Congrats!

How much of an upgrade would you say the Fours are over the ST4s?


I perceive an a) much more structured, more clear soundstage b) more clarity and detail generally and c) tighter more prominent bass. I must admit that given the relatively wimpy AVR I use that I never really pushed the ST-4s. I was very happy with them as mains (it may be overkill to have them as surrounds but it makes for a good time listening to E. Power Biggs' Quad SACD of Bach's Toccatas and Fugues played on four organs simultaneously) and would recommend the ST-4s to anyone. But the Fours are, to quote Monty Python, "something completely different."

I'm still tinkering with settings to get things calibrated exactly right in my small room (13x15x8). While I am not planning an AVR or Amp upgrade anytime soon, does anyone have an objective assessment of what sort of power I should be looking at in a room of that size to drive my system to show everything at its best? I'm reluctant to look to a 200wpc amp unless given compelling reasons. BTW, a NHT tech did recommend that I do precisely that "for those special moments" as he put it.

Current System is:
Classic Fours
ST-4s for Surrounds
Classic Twos for Rears
Classic Three C for Center
SVS PB-10ISD Sub

You can of course make level and delay adjustments to speaker settings in the Controller, even if you have selected NHT models, without affecting any of the NHT specific processing. Using the subwoofer gain to adjust the subwoofer level of a U1 or U2 without an X1 will work fine.

Currently if you have a tower speaker on the left and right channel of the Controller set to large and you add a subwoofer to the system, you get crap because of the phase problems and overlapping outputs. The new ,very soon to be shipping, software upgrade for the Controller works differently. The following only applies if you have NHT speakers.

If you set up a system without a subwoofer, the Controller will run any speakers capable of full range reproduction, full range. If you select a subwoofer in the setup, the Controller will then run any of these full range speakers down to 40Hz and then put a matching low pass filter on the subwoofer output at 40Hz. This will give the system maximum dynamic range and eliminate any comb filtering between the subwoofer and full range speaker.

However, if even more bass extension is desired, it is necessary to use a subwoofer with bass response below 20Hz and very high output capability. This subwoofer should be low-passed around 40-50Hz, with the Four high-passed around the same frequency. This will probably require an active crossover with phase adjustment such as the X2, since the adjustments found in most surround processors will not be adequate to properly integrate the Four with the subwoofer. Ideally, end-users should use an acoustic measurement device too, provided they know how to use it properly.

"[/I]

I use the C4s with an Axiom EP-500 which has been reported with 'real-world' measurements from 18hz. I cross over the C4s at 40hz with my AVR (I turn off the Axiom's low-pass). And frankly it sounds superb. The Axiom is my only non-NHT speaker and I'm very pleasantly surprised by how well they all blend. Nope, I'm not pushing Axiom at all (all my others are NHT) just saying that to fill in the the 20hz - 40hz area for the C4s there can be some benefit.

And yes. I am saving for a Controller so I hope that it will all work with that as well! :D

but did you find the C3's to be much 2x better than the AZ's?
not just only when you really strain to hear a difference, but very clearly better (ignoring bass differences, since I do have a sub)?

I first bought AZs as I could not get the C3s due to production problems last year at NHT - remember those days? I used the AZs upfront for about 3 months and then was able to get the 3Cs. I was, and still am, double happy regarding the change from AZ to 3C. Don't ask me regarding how or why my happiness was doubled - I don't speak the jargon. :) :)

I am not saying that the AZs are bad at all - I was at first, and still am, very pleased with them. They worked well up front when I had them there and they work well in back too. If I had more space I might put 3Cs in the back - but then again I might not - possibly overkill for me.

I do not run a sub with these speakers, I get enough bass the way it is. So, my thoughts do not consider this as a factor. However, I doubt that I would change my thoughts if I threw a sub into the blend.

If money and space are not big issues, I would go with the 3C. It is worth the price difference. If money is an issue - I would still go with them and cut a few corners elsewhere. You could also phase things in with various pieces as well.

Another Happy NHT owner. I am very pleased with everything I have as far as Speakers go. Wish I had the $$$ for the new Controller Power 5 set-up.

I have CAZ surrounds, C4 fronts, C3c, and a C10 sub.

Bienvenidos!

How much do you feel you give up for home theater using CAZs for side and/or rear surrounds from the C3s? (Using C3C and either C3 or C4 fronts?
thanks in advance,
Joe H

It's worth it to get the Threes if you can. The AZs sound like they're working and sound more constrained and compressed by comparison. Not huge, but enough to make it worth the money, IMO.

Currently if you have a tower speaker on the left and right channel of the Controller set to large and you add a subwoofer to the system, you get crap because of the phase problems and overlapping outputs. The new ,very soon to be shipping, software upgrade for the Controller works differently. The following only applies if you have NHT speakers.

If you set up a system without a subwoofer, the Controller will run any speakers capable of full range reproduction, full range. If you select a subwoofer in the setup, the Controller will then run any of these full range speakers down to 40Hz and then put a matching low pass filter on the subwoofer output at 40Hz. This will give the system maximum dynamic range and eliminate any comb filtering between the subwoofer and full range speaker.

Jack... a few questions:

If the mains and the subwoofer are all ACOUSTIC SUSPENSION design, would that not negate the phase problems and comb filtering? I have realized the absolute best 5.1 sound to my ear with 3.3 mains/AC2 center/2.9 rears all run as LARGE in combination with a U1 subwoofer w/20hz modification... a duplicate center channel signal is fed into the X1 and low-passed at 60hz(the natural rolloff of the AC2) so the extreme lows of the center signal are reproduced by the U1.

I have experimented with ported subs(mainly a B&W ASW4000) and ran into integration issues as you have indicated, but that is not the case with the U1.

Also, one problem I am aware of when setting the low pass on a subwoofer in a 5.1 processor to anything below the STANDARD 120hz is that you lose any information in the .1 track above the crossover frequency as it is "tossed out" in the summing proccess... this is TRUE of most processors that do the conversion in the digital domain as far as I am aware as it is part of the standard software code. What does the CONTROLLER do in this case?

Peter, you can still get group delays and such because of the drivers and cabinet and EQ and crossovers, etc so every sealed subwoofer will be different too. Being sealed and similar will likely help that out. For instance, I think the U1 must have a delay of about 5-8ms based on what The Controllers thinks its location is. So that's like half a wavelength around 80Hz. Jack can certainly go into more detail on stuff like that than I can, but that's the rough answer.

120 Hz isn't "standard", 80Hz is. The FR up to 120Hz is all duplicate stuff anyway and is there, as I understand it, to make allow the bass management to do its job. While I suspect I know the answer, I don't know why you wouldn't want to throw out that info going to the sub. It would make the sub more localizeable and really should be there *only* if you need it for very small speakers. The last thing you need is stuff between 80 and 120 Hz coming from your sub!

Yup... 80Hz is the "standard" crossover point, but there is signal information available up to 120hz per the Dolby Digital spec.

My thought process is I want every bit of information re-produced that is on the track. If you cross over at 40hz all of the .1 information ABOVE 40hz is tossed out/lost in the process... it is not re-directed to the mains in almost all processors in existance.

Most people have no sense of what real fidelity is and are happy just to have low-frequency thump produced so they really aren't concerned about it... why is BOSE so succesful?

The reality is that true fidelity requires harmonics and overtones to be produced which exist at ALL frequencies... if you have a 30hz or 40hz musical base note, it will possess harmonics up to one, two and maybe more octaves above depending on the nature of the source... if you just toss out this harmonic information you will lose all sense of the natural tone of the source.

If your speaker distances are not set properly, you will have problems regardless of the scenario...

My thought process is I want every bit of information re-produced that is on the track. If you cross over at 40hz all of the .1 information ABOVE 40hz is tossed out/lost in the process... it is not re-directed to the mains in almost all processors in existance.

Because it is already there. You definitely don't want to reproduce every bit because some of it is redundant.

I have a question aobut NHT Classic Three's.

I have Focal Cobalt 816's & CC800, would the Classic 3's & matching center be an improvemnt/upgrade or a side step in quality of sound?

I have never heard NHT's, but with all the rave reviews my appetite is wet to hear some. My local dealer only has the Zero's.

Would the Zero's do justice in laying the ground work for NHT sound? Or will I really need to hear the 3's instead?

Hello,

I have a budget of 5K for my front, and everything leads me back to the Classic 4's. Anyone bought the classic 4 and not been happy!

I have Focal Cobalt 816's & CC800, would the Classic 3's & matching center be an improvemnt/upgrade or a side step in quality of sound?

You'd just have to try them. You might love them or think "eh". They are likely notably warmer and easier on the ear. They'll do somethings better, maybe other things not as well. I know I'd rather have NHT Fours over 1027s. I can't say the 1027s don't do some things better, but the Four's sound is much more livable whereas the 1027s keep yelling "listen to my tweeter, it's great isn't it!?!" and the Fours are much more powerful and have no sense of strain. The Threes might actually sound a bit boring compared to the Focal sound, but it does make it easy to just plain listen to the music.

I have never heard NHT's, but with all the rave reviews my appetite is wet to hear some. My local dealer only has the Zero's.

What did you think of the Zeros? The Threes are more powerful and detailed, but there is some family resemblance.

Would the Zero's do justice in laying the ground work for NHT sound? Or will I really need to hear the 3's instead?

It's a good primer. But the Threes are a whole different animal. It is a damn shame though that NHT has not promoted the AZs in any way (or the Classic series at all!). I have all kinds of cool AZ or Classic ads written in my mind, but I haven't seen a single ad except for a really bad one for Xd.

I just went to my local dealer, to pick up the set up. Walk in the guy I had gotten to know is gone.

New guy is excited, gives me a package price of MSRP, he said doesn't need to discount, as someone behind me will want the same package. Said thanks and went along my way.

Michael

Well, dealers have a right to price them how they want, but the line he gave you is kinda crap as NHT will build as many as he needs. It's not like they won't build more. It's one thing to tell someone that they don't discount (because they offer all these other services like free deliver/setup etc) but that's a typical, old, stale line that I thought went out in the 80s. Sorry to hear it. Though, you might have struck while the iron was hot too, you know! At the rate you're going, the Classic IIs will be out ;)

BTW, did you tell him that you quoted a different price by the earlier sales guy and brought your money? Or ask to speak with the owner to run it by him? Honesty usually works. You don't give up on a negotiation, you just get more clever than the guy with the silly little lines he heard from a car salesman :) The best technique is to go right around him to the boss and then the boss will likely be smarter than this kid and will want your money, especially if you have it on you. Many dealers are smart enough to also not quote a lower price than retail *unless* you're there to buy and they're sure of it. You just say "well, either I leave with these today or never because I'm not bringing my wallet twice".

Hi,

I'm about to purchase the Classic 3's as side speakers, the Classic Three C as a centre and the Absolute Zeros as surround speakers. I'm also purchasing the VTF-3 MK2 Sub. I have no choice but to use the AZ's as surrounds because they have to be hung up. My condo is open concept and does not allow for stands for the surrounds. I hope that the AZ will suffice? Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Ryan.

Well, dealers have a right to price them how they want, but the line he gave you is kinda crap as NHT will build as many as he needs. It's not like they won't build more. It's one thing to tell someone that they don't discount (because they offer all these other services like free deliver/setup etc) but that's a typical, old, stale line that I thought went out in the 80s. Sorry to hear it. Though, you might have struck while the iron was hot too, you know! At the rate you're going, the Classic IIs will be out ;)

BTW, did you tell him that you quoted a different price by the earlier sales guy and brought your money? Or ask to speak with the owner to run it by him? Honesty usually works. You don't give up on a negotiation, you just get more clever than the guy with the silly little lines he heard from a car salesman :) The best technique is to go right around him to the boss and then the boss will likely be smarter than this kid and will want your money, especially if you have it on you. Many dealers are smart enough to also not quote a lower price than retail *unless* you're there to buy and they're sure of it. You just say "well, either I leave with these today or never because I'm not bringing my wallet twice".

This guy was one of the owners, and they aren't known for there customer service, but the guy who left was very good, and understood what I was looking for.

I made it clear that I was going to be purchasing speakers today, and that it was down to two choices, and it was all about price, as I would be happy with both.

I found a local guy on the NHT website, looks like a custom installer in the area, so I will give him a try.

You'd just have to try them. You might love them or think "eh". They are likely notably warmer and easier on the ear. They'll do somethings better, maybe other things not as well. I know I'd rather have NHT Fours over 1027s. I can't say the 1027s don't do some things better, but the Four's sound is much more livable whereas the 1027s keep yelling "listen to my tweeter, it's great isn't it!?!" and the Fours are much more powerful and have no sense of strain. The Threes might actually sound a bit boring compared to the Focal sound, but it does make it easy to just plain listen to the music.

It's a good primer. But the Threes are a whole different animal. It is a damn shame though that NHT has not promoted the AZs in any way (or the Classic series at all!). I have all kinds of cool AZ or Classic ads written in my mind, but I haven't seen a single ad except for a really bad one for Xd.

My Cobalt's are just to bright on the ears.

I am wanting something more laid back, but has great detail.

Then you'll love them! I just wanted to be sure from where you were coming.

This guy was one of the owners, and they aren't known for there customer service, but the guy who left was very good, and understood what I was looking for.

Yeah, we had a dealer like that here that is now gone. He only sold at retail price and would walk a sale for $10. In a favorite story, a guy said "look, I know you don't discount, but would you toss in *any* decent set of patch cables with this $600 CD player". "No, those are extra". "Okay then". Me: "Welcome aboard!". I would kill for customers that only wanted a patch cable thrown in!

I found a local guy on the NHT website, looks like a custom installer in the area, so I will give him a try.

Well, yeah, he'd probably be happy for the sale. I wish I could just walk customers because they wanted to pay less than retail. Heck, I don't go around buying things at retail. I decide what food I buy by what's on sale!

120 Hz isn't "standard", 80Hz is. The FR up to 120Hz is all duplicate stuff anyway and is there, as I understand it, to make allow the bass management to do its job. While I suspect I know the answer, I don't know why you wouldn't want to throw out that info going to the sub. It would make the sub more localizeable and really should be there *only* if you need it for very small speakers. The last thing you need is stuff between 80 and 120 Hz coming from your sub!


I thought the .1 channel was it's on channel and the crossover for speakers shouldn't effect this. A sub on the LFE should play everything in that channel plus the crossover of the speakers and I think some ssp will send everything below the crossover to the mains if they are full range.
Allen

I thought the .1 channel was it's on channel and the crossover for speakers shouldn't effect this. A sub on the LFE should play everything in that channel plus the crossover of the speakers and I think some ssp will send everything below the crossover to the mains if they are full range.
Allen

All six channels in a 5.1 scenario are their "own" channel... the .1 channel(subwoofer) was singled out because it is the only channel that does not contain full range inrormation in it's mix... it is only 120hz and below and was designated for "low frequency effects"... hence LFE channel.

The ideal scenario for a 5.1 system consists of matched full-range speakers set to Large and a matched dedicated subwoofer. If you have ever seen a movie studio's mix facility... the one's that do the blockbuster movies... they are using big full range speakers for all channels... the one I visited had an awesome PMC Monitor System.

Most people could not and/or would not invest in, nor tailor their listening enviroment to what was necessary in speaker size for an ideal system so a comprimise had to be made... What would sell? Some cute cute little speakers that the wife would approve of and a thunderous bass producing mega-wattage ultra-certified subwoofer... with a 10" driver... c'mon now... THX certified... THX Ultra... the standards they represent are mediocre... it's marketing... and it sells.

Back to the topic...

Yes, the .1 channel is it's own channel and it is designated to contain special effects information up to 120hz...

Yes, if you apply bass management via a processor the frequencies below the crossover point of any speaker set to Small will be redirected to the subwoofer and/or any speakers set to Large depending on if and how the product designer has manipulated the standard code.

To answer the last part of your question... No, per the standard code, once you set any speaker to Small, the information in the .1 channel ABOVE the crossover frequency is "tossed out" in the channel summing process... gone...

To answer the last part of your question... No, per the standard code, once you set any speaker to Small, the information in the .1 channel ABOVE the crossover frequency is "tossed out" in the channel summing process... gone...

If the .1 is its own channel I don't understand why they would throw out above the crossover point for the sub. I guess maybe the studios are not using the .1 channel like that. They must this use it to copy the low effects from the main channels to the sub. Because if you had 5 full range channel what would be the use for the sub except to add some low effect.

When I had my 2.9 has my mains I always liked them better full range. I still ran my sub but it was ported and really couldn't keep up with the 2.9 for bass quality.
Allen

Originally, the .1 channel was supposed be for very deep stuff or special visceral effects, but studios are lazy and they pretty well just replicate from 120Hz and down in that channel. If you cross over at 80Hz, you don't lose above 80, you just have less redundancy.

Originally, the .1 channel was supposed be for very deep stuff or special visceral effects, but studios are lazy and they pretty well just replicate from 120Hz and down in that channel. If you cross over at 80Hz, you don't lose above 80, you just have less redundancy.


This was my toughts too.
Allen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LFE, an abbreviation for Low-Frequency Effects, is commonly used in describing an audio track contained within a motion picture sound mix. The signal from this track, ranging from 10 Hz to 120 Hz, is normally sent to a subwoofer, known as the Low Frequency Emitter.

The LFE channel originated in Dolby Stereo 70 mm Six Track film prints, as a way of providing louder bass and sub-bass effects, without detracting from the quality of the standard audio channels. The LFE channel is conventionally played back 10 dB louder than the main channels, giving significantly more recording headroom. Also, the separate recording allowed straightforward installation of extra dedicated subwoofers, removing the need to upgrade the main speakers, or install extra crossovers.

