In general, yes, using a nasal [n] even when prescriptively 'required' by the Middle Chinese etymology (or indeed by the English etymology, as in 冧把) does sound very 'correct' but also 'old-fashioned' in Hong Kong (and across most of the Pearl River Delta, including the prescriptive centre of Cantonese, Guangzhou). As quoted in a 1999 study:
Hashimoto (1972) associated those speakers who preserved the historical syllable-initial [n-] with "standard Hong Kong Cantonese". However, in the speech of the majority of the younger speakers, male and female, of HKC of the 1970's and 1980's, the historical [n-] had merged with [l-] (Yeung, 1980; Bauer, 1982; Bourgerie, 1990).
This trend has become inexorable in the last 20 years, such that more than 80% of the population that was born in and after the 1970s has a relatively complete /n/ to /l/ merger. A 2015 study stated that there was no longer any gender or age difference in the merger, and that at least in Hong Kong:
the change appears to be close to completion.
A 2017 thesis qualifies this somewhat though, with plenty of hypercorrection of /l/ to /n/. Hence:
The data demonstrate the neutralization of the initial [n-] and [l-] in HKC. Since both [n-] and [l-] are still found in speech, the merger of [n-] and [l-] in HKC has not yet in completion.
It must also be remembered that the difference between /n/ and /l/ can be considered somewhat continuous, and this has been notated as /l̃/. So there can be some fluctuation between all of these variants, rather than just a binary alternation.
Cross-linguistically, there is a trend notably before /i/ that:
The preservation of initial /n/ specifically before high front vowels is more common than the preservation before any other vowels, because /n/ before high front vowels is acoustically and articulatorily dissimilar to /l/.
That study, published in 2022, concluded that amongst these Hong Kong Cantonese speakers listening to artificial generated syllables:
[They] failed to explicitly identify the specific vowel contexts of /n/~/l/ alternation/non-alternation. No significant difference on the alternation rate was found between vowel contexts (i.e. high front vowels vs. non-high front vowels) across languages.