Nola Micro Grand Reference-Giant Killers?
Priaptor -- Sun, 01/09/2011 - 12:56
Having always been a fan of Harry Pearson’s reviews, I was pleasantly surprised to see a review by Mr. Pearson regarding a pair of speakers and amps that I purchased several months ago.
In November I purchased the Nola Micro Grands, McIntosh MC2301 monoblocks fed by PS Audio’s PerfectWave/Bridge DAC with my music server being a MacMini and Twonky. Wires, cables and power treatment are MIT’s Shotgun MA Speaker Cables, Magnum MA Proline Balanced Interconnects, MIT Z Powerbar and Oracle ZIII plugs.
While the “out of the box experience” was very good indeed, I knew the system was missing what I believed the system was in need of. In came Audio Research’s Reference 5 Preamp.
I have always had an affinity for smallish speakers and one of my favorite previous systems was Watt/Puppies with Spectral gear. I found bigger wasn’t always better and “upgraded” to Wilson X1s with great disappointment; a story for another time.
Having heard Nola’s fantastic Baby Grand’s at my local dealer, I was immediately taken aback by the sense of openness such a large speaker could obtain. What the X1’s provided in macrodynamics, I felt they sacrificed on mircodynamics (that I felt the Watt/Puppies were vastly superior), the latter ALWAYS, my first concern regarding choosing a speaker and system. This is of course listener dependent, but I was, to say the least incredibly impressed at how seamless the Baby Grands handled all aspects of what it was fed and given my new home and room, was very taken aback by the relative insensitivity of a required “sweet spot” necessary to enjoy the music. HOWEVER, I was not willing to spend the absurd sums of money “good speakers” are going for these days (we are in an economic crisis no matter what the readers of TAS believe) and having an affinity for smaller speakers, I said, “WTF” and went for the Micro Grands, with some trepidation. I understand I violated EVERY rule of an audiophile and purchased these things without a listen. I also had some misgivings on initial setup as my room is LARGE. In order to save some $ I initially was using the PerfectWave/Bridge as my premp, knowing after a few weeks of listening/burning in that I was missing what I experienced at my dealer. I tried and then purchased the ARC Ref 5, left the system on for hours, “burning in” and then went to work.
First, these “small” speakers produce an amazing sound stage, regardless of setup. These may be the easiest speakers I have had to setup. Sit just about anywhere in the room and the speakers produce their rich, realistic and precise soundstage. The magic of the Baby Grand’s are now in my listening room, without the outrageous cost and in some ways, I enjoy more what the Micros do than their larger more expensive brethren. They are not the easiest to drive, but produce such rich, clear sound, that it is easy to reach the limits of the MC2301s, which I have done on a few pieces of electronic and orchestral music. The image produced by these speakers is not bloated or distorted (something that I have witnessed in so many systems in an effort to produce good music) but real. While my former favorite gear, including Avalons and Watt/Puppies also produced a very realistic and enjoyable sound stage, I felt that the Watt/Puppy were just a tad edgy but still very listenable.
Can the Micros produce good bass? My room is large, where a speaker like the Baby Grand would probably shine and would be recommended over the Micros. I have constructed my listening environment into a near field one, trying to overcome the limitations and interactions a large room is sure to cause. The results have been spectacular. While the lower octaves may be just a little short of what I witnessed with the Baby Grands, I believe that is more a function of my listening environment than the speaker itself and I am soon going to attack the issue in force.
Are these speakers GIANT killers? My recommendation is DON’T do what I did, but take a listen for yourself. I think you will experience the same magic that Pearson writes about in the latest issue of TAS. My answer is a resounding yes.
Just my opinion.
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1999 - 2011 NextScreen. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
Sam,
I am using the MIT Oracle Matrix HD 90 speaker cables and MIT Magnum Proline interconnects. Since my Spectral days, I always liked these cables
I'm using Nordost Tyr to the speakers and also between pre and power. It's a very good performer.
I would actually like to try those speaker cables. I know they are supposed to be excellent.
Hi,
Just wanted to shed some light on some of the Nola questions raised.
