Yeah, except the Fours have the better midrange/treble transitions for some reason. We just still need that NHT 3.5, I guess with the Four's mid/treble crossover, but deeper and tighter bass than the Three :)

Hmm, interesting. I don't see why the Threes wouldn't sound pretty much identical to the Fours in mid/treble transition if they were crossed over to the subs at 125 Hz like the Fours are. The different cabinet depth maybe? :confused:

They have slightly different crossover parts.

Yeah, except the Fours have the better midrange/treble transitions for some reason. We just still need that NHT 3.5, I guess with the Four's mid/treble crossover, but deeper and tighter bass than the Three :)

Wasn't there a debate on whether the difference was due to the crossover parts or the fact that the Three's woofer handles lower frequencies than the Four? And that it was in fact the latter?

Or am I confusing two sepparate discussions?

Probably. There's definitely different crossover parts and the Fours are definitely more coherent, even if by just by a little bit.

sorry to jump in here, but could someone with the classic 3's measure the little rubber feet on the bottom? how long are the two "lines" and how far apart are they?

much appreciated...

sorry to jump in here, but could someone with the classic 3's measure the little rubber feet on the bottom? how long are the two "lines" and how far apart are they?

much appreciated...

Because the speakers are rounded its hard to give exact measurements. Where the two "lines" meet a flat surface they appear to be 4 3/4" apart from each other and they are 8 1/4" long or deep.

HTH

No Roy, while you might not have the ability to bi-amp with the receiver itself with 2 unused channels such as some AVRs allow, all you really need with any AVR to bi-amp with the X2 is a set of L/R pre-outs, and a suitable monoblock or two (or even a 2 channel power amp, such as a NAD C270 for example).

Technically, I don't see why you couldn't even do it with just a sub out, like method 3 on the X1 with Evos, but the only thing is, you couldn't have stereo bass going that route.

Mark so do I understand you correctly that with e.g. the CA 640R which does have pre-outs and an X2, I don't need to buy the 2 A1's but can use any stereo 2CH amp? I'm asking to check my understanding but also because I was just told yesterday by the local dealer that while they do now have an X2 in stock they will not have any A1's atleast until end June :( as they have to special order them from the U.S.

I will be leaving Hong Kong to go into Mainland China for the foreseeable future in about a month's time and I need to finalize my gear for shipment real soon so as I can't get the A1's in time your answer may well allow me to instead buy a 2 CH amp instead of 2 A1's. If my understanding is correct could you throw out a couple of other model names or maybe some key specs which I need to look for in a 2CH amp? Most appreciative of your kind help.......I'm getting there gradually.

By the way, I'm moving to Beijing so if you're ever in the neighbourhood (olympics on soon?) I do hope you'll pm me and come listen to what you've had such a huge hand in helping to create.
Cheers
Roy

Because the speakers are rounded its hard to give exact measurements. Where the two "lines" meet a flat surface they appear to be 4 3/4" apart from each other and they are 8 1/4" long or deep.

HTH


awesome, thanks for your help

They have slightly different crossover parts.

I didn't know that. :o

See there, just goes to show one can learn something new everyday. :p

Mark so do I understand you correctly that with e.g. the CA 640R which does have pre-outs and an X2, I don't need to buy the 2 A1's but can use any stereo 2CH amp? I'm asking to check my understanding but also because I was just told yesterday by the local dealer that while they do now have an X2 in stock they will not have any A1's atleast until end June :( as they have to special order them from the U.S.

I will be leaving Hong Kong to go into Mainland China for the foreseeable future in about a month's time and I need to finalize my gear for shipment real soon so as I can't get the A1's in time your answer may well allow me to instead buy a 2 CH amp instead of 2 A1's. If my understanding is correct could you throw out a couple of other model names or maybe some key specs which I need to look for in a 2CH amp? Most appreciative of your kind help.......I'm getting there gradually.

By the way, I'm moving to Beijing so if you're ever in the neighbourhood (olympics on soon?) I do hope you'll pm me and come listen to what you've had such a huge hand in helping to create.
Cheers
Roy

Roy, that is correct, it doesn't necessarily have to be A1s, but I would make sure that it is an amp at least 120 - 125 watts per channel minimum (at 8 ohms), and preferably even more than that.

I don't know if you have Radio Shacks out your way or not, but if so, they recently had some amps being clearanced out at unbelievable prices that are like 150 watts per channel at 8 ohms (so it should be even a little more than that into the Four's 6 ohm load) with a low distortion rating that would prolly make descent bass amps for subwoofers.

