Actually, in some ways, it was good that Ken got out and let Bill and now Jack take over. Ken had the greatest idea in the modern world for a speaker company BUT he his main limitation was that he didn't like to spend money on crossover parts or drivers. He thought good speaker design was all about great cabinets and integration. And that *is* probably most of it. But Bill and Jack were willing to up the caliber of the drivers and crossovers and brought added refinements and qualities to the NHT "experiment" that allowed the speakers to not only keep up with the times, but actually increase in quality at a much higher rate than most other companies. The newer NHTs are more refined, more resolving and have a much bigger soundstage than Ken's designs, while remaining true to the core foundation of NHT (except for those big holes on some of the towers/subs!!!)

Wasn't it the stereophile 3.3 review that mentioned that he used the best tweeter he was able to find - it simply wasn't the most expensive, and that was part of how a 4K speaker was able to compete with more costly designs from other manufacturers? Driver and x-over design/quality has improved over the years, which may in fact be why some here feel so strongly that the T5/6's beat the older designs. I myself would still choose the 3.3's in a heartbeat.

Yeah! That's it! The 7220 is what I had (I think).



I just took the cover off to reveal a quarter inch of dust/dirt, hit it with the leaf blower and it works like new.

Funny they haven't changed the 'NAD look' in all these years.

Wasn't it the stereophile 3.3 review that mentioned that he used the best tweeter he was able to find - it simply wasn't the most expensive, and that was part of how a 4K speaker was able to compete with more costly designs from other manufacturers?

I don't recall them saying *that*. But I would say that many high-priced tweeters are very euphonic/colored and are very much fad. "Ring radiator" tweeters, IMO, for one. Silk domes, etc. Driver quality isn't as important as using the best part of a driver and using it well. For instance, a tweeter that has huge power handling and can be crossed over low for $100 may be great in a 3-way tower. BUT, in a 4-way, it would likely be wasted and a $10 tweeter may actually be as good, maybe even better. Maybe it doesn't have great power handling at 2000Hz, but if crossed over at 4000Hz, then it doesn't much matter. Ken was good at choosing drivers that worked with the crossover design he was planning and making cheap drivers sound fantastic. It was *how* he selected the drivers that mattered more than whether they were "good" (expensive) or not. The current vogue is to choose expensive drivers, then market the name of these drivers (or the materials used), sometimes even the price of them, to show that good parts are going in, regardless of the end result. As in "sounds like CRAP, but the parts quality is INCREDIBLE!" Yes, incredible :rolleyes:

Funny they haven't changed the 'NAD look' in all these years.

The things you notice when you actually clean your gear ;)

Wasn't it the stereophile 3.3 review that mentioned that he used the best tweeter he was able to find - it simply wasn't the most expensive, and that was part of how a 4K speaker was able to compete with more costly designs from other manufacturers? Driver and x-over design/quality has improved over the years, which may in fact be why some here feel so strongly that the T5/6's beat the older designs. I myself would still choose the 3.3's in a heartbeat.


Well, we've sort of been over this once before a long time ago in this thread, but Bill Busch even once stated that the VT-3 was his best efforts and attempt to address what he perceived to be the 3.3's few shortcomings, and on the previous page, none other than Jack himself stated that the modifications to his 3.3s gave them most of the warmth and slam of T6s.

But I think in a lot of ways, the cabinet design of the 3.3 was almost seemingly a harbinger of today's sub/sat world we now have. Think about it, the subs were designed to always "be" in a corner, and relatively narrow front panels that stuck the upper range drivers out into the room away from wall behind it for imaging almost like a mini-monitor on stands.

Greenberg and Framer I think it was, from Stereophile used 3.3s as their reference speaker for years, and now that you mention it, I do seem to vaguely remember something to that effect about the tweeters being mentioned in one of the reviews.

I just took the cover off to reveal a quarter inch of dust/dirt, hit it with the leaf blower and it works like new.

Funny they haven't changed the 'NAD look' in all these years.

My matching NAD CD player finally gave up the ghost, I sold the tape deck, and the receiver is still to this day in service in my cousin's garage. Still works fine as far as I know, and the radio in it is literally left on 24/7.

I eventually moved that system along with the little Bostons to the bedroom, and upgraded to some big Boston 3-way sealed floor-standers, T930s, for the main room with an Adcom 535 power amp, GTP-400 tuner, and an Adcom CD player.

I honestly think those old sealed Bostons were better than what they offer today.

The materials that go into a speaker driver, or anything else for that matter, are the least important aspect in the resulting performance.

A good example of this are mechanical engineering students building bridges out of cardboard which hold up full sized cars.

Most companies use materials in speakers as a big thing because it is the easiest thing for the average person to see or understand.

Some of the most expensive drivers you can purchase are the worst. The more expensive the driver is, the more unusual the design needs to be to sell it. A lot of the more bizzare designs are considerably worse than standard designs. The other big factor is QC. Driver companies that manufacture very large quantities of drivers have good process control and that results in consistent drivers. Companies that only produce very small quantities of drivers typically have very poor process control. This results in inconsistent drivers.

BTW, Ken hasn't been at NHT for about 9 years. If the boat sinks, it won't be his fault:)

John, the second subwoofer that NHT marketed (and the most sucessful), the SW2P, was ported and designed under Ken's tenure. So there!

I don't recall them saying *that*.

Looks like I'm thinking of a review from a different mag, can't recall which though. Here is something Stereophile did write though, tough to argue with the reasoning?

"The 3.3's 26-element crossover network is not unduly complex, though impedance compensation is used for the tweeter and upper-midrange drivers. It is configured for bi-wiring, if desired. Crossover components are chosen for their specific functions in the circuit, not on the supposed superiority of a particular "type" of capacitor or coil. Kantor believes in using the best parts where they count—eg, premium capacitors in the series feed to the tweeter—and in keeping costs down by using less expensive parts where they are unlikely to have any sonic impact. It is common high-end practice to use the "best" parts everywhere, on the theory that it can't hurt. And if the chosen parts have no adverse side effects, it won't. But by the time all multiplying factors are taken into account (footnote 3), it will have significantly jacked up the retail price—though not necessarily the level of performance"

A new review on the Classic Series...

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/1206nht34/

Jack, in your reply to the review you advise against using a dedicated sub producing the SAME frequencies as the four... is this because it is a ported design and the frequencies coming out of the port are out-of-phase with the rest of the system and unless the sub was ported and transitioned at the exact same frequency you would encounter phase cancelletions?

I ask this after much experimentation in my system with different subwoofers... when I had a ported sub(B&W ASW4000), I could never seem to get a proper integration with my 3.3's/2.9's which are acoustic suspension. However, using the U1 and having all speakers set to large I don't seem to encounter any negative interactions and the bass reproduction is the most natural and dynamic I have ever heard. I think most people have no realization how much bass information is actually mixed to all channels...

So, what's the 'next big announcement' to which Jack referred in Manufacturers Comments?

Once again, the comment of lean upper bass-lower mids rears its head. Hasn't that been an issue from time to time with some of the NHT side-firers over the years?

So, what's the 'next big announcement' to which Jack referred in Manufacturers Comments?

That's exactly what I was going to ask. You beat me to it Brian.

I have still been researching my options for a bookshelf speaker in a boodshelf and I think the M5 is going to be the best choice for me. I just need to find the time to drive down to the SF bay area from Sacramento to have a listen. Now I'm of course curious what that "big announcement" will be.

I have been following the commentary in this thread and I found it interesting that a number of contributers talked about various Boston Acoustics speakers. Boston used to be a company I admired as much as NHT. I always loved the sound of Bostons. Do the Bostons have a similar sonic quality compared to NHT. Is that why those of us who like the NHT sound also liked the sound of the Bostons?

The conversation about the pricing of parts found in NHT speakers is also quite interesting. It seems like a solid design principal and if it keeps NHT products affordable, I'm all for it.

To Jack and all of the staff at NHT, keep up the good work. I'm really learning a lot just from reading this thread. The fact that Jack has posted comments about my specific needs is really going a long long way towards my confidence in NHT as a company. This thread and NHT's participation in it, is what is selling me on the NHT products.

Thanks again.

Thanks for the link B2R.

Jack, is it safe to assume that if one has a Controller and a pair of Fours for mains, along with a Twelve sub, that if you set it up accordingly through the speaker wizard, that the Controller does just as you suggested in your manufacturer comments?

Broodwich, the BA of today is a whole other animal from the BA of 15 years ago or so. They sound nothing alike now to then, which is unfortunate.

Broodwich, the BA of today is a whole other animal from the BA of 15 years ago or so. They sound nothing alike now to then, which is unfortunate.

Agreed, I listened to some Bostons on my quest for new HT speakers and I was not that impressed.

John, the second subwoofer that NHT marketed (and the most sucessful), the SW2P, was ported and designed under Ken's tenure. So there!

Yes, but the acoustic suspension SW1 *sounded* better! :p

"It is common high-end practice to use the "best" parts everywhere, on the theory that it can't hurt. And if the chosen parts have no adverse side effects, it won't. But by the time all multiplying factors are taken into account (footnote 3), it will have significantly jacked up the retail price—though not necessarily the level of performance"

This is true. Unlike *many* companies that either a) put one or two "star" parts and brag about them (while putting crap everywhere else) or b) put overkill parts every where and then end up with a $20K speaker that is barely better than a $2K speaker, NHT weighs every improvement cost at the retail level. Beryllium got nixed as a tweeter for Xd because it would have substantially raised the price but not the performance. Unfortunately, people get sucked in by that kind of thing all the time. Put Beryllium on the Xd, raise the price $1000 or so and *bang* it would sell better even if it sounded exactly the same. But that midrange - that makes *the* difference in Xd's sound and is worth the rather high cost.

Once again, the comment of lean upper bass-lower mids rears its head. Hasn't that been an issue from time to time with some of the NHT side-firers over the years?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Remember, most speakers are *very* thick in the areas where NHTs are generally flat or marginally thin. Look at the current crop of tower speakers with 6-7" woofers. They overdo the 100Hz region and have little below that. Also, keep in mind we're talking about *3dB* - the graph looks worse than it should because of the way it is compressed side to side but expanded vertically compared to many graphs. Most speakers seem to get 10dB increments on the graph, not 5dB, so this makes these look *way* worse than the are. The speaker measured +/-1.5dB from 40Hz to over 15kHz. Most all towers I've seen are way worse than that and when they are, they often change the scale to make them look flatter than they are.

However, I did notice that the Controller seems to control these little deviations and makes the speakers sound more integrated. It measures about how I pictured it in my head and I'm okay with that.

I have been following the commentary in this thread and I found it interesting that a number of contributers talked about various Boston Acoustics speakers. Boston used to be a company I admired as much as NHT. I always loved the sound of Bostons. Do the Bostons have a similar sonic quality compared to NHT. Is that why those of us who like the NHT sound also liked the sound of the Bostons?

NHT and Boston sounded much more similar in the 80s/early 90s, but I think NHT has continued on to produce a much more refined and "high-end" product.

But that midrange - that makes *the* difference in Xd's sound and is worth the rather high cost.

I was thinking that Jack's comments were somewhat at odds with the choice of the Xd's midrange driver.

I was thinking that Jack's comments were somewhat at odds with the choice of the Xd's midrange driver.

While the magnesium is really cool, they mainly chose the driver for its motor structure and linearity as I understand it. I think it's safe to say that the effectiveness of a driver material has to do with its implementation and lack of BS involved in promoting it.

PS - Merry Christmas everyone!!!!!!

PS - Merry Christmas everyone!!!!!!

Seconded!

Hopefully everyone will be able to spend time with those they love, if not, music they love.

Eric,

Did you get my PM?

Do you guys with Four experience go along with Fremer's characteristic of the Fours being on the sonically 'cool and mechanical' side?

Eric,

Did you get my PM?


Thanks Jack, I did. I was hoping to get with you this week, assuming you are available.

Thanks again!

Do you guys with Four experience go along with Fremer's characteristic of the Fours being on the sonically 'cool and mechanical' side?

Not to me, but maybe compared to the SF Dromus, which I consider more of a musical instrument than a faithfull reproducer.

I had just received my pair of Classic Four's yesterday and so far I would have to say no. Sonus Faber tends to be richly balanced and may be a preference of Fremer.

What I also notice is that some of the source equipment used is although very good, is somewhat cool sounding. One item is the Sony XA-777ES. I have had an extended listening session and found it to be exactly as Fremer described the Four as. This is compared to my Marantz SA-11.

I had just received my pair of Classic Four's yesterday and so far I would have to say no. Sonus Faber tends to be richly balanced and may be a preference of Fremer.

What I also notice is that some of the source equipment used is although very good, is somewhat cool sounding. One item is the Sony XA-777ES. I have had an extended listening session and found it to be exactly as Fremer described the Four as. This is compared to my Marantz SA-11.


I am torn between the Sonus Fobar Grand Piano, and the NHT Classic 4. Hard to think that the Classic 4 are running with a speaker that is three times its price.

Michael

Michael, I think at this point I can not provide you much more help here.

After running the speakers for the day making some basic positioning adjustments, I can honestly say that the Classic Fours are far more enjoyable speaker then the Paradigm Studio 60 v.2 they replace. I do have to admit that coming from a speaker like the Paradigm really allows me to understand what steely highs sound like.

I have auditioned to Sonus Faber twice and I understand your dilemma. They are a lot of fun even if they are not neutral sounding. I think Fremer is accustomed to this sound as the Domus, the Wilson MAXX2 he owns, the Vandersteens Quatro, and the Devore Fildelity Siverback all seem to share that certain quality. All of these designs seem to have their final voicing done by listening and what brings them enjoyment. You might find yourself in this boat as well and happy to be there. Go out and listen to them if you can. Try the Revel F52 as they are known to be fairly neutral or some JM Labs models that by reputation can be a little lively with their very resolving and somewhat elevated treble.

One hard part regarding store auditions is the equipment used can affect the sound greatly. I have found night and day differenced with just a change of a pre-amp.

Personally, I have found a speaker that I enjoy greatly.

Thanks Jack,
This is my second pair of NHT's and its a very nice return.

I am looking to place speakers in a book shelf, for home theater use only (and there will be a boundary issue on one side) and a small room. (soft up against back wall 11 ft away).

Would the Xd be an appropriate system here to optimize for the bad layout? or do you lose too much that it makes the cost ridiculous?


Is there a different nht system that might work better or just as effectively?

any other speaker systems, or should I go triad (book shelf mounted again)

Hey Jack, Thanks for chiming in! It's always nice to hear what your thoughts are. From what I am reading it's looking like I am going to take the plunge and grab a set of Classic Fours, unless I can find a set of DCM Timewindow 7's, which will be almost impossible. I kind of grew up around one of the founding members of DCM so I know what the TW-7's are all about. Gotta stay loyal you know! Sort of like I feel towards NHT! Cheers

Perhaps NHTs just arent' for me, but I am trying really hard to like them.
There are 2 things going on here:
The Classic Threes have significantly more energy in the upper mids and highs than I am used to with the Mirage M3s which are starting to sound dull to me.
So it is bit of shocker going from one to the other.

Certain recordings or particular songs I find hard to listen to on the Classic Threes.
And I don't want to spend $700 to "upgrade" to something that will sit silent.

Maybe I will pick them up from my dealer again and audition them over the
weekend.

I still haven't heard the Fours yet.

Thats exactly what I thougt when I purchased my 2.9's, but the opposite. I loved the "Brighter" sound of the 2.9's and VT-2's compared to the Mirages. I thought the Mirages where kind of dull and laid back, but thats just my preference in sound. I guess thats why I love NHT's!