Later formats such as Dolby Digital retained the LFE channel, although this is more through convention and backwards compatibility than necessity, as digital formats have greater dynamic range than the magnetic analogue recordings on 70 mm prints, and modern sound processors have bass management functions to redirect bass from any channel to a subwoofer.

I have a question about rear surrounds in my set up. I currently have the rears built into the wall, would I be better staying that way the iW4, or mounting a Classic 3 on the wall?

Thanks

I'd do iW4s probably. There's actually some downside to mounting a speaker that can make it worse than an inwall. Normally, inwalls are hopelessly poorer in sound, but the iW4 really is quite amazing. It also has a bit wider dispersion somehow and gets the speakers further from you which is also beneficial.

Well, I just got Verve in and kinda setup. It's going in the lobby at some point, but that's going to take more wiring and time than I have today. It's kinda like a poor man's M5/U1 setup. Definitely not in the same league, but the design is interesting and clever. Sub isn't nearly as powerful, but it is small, easily stashed and fairly precise. The sats are brick like. Very heavy for the size. It has a fairly similar sound to the M5s, just not as refined. The woofers aren't Xd woofers, but somewhat similar. Definitely not as deep, mid to upper 30s. The monitors are pretty clean sounding. Probably plays notably louder than the AZ/Ten combo, but maybe not quite as refined. Bass is a bit tighter than the Ten, but doesn't track like an Xd sub or go as deep as either. One wonders what happens if those subs go back to back in a bit bigger and more conventional enclosure. For us, it will be kind of a backup system relative to Classic, but I can see the uses. Unfortunately, the drivers are paper cones, so they can't be used as outdoor speakers.

To answer the last part of your question... No, per the standard code, once you set any speaker to Small, the information in the .1 channel ABOVE the crossover frequency is "tossed out" in the channel summing process... gone...

You sure about that?

I thought the LFE's low pass crossover was not a "brick wall" filter, and typically (or usually) had like a 12 db/octave slope. :confused:

HTM review of a complete NHT system (Four/Three/3C/Controller/Power5)

http://nhthifi.com/2006/press/reviews/new/HomeTheaterReview4-07.pdf

Most of the Verve info is up on our site.

http://nhthifi.com/2006/verve.html

I'll answer the bass management/bass missmanagement questions tomorrow.

The LFE channel is almost always filtered at 120Hz with a 48dB/octave low pass filter in the encode process. The decoder isn't supposed to have any low pass filter on it.

You sure about that?

I thought the LFE's low pass crossover was not a "brick wall" filter, and typically (or usually) had like a 12 db/octave slope. :confused:

Jack confirmed it... "The LFE channel is almost always filtered at 120Hz with a 48dB/octave low pass filter in the encode process. The decoder isn't supposed to have any low pass filter on it."
Key words there are ENCODE and DECODE...

What I am trying to explain is what happens when you apply bass management in a digital processor...

Once you set any speaker to SMALL there are low-pass/ high-pass filters engaged to send that channels low frequencies to the subwoofer and retain the upper frequencies... all fine and dandy... but the Dolby Digital code does not provide a destination for the high-passed signal of the .1 channel... it is discarded. So the bass information above the crossover point is not sent to the mains or produced by any speaker. And remember... even with it set to 80hz the signal will be cut 3, 6, 12 or even 24db at that point depending on the actual crossover slope. So... if you feel the complete loss of information in a channel is the pathway to high-fidelity sound reproduction... this scenario works great!

I will get into the Dynamic Range Compression Profiles that are automatically applied along with bass management later... we all know that compression is the key to accurate sound reproduction... just ask all those MP3 users listening to "CD quality" music...

Everything you need to know is right here at the source...
http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/46_DDEncodingGuidelines.pdf

Well, I just got Verve in and kinda setup. It's going in the lobby at some point, but that's going to take more wiring and time than I have today. It's kinda like a poor man's M5/U1 setup. Definitely not in the same league, but the design is interesting and clever. Sub isn't nearly as powerful, but it is small, easily stashed and fairly precise. The sats are brick like. Very heavy for the size. It has a fairly similar sound to the M5s, just not as refined. The woofers aren't Xd woofers, but somewhat similar. Definitely not as deep, mid to upper 30s. The monitors are pretty clean sounding. Probably plays notably louder than the AZ/Ten combo, but maybe not quite as refined. Bass is a bit tighter than the Ten, but doesn't track like an Xd sub or go as deep as either. One wonders what happens if those subs go back to back in a bit bigger and more conventional enclosure. For us, it will be kind of a backup system relative to Classic, but I can see the uses. Unfortunately, the drivers are paper cones, so they can't be used as outdoor speakers.

Sounds like mixed impressions?

How's the look? Appears sort of cheap in the pictures. Is it better in person?

Sounds like mixed impressions?

For doing what it is supposed to do on a wall, it's great. It's just not the same as setting up a proper AZ setup on stands. IOW, it's kinda like a sports car guy driving a nice truck. Verve is a really cool appliance to go with a plasma/LCD which are also cool appliances. I'll take 5 AZs, dual Tens and an affordable projector system any day, but *most* people wouldn't.

How's the look? Appears sort of cheap in the pictures. Is it better in person?

Much nicer in person. Gloss is a hit or miss to photo and these are quite glossy. It does look pretty modern. I have to say, it really doesn't look like an NHT product (though NHT has morphed more in the last 6-7 years than in all the rest combined, so what does?). Kinda like a classier DeafTech or whatever. The design is WAY better than the typical lifestyle stuff too. Who else is giving you a 3-way monitor and acoustic suspension sub for anywhere close to the price? No one. Even expensive Deaf Techs, B&Ws, PSBs, Paradigms etc are all seemingly 2-way or 2.5-way designs with weeny drivers. I'd put this up against any of those. The L5/U1 system is more affordable than most lifestyle options and this is nearly half the price of that.

I am probably going to mail out a postcard on a package deal with the gloss black NuVision TV and see if they can't feed off of each other. I think this is the kind of thing that will sell on a regular basis even though it may not be what us more audiophilic dealers are *wanting* to sell. All I think about are Threes, Fours and Xd, almost (?) to the point of obsession.

Did I mention Verve kicks the NHT NewWave's ass? :)

Interestingly, the midbass drivers look exactly like upgraded NHT SuperZero woofers. I wonder if they are electrically the same?

Kind of off topic but I wanted to tell the forum about my recent experience with my NHT VT2.4s. I recently added a Rega P3 turntable to my system because I wanted to be able to play some of my old records that I haven't played in about 20 years. I wasn't sure how the speakers would sound with vinyl but to say I was surprised would be an understatement. With a well cleaned record and a good recording the sound was outstanding. I've been listening to this setup for two weeks straight and I can't stop. I don't recall any reviews of NHT speakers where vinyl was the main playback media but I just want people to know how good these speakers can sound. I realize the VT2.4s aren't the latest and greatest but I'm still very happy with them. I have a feeling the newer speakers would probably handle vinyl even better. Sorry for the brief interruption.

Most of the Verve info is up on our site.

http://nhthifi.com/2006/verve.html

I'll answer the bass management/bass missmanagement questions tomorrow.

The LFE channel is almost always filtered at 120Hz with a 48dB/octave low pass filter in the encode process. The decoder isn't supposed to have any low pass filter on it.


True as far as you go with that statement. DECODERS do not do bass management!!!

What I am trying to explain is what happens when you apply bass management in a digital processor...

Once you set any speaker to SMALL there are low-pass/ high-pass filters engaged to send that channels low frequencies to the subwoofer and retain the upper frequencies... all fine and dandy... but the Dolby Digital code does not provide a destination for the high-passed signal of the .1 channel... it is discarded. So the bass information above the crossover point is not sent to the mains or produced by any speaker. And remember... even with it set to 80hz the signal will be cut 3, 6, 12 or even 24db at that point depending on the actual crossover slope. So... if you feel the complete loss of information in a channel is the pathway to high-fidelity sound reproduction... this scenario works great!




Don't be so sure Dolby requirements. Dolby does not do bass management - the manufacturer of the product does this. Dolby has liberal policies regarding bass management schemes.

Anyhow, many receivers and pre/pro's do not do bass mangement the way you say it does. My particular receiver has an adjustable LFE high cut filter (40 to 200 Hz). I can adjust the LFE filter to suit my taste. My small speaker crossover settings are all (each group - front, center, side surround, rear surround) adjustable in the same manner.

I have heard that other receivers and pre/pro's do not filter the LFE signal at the same frequency as the small speaker crossovers when the crossovers are fixed or adjustable in groups.


So, everything depends on your individual receiver or pre-pro's bass management scheme(s).


Just for the record, if the LFE high cut filter is set at 80 Hz instead of 120 Hz in the receiver, you don't lose very much at all. The slope on the LFE channel is just not that steep in most receivers, and the LFE signal is rolled off in the encoding process anyhow (5th order filter at 120 Hz).

I'm sure maybe this question was asked already in the previous 93 pages of this thread.. but I need an opinion on Classic vs. Evolution for a 100% HT system.

Room is approx 20x20.. will not be playing music on this system. Strictly HT use.

The low end will be covered with probably a Hsu sub or sub(s).

I'm wondering which line offers the better HT performance.

If Classic, I would probably go with:

Classic Fours or Threes up front
Classic 3C center
Classic Threes in the back

If Evo, would go with M6's all around.. maybe L5's in the rear instead.

Center channel performance is important to me.. I hate the center to sound muffled or have it too quiet in comparison to the sound as a whole.

Opinions? Thanks..

I'm sure maybe this question was asked already in the previous 93 pages of this thread.. but I need an opinion on Classic vs. Evolution for a 100% HT system.

Room is approx 20x20.. will not be playing music on this system. Strictly HT use.

The low end will be covered with probably a Hsu sub or sub(s).

I'm wondering which line offers the better HT performance.

If Classic, I would probably go with:

Classic Fours or Threes up front
Classic 3C center
Classic Threes in the back

If Evo, would go with M6's all around.. maybe L5's in the rear instead.

Center channel performance is important to me.. I hate the center to sound muffled or have it too quiet in comparison to the sound as a whole.

Opinions? Thanks..

You might want to tell us about if the room is open at any point, ceiling height, and type of gear you are using.

I am very interested, as it sounds close to my room.

John or Mark will have a good answer for you.

Michael

Sure.

8 ft. ceilings.. half of the back back wall opens to a smaller 12x12 office area.

Will be using an Anthem AVM-30 and MCA-50 amp for this setup.

I'm sure maybe this question was asked already in the previous 93 pages of this thread.. but I need an opinion on Classic vs. Evolution for a 100% HT system.

Room is approx 20x20.. will not be playing music on this system. Strictly HT use.

The low end will be covered with probably a Hsu sub or sub(s).

I'm wondering which line offers the better HT performance.

If Classic, I would probably go with:

Classic Fours or Threes up front
Classic 3C center
Classic Threes in the back

If Evo, would go with M6's all around.. maybe L5's in the rear instead.

Center channel performance is important to me.. I hate the center to sound muffled or have it too quiet in comparison to the sound as a whole.

Opinions? Thanks..


First off I want to say I have yet to hear any of the classic speakers. But I had M5 for my LCR and just changed to M6 for my LCR and put my m5 in the back for 5.1 system. The only thing I can say at this time is I cann't wait until I get a contoller and power 5.

But now for you since you want a HT only I would go with the evolution speakers. Like John says no need to buy your bass twice. You know you want a Hsu sub then you really don't need full range speakers like the 4's. Some will tell you to go with the NHT u1 or u2 subs instead. I like sealed subs but for the money that big HSU with the turbo will be hard to beat for H/T. Now the real debate will be m5 or m6. I sit about 11' from my tv with the center on top of my61" rptv. I loved the improvment (to me) going from the m5 to m6 across the front as I said. It seems some will like the m5 and some will ask how far from the center channel you will be sitting, because at 12 to 13' will be about the point some will say you need m6s over the m5s. Truth be told I would use the m5. for rears with either the m5 or m6 for LCRs so I would just get a pair of m5 listen to them at the front for a while if you like them then get m5 and have an all m5 system. This is what I did but I felt like some of the mid bass was strainning some with the m5, so I tried 3 m6 loved it and moved the m5 to the back.

HTM review of a complete NHT system (Four/Three/3C/Controller/Power5)

http://nhthifi.com/2006/press/reviews/new/HomeTheaterReview4-07.pdf


Good find. I enjoyed reading this review. I wish we could get someone to use the controller with evolution speakers or I should say m5 or m6. I really wander how the m5 or m6 would sound built with the new drivers and technology in them.
Allen

You've already gotten some great advise from Allen, especially about getting Threes instead of Fours if you go Classic Series and already have the HSU, and the room size/distance to choose between the M5/M6.

About the only thing I will add is that the Evolutions, even the M5, but especially the M6, will play much louder and with greater dynamics than anything in the Classic series, plus the L5s are true wall mountable surrounds (if that matters) that match the M5s perfectly.

What AVR or amp(s) are you using? IMO the M5 works great with about 150 per at 6 ohms, while the M6 is best with about 250 per at 6 ohms.

In short, the M5s do have a better midrange than the M6, but the M6 will play louder with more output, but needs more power and a big enough room to do it in.

One last thing is that the M5/M6 does have some built in "room tuning" options that the Classics don't, which may or may not be important to you.

Good fine. I enjoyed reading this review. I wish we could get someone to use the controller with evolution speakers or I should say m5 or m6. I really wander how the m5 or m6 would sound built with the new drivers and technology in them.
Allen

Allen, to be honest, I noticed a bigger, more obvious difference with the ST4s than I did the T5s from the Deq.

The guy in the review said he didn't notice much difference with the Fours though. :confused:

The most noteworthy thing in that review to me was the Power5. Did you see those bench test specs? 291.6 watts into 8 Ohms with 2 channels driven at .1% distortion and 538.9 into 4 ohms at .1% distortion, again with 2 channels driven.

That thing is a freakin' beast! :eek:

It should be putting out somewhere around at least 410 watt per into 6 ohms at .1% distortion (2 channels driven), which 6 ohms is what a lot of NHT's speakers are rated.

In short, the M5s do have a better midrange than the M6

Now, why is this?

Because the man himself, Jack H. said so! :D :p

Not only that, but I agree with him. If I'm not mistaken, I'm on record as saying that even before he did. :cool: ;)

Just found it. From page 73.

The M5 has better midrange tonality than the M6. The M6 will play louder and has less distortion and compression at any given playback level.


I prefer the M5 over the M6.

The M5 and Three are different speakers, designed for different purposes. The M5 plays louder and works better in reflective rooms. The Three has better imaging, and smoother off axis response. Without knowing what the application is, I don't have a preference.

I really wander how the m5 or m6 would sound built with the new drivers and technology in them.
Allen

Prolly like the Classics. :p

Sorry Allen, just couldn't resist. :D

But seriously though, I would be very surprised if a new Evo series came out that was too much like or very similar to the Classics.

Hey John, are you at least a little surprised about how well the Fours have apparently been selling?

I must admit I am.

The ST4 was only $400 more at retail over the SB3, which was kind of a no-brainer considering you in effect got the stands along with the built in passive 8" subs for that price, but I really thought the Four being $1000 more than the Threes was going to hurt it a little sales wise, but evidently hasn't.

So, I'm getting the impression that the Evo series would fit my needs better.

And for balls-out HT.. M6's or M5's?

I have to admit.. I tend to lean towards the bigger beast in these cases.. but if there's a compelling argument to M5's (or anything else).. I'd like to hear it.

Good stuff guys.. thanks.

Considering what you said above and previously about your room size, I'd suggest M6s, but obviously, only you can make that call by auditioning.

I'm sure serious NHT followers have seen this.. but here's a very interesting write-up I came across tonight on the Evo's.. http://iar-80.com/page103.html

I'm sure serious NHT followers have seen this.. but here's a very interesting write-up I came across tonight on the Evo's.. http://iar-80.com/page103.html
Just don't follow his recos re placement of the tweeter, as they will make the sound much less accurate.

How much do you feel you give up for home theater using CAZs for side and/or rear surrounds from the C3s? (Using C3C and either C3 or C4 fronts?
thanks in advance,
Joe H

It's worth it to get the Threes if you can. The AZs sound like they're working and sound more constrained and compressed by comparison. Not huge, but enough to make it worth the money, IMO.

John I have been on the forum a lot and I know you are very, very knowledgeable when it comes to NHT products. I also know that the NHT site pairs Threes all the way around for that home theater set-up. I Just wanted to let you know how I arrived at using the AZs. All the speakers were purchased through a friend of mine who sells NHT for a living. He recommended the AZs for surround because of the overall workload for the surround channel being fairly light. Sound mixers really only program ambient sounds to pass through those channels (sounds of wind, typewriters, a door opening in the back of the room and things of that nature). With more dialog driven films of course you get next to nothing coming out of the surround channel. He felt that the C3’s would have been overkill. I am not into SACD or DVD audio so that is not a factor for me. When I listen to music it is pretty much two channel direct through the Fours. I just can’t help but smile when I am on the couch listening to music and looking at those very aesthetically pleasing speakers 
Thanks,
Erik

The M6 is a better speaker than the M5 if you're more than about 8' or 9' from the speaker.

The M5 plays about as loud as Classics. The M6 might go ~4dB louder +/-, but the Threes do it more gracefully up until the limits.

