11's did.

The Dynaudio's are a vibrant and dynamic speaker.They have a fairly deep, extremely well controlled bass response.They are also extremely transparent.With a good CD,you can still tell that the music is coming thru the speaker,but it doesn't sound like it's being reproduced by the speakers themselves.It's like the speakers are merely windows allowing the music to flow thru.I have small kids running around the house, so my speakers are up on shelfs 4" from the back wall. I'm sure positioning the spkrs on stands away from walls, as recommended by the mfg., would result in even better results.

Transparency can bring with it some problems though.Some of my CD's don't sound as well recorded as I thought, and others just sound different then what I'm used to.I suppose equipment matching could be a problem as well. All I can say is that I could hear the difference between my Rotel and Marantz CD players.(The Rotel was a slightly better performer in my system.)

If you can't or don't like to listen to music at loud volumes, the Dyns have an added advantage.I have never heard speakers that sounded so full and dynamic at lower volume levels.Another suprise was that the Dyns don't appear any less efficient or more difficult to drive than the 8 ohm Epos were.

The Epos were certainly a good value for the buck.The Dyns being far more costly are a tougher call.No doubt the craftmanship and stunning cabinet finish add to the cost.I guess the value they represent depends on how deep your pockets are and/or how passionate you are about music.

I ordered my speakers from Steve at Sound Video as I have no local dealer.If you decide to buy Dynaudios and have no local dealer either I do recommend you call him. Look up Dynaudio Audience 50 and you'll find a little piece he wrote.



My equipment:
Rotel Rb 980
Rotel Rtc 940
Rotel Rcd 970
Marantz Cd67se
Tara labs Cd interconnect
Audioquest Indigo Spkr cable
Audioquest turqouise between pre and amp.

Similar Products Used:

Thiel cs 1.2,Epos ES-11,Mordaunt-Short Ms-10,Ads L-710,among others.

Clafrity, transparency, soundstage, imaging, bass

None with my system.

With my system and in my small room (16 X 10 X 7), this is a fantastic speaker. It beats all of the speakers listed above in all of the categories that matter to me.

I use a Pass Aleph 3, with only 30 w/ch, and get all of the loudness and dynamics that I need.

I'm not going to go into details about all of the things that this speaker does right, but I highly recommend that you listen to them before you purchase anything else near their price.

System:
Pass Aleph 3
Sonic Frontiers Line 2
EAR 834P
Sonic Frontiers SFCD-1
Oracle Delphi Mk.V
Rega 900/Goldring Excel VX

Similar Products Used:

Listened to Proac 1.5, Sonus Faber Concerto and Grand Piano, Monitor Audio 20SE, B&W 804 & 805. Owned Proac 1SC.

Excellent balance and bass. Very good imaging and vocal reproduction.

Retail price is pretty high. Some would balk as soon as they picked them up as they are fairly light in weight.

Very accurate reproduction of vocals and excellent imaging. Not quite as "real" sounding or enchanting as LS3/5a but better than Totem Model One. Good bass for a standmount speaker. I would go LS3/5a because they are just incredible, then Dynaudio 1.3mkII in a strong second with much deeper bass.

Similar Products Used:

LS 3/5a, Totem Model One