Description: Solid-state, stereo line preamplifier with "MBL Unity Gain," remote control, and MBL SmartLink connectivity. Inputs: 5 pairs single-ended (RCA), 2 pairs balanced (XLR), and option for either phono MC (RCA) or 3rd pair balanced (XLR). Outputs: 5 pairs variable outputs in two groups—(Group 1) 2 single-ended (RCA) + 1 balanced (XLR), (Group 2) 1 single-ended (RCA) + 1 balanced (XLR)—and 2 pairs fixed outputs, 1 single-ended (RCA) and 1 balanced (XLR). Input impedance: 2.3k ohms (CD-In), 10k ohms (XLR-In), 50k ohms (Aux-In), 100 ohms (optional MC-In/internally adjustable). Output impedance: 100 ohms (RCA), 200 ohms (XLR). Voltage gain: For RCA and XLR out, 0dB in Unity Gain, 8dB in Regular Gain. Frequency range: DC–200 kHz (RCA and XLR) for all line-level inputs and outputs. S/N (A-weighted): 123dB (RCA), 117dB (XLR) in Unity Gain mode. THD+N: <0.001% for all line in and out in Unity Gain Mode. Maximum output: 8V RMS (XLR and RCA).
Dimensions: 17.7" (450mm) W × 17.7" (450mm) D × 5.9" (150mm) H. Weight 40lb (18 kg).
Finishes: Black/Gold, Black/Palinux, White/Gold, White/Palinux.
Serial number of unit reviewed: N10453. Manufactured in Germany.
Price: $14,600. Approximate number of US dealers: 10. Warranty: 5 years.
Manufacturer: MBL Akustikgerate GmbH & Co. KG. Kurfurstendamm 182, D-10707, Berlin, Germany Tel: +49 (0) 30 2300584-0 Web: mbl.de. US Distributor: MBL North America, Inc. 217 N. Seacrest Blvd. #276 Boynton Beach, FL 33425 Tel: (561) 735-9300. Web: mbl-northamerica.com
 | |||||||||||
|
|
| |||||||||
COMMENTS
Some preamplifiers like the Parasound JC2 BP come with input gain controls ...... Also, some power amplifiers like the Parasound Halo JC-5 come with input gain controls ....... Do those pre-amps and power amps work similar to the 'unity gain' controls like the MBL N11 pre-amp? ..... May be JA1 could shed some light on this matter :-) ........
Distortion levels 0.0005% ..... SNR better than 20 Bits :-) ......
I mean seriously. Chrome Gold? Yuck. I guess that appeals to the 70 year old audiophile.
And adds nothing of value. For the record, the version I reviewed, on which I based my visual assessment, was black and chrome.
You're right Jason. Ageism, like racism, is ignorant and offensive.
Having said that, putting a single knob or dial in the middle of a component's front face is pretty much the definition of design dullness (like the Cambridge Audio Edge). And MBL has made it not only dull, but ungainly, and gratuitously bling-ey as well. Not good moves.
And here we have a $14,600 pre-amp that you can't be sure will work well with whatever your DAC is. What a wonderful world we modern audiophiles are living in!
First and foremost, thank you. Ordinarily I do not call people out for stuff. But you're right on. These divisions of rank and privilege based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion / spiritual path / or lack thereof, country of origin, and all the rest must be addressed and named for what they are.
We all have our differences in taste and aesthetics, which I respect. Even if you think this preamplifier is ugly as sin, you are not my enemy, and neither of us need defend our opinions. As with many products these days, the N11's front is minimal because, unless you use the remote, all functions are controlled by that one knob and six buttons, and displayed on the big screen. Some would say designs of the nature beat 4 knobs, 8 toggle switches, and the like, but others would not. Diversity is what makes the world go round.
However, the issue of what preamp will or will not work well with your DAC or amps or speakers or whatever is one of system synergy. System synergy is always an issue with audio components, whether audiophile quality or not. It's just that when we have little money to spend-there was a time when all I could afford was a used turntable, basic cartridge, used $25 headphone amp, and some aging and not very costly Sennheiser headphones-many of us see ourselves as "beggars can't be choosers." Undoubtedly there were more harmonious pairings of $25 or $30 headphone amps and Sennheiser or Koss or whatever headphones out there, but I never even knew that a simple change of one or the other could make an audible difference. When it comes to naïveté, I was "in the garden," so to speak, albeit not the one that Joni Mitchell sang about in "Woodstock."
