Speaker Asylum: REVIEW: nOrh nOrh 4.0 Speakers by Tyson

k, here is the report of my comparison between the Dynaudio Contour 1.3 Mk II and the nOrh marble 4.0 (and the marble 7.0 too). Got them home the other 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?

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), and Isaaks voice was less "smooth", smaller sounding, but much more natural (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 "seductive", lustful 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 stir. One thing I do want to say is that I still think very highly of Dynaudio speakers, but based on comparisons between the 4.0, the 1.3, and the Dunleavy SC-1, I prefer the sound of the SC-1 and the 4.0 overall to the sound of the 1.3. But I still think Dynaudio beats the pants off of almost every speaker from companies like NHT, Paradigm, PSB, B&W, Boston Acoustics, Definitive Technology, Monitor Audio (silver series & lower), and Energy. So, as you can see, I still rate the Danes quite highly.

REVIEW: nOrh nOrh 4.0 Speakers Review by Tyson at Audio Asylum