I am looking to place speakers in a book shelf, for home theater use only (and there will be a boundary issue on one side) and a small room. (soft up against back wall 11 ft away).

Would the Xd be an appropriate system here to optimize for the bad layout? or do you lose too much that it makes the cost ridiculous?


Is there a different nht system that might work better or just as effectively?

any other speaker systems, or should I go triad (book shelf mounted again)

IMO, for your situation a Triad system might make more sense. They have a number of speakers that are designed to be placed in bookshelves, and though I've not heard them myself, I never heard anything but raves. One of their execs (Scarpelli?) posts here regularly, so he can probably answer questions for you. Also, you can get a number of different finishes that will likely better match the furniture.

Belive me, I love my Xd's, but if I were putting together a system like the one you describe, I'd probably go with something like Triad or Aerial.

I am looking to place speakers in a book shelf, for home theater use only (and there will be a boundary issue on one side) and a small room. (soft up against back wall 11 ft away).

Would the Xd be an appropriate system here to optimize for the bad layout? or do you lose too much that it makes the cost ridiculous?


Is there a different nht system that might work better or just as effectively?

any other speaker systems, or should I go triad (book shelf mounted again)
I'd try the NHT M5 which has a boundry compensation switch for just your situation. You would save a ton of cash too compared to the Xd or Triad solutions.

Would the Xd be an appropriate system here to optimize for the bad layout? or do you lose too much that it makes the cost ridiculous?

I would say "no" and "yes".

The problem with Xd is that, while it does have some compensation stuff, the very wide dispersion and very high quality gets really mucked up on a bookshelf. Almost to the point of being worse than Evo. Not quite, but well, you don't get all of that for which you pay.

I'd try the NHT M5 which has a boundry compensation switch for just your situation. You would save a ton of cash too compared to the Xd or Triad solutions.

Plus one on MF's post quoted here, and what John said in the subsequent post.

The M5 is an incredible speaker for the $$$, and you seem to have a situation it would not only work with, but thrive and flourish in.

Hi all,

Does anyone how to remove the tweeter unit on the ST-4? Your help and advice is much appreciated. Thx!

Vincent

Vincent,

PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you the directions tomorrow.

Ask and ye shall receive! :D

You can't get better help than that! :)

BTW Jack, is the newer Evolution type tweeter on the Super Audio Series a simple drop-in replacement for the original one that was like in the Music and VT Series with same crossover points and all?

I didn't read the whole thread but for those in need of i DAC i would suggest the Harman Kardon HD970 which is a very good upsampling CD player and can be used as a DAC too.

http://www.harmankardon.com/product_detail.aspx?Region=EUROPE&Country=FR&Language=ENG&cat=CDP&prod=HD%20970/230&sType=C

It can find it a 299 € V.A.T. incl.

I use it with a optical s/pidf switch to connect my sources which doesn't have great D/A converters (PC, DVD, set-top box) to my amplifier.

Hi Jack,

Thanks for your offer to help. I am having problem sending you PM so here's my email address: shektau6 AT gmail. It seems quite difficult to remove the tweeter without damaging the beautiful cabinet. Your help on that is much appreciated!

Thanks,

P.S. I have used SuperZero, SuperOne and now I am using the ST4 and I loved them all. I hope I can afford the new classic fours one day...

Vincent

I didn't read the whole thread but for those in need of i DAC i would suggest the Harman Kardon HD970 which is a very good upsampling CD player and can be used as a DAC too.

http://www.harmankardon.com/product_detail.aspx?Region=EUROPE&Country=FR&Language=ENG&cat=CDP&prod=HD%20970/230&sType=C

It can find it a 299 € V.A.T. incl.

I use it with a optical s/pidf switch to connect my sources which doesn't have great D/A converters (PC, DVD, set-top box) to my amplifier.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


Since this thread has now taken a turn for upsampling/upconverting, I just wanna say that I finally got a HD DVD player which up-converts standard DVDs to HDMI 1080, and it does in fact make SD DVDs look noticeably much better. I would highly recommend this to anyone who hasn't yet. :D

Interesting to read the "Manufacturer's Comment" in the UltimateAVMag review re: subwoofers and Classic Fours. I set up my Fours on Saturday (Dec 23rd) and after much moving around have the side woofers firing out (away from each other). They are about 6' apart and each about 3' from the side walls (and 1' from the rear). Although Jack says (I think) that they don't need breaking in if they are at room temp I found that my SB3s benefited a *whole* lot from about 50 hours of break-in. So the following comments are preliminary in my mind (and all apply to stereo 2.1 listening):
- Fours alone with no sub - very good but seem to lose a little 'impact' at the lower register
- Fours with a sub (an Axiom EP-500, my only non-NHT speaker) - a *whole* lot of impact as long as you a) turn off the sub xo, b) set your AVR xo to 60hz (I tried 40hz but couldn't detect any difference).
I find the sound 'fuller' to my ears with the sub (the EP-500 goes down to 18hz) and has a fair bit more 'slam'. Doesn't seem to interfere with acoustic bass at all (I listen to a lot of jazz).
So my only conclusion is to just try it... maybe room dynamics mean more than an 'absolute' recommendation.
Caveat: my SB3s 'filled out' a lot once they were run in for a while. Maybe the Fours will do the same.
Caveat2: I think I may need the Classic 3 center for when I watch DVDs... The SuperCenter doesn't sound quite 'right' but I wait for the Fours to break in before I decide.

Equip: Denon 3805 with a NAD C272 driving the Fours through pre-out (not bi-amped or anything like that). SB3s (side), SuperOnes (rear) and SuperCenter. EP-500 sub. Denon 2910 DVD/SACD and Cambridge 640c V2 CD. Panny 50" plasma.

Referring back to the question for need to place LCR's on a shelf, and having a sidewall (only 2 ft worth until a door opening) immediately adjacent to one side,
the M5's were recommended.

Is there something slightly smaller, perhaps the Classic 3 that might work? Is the equalization switch that valuable?

Could I put the 3's and M5's on their sides?

could I use the new center channel?

and for the surrounds, immediately above the sitting area directly against the back wall? thanis!!!

Richard,

Xd will work in an entertainment center (EC). You will of course loose some performance. There are a couple problems with putting a speaker system in an EC.

The biggest of which is that you will get early reflections off of the EC. This will hurt the imaging. How bad the reflections are is a function of where the speaker is placed in the EC and what the dispersion characteristics of the speaker are. If the front baffle of speaker is placed even with the very front of the EC or slightly in front of it, the reflections off of the EC will be minimized. If you have the baffle of the speaker behind the front of the EC, you will have massive early reflections and the imaging will be terrible. The wider the dispersion of the speaker, the worse the early reflections will be.

The second big problem is that at lower frequencies where the speaker radiates sound in all directions, you will get reflections off of the EC. This won't affect the imaging too much, but it will affect the tonality. It will tend to make the speaker sound thick and muddy.

Xd is very wide dispersion, so placing it in an EC will hurt the imaging. There are adjustments on the XdA via front panel controls to deal with problem #2 above. The front baffle of Xd is very curved, so this will make the reflections worse when placed in an EC. Xd has much lower distortion than an M5/M6 speaker.

The M5 and M6 are narrower dispersion speakers that have a boundary switch on the back to deal with problem #2 also. They have flat front baffles, which minimizes early reflections off of the EC. They were designed to be used in ECs. The M5/M6 will play louder than an XdS.

My advice is to get an Xd system. Set it up in the room on its stands. Listen to it for a few days, then place it in the EC and listen for a few more days. At this point, you will probably throw away the EC after hearing the difference. Problem solved:)

I would probably get an M5/M6 system for the EC and save your money on Xd. Xd can give better performance in an EC than an M5/M6 based system, but it will require very careful design of the EC and careful placement of the XdS in it.

Mark,

The Super Audio and Evolution tweeters are the same with the exception of the faceplate shape. The earlier Music series and Video Tower series of 1" aluminum neo dome are completely different design. The current Classic 1" aluminum neo domes are similar to the SA and Evo tweeters, but not interchangeable.

Richard,

Can you give me a link that describes your situation. I don't have enough information to answer your last post.

One key thing here is to not put them too close to the wall. What you should do is measure the distance from your head to the speaker. Then put a mirror on the wall so you can see the speaker, then measure the distance from the speaker to the mirror and from the mirror to you. It should be 5'-6' (or more) longer. There is a way to fix this if it isn't, but it requires hanging things on your wall.

Hi John,

What material do you recommend to hang on the wall? I have the ST4 and I need to put them very close to the back wall (less than 1 feet). I couldn't use the ideal 1-1.5 ratio that NHT recommends (it's now 1-1) and my couch is against the backwall.

Thanks,

Vincent

description of my situation:

I built in a bookcase - solidly constructed - as part of a paneled out family room. It is 88 inches wide, with a space in the middle for a 42 inch plasma, the rest being book shelves. To the left is a longer wall, and to the right the right side wall starts immediately for about 18 more inches before getting to a double door (that slides back to form a large opening).

I will put in a drop down screen, probably a clearpix 2 accoustically transparent, fired by a front projector.

THe seating will be in an alcove about 11 ft back, directly on the rear wall. there will be right and left side rear walls immediately adjacent.

This isn't a perfect accoustical room I know (and I know since I once built a perfect one!) but I would like to optimize it for family viewing.

Since it can not be perfect I would prefer not to go crazy but I will not skimp where it makes sense.

I would prefer smaller bookshelf speakers, and even putting trandsducers in the sofa (I did that once which worked out well with a filter bypass).

The center channel needs to be on its side if it is more than say 8 or so inches tall. The shelves on the side are 12 inches wide, but height adjustable. They are adjustable but I can make them permanent if i need to.

thanks

Richard,

I would use three M5s in the front. The M5 is 7.75" tall, so it will fit above or below your plasma. The L and R M5s should be oriented vertically. That will help keep the first reflection off of the wall/doors to the right side. Definitely run all three front M5s in the boundary 1 position. Put L5s high up on the side walls angled downwards. Use whatever sub you have, buy one of ours or someone elses, but not both!

I wouldn't lay down a Three. The dispersion won't be great.

M5/M6s can be used standing up or laying down as long as the tweeter is facing in the correct direction. See the Evolution Owner's manual on the NHT site for a complete description (mostly in section 11).

The Boundary switch is important. It really does work.

BTW Jack, is the newer Evolution type tweeter on the Super Audio Series a simple drop-in replacement for the original one that was like in the Music and VT Series with same crossover points and all?

Mark are you just asking a question are is the big announcement a new Evolution speaker.
Allen

Thanks Jack.

And for the preamp/pro for this - the NHT Controller or would a Proceed AVP work better?

Does anyone make gear to do active room equalization?

thanks,

Mark are you just asking a question are is the big announcement a new Evolution speaker.
Allen

I was just asking a question Allen.

I had a newer pair of SB3s bought new in late 2004, and I picked up a used set of ST4s. I noticed that the tweeter definitely sounded "hotter" in the ST4s than the SB3s. Now, without first looking at the specs on them before I say this, I'm sure the 3 way ST4 prolly has a slightly higher crossover point from the tweeter to the mid than the SB3 does, but I didn't think it would have made THAT much of a difference. I actually thought that the previous owner must have switched the tweeters in them.

But then John stated on this thread that a few months into the production run, NHT switched the tweeters on the Super Audio Series from that originally like on the Music/VT Series to that of the Evolutions, and that made sense to me since my pair of ST4 is an older pair. I can tell by the owner's manual that came with it showing a SW10, not SW10ii, and only showing a SC1 and not also a SC2.

I was just asking Jack if it would be a simple drop in replacement to switch the tweeters over.

However, Jack has stated elsewhere that there will be a big announcement of some sort in about a month. :D

Thanks Jack.

And for the preamp/pro for this - the NHT Controller or would a Proceed AVP work better?

Does anyone make gear to do active room equalization?

thanks,

Get the Controller if you have and plan on keeping, or ever plan on getting NHT speakers.

The Boundary switch is important. It really does work.

Yes it does indeed.

For my surrounds in my small (11x12) room. I have 3 Threes across the front. I have decided against the IW-4s (don't want to mount in-wall), but I will have to mount on-wall near the corner. The system is 5.1, and I don't currently listen to discrete multichannel music but I do enjoy PLII-music.

Smaller, cheaper AZs or matching Threes, thoughts appreciated.

What material do you recommend to hang on the wall? I have the ST4 and I need to put them very close to the back wall (less than 1 feet). I couldn't use the ideal 1-1.5 ratio that NHT recommends (it's now 1-1) and my couch is against the backwall.

Ooph. What can you do to change this? Anything? Room treatment helps rooms more than bad setup. Do you have a center speaker? This could seriously help your sound if you're running PLII with the center for music.

And for the preamp/pro for this - the NHT Controller or would a Proceed AVP work better?

Controller. The NHT EQ makes a big difference and makes sure a lot of things are done exactly right. Besides, I think the Controller is a much newer, more advanced design from what I've seen of Proceed lately.

Does anyone make gear to do active room equalization?

Audyssey does.

For my surrounds in my small (11x12) room. I have 3 Threes across the front. I have decided against the IW-4s (don't want to mount in-wall), but I will have to mount on-wall near the corner. The system is 5.1, and I don't currently listen to discrete multichannel music but I do enjoy PLII-music.

Eric, couch up against the back wall? I'd go for Threes personally, but they're twice the size. They should be on the side walls facing each other.

Hello guys,

I've read as many pages as I can stand of this thread and had a quick question. I was planning on either a Classic setup or Evo setup. I think the Evo would be better for HT use seeing as the front 3 speakers will be the exact same speaker. My listening distance is 13 feet away from the speakers. Would the M5 or M6 be a better speaker for that kind of distance? I plan on getting the L5 for rears which will match either and will be much closer to the listener.

BTW, John, I sent you a PM. Please read it and get back to me. Thanks.

I'd say M6. How big is the room though?

I was just asking Jack if it would be a simple drop in replacement to switch the tweeters over.

Simple drop in? No. It has a different face plate. I imagine could be jerry rigged, but not really worth it, I don't think. You could sell the ST4s and get newer used ones, probably for the same price.

Simple drop in? No. It has a different face plate. I imagine could be jerry rigged, but not really worth it, I don't think. You could sell the ST4s and get newer used ones, probably for the same price.

It's not going to be Evo II or anything else you are expecting or imagining. Don't ask, I really only know enough to know it's not anything on my prodigious wish list. It is cool from what I gather, just not anything that people have asked for on this thread.

Yeah, that's about what I'm thinking too.

I do like the newer tweeter much better though.

The early and later SA tweeters (SB1, SB2, SB3, ST4) are exactly the same with the exception of the width of the faceplate.

Eric, couch up against the back wall? I'd go for Threes personally, but they're twice the size. They should be on the side walls facing each other.

Bed actually, but with my Mattress Genie it puts me ~2" away from the wall, I don't know where my studs are. Is your recommendation due to timbre matching, LF extension, or dispersion characteristics? Just curious.

Bed actually, but with my Mattress Genie it puts me ~2" away from the wall, I don't know where my studs are. Is your recommendation due to timbre matching, LF extension, or dispersion characteristics? Just curious.

All of the above. Well, not so much the dispersion, but it's always best to have good matching.

I guess we will have to wait until Jan 8 which will be CES (and my birthday) for the big announcement.
Allen

Mr. Ashman, I strongly urge you to remove the last couple sentences from your last post.