There is one thing that I find dismaying about the comments so far. People have focused on words, attitude, income, cost, and looks. But no one seems to have paid much attention to this:
"I concluded my measurements of the Benchmark LA4 preamplifier in the January 2020 issue by writing 'Benchmark's LA4 is the widest-bandwidth, widest-dynamic-range, lowest-noise, lowest-distortion preamplifier I have encountered.' Its performance on the test bench reveals that MBL's N11 now takes that crown.—John Atkinson"
Although, subjectively speaking, the N11 may not be the most neutral or mind-blowing preamp I have ever auditioned, it is the best-measuring preamp that John Atkinson has ever had on his test bench. We're talking about four decades of testing. This is a major component, and worthy of consideration as a Best of the Year. John wasn't as impressed, measurement-wise, with the D'Agostino Momentum HD preamp I reviewed, but I consider it another worthy contender for all the reasons I detail in that review.
This, ultimately, is the reason why my reply is so long. This preamp is worthy of consideration by anyone who can afford it and who likes its looks and sound. It could very well be "the" preamp for many Stereophile readers.
One more comment. In the last two years, I've reviewed products that cost between $600 and $52,000. I kinda lose track of what review will be published in what issue,, but I think that my next product review is of a DAC that costs 1/4 - 1/3 the price of the MBL N11 (depending upon whether you purchase the DACs optional outboard power supply). I like the sound of that DAC a lot.
By nature, I do not automatically resent people who have more $ than I do, who drive nicer and newer cars than my '94 Toyota Corolla DX, or who retired when they were 30 years younger than I am now. I do have strong feelings about people who make their money by exploiting others, but that's a completely other issue in my book. I know people who work just as hard or far less hard than I who nonetheless make or who have made far more money through honest labor that serves humanity's highest good. Some of those people can afford and care about the five-figure products I sometimes review. I wish them all the happiness in the world.
Stay safe, my friend, and be well. And I say that to everyone, even my harshest critics and those who are contributing to the spread of COVID-19.
I appreciate all that you say. As far as whether I "automatically resent people who have more $ than I do," I don't. What I resent is that money seems to dictate what is popular, or even ideologically or politically correct, with respect to stereo stuff -- such as tone controls or balance controls -- and that leaves a lot of us out of the game. Tone controls for example are prevalent on cheap receivers, but rarely, if ever, on expensive equipment, and there is no justification for that in audio terms. Those of us who want to use them (I use then rarely, but occasionally they're very helpful) of course understand that there may be some tiny price to pay in terms of distortion or noise, but we consider it worth it. Yet the idea of "signal purity" is used to reject tone controls even by the same kind of people who put up with high levels of distortion in tube equipment. These things are not dictated by consumer needs, but by fashion, or ideology, or audio political correctness, and it's obviously the high end that is dictating those things, not the mass market. There actually was one pre-amp in recent years, by Luxman, that did have wonderfully versatile tone controls, and I would like to buy it but at $5,000, I can't really afford it (and I don't like messing with tubes). Actually I could afford it if I hadn't already bought the $4,000 NAD M32 which came "highly recommended" in Class A by John Atkinson. After buying it I found that (in addition to the tone controls I wanted) it had hard, brittle sound that made it fatiguing and unlistenable to me. So now I know that I can't trust Atkinson's ears and I ignore that aspect of his reviews, even if I find his measurements invaluable and I read them religiously. I applaud the fine measurements of the MBL. And resentment of money isn't the issue here. It's the stupidity and narrow-mindedness that makes people like me feel left out that creates resentment. And the casual recommendations of reviewers who don't really care about items that aren't in the stratospheric range of components they normally listen to and they don't care to live with them long enough to find out how they really sound. (I know what you're going to say in his defense -- whatever.) LTL
Hello L-t L,
Please understand that when I was discussing resentment on the part of people who can afford equipment we can't afford, I was not thinking about you personally (or impersonally, since I have no idea who you are). I was making an observation about a recurring trend I see in the comments section.
Your comment about tone controls is interesting, because I just reviewed an integrated with tone controls. It will take two months for that review to appear here, and less for it to appear in print (and available, along with recording reviews and comments and letters that are not available online, to subscribers for a whole $12.95/year). I didn't like the effects of those tone controls at all. I'm rather relieved that in my discussion, I didn't invoke "signal purity." The thought wasn't even in Ms. Ivory Snow's mind. I just know what I heard.