And while I appreciate your offer, I prolly won't ever be in Beijing. :cool:

John, have you got any customers bi-amping Fours with an X2/dual A1 combo (or 2 channels of a Power5/2) and in conjunction with a Controller/Power5 on the top end at the same time, and if so, how is it?

I'm thinking very seriously about it myself, not because I feel the Four with a Controller/Power5 lacks in any way, but I just wonder if it would make a significant improvement in bass control, output, and integration between 2 channel and movies.

Anyone here running Classic Three's & Three Center for the FRONTS?

Anyone here running Classic Three's & Three Center for the FRONTS?

yes. and AZ's for the rears.

yes. and AZ's for the rears. Ditto. Would run 3s for back channels but they are too bulky...

yes. and AZ's for the rears.

AZ's??

What receiver/amp you running, and what is the watts?

Randy,

Getting any two drivers (midrange/tweeter, subwoofer/satellite speaker) in phase at the crossover frequency is THE citical thing to get the response flat. Without having them close to being in phase, you will never make the system sound good.

Whether you adjust the time delay between two speakers or have a phase switch/control on one of them, you are doing the exact same thing. Phase and delay are two ways of looking at the same thing.

Mark,

I think that the text you are referring to in the X2 manual assumes that a subwoofer satellite system is being biamped in that case, not a tower speaker. In the case of a tower speaker, you set the LP filter and the HP filter at the subwoofer to woofer crossover frequency as a starting point.

Take the example of biamping a Four with an X2.

Case #1.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 50Hz, since this is the lowest setting available. Set the LP filter to about 220Hz, since this is the highest setting available. Leave the phase at 0 degrees.

At the listening position, the frequency response will be about the same as without the system being biamped. This is because the active filter cutoff frequencies are about 1 octave or more away from the passive filter cutoff frequencies in the Four. They really need to be more than 1 octave away to not affect the phase response at the crossover frequency, but it will be fairly close.

There is no change in driver excursions since the filter slopes haven't changed much.

The lower amplifier is amplifying from 20-220Hz. The upper amplifier is amplifying from 50Hz-20kHz.

Case #2.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 110Hz, since this is about the same frequency as the passive filter in the Four. Set the LP filter to about 130Hz, since this is about the same crossover frequency as the passive filter in the Four. You will need to adjust the phase to get the output from the subwoofer and woofer in phase at the listening position. This is because you have added one HP and one LP filter to the system. Both of these filters have some added phase shift.

The excursion of the 6.5" driver will now be less since there is a 24dB/octave HP slope on it instead of a 12dB/octve slope. There will be less midrange coming from the 12" woofer for the same basic reason. Double the filter slope.

The lower amplifier is now amplifying from 20-130Hz. The upper amplifier is amplifying from 110Hz-20kHz. Both amplifiers are amplifying less bandwidth, so they will both have more power available.

You will need to tweak the LP filter setting and the phase setting to get the two drivers integrated as well as possible.

There nothing wrong with "double filtering". If you have adequate adjustments on the filters (frequency AND phase) and the knowledge and experience to set them, you can easily end up with better system performance. Minimizing the amount of double filtering (as in case 1) is easier because it requires no subjective adjustments. Just turn the filters all the way up and down. i.e., remove them as much as possible. Case 2 will give you better performance if you know what you are doing.

I'll post some settings for the X2 and Fours later.

BTW, did you get my PM?

Roy,

Yes, any 2 channel amplifier rated at more than 150W/channel into 6ohms should work fine. For that matter, it could be an old receiver. It doesn't need to be a power amplifier.

My oldish college tendencies coming back....

The 6.5" drivers in the Three and the Four are different. One is a lower midrange, the other is a woofer. They are in different enclosure volumes. They are loaded by different size baffles. Even if we tried to make the Three and Four sound the same above 100Hz, it wouldn't be possible due to some of these differences.

The other thing is we DON'T want to make them sound the same above 100Hz. If we did, then the Three would sound thin, and/or the Four would sound thick or bass heavy. You can't design two different speakers that cover different bandwidths, give them the same response over the common bandwidth and expect both to sound good.

Hello! Thought I'd jump in here. This is a very interesting forum. Right now I'm my system consists of Fours, Three C, and Threes for the rear. I did do comparison tests (2 channel) with the Threes and Fours (both excellent choices) but have to say th Fours sound a bit cleaner in the midrange and midbass region (at least to my ears). Hopefully in the near future I'll be driving them with the NHT Controller/Amp combo, but can't fork out the money at this time.
Thanks,
Ray

Take the example of biamping a Four with an X2.

Very educational. Thanks Jack!