The Classics are more spacious and room filling, but will also over energize a bright room with no carpeting. If the room is carpeted with stuffed furniture, I think the Classics are the way to go. If not, the Evos.

John,

Now that you have done some listening, do you think the Verve is appropriate in the great room of a open floorplan home (1,800 square feet 1st floor with 20 foot ceilings in the great room) for someone who is looking for form, function and moderate levels for HT?

Prolly like the Classics. :p

Sorry Allen, just couldn't resist. :D

But seriously though, I would be very surprised if a new Evo series came out that was too much like or very similar to the Classics.


I don't know I thought they might tune it a little different thinking it would be used more for H/T only type of set ups.

I listen to some RBH 661 se speakers about a month ago and it is a WTW speaker with 6.5 mids made from aluminum. They where very smooth and had a much different sound then the m5 or 6. I would like to hear them next to the NHT but that will happen latter. I not saying the RBH where better but they had a nice sound to them. They also cost more and can double what m6 cost. The thing about NHT if they where to make an Evolution II they wouldn't double in price.
Allen

For doing what it is supposed to do on a wall, it's great. It's just not the same as setting up a proper AZ setup on stands. IOW, it's kinda like a sports car guy driving a nice truck. Verve is a really cool appliance to go with a plasma/LCD which are also cool appliances. I'll take 5 AZs, dual Tens and an affordable projector system any day, but *most* people wouldn't.

OK, I'm with you. We're not the target audience.

Much nicer in person. Gloss is a hit or miss to photo and these are quite glossy. It does look pretty modern. I have to say, it really doesn't look like an NHT product (though NHT has morphed more in the last 6-7 years than in all the rest combined, so what does?). Kinda like a classier DeafTech or whatever. The design is WAY better than the typical lifestyle stuff too. Who else is giving you a 3-way monitor and acoustic suspension sub for anywhere close to the price? No one. Even expensive Deaf Techs, B&Ws, PSBs, Paradigms etc are all seemingly 2-way or 2.5-way designs with weeny drivers. I'd put this up against any of those. The L5/U1 system is more affordable than most lifestyle options and this is nearly half the price of that.

Yeah, the pictures really don't communicate much. Barely looks glossy; looks like a cross between the XU series and bad computer speakers with non-removable metal grills.

As far as the value proposition goes, I really like that the sats and, especially, the subs are sealed. I'd love to see a similar sub for the classic line...

Not that it matters for me since I have my U1 :-)

The Classics are more spacious and room filling, but will also over energize a bright room with no carpeting. If the room is carpeted with stuffed furniture, I think the Classics are the way to go. If not, the Evos.

Hmm.. and here I thought I was all set.. Thanks John!! :D

Yeah, my room is carpeted.. pretty good control of sound as well with curtains and wall panels..

So would you say the 3C is a better center than an M5 or M6?

John,

Now that you have done some listening, do you think the Verve is appropriate in the great room of a open floorplan home (1,800 square feet 1st floor with 20 foot ceilings in the great room) for someone who is looking for form, function and moderate levels for HT?


I'm gaining more respect for it as I listen and have it set up exactly as it would be in a home, mounted on the wall beside an LCD. Setup against the front wall, the sub is integrating shockingly well and is very precise. The bass goes low enough and the detail it has gives you the fullness, even if it won't flap your pants. The image pretty well for an onwall too.

For a room that big, I'd probably go L5s, but this would do pretty well. The treble on the L5s is more refined and they can move more air. On the other hand, these are a bit less "chesty" sounding than the L5s. I'm not sure why they bothered with the small satellites. Not sure why they'd be necessary except to drop the price from $2080 to $2000. I guess they're there for the size.

So would you say the 3C is a better center than an M5 or M6?

Overall, yes, especially with your comment about detail. Unfortunately, until a new Evo exists, you have to make choices. :(

Yeah, the pictures really don't communicate much. Barely looks glossy; looks like a cross between the XU series and bad computer speakers with non-removable metal grills

I'll try to take pics of my setup. It looks great on the wall with the NuVision. The curvy design actually makes it so the speakers don't seem mismatched to the TV size. More like the size is independent and unrelated. Some speakers just look wrong with a TV because the sizes don't match. They're very glossy, but the matte grill hides most of that.

just out of curiosity

anyone consider running 5 or even 7 C4's full range in their ht configuration?

Wouldn't that be better and cheaper than an XD system?

anyone consider running 5 or even 7 C4's full range in their ht configuration?

Yes, but they're too big for center/side/rears for the most part. That's why I push so hard for an NHT "3.5" tower

Wouldn't that be better and cheaper than an XD system?

Cheaper.

Speaking of the "3.5", I'm curious what NHT fans think of some of these ideas. I'm regularly told that these are "fantasies" or "exist only in your own mind" by NHT. But I think I have a good sense of what people want and since it's only in my mind.......... here's my "if I were king" plan:

NHT Absolute One - $750/pr - AZ tower with built in 8" ported sub.

NHT Two bites the dust

NHT 3.5 - $1200/pr - Three tower with extra 6.5" midbass, sealed, rear firing dome array with "monopole/bipole/dipole" switch and volume control. In the spirit/price of the 2, 2.1, 2.3.

NHT Five - $3000/pr - Four with dual acoustic suspension 10" subs, powered bass, dual 6.5" midbass for very high output, rear firing dome array with monopole/bipole/dipole switch/volume

NHT Ten bites the dust

NHT SuperEight - $600 - dual 8" acoustic suspension subwoofer

NHT Twelve bites the dust

NHT SuperTen - $900 - dual 10" acoustic suspension subwoofer

NHT Absolute Center - $225 - SuperZero center with floating coaxial tweeter

NHT 2C bites the dust

NHT 4C - $750 - big cabinet version of the 3C for more bass extension

NHT rEvolution 6 - $1800/pr - dual 6" aluminum mids, 2" mid, .75" tweeter, BMC baffle a la Xd, 3-way bypass input for active amplification/crossover, fourth order crossover

NHT rEvolution C - $900 - horizontal version of rEvolution 6

NHT rEvolution W - $1500/pr - wall mount version of rEvolution 6, dual 5" midbass drivers

NHT rEvolution U1 - $1500 - digital active dual 12" sub with DEQX room correction

NHT XdT - $4500 - Xd tower Dual 8" magnesium midbass drivers, 5" SEAS Excel, 1" tweeter

NHT XdiW - $6000 - complete inwall system based on current Xd

NHT SuperXd - $12,000/pr - dual 12" woofers, dual 6.5" midbass, 4" Excel midrange), 1" Be tweeters, rear firing dome array. Optional monopole/bipole/dipole operation. Digital inputs with volume control and volume sync feature.

NHT SuperXdC - $4000 - dual 6.5", 4" Excel, Be tweeter.

NHT Super XdM - $7500/pr - dual 6.5", 4" Excel, Be tweeter, rear dome array, optional monopole/bipole/dipole operation.

Yeah, a bit bored. But am I crazy? They say "yes".

ok, so i finally got from break with C3's for front now.
are they in fact better than the AZ's?

YES.

was the extra cost a waste?

NO.

wow.

i could not be happier with the purchase! even though it killed my bank (it is a great value though for what it gives).

for certain things like loud, very high notes on violins and stuff the AZ do get a tad screechy. for full on orchestra or movie wham they are tad low on impact unless i use them in the smallest room. the C3's have fixed both problems, while maintaing perhaps and even better soundstage! wow! perhaps a tad too much lower mid bass but hey i don't have $2000 (hey, i don't even really have C3 money actually but....) a pair money.

that said, the AZ are not bad by any means.

i could not be happier with the purchase. seriosuly maybe if i had gone around and taken weeks of time demoing i didn't have i'd find one or two in this price that are better, perhaps an av123 or something, but that is only a maybe and probably would have had to go $200 beyond even my already overstretched budget (luckily i was in person at J&R in time). and i sure have heard many in this range that are so so much worse. i even heard a pair 3x the cost that were so much worse, forget what they were, maybe they were a crap $1800 choice, but hey they were 3x cost (not to say there are likely not some with a few last bits of perfection at 2x the cost, i'm sure there are, but hey, i can't afford that, and you could, if not careful end up getting worse for the extra money, so in my case, whatever).

i could easily end up sounding like a paid advertisement if i were to go on about these. maybe i'm going overboard, i'm sure i'll notice little things, but then for under $2000 i'm sure that is guaranteed to happen. but yeah, happy with these for sure. i will instantly recommened them anytime anyone asks me about speakers in the future.

I love most of the ideas pertaining ot the classics, can't speak to the XD since I have yet
to hear them.

For a company that trumpets acoustic suspension, I think sealed woofers are the way to go,
even if you have to double them up and make them powered.

That classic 5 sounds like bliss for 3k

with the C4's at only $1800 a pair, it seems they can do alot with that speaker and still be competitive pricewise with the big dogs

Speaking of the "3.5", I'm curious what NHT fans think of some of these ideas. I'm regularly told that these are "fantasies" or "exist only in your own mind" by NHT. But I think I have a good sense of what people want and since it's only in my mind.......... here's my "if I were king" plan:


You're a major pain in Hidley's arse, aren't you?

:D

I like the 5 idea.

Squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease ;)

I like these ideas the most:

Drop NHT C2 line add the following:
NHT C3.5
NHT C5 (sign me up now!!!)
NHT SuperTen
NHT Absolute Center

I'd also begin blending the Classic line with the Evo line (taking the best part of both worlds along with any new technology). You can then build out this new line and the XD line (along with Verve) to simplify marketing for 2-CH and HT use.

Squeaky wheel eventually gets the grease ;)
They know those are the products we want, and I believe they want to provide them to us. The issue is maximizing revenue for any given line...why drop/replace/upgrade the product when it is still *selling* as expected? There are all kinds of things that never make it to market for exactly that reason. Sure, you could just roll out the latest whatever, whenever it's ready, but then the company just threw out all the overhead for that old unit....it's a shame but that's how it works. That said, I'll bet many of those 'fantasy' items are sitting in some engineers home theater right now....

Hey I got an idea...John buys NHT/Vinci then we all get what we want when we want it.... :rolleyes:

Actually, NHT was apparently very surprised by the sales velocity of the Three. I tried to warn them! I think I may have actually helped on that one though because I was so vocally excited about them.

Also, for instance, 50% of our Threes go on stands and others would have spent more for a tower version. Yeah, I'm monday morning quarterbacking on this, but I have people who would spend $1500 or $3000 spending $800 or $1800! Before they even arrived, I said "too good, too inexpensive".

To be honest, before NHT was purchased by Vinci, I was working my ass off to try to get investors to buy the company, but couldn't pull it off. So far though, I like what's going on, the problem is just that we need more of it out here. Dealers don't live on *one* tower speaker!

I kept the ideas I found useful for me or people I know.

NHT Absolute One - $750/pr - AZ tower with built in 8" ported sub.
NHT Two bites the dust
NHT Five - $3000/pr - Four with dual acoustic suspension 10" subs, powered bass, dual 6.5" midbass for very high output, rear firing dome array with monopole/bipole/dipole switch/volume
NHT Ten bites the dust
NHT SuperEight - $600 - dual 8" acoustic suspension subwoofer
NHT Twelve bites the dust
NHT SuperTen - $900 - dual 10" acoustic suspension subwoofer
NHT Absolute Center - $225 - SuperZero center with floating coaxial tweeter
NHT 2C bites the dust
NHT SuperXd - $12,000/pr - dual 12" woofers, dual 6.5" midbass, 4" Excel midrange), 1" Be tweeters, rear firing dome array. Optional monopole/bipole/dipole operation. Digital inputs with volume control and volume sync feature.
NHT SuperXdC - $4000 - dual 6.5", 4" Excel, Be tweeter.
NHT Super XdM - $7500/pr - dual 6.5", 4" Excel, Be tweeter, rear dome array, optional monopole/bipole/dipole operation.

The XD stuff doesn't excite me much, as the existing Xd system seems entirely reasonable to me, but I'm sure it would sell. The modifications to the Classic line are very useful, particularly the sealed subs. But maybe they shoudl be dual 10/12" for the subs? But yeah, totally stuff I'd recommend to people.

They know those are the products we want, and I believe they want to provide them to us.

I wish I knew that. It could be. Or it might not at all be. I can't get any response saying "yeah, we know there's a demand for that" or "we'll likely provide something similar to that", just "you're on drugs" or "it's all in your imagination".

IOW, maybe if actual consumers show interest, it could happen. Maybe it's already happening and they refuse to admit it. All of those designs are based on existing design/technology/drivers so they're much easier to bring to market compared to something as ground up as Verve. Verve remains cool, but not as exciting as something like a "Five" or a new Evolution.

But maybe they shoudl be dual 10/12" for the subs?

Well, dual 8" is a good match for the AZs, dual 10" for the Three.

Didn't the VT 3s have a tweeter on the back. I know some people like this and some don't. The thing about the vt 3 is I don't remember them making them for that long. In fact I think they got more recognition after they stopped making them.

I do belive mixing in the evolution to the classic line would be the way to go it just gives you different choices for set ups. I think you are right John if you did this you wouldn't need a m5 and a m6 just one or the other. The sub need to be done right it would need to go lower and I would rather have the amp on board and the eq in the controller. I think if you were to look at the new JL f-113 and 112 that would be design I would use for it.
Allen

The most noteworthy thing in that review to me was the Power5. Did you see those bench test specs? 291.6 watts into 8 Ohms with 2 channels driven at .1% distortion and 538.9 into 4 ohms at .1% distortion, again with 2 channels driven.

That thing is a freakin' beast! :eek:

It should be putting out somewhere around at least 410 watt per into 6 ohms at .1% distortion (2 channels driven), which 6 ohms is what a lot of NHT's speakers are rated.


I forgot to go back and read the side bar for the bench test after reading the review. ( I didn't like the fact I couldn't print the review off etheir) It sounds like they are using the best ICE modules. I know I have seen the B&O modules talked about beore. I plan on getting the contoller and power5. I have to admit it will not be until this time next year with my son getting married in May and taking the family for a seven day stay to Mickey and friends I have to wait. But all good thing come to those who wait.
Allen

Didn't the VT 3s have a tweeter on the back. I know some people like this and some don't. The thing about the vt 3 is I don't remember them making them for that long. In fact I think they got more recognition after they stopped making them.

Yeah, *but* the cool thing about having it on one or two models is that they can adapt more easily to taste, music, environment. And the VT series had it so that it was on/off. It needs to be more adjustable than that.

I do belive mixing in the evolution to the classic line would be the way to go it just gives you different choices for set ups. I think you are right John if you did this you wouldn't need a m5 and a m6 just one or the other. The sub need to be done right it would need to go lower and I would rather have the amp on board and the eq in the controller. I think if you were to look at the new JL f-113 and 112 that would be design I would use for it.

The problem with Evo is that it looked uglier than the SuperAudio, certainly not as nice as Classic. But I can see the replacement for Evo having a molded, curvy BMC baffle with gloss black. That would help them sell quite a bit.

A C3 tower version or a 2 way tower would be nice.
A lot less expensive also.

I think other companies have had great success with simply putting the same drivers
in a tower.

NHT 3.5 - $1200/pr - Three tower with extra 6.5" midbass, sealed, rear firing dome array with "monopole/bipole/dipole" switch and volume control. In the spirit/price of the 2, 2.1, 2.3.

NHT 4C - $750 - big cabinet version of the 3C for more bass extension

These would be great.

Didn't the VT 3s have a tweeter on the back. I know some people like this and some don't.

Yeah and a 5.25 inch mid range. The rear drivers were intended for movies, not 2 channel audio. You have the ability to turn the rear drivers on or off depending on what you are listening to. How the speakers are placed and what's behind them makes a difference on how they sound with the rear drivers on.

John

Yeah and a 5.25 inch mid range. The rear drivers were intended for movies, not 2 channel audio. You have the ability to turn the rear drivers on or off depending on what you are listening to. How the speakers are placed and what's behind them makes a difference on how they sound with the rear drivers on.

JohnMy VT2.4 s have a midrange and a dome tweeter on the back as well. Although supposedly meant for movies, I have left them on the whole time I've owned them because I think it sounds better. I think it's a nice feature and it's one I'll be looking for when I replace my VT2.4s.

The problem with Evo is that it looked uglier than the SuperAudio, certainly not as nice as Classic. But I can see the replacement for Evo having a molded, curvy BMC baffle with gloss black. That would help them sell quite a bit.

Yea when I heard NHT had a new line coming out and they where not in the gloss black I couldn't belive it. I like the speacial dark in the HT review. I haven't seen them in person or heard them for that matter but I want to. Their just doesn't seem to be anybody around me that sells NHT unless I drive 2 hours or better which I plan on doing one day.
Allen

The M5 plays about as loud as Classics. The M6 might go ~4dB louder +/-, but the Threes do it more gracefully up until the limits.

The M5 definitely has better dynamics, plays louder and with less congestion than the Three. It's not even close. The M5s were not even breaking a sweat while the Threes were laboring and obviously near to reaching their limits when I A/Bed them head to head at home.

The gap only increases just that much more with the Threes vs the M6.

Hmm.. and here I thought I was all set.. Thanks John!! :D

Yeah, my room is carpeted.. pretty good control of sound as well with curtains and wall panels..

So would you say the 3C is a better center than an M5 or M6?

I say audition them and see which you like better.

I personally like the M5s better, but I can see why others may like the Threes better. They most definitely are two totally different animals which are nothing at all alike.