Nola loudspeaskers are easy to drive due to the "freindly load" they present to an amplifier. All models are 8 ohms nominal with a minimum of 4 ohms except for the Boxer and Contender which are 8 ohms over the whole range. Phase angle of impedance remains below 30 degress so they are pretty resistive loads as well. All this means is that the user is free to choose the amplifier he prefers and not what the speaker needs. All models also have good bass damping so that they do not require the amplifiers to control their bass. This is true in both the sealed systems and the ported systems.
Sensitivity varies form the lowest 86 dB (Micro) to the highest 93 dB (Announcer) Naturally smaller rooms require less power than larger rooms.
We believe that this approach provides the best sound from a given amplifier by presenting the least stress to that amplifier.
We have found also that this impedance characteristic provides the best low level resolution from the amplifier.
The only amplifier technology we are not a fan of is class D.
Cheers,
Carl
Hi Carl,
Thank you for the additional information. Another thing you are correct about is class D. I got rid of mine. I purchased a Manley Stingray II 40 ultralinear or 20 triode watts of heaven. I have a pair of Manley Neo-Classic 250's coming next month with 250 watts UL or 125 triode watts from EL34/6CA7 tubes. It will be glorious. I do not miss my class D one bit. Even with 20 triode watts, I can't believe how incredible my Nola Micros sound. These have been the most satisfying speakers I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. Thank you for making the Micros. They are superb.
Joe
Methinks class D is/was a flash in the pan. Just look at how long PS Audio's class D line lasted. They will be out with a more conventional amp later this year.
So do these speakers not require a certain amount of min power? Like the Maggies need 200w+, do these require minimum power or will it work fine with a 50wpc and 100 w amps? HP tested these with monster amps but what about the regular stuff? Not everyone has the Mega powerful amps.
Hi Sam,
I am very satisfied with my Stingray II with 40/20 wpc. I think you should aim for a 60 wpc amp or more. I'm sure Carl used an ARC VSi60 amp to voice the speakers. They are really nice speakers. What amp do you have? or plan on getting?
Joe
The Stingray and ARC amps are wonderful. The current VTL IT-85 is the integrated I finally settled on - a great all-purpose tube amp that drives most speakers without complaint. Stunning realism on vocals, with a clarity that will win over the most hardened solid state purists. I didn't feel the need for separates - only the Spectral gear I heard during the audition process came close.
Add an Esoteric X-03SE SACD player, a pair of Micros, and you would complete the perfect sonic portrait - particularly in a condo or apartment.
I Believe they use Nordost cable and at shows they use Valhalla not Odin.
Well, I finally found an amp and preamp to END all. I am using a Burmester 911 MK3 and Burmester 077 preamp. OMG!!! A perfect and superb match to my Nola Micro Grand Ref. speakers. Unbelievable. Now, to me, there is no other amp/preamp combo that compares. I do not even miss my tube amp/preamps at all. Superb!
The speaker is really an easy one to drive and IMHO does not have a single match for electronics. It is easy to drive and this allows us to use a variety of products to find the desired end result. I have used them with both tubes and solid state and have gotten really excellent sounding results.I have not heard what you have on them however I have heard some BM products in the past. Enjoy!
Hi Elliot,
I did not mean to imply that what I was using was the only match. You are absolutely correct, these speakers are easy to drive and let the true signature of the upstream electronics shine through. They are wonderful and very musical speakers. As I have explored new and better amps/preamps, I have always been rewarded with beautiful music. I can say, I have arrived at a combination I truly enjoy above all else. For anyone on the fence. please have a listen to Nola speakers. You will not be disappointed.
Elliot, thank you for the clarification. I stand corrected. If you love music, you will love Nola!
Joe
Elliot, have u tried the Micros with ARC REF110? is that able to drive these speakers well? And do u loose 50% or more with this amp compared to the mighty REF 210 or the Mcintosh monoblocks? I'm curious how the ref 110 will match the Nola micros.
Sam,
Sorry I did not have that combination to listen too. ARC has introduced a new, more powerful amp to replace the 110. The REF 150 is available and has the new KT120 tubes and more power. would think that the 150 should handle the Micros with no issues. I dont have one yet but do plan sometime soon to get one.