Can anyone recommend a good SPEAKER STAND for the Classic Three's. Also what would be a good height for them? Maybe depends on my height of tv I guess.

Thanks

Quick question....sort off topic....like it matters in this thread :p
How would the superzeroXU's work as rears along with my 4's?
I know they are not a "big" rear, but I wonder if they would fill in ok until I can get some 3's and then I could use the XU's for "presence" speakers?

yes. and AZ's for the rears.


Cool , this is exactly what I want to buy to go with my Pioneer Elite vsx-84. How do you like this setup? especially for HT ? I need some input before I pull the trigger. Any info on this?

Can anyone recommend a good SPEAKER STAND for the Classic Three's. Also what would be a good height for them? Maybe depends on my height of tv I guess.




I went with the Skylan 24 - custom built by Noel - skylanstands (they won't let me post a URL - just Google)

He can customize the height and plates. I went with 26 inches and I'm really happy with these. stands! I made my plates slighly narrower than the speakers (because of the rounded edges).

Mark

Randy,

Getting any two drivers (midrange/tweeter, subwoofer/satellite speaker) in phase at the crossover frequency is THE citical thing to get the response flat. Without having them close to being in phase, you will never make the system sound good.

Whether you adjust the time delay between two speakers or have a phase switch/control on one of them, you are doing the exact same thing. Phase and delay are two ways of looking at the same thing.

I really appreciate the advice! I can honestly say I've never heard a better sounding system (maybe some louder ones at the store), but movies are thunderous and convincing and music is ultra-detailed and cohesive. I look forward to the custom EQ settings the Controller provides for NHT speakers.

Thanks,
Randy

Mark,


Case #2.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 110Hz, since this is about the same frequency as the passive filter in the Four. Set the LP filter to about 130Hz, since this is about the same crossover frequency as the passive filter in the Four. You will need to adjust the phase to get the output from the subwoofer and woofer in phase at the listening position. This is because you have added one HP and one LP filter to the system. Both of these filters have some added phase shift.



Are you recommending this overlap in setpoints due to the presence of the passive crossover?

Are the calibrations on the X2 equal to the -3 dB points?

Thanks

AZ's??

What receiver/amp you running, and what is the watts?
X3 on the 3s, 3c, and AZs (Absolute Zeros). I'm running them off a Pioneer Elite 56 TXi receiver (picked it up cheap as a temporary source).

Any idea what I should do with those 2 extra amp channels? I'll be getting U2s so there's nothing to Bi-amp?

Peter

Eric,

Yes and yes.

[QUOTE=sc10000]Ditto. Would run 3s for back channels but they are too bulky.

How about you SC how do you like your system? Any input on the speaker set up for HT?

I went with the Skylan 24 - custom built by Noel - skylanstands (they won't let me post a URL - just Google)

He can customize the height and plates. I went with 26 inches and I'm really happy with these. stands! I made my plates slighly narrower than the speakers (because of the rounded edges).

Mark

What do you mean narrower? Like they are on rails for the speaker to attach too?
Or do they just sit on top of the speaker stand with no brackets.
Thanks

The rubber strips on the bottom of a Three are 5" apart and 8.15" long. So the minimum size of the top of a stand for them would be about 5.25" wide and 6" deep.

The rubber strips on the bottom of a Three are 5" apart and 8.15" long. So the minimum size of the top of a stand for them would be about 5.25" wide and 6" deep.

I see now that I have the speakers in front of me I understand now. I just got my Three Three's about 1 hour ago from UPS. Listening to them on 2 channel now on my Yamaha 2700 all I can say is :eek: very nice. I have been missing out on allot of good music. I am still missing my subwoofer, because my toggle switches broke off cant use it. So I am in search for a new sub to go with the Three's..

Thank You Jack

How about you SC how do you like your system? Any input on the speaker set up for HT? Powered by an NAD T743, it's a good system as is. Also have the U1 sub which fits perfectly with the rest of the speakers. There's no doubt that 3s in the rear would sound much better, but if I did that then the whole system would need redoing because I would definetly want dual woofers all around. That would be the mystery line of speakers that *should* fit between classics & Xd. Hint, hint... ;)

This a very good quality setup for the money, and you will surely be very pleased.

Soon I'm upgrading to 7.2 for blu-ray, adding the second W1 (now in storage), 2 more azs and NAD T175/T975, which will of course make me want even better speakers..oh no here we go again.

Quick question....sort off topic....like it matters in this thread :p
How would the superzeroXU's work as rears along with my 4's?
I know they are not a "big" rear, but I wonder if they would fill in ok until I can get some 3's and then I could use the XU's for "presence" speakers?