I mostly listen to rock music, usually of 3 or 4 piece bands with only bass, drums, and 1 or 2 guitars, and the more focused dispersion characteristics of the Evolutions, along with their better dynamics and more output vs the Classics tends to fare better with that type of music IMO.

IMO, it also does on movie soundtracks as well, for the very same reasons, like the argument of monopoles as surrounds vs bi/dipoles.

In fact, I like the T6s (or even the VT3s and 3.3s) better than even the Xds in some ways. I think the T6s can do Ozzy or AC/DC more to my tastes than the Xds.

just out of curiosity

anyone consider running 5 or even 7 C4's full range in their ht configuration?

Wouldn't that be better and cheaper than an XD system?

If I were starting from scratch to build a surround system for movies knowing what I do now, I would go with 2 pairs of Fours for mains and surrounds (3 pairs if it was for a 7.1 surround set up), a 3C center channel, a Twelve sub, and the Controller/Power5 (plus a Power2 if it was for a 7.1 system).

For 2 channel though, I'd still have a dual sub Xd system. :D

NHT 4C - $750 - big cabinet version of the 3C for more bass extension

I like about all of it, except for I really don't see the point of this one though, since everybody crosses over at 80 Hz anyway.

I also could do without the bi-polar drivers you are talking about. If it's got them, great, but if not, then no big deal, especially if it drives the cost up significantly.

Plus, I'd like to see a digital path AVR or better yet, a multichannel integrated amp/surround processor (without a tuner) with NHT's model specific Deq built in like the Controller.

i could not be happier with the purchase!

That's all that matters! Congrats! :cool:

I forgot to go back and read the side bar for the bench test after reading the review. ( I didn't like the fact I couldn't print the review off etheir) It sounds like they are using the best ICE modules. I know I have seen the B&O modules talked about beore. I plan on getting the contoller and power5. I have to admit it will not be until this time next year with my son getting married in May and taking the family for a seven day stay to Mickey and friends I have to wait. But all good thing come to those who wait.
Allen

When the time comes, you won't regret getting them Allen.

My VT2.4 s have a midrange and a dome tweeter on the back as well. Although supposedly meant for movies, I have left them on the whole time I've owned them because I think it sounds better. I think it's a nice feature and it's one I'll be looking for when I replace my VT2.4s.

VT-1.4s also have this as well. I've never even heard VT-2.4s as I can recall, but let me tell you all right here right now, the VT-1.4s kick some major @$$ to be no bigger than they are. :D

If forced to choose between them and the ST4s, the ST4s would prolly be the ones hitting the road.

Some of you keep talking about the next Evo line having at least some of the dispersion characteristics of the Classic line, but doesn't that kind of go directly against the signature virtual FIG of the current Evo line? :confused:

I think that if they are too much alike, then what's the purpose of keeping separate lines in the first place?

I say audition them and see which you like better.

Of course. The difficulty, though, is finding somebody local with the Evolutions.

IMO, it also does on movie soundtracks as well, for the very same reasons, like the argument of monopoles as surrounds vs bi/dipoles.

So does the M5 (and especially the M6) do a good job at center? Plenty of detail and clarity at that spot for voices?

So does the M5 (and especially the M6) do a good job at center? Plenty of detail and clarity at that spot for voices?

Oh yes!

While I've never heard the 3C, I'd venture to say that the M5/M6 will have a more focused dispersion pattern, that would at least in some ways arguably be better for movie soundtracks (especially for the dialog voices you are asking about specifically), but maybe not as much for some types of multichannel music.

Like I said, if you can, try them both, cause they really are very different.

Some of you keep talking about the next Evo line having at least some of the dispersion characteristics of the Classic line, but doesn't that kind of go directly against the signature virtual FIG of the current Evo line? :confused: ?

You *could* do a dual midrange crossover - limited/wide dispersion.

Hey, Mark, it's Saturday, have a beer or something!

If I didn't listen to music on my system, I'd almost certainly go to T5s. I loved my T5s. But when I listen to music, the Fours just suck me right in and make me want even more. So much more that only Xds will do in the end :eek:

Hmm.. Correct me if I'm wrong.. I'm hearing slightly more love for the Evo 5's over the 6's.

I was sitting nearfield where the T6s would have been over the top. T5s were definitely the best value. T6s were 10% better, but played notably louder.

I have some really basic "NHT" questions. I tried to search for the answers, but could not find them. I am putting together an inexpensive HT set up, with small speakers for the front and the surround. I found the superzeroXU at a fairly good price. They are less than have the price of the new zero's. I was wondering:
1. How do these compare to other small speakers which are about $200/pair?
2. What is the difference between the "XU" and the non-"XU" model?
3. The least expensive centers made by NHT seem to be about $450-$500, which would put an all-NHT system out of my price range. Is there a less expensive NHT center that I am missing? I read that it is best to have at least the front and center speakers "match."
Thanks for the patience with these basic questions, and sorry in advance if they were answered already someplace.

A question / problem / dilemma regarding the centre channel...

I currently have
Front: C3
Sourround: CAZ

Works great - love it and should get the C3C for the centre in theory. But, theory does not always work in reality. The problem is with placement. With most LCD/Plasma screens, if not wall mounted but placed on a stand, there is only about 3-5 inches of room to put the speaker below the screen and not block the screen. I believe that the C3C will bock part of the screen in this set up. Not nice at all. So what to do?

Yes, you could put it on a shelf above the screen - the C3C, I believe, cannot be wall mounted. But in this case your speaker is on the wall and the screen is not - a bit weird?

L5 - also too big? I think so - 7.7 inches right? With this match and work with the C3 & CAZs?

Or, how about the new Verve - which seems to be a bit thinner and might barely fit under a screen - it could also hang on the wall without a shelf. How would the NHT - Verve V-Large 3-way Satellite Speaker work (sound and appearance) as a centre with the classic C3 and CAZs?

It would be a cheaper option - but would it do a decent job with the classics?

A question / problem / dilemma regarding the centre channel...

I currently have
Front: C3
Sourround: CAZ

Works great - love it and should get the C3C for the centre in theory. But, theory does not always work in reality. The problem is with placement. With most LCD/Plasma screens, if not wall mounted but placed on a stand, there is only about 3-5 inches of room to put the speaker below the screen and not block the screen. I believe that the C3C will bock part of the screen in this set up. Not nice at all. So what to do?

Yes, you could put it on a shelf above the screen - the C3C, I believe, cannot be wall mounted. But in this case your speaker is on the wall and the screen is not - a bit weird?

I say stick with the classics. I have my C3C on my TV stand in front of my LCD panel. At first it blocked the TV, but I raised the TV by about 6" by putting cement pavers, stacked 2 high and spraypainted black, underneath the TV. You don't even see them because the speaker obscures them.

This might put the TV a little high for your tastes, but I don't think it detracts from the experience as much as a mismatched center channel would.

You could also consider the C2C if it's significantly shorter...

Rachel,

The Super Zero Xu have nothing to do with the Absolute Zeros. Completely different product.

2) The regular Super Zero was discontinued about 5-7 years ago. It had an MDF cabinet cover in high pressure laminate with sharp 90 degree edges. The Super Zero Xu is the same drivers and crossover in a molded polypropylene cabinet. It is designed for applications where the user wants something that looks more curvie (sp?).

3) The least expensive center channel, that is available separately, is a TwoC. I believe this is the model that you are referring to. It is more expensive because it is a 3 way design. This gives it much better dispersion than conventional woofer-tweeter-woofer 2 way center channels. In a home theater system, the majority of the dialogue that you hear is produced by the center channel. If your left and right main speakers are not full range, the center channel should be the most expensive/best performing speaker in your system. It is by far the most important.

If price is a major consideration, I suggest you look at the Verve product that is now on our website. The front three speakers are all the same model, which is a 3 way design for optimal dispersion. They are quite a bit cheaper than a Classic TwoC based system would cost.

El Stumbo,

I would use the ThreeC and either make small risers for the plasma stand to raise it high enough off of your table so that it can fit underneath, or put a small shelf on the wall just above the plasma for the ThreeC. The ThreeC is going to match the Threes 10 times better than any other speaker.

The Verve V-large is not an option since it is not available separately. It is part of a speaker system package.

I am in the midst of shopping for a HT set-up for our newly developed basement. I have looked at several brands of towers and two that are on my short list are the Energy Reference Connoisseur RC-70's and the NHT Classic 4's. Both seem to have decent reviews but some have noted that the NHT's tend to sound a bit cool, or slightly metallic. Any feedback on either or both? NB - I will add the matching center and in-ceilings surrounds from whichever brand I end up choosing.

El Stumbo,

I would use the ThreeC and either make small risers for the plasma stand to raise it high enough off of your table so that it can fit underneath, or put a small shelf on the wall just above the plasma for the ThreeC. The ThreeC is going to match the Threes 10 times better than any other speaker.

The Verve V-large is not an option since it is not available separately. It is part of a speaker system package.


Actually, I found it sold separately at one of the NHT "authorized" web sites...you may want to check - one call...So, it might be an option...

I say stick with the classics. I have my C3C on my TV stand in front of my LCD panel. At first it blocked the TV, but I raised the TV by about 6" by putting cement pavers, stacked 2 high and spraypainted black, underneath the TV. You don't even see them because the speaker obscures them.

This might put the TV a little high for your tastes, but I don't think it detracts from the experience as much as a mismatched center channel would.

You could also consider the C2C if it's significantly shorter...

Yes, best to stick with the classics, but just fussing about with placement of a C3C...

The bricks below the stand is a nice idea - but it would raise up the screen a bit much possibly...I guess I would only need a couple of inches. Right?

The C2C would still be too tall and block the screen like the C3C. And, it is going to be discontinued ;) or at least should be - the current thinking in this forum.

Placing above the screen would make it a bit high - not on the same level as the main speakers, much higher in fact. This would not be good I would think.

Nice image, Alimentall. I'd like to have one for my audio system.


_____________________
McIntosh MC207 Power Amplifier (http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/mcintosh-laboratory-inc-1500/mc207-power-amplifier-5959.html) - Get the MC207 Power Amplifier catalog by McIntosh Laboratory, Inc.

I am in the midst of shopping for a HT set-up for our newly developed basement. I have looked at several brands of towers and two that are on my short list are the Energy Reference Connoisseur RC-70's and the NHT Classic 4's. Both seem to have decent reviews but some have noted that the NHT's tend to sound a bit cool, or slightly metallic. Any feedback on either or both? NB - I will add the matching center and in-ceilings surrounds from whichever brand I end up choosing.
Howdy O,
I have two systems, an Energy 5.1 and a NHT 7.1. The Energy's are RC-50s (front), RC-LCR (center), RC-10s (rear), and a NHT 10" sub-driver in a custom downward firing enclosure driven by an older NHT SA-2 amp. I listened to the RC-70s but actually preferred the RC-50s. The AVR is a Sony ES series. The NHT system is made up of C4s (front), C3c, C3s (sides) and SB3s (rear) with an Axiom EP-500 sub. The AVR in this case is a Denon 3805 and the C4s are amped with a NAD C272. I plan to replace the Denon sometime soon. I have the subs allocated like that (it may seem backward) because the Axiom goes down to 16 - 18 hz and I cross it over at 40hz (better matching the C4s) while the NHT sub (probably) only goes down to 27 - 30 hz and I cross it over at 80hz. I have a pair of Panasonic 50" plasmas (one for each system).
To compare the two is interesting and falls back on taste and personal preference more than anything:
- my wife & kids (ages 19 & 22) prefer the Energy system.
- the Energy system is more 'pronounced' about everything it does, it does sound 'warmer' but it also (to me) sounds more exaggerated.
- if you like rap and in-your-face rock, you'll like the Energy's.
- the NHT's sound more accurate to me and I much prefer them for jazz (esp. acoustic). My wife actually likes the Energy's for jazz but I suspect (again) that it's because of the exaggerated bass response.
- for HT listening at first you're drawn to the Energy's because of their up-front characteristics - but the NHT's disappear better and you find you don't notice them as much as the Energy's. I listened carefully to the 'robots in New York' part of Sky Captain on both systems and the Energy system is more pronounced but in the NHT system you less notice the noise and more the air in the room being compressed and uncompressed. They both are very impressive (and this comment may have more to do with the subs than anything else).
- the Energy's, especially the LCR, take forever to break in. I mean forever. They sound much better after 100 hours of constant mid-volume playing. Go away for an extended weekend and leave them on...
- in contradiction to some on the forum (sorry Jack!) I think that the NHTs also benefit from about 40 - 50 hours of break-in time, especially the SB3s. But not nearly so much as the Energy's (which I think are still loosening up).

Okay; I prefer the NHTs for music (including SACDs & DVD-As) and for me, HT as well now that I'm used to the difference. I find them more accurate with a better soundstage. But note that my wife & kids are the opposite. They are both very good sets of speakers, just different. You really (really) should listen for yourself and decide for yourself.

Works great - love it and should get the C3C for the centre in theory. But, theory does not always work in reality. The problem is with placement. With most LCD/Plasma screens, if not wall mounted but placed on a stand, there is only about 3-5 inches of room to put the speaker below the screen and not block the screen. I believe that the C3C will bock part of the screen in this set up. Not nice at all. So what to do?

If you haven't bought a TV, the NuVision LCDs float the TV high enough to peer over the 3C. We've been doing a lot of them this way.

Just wanted to introduce myself. I've had Super Audio one speakers along with a super center channel for the last 7+ years. I'm almost finished with my basement home theater and will be using a Denon 2307 to power these. I've been very happy with these speakers but I feel a little out of touch since they're so old.

I have some really basic "NHT" questions. I tried to search for the answers, but could not find them. I am putting together an inexpensive HT set up, with small speakers for the front and the surround. I found the superzeroXU at a fairly good price. They are less than have the price of the new zero's. I was wondering:
1. How do these compare to other small speakers which are about $200/pair?
2. What is the difference between the "XU" and the non-"XU" model?
3. The least expensive centers made by NHT seem to be about $450-$500, which would put an all-NHT system out of my price range. Is there a less expensive NHT center that I am missing? I read that it is best to have at least the front and center speakers "match."
Thanks for the patience with these basic questions, and sorry in advance if they were answered already someplace.

To elaborate beyond what Jack had to say...

1) I think the SuperZero XU are still a great speaker. I have a pair in my bedroom and find them very enjoyable. But you will need a subwoofer with them, because bass output is negligible. How they compare to other small speakers depends on what price you're getting for them and what else you're buying. If no sub, ported bookshelf speakers with larger drivers will at least give the illusion of bass. But if you're putting out for the sub, no sense "buying your bass twice" as Alimentall says. And you'll get a much tighter and more accurate sound over all.

How much are the SuperZeroes you're looking at and what other speakers are you considering?

2) As jack said, it's all the enclosure. And I think there may be some ever so slight variations in sound due to the enclosure. The old SuperZeroes are much better looking with their glossy black cabinets. The Xu models aren't nearly as attractive. But they are versatile as far as placement options go, and include wall mounting brackets. But you might consider picking up the old model on eBay. They show up pretty frequently.

3) If you're going to do a SuperZero system, either do a SuperZero as a center (the Xus in particular work well on their sides). Or go on eBay and look for one of the old SuperCenters.

In conclusion, a home theater consisting of 5 SuperZeroes, Xu or otherwise, and a small sub (8"-10") would be a great cheap home theater. Certainly you could put one together for less than any of NHT's current product lines. The Verve is nice but would almost double your speaker budget. Same with the AbsoluteZeroes.

If I didn't listen to music on my system, I'd almost certainly go to T5s. I loved my T5s. But when I listen to music, the Fours just suck me right in and make me want even more. So much more that only Xds will do in the end :eek:

C'mon now John, I mean, it's one thing to say you like the Threes better than the M5s (or even Threes plus a U1 or U2 set over T5s for that matter), and I can even see how one would say that, but to say the Fours over the T5s, for music over HT at that .... ?

Even if you add an X2 and dual A1s to a pair of Fours to try to help level the playing field a little in terms of amplification and control, the bass system in the T5s is still superior to the Four's, especially for music, cause you still have dual 12" sealed aluminium drivers as opposed to dual 10" ported aluminum drivers. :p

You *could* do a dual midrange crossover - limited/wide dispersion.

You mean a selectable mode switch to choose which? :confused:

I am in the midst of shopping for a HT set-up for our newly developed basement. I have looked at several brands of towers and two that are on my short list are the Energy Reference Connoisseur RC-70's and the NHT Classic 4's. Both seem to have decent reviews but some have noted that the NHT's tend to sound a bit cool, or slightly metallic. Any feedback on either or both? NB - I will add the matching center and in-ceilings surrounds from whichever brand I end up choosing.

I know someone with 2 full systems of the previous generation Connoisseurs C9s/C-C3/C-7/C-C1, the matching Mirage S12 subs, etc., and while I'd say that they are better than comparable Polk, Def Tech, JBL, etc., I sure wouldn't trade them any of my NHTs for them. :p ;)

Nice

I recently bought a pair of T5s and another M5 for a center channel. I'm using a Marantz 4001 AVR connected via sub out to the X1 crossover. It sounds amazing, better than anything I've heard before. I was surprised that I can actually understand the lyrics of my songs. I also discovered that my MP3 files are lacking compared to my CDs.

I have a few questions though:

The phase adjustment on the X1 doesn't seem to do anything. What is the best way to adjust this?

Would I be better off with a larger amplifier to drive these speakers? How much power does it take to drive these speakers?

Would I be better off using the X1 to do the crossover / bass management instead of the Marantz?

