Bookshelf speakers for naim nait 3 & rel quake
- Thread starter Bob793
- Start date
Depend on price I'd say.
A Nait should have no issues driving Keilidhs.
I ran mine with a little LK Majik amp.
If placement as bookshelf you might get a decent price for the Qstones.
A guy had his Kabers placed vertical on top of 2mtr bookshelf furniture. Quite heavy speakers.
Allaboutmusic
pfm Member
The keilidhs minimum power requirements 60 Watts into 4 ohms would suggest the nait might struggle, I believe the nait 3 is 45 Watts into 4 ohms?
torstoi
pfm Member
Interesting...could it be possible this baffle tightening applys to the ES14 as well..?
I ask because a while ago I got an Exposure X, was looking for an ideal partner for a smaller system in another room & stumbled across lots of storys about the ES14, said to be develloped with or on Exposure amps etc..
So I got one, placed it 1,5m from the back wall (quick& dirty) next to a pair of Kan
just to get an impression..
The Kan gave tight engaging presentation & delivered a good musical insight,
the ES14 sounded disconnected, unengaged and generally appeared like a kitchen radio vs the Kan somehow.
More like a divorce than a love affair I expected it to be on the Exposure X.
Maybe I shouldn't have stopped at that point & it really needs to be setup perfectly before delivering..
Would you generally suggest an ES14 should be at least in the same league as a Kan ?
Doen't have to sound the same, but somehow convince in it's own way..
What I heard was nowhere near what I had expected from several reports,
I was a little shocked how bad the Kan declassed it that moment
that I packed it away & haven't touched it since.
Should I give it a second attempt whith near perfect setup
or is it general consensus that it's a fairly nice speaker as long as you don't have a Kan to compare to..?
I thought it might make an interesting alternative and be even better in some aspects at least ?
Jimbobbyron
pfm Member
I had a Nait 3 for a couple of years. I originally used it with JPW AP3 speakers then castle Chesters as well as some big monitor audio stand mounts. The Nait struggled with every pair of speakers I tried with it. Traded the Nait3 for a Nap140 which I used with a Nac42 (£5 find at a car boot sale) Massive improvement. Possibly an idea to try a different amp. I am not a fan of the Nait3
Caledon1297
pfm Member
Epos ES14s were designed using Naim amplification (32.5/Hi-Cap/250, IIRC); I imagine that Farlowe era Exposure would also be a good choice, though an X might be considered a 'bit modest'?
The ES14 instruction leaflet suggests placement about 250mm - 500mm from the rear wall, and according to their designer, Robin Marshall, they are designed to be used with the foam bungs in the ports.
The ES14 instruction leaflet suggests placement about 250mm - 500mm from the rear wall, and according to their designer, Robin Marshall, they are designed to be used with the foam bungs in the ports.
Caledon1297
pfm Member
I guess it depends on the room size, preferred listening levels etc., but I never had any problems with the Nait 3; predominantly used with ES11s, I also used it when trying various other speakers, without obvious difficulties, though I typically listen at modest levels.
Jimbobbyron
pfm Member
I found it to be ok with very simple well recorded music but with anything else it was far to hard sounding and ran out of steam even at modest levels.
I am not Naim bashing as my move to a Nac42(which I traded for a Nac72)and Nap 140 suited me far better and used them for around 22 years.
torstoi
pfm Member
My source, a hifi technician who said he visited John Farlowe in the 90s, claims he was told the Epos14 was designed on Exposure. (or the Exposure X was designed on the Epos14..? I'm not 100% sure now which way around.)
Anyways, I just read the Epos14 greaty profits from the Exposure's damping factor of 30
which made it a perfect match.
Interestinly even a much higher damping factor orlower damping factor will let the Epos not perform optimally.
A damping factor too high, i.e. 200 or similar, which many high end power amps and classA amps have,
may let the Epos14 (maybe11 too) sound vailed and lifeless.
It could well be I put the Epos14 to my Ampzilla to show it's best...and not the Exposure X as stated above.
(in a 'that's better anyway'-manner)
In that case it would explain why the Epos didn't sound at all, but the Kan likes power a lot & doesn't care a flying f about damping, performed great.
I've got those foam bungs and they are in great nick too -as is the entire speaker.
I shall repeat the experiment & if the Epos is coming alive in some nice way on the X, I may really go and try
it with a 32, HiCap, 250.
Does the 250 really have a damping factor of only 30..?
I think it might be a 110 is perhaps rather in this region and might be a better balanced option ?
Is there damping factor specs known for older Naim amps ?
It might be a part of the key of why Epos speaker sound good or not in some cases.
torstoi
pfm Member
Internet wisdom has the damping factor of Nait amps quoted with 14 or 15,
some quote 20 for Naim generally & one source is
quoting the 150,200 and 250 (probably newer versions) with a DF of 30.
So the damping factor with the Nait may be a little low / not perfect.
The Epos are said to better be carefully matched with the amp.
some quote 20 for Naim generally & one source is
quoting the 150,200 and 250 (probably newer versions) with a DF of 30.
So the damping factor with the Nait may be a little low / not perfect.
The Epos are said to better be carefully matched with the amp.
torstoi
pfm Member
Excuse me if I'm asking again..it's because I'm really interested.
My source, a German technician claimed he met Farlowe by then and also that the ES14 was designed with and on Exposure electronics.
Now this is second hand information & I'd agree it's a bit strange if some German is telling you how some equipment has been designed in England by then, when there is a good chance that some on PFM may have 1st hand experience how it really was.
Anyone else having memorys about the time..?
I'd agree from the perspective of a 250 the X is pretty modest..although in other applications it worked astonishingly better than I would have guessed, despite it's obvious lack of power.
Caledon1297
pfm Member
Robin Marshall used Naim amplification, and according to an interview I found online (from 2006? 2008?) still did at that time; He said that he used a Naim CD player, and specifically mentioned the 250. Annoyingly, I can't find the interview any more.
Back in the day, as mentioned, and IIRC, he used a 32.5/Hi-Cap/250.
Also, a couple of 'interesting' posts from 2017:-
Back in the day, as mentioned, and IIRC, he used a 32.5/Hi-Cap/250.
Also, a couple of 'interesting' posts from 2017:-
I would love to hear a side by side comparison. I was told that this has happened with Robin Marshall, someone brought in an amp and it steamrollered the NAP250 (I'm not exactly sure how tho), but he just said "Nah, it's rubbish put the 250 back on"
westsounds
pfm Member
Robin Marshall used Naim amplification, and according to an interview I found online (from 2006? 2008?) still did at that time; He said that he used a Naim CD player, and specifically mentioned the 250. Annoyingly, I can't find the interview any more.
Back in the day, as mentioned, and IIRC, he used a 32.5/Hi-Cap/250.
Also, a couple of 'interesting' posts from 2017:-
I'd love to meet Robin Marshall
Yes, mine were single wired, they worked really well
Craig B
Re:trophile
They would originally have had SPKR 015/1, but could have been upgraded to SPKR 015/2 and/or SPKR 015/3* at some point
Linn Products Ltd. said:
torstoi
pfm Member
Caledon..thanks for the effort of diving up with some good info,
I think I'll make something out of it and stick to one of those suggestions in your quote.
Bob, sorry for the light sideways push.