|   ? for nOrh owners | Mwalsdor@cscc.edu
Apr 22, 2001 7:43 AM | | Between sipping my favorite roasted bean and watching another animated video with my son, I came across a product review of the nOrh 4.0 loudspeaker. Knowing the interest and devotion this line seemingly instills, if judging only by the volume of product posts, I was curious of the opinion from end-users on the review's more pointed comments.
I'm paraphrazing; keeping in mind the product (delivered direct from manufacture) cost, my criticism reflects my association(s), nonetheless. >With the punchy bass, robost but lean (?) midrange, and attractively bright treble, the nOrh 4.0's have an overall sonic character reminiscent of what $1000 and up high-end two-way speakers sounded like ten years ago<. Reminiscent of TEN (10) year old speaker technology! How do you nOrh owners feel about that? Is this guy out-to-lunch or does he accurately summerize this product? And if so, is that what all the nOrh fuss is about; delivery of dated technology at a substantial savings?
The complete review was published in TAS April/May 2000. The reviewer
was John Marks, with peer comments provided by Neil Gader. Understanding this product is not typical for the publication in question or the reviewer responsible for those remarks, my motive for posting was born out of a curiousity for the products appeal and the reaction to such reporting. I realize part one of my query would best be addressed with an in-home listen but I can not fully justify (in this case) a product audition I have no intention to purchase, so I defer to the loyal nOrh-ite's.
MikE |
| re: ? for nOrh owners | Marbles
Apr 22, 2001 9:01 AM | | Mike,
$1000 and up two way loudspeakers, even 10 year old $1000 and up is not bad company to be in for $400 dollar delivered speakers.
In the audio world, 10 years is not very long. We are still using tubes, and much of the amplifier technology was better in the late 70's, early 80's for the mid-fi equipment than it is for the mid-fi equipment now IMHO (although there are a lot more bells and whistles now).
Speakers have moved ahead faster than other audio related products however, and I beleive the tweeters have gotten the benifit of much of the improvement. The lowest speaker in the nOrh line does not use the best tweeter on earth. It uses a very nice Vifa. The article reviewed the wood 4.0, and the reviewers mentioned that this was the lowest priced speaker they could remember reviewing (if I remember the article correctly) They also called it a bargain.
I thought overall the review was very positive of the speaker.
The only comment I did not agree with was when they said there was a bass hump in the lower octave. I found the speaker to be very flat.
I will say I do like the ceramic/marble 4.0 better as it sounds more neutral, and punchy.
The fuss is not about delivering dated technology at a bargain price, but about delivering wonderful sound at a bargain price based upon what other speakers are delivering for the same or greater price.
To restate, the wood 4.0 is the lowest speaker in the nOrh line, and at $400 it delivers a higher quality sound than other $400 speakers do by a long shot IMHO. That is what the fuss is about. |
| Thank you gentlemen | Mwalsdor@cscc.edu
Apr 23, 2001 5:24 AM | | I appreciate your thoughtful remarks on this real world-priced product that apparently delivers REAL satisfaction. I realize technology does not become useless or invalidated just because a new technology is adopted, my amplifier is an example of design principles from the 30's, that has been updated with current knowledge and technological-advanced parts to deliver (IMO) unworldly performance. I also realize that every review/comments need to be put into the perspective of the one making those remarks, and weighted against their past reviewing style, associations and unique personal preference. I to was - as often as not - left with more questions than answers by some of the reviewers statements; "robust but lean midrange". Seems like a contradiction. And does the "attractively bright treble" reference. Perhaps he was just being kind, but bright associated with treble is not a compliment. Thanks again for sharing your insight on the nOrh discussion.
MikE |
| Mike, I'm curious.. | Marbles
Apr 23, 2001 12:10 PM | | What is this unwordly amp?