C'mon now John, I mean, it's one thing to say you like the Threes better than the M5s (or even Threes plus a U1 or U2 set over T5s for that matter), and I can even see how one would say that, but to say the Fours over the T5s, for music over HT at that .... ?

Well, it's very difficult as a drummer. But the Fours, to me, do mid/treble better than the T5s for music. I'm not so sure that it does the sound of Dolby Digital as well. For pure HT, I guess I'd take T5s unless I had a really well damped room and then I'd do what we've been doing a lot of lately - 4 or 6 Threes, a 3C and dual W1s driven by dual Power5s.

Even if you add an X2 and dual A1s to a pair of Fours to try to help level the playing field a little in terms of amplification and control, the bass system in the T5s is still superior to the Four's, especially for music, cause you still have dual 12" sealed aluminium drivers as opposed to dual 10" ported aluminum drivers. :p

Oh, I know. That's why the world *desperately* needs a "Classic Five". Remember, the T5 no longer exists except in some bad dealer's storage room somewhere.

You mean a selectable mode switch to choose which? :confused:

Yes.

The phase adjustment on the X1 doesn't seem to do anything. What is the best way to adjust this?

With an analog Radio Shack level meter and a test tone disc! It's the only real way of doing it well.

Would I be better off with a larger amplifier to drive these speakers? How much power does it take to drive these speakers?

A good, measurable 50W+ will do it (NAD/Rotel/HK, Arcam, etc), but 75W or 100W is always nicer especially in a big room.

Would I be better off using the X1 to do the crossover / bass management instead of the Marantz?

Probably. More flexibility to solve problems. There can be advantages to both so you can try it both ways, but it is a good idea to get the meter/disc and use the X1. If not, it is probably safer to use the Marantz.

Mark will chime in now and tell you to get a Controller/Power5 and solve all your issues ;)

Just wanted to introduce myself. I've had Super Audio one speakers along with a super center channel for the last 7+ years. I'm almost finished with my basement home theater and will be using a Denon 2307 to power these. I've been very happy with these speakers but I feel a little out of touch since they're so old.

Hey, the great thing about owning NHT speakers is that they always still sound great.

The great thing about being an NHT dealer is never having to apologize for the sound :)

Positronic,

To adjust the phase control on the X1, look at the Phase Controls section under 8.3 and read section 8.5 in the Evolutions Owner's manual.

Any 100W/channel amplifier will be plenty of power in a normal sized room. In a small room 50W will work fine.

Per section 8.1 of the Evolution Owner's manual, the X1 must be used with the B5s. Do not use the bass management in your Marantz. This will not work.

Are you using connection method 1, 2 or 3 from section 6.1?

Let me clarify. In all situations, you MUST use the X1 with a B5/T5 or any other Evolution subwoofer. It wasn't clear to me if Positronic was planning on removing the X1 or not.

If he can use connection method #2, he should. It will give much better performance and flexibility.

Do not use the bass management in your Marantz. This will not work.

Are you using connection method 1, 2 or 3 from section 6.1?

Actually, it will if he means the crossover functions as the "bass management" from his Marantz if he used connection method #3 (which is also accidentally referred to as #1 in the manual in at least one place to confuse things, specifically the very first paragraph in method 1 it says "this method is preferred over method 1", then so is some of the following diagrams of the X1 where it says the high and/or low pass filters "are not used in method #1") of simply running his sub/LFE out into the X1's LFE input.

Per section 6.1 of the Evolution Owner's manual, you should use the bass management of the Marantz with connection method 1 (sub out to the X1).

Damned! You beat me to it cause I went back to pull up the Evo manual to find the specific parts where it mistakenly calls method #3 method #1! :p

... and dual W1s driven by dual Power5s.

Somebody, I think it was zarascan, or something like that, was looking for amps to give individual U2 cabinets and their 12 Ohm loads more power than an individual A1 per cabinet, and based on HTM's measured power ratings of the Power5 from their bench test, that just might be the answer.

Oh, I know. That's why the world *desperately* needs a "Classic Five". Remember, the T5 no longer exists except in some bad dealer's storage room somewhere.

LOL! Tell us John, do you by chance have any T5s sitting around? And yes, used ones that were traded in do count! :D

Mark will chime in now and tell you to get a Controller/Power5 and solve all your issues ;)

On the contrary, the Controller IMO is not the ideal thing for a newbie to try on Evo subs without the X1 for reasons we have already discussed about how "hot" it automatically calibrates them.

I've made a lot of changes recently, and one of them was taking the Controller/Power5 out of the system with the T5s.

2 channel is the priority for me, so now I run a B&K Reference 5 S2 2 channel tuner/pre-amp with a B&K Reference 125.2 S2 power amp on the T5s with dual A1s for true stereo bass.

The B&K 2 channel pre-amp has it's own built in fixed 80 Hz crossover with a 12 db slope, of which I use only it's high pass outputs straight into the B&K power amp driving the M5s on the T5s.

I run full range unfiltered L/R outputs into the main L/R in on the X1, which is set for stereo since I now have 2 A1s with it, and use the X1's low pass crossover set at 80 Hz since it also has a 12 db slope. The X1's high pass crossover output is not in play at all.

I use the Cambridge Audio 540R AVR I had to drive the M5 center and L5 surrounds and to do the surround processing.

Other changes include:

a NAD M3 integrated on the T6s now (which also has it's own built in crossover to avoid the X1's high pass outputs)

a full on 5.1 surround system in the office rig with three M5s across the front stage and L5 surrounds all driven by a $200 Panasonic SA-XR55 full digital path AVR (which actually sounds incredible believe it or not) along with a U2 sub set,

took the Threes and the Outlaw RR2150 2 channel stereo receiver (which is yet another 2 channel component with it's own built in crossover) that previously was in the office rig home and added a U1 sub

and finally the biggest change of all, the Controller/Power5 is now in a full on Classic surround system I bought used that I got a pretty good deal on with Fours as mains, a 3C, and Three surrounds. :D

Mark I think you got more NHT speakers than some NHT dealers do.

But please do tell us how the fours compare to the m5 for HT and your thoughts on a complete classic set up with the controller.
Allen

Somebody, I think it was zarascan, or something like that, was looking for amps to give individual U2 cabinets and their 12 Ohm loads more power than an individual A1 per cabinet, and based on HTM's measured power ratings of the Power5 from their bench test, that just might be the answer.

Yes, but then you're pushing a 12 ohm instead of 6 ohm. If the amp has enough current, the 6 ohm is going to be easier.

LOL! Tell us John, do you by chance have any T5s sitting around? And yes, used ones that were traded in do count! :D

Of course not! I can't keep them in stock when they do come in. I sold out of new ones over a year ago and have gone through half a dozen sets of B5s used. I have to admit, the T5s were probably the best overall sound I've had in my house, but I haven't put Fours in and Xd was only there for a little while because I wasn't home enough to make full use of them.

Mark I think you got more NHT speakers than some NHT dealers do.

But please do tell us how the fours compare to the m5 for HT and your thoughts on a complete classic set up with the controller.
Allen

Allen, to be honest, I want to spend a little more time with them first, I literally just got them, but I will say this now ... for music, I would do Threes with any Evo sub or subs before Fours. IMO, the Fours are better suited for HT. Not that they do music bad by any means though. ;)

I still personally like M5s/T5s better than Threes/Fours for reasons I recently stated.

I still haven't compared the Fours with and without the Controller's built in Deq for them yet like I did with the ST4s, but I will this weekend. I'm sure though the results will prolly be very similar.

The Classics do throw a much wider "sweet spot" for HT than the Evos IMO, which is great if you have a lot of people watching a movie at the same time in several seats spread out over the room. YMMV

They all have certain things that they do better than each other.

Of course not! I can't keep them in stock when they do come in. I sold out of new ones over a year ago and have gone through half a dozen sets of B5s used. I have to admit, the T5s were probably the best overall sound I've had in my house, but I haven't put Fours in and Xd was only there for a little while because I wasn't home enough to make full use of them.

The T5 is prolly my favorite overall NHT speaker besides the Xds. :cool:

I think that they are better than not only 2.9s, but maybe even the 3.3s.

I just picked up a used set of (3) M5s and (2) T5s for a bedroom HT ...trying to catch up with Mark ;) ---> I actually like the precision of the M5's over the C3s for HT and some music... but I can still listen to the Classics for hours and hours without listening fatigue... I now see why Mark, John et all do like them. Kinda like jumping in a Porsche on Mon, then switching to a Lotus on Tuesday... two different animals, but both are amazing speakers.

Mike

Congrats Mike!

Did you get them on Audiogon by chance? I saw where somebody had 3 M5s for sale there recently. If so, you got a steal on them for that price if it was for the ones I saw.

I got my T5s new for like $850, tax and all about 2 and half years ago! True story, but a guy had bought them, and then was too intimidated by the X1/A1. He couldn't return them, and the only thing to trade them up for was the T6s. So he told me that if I bought him a new pair of ST4s, he would trade even. Needless to say, I jumped all over that offer! :D

How do you have the surround M5s positioned, do you have them on the P5 stands?

Also, what amps or AVR are you running with them?

You're the one who had an X2 with Fours if my memory serves, correct?

If you listen to much music on the T5s at all, I would suggest picking up another A1 if you can for them. I think the dual stereo A1s make the bass sound more, I don't know, what's the adjectives I'm looking for here? ... I don't want to say thinner, but more liquid, a little less syrupy and sludgy maybe?

Anyways, it's definitely worth it IMO.

Yeah - I "happened" upon them via audiogon in two separate deals... couldn't believe the price... verified they were original owners purchased via authorized dealers and I snatched them up as quick as I could.

In the setup process, so I'm still tweaking... I have the M5's on some custom 24" stands I made a long time ago, but I'm on the lookout for some P5s for the right price ... or a set of B5's would also work to complete the system, but I won't get my hopes up :>

Right now I'm experimenting with some different setups with Yamaha & Onkyo AVR's I have along with a Toshiba HD-DVD player I picked up... So far I've only watch a few movies with it (the Dolby TrueHD tracks are pretty amazing) but I'm still dealing with room modes, etc as I'm in setup phase. I really like the focus I get with the M5s & since it's a bedroom, I'm not worried about the dispersion I'm concerned with in my main HT (6-8 seating positions) - I still love the dispersion characteristics of the Classics. I'll keep you updated as I have more time to play... I may look at the Dual A1 setup as it does appeal to me... also, the Controller and amps are on my short list... still kinda waiting to pull the trigger as I watch the HD war pan out and new players / AVRs with HDMI roll out. Will eventually pick at least the Controller up, just not sure when.

I still have the X2 in a 2-CH system - now with a set of 2.9s using a couple Bryston amps - I've got the X2 low pass running to a 4B mainly to refine the boundary & phasing on the bass.

Mike

Let me clarify. In all situations, you MUST use the X1 with a B5/T5 or any other Evolution subwoofer. It wasn't clear to me if Positronic was planning on removing the X1 or not.

Speaking of using Evo subs sans the X1...

A related question for you Jack: I'm in the midst of my home theater install [My system consists of seven M6es, two complete U2 sub systems; with a Controller, Power5 and Power2 for electronics.] that has now morphed in to a complete remodeling of my house, which has given me time to ponder whether I should forgo the stereo bass possibilities that the X1 offers, in order to eliminate one more link (some would say weak link) in the audio chain. Which connection choice do you feel would yield the best overall sound for both audio and HT listening? I am interested to know if you think the DEQ in the Controller would be better than a thorough manual tweaking of an X1. TIA!

P.S. Any word on the timing of the HDMI v1.3 upgrade for Controller owners? It would be nice to get that upgrade done and out of the way, before I fire everything up.

I'm also curious what the LF cutoff on Evolution subs are when run by the Controller. 26Hz? 20Hz? Does it vary? If not, it would sure be nice to have these options in software. Plus having more accurate bass calibration would be nice too!

The T5 is prolly my favorite overall NHT speaker besides the Xds. :cool:

I think that they are better than not only 2.9s, but maybe even the 3.3s.

Interesting... I had the T6 system and I clearly felt the 3.3's with a BRYSTON 4BSST driving them were superior... enough that I sold the T6 and got another pair of 3.3's!

Maybe I should have tried the T5?

Have still yet to hear the XD is what I consider the proper scenario... 2 subs and the matching filter set with 20hz extension and a higher crossover to the satellites...

I'm also curious what the LF cutoff on Evolution subs are when run by the Controller. 26Hz? 20Hz? Does it vary? If not, it would sure be nice to have these options in software. Plus having more accurate bass calibration would be nice too!

BTW... it's 27hz... and I can assure you the difference is noticeable... I did the 20hx mod to my X1 and the U1 sub sounds so much better and more natural... I would imagine the same would hold true to the B6.

Positronic,
Are you using connection method 1, 2 or 3 from section 6.1?

I'm using connection method 1 at the moment. I have LFE Output from AVR connected to LFE in on X1. Method 2 is not an option since my AVR doesn't have "Main In" inputs. I could switch to Method 3 if I purchased a 2 channel amplifier. Then I could set the Low Pass and High Pass filters on the X1. Would Method 3 be better than method 1?

The diagram for Method 3 doesn't show a connection to the A1, but I assume I'd use the "Sub Out" in mono mode since I have a single amp for the B5s.

But when I listen to music, the Fours just suck me right in and make me want even more.

Finally, something we can agree on :D


Damm this is a Loooooooooooooooooooong thread!

I'm using connection method 1 at the moment. I have LFE Output from AVR connected to LFE in on X1. Method 2 is not an option since my AVR doesn't have "Main In" inputs. I could switch to Method 3 if I purchased a 2 channel amplifier. Then I could set the Low Pass and High Pass filters on the X1. Would Method 3 be better than method 1?

Actually, that is method 3 the way you have it hooked up (even though, as already pointed out, the manual does mess this up in a few spots by calling it method #1).

For T5s, unless you have dual A1 amps for stereo bass, I would suggest just leave it as is if I were you since the bass is in mono anyway, even if you add an outboard amp for the monitors. But by all means, try it both ways and see what you think if you do get an amp.

As Zarascan has already pointed out, the A1's high pass outputs is considered to be the weak link in the otherwise top notch Evo systems. This is by far the general consensus. Think about it, no matter how good of a pre-amp you have, the X1 imparts it's own transistorized sonic signature on the final signal before it feeds the power amps for the monitors if you use it's high pass filters.

I know someone with a Marantz integrated amp that has a "processor loop". Does your Marantz AVR by chance have one too? If so, I see no reason why that wouldn't work to try method 2 if you set main L/R to large.

The diagram for Method 3 doesn't show a connection to the A1, but I assume I'd use the "Sub Out" in mono mode since I have a single amp for the B5s.

Correct.

Right now I'm experimenting with some different setups with Yamaha & Onkyo AVR's I have ...

Yammy and Onk huh? Ordinarily I would have said "Yuck! - Those are about the two worst possible choices, get a HK, CA or NAD,", but believe it or not, I'm running one of those cheap Panasonic digital path AVRs on some M5s/L5s, and I'm amazed at how it sounds.

I still have the X2 in a 2-CH system - now with a set of 2.9s using a couple Bryston amps - I've got the X2 low pass running to a 4B mainly to refine the boundary & phasing on the bass.

Mike

Mike, if you haven't already, you should jack the X2's low pass filter up as high as it will possibly go to prevent any nasty double filtering from going on since the 2.9 has it's own built-in internal fixed crossovers.

I am interested to know if you think the DEQ in the Controller would be better than a thorough manual tweaking of an X1. TIA!

That's a good question. I've already made my decision, but as always, it will be interesting to get Jack's take. :cool:

I'm also curious what the LF cutoff on Evolution subs are when run by the Controller. 26Hz? 20Hz? Does it vary? If not, it would sure be nice to have these options in software. Plus having more accurate bass calibration would be nice too!

Future software updates should be able to take care of all of this, even an optional 20 Hz filter for the Evo subs (just as now exists for the Xds), shouldn't it?

BTW... it's 27hz... and I can assure you the difference is noticeable... I did the 20hx mod to my X1 and the U1 sub sounds so much better and more natural... I would imagine the same would hold true to the B6.

He's talking about with the Controller, not the X1.

Positronic,

One of the confusions here is that you have an old Evolution manual. I am refering to the new Evolution manual. It can be downloaded from the NHT website under the service section. The new and old manuals have different numbering for the X1 connection methods.

Given the new manual, method #1 is the most preferable. Then #2. Then #3. #1 and #2 are essentially the same. One is for Receivers with pre-out and power-in, the other is for separate preamps and power amps.

When you say that the phase control doesn't do anything, that makes me think you are adjusting it AND listening to the difference standing in front of the X1. This will not work. You must be at the listening position to hear a difference. The easiest way to do this is with a second person. Have them stand at the X1. Agree on some type of hand signals that tell them where to set the phase controls. Use full range continuous music or even better, pink noise. Do not use classical music. You are primarily going to be listening for differences in bass output. The correct phase setting will give you maximum bass output. Start with the recommended settings for your Evolution system from the Owner's manual, then have the 2nd person flip the phase switch to the opposite position. You should hear a dramatic reduction in bass output and cohesiveness. The system should then sound like a subwoofer and satellite speakers.

Do not use classical music.

I recommend AC/DC. :D

Start with the recommended settings for your Evolution system from the Owner's manual, ...

Jack, I had a one page addendum that came in, I think it was the B5s, that had initial recommended settings that are slightly different from the Evo guide currently the NHT site.