Last edited by Alimentall : Today at 04:16 PM.

Dammit, I missed it.

Since I am being slowly convinced on the evo 5's for my situation, three questions please:

a) instead of the onwall speakers for the rear, is there an inwall that would be just as good? or would it be not quite as good?

b) will the evo 5's be "updated" shortly?

c) when will the Controller go to 1.3hdmi, so I don't need to worry about upgrading, and will it/when have active room eq?

thanks again

Since I am being slowly convinced on the evo 5's for my situation, three questions please:

a) instead of the onwall speakers for the rear, is there an inwall that would be just as good? or would it be not quite as good?

b) will the evo 5's be "updated" shortly?

c) when will the Controller go to 1.3hdmi, so I don't need to worry about upgrading, and will it/when have active room eq?

thanks again

No Evo in walls, I don't think anyway.

As for Evo updates, that seems to be a touchy subject, so I doubt you'll get a straight answer.

I think I saw somewhere that HDMI 1.3 will be available next spring.

I guess we will have to wait until Jan 8 which will be CES (and my birthday) for the big announcement.
Allen

Less than 2 weeks anyway. Allow me to be the first to say HB! :)

Dammit, I missed it.

Subscribe to the thread my friend, then you will get e-mails of unedited posts. :D

I'd say M6. How big is the room though?
The room is 16x18 with a 15ft vaulted ceiling.

Subscribe to the thread my friend, then you will get e-mails of unedited posts. :D


Subscribed and still don't see what John said. Doh!

Subscribed and still don't see what John said. Doh!


Me too, I guess it is water under the bridge.

I hope Jack doesn't mind, but I am very impressed with the (non?) customer service I received from him and NHT.

I PMed him about an issue I had with a X2 crossover I purchased used from a forum member. While under no obligation he helped me resolve the problem via a couple of phone calls and PMs. The unit was obviously not under warranty.

I would urge members not to inundate Jack with a lot of product questions that could/should be answered on this forum, but I wanted to pass on the very positive experience that I had.

No Evo in walls, I don't think anyway.

Wouldn't the L5 be as close to the M5/6 for in walls


As for Evo updates, that seems to be a touchy subject, so I doubt you'll get a straight answer.

NO big deal I can wait, and I sure don't want to have hard feelings in the NHT family.

Thanks for the BD wishes. :eek:

And I hope everyone has a safe New Years weekend. :)

Allen

right, that's my question whether the L5 would work as well as the M5's for the rear channels.

I went a listened to the M5 and Classic 4 today, is it me, or does the Classic 4 have a much better sound stage, and a more colorful sound?

Michael

Richard,

a) Since you are so close to your rear speakers, you want to mount them up high to stabilize the rear soundstage for different listeners. This means that you will be very far off axis with most speakers, unless they are angled downwards. The easiest speaker to angle down is an L5. An M5 can be angled down, but it is going to stick very far off the wall with a bracket. No inwall speaker can be angled down (and still really be in the wall). You can use an inceiling speaker as a compromise.

b) I won't comment on our future product plans. That is a completely straight answer:) There is nothing sticky about it.

c) We are commited to coming out with an HDMI 1.3 upgrade for the Controller. The timing and cost are TBD since the chips are not available yet. That and the software update are the limit of our current upgrade plans for the Controller.

I went a listened to the M5 and Classic 4 today, is it me, or does the Classic 4 have a much better sound stage, and a more colorful sound?

Michael


I haven't gotten to listen to the new classics yet. Nobody around me sells NHT any more.
Allen

b) I won't comment on our future product plans. That is a completely straight answer:) There is nothing sticky about it.



Not a problem I just thought I missed something some where and that is why I asked Mark what he was referring to a few post back. Just remember Jack when you can let the cat out the bag please do it here first if you can. :cool:
Thanks
Allen

Vincent,

PM me with your e-mail address and I'll send you the directions tomorrow.

Jack,

Thanks for sending me the detail instruction. I was able to replace the tweeter in less than 10 minutes!

Vincent

Well. I took the plung today and purchased a set of Classic Fours. I just hope they live up to what everyone says they will, At least live up to the VT-2's. I also auditioned a set of Paradigm Studio 100's v3 and I thought for sure the Paradigm's would give the NHT a good run. Not at all, at least to my ears. Dont get me wrong, they had a beautiful sound, but the bass just didnt seem to have the low kick and the detail just wasn't there, at least compared to my VT-2's and 2.9's. Thank's Jack!

Jack,

let's see if this is my last question the the 5's

I understand why inwall might not work so well therefore, and you mention the in ceiling. would that be one of your IW speakers placed there - if so, which one would work best, and how much of a compromise to the L5's, knowing the whole thing is compromised to begin with!

I think this will all work.

I auditioned a pair of M5s today in my home installed in my entertainment center and they sounded great! Look back a few pages and you'll find a picture of my EC if your interested. When the boundary switch was on the speakers was on, everything sounded great. All that muddy mid bass was gone and the HF sounded crisp and clear. The sound stage was better with the M5s than with my Klipsch Synergy speakers but perhaps not quite as good as another set of speakers I auditioned several days ago that featured a ribbon tweeter. Still I really liked the sound and I think I'm going to be an owner soon. I'll keep you posted on what I decide.

By the way, the NHT dealer that I found is great. I'm dealing with a small company and working directly with the owner. I called him this afternoon and he offered to come out this evening. It was a great experience and there was no pressure to buy nor did the salesman try to convince me that I needed to buy anything else from him or have him do any custom work for me.

Richard,

The iW4s mounted in the ceiling are going to be the best match to M5s in the front. They will have less bass output capability than L5s. The biggest difference is that with the iW4s, you will have more early reflections. This will make the rear soundstage more ambient and less focused.

I auditioned a pair of M5s today in my home installed in my entertainment center and they sounded great! Look back a few pages and you'll find a picture of my EC if your interested. When the boundary switch was on the speakers was on, everything sounded great. All that muddy mid bass was gone and the HF sounded crisp and clear. The sound stage was better with the M5s than with my Klipsch Synergy speakers but perhaps not quite as good as another set of speakers I auditioned several days ago that featured a ribbon tweeter. Still I really liked the sound and I think I'm going to be an owner soon. I'll keep you posted on what I decide.

By the way, the NHT dealer that I found is great. I'm dealing with a small company and working directly with the owner. I called him this afternoon and he offered to come out this evening. It was a great experience and there was no pressure to buy nor did the salesman try to convince me that I needed to buy anything else from him or have him do any custom work for me.

That sounds good. If you get a chance take another pic with the m5 in your EC. It was so nice looking would like to see how thw M5 look in it.
Allen

Well. I took the plung today and purchased a set of Classic Fours. I just hope they live up to what everyone says they will, At least live up to the VT-2's. I also auditioned a set of Paradigm Studio 100's v3 and I thought for sure the Paradigm's would give the NHT a good run. Not at all, at least to my ears. Dont get me wrong, they had a beautiful sound, but the bass just didnt seem to have the low kick and the detail just wasn't there, at least compared to my VT-2's and 2.9's. Thank's Jack!

I can't wait to hear you reviews of how they compared to the VT-2.

Michael

Richard,

The iW4s mounted in the ceiling are going to be the best match to M5s in the front. They will have less bass output capability than L5s. The biggest difference is that with the iW4s, you will have more early reflections. This will make the rear soundstage more ambient and less focused.

I think I may go with the iW4s for my room as well. Looking it over with the dealer last night and talking about it I think they might be the best choice for my room as well. There's just no good way to install the L5s and my wife will like that a lot better than having another pair of M5s on stands in the back for surrounds.

In a 5.1 setup where should the iW4s be placed in relation to my couch? Do you still want them to the sides of the couch, directly above the seating position, or behind?

I went a listened to the M5 and Classic 4 today, is it me, or does the Classic 4 have a much better sound stage, and a more colorful sound?

Michael

Your post here made me think of one James made waayyy back earlier on in this thread. I think he really hit the nail on the head here.

Here is my .02, a long time NHT user/fan and a Audio/HT NUT with compulsive upgraditus :)

The M6 is a very accurate speaker that is not really "voiced" as a music speaker first, but has very even overall balance. It has great flexibility, and placement can and does effect the sound greatly as it does with any speaker. The adjustable crossover can help though it ways other speakers cannot. It is a very accurate music speaker with no artificial bump to make it sound better on the first listen. It will simply produce what it is feed.

The SB3 music series was "voiced" for music first, had a warmer overall tone and was actually not very accurate in the upper bass/lower midrange. This sounded good though on first listen until you realize that the sound is "voiced" for its target audience. Female vocals are rich and warm. It can sound a little "tubby" after awhile especially when you A/B it against a top grade monitor.

The Classic 3 is a compromise between the two, although it is still "voiced" for a music speaker. It will not play as loud as the M6 and will not have the impact for HT. At moderate volume it may sound better with music, depending on placement of course. The Classic 3 is much more balanced than the SB3, but not more than the M6.

The M6 is simply a monitor that to some will sound a little forward, the Classic 3 a warmer sounding music speaker that gets most things right. Both excellent in there own right.

The wildcard for me is that the Evolution system is just that, a system. The L5 is MADE to be wall mounted and will likely sound much better than an Absolute Zero/Classic 2 that is wall mounted. The Classic series does not have a good surround option. The Evo subs are clearly in a different class also. Lastly, the M5/M6 flexibility will work better in more rooms IMHO as the more accurate sound, but not always the best "liked" sound. A Multi-channel Evo system works better in my HT for placement and accuracy.

I have had T6's/M6's in My HT three different times over the last 2 years. I also have tried the T5's, M5's, SB3's, Monitor Audio GR60's and Gr10's, Silver 9i's, 5i's, 4i's and 3i's, Von Schwiekert VR4jr.s, VR2's, LCR15's and Vr1's. Paradigm 100's, 40's, and 20's. NHT 3.3's 2.9's and 2.5's. Rockets even!! I am forgetting some too :)

I do like trying different things, that it surely part of the fun of this hobby:D

I wouldn't describe the Classic Threes as warm.
Maybe warmer when compared to other NHT offerings,
but not when compared to other manufacturers.

Regarding Jame's post; after hearing them I don't think you can do much better than the M5 placed in an entertainment center for the money. I will admit that I am very cheap when it comes to speakers. After spending time researching new speakers for my home theater including building my own speakers. I have to say that I now feel like the M5s are a real bargain for the money.

I think I have pretty much come to the same conclusion James did.

I went a listened to the M5 and Classic 4 today, is it me, or does the Classic 4 have a much better sound stage, and a more colorful sound?

That's the resolution and dispersion doing that (and the nifty low diffraction baffle). If the room is bright or the placement is poor, that *can* be a bad thing, but most people don't judge a speaker by how it performs set up poorly, they judge it set up perfectly with $5figures of electronics, then go home and set it up wrong ;)

That's the resolution and dispersion doing that (and the nifty low diffraction baffle).


John,

Could you break that down into simple terms for a novice?

I wouldn't describe the Classic Threes as warm.
Maybe warmer when compared to other NHT offerings,
but not when compared to other manufacturers.

JMLab? Axiom? B&W? Epos? Boston? Trust me, there are a *lot* of speakers now that are brighter than Threes. Probably more that are brighter than are warmer. It would take half a thread just to list them.

Could you break that down into simple terms for a novice?

Well, in order to get good imaging/soundstaging, we need a really clean signal. It's often hard to get *both* because a large soundstage is generally aided by side wall/ceiling reflections that create a sense of space around the speakers. Now, that can detract from pin point focus. The low diffraction baffle helps the dispersion within the room which gives the bigger sound. Most speakers are more beamy than Fours/Threes, so they are very picky about where you sit and don't have that natural ambience because the signal coming from the speaker changes dramatically from position to position. The narrow baffle gets the speaker out of the way so there is less reflection from the cabinet itself. It gets rid of the "big speaker" sound and gives you more of a "big *music*" sound. The "big speaker sound" generally has you hearing two halos, one around each speaker. A really good imaging speaker spreads it around so that you can't hear where the speaker is.

IOW, the more naturally a speaker disperses sound in the room, the less the cabinet is in the way of the sound, the lower the distortion, the bigger/better the soundstage is. With a good room or a little treatment, you can have a huge soundstage and pinpoint imaging within that soundstage.

I can't wait to hear you reviews of how they compared to the VT-2.

Michael
I will be sure to let you know how they sound!

I am going to try to listen to the three speakers I have narrowed this down to, with the NHT leading the pack though one worry about size.

NHT Evo M5, Thiel (powerpoints in the rear) and Triad (in walls in rear). Primary concerns: placing in built in book case, and putting rears in area that has sofa with walls on three sides (small alcove).

Whichever can handle this situation better wins, with smaller size breaking ties!

Happy New Year to the NHT gang.

Michael

Can anyone comment on the Classic Three compared to any of the better MA monitors? I am looking to get an audition of both, but value wise it would seem that the NHT Three is much better.

Also recently heard a Veritas 2.3 (since I was interested in the 2.2 bookshelf). It was very lean! I can only imagine that the Veritas 2.2 is even leaner in the bass notes. Crossing them off my list as I head toward some Classic Threes.

thanks for any listening notes or experience.

Can anyone comment on the Classic Three compared to any of the better MA monitors? I am looking to get an audition of both, but value wise it would seem that the NHT Three is much better.

Also recently heard a Veritas 2.3 (since I was interested in the 2.2 bookshelf). It was very lean! I can only imagine that the Veritas 2.2 is even leaner in the bass notes. Crossing them off my list as I head toward some Classic Threes.

thanks for any listening notes or experience.

Haven't heard the equivalent MA monitors to my Threes, but I can say that on their own the Threes produce surprising bass (much like my SB2s); enough to make you think there's a sub set to a very low, balanced level, but not quite enough to run them on their own, which is probably why the Fours exist.

I'm sorry but I haven't heard the Classic 3s (I have 4s) - but I do also have SB3s and a recent comparison report said that the C3s were an improvement over the SB3s all round - which would be significant as the SB3s are very, very good.
So what? Before I bought my C4s I auditioned MAs. Although I was looking more at the RS6s and RS8sI listened to the RS1s and GS10s as well (they were set up and the nice guy at the store said let's give it a try). I would rate the SB3s better than the RS1s in bass and equal in mid and high. The GS10s however were probably as good as the SB3s - maybe a bit better in the mid/high - but it was difficult to tell without them side by side. I wouldn't have rushed out to trade in the SB3s, and I didn't (!), but it was very close.

I'm sorry but I haven't heard the Classic 3s (I have 4s) - but I do also have SB3s and a recent comparison report said that the C3s were an improvement over the SB3s all round - which would be significant as the SB3s are very, very good.
So what? Before I bought my C4s I auditioned MAs. Although I was looking more at the RS6s and RS8sI listened to the RS1s and GS10s as well (they were set up and the nice guy at the store said let's give it a try). I would rate the SB3s better than the RS1s in bass and equal in mid and high. The GS10s however were probably as good as the SB3s - maybe a bit better in the mid/high - but it was difficult to tell without them side by side. I wouldn't have rushed out to trade in the SB3s, and I didn't (!), but it was very close.


Well, I just heard the MA RS6 today. Nice speaker for the money, and it does some things well, but it is on the bright side. At higher volumes, it gets a bit aggressive. Not sure my Carver receiver can tame the high end. I don't think I need to hear the RS1 now. Thanks for the comments on the SB3's.

