Ok, 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 last 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.

Sound, looks, price, quality, perfomance

None, but the looks (design) are not for everyone.

Jack, ayan, Buddy, and Blitz -

Please do not comment or review the speakers that you have not heard. Talking about customer service is fantastic but doesn't come close to telling you how they sound. There is no place for "These speakers suck" without given a reason or "They look weird so I'm giving them one star." The looks are not for everyone. The looks of the speaker count toward the overall rating but should not be the primary basis for the rating. That being said:

I have the blue/silver 4.0s. The pictures do not do them justice but, in person, they are closer to silver than blue. I would have preferred more blue than silver but I can live with the color without a problem. I also noticed there are a few small black marks on the speakers due to the firing of the ceramic material. No problem there since it really isn't very noticeable and doesn't deter from the looks of the speakers. The feet are stainless steel and look wonderful. You also notice the design is closer to that of a jet engine rather than an inverted horn (although they could be seen as that too). They look very sleek indeed. Anxious and ready to get underway.

Having listened to them now for a couple of months, I felt it is about time to give them a review. More important than the way the speakers look is the way they sound.

When I first hooked them up, I played some country, jazz, rock, various songs over a period of several hours in order to get them broken in. They sounded good right out of the box. After being broken in (takes about 80 hours), they sound fantastic!

The highs are clear and warm. Extremely pleasant on the ears. The warmness, if you can call it that, is due to my upgrading from a Yamaha RX-V496 to an Onkyo TX-DS595. The Yamaha is a bit brighter but perfectly liveable without any problem or listening fatigue. The Onkyo is more relaxed and easier with the highs. More specifically, I should say with the horns (brass instruments). Please keep this in context. I am not a big fan of horns to begin with but movies use a lot of them so you learn to live with them. Perhaps what I am trying to say is the Onkyo made it a bit more liveable for me. Alas, I digress.

The mids painted a sound stage before me. Violins here, drums there, guitars there, etc. You can easily get caught up in your being present as the music is recorded vs. listening to the speakers as if it is coming out of a boom box. Very clear details. You can hear the breath of a vocalist and the pick of an acousitic guitar. They are very revealing and that can be both good and bad. They will tell you if your equipment is good or bad and if the recording is good or bad.

For bass, nothing real low but that wasn't unexpected. They definately need a sub but, if you do not have one, they are still passable.

So, what did I use to test the speakers? Again, mostly movies, since I watch them more than listen to the music. The Matrix was passed with flying colors, even as the bullets whizzed by my head. Helicopters and airplanes fly overhead as they are supposed to. Dialog comes from the center and, if an actor is talking while they are leaving the stage, the dialog follows them seamlessly. With Fantasia they performed beautifully! I never knew how much information was there. For SPR, you are at the beach. Good luck in getting out. :) Star Wars (DPL II), Imperial cruisers fly overhead and laser dart all around you. Titan AE is wonderful as you are in the battles and the dialog is before you. TV? Let's just leave it at I'm enjoying DPL II more and more! :) Perhaps the standout to me was Chicane's Behind the Sun. Overture and Low Sun sounded like you should have been in the IMAX theater rather than home as they were playing.

The speakers are truly wonderful. If I don't get the marble ones (much classier, IMO), they will stay with me for many years to come. The whole experience with nOrh was a very positive one and I wouldn't hesitate ordering from them again. The 3.0s also sound close to the 4.0s but will not play as loud or go as deep as the 4.0s do. The 4.0s have much better bass than the Wharfedales but do not go as low. However, they have clearer, cleaner bass and are not boomy at all. The AR, DCM, and KLH aren't even close to the 4.0s. Actually, the same can be said about the Wharfedales. The 4.0s offer tremendous value and performance for their cost. The sound is what counts and they performed above and beyond my expectations. Thank you Tyson and Marbles for introducing me to these wonderful speakers. :)

Current equipment:
Onkyo TX-DS595
Technics PD-5
Toshiba SD2109
ceramic nOrh 4.0 package
dual SVS 20-39CS subs w/Samson S700 amp

Similar Products Used:

Wharfedale Valdus 500s, AR 206HO, DCM KX-6 series 2, nOrh 3.0, KLH 9912

clean & clear. nice accurate sounding highs. Some tweeters are harsh to me. Not this one.

hard to fit on some tv's

I just have a single shielded marble 4.0 for a center channel. It's loud & clear. I had some friends over to watch a movie & they all thought it was a huge improvement over my AR center. I'll be getting n0rh 7.0's soon & can't wait to try them all together. I also had a super bowl party & we watched the game in pro logic & it sounded great (also quite a conversation piece). It's still new to me but I'm already really happy with it.

I actually sold my Contour 1.1s after getting these, despite the huge gap. Go and take a look at my Contour review over in the Danes's section. This speaker has slightly less bass, but actually does everything else at least as well, if not better.

You'll find these speakers to be neutral, quick, and very honest in their presentation. The 'sweetening' that one might find with a Dynaudio is gone, and replaced by a yet more neutral presentation.

I'm currently very satisfied with these, and for me, the next step up will be a speaker literally over 10 times the price (the JM-Reynaud Offrandes at $4,200)

Similar Products Used:

Dynaudio Contour 1.1

Price, parts used, great looking, customer service

none

I bought a single, shielded 4.0 to use as a center channel to match my nOrh 7.0 (Great speaker see review)for $225 shipped ( you can buy a pair to use as mains or rears for $400) This speaker has the tweeter mounted on top and time aligned ala the B&W nautilus series. Each cabinet is hand made and finished. nOrh uses the finest parts, this model using Vifa drivers. Right out of the box this speaker sounded great. Where the infiniti cc3 sounded "tinny" (even with its tone control) the norh sounded "full." The nOrh was also much more crisp and cleaner in the highend. This speaker starts to roll off at 70hz. I recommend all norh products. They have great customer service, are well made using the best parts and look fantastic. Check out norh.com for models, prices and Michael Barnes philosophy on affordable Hifi. Highly recommended.

Similar Products Used:

infiniti CC3, sound dynamics rts-2,

full, rich, flawless sound

still looking.

I LOVE these speakers. I was looking around through audio reviews to find a nice set of speakers to replace the Bose AM5's that I had purchased several years back and had sold with my house in May, 2000. I started seeing info about Norh and visited the website. The reviews were glowing and the speaker was so unusual looking that I decided to purchase them sight unseen (or is that sound unheard). I ordered two 4.0's and a sheilded 4.0 as a center channel speaker. I figuered I could add a couple of cheaper speakers as rears later. They showed up less than two weeks later and right away I was impressed with the quality of workmanship on the speakers. But sound is what it's all about so I hooked them up. The first thing I realized was how shortchanged I had been by the Bose speakers. I heard things in songs that I had never heard before. They had disappeared in the gap between the Subwoofer and the cubes of the Bose AM5's. Next was the tone and fullness of the norh's. I could hear the separation of instruments like I never could before. I could crank these babys up and not hear harsh highs that tend to grate on the ears after long periods of listening. I felt enveloped in the sound. It was friggin' awesome. I grant that the bass will not rattle the walls, but that hardly matters when the overall sound of these little beauties (or "bongos" as my wife calls them) is so impressive. And the cost was right where I wanted it too. I have since added a couple of Boston Acoustics speakers as rears and I am very happy with the overall sound of my system. I am using them in a somewhat smallish room (11x15") so I think they are perfect for that size. I suppose if I had a larger area, I may have gone to a higher model of Norh - but for my situation, I couldn't be happier.

Similar Products Used:

Bose AM5's