I can't speak to their use with 4's, but I've used them as my surrounds in a 5.1 setup(mainly due to space/size limitations) with SB1's, 2's and now 3's and I've been satisfied with how they sound. I'm sure AZ's would be a better match, but they won't fit where I need them to be in my room!

Well I finally put a deposit for the local dealer to order the X2 as it will take a month to deliver from the US. I tried to find a NAD C272 to subsitute for the 2 A1's and would you believe it that's not available locally in stock either. Seems after doing a lot of walking around AV shops here in HK that Separate power amps are not too popular and the only ones that are, are (from my perspective waaaay too expensive e.g around US$2,000). So what to do, either special order the NAD C272 and wait 45 days or buy used. Not much used stuff available: i did find a NAD 2600A power amp and an ADCOM GFA-5500. The ADCOM's specs are :GFA-5500
Power Amplifier

200 watts per channel, 8 ohms
350 watts per channel, 4 ohms
MOSFET output circuitry
Tremendous 1.7dB headroom

NAD 2600A specs are:
ONTINUOUS POWER [ min RMS per channel 20Hz - 20kHz less than rated distortion into 8 ohms ] :
- 150W RMS -:®:- Rated distortion [ THD, 20Hz - 20kHz ] 0.03%
- Clipping Power 200W -:®:- Dynamic headroom +4dB
- IHF Dynamic Power x 2 at 8 ohms: 400W; 4 ohms 600W; 2ohms 800W;
- RIAA response accuracy : ±0.5dB

Damping Factor [ 8 ohms, 50Hz ]: > 120
- Slew Factor > 50 -:®:- Slew Rate > 35V / µsec
- Input impedance R = 20kohms, C = 820 pF -:®:- Input sensitivity [ 1W out / rated power ]: 90mV / 1.1V -:®:- Voltage Gain 32 x [ 30dB ]
- Signal to Noise Ratio [ 1W / 150W, A-weighted ]: 100 / 122dB

Dimensions : NAD 2600A amplifier S/N: 80308384 - Dimensions [ W x H x D ] : 435 x 127 x 390mm Weight : 13kg – packed weight : 14.3kg


Don't really know what this means but both seem powerful enough from what has been recommended earlier?

These amps don't have any 12V triggers so I would have to switch on and off manually each time.

Questions:
(1) is it true these old amps need to warm up for long periods before use?
(2) is it "safe" to buy 2nd hand as I will be shipping this gear away from Hong Kong soon. Any tips on buying second hand would be really appreciated if recommended.

Thanks for your comments.
Roy

These amps don't have any 12V triggers so I would have to switch on and off manually each time.

Questions:
(1) is it true these old amps need to warm up for long periods before use?
(2) is it "safe" to buy 2nd hand as I will be shipping this gear away from Hong Kong soon. Any tips on buying second hand would be really appreciated if recommended.

Thanks for your comments.
Roy

1. Pretty much instantaneous.
2. I have had good luck buying used. If your planning on shipping it soon, it would be good to have the original packing and plan on double boxing.

Music stores have pro amps that can be a good choice.

Can anyone recommend a good SPEAKER STAND for the Classic Three's. Also what would be a good height for them? Maybe depends on my height of tv I guess.

Thanks

Alimental has some custom Target stands, all metal, gloss black. Not sure about the 3's, but he does have some for the AZ's, which looked silly sitting on stands with standard 6x6 tops.

Brian

Mark,

I think that the text you are referring to in the X2 manual assumes that a subwoofer satellite system is being biamped in that case, not a tower speaker. In the case of a tower speaker, you set the LP filter and the HP filter at the subwoofer to woofer crossover frequency as a starting point.

That was what is given under the high pass and low pass filters in the features and controls section, but, like I said before, I realize that is just a very vague, generic rule of thumb for a basic starting point given in the X2's manual for a wide variety of speakers it could be used with (both towers and sub/sat combos).

Take the example of biamping a Four with an X2.

Case #1.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 50Hz, since this is the lowest setting available. Set the LP filter to about 220Hz, since this is the highest setting available. Leave the phase at 0 degrees.

At the listening position, the frequency response will be about the same as without the system being biamped. This is because the active filter cutoff frequencies are about 1 octave or more away from the passive filter cutoff frequencies in the Four. They really need to be more than 1 octave away to not affect the phase response at the crossover frequency, but it will be fairly close.

There is no change in driver excursions since the filter slopes haven't changed much.

The lower amplifier is amplifying from 20-220Hz. The upper amplifier is amplifying from 50Hz-20kHz.