Haven't heard the equivalent MA monitors to my Threes, but I can say that on their own the Threes produce surprising bass (much like my SB2s); enough to make you think there's a sub set to a very low, balanced level, but not quite enough to run them on their own, which is probably why the Fours exist.

Thanks for the input. I am not a bass freak, but want balanced bass. It sound slike the threes will do the trick. My listening room is also my office. Small room at about 12.5 X 11.5. I will need to put the Threes about a foot away from the wall, so that should help give me a bit more bass, correct?

Have you listened to and considered the M5s instead of the Threes in that case, especially if they will be going on shelves instead of stands?

In a room that small and being that close to the walls, the M5 would prolly be a much better choice.

Have you listened to and considered the M5s instead of the Threes in that case, especially if they will be going on shelves instead of stands?

In a room that small and being that close to the walls, the M5 would prolly be a much better choice.

I have not considered the M5's. I don't know anything about them, so I will have to do some research. The speakers will be on stands, if they are not towers (i.e. the Fours). No shelves involved. There are not many decent bookshelves that I have heard for the money. I did get a chance to hear Joseph Audio bookshelves a week ago. Not impressed. The JA 22 towers were fabulous though.

Thanks for the input.

The Fours would prolly overpower that small sized room and be waayyy too "boomy", unless maybe you bi-amped them with an X2.

A pair of T5s if you can find one, or M5s on P5s with a U2 sub instead would be perfect for that room.

My office is 10 x 9 x 10 with a lot of glass on both sides, and I have a pair of Threes in bookcases with a U2 sub set. I'm going to replace the Threes with a pair of M5s instead.

BTW, for those who hadn't yet noticed, 20 Hz Xd filters are now up on the NHT website. :cool:

Well, I just heard the MA RS6 today. Nice speaker for the money, and it does some things well, but it is on the bright side. At higher volumes, it gets a bit aggressive. Not sure my Carver receiver can tame the high end. I don't think I need to hear the RS1 now. Thanks for the comments on the SB3's.

That's normal for a 5" or 6" metal midrange to sound brighter and brighter as the volume goes up. It's hard to cross over low enough to prevent this. That's why the Threes and Fours have dual midrange drivers - the 6" driver is crossed over two full octaves below normal, preventing upper midrange resonances.

That being said, I'm kinda thinking it would be nice to have the NHT Two replaced by "One" with the AZ cabinet, but an aluminum 5" midrange crossed over at 1500-2000Hz at 24dB/octave. Never happen, but it might be cool if crossed over properly. Most companies cross their tweeter over too high at 3000-4000Hz (and/or too shallow). Not sure about Monitor Audio.

I've got a pr of 1.5's and a pair of SB2's. Can I make a small room HT 5.1 w/ these; how; add what spkrs? Thanks

Sure, you would need to find either an AC1 or a SC1 for a center channel speaker, depending on which pair you use for mains.

That's normal for a 5" or 6" metal midrange to sound brighter and brighter as the volume goes up. It's hard to cross over low enough to prevent this. That's why the Threes and Fours have dual midrange drivers - the 6" driver is crossed over two full octaves below normal, preventing upper midrange resonances.

That being said, I'm kinda thinking it would be nice to have the NHT Two replaced by "One" with the AZ cabinet, but an aluminum 5" midrange crossed over at 1500-2000Hz at 24dB/octave. Never happen, but it might be cool if crossed over properly. Most companies cross their tweeter over too high at 3000-4000Hz (and/or too shallow). Not sure about Monitor Audio.

I went and looked at the frequency response chart, and it goes up from 10K to about 15K. Maybe this is what I was hearing??? Anyway, it was to bright for me.

I get to hear the Classic Three today so I am looking forward to a comparison. I expect to be "blown-away" by the Threes's after reading all the positives. I did remeasure my listening room (home office). 11 X 11. So I don't need large speakers.

Question? Should the Threes sit on stands equal to ear position height (which is about a 30" stand for my chair), or would a 24" be ok (tweeter 6" below my ears)?

thanks

I've got a pr of 1.5's and a pair of SB2's. Can I make a small room HT 5.1 w/ these; how; add what spkrs? Thanks

How about SB2's as main and one NHT Super OneXu's as center and 2 as surrounds? What do I lose this way compared to a true center channel speaker? And a HSU VTF sub? Thinking I'd sell the 1.5 as it would not match as well as the NHT Super OneXu's; and SB2's, right?

I considered starting a new thread for this post, but since I am gravitating to a NHT-only system, and this thread has morphed into a general NHT thread, I’ll post here. What I am looking for is advice on planning my upgrade path as my approach when I first got into this hobby almost two years ago was haphazard as you will see when you read about my system. Upgrades will be incremental likely over the next year or so as my budget is limited with total funds 2-3K and I am fairly pleased with my system as is. My listening room is 15x12x8 with one wall with substantial openings into a dining room. I listen to 70% music (mostly multichannel with DVD-A, SACD and PLIIx) and 30% HT. No WAF to worry about or kids or pets. I care more about sound quality than volume. What upgrade should I look to first to provide me the most bang for the buck? How should I prioritize these upgrades? I have access to some NHT/NAD/Rotel gear for listening at local dealers.

My system as it now stands is:

Mains: NHT ST-4s. I love these speakers and they made me a NHT convert. Even though I was blown away when I recently heard the Classic Fours, my budget will likely lead me to keep these.

Center: Boston Acoustics VRC. I “know” that not having matched Main/Center speakers is a problem, but I do not hear one here yet. Ideally I should move to a NHT center but if I keep the ST-4s, should I look to a SuperAudio Center (would that be a downgrade from my BA?) or go for the Classic Three C?

Surrounds: NHT Classic Twos. I am happy with these speakers but not where they are in my system. I listen to a great deal of hi-rez MC music and the dropoff from the ST-4s to the Classic Twos is noticeable. To my ears, this is the most pressing “problem.” I am considering upgrading here to the Classic Threes and moving the Twos to rear duty.

Rear Surrounds: BA CR-77s (slightly elevated from the listening position given the relatively small room). Okay speakers but I think the Twos would provide more low end and more accuracy in the back.

Sub: SVS Pb-10ISD. I’m very happy here with this sub given the size of my room. I have it crossed at 80 with my speakers set to small.

Receiver: Denon AVR-2106. There are no HDMI connections here which is a problem for the long-haul, but I do not intend to replace this (or get a pre/pro) until the new HD formats/HDMI 1.3 connections are standards. What I am wondering here is whether I should move to separates with a MC amp driven by the Denon in the short-term and something else for the long-term (even another Denon). I’ve been looking at NAD and I’ve seen a few used M-25s that look enticing. Given the size of my room, would moving to separates be overkill or will there be the night/day difference in sound quality that I often read about when people move to separates?

Digital Transport: Denon 1920. I am very happy with this player and do not intend to upgrade until the HD video formats sort themselves out.

Thanks in advance for any comments and also for this thread which I have enjoyed.

I went and looked at the frequency response chart, and it goes up from 10K to about 15K. Maybe this is what I was hearing??? Anyway, it was to bright for me.

I get to hear the Classic Three today so I am looking forward to a comparison. I expect to be "blown-away" by the Threes's after reading all the positives. I did remeasure my listening room (home office). 11 X 11. So I don't need large speakers.

Question? Should the Threes sit on stands equal to ear position height (which is about a 30" stand for my chair), or would a 24" be ok (tweeter 6" below my ears)?

thanks

Well, I finally got to hear the Classic Threes yesterday in head to head comparison with the Chorus 807 and Dynaudio Audience 42's. (two brands I have never heard before). Dealer was great and very helpful throughout the process. The auditioning room was quite large (I'm guessing 15 X 23) and heavily damped with thick carpet and wall treatments everywhere including the ceiling. I tried to mimic my listening room by setting the speakers 7 feet apart and sitting about 9 feet away.

Started with the Threes and ran through some Krall, Xmas jazz, and symphonic band music. Overall impressions: I could hear the entire frequency range minus the bottom octave of course. Good weight, imaging, and soundstage. The Threes were definitely polite and laid back. Although I could hear the highs, the Threes did not have the presence I expected and seemed slightly veiled to me. The bass was tight and tuneful and didn't seem to bloom on any notes. The speakers did nothing to offend me, and had I not heard the other speakers I probably would have been satisfied with purchasing some Threes.

Then I listened to the new Focal Chorus 807 V ($999). I was immediately taken by the upper end. There was another layer of detail and sheen that I had not heard from the Threes. The Focal's were more forward and more engaging with the jazz and band music. I don't know if I could say they were too forward, but more forward than the Threes. I did not care for the ported bass, as it was not as tight or well defined as the Threes. Sometimes the bass got in the way, but the midrange and upper octaves were highly musical.

Finally the small but powerful Dynaudio 42 ($859). Wow. What sound from a smaller speaker. It's midrange and upper octave were similar to the Focal's, just a tad less sheen and resolution. The bass was solid, and I would put it second to the Threes.

Finally I got to hear the Focal Chorus 706 V ($599, with smaller woofer) for a few tracks. The smaller woofer on the 706 V versus the 807 really helped clean up the bass. Although the 706's sacrificed a little bit in the low end, the bass was much tighter and cleaner. Although I did not get to hear this speaker as much due to time constraints, it may be my favorite. I might have to go listen to this again.

I must admit I was slightly disappointed in the Threes after reading everything about them. If I could take the Chorus tweeter and the Three's bass, I would buy that speaker. The midrange on all four of these speakers seemed pretty equal as well.

Here's what I don't know:
1. In my room, which has just carpet and glass doors, would I get a more engaging presentation from the Three's? I'm ok with laid back and a musical speaker, but in this comparison the Three lacked the sweetness of the Focal in the upper frequencies.
1a. Does anyone think the heavy damping in the room hurt the presence of the Threes?
2. The corollary - would the Focal be to bright in my room and aggressive? I can't really deaden my room since it is also my home office. Does anyone have any comments on the new Focal?
3. I have a Carver HTR-880 receiver at 80 watts to use in my new system. I wonder if this is enough power to get the bass to come alive on the Threes?
4. Are the Classis Two's more forward than the Threes, and do they have a little more presence with their tweeter?

This summarizes my first impressions, and I hope to get another soon. I could live with the Threes, but I was very impressed with the Focal. The Chorus 706 at $599 may be a really good value.

Any comments or impressions on what I heard, or answers / opinions to my questions?

thanks.

Well, I finally got to hear the Classic Threes yesterday in head to head comparison with the Chorus 807 and Dynaudio Audience 42's. (two brands I have never heard before). Dealer was great and very helpful throughout the process. The auditioning room was quite large (I'm guessing 15 X 23) and heavily damped with thick carpet and wall treatments everywhere including the ceiling. I tried to mimic my listening room by setting the speakers 7 feet apart and sitting about 9 feet away.

Started with the Threes and ran through some Krall, Xmas jazz, and symphonic band music. Overall impressions: I could hear the entire frequency range minus the bottom octave of course. Good weight, imaging, and soundstage. The Threes were definitely polite and laid back. Although I could hear the highs, the Threes did not have the presence I expected and seemed slightly veiled to me. The bass was tight and tuneful and didn't seem to bloom on any notes. The speakers did nothing to offend me, and had I not heard the other speakers I probably would have been satisfied with purchasing some Threes.

Then I listened to the new Focal Chorus 807 V ($999). I was immediately taken by the upper end. There was another layer of detail and sheen that I had not heard from the Threes. The Focal's were more forward and more engaging with the jazz and band music. I don't know if I could say they were too forward, but more forward than the Threes. I did not care for the ported bass, as it was not as tight or well defined as the Threes. Sometimes the bass got in the way, but the midrange and upper octaves were highly musical.

Finally the small but powerful Dynaudio 42 ($859). Wow. What sound from a smaller speaker. It's midrange and upper octave were similar to the Focal's, just a tad less sheen and resolution. The bass was solid, and I would put it second to the Threes.

Finally I got to hear the Focal Chorus 706 V ($599, with smaller woofer) for a few tracks. The smaller woofer on the 706 V versus the 807 really helped clean up the bass. Although the 706's sacrificed a little bit in the low end, the bass was much tighter and cleaner. Although I did not get to hear this speaker as much due to time constraints, it may be my favorite. I might have to go listen to this again.

I must admit I was slightly disappointed in the Threes after reading everything about them. If I could take the Chorus tweeter and the Three's bass, I would buy that speaker. The midrange on all four of these speakers seemed pretty equal as well.

Here's what I don't know:
1. In my room, which has just carpet and glass doors, would I get a more engaging presentation from the Three's? I'm ok with laid back and a musical speaker, but in this comparison the Three lacked the sweetness of the Focal in the upper frequencies.
1a. Does anyone think the heavy damping in the room hurt the presence of the Threes?
2. The corollary - would the Focal be to bright in my room and aggressive? I can't really deaden my room since it is also my home office. Does anyone have any comments on the new Focal?
3. I have a Carver HTR-880 receiver at 80 watts to use in my new system. I wonder if this is enough power to get the bass to come alive on the Threes?
4. Are the Classis Two's more forward than the Threes, and do they have a little more presence with their tweeter?

This summarizes my first impressions, and I hope to get another soon. I could live with the Threes, but I was very impressed with the Focal. The Chorus 706 at $599 may be a really good value.

Any comments or impressions on what I heard, or answers / opinions to my questions?

thanks.
Sounds like you had a great audition session :)
That's the beauty of auditioning, everybody hears and prefers different sonic traits, particularly with speakers.

dc

Here's what I don't know:
1. In my room, which has just carpet and glass doors, would I get a more engaging presentation from the Three's? I'm ok with laid back and a musical speaker, but in this comparison the Three lacked the sweetness of the Focal in the upper frequencies.
1a. Does anyone think the heavy damping in the room hurt the presence of the Threes?
2. The corollary - would the Focal be to bright in my room and aggressive? I can't really deaden my room since it is also my home office. Does anyone have any comments on the new Focal?
3. I have a Carver HTR-880 receiver at 80 watts to use in my new system. I wonder if this is enough power to get the bass to come alive on the Threes?
4. Are the Classis Two's more forward than the Threes, and do they have a little more presence with their tweeter?



Going from a well damped room to one with a lot of glass is likely to degrade the sound of all speakers. The detail and sheen you like in the Focals might become bright and harsh at higher volumes and longer listening. Best to try at home.

Here's what I don't know:
1. In my room, which has just carpet and glass doors, would I get a more engaging presentation from the Three's? I'm ok with laid back and a musical speaker, but in this comparison the Three lacked the sweetness of the Focal in the upper frequencies.
1a. Does anyone think the heavy damping in the room hurt the presence of the Threes?
2. The corollary - would the Focal be to bright in my room and aggressive? I can't really deaden my room since it is also my home office. Does anyone have any comments on the new Focal?
3. I have a Carver HTR-880 receiver at 80 watts to use in my new system. I wonder if this is enough power to get the bass to come alive on the Threes?
4. Are the Classis Two's more forward than the Threes, and do they have a little more presence with their tweeter?

This summarizes my first impressions, and I hope to get another soon. I could live with the Threes, but I was very impressed with the Focal. The Chorus 706 at $599 may be a really good value.

Any comments or impressions on what I heard, or answers / opinions to my questions?

You will hear over time many speakers having a very impressive upfront lively sound at first. Then as people take them home and listen a little more with a wider range of recordings, they find themselves unable to do so due to that forward and somewhat bright sound.

My experience with JM Lab, and something that most of the tests out there show a flare between the hand off of the midrange and tweeter. Achieving a good in room balance may becoming challenging. Make sure you listen to a wide range of recordings. On the other hand, some people mainly listen to well recorded Jazz and Classical that are all well recorded and love the detail.