What world does it sound like it comes from :-) (just kidding)
I am curious about the amp though. |
| God, I thought | Mwalsdor@cscc.edu
Apr 23, 2001 5:45 PM | | Everyone knew! It's the Valve Amplification Company pa 35/35 (EL-34 powered) triode amp. First, let me say I'm completely smitten by the "VAC Sound"; warm, romantic with good PRAT, as the Brit's say. Next, this amp retailed for $3300.00 last year, it is no longer in production. There are no curcuit boards, with all wiring point-to-point, including hand-wond transformers, multiple grounding schemes, 2/4/8 ohm taps, user-selectable feedback (including ZERO).
The particular short-comings of this amp (truncated treble extention/soft bass) have been dramatically addressed with the numerous mods I have performed on her (see how smitten); vintage (n.o.s.) Mullard (1969) xf2 dual-getter EL-34 power tubes, Mullard (1970) "Cryovac" ribbed-plate 12au7's in the input/splitter stage, RCA (1957) blk-plate 5963's in the driver stage. A Shuntaya Viper v2 power cord delivers ac and the stock footers have been upgraded to a combo of Vibrapods (rubber) and B.D.R. "ThoseThings" (carbon fibre) bases. The whole assembly rests on two (2) 3cm polished granite slabs with Vibrapods between, which itself is displayed atop a (lead-filled) Lovan triangle rack.
In addition, the BMI Whale pc's I'm using have also tremenously improved the bass performance of my system. A stock VAC sounds wonderful to my ears, my amp after the particular fine-tuning measures I've incorporatd transforms her (there I go again) to - as noted - transcendental levels of performance. My comments, I believe, are typical of VAC owners. THANKS for asking!
MikE |
| re: ? for nOrh owners | Tyson
Apr 22, 2001 12:07 PM | | Yes to the punchy bass comment
Emphatic no to the bright treble comment
Yes to the robust midrange comment (but I would say "clean & clear" rather than "lean")
2 things I really wish they would have done on this review is mate them with a good sub (imo, the 4.0's sound a bit "thin" on their own), and most especially compared them to other speakers in the under $1k price category.
But overall, I agree with them, the wood 4.0 is "a bargain" ie, very good for the $$. I personally don't think the wood 4.0 has much competition until you get to the ACI Emerald or the Dynaudio Audience 42 (both are very good at their respective prices). However, I think the marble/ceramic 4.0's are clearly a few steps up & can keep up with many >$1k speakers out there (that I have heard). |
| re: ? for nOrh owners | gle_helle
Apr 22, 2001 12:21 PM | | Just tell me they don't sound like the Klipsch bookshelves I listened to. |
| re: ? for nOrh owners | Tyson
Apr 22, 2001 12:26 PM | | They don't sound like klipsch at all. Think Dunlavy or Dynaudio type sound. |
| re: ? for nOrh owners | Paul
Apr 22, 2001 5:18 PM | | Hi Mike,
I response just out of my curiousity as well. As we discuss before, a audio system should start from source and from source to predriver stage is a complet low signal system and should be as transparent and neutral as possible. On the other hand, poweramp/speaker combo is were personal favour comes to play. There isn't a lean sounding speaker unless you know what power amp sound. Sometimes when reading reviews, we need to know reviewers' taste. Some reviewer likes big powerful bass and don't care about about speed and pace (Tom Norton comes to mind). This is very contrast to Marin Collin who rate PRAT as his top priority.
Paul Lam
P.L.C.Lam Consulting Inc. |
| re: ? for nOrh owners | DueN
Apr 22, 2001 6:42 PM | | I don't know what a speaker at >$1000 and up 10 years ago sound like, but I do know that today, $1000 and up two-way speakers can sound totally different from each other. I know I'm not helping here...
I haven't seen the review. I don't know whether the reviewer was commenting on the wood of the ceramic/marble version of the 4.0. They're different beasts. However, I would have to disagree with the bright trebble comment. And I'm not sure I understand (honestly) the term "lean midrange". I'm only familiar with the term "lean bass".
Regards. |
| |