Has anyone compared the Nola MGR to other current "Mini" wonders such as the TAD CR1, Magico Mini2/Q1, Tidal Amea Diacera etc.? It will be interesting to know how they stack up and/or differs.
The Ref 110 (albeit equiped with KT 120s) can drive the Metro Grnd to very loud levels in a medium-large sized room. I'm sure it would have no trouble with the Micros.
I am a little confused. I thought the lower the sensitivity of the speaker the harder for the amplifier to drive it. i.e. more power needed. The Metro is 87db sensitive and Micro is 86 which means Micro should be harder to drive even if its a 1 db difference. Does the ohm thing make a difference too? When they mean 8ohm nominal and 4 ohm minimum...what does that mean in layman's terms? Also the different taps on the back of the amplifier like the new Ref 150...what do they mean and can any one be chosen to connect the cables or is it dependent on the type of speaker being used? If some one can clear that up would be nice. Or as a general rule smaller speakers are always easy to drive vs. larger sized ones?
Sam:
Are you planning on purchasing these speakers before, or after the VPI Classic 1, 2, or 3 turntable, which neither JV, or MF have reviewed yet?
I would like to hear those NOLA speakers as well.
JA FANT,
Did you get to hear/buy Nolas? An awesome little speaker!
Joe
Sam,
First let me say, the comparison between the Micros and the Babys has a caveat. First, the Micros were using McIntosh 2301s and PS Audio DAC and REF 5 whereas the Babys are using AR REF 250s, REF5 and AR DAC 8. The sonic character of the latter electronics had a HUGE difference, not subtle, and that is one of the reasons I was little confused when the "better sound" in the Babys at RMAF was so quickly attributed to the REF II status rather than the ARC REF 250s which brings a whole new character to the speakers. BUT, more on my fealings on that later.
My preference in speakers have ALWAYS been small stand mounted speakers. My one exception may have been my older Wilson WATT/Puppies, that in a way, I considered a stand mounted speaker with the woofer as the stand. When I moved to the X1 I lost the love.
Interestingly, the sonic signature of the Micros and Babys are extremely close. There are benefits to the Micros that I miss. For example I find them more intimate, actually slightly more detailed particularly at lower listening volumes. One of the unique aspects of the Micros was that I could literally stand between the two speakers and literally enjoy the music if I choose (for whatever stupid reason) to just stand there. Such is not the case with the Babys. However, standing and/or sitting in the sweet spot is equally impressive in both and equally wide in both. Both shine in middle octaves and vocals are palpable to the point of perfect image, perfect layering of image and clearly able to resolve all the nuances coming at them.
There is no doubt that either the AR REF 150 for the Micros and AR REF 250 for the Babys are the best amps to drive either. This is apparantly what Carl uses in designing the speaker, so why change and with the REF 250 the Baby's did indeed turn into a new and unique speaker. These are the BEST tube amps I have ever heard.
The Baby's are one of the few large speakers that can reproduce the best of stand mount. While I take issue with much of what JV has to say with Magico given his his obvious bias, he did a great piece on the Q1s talking about the benefits of a stand mount vs. tower, which I agree with. HOWEVER, the Baby's are THE exception. Their unique sonic signature does give you the intimacy, sonic accuracy and 3 dimensional image that only a stand mount is capable of, particularly the Micros and I am sure many other stand mount. You give almost nothing away with the Babys when it comes to benefits of the Micro.
The Micros provide a better "nearfield" experience than the Babys. The Baby's are more difficult to set up, whereas the Micros are very simple; but that is relative to other speakers where tolerance in setup has to be exact. However, both speakers have tremendous latitude as to what I would estimate at +/- 15% for the Babys and +/- 25-30% for the Micros in allowable location of speaker to generate 90% of what each is capable of. In other words there is enough latitude in speaker setup and I am assuming one of the reasons they sound so good at shows, is because even before finding the PERFECT location, they still sound fantastic, the Micros just a little more latitude and obvious easy in moving. With the Ref 250s I have had to move my Babys slightly and believe I now have them in perfect location.
Now to the benefits of the Babys. While maybe not the ultimate pinpoint image accuracy of the Micros, they have significantly more depth of image, much better front to back and layering of imaging and overall more three dimensional sound, sounding pretty unique for a full size speaker. So all the benefits of great stand mount like the Micros are NOT lost in a large array like the Babys.