Case #2.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 110Hz, since this is about the same frequency as the passive filter in the Four. Set the LP filter to about 130Hz, since this is about the same crossover frequency as the passive filter in the Four. You will need to adjust the phase to get the output from the subwoofer and woofer in phase at the listening position. This is because you have added one HP and one LP filter to the system. Both of these filters have some added phase shift.

The excursion of the 6.5" driver will now be less since there is a 24dB/octave HP slope on it instead of a 12dB/octve slope. There will be less midrange coming from the 12" woofer for the same basic reason. Double the filter slope.

The lower amplifier is now amplifying from 20-130Hz. The upper amplifier is amplifying from 110Hz-20kHz. Both amplifiers are amplifying less bandwidth, so they will both have more power available. I understand you obviously mean the signal going into the amps, but I always thought that in the specific case of the Fours, in effect the lower amp is really doing 20 - 125 Hz and the upper amp from 125 Hz to 20 kHz?

You will need to tweak the LP filter setting and the phase setting to get the two drivers integrated as well as possible.

There nothing wrong with "double filtering". If you have adequate adjustments on the filters (frequency AND phase) and the knowledge and experience to set them, you can easily end up with better system performance. Minimizing the amount of double filtering (as in case 1) is easier because it requires no subjective adjustments. Just turn the filters all the way up and down. i.e., remove them as much as possible. Case 2 will give you better performance if you know what you are doing.

Thanks Jack. Very interesting. Literally everything I had ever seen or read about this before, starting with my very first M&K subwoofer back in the early 90s, various powered towers and subs over the years, and even including NHT's own SA-2/3 bass amp manuals, cautioned against double filtering and to reduce or eliminate it by lowering the high pass filter as far as possible and/or raising the low pass as high as it would go to get them as far out of the way as possible, and I never questioned it before cause it just flat out made sense to me. :o

At least I did get this much right: :D

Theoretically, in the case of the Fours, just so long as the X2's high pass was below 125 Hz and the low pass above 125 Hz it should be OK, ...

I'll post some settings for the X2 and Fours later.

Please do. I'm very seriously considering adding an X2 to my fours now. If the X1 will do Evo subs better than the Controller, wouldn't the same case also apply to the X2 against the Controller with the Four's subs as well?

BTW, did you get my PM?

Check yours now.

Hello! Thought I'd jump in here. This is a very interesting forum. Right now I'm my system consists of Fours, Three C, and Threes for the rear. I did do comparison tests (2 channel) with the Threes and Fours (both excellent choices) but have to say th Fours sound a bit cleaner in the midrange and midbass region (at least to my ears). Hopefully in the near future I'll be driving them with the NHT Controller/Amp combo, but can't fork out the money at this time. So, I'm driving them with a Denon 3806. Since I'm my configuration is 5.1 and the receiver is a 7.1, I'm using the rear channels configured as second fronts and am bi-amping the Fours. It did give the Fours enough of an improvement to make bi-amping worth it, a bit more bass extension and a bit cleaner sound. If any of you are considering bi-amping, try it - you'll like the results.

Thanks,
Ray

Do you have an X2?

Can anyone recommend a good SPEAKER STAND for the Classic Three's. Also what would be a good height for them? Maybe depends on my height of tv I guess.

Thanks

27.25" I believe it is, will make them the exact same height as the Fours FWIW.

... but if I did that then the whole system would need redoing because I would definetly want dual woofers all around.

...

Soon I'm upgrading to 7.2 for blu-ray, adding the second W1 (now in storage), ...

:rolleyes:

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: :)

Well I finally put a deposit for the local dealer to order the X2 as it will take a month to deliver from the US. I tried to find a NAD C272 to subsitute for the 2 A1's and would you believe it that's not available locally in stock either. Seems after doing a lot of walking around AV shops here in HK that Separate power amps are not too popular and the only ones that are, are (from my perspective waaaay too expensive e.g around US$2,000). So what to do, either special order the NAD C272 and wait 45 days or buy used. Not much used stuff available: i did find a NAD 2600A power amp and an ADCOM GFA-5500. The ADCOM's specs are :GFA-5500
Power Amplifier

200 watts per channel, 8 ohms
350 watts per channel, 4 ohms
MOSFET output circuitry
Tremendous 1.7dB headroom

NAD 2600A specs are:
ONTINUOUS POWER [ min RMS per channel 20Hz - 20kHz less than rated distortion into 8 ohms ] :
- 150W RMS -:®:- Rated distortion [ THD, 20Hz - 20kHz ] 0.03%
- Clipping Power 200W -:®:- Dynamic headroom +4dB
- IHF Dynamic Power x 2 at 8 ohms: 400W; 4 ohms 600W; 2ohms 800W;
- RIAA response accuracy : ±0.5dB