Is the ones on the current manual down loadable from the site the most up to date initial suggested settings, or does the addendum supersede that?

The next software update for the Controller already has the +6dB subwoofer level calibration bug fixed.

Any Evolution subwoofer used with the Controller and without an X1 will still have a -3dB point of 26.50123456Hz:)

For the Controller to provide the +12dB of bass boost to make an Evolution subwoofer flat, the digital filter gain must be reduced by 12dB on all channels. This means a 12dB lower s/n ratio on all channels. Almost all d/a and a/d converters operate off of a single 5V supply. This severely limits their maximum dynamic range. It doesn't matter how many bits the converters are.

The X1 operates off of +/-15V rails. It has much more dynamic range capability than any digital circuit. With the X1 we can afford to use 12 or 18dB of boost and still have adequate dynamic range.

The analog filters themselves in the X1 are slightly more accurate than the digital filters in the Controller. This has to do with the type of digital filtering used. A more accurate filter design could be used, but it would have a greater overall latency.

With the X1, you can manually tweak the high and low pass filters to get perfect response in your room. This is not possible with the Controller.

For the reasons stated above I think using the X1 is better than letting the Controller do the processing.

I prefer to have physical knobs to turn to adjust the overall bass level and LFE level. However, most installers prefer to have less controls for the customer to mess with. They prefer to let the Controller do the processing because of this.

I don't have any issue with the high pass outputs of the X1 changing the sound of the signal passing through them, other than the fact that they are filtering out all of the bass. There is much less signal processing going on in the high pass outputs than in any preamp I've ever seen. I know that Mark doesn't agree with me on this subject, but that's a good thing. If everyone agreed with everyone else, the world would be a very boring place.

AC/DC good.

I thought that the settings in the addendum and the settings on the Evo manual on the NHT site were the same. I believe they should be. I can check at work tomorrow.

I know that Mark doesn't agree with me on this subject, but that's a good thing. If everyone agreed with everyone else, the world would be a very boring place.

Actually, we ARE in agreement about the X1 vs the Controller Jack! :D

Jack, does the VT3's bass control unit do ANY actual high pass filtering at all, or does the VT3 have a built in internal high pass filter from the subs to the low mid drivers just as any conventional passive tower like the 3.3s, 2.9s, Fours, etc?

AC/DC good.

I thought that the settings in the addendum and the settings on the Evo manual on the NHT site were the same. I believe they should be. I can check at work tomorrow.

I don't have it on me right now except for the U2's settings which I jotted down, which is:

Phase 0/90 degrees
boundary eq 0
Master gain 1:00 position
LFE gain 12:00
low pass looks to be about 78 Hz, just a tick below 80.

It's all the same as the one currently on the site, except for it shows the U2's boundary Eq setting at the -3 position.

I can post the rest tomorrow or the next day for T5s, T6s, and U1.

As I recall, I think the T5's was slightly different as well.

Mark,

Yes, the VT3 controller does have an active high pass filter in it that removes the low end going to the 6.5" woofers.

I have the Evo addensum at work, It just isn't on a drive that I can access through a VPN right now.

Mark,

Yes, the VT3 controller does have an active high pass filter in it that removes the low end going to the 6.5" woofers.

Thanks! Always wondered about that.

In my small 10 x 10 x 9 room with the U2s in it, I had to cut the boundary eq all the way down to -6 since both units are corner loaded. Both gain settings are pretty low as well.

The great thing about the X1/X2 is that they are almost infinitely tweakable.

Positronic,
Given the new manual, method #1 is the most preferable. Then #2. Then #3. #1 and #2 are essentially the same. One is for Receivers with pre-out and power-in, the other is for separate preamps and power amps.

According to the new manual I'm using #3, so my question is how much better is method #2 or method #1? How much better is the crossover in the X1 vs my AVR?

BTW... it's 27hz...

It's 26Hz. 27Hz is the LF of the Twelve and Four, while we're getting picky :confused:

For the Controller to provide the +12dB of bass boost to make an Evolution subwoofer flat, the digital filter gain must be reduced by 12dB on all channels. This means a 12dB lower s/n ratio on all channels. Almost all d/a and a/d converters operate off of a single 5V supply. This severely limits their maximum dynamic range. It doesn't matter how many bits the converters are.

Dammit, I wanted my free lunch!

It's 26Hz. 27Hz is the LF of the Twelve and Four, while we're getting picky :confused:
26.50123456Hz... rounds up to 27hz with the extra .00123456Hz... too funny.

AC/DC good.

Yes, very.

Godsmack better.

It's a noise thing. :)

Mark,

Yes, the VT3 controller does have an active high pass filter in it that removes the low end going to the 6.5" woofers.

I have the Evo addensum at work, It just isn't on a drive that I can access through a VPN right now.

Hi Jack,

Could you elaborate on the "high pass filter"? Should that read "removes the low end going to the upper array"? Meaning all the drivers in the upper portion of the VT-3 pass through the high pass filter stage, then their subsequent crossovers.

Conversely the subwoofers are on the low pass filter section, but with active adjustments for "level", etc.

Sincerely,
Martin

Martin,

Yes that is correct. It is called a high pass filter because it lets the highs pass, THEREFORE stopping the lows. I know this is stupid terminology, but it was established over 70 years ago, before I was born.

Quick survery. Anybody using the Three/U1 combo?

What settings do you have on the X1?

I've been using connection method 3 so far due to needing to run a "B" set of speakers full range off of my AVR, which works when I use the AVR's internal bass management, but not when I use the X1.

But now I have a sepparate receiver for the "B" speakers! So I'm going to switch to connection method 1, which I remember sounding better, in the brief time that I tried it.

I know this is stupid terminology, but it was established over 70 years ago, before I was born.

Not nearly as stupid as "woofer" and "tweeter" :eek:

Jack a few questions regarding the XD System...

From your response to SOUNDSTAGE...
"The signal-to-noise ratio of the Power Physics amplifiers used in the XdA are over 125dB. The hiss that you heard emanating from the tweeters is due to the signal-to-noise ratio of the A/D and D/A converters, which is about 103dB. In a system with an A/D or D/A converter before the volume control, the noise contribution of the A/D or D/A will drop as the volume is reduced from full level.

The volume control in your preamplifier is before the A/D conversion in the XdA. This means that the signal-to-noise ratio of the system is limited to the device with the lowest signal-to-noise ratio after the volume control. Since the signal-to-noise ratio of the A/D converter is 103dB and the maximum acoustic output of the Xd system is 114dB SPL at one meter, the result is a residual acoustic background noise level of 11dB SPL at one meter."

Would the residual acoustic background noise be eliminated if there were a volume control in the XDA AFTER the conversion process?

Also can the latency of the processing be accounted for via the distance settings in a Surround processor to combine the XD's in a 5.1 system with passive speakers in the Center and Surrounds to coorectly balance such a system?

The background noise from the XdA would be greatly reduced if there was a volume control after the d/a conversion process, WHEN the volume was not all the way up. With the volume turned all the way up, the noise level will be exactly the same as no volume control at all. As you turn the volume down, the noise level decreases along with the maximum output that the system can deliver.

If you use an Xd system for the left and right channels with a generic surround processor, manually add an extra 8-9ms of delay to the channels that have nonXd speakers on them. If you use the Controller with an Xd system, all of this happens automatically.

The next software update for the Controller already has the +6dB subwoofer level calibration bug fixed. <snip>


Thank you the excellent response Jack. As always, your input and guidance here are very much appreciated! :)

If I may, a few followup questions: You have helped me decide to try running my subs with the X1 in the system. I am now contemplating the 20hz mod for the X1 and wondered what you think of the idea with a system that has two W2 cabinets on each side (L&R) in stacked formation? IIRC, you previously mentioned that the X1 mod would lower bass output by 3db; but given additive effect of co-located subs, would my stacked arrangement not mostly offset the output loss from an X1 mod? Since I have two X1s, I am not too concerned about not liking the result of the mod; but I am not sure how best to get the mod done or do it myself. Can you advise on how I might get the mod done?

The X1 operates off of +/-15V rails. It has much more dynamic range capability than any digital circuit. With the X1 we can afford to use 12 or 18dB of boost and still have adequate dynamic range.

The analog filters themselves in the X1 are slightly more accurate than the digital filters in the Controller. This has to do with the type of digital filtering used. A more accurate filter design could be used, but it would have a greater overall latency.

With the X1, you can manually tweak the high and low pass filters to get perfect response in your room. This is not possible with the Controller.

For the reasons stated above I think using the X1 is better than letting the Controller do the processing.

I prefer to have physical knobs to turn to adjust the overall bass level and LFE level. However, most installers prefer to have less controls for the customer to mess with. They prefer to let the Controller do the processing because of this. That's every reason why I don't have the controller. Very nice product indeed, but...they just don't make them like they used to. ;)
Completely understand that installers don't want clients touching the controls; works out best for everyone involved. But then, would I let an 'installer' anywhere near my rack...not in this lifetime. <insert laughs here>

Dammit, I wanted my free lunch!

Kind of ironic, isn't it?

A lot of (myself included) were bitchin' about how the Controller didn't have separate L/R sub outs for true stereo bass (like for T6s), and it turns out it really isn't even necessary anyways since you can still get that with the Controller from using the X1, which is the better choice between them anyhow. :p

Now, all of the sudden, there is a lot more love and respect for the X1, and I had to find out the hard way. :o

Quick survery. Anybody using the Three/U1 combo?

What settings do you have on the X1?

I am on one rig, but I can't remember offhand what it's X1's settings are. :o

Thank you the excellent response Jack. As always, your input and guidance here are very much appreciated! :)

That's true. Between Jack, and John too, we have two great resources here for all things NHT.

If I may, a few followup questions: You have helped me decide to try running my subs with the X1 in the system. I am now contemplating the 20hz mod for the X1 and wondered what you think of the idea with a system that has two W2 cabinets on each side (L&R) in stacked formation? IIRC, you previously mentioned that the X1 mod would lower bass output by 3db; but given additive effect of co-located subs, would my stacked arrangement not mostly offset the output loss from an X1 mod? Since I have two X1s, I am not too concerned about not liking the result of the mod; but I am not sure how best to get the mod done or do it myself. Can you advise on how I might get the mod done?

That's another good question, who here has tried stacking W1s or W2s, and what were the results?

That's every reason why I don't have the controller. Very nice product indeed, but...they just don't make them like they used to. ;)
Completely understand that installers don't want clients touching the controls; works out best for everyone involved. But then, would I let an 'installer' anywhere near my rack...not in this lifetime. <insert laughs here>

Troll! :mad: Somebody kick this loser out of here! :p :D ;)

Interesting... I had the T6 system and I clearly felt the 3.3's with a BRYSTON 4BSST driving them were superior... enough that I sold the T6 and got another pair of 3.3's!

Maybe I should have tried the T5?

Have still yet to hear the XD is what I consider the proper scenario... 2 subs and the matching filter set with 20hz extension and a higher crossover to the satellites...

So, after the updates are up for Deq on the Controller for older speaker lines, are you gonna replace that Sony with a Controller?

If you use an Xd system for the left and right channels with a generic surround processor, manually add an extra 8-9ms of delay to the channels that have nonXd speakers on them. If you use the Controller with an Xd system, all of this happens automatically.

So Jack, what current or past non Xd NHT speakers do you think are the best possible match as center and surrounds for the Xds as mains?

I am on one rig, but I can't remember offhand what it's X1's settings are. :o

If you could jot those down when you get a chance and post them or PM them, it would be much appreciated :)

Troll! :mad: Somebody kick this loser out of here! :p :D ;) Hmmm. Could be the 2-W1s, 2-A1s + the X1 that I'm forced to listen to everyday that's got you so riled up. :eek: :)

If you could jot those down when you get a chance and post them or PM them, it would be much appreciated :)

Will do, but that might not necessarily be the same case for the best settings in your room/situation.

Why not just start with the recommended initial settings, then use the fine tuning flow chart in the manual to tweak by ear to what you think sounds best?

Hmmm. Could be the 2-W1s, 2-A1s + the X1 that I'm forced to listen to everyday that's got you so riled up. :eek: :)

The horror......the horror.......

So, after the updates are up for Deq on the Controller for older speaker lines, are you gonna replace that Sony with a Controller?

The Controller looks great, but I am not using any processor at all... I assume you are thinking I am using the SONY TA-E9000ES.

I actually use a DENON DVD-5910 which performs decoding of CD, DD, DTS, DVD-AUDIO and SACD as good or better than probably any processor out there... I take it's outstanding 5.1 analog outs to the SONY TA-P9000ES which is a 5.1 ANALOG preamp which is built to the finest standards as it was originally designed for SACD... it is basically a fancy 5.1 volume control... then to the power amps which supply the NHT's.

I have always found the best reproduction using the highest quality components I can afford and the shortest most pure signal path possible.

This setup works for me because the SONY has a total of 4 - 5.1 inputs... 2 are pass throughs which I run one with the Digital Cable PVR which has it's own volume on the remote. The secong volume controlled input has my LaserDisc player hooked up... still some great titles that might never be released on DVD... Pink Floyds DELICATE SOUND OF THUNDER is my primary favorite!

If I ever need more decoding, the Controller will be the choice since I always support NHT because of their great producs and many of the employees are fellow musicians...

Zaracsan,

Using four W1 subs (four 12" woofers) will give you 6dB more output than using two W1 subs at all frequencies that the subwoofers operate over. The net result of using four subs with the 20Hz mod would be an average increase of 3dB. Depending on the program content, the SPL increase could be anywhere from 0-9dB.

We can do the 20Hz mod here. The cost is $50. If you want to do it, give us a call and ask for Matt Beadle. To do this, you MUST ship the X1 to us in the original packaging.

Mark,

To use with Xd nothing is really going to match for center or surround. A VC3, AC2, TwoC or ThreeC will probably be the best match as a center. You will need to experiment to see which one works best. For the surrounds, Threes will probably work best.

Using four W1 subs (four 12" woofers)

W1 or W2?

Zaracsan,

Using four W1 subs (four 12" woofers) will give you 6dB more output than using two W1 subs at all frequencies that the subwoofers operate over. The net result of using four subs with the 20Hz mod would be an average increase of 3dB. Depending on the program content, the SPL increase could be anywhere from 0-9dB.

We can do the 20Hz mod here. The cost is $50. If you want to do it, give us a call and ask for Matt Beadle. To do this, you MUST ship the X1 to us in the original packaging.

Thanks for the clarification Jack. I will call Matt next week and get the ball rolling. My X1 is sitting unopened in the original shipping carton. I can't wait to hear the results of this mod; should be awesome!!

W1 or W2?

I assumed that was a typo on Jack's part, as I have U2 sub systems, which do utilize the W2 cabinets; not to mention the fact that four W1s would give you eight (not four) 12" drivers! :eek:

I still have a hard time getting U1 and U2 straight after almost 6 years with them. I always felt they were named backwards.

Thanks for the clarification Jack. I will call Matt next week and get the ball rolling. My X1 is sitting unopened in the original shipping carton. I can't wait to hear the results of this mod; should be awesome!!

You will LOVE the mod... I FELT the difference right away in a before and after test using the same material. It's more of the subsonic sensation than anything you can audibly hear.

I can't say enough good things about the U1 sub... nothing even comes close to it's price/performance ratio and the X1 gives so many options for tweaking your system to it's fullest potential.

Will do, but that might not necessarily be the same case for the best settings in your room/situation.

Why not just start with the recommended initial settings, then use the fine tuning flow chart in the manual to tweak by ear to what you think sounds best?

Yeah, of course it might not be right for my room.

I guess the fact that the settings in the manual are meant for use with the M5/M6 made me think maybe they weren't optimal for the C3s.

So primairly I just wanted to have something else to compare to. I promise I won't just plug them in blindly!

I still have a hard time getting U1 and U2 straight after almost 6 years with them. I always felt they were named backwards.

Think number of cabinets per system, not number of woofers per cabinet :)

Hmmm. Could be the 2-W1s, 2-A1s + the X1 that I'm forced to listen to everyday that's got you so riled up. :eek: :)

Dude, I could do that X 2 (or even X 3 counting the T6s)! :eek: ;) :p :cool: :D :)

To use with Xd nothing is really going to match for center or surround. A VC3, AC2, TwoC or ThreeC will probably be the best match as a center. You will need to experiment to see which one works best. For the surrounds, Threes will probably work best.

Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification Jack. I will call Matt next week and get the ball rolling. My X1 is sitting unopened in the original shipping carton. I can't wait to hear the results of this mod; should be awesome!!

Are you ever gonna actually get your system hooked up? :p

I still have a hard time getting U1 and U2 straight after almost 6 years with them. I always felt they were named backwards.

Now that I think about it, I believe Jack mentioned before somewhere on this thread that the prototypes were in fact named that way to start with until marketing reversed it.

You will LOVE the mod... I FELT the difference right away in a before and after test using the same material. It's more of the subsonic sensation than anything you can audibly hear.

And you have 1 of them? If so, just imagine two! :eek: Of course, with the 3.3s and 2.9s, it's not exactly like you are bass shy anyway. :p

I can't say enough good things about the U1 sub... nothing even comes close to it's price/performance ratio and the X1 gives so many options for tweaking your system to it's fullest potential.

True, it might not have quite the ultimate extension for movies (which the 20 Hz mod will help alleviate), but it is hands down bar none the best sub for music I have personally ever heard.

Someone here who has one of those JL Audio subs that everyone in the sub forum is raving about has even told me before that the W1 subs hold their own on music with it.