HP talked about a bass hump at 60 Hz in the Micros and I agree with him. In fact I purchased the amazing Silver Circle 5.0 as HP recommended to mitigate its effect, but it is there. The Micros are at their best with vocals, strings, snares, cymbals and winds but do start falling apart at loud volumes if heavy bass is being requested from it. The caveat of course is that I was using the MC2301s which were not capable of the tight and more accurate bass of the REF 250s. But no doubt, the Micros are limited in their low end, despite many comments to the contrary. There is no comparison. I have experienced NONE of the "need to replace the box" limitations of the bass of the Babys that JV so flippantly commented after listening to the Babys at RMAF. Quite frankly, I was amazed he made that comments. Understand my criticism of the bass of the Micros is not a criticism of the Micros but pointing out where it is overwhelmed in design especially in comparison to the Babys.
The Babys are clearly better in handling dynamics, both macro and micro, more effortless, never a hiccup with the deepest bass and hence with those passages requring great performance at the lower octaves, perform flawlessly maintaining a perfect image that gets a little smeared with the same passage with the Micros. One quick example is Wasserman's Duets, where there is some very very heavy bass on a disc that has some of the best spatial imaging of any and the Micros will start straining at volumes necessary to appreciate the deepest octaves the disc has to offer whereas the Babys handle it effortlessly. I am not sure the Babys surpassed my prior Wilson X1 ability to reproduce the lowest octaves but the Babys are extremely close and unlike the Wilsons, do EVERYTHING else much better that it is minute if indeed any benefit to the Wilson in this regard, as the rooms both were and are in are so disparate in size and character. Spatial imaging is perfect in size and not bloated like so many other speakers out there, such as Wilson in my opinion. So as I said above, take the best of the Micros and stretch it in the x, y and z axis and there you have the spatial effects of the Babys. There is no giant voice, horn or drum to overpower you. It is dead on accurate. What many may consider a lack of detail, for example compared to what I experienced with my old Spectral/Wilson setup, with the NOLAs is in reality a more accurate sonic image without what on the Spectal/Wilson combo I considered a more artificial and ultimately tiresome accentuation of the higher octaves to get that detail; but that is a preference thing. I can listen to Nolas all day whereas the Wilsons fatigued me in an hour.
In summary, the Micros are awesome speakers for size and price and do things that are amazing. The Babys do almost all of the amazing things only a stand speaker is capable of, an extremely unique character for a speaker of its size and hence my highest praise for them as speakers of this size are usually not my first choice. However, what the Babys do well, the Micros can't touch, despite maintaining the sonic signature. Most importantly, they do start falling apart in the lowest octaves effecting what they do best, namely effect their uncanny imaging. The depth and fullness of image, air surrounding instruments, ability to reproduce all nuances of the studio, etc., the Micros just can't reproduce. Unlike JV, I haven't yet found a passage where I felt the box would benefit from a redesign, although I cannot state that the Babys are the best in this category to its competitors. What I will say is that I have never heard a speaker that so effortlessly blends all spectrum of the music without distorting any. So there may indeed be speakers that handle lower octaves better (I can't say) but none in recent or past memory that blends better.
Just a quick word about the REF II status of the Babys. I obviously don't have all the information, but I am a little confused as to the decision to integrate the crossovers into the box. Carl has always been a stickler for isolation and this decision seems to go against such claims he has made for example in the Stereomojo review where he touted the external crossover as a huge benefit, isolating it from the frame of the speaker itself. Regardless of what isolation he may be using in the speaker, nothing is better isolated than having separate from the speaker (just my opinion). Again, I am speaking without knowing all details and his plans, BUT, I think there would be a benefit to offer the Babys in both varieties. I personally like the idea of separate external boxes with Valhalla jumpers and could imagine the ability to do some unique things in upgrading what is already a great speaker using those "external boxes" to do some unique things in an easily accessible box; such as changing out crossovers, replacing them with active and/or passive, changing to Odin from Valhalla harnesses, all at a price for us diehard audiophiles of course. I understand that having an external box as a crossover poses some difficulty for many in terms of setup and hence why I would offer both variants in order to appeal to those who bypassed the Babys because of the external box and the the external boxes obviously being of higher cost. While my understanding is that there is indeed an upgrade path, of reasonable cost, what is NOT a reasonable cost is having to sell your expensive bi-wire speaker cables and replace them for single wire cables and shipping is by no means cheap nor is the labor to ensure proper packing. Most of us who purchase a speaker of such expense have also purchased very expensive speaker cables and the cost of selling a bi-wire and replacing it for single wire is NOT easy nor does it come without significant financial pain. So what sounds like a reasonably cheap upgrade is anything but and "upgrading" seems to be going against Carl's principles of isolation of components. Just my two cents on the "upgrade".
