advertisement


Should I Buy These Isobariks?

Mike Hanson said:
That's hilarious. Believe it or not, I've got a bunch of Mana from back when I was an acolyte of the Church of Naim and the Flat Earth crew. :D

My main rig is on a 5-shelf rack, with 5 Sound Stages below it. I guess that puts all the gear in the shelves at "Phase 6". On top are two Sound Frames, which means that my seldom-used Planar 3 is at "Phase 8". :eek:

I've also got a little 3 shelf Mana rack in the family room.

I was pretty sure it helped my Naim gear back in the day. I've no idea whether it's helping my current equipment, but I haven't felt the need to change it.
Click to expand...
Have to say that Pog’s CDS/Phase n Briks played Yello’s Motion Picture more entertainingly than anything else I’ve heard.
 
I used a pair of a pair briks passively with a 250 for about 8 years in a large room. Yes, they are tremendous fun but but I found them fatiguing and vocals and chamber music sounded very unnatural to the point of being jarring. Previous speakers were keilidhs and small atc floorstanders, and the briks suffered from comparison (I'd get another set of keilidhs in a shot if I needed a second system at some point). I moved to atc passive 40s, and was worried when selling the briks, that potential purchasers would want to listen to the 40s out of interest, because the briks sounded broken in comparison.

I'm sure you'll have a good listen and your ears will be the arbiter, but I would really baulk at the asking price, especially if they need new tweeters.
 
I suppose the main difference between Bariks and ATC is that Bariks can sound really bad if not aligned properly, whereas ATC are astonishingly immune to siting issues and sound much the same wherever they are placed.
 
david ellwood said:
I suppose the main difference between Bariks and ATC is that Bariks can sound really bad if not aligned properly,
Click to expand...

Considering that Briks go back to a wall, are not toed in and seem to work well in small and quite narrow rooms , alignment is somewhat limited; you can't alter your ceiling for the upward-firing mid and tweeter and proper stands are essential. No idea about ATC but at least you'll have more flexibility in positioning them, I guess.

The experience of Sean K above mirrors my own (250/early Briks?) and his findings likewise but I moved on to ProAc Response 3s with their very different requirements of free space, toeing in and experimentation for optimal positioning. The Briks' wall of sound and gut-crunching (where recorded) bass gave way to a wide soundstage for imagery, faster and clearer transients and a more musically satisfying flow and integration, esp. with classical.

Despite having a dally in the interim with SBLs as a stop-gap (cool, unemotional presentation, albeit precise), I'd lived with Briks long enough to realise they were yesterday's speakers; a successful if flawed product of the Linn-Naim epidemic (pandemic, even !) of the 70s and 80s though later incarnations were presumably improved; active was, in my limited exposure to these, a different kettle of fish.

Oddly or not, but my transition to big ESLs (Quad 2905s) after my final ProAc R4s brought me that Brik wall of sound but with the ProAc imagery; plus, of course, a natural frequency progression, delicacy and transparency. Brik bass? Well, not replicated since I had them but other facets of audio are much more important, i.m.o.
 
Mike Reed said:
I'd lived with Briks long enough to realise they were yesterday's speakers; a successful if flawed product
Click to expand...

To be honest they are coloured as many 70/80's loudspeaker design.
A stark contrast to Mike's Royd bookshelf's.

That said I'd choose them against many so called High-End speakers of todays silly price level.
 
Mike Reed said:
Considering that Briks go back to a wall, are not toed in and seem to work well in small and quite narrow rooms , alignment is somewhat limited; you can't alter your ceiling for the upward-firing mid and tweeter and proper stands are essential. No idea about ATC but at least you'll have more flexibility in positioning them, I guess.
Click to expand...

Bariks normally end up between 6-8" from the rear wall and a little toe in can be beneficial. The distance in between the speakers is a crucial as distance from the back wall.

They never sound optimal hard up against the wall.

Again Im beginning to understand why some dont get good results from them.
 
I’ve always found the Linn Ninkas surprisingly good. I’d probably just get a tidy pair of those.
 
david ellwood said:
Bariks normally end up between 6-8" from the rear wall and a little toe in can be beneficial. The distance in between the speakers is as crucial as distance from the back wall.
They never sound optimal hard up against the wall.
Click to expand...

To me, 6" IS against a wall; with my cannon plugs, cable and skirting, that was about as close to a wall as one could get. Don't agree with toe-in, though (except possibly in special circumstances) but completely agree about distance between. I had a 15' wall to space them but about 6' (maybe a little more?) between them was optimal in that large Victorian room, as they had been in the adjacent (backing on) large room.
 
Sean K said:
I used a pair of a pair briks passively with a 250 for about 8 years in a large room. Yes, they are tremendous fun but but I found them fatiguing and vocals and chamber music sounded very unnatural to the point of being jarring.
Click to expand...

They are certainly not neutral but a lot of that is down to the 250. I found the same thing. I switched to Meridian 105s and have not felt the need to change anything since.
 
david ellwood said:
I suppose the main difference between Bariks and ATC is that Bariks can sound really bad if not aligned properly, whereas ATC are astonishingly immune to siting issues and sound much the same wherever they are placed.
Click to expand...

The main difference is that ATC were designed by engineers who actually knew something about integrating drivers with a crossover, to achieve a somewhat flat response. And measurement played some part in the ATC development process.
 
Yank said:
The main difference is that ATC were designed by engineers who actually knew something about integrating drivers with a crossover, to achieve a somewhat flat response. And measurement played some part in the ATC development process.
Click to expand...


ATC also designed and built their drivers...Linn just went shopping for theirs.

Before anyone starts shouting..I owned a pair of Briks..possibly the same vintage as the OP's prospective pair....I ran mine with Naim 135's ( just the one pair ! ) I liked them well but in the end and at the time I came to the conclusion that I was trying to run them in too small a room to do them full justice....I felt that they would be a lot better sounding with more room to breath.( no pun intended )

Now I have the room for them it would be interesting to hear such a set up again and compare it to what I now have which is ATC SCM 50's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top