I guess the fact that the settings in the manual are meant for use with the M5/M6 made me think maybe they weren't optimal for the C3s.

Yeah, but if I'm not mistaken, the only settings which really apply specifically to the Evo monitors are the high and low pass crossover suggestions, and also maybe the 10 db gain option switch on the back if you want to count that.



Edit, just checked the on-line manual, and it does specifically state in the note to section 7.0 to use the U1 or U2's recommended initial settings if using monitors other than Evolutions.

Dude, I could do that X 2 (or even X 3 counting the T6s)! :eek: ;) :p :cool: :D :) Bring it on!! :eek: :cool: :eek:

A little suprised nobody's commentet on the review in this month's Home Theater Magazine... The reviewer seemed to like them a great deal (C4's, C3C, C12, C3's)

I picked up a set (C3, C3C) recently for our showroom (ya, I'm a dealer...) and I have to say they are fantastic speakers. Great clarity and they play cleanly quite loud. Fine speakers!

Welcome aboard :)

They also did a little thing on Verve - http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/030707nht/

But what is funny is that they are calling the system "pricey", but never seem to complain about PSBs, Def Techs, B&Ws and *many* other "plasma speakers" that cost even more. They didn't even seem to complain about NHT's L5s. It kinda reminded me of the time Stereophile said that Conrad Johnson's top end monoblocks at $7000/pr were kind of expensive for monoblock amps and I'm thinking "I'm sorry, what magazine is this again?!?" I guess they just forget that a $1000/pr of plasma speakers don't come with a sub built in the price. Reviewers make look at it this way :confused:

I'm not just a dealer, I'm a client! I just unpacked some Fours for the bedroom. I was going to be greedy and do Xds, but I can't rationalize that yet. Maybe next year. The L5s will remain as the HT system for now.

Look who else is a client :cool: ...just ran across this article today:

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/installations/2162/oliver-stones-radical-cinema.html

So Mike, you are just like me in that you have pairs of Fours, 2.9s, and T5s right now. I know you haven't really had the T5s all that long, but so far, what do you think about them all compared to each other?

Here was John's comparison of them along with the VT-2.4 earlier on in this thread, and what are your thoughts?

In FR accuracy/integration it goes T5, 2.9, Four, VT-2.4
In treble and midrange resolution, it goes Four, T5, VT-2.4, 2.9
In bass quality, it goes T5, 2.9, Four, VT-2.4
In bass output/dynamics, it goes T5, Four, VT-2.4, 2.9
In soundstage, it goes Four, T5, VT-2.4, 2.9
In imaging precision, it goes Four, 2.9, T5, VT-2.4
In sweetspot, it goes T5, Four, 2.9, VT-2.4

The Four *could* beat out the T5, IMO, in virtually every way, but there's no denying the T5's bass quality. It's awesome by any standard. Now, put a set of Threes with an Evolution sub, and I think it wins or ties pretty much every contest, no problem.

I see the Four as being a fantastic all around performer. It's only liability, I think, is that the bass isn't as precise as the T5/T6. But that puts it pretty well on par with most every other tower speaker under $10K. I can't think of a tower speaker off hand under $10K that has the bass quality and depth of the 3.3, VT-3, T5, T6 models, though I'm sure there might be a couple. But if you transplant the dual 10" woofers from the Xd system into a "Five", you've got a deadly speaker, not just a "giant matcher", but a real giant killer with embarrassingly awesome bass and dynamic range. That would be the real deal. That being said, nitpicking the bass on the Fours is kind of like complaining that the VW R32 only has a 250HP engine and so it can't quite match a Viper in drag race. The Four's main "weakness" is equal or superior to all its similarly priced competition.


Based on a rating system of finished ranking in each category assigned a point system as follows:
1 = 4 points,
2 = 3,
3 = 2, and
4 = 1, the final tally was as follows:

T5 = 24 points,
Four = 22,
2.9 = 14, and
VT-2.4 = 10 points.

I'm not just a dealer, I'm a client! I just unpacked some Fours for the bedroom. I was going to be greedy and do Xds, but I can't rationalize that yet. Maybe next year. The L5s will remain as the HT system for now.

What electronics are you using in each system John?

RANKING
Here's my list using John's method of rating:

*In FR accuracy/integration it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In treble and midrange resolution, it goes Four, T5, 2.9
*In bass quality, it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In bass output/dynamics, it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In soundstage, it goes Four, T5, 2.9
*In imaging precision, it goes T5, Four, 2.9
*In sweetspot, it goes T5, 2.9, Four

So using a 3pts, 2pts, 1pt scoring it comes to:
T5s: 19 pts
C4s: 12 pts
2.9s: 11 pts

NOTES:
*The Mid/Treble on the Classics are more refined and I can listen to Three/Fours hours on end without fatigue - I cannot say this about the others.
*The Evo's bass is spot on and only the 1259 subs in the 3.3s are comparable. I'm sorry but I really do not like the Four's bass - I'm a sealed sub dude all the way & I'm sure some of my lack of excitement for the Fours bass is the ported design - if I use X2 I can get the Fours closer to the tight, sealed sound I prefer - I also thought OVERALL bass dynamics were lacking on Fours (this is opposite Johns opinion). So just to offset my subjective opinion I've measured using a meter and SPLs were pretty equal across the 40-80Hz range, but the Fours could not compete below 40hz.
*Soundstage is equally impressive on all speakers IF I sit in sweetspot, but if I move around or for multi-person HT use the Classics take the prize.
*Imaging of Evo's blew me away once I properly setup - I was not ready for this, but only a proper setup pair of 3.3s will compete.


RECAP:
That said - here's my ultimate setup/wish list for now:

*2CH - I'm spoiled but it is a two-way tie, so I need two listening rooms based on how I feel:
System A (rock / percussion): M5's with B6 bottom
System B (other listening): C3's with B6 bottom (or new C5s) :cool:
..My assumption here is that the B6 is as good as or better than a B5.

*For HT - I'm of the opinion the EVO's take the prize where ultimate imaging is required like small HTs, but for all around HT or where you have 6-8 listeners the Classics will do a better all around job....

Mike

On another note... I wonder what the IW4 would sound like if in was build as a monitor similar to a M5/M6...sort of the Classic/Evo hybrid some have been referring to...

RANKING
Here's my list using John's method of rating:

*In FR accuracy/integration it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In treble and midrange resolution, it goes Four, T5, 2.9
*In bass quality, it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In bass output/dynamics, it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In soundstage, it goes Four, T5, 2.9
*In imaging precision, it goes T5, Four, 2.9
*In sweetspot, it goes T5, 2.9, Four

So using a 3pts, 2pts, 1pt scoring it comes to:
T5s: 19 pts
C4s: 12 pts
2.9s: 11 pts

NOTES:
*The Mid/Treble on the Classics are more refined and I can listen to Three/Fours hours on end without fatigue - I cannot say this about the others.
*The Evo's bass is spot on and only the 1259 subs in the 3.3s are comparable. I'm sorry but I really do not like the Four's bass - I'm a sealed sub dude all the way & I'm sure some of my lack of excitement for the Fours bass is the ported design - if I use X2 I can get the Fours closer to the tight, sealed sound I prefer - I also thought OVERALL bass dynamics were lacking on Fours (this is opposite Johns opinion). So just to offset my subjective opinion I've measured using a meter and SPLs were pretty equal across the 40-80Hz range, but the Fours could not compete below 40hz.
*Soundstage is equally impressive on all speakers IF I sit in sweetspot, but if I move around or for multi-person HT use the Classics take the prize.
*Imaging of Evo's blew me away once I properly setup - I was not ready for this, but only a proper setup pair of 3.3s will compete.


RECAP:
That said - here's my ultimate setup/wish list for now:

*2CH - I'm spoiled but it is a two-way tie, so I need two listening rooms based on how I feel:
System A (rock / percussion): M5's with B6 bottom
System B (other listening): C3's with B6 bottom (or new C5s) :cool:
..My assumption here is that the B6 is as good as or better than a B5.

*For HT - I'm of the opinion the EVO's take the prize where ultimate imaging is required like small HTs, but for all around HT or where you have 6-8 listeners the Classics will do a better all around job....

Mike

GREAT post/write up Mike, and your thoughts are VERY similar to mine. In fact, they are about as identical as it gets. About the only thing I would dissent on is that I don't find the Evos to be fatiguing in the least. 2.9s, yeah, but not the Evos. Didn't you say you had Yammy and Onk receivers on the Evos? If so, that might be the cause right there.

A M5 unfortunately will not bolt on to a B6, but dual W1s are better anyway.

I've spent a little more time with them now, and I don't think the Fours bass, even with the Controller's Deq, is quite as good as the T5's (or even the 2.9's for that matter) without the Deq, but it's really not that bad for music. The guy who reviewed them in HTM basically said about the same thing as your measurements of the Fours below 40 Hz confirmed. He said that they went down into the 30s in his room.

As you said though, an X2/A1(s) set up would help level the playing field somewhat between the Fours and T5s.

Didn't you also have or had a pair of 3.3s?

John Ashman now owns a ported speaker! :eek: :eek:

I'm not just a dealer, I'm a client! I just unpacked some Fours for the bedroom.

I wouldn't be surprised now to see one of the Four Horsemen go riding by! :eek:

John Ashman now owns a ported speaker! :eek: :eek: I wouldn't be surprised now to see one of the Four Horsemen go riding by! :eek:

You had to mention that, didn't you? I had forgotten, I just broke a long, LONG streak. Maybe it's not too late to pack them back up for Threes?

About the only thing I would dissent on is that I don't find the Evos to be fatiguing in the least. 2.9s, yeah, but not the Evos. Didn't you say you had Yammy and Onk receivers on the Evos? If so, that might be the cause right there

Your right - The majority of my listening to the Evo's have been with some cheap AVR's ... although the Classics don't seem as harsh using them... I'll need to put them back in a 2-CH setup for a while with the Bryston's to see how this impacts the listening experience...



Didn't you also have or had a pair of 3.3s?

While I've never personally owned 3.3s, I made myself "at home" at my friends, and my former NHT dealer here in Columbus. For years, I used 3.3s and Wilson Audio Watt/Puppy's as my reference systems. I've converted many over from their "hifi" systems. I would let them hear some comparisons of their "hifi" speaker, then the 3.3s, then the WA's.... my point was to show how you could get a real hifi speaker at a great price. The WA's were used to show the law of diminishing returns... Yes, they might sound better with some material, but the value=performance ratio just wasn't there.

So now I have at least a half-dozen friends with NHT systems ...and no I'm not a dealer, just a client on the lookout for the Four Horseman :p

*In FR accuracy/integration it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In treble and midrange resolution, it goes Four, T5, 2.9
*In bass quality, it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In bass output/dynamics, it goes T5, 2.9, Four
*In soundstage, it goes Four, T5, 2.9
*In imaging precision, it goes T5, Four, 2.9
*In sweetspot, it goes T5, 2.9, Four

My main disagreement here is that I think the Four is clearly better in bass output/dynamics than the 2.9 and has better imaging precision than the T5 *if* you have good setup/acoustics (T5s don't get messed up by this as easily). I also think the Fours have the best sweetspot *if* you're willing to toe them in, which most people won't do, so I won't count that one.

This would, IMO, put it like:

T5 - 18 pts
Four - 14 pts
2.9s - 10 pts

I think that is a *bit* more realistic. The 2.9s really can't move the air that the Fours can Fours image like a Thiel if you set them up well. I know that isn't often possible. But the Fours are in my bedroom *because* I can set them up right there and can't in my living room. Besides, I'm getting a new room mate next week so........... :)

I don't think the Fours bass, even with the Controller's Deq, is
quite as good as the T5's (or even the 2.9's for that matter) without the Deq, but it's really not that bad for music. The guy who reviewed them in HTM basically said about the same thing as your measurements of the Fours below 40 Hz confirmed. He said that they went down into the 30s in his room.

As you said though, an X2/A1(s) set up would help level the playing field somewhat between the Fours and T5s.


Yeah - I don't want to sound critical of them, it's just not my favorite cup 'o tea... my guess is the sub itself starts rolling off in the lower 40Hz range and the port takes over from around 40 down to the 27Hz tuning - factor in room gain and who knows what you'll get.... like Jack himself has mentioned here, I supposed you could add some U1/U2s and integrate at the 40-50Hz region. Just seems like a waste when you could essentially get the same response with some Threes & U1/U2s crossed over around 100Hz.

We have made it to the century mark......

My main disagreement here is that I think the Four is clearly better in bass output/dynamics than the 2.9 and has better imaging precision than the T5 *if* you have good setup/acoustics (T5s don't get messed up by this as easily). I also think the Fours have the best sweetspot *if* you're willing to toe them in, which most people won't do, so I won't count that one.

This would, IMO, put it like:

T5 - 18 pts
Four - 14 pts
2.9s - 10 pts

I think that is a *bit* more realistic. The 2.9s really can't move the air that the Fours can Fours image like a Thiel if you set them up well. I know that isn't often possible. But the Fours are in my bedroom *because* I can set them up right there and can't in my living room. Besides, I'm getting a new room mate next week so........... :)

John - I can certainly agree with the potential of the Fours. I'm sure my limited setup ability in my condo plays a part into my outcomes... and given the refinements of the Evo's and Classics, the things they do well show the age of the 2.9s.

We have made it to the century mark......


Does this mean we now get a Classic 5? :rolleyes: :p ;)

Does this mean we now get a Classic 5? :rolleyes: :p ;)

Oh, come on. Just stack two Classic Threes on top of a U1. Wrap the whole thing up in duct tape and there's your classic Five!

P.S. Please paypal me $50 for using my speaker design :)

P.S. Please paypal me $50 for using my speaker design :)


If the design includes shiny black duct tape, I'll send Paypal ASAP :>

Matt,

We used to have a dealer in Sacramento called Audio FX. They would take a left M3.3 and stack it on top of a right M3.3. Then do the opposite thing with the other two speakers. They called it an M6.6!!! They actually sold some of them this way!

If the design includes shiny black duct tape, I'll send Paypal ASAP :>

I'll get you duct tape in any color of the rainbow!

Seriously. My sister does art with multi-colored duct tape. It's out there!

Matt,

We used to have a dealer in Sacramento called Audio FX. They would take a left M3.3 and stack it on top of a right M3.3. Then do the opposite thing with the other two speakers. They called it an M6.6!!! They actually sold some of them this way!

Well, I guess I'm not the innovator I like to think myself.

Given the crap some people will buy, I'm surprised you guys bother making quality products.

But I'm glad you do.

We used to have a dealer in Sacramento called Audio FX. They would take a left M3.3 and stack it on top of a right M3.3. Then do the opposite thing with the other two speakers. They called it an M6.6!!! They actually sold some of them this way!

I was pitching a system for a small theater once and pitched the idea of 3 sets of 3.3 for the fronts, mounted side by side with the woofers facing out, so that each speaker became a wide dispersion design with twice the output. Didn't fly due to cost, but it was a fun idea. I don't think stacking 125lb speakers that are 7" wide is a good idea, however. :eek:

You had to mention that, didn't you? I had forgotten, I just broke a long, LONG streak. Maybe it's not too late to pack them back up for Threes?

What electronics are you using for both systems, the Fours in the two channel and the L5s in the surround system? Also, what sub do have with the L5s?

An NAD T762 for the L5s. I'll be switching to a Controller/Power5 pretty soon, as the NAD is slowly failing. I can deal with it, but the GF probably won't be as happy dealing its issues. Besides, I'm curious to hear what it does for the L5s with the W1 attached. The Fours are going to get driven from a Sonos ZP80 and an Audio Innovations Alto.

PS - Happy Centennial!

My main disagreement here is that I think the Four ... has better imaging precision than the T5 *if* you have good setup/acoustics (T5s don't get messed up by this as easily). I also think the Fours have the best sweetspot *if* you're willing to toe them in, which most people won't do, so I won't count that one.

I have to disagree with your disagreement here. I do have my pair of Fours toed-in and in a well damped room, and I still think the T5s have better imaging and a dead center sweetspot, although the Fours obviously and definitely have a wider sweetspot and soundstage.

YMMV

An NAD T762 for the L5s. I'll be switching to a Controller/Power5 pretty soon, as the NAD is slowly failing. I can deal with it, but the GF probably won't be as happy dealing its issues. Besides, I'm curious to hear what it does for the L5s with the W1 attached. The Fours are going to get driven from a Sonos ZP80 and an Audio Innovations Alto.

You need a NAD M3 on the Fours' top end with an X2 and dual A1s for the subs! :eek: :p

Are you going to use the X1 for the W1 when you get the Controller?

And I disagree with you disagreeing with my disagreement :p

PS - Happy Centennial!

It won't be so happy if this really is the Apocalypse and the Four Horsemen are out! :eek:

And I disagree with you disagreeing with my disagreement :p

To which I disagree with the post quoted above! :p

... and given the refinements of the Evo's and Classics, the things they do well show the age of the 2.9s.

Here was an interesting article I found a while back on the Evos vs the 3.3s and VT3s.

http://www.smr-home-theatre.org/ces2002/technologies/page_04.shtml

"NHT Evolution Loudspeakers

Evolution is an appropriate name for the new line of NHT loudspeakers as the company celebrates its 15-year anniversary and seeks to produce speakers that make sense in today's audio world. To that end, NHT decided that the Evolution speakers systems should be simple, flexible, scaleable, and predictable in their response no matter what their placement. The line consists of nine modular components that are easily assembled to form highly customized systems suiting an individual listener's needs, without the need for local audio/video shops to stock a lot of inventory.