I don't know for sure, but I think the Three was tuned slightly to the warm side just to be smooth and people/room friendly. On the other hand, most speakers today are *so* bright that the NHTs sound warm (they used to be known for being the bright speaker line!). I heard some Focals yesterday in a customer's house (he also has M-Ls, B&Ws, Meridians and a bunch of other speakers) and even though Xd is brighter than Threes, all the other speakers pretty well made the Xds sound warm.

IOW, best to take a set or two home and see which you prefer in your room. Sounds like a typical high-end store which is far more damped than your room. This can make a bright speakers palatable and a warmer speaker sound dull. Or maybe the verdict will be the same no matter which the room. See if they'll loan you the speakers. Remember, Threes have very wide dispersion which helps make up for the warmer sound, but only if too much of it isn't absorbed. Then you get a nice sense of space and something that isn't too hard on the ears over time.

Is NHT showing anything new at CES?

I don't know for sure, but I think the Three was tuned slightly to the warm side just to be smooth and people/room friendly. On the other hand, most speakers today are *so* bright that the NHTs sound warm (they used to be known for being the bright speaker line!). I heard some Focals yesterday in a customer's house (he also has M-Ls, B&Ws, Meridians and a bunch of other speakers) and even though Xd is brighter than Threes, all the other speakers pretty well made the Xds sound warm.

IOW, best to take a set or two home and see which you prefer in your room. Sounds like a typical high-end store which is far more damped than your room. This can make a bright speakers palatable and a warmer speaker sound dull. Or maybe the verdict will be the same no matter which the room. See if they'll loan you the speakers. Remember, Threes have very wide dispersion which helps make up for the warmer sound, but only if too much of it isn't absorbed. Then you get a nice sense of space and something that isn't too hard on the ears over time.

Thanks for all the advice and help. I definitely need to try to get something in my house to do a real world test. I am concerned the JM LAb would get a bit bright given the heavy damping in the demo room.

Like I said before, the Threes did nothing to offend and is probably a speaker I could live with. It was lacking a bit of energy in the demo room. In my home office, it might be a real winner.

thanks

85vthokie,

I sent you a PM.

Thanks for all the advice and help. I definitely need to try to get something in my house to do a real world test. I am concerned the JM LAb would get a bit bright given the heavy damping in the demo room.

Like I said before, the Threes did nothing to offend and is probably a speaker I could live with. It was lacking a bit of energy in the demo room. In my home office, it might be a real winner.

I listened to the 1027Bes again last night compared to the Xds. The Bes are definitely brighter than the Xds and the Xds are brighter than the Threes. I found the 1027s to be too bright for my taste, but were very "clean" sounding, but sibilant. This was in room a room that was bright and echoey. The midrange was good but the tweeter seemed to be way too hot to me. When you stood close to the speaker, all you could hear was tweeter. I still think it's a good speaker, but too "showy" as though they're trying to impress rather than simply conveying the music. I think they really need a well damped room and I'm going to try to fix the room for the customer so they sound decent.

That being said, you just have to try them. I think JMlabs are fantastic for light or acoustic jazz, but struggle a bit with anything more adventurous and energetic.

Is NHT showing anything new at CES?

I'd comment, but someone will get his pocket protector all in a bunch :D

I'd comment, but someone will get his pocket protector all in a bunch :D


It is next month and next year.
Allen

I don't know for sure, but I think the Three was tuned slightly to the warm side just to be smooth and people/room friendly. On the other hand, most speakers today are *so* bright that the NHTs sound warm (they used to be known for being the bright speaker line!). I heard some Focals yesterday in a customer's house (he also has M-Ls, B&Ws, Meridians and a bunch of other speakers) and even though Xd is brighter than Threes, all the other speakers pretty well made the Xds sound warm.

IOW, best to take a set or two home and see which you prefer in your room. Sounds like a typical high-end store which is far more damped than your room. This can make a bright speakers palatable and a warmer speaker sound dull. Or maybe the verdict will be the same no matter which the room. See if they'll loan you the speakers. Remember, Threes have very wide dispersion which helps make up for the warmer sound, but only if too much of it isn't absorbed. Then you get a nice sense of space and something that isn't too hard on the ears over time.

John, what was your impression of the Focal in the customer's house? What speaker did you listen to? I am assuming it is an older model? thanks

FYI, the current Absolute Sound has the Threes on the cover. A very favorable review, and probably the best photography I have ever seen in an A/V rag.

Brian

John, what was your impression of the Focal in the customer's house? What speaker did you listen to? I am assuming it is an older model? thanks

No, these are the newer 1027be. Very detailed and "clean". I couldn't tell on the imaging because of the room. The tweeter, IMO, was too bright and the overall balance was fairly light and bright. If detail is your #1 priority, then I think these are way up on the list. Personally, I like a more rounded speaker because I don't listen to jazz quartets generally.

It is next month and next year.
Allen

Looking at the online CES exhibitor's list I don't even see NHT. So unless they are doing some 'guerilla' marketing to coincide with the expo I'm not so sure we'll hear much from them.

Looking at the online CES exhibitor's list I don't even see NHT. So unless they are doing some 'guerilla' marketing to coincide with the expo I'm not so sure we'll hear much from them.

Agreed. No word of them on this exhibitor's list, Stereophile's blog http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2007/, or in NHT's own press releases http://nhthifi.com/2006/nht-pressreleases.html or presumably http://nhthifi.com/2007/nht-pressreleases.html.

Is NHT showing anything new at CES?

CES update - They're doing a sneak peak of the, as yet unannounced, product off the CES loop but the official announcement is still aways off. IOW, I still can't talk except I'll reiterate that nothing is being replaced or discontinued and no one will get buyer's remorse if they get current product. It's a different niche for NHT. They almost didn't even sneak peak it at all. I'd rather they keep it close to the vest until it's ready anyway.

Is this the February issue? They are not on/in the Jan issue, which I picked up the other day.

The Classic series got a very good write up in TPV, and was named their speaker of the year >$2000. UltimateAV magazine in December gave it a good, though not outstanding review, courtesy of Michael Fremer. His comments on the bass being under-damped are a little puzzling, since Chris Martens in TPV seemed to say just the opposite. In the small amount of listening that I've done in a not very good dealer room, it didn't sound like overblow bass to me.

Overall, this is as much coverage as NHT as got in a long time, and it's largely been very favorable. I should not too that this is not by accident - it takes a lot of work to get magazines interested enough to review your products, so kudos to the NHT team for making it happen.

Now, if you read Jack Hidley's Manufacturers comment on the UltimateAV review, he hints at a big announcement "next month" - that was in the December issue, so is there something coming this month? I think a previous poster in this thread had hinted at something also... Anyone have any ideas? ;)

If a speaker is expensive and is a little underdamped, that is "good". If a speaker is inexpensive and a little underdamped, that is "bad". :rolleyes: Of course, if Fremer reviewed the Fours, the likely reference was the $45K Wilson Maxx II, which, while think in the bass, is probably a bit more precise. Fremer also used to own NHT 3.3s, which are still tauter in the bass than the Fours. On the other hand, the Fours are tighter/cleaner than most speakers under $5K. Depends on your POV.

As for the "big announcement", yes, there will be one, but no, not until later in the month I'm told.

As for the "big announcement", yes, there will be one, but no, not until later in the month I'm told.

While I like 'pure' digital, sort of, please G don't let it be NHT succumbing to 'Pod mania... :D

IOW, I still can't talk except I'll reiterate that nothing is being replaced or discontinued and no one will get buyer's remorse if they get current product.

That is something that you would think that anybody at NHT would have seen absolutely no harm whatsoever in being mentioned, especially since the mere thought of that could have potentially prevented some current Evolution sales of like 2 or 3 members here who were all talking about getting M5s soon.

I considered starting a new thread for this post, but since I am gravitating to a NHT-only system, and this thread has morphed into a general NHT thread, I’ll post here. What I am looking for is advice on planning my upgrade path as my approach when I first got into this hobby almost two years ago was haphazard as you will see when you read about my system. Upgrades will be incremental likely over the next year or so as my budget is limited with total funds 2-3K and I am fairly pleased with my system as is. My listening room is 15x12x8 with one wall with substantial openings into a dining room. I listen to 70% music (mostly multichannel with DVD-A, SACD and PLIIx) and 30% HT. No WAF to worry about or kids or pets. I care more about sound quality than volume. What upgrade should I look to first to provide me the most bang for the buck? How should I prioritize these upgrades? I have access to some NHT/NAD/Rotel gear for listening at local dealers.

My system as it now stands is:

Mains: NHT ST-4s. I love these speakers and they made me a NHT convert. Even though I was blown away when I recently heard the Classic Fours, my budget will likely lead me to keep these.

Center: Boston Acoustics VRC. I “know” that not having matched Main/Center speakers is a problem, but I do not hear one here yet. Ideally I should move to a NHT center but if I keep the ST-4s, should I look to a SuperAudio Center (would that be a downgrade from my BA?) or go for the Classic Three C?

Surrounds: NHT Classic Twos. I am happy with these speakers but not where they are in my system. I listen to a great deal of hi-rez MC music and the dropoff from the ST-4s to the Classic Twos is noticeable. To my ears, this is the most pressing “problem.” I am considering upgrading here to the Classic Threes and moving the Twos to rear duty.

Rear Surrounds: BA CR-77s (slightly elevated from the listening position given the relatively small room). Okay speakers but I think the Twos would provide more low end and more accuracy in the back.

Sub: SVS Pb-10ISD. I’m very happy here with this sub given the size of my room. I have it crossed at 80 with my speakers set to small.

Receiver: Denon AVR-2106. There are no HDMI connections here which is a problem for the long-haul, but I do not intend to replace this (or get a pre/pro) until the new HD formats/HDMI 1.3 connections are standards. What I am wondering here is whether I should move to separates with a MC amp driven by the Denon in the short-term and something else for the long-term (even another Denon). I’ve been looking at NAD and I’ve seen a few used M-25s that look enticing. Given the size of my room, would moving to separates be overkill or will there be the night/day difference in sound quality that I often read about when people move to separates?

Digital Transport: Denon 1920. I am very happy with this player and do not intend to upgrade until the HD video formats sort themselves out.

Thanks in advance for any comments and also for this thread which I have enjoyed.

If you're planning on keeping the ST-4s as mains for the foreseeable future, you might want to consider getting a NHT SC2 center channel speaker to more closely match the ST4s.

I think you should also maybe consider some SB3s as surrounds after that. As Yoda would put it, a killer little package, that would be.

If a speaker is expensive and is a little underdamped, that is "good". If a speaker is inexpensive and a little underdamped, that is "bad". :rolleyes: Of course, if Fremer reviewed the Fours, the likely reference was the $45K Wilson Maxx II, which, while think in the bass, is probably a bit more precise. Fremer also used to own NHT 3.3s, which are still tauter in the bass than the Fours. On the other hand, the Fours are tighter/cleaner than most speakers under $5K. Depends on your POV.

As for the "big announcement", yes, there will be one, but no, not until later in the month I'm told.

He also gave an absolutely glowing review of the VT-3 system, basically saying that VT-3 mains were far superior to 3.3s.

"First and foremost, the VT-3 has been designed for the accurate reproduction of music. If you've ever heard NHT's 3.3s, you have a reasonably good idea of the VT-3s' basic presentation—but the VT-3 is a much, much better overall performer. In stereo mode, the two Towers produced a big, dynamic, impressively uncolored, full-frequency sound. Whereas the 3.3 could sound somewhat hard and bright on top—overly analytical, almost antiseptic—the VT-3 sounded smoother yet airier on top, and subjectively more extended. Driver integration was better, as was low-level resolution of detail, and the midrange was richer and more fully fleshed out harmonically. The 3.3 can produce outstanding deep bass, but it was no match for the VT-3's 1000W of clean, well-damped, low-frequency wallop."


http://www.guidetohometheater.com/speakersystems/11/

While I like 'pure' digital, sort of, please G don't let it be NHT succumbing to 'Pod mania... :D

I'm betting it's a table top clock radio like Bose, Polk, Boston, etc. are all making now. :p

I'm betting it's a table top clock radio like Bose, Polk, Boston, etc. are all making now. :p

Ummmm, no.

Ummmm, no.

Careful there John, you might be revealing too much info! :eek: :p ;) :D :cool:

May be a receiver to go with the new pre/amp and amp.
Allen

That would be great! A digital path receiver with like 150 watts per channel at a much lower price point, say $1200 to $2000, but yet with HDMI, NHT speaker specific DEQ, etc., especially since 200 watts per channel like with the Power5/2 really is a little overkill for Twos, Absolute Zeros, etc. Not to even mention how the price point of the separates being way out of line with the smaller speakers! :eek:

Mark - I'd snag one of these in a heartbeat for my bedroom HT if it was in the $1K to $1400 range... any higher and I think it may compete with the Contoller for sales.... anyway enough dreaming for me :)

Mike

Okay, no, I'm not going to get into a guessing game. You guys would speculate all day long and you wouldn't hit it, so no sense in trying. Sheesh.

Anyhoo, anybody have a chance to read the Three article in TAS? These things are coming faster than I can find or read them.

I read the TAS article but it was very brief, mostly photos. The Stereophile review was a lot more helpful.

I recently got a pair of the NHT Absolute Zero as well as the Classic Two Center. So far I'm very happy and I've just ordered another pair of Zeros to complete my surround system. Upgrading from an Athena Micra 6, which was pretty good but never very satisfying for music. So far I can't say the NHT's are any better with movies, but music performance has been a definite step-up (deeper soundstage, much more detail), and I'm hoping to get a better idea on DD/DTS playback once I have the complete system. The 2C is a little disappointing for the cost, but the Zeros seem like a steal at this price; I'd be curious to see some more reviews of those.

I'm trying to figure out what sub to pair with these now, leaning heavily toward the SVS SB12-plus even though it sort of seems like overkill. Other top options include the Rocket ULW-12 or the Hsu VTF-1, unless someone can convince me I should get a Velodyne or something else. Opinions?

These NHT speakers look great and they're my first "name brand" speakers, so I'm pretty excited about all this.

We don't sell the 2C with the AZs or Twos. You're better off with another AZ if you can do it.

You're going to want a well-damped, precise 10" woofer with the AZ, preferably two of them if you want the output. I wouldn't ignore NHT's subwoofers either. Perhaps a bit more expensive, but very good and a *lot* nicer looking. They do very well when compared to Hsu, SVS, etc, but ignore some deep bass for other qualities.

Mark,
Thanks for the comments on my system upgrades. I hadn't considered completing the switchout of the BAs with other NHT Super Audio (SC2 SB3) speakers. Since these were closed out last year, I'd have to find them used, I expect. I understand that going that route would more closely match the ST-4s and be cheaper than going Classic. On the other hand, would going to the Classic 3C and Classic Threes for the surrounds create that much of a problem with the ST-4s? In other words, would it be better in terms of sound quality (in the abstract) to go with a system fully with one generation old speakers or a mix of the ST-4 with Classics? I doubt I'll be able to audition the options in my listening room so feedback is welcome.

Or in fantasy land I could buy Classic Fours for the fronts and put the ST-4s as surrounds. :eek: Not sure how that would sound. Out of the price range for now, though.

I now return you to your usually scheduled rampant NHT announcement speculation.

We don't sell the 2C with the AZs or Twos. You're better off with another AZ if you can do it.