Damping Factor [ 8 ohms, 50Hz ]: > 120
- Slew Factor > 50 -:®:- Slew Rate > 35V / µsec
- Input impedance R = 20kohms, C = 820 pF -:®:- Input sensitivity [ 1W out / rated power ]: 90mV / 1.1V -:®:- Voltage Gain 32 x [ 30dB ]
- Signal to Noise Ratio [ 1W / 150W, A-weighted ]: 100 / 122dB

Dimensions : NAD 2600A amplifier S/N: 80308384 - Dimensions [ W x H x D ] : 435 x 127 x 390mm Weight : 13kg – packed weight : 14.3kg


Don't really know what this means but both seem powerful enough from what has been recommended earlier?

These amps don't have any 12V triggers so I would have to switch on and off manually each time.

Questions:
(1) is it true these old amps need to warm up for long periods before use?
(2) is it "safe" to buy 2nd hand as I will be shipping this gear away from Hong Kong soon. Any tips on buying second hand would be really appreciated if recommended.

Thanks for your comments.
Roy

Great choice with Adcom 5500 Roy! Trust me on this, it will be more than adequate to drive the Four's subs in a bi-amp situation. It should be putting out at least 275 solid measurable continuous watts per channel at the rated distortion specs into the Four's 6 ohm load, and prolly even just a little bit more than that.

I have that very amp, and it is at least as good or better than the NAD C270/272 (more powerful).

Don't worry about it warming up. That mosfet amp will get hot in a hurry! :eek:

Can anyone recommend a good SPEAKER STAND for the Classic Three's. Also what would be a good height for them? Maybe depends on my height of tv I guess.

Thanks

I went with the Target HS60 stands for my Classic 3 fronts. Plenty of online availability at a fair price, good height for my setup, and although they're matte finish instead of 'glossy piano black', they are quite a bit easier to keep clean (read: dusted) than I suspect a glossy finished stand would be.

I'm eyeing the Target HS100 (at 40" height) for my AZ rears.

The Adcom 5500 is a great bass amp, but very grainy in the highs. If you are looking to use it only to power subs, you will be hard pressed to do better. For full range use, skip it. BTW, I had one, even had it modified by Stan Warren, I wish I could have gotten the highs to sound good because the bass was that good, but in the end it went bye bye.

Mark,

I think that the text you are referring to in the X2 manual assumes that a subwoofer satellite system is being biamped in that case, not a tower speaker. In the case of a tower speaker, you set the LP filter and the HP filter at the subwoofer to woofer crossover frequency as a starting point.

Take the example of biamping a Four with an X2.

Case #1.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 50Hz, since this is the lowest setting available. Set the LP filter to about 220Hz, since this is the highest setting available. Leave the phase at 0 degrees.

At the listening position, the frequency response will be about the same as without the system being biamped. This is because the active filter cutoff frequencies are about 1 octave or more away from the passive filter cutoff frequencies in the Four. They really need to be more than 1 octave away to not affect the phase response at the crossover frequency, but it will be fairly close.

There is no change in driver excursions since the filter slopes haven't changed much.

The lower amplifier is amplifying from 20-220Hz. The upper amplifier is amplifying from 50Hz-20kHz.

Case #2.

Set the HP filter on the X2 to 110Hz, since this is about the same frequency as the passive filter in the Four. Set the LP filter to about 130Hz, since this is about the same crossover frequency as the passive filter in the Four. You will need to adjust the phase to get the output from the subwoofer and woofer in phase at the listening position. This is because you have added one HP and one LP filter to the system. Both of these filters have some added phase shift.

The excursion of the 6.5" driver will now be less since there is a 24dB/octave HP slope on it instead of a 12dB/octve slope. There will be less midrange coming from the 12" woofer for the same basic reason. Double the filter slope.

The lower amplifier is now amplifying from 20-130Hz. The upper amplifier is amplifying from 110Hz-20kHz. Both amplifiers are amplifying less bandwidth, so they will both have more power available.

You will need to tweak the LP filter setting and the phase setting to get the two drivers integrated as well as possible.

There nothing wrong with "double filtering". If you have adequate adjustments on the filters (frequency AND phase) and the knowledge and experience to set them, you can easily end up with better system performance. Minimizing the amount of double filtering (as in case 1) is easier because it requires no subjective adjustments. Just turn the filters all the way up and down. i.e., remove them as much as possible. Case 2 will give you better performance if you know what you are doing.
I'll post some settings for the X2 and Fours later.