NHT also allow the listener at home to upgrade their system slowly without throwing away an existing Evolution speaker. Two-channel listeners can buy a pair of Evolution monitors or tower systems without worrying about finding matching speakers for multichannel audio later. Multichannel listeners who may not have full-range speakers all around initially, can easily upgrade to full-range speakers when the need arises. Such a flexible speaker system requires some careful engineering to achieve flexibility without compromising quality.


For example, the Evolution monitors have very sophisticated internal designs not visible from a glance at their plain gray exterior. While the monitors no longer have the 21-degree Focused Image Geometry (FIG) slant so characteristic of earlier NHT designs, they do implement what NHT call Virtual FIG. Made possible by the physical offset of the tweeter relative to the midrange towards one side of the cabinet, NHT have designed the crossover so that the main response lobe of the speaker is angled in, towards the edge closest to the tweeter, simulating FIG's physical slant geometry with acoustic and electric means, thereby allowing a rectangular face better suited to normal home decors.

Like FIG, Virtual FIG aims the main response axis away from the walls, reducing sidewall reflections and effecting better imaging. The lobe-aiming also helps when the monitor is used as a center channel. If the center channel needs to be aimed down, if it is placed on top of a TV set for example, then the speaker is placed horizontally with the tweeter nearer the bottom. If the center needs to be aimed up, because it is below a projection screen, then the speaker is placed horizontally with the tweeter nearer the top. The spacing between the tweeter and the two woofers is small so the speaker will not exhibit the horizontal beaming typically heard with an MTM speaker turned on its side.


To simulate FIG's non-parallel cabinet walls (which produces improved midrange clarity) the midrange rear volume is enclosed in its own acoustically small, irregular box within the speaker. The midrange box is acoustically small because the dimensions of the enclosing box are much smaller than wavelengths of the frequencies reproduced by the midrange, so no unwanted resonance, which would reduce midrange clarity, will form inside the box.


To maximize placement flexibility and decorating aesthetics, NHT have tried to reduce the size of the monitors as much as possible, claiming that Evolution cabinets are some 20 to 40 percent smaller than those of comparable older products. Again, fairly sophisticated engineering allows the speakers to maintain NHT's standards of quality, and indeed, NHT engineers feel that the performance of the Evolution line has significantly exceeded their past efforts, including their most highly regarded speakers, the 3.3 and VT-3.

For example, NHT want high output levels from their subwoofers, so designed a 12-inch aluminum cone driver used in all their subs and woofer modules. The aluminum cone and former help dissipate heat, reducing dynamic compression, which is a distortion that compresses a speaker's output as it gets louder, effectively acting like a level limiter, due to increasing heat which changes the resistance of the driver's voice coil.


To get improved dynamics from their tweeter, NHT's "Wonderbar" aluminum pipe dissipates heat from the tweeter to the rear of the speaker - while simultaneously acting as a cabinet brace that holds the tweeter in place. This arrangement also affords NHT additional benefits: the tweeter uses more powerful neodymium magnets for better efficiency that in turn can survive high playback levels. Also, the acoustically troublesome tweeter baffle is much smaller now that the tweeter is held in place with the Wonderbar.


Even the plain grey finish of the speakers underwent rigorous, detailed design. The anthracite gray color was selected after the entire engineering team sifted through dozens of samples. The new color is easy to clean, and doesn't smudge as easily as the older piano lacquer finish. Visually, the surface is non-reflective, and disappears easily in a darkened room when watching a movie. The gray color also apparently blends very easily with almost any home décor.

In order to bring all of this engineering to market at a reasonable price, NHT have now completely moved all manufacturing operations overseas to Asia. However, NHT engineers travel regularly to the factory to train personnel, and inspect production quality. Random samples are rigorously inspected once a shipment of speakers arrives in America."

Just seems like a waste when you could essentially get the same response with some Threes & U1/U2s crossed over around 100Hz.

Bingo! You could get Threes, a good set of stands, and a U1 or U2 set for about the same price as a pair of Fours with an X2/A1(s).

Matt,

We used to have a dealer in Sacramento called Audio FX. They would take a left M3.3 and stack it on top of a right M3.3. Then do the opposite thing with the other two speakers. They called it an M6.6!!! They actually sold some of them this way!

Jack, just curious, but why were the B5/B6 discontinued?

Maybe it's not too late to pack them back up for Threes?

It's still not too late to come back from the dark side and single handily postpone the Apocalypse John! ;)

Jack, just curious, but why were the B5/B6 discontinued?

That's easy. Lack of sales. I'm willing to bet I sold more than most anybody at more than 25 pairs of each. Now I'm fighting uphill for more towers. The real reason is that they were kind of homely. Plain at the very least. Fours are dead sexy and are close to outselling T5s already for me. Now we just need one above and one below.

It's still not too late to come back from the dark side and single handily postpone the Apocalypse John! ;)

Well, I had a customer trade in his two pairs because his wife thought they were too big. He is doing okay with his AZs though. So, I figure I can use these until someone begs me to sell them to him. Then I'll get those Classic Fives that Jack is so furiously refining...........

Mark,

When the T6 was given a Class A ranking in Stereophile, there was absolutely no change in the sales rate of the model. Tower speakers just aren't selling.

Every dealer on the planet is convinced that they must sell the customer a subwoofer with whatever left and right speakers they sell the customer. Customers hear this from every dealer they visit, so they believe it must be true. The majority of customers don't have the space or money for tower speakers and a subwoofer, so the tower speakers usually get the axe before the subwoofer.

Mark,

When the T6 was given a Class A ranking in Stereophile, there was absolutely no change in the sales rate of the model. Tower speakers just aren't selling.

Every dealer on the planet is convinced that they must sell the customer a subwoofer with whatever left and right speakers they sell the customer. Customers hear this from every dealer they visit, so they believe it must be true. The majority of customers don't have the space or money for tower speakers and a subwoofer, so the tower speakers usually get the axe before the subwoofer.

If you just did a small size change on the u1 or had a spacer option for m5 or m6 you could stack them on top of the u1. I have seen some pic where someone had the U1 behind the speakers pedestal. The other problem is where you want your mains isn't always the best place for your sub. A lot of people like to corner load their subs. That is were mine is. It might not be the best place either but it is out of the way.
Allen

Unforunately, the Stereophile article was so late in coming, a good 4 years after being introduced, it was destined to have no effect. Had it come earlier, it would have helped a lot. By that time, all the Stereophile people had already heard them around here and they'd made up their minds one way or another. The main reason T5s and T6s didn't sell is they were somewhere between "plain" and "ugly". It didn't have anything to do with the sub/sat issue. It always was "I love these but my wife......".

Every dealer on the planet is convinced that they must sell the customer a subwoofer with whatever left and right speakers they sell the customer. Customers hear this from every dealer they visit, so they believe it must be true. The majority of customers don't have the space or money for tower speakers and a subwoofer, so the tower speakers usually get the axe before the subwoofer.

That's why NHT needs to educate their dealers. NHT is NHT because they were mavericks. Now is a bad time to swim with the tide. We sell Fours over and over because women *love* the clean, curvy look, love the idea of not having big boxes and they sound better than the Threes. As soon as someone says they're putting speakers on stands, we switch them to Fours.

Most dealers don't understand:

1. The advantages of acoustic suspension
2. The advantages of a matched center/rears
3, The advantages of dual subs
4. The advantages of a tower that doesn't need a sub
5. The advantages of good dispersion
6. The advantages of low diffraction baffles
7. The advantages of compact, rigid cabinetry
8. The advantages of 4-way design
9. The advantages of rigid radiators
10. The advantages of a .75" tweeter

These are all things that NHT doesn't show its dealers. B&W does this this hard core (we have people coming in spouting all kinds of "advantages" to Kevlar and tapered tubing and golf ball dimples). The thing is to teach the dealers the *right* way of doing things so they'll not only teach the customer, but NHT gets a leg up on the competition in the store. This means providing measurements, graphs, "before/afters" etc that show off the above items in black and white. Dealers need to know the whys and wherefores of speaker design. Give JJ some real homework (I've offered to do this for you for years since no one will). Then we'll have more dealers that *sell* product rather than saying "um, yeah, we have something kinda sorta like that at the price you want to spend".

When a customer comes in and says "this is what I want", I make damn sure that's actually what's best for them and it usually isn't. Then they end up with Fours, Threes and a ThreeC :) We have customers that come in all the time for a CD player. They often leave with Sonos. Most dealers would simply sell a CD player. We have customers that come in for a DAC and leave with Xd. We have customers that come in for a cable and leave with a Masters M3 or M5. Dealers really need to understand what's good for customers and learn what each customer needs and what a products primary advantage is. In the case of the Four, it's "plenty of bass, no big subs, beautiful design, phenomenal sound".

If you just did a small size change on the u1 or had a spacer option for m5 or m6 you could stack them on top of the u1. I have seen some pic where someone had the U1 behind the speakers pedestal. The other problem is where you want your mains isn't always the best place for your sub. A lot of people like to corner load their subs. That is were mine is. It might not be the best place either but it is out of the way.
Allen

It's also why we need a "3.5"small tower version of the Three. Perfect for people with a good subwoofer, but want the best sound in a small space. 7.5"W x 10"D, optimized for use with a big external sub in a big room, perfect for good, tight bass alone in a small room. No stands, clean look, high WAF. I'm not giving up on this one.

Jack, If we can't have a Classic 3.5 or 5 anytime soon, could you build a Classic 4 as a sealed version (Classic 4s). Use a good sealed sub driver like the Evo 10" and market it with the X1/A1s? Very little R&D with fairly known outcomes based C4 sales....

They won't do that. We all just have to keep hoping for a "Five".

Fours are dead sexy ...

I do have to admit that the Fours look much better than T5s/T6s.

Sexy though? Now I see why you finally went with a ported speaker! :D

T5s are like an ugly woman - better in the dark! :p

Well, I had a customer trade in his two pairs because his wife thought they were too big. He is doing okay with his AZs though. So, I figure I can use these until someone begs me to sell them to him. Then I'll get those Classic Fives that Jack is so furiously refining...........

John, did this guy use Fours as surrounds too? Or have any of your other customers? If so, what were the results?

Mark,

When the T6 was given a Class A ranking in Stereophile, there was absolutely no change in the sales rate of the model. Tower speakers just aren't selling.

Every dealer on the planet is convinced that they must sell the customer a subwoofer with whatever left and right speakers they sell the customer. Customers hear this from every dealer they visit, so they believe it must be true. The majority of customers don't have the space or money for tower speakers and a subwoofer, so the tower speakers usually get the axe before the subwoofer.

That's a shame too. :( :mad:

If you just did a small size change on the u1 or had a spacer option for m5 or m6 you could stack them on top of the u1. I have seen some pic where someone had the U1 behind the speakers pedestal. The other problem is where you want your mains isn't always the best place for your sub. A lot of people like to corner load their subs. That is were mine is. It might not be the best place either but it is out of the way.
Allen

That's an idea Allen. The W1 is 22" high. The B5/P5 is 25", the B6/P6 is 27.1".

Also, the ideal stand height for Threes to make them the exact same as Fours is 27.25".

The W1 would actually be better as a stand than B5s or B6s cause of less vibration.

Of course, the looks of such an arrangement though, especially mixed with the gloss black of the Threes ... :o

John, did this guy use Fours as surrounds too? Or have any of your other customers? If so, what were the results?

Kicks ass! The person that traded back in the Fours had them front/rear and it rocked. The problem is that it's hard to do unless you have a big room. I have another customer doing it in a very big room and loves it.

Jack, If we can't have a Classic 3.5 or 5 anytime soon, could you build a Classic 4 as a sealed version (Classic 4s). Use a good sealed sub driver like the Evo 10" and market it with the X1/A1s? Very little R&D with fairly known outcomes based C4 sales....

With the crossover point on the Fours to and from the subs fixed at 125 Hz, and what I assume is the 6 Ohm load of the woofer, I believe 2 A1s would be required instead of one, definitely due to localization and potentially cause of power requirement.

Kicks ass! The person that traded back in the Fours had them front/rear and it rocked. The problem is that it's hard to do unless you have a big room. I have another customer doing it in a very big room and loves it.

I thought as much. I'd like to hear a HT surround system with Fours as mains and surrounds (with a 3C), and a Twelve sub once the Controller gets the update Jack mentioned a couple of pages back specifically for this.

I do have to admit that the Fours look much better than T5s/T6s.

Sexy though? Now I see why you finally went with a ported speaker! :D

T5s are like an ugly woman - better in the dark! :p

Thats funny.
Allen

If you just did a small size change on the u1 or had a spacer option for m5 or m6 you could stack them on top of the u1. I have seen some pic where someone had the U1 behind the speakers pedestal. The other problem is where you want your mains isn't always the best place for your sub. A lot of people like to corner load their subs. That is were mine is. It might not be the best place either but it is out of the way.
Allen

To my way of thinking, a pair of the U2s makes a more natural pedestal than does the U1. Two of the cabinets give you a combined height of 28" and are only 14" wide and deep. This also happens to be what I am pulling together for my HT. This combination makes for a very small footprint and looks nice enough configured this way; but am going a step further and having a stone box (facade) made to hide the subs, so that it seen as a monitor on top of a stone pedestal.

I am using Auralex Subdudes which adds a couple of inches in height. The Subdude is 15" square and fits nicely under the sub and happens to be a good aesthetic match for the Evo finish. The stone pedestal won't be touching the Subdude, so essentially I am creating a speaker stand that straddles the stacked subs. There will be a grill cloth on one side of the pedestal. I'm planning to place the pedestals so the subs are side-firing (outward), much like a T6 speaker system, but with better bass enclosures and driver alignment.

I once pitched the idea of a "B3" with 10" woofers for the SB3. I thought that would have been cool. With the new design of the C3, it would be a bit more difficult and wouldn't look that good.

What I can't figure out is why NHT insists towers aren't selling, which is different from "our towers aren't selling". B&W has *fifteen* tower speakers. Most companies have 5-10. Some practically only make towers. Thiel, Vandersteen, Wilson, for instance. Making a good bookshelf is easy, take out the port and you've got a sure fire sales leader in today's market. Towers are more competitive, but if the Fours aren't rocketing out the door nationwide, something's wrong with the dealers.

We still sell more Threes, but many of those are rear speakers going with Fours. At least 1/3rd of my Three customers would have stepped up to a 3.5 if it existed. About 25% of Four owners would have stepped up to a Five. Easily more than 25% of Three/Sub owners would have stepped up to a Five. Many bought them, not because they wanted sub/sat, but because they wanted powered woofers or acoustic suspension bass. Every Three that is sitting on a stand nationwide *should* have been a 3.5 sale at $1100-$1200/pr. Most of the "woulda/shoulda" group would upgrade if the 3.5 or Five came out.

God, I want 3.5s. And I *need* the Five. I can take a guy looking at B&W 703s and sell them a Four, but the guy *wants* to spend $3K!!! And I want to give him a killer $3K speaker, not a killer $1800 one! No, I can't sleep, why do you ask?

Mark,

When the T6 was given a Class A ranking in Stereophile, there was absolutely no change in the sales rate of the model. Tower speakers just aren't selling.

Every dealer on the planet is convinced that they must sell the customer a subwoofer with whatever left and right speakers they sell the customer. Customers hear this from every dealer they visit, so they believe it must be true. The majority of customers don't have the space or money for tower speakers and a subwoofer, so the tower speakers usually get the axe before the subwoofer.

Hi Jack,
We have the classic case of mixed priorities: house, family, neighbors or Hi-Fi system. Basically I want the best from my Hi-Fi. Best meaning full frequency, dynamic, loud, imaging, accurate, delicate.

I have never been one to limit myself regarding asthetics. I also do not envision compromising on the loudness or bass of my system because of neighbors. This means I won't live in close proximity to anyone anytime in the future and no I will not "turn it down" or cut the bass".

My history has been small speakers, small sound. We try to please everyone from an asthetic side (room integration), but to me these systems always fall short.

The Evolution series (5 & 6) make sense compared to the VT-3. Hey, I carried these from the truck to the house, 1st floor to basemant. The question I have is do the Evolution series sound as good as the VT-3s (yes I read post #2995)? The Classic four makes sense from a progression standpoint (3.3s) I have heard the 3.3s and thought they were marvelous. The Ultimate... bad demo, bright studio need I say more? I will listen again some time and bring my own room treatments (well...).

Even though I own a complete VT-3 system (VC-3, VR-3s too) I do and will continue to listen to NHT's other offerings and the competition. I am always looking for that "holy grail".

"I don't need no stinking", subwoofer.

Sincerely,
Martin

To my way of thinking, a pair of the U2s makes a more natural pedestal than does the U1. Two of the cabinets give you a combined height of 28" and are only 14" wide and deep. This also happens to be what I am pulling together for my HT. This combination makes for a very small footprint and looks nice enough configured this way; but am going a step further and having a stone box (facade) made to hide the subs, so that it seen as a monitor on top of a stone pedestal.

I am using Auralex Subdudes which adds a couple of inches in height. The Subdude is 15" square and fits nicely under the sub and happens to be a good aesthetic match for the Evo finish. The stone pedestal won't be touching the Subdude, so essentially I am creating a speaker stand that straddles the stacked subs. There will be a grill cloth on one side of the pedestal. I'm planning to place the pedestals so the subs are side-firing (outward), much like a T6 speaker system, but with better bass enclosures and driver alignment.

That sounds pretty cool. Post some pic of it when you are done.
Allen