Hi,
I will have more to say about the series II when I can.
The crossovers are still isolated by the ball bearing isolation system built into Micros, Metros and Baby Grands. The external crossover was a side issue as all things being equal -the external crossover is better. BUT-all things are not equal. The new Unison crossover design (a new topology) changes all of that because this crossover system works better internally where the three crossover boards can be interconnected with short leads. I found when this design (unlike the old design) was spread out - we lost some of the" Immediacy" the design was capable of-so rather than compromise the design-we elminated the external crossover. The new crossover contains 20 more Mundorf Silver Gold Oil capacitors in the bass section alone--bringing the total to 30 per pair--I know of no one crazy enough to do this--but when I heard it I felt I had to do it.
At the show I was able to demonstrate mono sources with a "tighter" more focused image and yet a more expansive sound stage as well- when required, compared to the series I, which is already very good in these respects. The gain in immediacy was apparant to most listeners including JV.
Talk to you soon.
Carl,
Thanks.
I look forward to hearing from you and in particular, whether an upgrade of the crossover is indeed possible using the external box, despite the limitations of design you state, for those of us who rather keep the external crossover design in a bi-wire variety.
Thankyou Priaptor and Carl, thats really good info and update!
Priaptor,
What kind of cables do you have? Normally it is quite easy to convert Bi to single wire.
The series II does not work in bi-wired configuration.
What the series II brings is more immediacy --almost like a single driver full range system, combined with more focus.
In addition, the images are more 3D than anything I have heard. This is very fragile information on recordings and series II now reveals it. However it won't do this if I follow your suggestion as the crossover would have to be separated--some inside and some outside the cabinet-as the new low frequency components will not fit into the external crossover box. Spreading the croosver out in this way reduces performance of the series II.
I do not want to offer a version of the Baby Grand that does not give the best possible performance.
Carl,
In fairness what I have is not so easy to convert. It is a $12K MIT Oracle Matrix HD 90 Bi-wire and I really don't want to jery rig the thing, nor do I want to get killed selling it for a new single wire cable.
I am glad that you have created a significant improvement in the Babys, but I am not sure those of us who have the Series I have a legitimate upgrade pathway given the enormous impediments of sending them back to the factory, the cost of the upgrade/shipping/packing and the hassle and cost of changing speaker cables.
I obviously have the utmost respect for you and your products, but sometimes I wonder if there is a disconnect between the customer and the manufacturer as we the customer do not have the same resources as the manufacturer; one such example being the access the manufacturer has to a company like Nordost or MIT to change out a huge investment we the customer have made.
Hope I get a chance to hear the Series II Baby Grands!
Ok I get it. We have a way to help you.
Now what we can do for you is to have two inputs to the speakers remain "live" so you will have two sets of binding posts, and you connect your cables to the cabinet the same way you are connecting them to the Bi wire inputs on the crossover box now. So it will cost you nothing for cable expense and you use your existing cables.
The crossovers could then be installed in the cabinet and operate in optimum fashion for series II.
We have the utmost concern for our customers and in a world where convenience always trumps performance-- we do not agree with this -- instead we do the best for our customer's ultimate good .
CArl,
Thanks for taking care of the issues in such a fair and amicable manner. I don't think many manufacturers would have done half asd much to satisy a customer and me. I am sure that some other speaker companies that make a speaker and change it, especially when it can't be updated or modified, did not make any effort to protect their customers large finanacial investment. I am a tue believer!!
Thanks,
E