BTW, did you get my PM?



Most of the "audiophiles" on this forum tend to display feelings of outrage when "double filtering" is mentioned. As you said accurately, "Case 2 will give you better performance if you know what you are doing".

I have always wondered how many of these "audiophiles" actually know what they are doing (other than taking the easy way out)!

Most of the "audiophiles" on this forum tend to display feelings of outrage when "double filtering" is mentioned. As you said accurately, "Case 2 will give you better performance if you know what you are doing".

I have always wondered how many of these "audiophiles" actually know what they are doing (other than taking the easy way out)!

This coming from someone so smart as to say this on another thread:

I have never seen a receiver that allowed you to set the R & L speakers at different distances, but maybe that is just my ignorance.

... therefore proving his ignorance of something called the balance control, which has been on 2 channel receivers, integrateds, and pre-amps for decades. :rolleyes: :p :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
Most of the "audiophiles" on this forum tend to display feelings of outrage when "double filtering" is mentioned. As you said accurately, "Case 2 will give you better performance if you know what you are doing".

I have always wondered how many of these "audiophiles" actually know what they are doing (other than taking the easy way out)!



This coming from someone so smart as to say this on another thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
I have never seen a receiver that allowed you to set the R & L speakers at different distances, but maybe that is just my ignorance.



... therefore proving his ignorance of something called the balance control, which has been on 2 channel receivers, integrateds, and pre-amps for decades. :rolleyes: :p :D




At least I know the difference between a "speaker distance setting" (AKA speaker distances) and a "balance control" (AKA relative speaker volume levels).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=834089

Obviously, you do not know the difference!

At least I know the difference between a "speaker distance setting" (AKA speaker distances) and a "balance control" (AKA relative speaker volume levels).

Obviously, you do not know the difference!

Hey Einstein, what do you think balance does from L/R? :rolleyes: :p :D

I went with the Target HS60 stands for my Classic 3 fronts. Plenty of online availability at a fair price, good height for my setup, and although they're matte finish instead of 'glossy piano black', they are quite a bit easier to keep clean (read: dusted) than I suspect a glossy finished stand would be.

Our HS60s, in addition to being gloss, have top plates that are smaller so they hide better under the speaker.

Hey Einstein, what do you think balance does from L/R? :rolleyes: :p :D


The balance control changes signal levels (AKA relative volume) between the R & L speakers. The balance control does not set different time delays between the R & L speakers (AKA distance settings).

What is your problem anyways (other than lack of basic knowledge)?

The Stereophile magazine review states that all 4 of the the NHT M6 drivers are connected in positive polarity, but the IAR review claims the m6's midrange and tweeter are connected in reverse polarity, only the two woofers are connected in positive polarity. Who is correct?

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/405nht/index6.html
http://www.iar-80.com/page104.html

IAR is correct. The woofers are in phase and the midrange and tweeter are both reversed. Stereophile uses the step response to try to determine the drivers various DC phases. In this case, it did not work.

:rolleyes: After doing the 20hz mod the building itself shakes so had to put the 2nd W1 back in storage till I find a more 'suitable' environment. ;)

Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
I have never seen a receiver that allowed you to set the R & L speakers at different distances, but maybe that is just my ignorance.
------------------------------------------------------

my cheapo Yamaha HTR-5940 lets you set volume AND distance individually for all 7 speakers, so at least it does that, if probably nothing else haha.

not that it seems like a very good idea to set L and R and different distances mind you haha regardless of this setting, haha.

I see now that I have the speakers in front of me I understand now. I just got my Three Three's about 1 hour ago from UPS. Listening to them on 2 channel now on my Yamaha 2700 all I can say is :eek: very nice. I have been missing out on allot of good music. I am still missing my subwoofer, because my toggle switches broke off cant use it. So I am in search for a new sub to go with the Three's..

Thank You JackYou haven't heard them yet. Run them for >40 hours at least at moderate volume - just leave them on overnight (hopefully they're not in your bedroom), then tell us what you think. :)

Peter

Mark and Palmer,

Another BBS I frequent has a "smiley" of a little happy face eating popcorn. I tried to post that here, so symbolize sitting back and watching the two of you go at it. On the other hand, those on my other BBS mostly know each other personally, so slamming one another is basically for fun.

Sorry I couldn't show you the popcorn-eating smiley--laughter is the best medicine.