You're going to want a well-damped, precise 10" woofer with the AZ, preferably two of them if you want the output. I wouldn't ignore NHT's subwoofers either. Perhaps a bit more expensive, but very good and a *lot* nicer looking. They do very well when compared to Hsu, SVS, etc, but ignore some deep bass for other qualities.
I haven't totally written off the NHT subs, but I should probably take that conversation to the subwoofer forum.

That's interesting about using the AZ as a center channel, I may have to consider giving that a try. Thanks for the reply.

Mark - I'd snag one of these in a heartbeat for my bedroom HT if it was in the $1K to $1400 range... any higher and I think it may compete with the Contoller for sales.... anyway enough dreaming for me :)

Mike

Yeah Mike, I'd scoop one or 2 up in a heartbeat too, but I doubt it'll ever happen. This is prolly a pipe dream at best.

If the Controller costs what it does, then there's no way they could provide that with all or even most of the capabilities of the Controller in it's pre/pro section along with even 5 channels of amplification (much less 7), even at "only" 100, 125, or 150 watts per for a much lower price point though.

Even better yet than an AVR, though, an integrated multi channel amp would be killer. They could leave off the tuner as far as I'm concerned.

Make it 5 channels, where you could simply add a Power2 for L/R mains if you wanted 7 channels, and then reconfigure the main L/R channels on the unit itself to the back surrounds.

I'll bet NHT would sell a ton of these.

Mark,
Thanks for the comments on my system upgrades. I hadn't considered completing the switchout of the BAs with other NHT Super Audio (SC2 SB3) speakers. Since these were closed out last year, I'd have to find them used, I expect. I understand that going that route would more closely match the ST-4s and be cheaper than going Classic. On the other hand, would going to the Classic 3C and Classic Threes for the surrounds create that much of a problem with the ST-4s? In other words, would it be better in terms of sound quality (in the abstract) to go with a system fully with one generation old speakers or a mix of the ST-4 with Classics? I doubt I'll be able to audition the options in my listening room so feedback is welcome.

Or in fantasy land I could buy Classic Fours for the fronts and put the ST-4s as surrounds. :eek: Not sure how that would sound. Out of the price range for now, though.

I now return you to your usually scheduled rampant NHT announcement speculation.

Well, I believe what I suggested would definitely be your biggest bang for the buck by making best use of what you already have, but if you wanna go Classics, and if I recall correctly you already have an SVS PB10 ISD, I would suggest getting a pair of Threes on stands for mains and a 3C center channel for now (this would set you back about $1400 at full retail, but street prices will of course be less), a U1 or U2 sub later (if you intend to listen to any music at all, but if you are into movies only, just keep the SVS), and maybe getting Threes, Twos, or AZs later on for surrounds.

Then, just move the ST4s into a secondary 2 channel system in another room.

I haven't totally written off the NHT subs, but I should probably take that conversation to the subwoofer forum.

That's interesting about using the AZ as a center channel, I may have to consider giving that a try. Thanks for the reply.

For what the NHT Twelve sub costs at full retail, I'd go with a SVS SB-12 first at around the $800 price point.

Well, I believe what I suggested would definitely be your biggest bang for the buck by making best use of what you already have, but if you wanna go Classics, and if I recall correctly you already have an SVS PB10 ISD, I would suggest getting a pair of Threes on stands for mains and a 3C center channel for now (this would set you back about $1400 at full retail, but street prices will of course be less), a U1 or U2 sub later (if you intend to listen to any music at all, but if you are into movies only, just keep the SVS), and maybe getting Threes, Twos, or AZs later on for surrounds.

Then, just move the ST4s into a secondary 2 channel system in another room.
Hi Mark & other members -

How is the U1 sub for movies? I listen primarily to movies, would I be better off going with the Twelve? I was looking to save some cash after buying my TV :D

Here are my details, any advice is appreciated...(would like to keep the price at $500 or under + tax)

19x13 are the dimensions 11' ceilings I believe, TV is going right in front of the big windows, about 6' out from there is my leather couch (parallel and facing windows), subwoofer would go behind couch. Here are pics of the main living room, my aparment is similar to a studio with a 1BR thru those french doors:
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/3311/frontjr1.png
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6329/backgr3.png

Not much else furniture, I have a card table behind the couch and a large wooden coffee table in front of my couch (4' x 6' and maybe 16" high I think)

Front speakers are NHT Classic Three's
Center channel will be NHT Three C
Surrounds are NHT Super Zeroes (I might upgrade to Absolute Zeroes) - wall mounted about 2 feet below ceiling and about 3 feet behind couch facing in.

My thinking is to go with the NHT Twelve but it is a bit pricey (especially just after laying out cash for a Sony XBR2 LCD), do you think I would be happy with the NHT Ten? Any other recommendations? If I am better off sticking with the NHT family I guess I could shell out for the NHT Twelve - it would probably rock my apartment, fwiw I never go on the positive side of the decibel on my receiver (If I worded that correctly). If someone could tell me what average/peak wattage that would equate to I would be happy to know!

My interests are mostly movies (from Cable and HD Sources) and games (XBox & PS3), my receiver -
Denon AVR-3300:
Number of Channels: 5.1
Surround Mode Power 105 Watt @ 8 ohm, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, THD: 0.05%
Surround Sound Dolby Digital® • DTS®
THX Certification No

For a budget of $500 for a sub mostly for movies, SVS PB10 hands down.

If you could swing a used U1 or U2 set (with it's associated electronics, the X1 crossover and A1 amp) for $500 though, jump all over it!

There is supposedly a modification for the X1 crossover to extend the U1 or U2's output down to 20 Hz at the price of a little output. Prolly splitting hairs either way though.

Hello all, I am new here and a novice in regards to audio.

I got the chance to listen to most of what NHT has to offer including the T6, ST4's and the newer classic fours.

I liked the fuller sound from the T5's and the Classic Fours but wanted something in a bookshelf form to fit my bedroom. The store had the classic fours with a classic 3 center channel and surround classic threes. I did not get a chance to listen to the classic threes by themselves but i did get to hear a pair of M5's with U1 subwoofer. The M5's sounded like a real winner except they seemed like they
had a clear sweetspot and when i moved out of that spot i could hear a significant drop off in sound quality.

Could someone give me a quick comparison of the evolution M5's and the NHT classic 3's. I plan to use a pair of these to listen to music with in my bedroom and was trying to get some opinions on both of these speakers.

I don't think you will find anybody on this thread that will recommend
the NHT 10 or 12 subwoofers.
There are so many better options out there.

There are so many better options out there.

Yes, funny how I keep trading in those better options :D

At retail price? Sure, but most dealers will make the NHTs more palatable and they *do* look better and, IMO, are built better than many of these "better options". They just don't bother going as deep and concentrate on other things.

Of course, I *am* lobbying to see them replaced with acoustic suspension designs and I do believe that will happen at some point, once they realize "it was our idea all along".

Could someone give me a quick comparison of the evolution M5's and the NHT classic 3's. I plan to use a pair of these to listen to music with in my bedroom and was trying to get some opinions on both of these speakers.

The Classics have a much more room filling and wide sweetspot, but can be more adversely affected by room boundaries. The M5s intentionally keep the sweetspot within the width of the two speakers. The M5s are a little more accurate and the Threes are a little more detailed.

Mark, John et all - I don't think I posted an update on the X2 I picked up from John a while back. I had a friend over today to demo some 2-CH material and had a chance to have him listen to both the 2.9s and Fours using the X2 and thought I'd post some remarks before I forget - which is very easy for me to do these days ;) .... now what was I talking about... ohh, the X2..... :D

Well, I first had him audition the 2.9s with the X2. Low-pass adjustment set as high as it would go (220 Hz) to stay away from the double filtering issues... Initial X2 settings: Master Gain to 12 o-clock, Boundary EQ at 0 and no phase adjustments. After having him listen for a while, I played some with these settings, but eventually ended back pretty close to the original positions.... for my room I don't think I can tweak the 2.9s using the X2 to sound much better given my particular setup...

Next up - the Fours. Initial X2 settings: Master Gain to 12 o-clock, Boundary EQ at 0 and no phase adjustments. Compared to the 2.9s, the bass was not as tight, and bit more pronounced in the mid to upper bass regions - it gots some o' that boom thang goin on. :cool: Now I'm sure some of this is due to the room setup as I've already dialed in for the 2.9s, so here's where the X2 comes in... after playing with the settings a bit, I eventually left the Master Gain around the 12 o'clock position, decreased the boundary EQ to - 3 and moved the phase up to around 30 degrees and BINGO, while it is still has some of the ported bass characteristics, it is much tighter and much more coherent in my room setup.

So my assessment is: the X2 is worth it for someone looking to tweak the settings due to speaker &/or room constraints - it won't solve world peace, but for the price it's a pretty good investment to supplement your room treatments and get a bit more detail out of your speakers.

On another note, the 2.9s will remain in the 2-CH room and the Fours in the HT setup... at least until the wanted Classic 4+ / 5 / or whatever as long as it is not ported comes along ;) ;)

Mike

Mike, your next move should be to get a Controller if you can. I'm sure it will do a better job on either the 2.9s or the Fours than the X2.

Mike, your next move should be to get a Controller if you can. I'm sure it will do a better job on either the 2.9s or the Fours than the X2.


Yeah - I've been kinda waiting for the HD war and HDMI upgrades to kinda shake out this year, then I'll pull the trigger on it and a couple other items - the controller will obviously take it to another level...

I replaced my Super one's which were mounted using Omni 20's about 6 inches down from the ceiling on the wall with Classic Two's, but my Omni 20 speaker bracket from the super one's does not fit the back hole size on the new Classic Two's? Can just a new speaker bracket be purchased so I can use the existing Omni already mounted, or do I have to start over. If so, what do you recommend Thanks Bob

Bob, the speakers should work fine with that bracket :confused:

Bob, the speakers should work fine with that bracket :confused:

The 2 holes for the bracket plate on the back of the Classic two's are 3 inches apart, they are only 2 1/2 inches apart on the super one's?

The 3/8 bolt from the Omni mount attaches to the bracket plate, which then attaches to the speaker using 2 smaller screws.

On another note, the 2.9s will remain in the 2-CH room and the Fours in the HT setup... at least until the wanted Classic 4+ / 5 / or whatever as long as it is not ported comes along ;) ;)

MikeAre there serious plans for this Classic 4+/5? If there are, this is a speaker I would be very interested in.

The 2 holes for the bracket plate on the back of the Classic two's are 3 inches apart, they are only 2 1/2 inches apart on the super one's?

The 3/8 bolt from the Omni mount attaches to the bracket plate, which then attaches to the speaker using 2 smaller screws.

I can't verify your situation as I don't have S1s here, but we've been using the same brackets for years and have no idea why they wouldn't fit.

Are there serious plans for this Classic 4+/5? If there are, this is a speaker I would be very interested in.

Nothing of which I know, but I personally am pushing for a Classic 5 with dual 10" acoustic suspension woofers, powered subs and perhaps a second midbass driver. I can't sell an $1800/pr speaker to everyone, many people want more. And most of our business is towards the upper end. I can barely sell *any* AZs or Twos (which is a SHAME!!!). I sell Threes, Fours, Xds, Evo. I'm also pushing for a small acoustic suspension tower version of the Threes with a second midbass driver and a rear firing dome array that could be switched - off/bipole/dipole to match the room. And I'm pushing for replacing the Ten and Twelve with a dual 8" sealed sub and a dual 10" sealed sub. AND a new $1500+/pr "M6" with a poured composite baffle, metal drivers and with an "Xd-ready" input on the back for doing full digital active sound. Could these happen? My thinking is a definite "maybe" based on other things. But they won't tell me squat, so I don't know if anything will ever happen or even if it's under consideration.

My thinking on bass? If you're going to do it, do it right. Everyone makes a 10" and 12" ported sub. The best you can do is tie the better ones and then you're one of a dozen. BUT, if you do sealed, you have a real performance advantage that has a great technical story behind it and no real competition.

We'll see. I'm the "renegade" NHT dealer that they love to hate and hate to love, so I wonder if they listen to me at all since Bill Bush left. All my ideas seem to go into some black hole without any comment. Ahhhh, the days when Bill and I would talk for hours in the evenings about NHT's next moves (such as Evolution)............

Man, I just got done listening to Fours compared to highly regarded (and not B&W) speakers that cost 4 times as much and the Fours just kicked major ass. Not even close and it has nothing to do with bias on my part :eek:

Okay. After lurking on this board for 8 months (with an occasional post), I finally purchased the first portion of my HT audio: a pair of NHT Classic Three's. I listened to Zeros and Two's in my home, and then Two's, Three's, and (of course) Zeros in a store, and felt the Threes were a hair warmer than I like, and only barely better than the Twos, but definitely better, more detailed, and less harsh (fewer peaks that I could perceive in the high registers).

So now I have questions. I tried to find answers on this string, but with >80 pages...

1) Speaker stands and height?

2) Subs: my HT "consultant" (Lew Lipnick of LipnickDesign lipnickdesign(dot)com - a friend but his general stuff is a little higher-end than my budget) insists I get 2 subs. I don't think I can afford U2s, didn't like the Classic 10s, and noted the wide array of suggestions on this board. During my search for speakers, I listened to Tannoys which (in my price range) I wasn't crazy about, but I really liked their tiny acoustic suspension 10" sub TS10 (tannoy(dot)com/TS10). I only listened to one, but it was great with the Tannoy speakers and also with B&W 805's. Has anybody listened to this sub, esp. with NHT Three's?

3) Due to room shape (the back of the room is open to a card/exercise area) we'll be ceiling mountain the rear channel, and it's a rather low ceiling at 7' 2" (and we're tall), so I was going to put in Absolute Zero's. The question I have was raised by the fact that the Zero's and Two's sound pretty similar, but the Three's sound a little different. Is there going to be a problem mixing Three's (and a 3C for center channel) in the front and Zero's in the rear? There is no room for stand-mounting, and the Three's are too big for that low ceiling.

4) Can one mix Three's as front speakers with a 2C center channel?

In case you're wondering why I bought the Three's with the issues raised in question #3 above, it's that with my personal listening habits, I am much more likely to notice the quality of my speakers when listening to stereo than when watching a movie or TV. I liked the Three's enough better.

Peter

Man, I just got done listening to Fours compared to highly regarded (and not B&W) speakers that cost 4 times as much and the Fours just kicked major ass. Not even close and it has nothing to do with bias on my part :eek: And I like my Threes better than my B&W 805s, abiet the older generation 805s.

Peter

PS: John,
Thanks for all your advice and comments on this very long board. I realize you aren't particularly objective about NHT, but I agree with most of your comments. And thanks for your offer last year to send me the touring Two's, but I was finally able to convince a local shop to let me take some home for a listen.

The more i listen to the NHT line the more i like it compared to the other speakers that i have gotten a chance to demo, which include canton and mirage.

Has anyone here switched from the ST4's to the Classic fours. Im thinking about getting the ST'4s because i can get a demo pair for about 550. Seing as how that is cheaper than one classic four speaker, i am deeply considering these.

Anyone switch from the ST4's to the newer classic fours?

For a bedroom home theater i could afford the ST4's with classic twos rears and a classic two center channel for about the price it would cost me to get the classic threes and classic twelve sub.

Am i safe to assume that i would be better off with the ST4's for theater over the classic threes?