I find John's ears extremely acute. I wouldn't be surprised if his recent Esenvalds recording, to which I gave a RotM and which Gramophone praised highly for its engineering, scores a Grammy nomination in the engineering department. It is possible, however, that the NAD was a far better match for his system than for yours. This could lead to a whole discussion of the "absolute sound" of components. But a simple mention of that myth is more than sufficient, as far as I'm concerned.
Time to go running before the rain hits. Be well,
jason
Good for you. I think he needs to be a little more thoughtful in his reviews, and ask himself if what he is hearing is something he would really want to live with himself. Recommending the Aerial 5T for Class A, after describing how difficult it was to set it up to get good bass response -- and how he did that only by ignoring manufacturer placement recommendations, and only by using a $20,000 amp known for its bass control -- is one example. Also, I tried the NAD M32 with three different sets of speakers (one being his "Class A" Aerials), so sorry, it's not just that it was a poor match for my "system." With each of the three it sounded hard and digital relative to a (less expensive) solid state amp with the same power rating.
And again you express your dislike for tone controls. In every single review they are either ignored, or disparaged. Reviewers always say something like, "And then I got out my Reference Recording pressing of Bruckner's 9th by [fill in the name of an orchestra and conductor not known for playing Bruckner, since it's not really the music that counts here], which allowed me to hear the delicately filigreed highs..." Duh. Of course we never see: "And then I got out my 1939 Toscanini Beethoven 9th (or my 1958 Miles Davis "Miles Ahead," or my early '80s digital Karajan Bruckner), where the wonderful tone controls of the Luxman allowed me to tame the steely highs, and to hear more realistically proportioned weight in the bass." No, that will never happen. You'd rather "hold your ears and grit your teeth," or however it was that you once described it. That's not the audiophile experience all of us want to have. But we often don't have much choice in the matter.
May be JVS could review the two chassis flag-ship tube pre-amp, Mcintosh C1100 ($13,000) ...... Hi-Fi News measured 0.00009% - 0.0005% distortion levels for C1100 :-) .......
QUOTE: // “These divisions of rank and privilege based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion / spiritual path / or lack thereof, country of origin, and all the rest must be addressed and named for what they are.” //
You read all of that into a comment about styling of an audio component? The comment you condemn as somehow “divisive” is actually an accurate assessment of the audio component’s 1970s look. So now saying that a house is “turn of the century” is akin to lynching minorities or pushing grandma over the cliff?
Do you really believe this? Because if you do, you are the one perpetuating all of this “isms” you listed and showing that they exist primarily between your ears. Certainly not in reality.
Ask yourself who benefits from the feigned victim hood of manufactured divisiveness. Victim hood is Big Bisiness and the cornerstone of Fascist and Marxist revolutionary theory. Just saying ….
"purview" is 'Scope of Influence'
There is a wider definition of "purview." You may want to look at this one: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/purview.
Purview is legal terminology typically associated with being outside the limits of your Job, authority or knowledge. i.e. a plumber offering legal advice.
Considering that the MBL person did the majority of the important parts of the review, this MBL review may very well have been outside your purview. I found his insights helpful and necessary.
Tony in Venice
ps. Oxford English Dictionary is the Standard. The 20 Volume Edition is appropriate for writers.
"purview" is 'Scope of Influence'
Anybody who can afford Wilsons, D'Agostinos, dCS, Nordost cables and Grand Prix Monza racks is 'privileged' :-) .......
and a bit of a snub to lesser peer groups.
There is an implied 'Velvet Rope' divider with this sort of attitude.
-------------
MBL is super nice sounding, gaudy gear that is probably hell on the cleaning lady. The entire MBL System is Jaw Dropingly stunning in appearance and Sound Quality ( if you are "privileged" enough to be in the Same Room with it playing Lang-Lang ).
Tony in Venice
1) That MBL preamp is stone cold guaranteed to match well will your Nagel prints! How’s that for synergy?
2) Anybody remember when the reference was “the absolute sound” and not comparative differences between pieces of gear? This has been a quantum shift that was discussed 40 years ago as a pathway we should be wary of. Now, we compare gear to gear.
Score two points for the Gipper.
That MBL pre-amp also matches well with the round meters on the Progression amps :-) ........