To an above poster: I listened to the Classic twelve sub and liked it quite well against 2 velodynes. a DPS12 and a minivee which i really didnt like. The classic twelve was offered to me at about a 200 dollar discount. Like allimental said the looks of the NHT sub cant be beat and it sounds pretty darn good, (i dont have alot of experience in picking out subs)

Thanks for the input guys.

Okay. After lurking on this board for 8 months (with an occasional post), I finally purchased the first portion of my HT audio: a pair of NHT Classic Three's. I listened to Zeros and Two's in my home, and then Two's, Three's, and (of course) Zeros in a store, and felt the Threes were a hair warmer than I like, and only barely better than the Twos, but definitely better, more detailed, and less harsh (fewer peaks that I could perceive in the high registers).

So now I have questions. I tried to find answers on this string, but with >80 pages...

1) Speaker stands and height?

2) Subs: my HT "consultant" (Lew Lipnick of LipnickDesign lipnickdesign(dot)com - a friend but his general stuff is a little higher-end than my budget) insists I get 2 subs. I don't think I can afford U2s, didn't like the Classic 10s, and noted the wide array of suggestions on this board. During my search for speakers, I listened to Tannoys which (in my price range) I wasn't crazy about, but I really liked their tiny acoustic suspension 10" sub TS10 (tannoy(dot)com/TS10). I only listened to one, but it was great with the Tannoy speakers and also with B&W 805's. Has anybody listened to this sub, esp. with NHT Three's?

3) Due to room shape (the back of the room is open to a card/exercise area) we'll be ceiling mountain the rear channel, and it's a rather low ceiling at 7' 2" (and we're tall), so I was going to put in Absolute Zero's. The question I have was raised by the fact that the Zero's and Two's sound pretty similar, but the Three's sound a little different. Is there going to be a problem mixing Three's (and a 3C for center channel) in the front and Zero's in the rear? There is no room for stand-mounting, and the Three's are too big for that low ceiling.

4) Can one mix Three's as front speakers with a 2C center channel?

In case you're wondering why I bought the Three's with the issues raised in question #3 above, it's that with my personal listening habits, I am much more likely to notice the quality of my speakers when listening to stereo than when watching a movie or TV. I liked the Three's enough better.

Peter

I use a pair of AV123's ULW-10s. http://www.**********/products_product.php?section=subwoofers&product=7.1 They are small, musical and very well built.

...to both above posts on using the 2C center, for the extra $100 the 3C is the way to go IMO... that said I would also opt for the Three's with a Sub for the mains over the ST4s... I think using (3) Threes or Three's and 3C center voice matches like no other combo in the price range.... choice (in order) for surround is Three's, then Two's or AZ's....(if you listening to lot of multi-ch music I highly recommend (5) Threes with stereo subs). If price is an issue, get the mains & center first w/ $ on hand. Then sub(s) to do the job, then surround's... use old speakers for surround duty until you can get them.... just my $.02 opinion :)

Man, I just got done listening to Fours compared to highly regarded (and not B&W) speakers that cost 4 times as much and the Fours just kicked major ass. Not even close and it has nothing to do with bias on my part :eek:

If only they had made the Fours' subs sealed. :( :mad:

I think I've asked this before, but has anyone tried plugging the ports?

If only they had made the Fours' subs sealed. :( :mad:

Then it wouldn't have been full range, like maybe 35hz, *or* it would have had to be powered and much pricier. I have no problem with the 4 as is, I just want a 5 and a 3.5 tower to augment the line.

I think I've asked this before, but has anyone tried plugging the ports?

I don't think that would work well, but haven't tried it, nor do I really plan to do so since it would be a hard port to stuff (big!)

Any further comments on:
1) Speaker Stands for Classic Three's?
2) AZ rears with Classic Three's in front? (Yes I saw the one comment - thanks)
3) Tannoy subs?

Thanks

Then it wouldn't have been full range, like maybe 35hz, *or* it would have had to be powered and much pricier.

If NHT could coax -3 db at 39 Hz out of the SB3 and it's 6.5" sealed mid-bass driver, I'm sure they could get more than 35 Hz out of the Four and it's 10 subs in a sealed cabinet.

I have no problem with the 4 as is, I just want a 5 and a 3.5 tower to augment the line.

I'm sure a lot of us here would like to have that option, and even though we are but a few, I'm sure we are prolly a good general microcosm of NHT's customer base at large. Are you listening Jack?

Any further comments on:
1) Speaker Stands for Classic Three's?
2) AZ rears with Classic Three's in front? (Yes I saw the one comment - thanks)
3) Tannoy subs?

Thanks

Don't know about #3, but #2 should work OK, and as for #1, 28" stands will put the Threes at about the same height as Fours are.

Any further comments on:
1) Speaker Stands for Classic Three's?
2) AZ rears with Classic Three's in front? (Yes I saw the one comment - thanks)
3) Tannoy subs?

Thanks

1) I use 26" Sanus Steel Foundations, filled with sand. I'm perfectly content with them.
2) I have this setup and it's fine, but I don't do that much multi-channel stuff. They won't match perfectly the way the Threes would, but they're cheaper and lower-profile, which is what sold me on it.
3) No help for you there. I use a U1 with my Threes.

If NHT could coax -3 db at 39 Hz out of the SB3 and it's 6.5" sealed mid-bass driver, I'm sure they could get more than 35 Hz out of the Four and it's 10 subs in a sealed cabinet.

I'm sure a lot of us here would like to have that option, and even though we are but a few, I'm sure we are prolly a good general microcosm of NHT's customer base at large. Are you listening Jack?

Is it possible for anyone to explain, in simple terms for a novice, what the sonic difference between the current Classic 4 (which I have) and a sealed one would be? I don't mean to show my ignorance but I'm just uncertain... before I bought the C4s I used SB3s up front and while there's a definite difference (in the quickness and definition at the lower register and also the 'tone' at the top register) the musicality of the two isn't that much difference. What would a sealed C4 sound like? :confused:

What happened to the "big announcement" that NHT was going to make at the show?

If NHT could coax -3 db at 39 Hz out of the SB3 and it's 6.5" sealed mid-bass driver, I'm sure they could get more than 35 Hz out of the Four and it's 10 subs in a sealed cabinet.

Sure, but at some cost - efficiency, cabinet size, driver cost etc. Any sealed 10" is going to need to be EQ'd to be useful. At that point you might as well do two and make it a $3K speaker. The ported 10" just makes for something that does the job at a very low price *and* isn't doing anything that everyone is not (except actually going deep).

What happened to the "big announcement" that NHT was going to make at the show?

Actually, they'd never intended to announce at the show, just "this month".

Is it possible for anyone to explain, in simple terms for a novice, what the sonic difference between the current Classic 4 (which I have) and a sealed one would be? I don't mean to show my ignorance but I'm just uncertain... before I bought the C4s I used SB3s up front and while there's a definite difference (in the quickness and definition at the lower register and also the 'tone' at the top register) the musicality of the two isn't that much difference. What would a sealed C4 sound like? :confused:

Well, you can get a bit "tighter" (more precise) bass with sealed but you end up with more distortion at the lower notes and less deep bass unless you have a very big or inefficient speaker. That's why all of NHT's bookshelf speakers are sealed. Better control and precision throughout the mid/upper bass. You could listen to NHT Evolution subs to get a better idea. Sealed is a better way to go *but* you often have to add EQ and power and more drivers to get the same output. Ported tends to be somewhat limited in quality because it has blurring and port noise that doesn't exist in acoustic suspension designs. At the affordable price points, ported makes a lot of sense, especially if the product isn't powered already (as in a powered sub), but if the product is powered or at a higher budget, it makes sense to go acoustic suspension. Kinda like AWD is a car. Nice to have it if you can, but it costs more to implement.

Any further comments on:
1) Speaker Stands for Classic Three's?
2) AZ rears with Classic Three's in front? (Yes I saw the one comment - thanks)
3) Tannoy subs?

Thanks

I ordered SKY-24D from Skylan Stands - I can't post a URL here yet - but do a search on Google.

This will be custom built by Noel so he will make them 26 inches tall for me and I asked him to make the plates slightly smaller than the dimensions of the Three. They are running about 10 days for him to build so I should have it in about 2 weeks since I just ordered them.

2) AZ rears with Classic Three's in front? How would NHTs in ceiling speakers work as rears/surrounds? They seem pretty solid spec-wise, but I don't see a lot of people integrating in ceilings with bookshelfs for fronts. Maybe John or someone would have some idea on how that would sound...

I ordered SKY-24D from Skylan Stands - I can't post a URL here yet - but do a search on Google.

This will be custom built by Noel so he will make them 26 inches tall for me and I asked him to make the plates slightly smaller than the dimensions of the Three. They are running about 10 days for him to build so I should have it in about 2 weeks since I just ordered them.

I will shamelessly mention that I have custom 24" Target gloss black lacquer stands with specially cut top plates for the Twos and Threes for $150/pr. Looks fantastic!

How would NHTs in ceiling speakers work as rears/surrounds? They seem pretty solid spec-wise, but I don't see a lot of people integrating in ceilings with bookshelfs for fronts. Maybe John or someone would have some idea on how that would sound...

Inceilings are very ineffective for surrounds. You almost can't make them loud enough to make it feel like you're surrounded. It's very important to have the sound near ear level.

old ears,

I found the Twos and Threes to be quite different.
With the midrange/upper midrange being noticeably more pronounced on the Three.
On the order of 3 db would be my guess.
If you listen to them again focus only on the vocals and I think you will hear a difference.
Try a male vocal and then Bonnie Raitt and maybe some violins and it should be fairly apparent.
I have not heard the AZ but hope that the midrange is less recessed due to the smaller woofer.
I think John said it was quite a good speaker.

Have you looked into the Martin Logan line of subs? They have gotten very good reviews.

I found the Twos and Threes to be quite different.
With the midrange/upper midrange being noticeably more pronounced on the Three.
On the order of 3 db would be my guess.

Probably not nearly that much. It's a combination of the poly being more subtractive than a metal driver and the dome being a little more pronounced, just over a small portion of the frequency response. The Two seems warmer than it actually is. I would call it "soft" more than warm. That being said, the Three is still warm compared to most speakers. It is probably that the tweeter needs to pop up 1/2-1dB in order to get a bit better balance for the typical listener. It would make the mid dome stand out a bit less too. The Four is marginally better balanced in this area. I suspect Jack played it safe and lowered the treble output just a tad to keep the speaker from seeming too bright to some people. Compared to a Focal or Paradigm or even a PSB, the Three is warm.


If you listen to them again focus only on the vocals and I think you will hear a difference.
Try a male vocal and then Bonnie Raitt and maybe some violins and it should be fairly apparent.
I have not heard the AZ but hope that the midrange is less recessed due to the smaller woofer.

The AZ is a tad brighter than the Two. Again, I think it's tweeter, though, is a tad under represented. It makes the upper mids seem more out there than they are. A sub does help though and they image like crazy. Again, all the SuperAudio and Classic have always been just a bit safer in sound than the upper end models. Xd is just about dead perfect and even they sound warm compared to many speakers today.

Yeah, I guess there is a whole spectrum of frequencies that need to be represented in total for an instrument to sound right.
I like to use the example of a bass drum being hit by the bass drum beater.
There is an intitial "slap" or "click" before there is the "thud". And I am sure the midrange and maybe even tweeter are being used.

I will shamelessly mention that I have custom 24" Target gloss black lacquer stands with specially cut top plates for the Twos and Threes for $150/pr. Looks fantastic!

Darn - I wish I knew about those!!

I will shamelessly mention that I have custom 24" Target gloss black lacquer stands with specially cut top plates for the Twos and Threes for $150/pr. Looks fantastic!
Did you get them "locally" or have them shipped from the UK?
Now that the Fours are out, if you were to do it again would you get 26"?
What were the specs for the specially cut top plates?

This sound like an excellent deal.

For all - thanks for your responses to my questions. I'll let you know if the Tannoy's sound good - UNLESS I can find a used set of U2s first.

Well, I finally got my Classic Fours hooked up tonight and all's I can say is WOW! I am pretty much blown away by the sound, not just the sound but everything! From imaging and detail to soundstaging. Outstanding job Jack!!! There's something about NHT's that just fits my ears. Here's my system so far, Forte Model 6 Amp, Rotel RCD-971, Audioquest Midnight cables, and a Rotel RSP-970 for the Pre-Amp. My last set up was a Rotel RB-991BX, the RSP-970 pre-amp, RCD-975 CD Player, and a set of VT-2's. From what reviews I have read about the Forte Model 6 is that it is so-so, and I should have Jon Soderberg rework it but sa far it sounds good to me. Anyway I cant wait until they breat in as they should really sing then! Right now I am listening to Pink Floyd the Devision Bell and its sounds great! Cheers guys.

Congrats! Would you say now the Fours are much better than the VT2s?

Inceilings are very ineffective for surrounds. You almost can't make them loud enough to make it feel like you're surrounded. It's very important to have the sound near ear level.

I was thinking of going with (3) M5s in the front and a pair of iC4s for the rear. Would you recommend against that? I don't really have a better option. I can't really install the L5s in my room. My only other option is to go with two more M5s in the back but they would be close and behind the seating position. Would the M5s placed right behind my head sound better than the iC4s in the ceiling?

I'd really go with the L5s, that would be much easier than M5s. You can position the L5s up high horizontally (with the tweeter on the bottom) and tilt the angle of them down towards the listening area. If you can go with M5s, then there's no reason you can't go with L5s.

The L5s makes a GREAT surround option for the Evolution Series. It's flexibility helps to solve a lot of problems, just as the Evolution Series in general does. It looks to me like NHT would come out with a wall mountable Classic Series speaker like the L5 which matched the Threes and Fours.

I'd really go with the L5s, that would be much easier than M5s. You can position the L5s up high horizontally (with the tweeter on the bottom) and tilt the angle of them down towards the listening area. If you can go with M5s, then there's no reason you can't go with L5s.

The L5s makes a GREAT surround option for the Evolution Series. It's flexibility helps to solve a lot of problems, just as the Evolution Series in general does. It looks to me like NHT would come out with a wall mountable Classic Series speaker like the L5 which matched the Threes and Fours.

I'll have to take a couple more pictures of my room so you can see what I have to work with. I assume you mean placing the L5s on the side walls horizontally, not on the ceiling.

Obviously the L5 is the best choice for a surround speaker with the M5s just because the design is the same. I just don't think there is a way to mount them in my house without a lot of headaches or the horizontal orientation. I'll take a couple shots so you can see what I'm talking about.

Did you get them "locally" or have them shipped from the UK?
Now that the Fours are out, if you were to do it again would you get 26"?
What were the specs for the specially cut top plates?.

I got the distributor to bring in 50 sets for me like this. I didn't think to go for 26" stands, but I might be able to do that on the next order. It took about 3 or 4 months to get in, but I still have a bunch. I have special 28" models for the AZs too.

Congrats! Would you say now the Fours are much better than the VT2s?

Definitely, but not as much as you would think. Thats just a testament on how good the VT-2's where. The Classics pull ahead of the VT's when it comes to overall soundstaging and imaging. They still have what I call that "Crisp and Upfront" NHT sound though, which is what I love. I also think I prefer my Rotel amp over the Forte that I am using right now. Time will tell.