What is the point of this 'pre'-amplifier (indeed, all line-level pre-amps)? No digital source that I'm aware of requires pre-amplification to provide levels suitable to drive a power amp, and the only source that does require pre-amplification -- a phono one -- is not catered for in this pre-amp by the absence of a phono input. So what point this device?
All the rattling about "Unity-gain" being better than a competitor's over (pre-)amplified pre-amp is a straw-man argument as it side-steps the obvious (and usually $0, unless you want to spend $5K on an auto-former) option of having no pre-amp AND better sound.
While I don't question the ability of a $14K pre-amp to show a clean pair of heels to a $140 one, I do question whether there is any digital medium of any bit- or sampling-rate whose sound quality merits such expenditure or such a wide-window as will only throw the faults of that medium into sharper relief. Spend the $14K on sealed vinyl and play it through the $140 amp -- guess which will sound better.
Let's not get into the whole "...things sounded better with the pre- in-circuit than a passive ... more 'drive' etc" thing. If transparency and fidelity are the goal, then assuming appropriate impedance matching no preamplifier is better than a pre-amplifier that isn't needed when dealing with line-level sources. In a world where companies are falling over themselves NOT to offer phono inputs, why the hell does anyone make pre-amps anymore (and who the hell buys them?!)?
And yes, it's blingy and fugly. Looks like it belongs in a financial-adviser's kitchen...
At risk of being censored, here in the UK we would say that this is kit for "wankers", irrespective of the depth of their pockets.
"If transparency and fidelity are the goal, then assuming appropriate impedance matching no preamplifier is better than a pre-amplifier that isn't needed when dealing with line-level sources."
Err... Not really for me. Maybe it is for Stereophile. I just want coloration to enhance the recording so I can enjoy the music more, unless I only listen to audiophile recordings. I don't. Obviously I'm not a neutral or absolute sound type of audiophile. Other than that I agree with your assessment of this gear. It's really ugly. At least it has good engineering and measurements.
I can't help but mention the Schiit Magni Heresy headphone amplifier. It costs 100usd and has a preamp output. It is unity gain or has a switch for higher gain. It's distortion measurements are close to the MBL and does the same job, minus the switching and any phono preamp.
So basically, for digital it can do the same job. I think part of the difference in sound you are hearing between a DAC that has a volume control and using the MBL may be attributable to most of the DAC volume controls being digital. That makes for perfect matching between channels etc but you are listening to a must reduced dynamic range and possibly the low level detail is lost or distorted by comparison to full scale digital reduced in volume by a unity gain stage with an analog volume control. Something to consider anyway.
I certainly agree that the design is an acquired taste. Moreover, I would assume that most people would buy such a pre-amp for the long term. In that respect, I would be worried about the durability of the colour LCD screen and the possibility of getting a replacement after say 6-8 years.
That was the first thing that crossed my mind. Not only from a replacement standpoint, but the graphics alone could make it look dated. It already sort of looks like Sega Genesis.
very interesting article, especially the interview. I must confess, I was not aware footers would allow as much tuning toward ones own preferences, as e.g. the choice of cables (IC & power). I always thought there is a more general i.e. uniform gain in SQ by reducing component vibrations.
From https://gearpatrol.com/2020/06/30/whats-actually-the-difference-between-a-cheap-and-expensive-stereo-receiver/ :
In general, the bigger and better the speakers you have, the more powerful the stereo receiver you’re going to need to drive them. But power isn’t everything. For example, the Yamaha R-S202BL and the more expensive Cambridge Audio AXR100 can both deliver 100-watts per channel, but what makes the Cambridge Audio AXR100 better is the build quality of the built-in amplifiers. Not only are the components higher-grade, but the AXR100 also has both right and left channels, which contributes to more accurate sound.
50 per channel.
Mark Levinson 5805 integrated amp is specified as 125 WPC into 8 Ohms, by the manufacturer ..... Stereophile measurements show, it can also drive 2 Ohm loads with 370 Watts :-) ........
As I just bought the Benchmark HPA4 (line section the same as LA4), and sighed to myself, a bit deflated, but still smiling. It held the crown for a few scant months.. lol.
I love MBL designs, and I'm sure I would love silver and that white variant (I forget the color name). Otherwise a bit too blingy for my tastes.
That being said it sounds like it's a superlative preamp... though I would go with their speakers as a first purchase choice to...pretty much anything extant.
Great review as always, Jason.
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 Stereophile