Well, you can get a bit "tighter" (more precise) bass with sealed but you end up with more distortion at the lower notes and less deep bass unless you have a very big or inefficient speaker. That's why all of NHT's bookshelf speakers are sealed. Better control and precision throughout the mid/upper bass. You could listen to NHT Evolution subs to get a better idea. Sealed is a better way to go *but* you often have to add EQ and power and more drivers to get the same output. Ported tends to be somewhat limited in quality because it has blurring and port noise that doesn't exist in acoustic suspension designs. At the affordable price points, ported makes a lot of sense, especially if the product isn't powered already (as in a powered sub), but if the product is powered or at a higher budget, it makes sense to go acoustic suspension. Kinda like AWD is a car. Nice to have it if you can, but it costs more to implement.


This may be a bit off topic but I saw a thread on another site where Ken Kantor (as I understand a co-founder of NHT) chimes in on why there are so few acoustic suspension sub designs.

His response is here: http://www.madisound.com/cgi-bin/audio_forum/index.pl?read=390430. Easy enough to sort by the thread to follow allong.

Nice find, Linzer. I didn't realize that AS woofers were so much harder to build, I just thought they were necessarily more beefy and costly, not more difficult to make. But I like this, which is what I've always thought:

On the other hand, many designers like to tweak the bass response with port tuning, long after the drivers have been placed on order. Given a typical woofer production lead time of several months, this can be significant.

IOW, they designer can tune the woofer to the tastes of the designer/clientele whereas an AS woofer ends up either right or wrong.

In a small/medium size room, is the M5 or M6 better suited for 2 ch. music only?
Most likely be pair up w/ the NHT SW10 II sub.

TIA

M5, but if you can somehow swing a U1 or U2 set, that would be MUCH, MUCH better sub option than a SW10II.

M5, but if you can somehow swing a U1 or U2 set, that would be MUCH, MUCH better sub option than a SW10II.

thx, already got the SW10II, maybe upgrade later to U1 if i can :rolleyes:

Definitely, but not as much as you would think. Thats just a testament on how good the VT-2's where. The Classics pull ahead of the VT's when it comes to overall soundstaging and imaging. They still have what I call that "Crisp and Upfront" NHT sound though, which is what I love. I also think I prefer my Rotel amp over the Forte that I am using right now. Time will tell.
Bummer, I was hoping to hear that they blew the VT-2 out of the water.

thx, already got the SW10II, maybe upgrade later to U1 if i can :rolleyes:

Then you should forget all about M5s or M6s and just find yourself a used set of SB3s since even a pair of them will do bass better than a SW10II. :p

Then you should forget all about M5s or M6s and just find yourself a used set of SB3s since even a pair of them will do bass better than a SW10II. :p

ture, i can do w/o a sub for music.
just want to make sure, u not implying the sb3 is better then the m5 for music right?

Bummer, I was hoping to hear that they blew the VT-2 out of the water.

One man's "not as much as you'd think" is another man's "blows them out of the water" and vice versa. The VT2s, IMO, are still great speakers, but they're muddy sounding by comparison.

John,

That was my problem with the VT2, I felt they didn't have a good sound stage, and wasn't very clear.

Buying speakers is the hardest thing I have done.

Has anybody listened to the Outlaw Audio subs?

Has anybody seen (or have) a pair of used U2s for sale?

I'm still thinking of the Tannoy's, but the U2s might be a better match for my NHT Threes (if I can afford them).

Too late now, but don't overlook this one, either.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?homesubw&1174067664

John or Jack, was the Sub Two basically the same as the subs in the VT3s?

ture, i can do w/o a sub for music.
just want to make sure, u not implying the sb3 is better then the m5 for music right?

Hmm, depends. I think the M5s are a MUCH better and more accurate speaker than the SB3s, as I'm sure would prolly be the general consensus here by most who have heard both, but the M5s are in fact designed to be used along with a sub.

If you didn't have a sub (and wasn't planning on getting one), and it was for a relatively small room, then and only then would I recommend a pair of SB3s over M5s. Otherwise, M5s every other time without exception.

Too late now, but don't overlook this one, either.

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?homesubw&1174067664
That's the sub I have. Good unit.

That was my problem with the VT2, I felt they didn't have a good sound stage, and wasn't very clear..

You just have to realize that, by comparison to many speakers at the time, the VT2s were relatively detailed, but much more accurate, much more powerful. Now compare them to decent mini monitors from the late 90s and newer and they'll get trounced in mid/treble detail and imaging, but the Fours do in those area more than most high-end monitors do now. So it really depends on how you look back at them.

John or Jack, was the Sub Two basically the same as the subs in the VT3s?

Yes, it was. Not the Twoi, but the original.

Just posting this note here since this has become "THE" NHT thread...

Finally performed the 20hz modification mentioned way back to my U1 Subwoofer setup...

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND this mod to everybody... the U1 is simply AMAZING now and the extra 7hz can really be FELT. Unless you have a HUGE space to fill, I can't imagine having to drive it to levels that would force it to peak out.

You must be skilled with a soldering iron and comfortable dissasebling the X1 to change out 4 resistors and 2 capacitors...

I sent an e-mail to NHT asking for documentation on this procedure but never received a response. I don't believe that I've seen it posted in this thread either. Can you post the instructions here?

Thanks!

Is the 20Hz mod needed on the X2 as well or does it pass info down that low? If it is needed, is the process similar to the X1 mod?

Hoping that the *big* announcement this month is the dual woofer floor standing 3 in piano gloss black...looks just like a four but with 2 woofers & no sub. Now thats what I want. Add in my dual W1/X1 for sub & we are happy.

And how some L5 style classics with dual woofers...maybe also in piano gloss black.

Ideal setup for the $ imo, and yes I'm willing to pay for them. :eek:

You must be skilled with a soldering iron and comfortable dissasebling the X1 to change out 4 resistors and 2 capacitors...

Got the specifics on this one?

FWIW, last year, I sold 3 times as many $800/pr Threes as $600/pr Twos and twice the number of $400/pr Absolute Zeros. I've been averaging about 1 complete Three/Four HT system per week, aside from quite a few stereo setups. Three/sub is selling about equal to the Fours. Special Dark is a good 1/3rd of the sales, women love that color! Sold about 2 dozen Xds though last year more than NHT Fours (but I had more time). Half as many as I daydreamed, but still a *lot*. The Controller took 5 months to beat out the previous best selling preamp we've ever sold. Sold about 16 or 17 of those, most with matching amps. Everyone seems to love this unit! I expected to sell half that at best. I am, generally, not an indicator at all of global NHT sales proportions.

Hoping that the *big* announcement this month is the dual woofer floor standing 3 in piano gloss black...looks just like a four but with 2 woofers & no sub. Now thats what I want. Add in my dual W1/X1 for sub & we are happy.

And how some L5 style classics with dual woofers...maybe also in piano gloss black.

Ideal setup for the $ imo, and yes I'm willing to pay for them. :eek:

A lot of us would like to see that, but it ain't gonna happen dude. :(

Is the 20Hz mod needed on the X2 as well or does it pass info down that low? If it is needed, is the process similar to the X1 mod?

Someone way back earlier on suggested that the X2 is basically the X1 with the 20 Hz mod already done.

Don't know how accurate that is or not though. :confused:

Someone way back earlier on suggested that the X2 is basically the X1 with the 20 Hz mod already done.

Don't know how accurate that is or not though. :confused: That is true, but you must use the X1 for evolutions...otherwise the X2 is fine for everything else.

Someone way back earlier on suggested that the X2 is basically the X1 with the 20 Hz mod already done.

Don't know how accurate that is or not though. :confused:


No, because the X2 doesn't have the EQ for the Evo subs in it. It's more of a pass through.

As I understand the X1, it has an EQ to make the subs go flat to 26Hz and then a subsonic filter that keeps it from overloading. I think you're either removing that or more likely, dropping it down a few Hz.

Well maybe by the 31st the BIG annoucment that is coming in January will come.

Or if it is like the new classic line it may be next January.
Just Kidding
Allen

The previous X2 discussion I was thinking of started right here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8650895

Just Kidding
Allen

Or maybe not. :p

A lot of us would like to see that, but it ain't gonna happen dude. :(

Don't give up hope, I'm *working* on it. The possibility is still alive, but I can make no promises! It certainly doesn't hurt if they see there is demand for such critters. You can't sell *everyone* Classic Fours.

The previous X2 discussion I was thinking of started right here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8650895


The X2 is the X1 without the Evo EQ on the bottom. I'm not sure about the <26Hz filter though. Did Jack say something to the contrary? Not seeing this in that section. The Evos need the EQ, but the low bass filter would be optional. I expect the X2 has neither the EQ nor the filter.

John and I PM'd about this a little. For a medium-sized room (13 x 20, with 13 x 15 listening area) with 2 U1s, I suppose there'd be plenty of output even with the 20 Hz mod, without endangering the subs as much as if they'd be driven louder. I just worry that, even turned down, it would be "boomy" or inaccurate because the speakers were driven only to such a fraction of their output limit. Rest of system: 2 Threes, 3C, and 2 AZs in back. Pioneer Elite receiver (120W/channel, not particularly conservative esp. compared with components).

Listening is 50% music, 50% HT but we're older (see: "OldEars") and don't listen at ear-bleeding levels. Thanks for feedback.

Peter

The X2 is the X1 without the Evo EQ on the bottom. I'm not sure about the <26Hz filter though. Did Jack say something to the contrary? Not seeing this in that section. The Evos need the EQ, but the low bass filter would be optional. I expect the X2 has neither the EQ nor the filter.

I found the answer to my own question in the X2 manual of all places (duh)...

"Frequency response: 15Hz - 220Hz +/-3dB
through L/R input (continuously variable)
15 - 220Hz +/-3dB through LFE input (fixed)"

I've only tested the X2 with the 2.9s and Fours so I can't say what it will go down to... if I have time all hook it up with my IB (currently have them setup fairly flat to 12Hz) ... that should show if it rolls off somewhere near the 15Hz...

Mike

EDIT: I also found the block diagram and there is a 20Hz filter downstream of the boundary settings so that's in line with the specs quoted in the manual.

Could I use 5 NHT Zero's with one as the center channel? I would have to turn it on its side to make it fit. That, or the top two inches would be behind the front of the tv stand. Would that hamper the sound of it? I know it will change it somehow, but I am far from an audiophile. The center speaker I have now is nothing more than one of the satellites I have in front but turned sideways with an extra passive 4" driver.

I have limited space with the TV in the corner as you can see. I don't want huge speakers sitting out and blocking the television, or sitting way out in the room.

I realize NHT makes matching centers, but if I only buy three zeros for now for use in the front, and get two later on, I can justify the expense. Otherwise, I'd rather keep the old Boston set up I have now and spend the money elsewhere.

Thanks!!

To sound their best, the Classics need a to be placed away from hard reflective surfaces, and not on its side in a stand.

Good luck.

ok.... i have 2-2.5k to spend on speakers... should i wait and get threes or go now and get twos

also if you suggest threes

shoud i get threes and a twelve or fours?

I think Fours are better than the Three/Twelve combo.

so two 10" > one 12"

In general, yes. This is a case in point. 2 10" woofers have more surface area, more voice coil, lower distortion, higher output, cleaner sound, better room distribution (helps lateral standing waves). In addition, I think the tuning of the Four's mid/treble is about 10% better than that of the Threes, despite using the exact same drivers. I investigated and they are marginally different in the crossovers.

Or maybe not. :p


I thought about adding this to my comment too. :o
Allen

I think Fours are better than the Three/Twelve combo. But are Fours better than Three/U1 combo...or Three/Stereo U1 combo...?? Couldn't resist, heh. :eek: :)

^^^^ No.

To get some of the effect John is talking about here ...

In addition, I think the tuning of the Four's mid/treble is about 10% better than that of the Threes, despite using the exact same drivers. I investigated and they are marginally different in the crossovers.


... you can simply cross the Threes over to the Evo subs at 125 Hz as the Evo subs will easily go that high. Just make sure you have the Evo subs, whether dual U1s or a U2 set, within a couple of feet of each one's main L/R Three to avoid any bass localization issues.

The X2 is the X1 without the Evo EQ on the bottom. I'm not sure about the <26Hz filter though. Did Jack say something to the contrary? Not seeing this in that section. The Evos need the EQ, but the low bass filter would be optional. I expect the X2 has neither the EQ nor the filter.

It looks to me like NHT could do a 20 Hz software download like they did for Xds for the Controller using Evo subs without an X1.

Don't give up hope, I'm *working* on it. The possibility is still alive, but I can make no promises! It certainly doesn't hurt if they see there is demand for such critters. You can't sell *everyone* Classic Fours.

We can all hope, but I'm not exactly holding my breath over it. :(

I found the answer to my own question in the X2 manual of all places (duh)...

"Frequency response: 15Hz - 220Hz +/-3dB
through L/R input (continuously variable)
15 - 220Hz +/-3dB through LFE input (fixed)"

I've only tested the X2 with the 2.9s and Fours so I can't say what it will go down to... if I have time all hook it up with my IB (currently have them setup fairly flat to 12Hz) ... that should show if it rolls off somewhere near the 15Hz...

Mike

EDIT: I also found the block diagram and there is a 20Hz filter downstream of the boundary settings so that's in line with the specs quoted in the manual.

Very interesting. Thanks.

Could I use 5 NHT Zero's with one as the center channel? I would have to turn it on its side to make it fit. That, or the top two inches would be behind the front of the tv stand. Would that hamper the sound of it? I know it will change it somehow, but I am far from an audiophile. The center speaker I have now is nothing more than one of the satellites I have in front but turned sideways with an extra passive 4" driver.

I have limited space with the TV in the corner as you can see. I don't want huge speakers sitting out and blocking the television, or sitting way out in the room.

I realize NHT makes matching centers, but if I only buy three zeros for now for use in the front, and get two later on, I can justify the expense. Otherwise, I'd rather keep the old Boston set up I have now and spend the money elsewhere.

Thanks!!

Maybe M5 Evolutions would work for you. You seem to have a set up that they would do well in, much more so than any Classics.

Hey all,

I've been reading through this thread for a couple weeks now, and just bought myself a set of NHT speakers, so I figured I would post and say "hi".

Front: Classic 4's
Center: Classic 3c
Rear: Classic 2's
Sub: Twelve

The NHT stuff sounds fantastic, and I haven't even spent much time tweaking it past the auto-setup.

I also got a Sony STR-DA5200ES to run them, although I'm thinking about getting a Pioneer Elite VSX-84TXsi instead....the sony seems pretty good, but I'm not 100% sold. Stupid USB jack won't play my iPod, and a few other frustrating things.

This is part 1 of a series of purchases over the next year that will see me add an HDTV and PS3/360, but I'm a bit of an audiophile (new to the home theatre thing, but I play in several rock & church bands, so I'm used to good sounding gear) and so the speakers had to come first.

Looking forward to many fun years with NHT!

- K1LLswitch

Hey all,

I've been reading through this thread for a couple weeks now, and just bought myself a set of NHT speakers, so I figured I would post and say "hi".

Front: Classic 4's
Center: Classic 3c
Rear: Classic 2's
Sub: Twelve

The NHT stuff sounds fantastic, and I haven't even spent much time tweaking it past the auto-setup.

I also got a Sony STR-DA5200ES to run them, although I'm thinking about getting a Pioneer Elite VSX-84TXsi instead....the sony seems pretty good, but I'm not 100% sold. Stupid USB jack won't play my iPod, and a few other frustrating things.

This is part 1 of a series of purchases over the next year that will see me add an HDTV and PS3/360, but I'm a bit of an audiophile (new to the home theatre thing, but I play in several rock & church bands, so I'm used to good sounding gear) and so the speakers had to come first.

Looking forward to many fun years with NHT!

- K1LLswitch



Welcome to the forum and the NHT family.
Allen