Peter

Jack,
Thanks. I like the little bonuses, too! Of course, I like the speakers even better...
Peter

:mad: Rant begins: Having finally started to understand what I need to do to push more bass out of the Classic 4's i.e. purchase the X2 crossover I put a deposit for an order on an X2 with the local dealer. I had previously been told the A1's were out of stock but could substitute these with a power amp/reciever. Just been told now that not only are NHT in the US out of stock of the A1's but now they tell me they are also out of stock of the X2 crossover! Either the local dealer is lying or doesn't want the hassle of this business or NHT US really has no stock. What a complete balls up of a way to run a business! Either way I'm screwed...Rant over.

Please could someone now tell me, if I can also substitute the X2 crossover with e.g. something from the "pseudo pro-audio" side e.g. like Behringer to match with 1 or 2 Behringer A500 power amps? Is this is a reasonable approach and can I get some help on the crossover settings for such a set up on this board as I would otherwise frankly be wasting my money as I haven't a clue what to do with this kit. Help! :confused:
Thanks Roy

This is one IMPRESSIVE thread!

Been told now that neither the X2 crossover nor the A1's will be available in Hong Kong before June at the earliest because "the NHT factory is out of stock". Don't know whether this is BS from the local NHT agent or dealer or whatever but either way I'm dead in the water.

O.K. so the story so far is I can use an alternative reciever or power amp to replace the A1's (no problems here). I'm looking into a pair of Behringer a500's to drive the woofers on the Classic 4s. Can I also use a crossover eg. from Behringer to substitute for the X2. Could I get the correct settings for the crossover from this board? Thanks for the replies because otherwise I'm screwed as I don't yet have the knowlege to do this on my own. Running out of time because I leave Hong Kong soon to move into China.
Cheers Roy

I only have time for one post for right now, so it will go to you Roy.

You don't have to have an X2 to bi-amp your Fours.

I'm not real familiar with that used NAD amp you mentioned previously that were considering, and I don't really have enough time right now to do any research on it to see for myself, but if it has a gain control on it like the newer NAD C270 and current C272 models do, you could start off like that for now, at least on an interim basis, until you can get an X2.

And, worse case scenario, trust me on this, that CA 640R would have no problems driving fours full range (large) all on it's own without bi-amping them, again, at least for an interim basis. ;)

But I do highly recommend eventually getting an X2 when and if you can. Like the X1 on Evo subs, it will give a spectacular amount of control and flexibility over the bass from the subs in your Fours. I'm very seriously considering getting one of my Fours too. :)

Roy,

Yes, the dealer/distributor is telling you the truth. Both the A1 and X2 are out of stock right now. I'm sorry about that. Trust me I don't want them to be out of stock 10 times as badly as you don't :) I'll try to get you a date tomorrow, for when they will be available again.

You can use a generic active crossover to biamp the Fours. If you do this, you won't get some of the features and flexability of the X2 though. I'll try to post the settings for the Four later this week. I'm out of the office until Thursday.

Thanks for taking your limited time once again to help me out Mark. Yes I know the CA 640R drives the Classic 4's well without bi-amping, I had it demoed for me that way and it convinced me to make the Classic 4's my choice. I did find the bass a little lacking in that visceral effect that you get with a sub in 5.1. This was why I was interested in Jack Hidley's and your talk of X2's and bi-amping. I'm thinking now after all the hassle with the X2/A1 saga and after my wife cautioning me about second hand amps to just go with a more powerful amp like the Yamaha v2700 (which allows the extra channel to do bi-amping) or the Arcam avr 350 which has even more power and also does bi-amping. Both have had glowing reviews with the Yammy having more video bells and whistles while the Arcam being the more musical but with only HDMI switching. Odd that I feel a bit down at not being able to go the X2 route (going to China and thus no time to wait for delivery) since it means I will get a stomping good reciever in the Yammy or the Arcam vs the more modest CA 640R. Oh well I did enjoy the research and shop browsing in the meantime.

In your post you didn't mention whether the pro-audio crossovers like the Behringer COMPOSER PRO-XL MDX2600 would substitute the X2? any words of wisdom or do you think I'm better off learning to walk before I run and just stick with the simple Reciever to speaker route after all?
Thanks Roy

I don't believe that Behringer model is a crossover. Personally I would hold out for a X2.

Roy,

Although the A500/EP1500 can serve to power the subs, I'd wait for the X2 for x-over purposes as the Behringer x-overs are not the best choice for this application. Personally I'd pick up the other components for now and add the x2 once it's in stock... you can passively bi-amp the C4s until then.... this way your getting what you want (eventually) and there's no shuffling of components... until the next upgrade itch comes :cool:

Yep, the M6s can be had for like $300 and some each. Show me a better speaker for the $$$, you can't.

i'm guessing this is the used price? i'm having trouble even finding them on any showroom floors. any recommendations on places to look would be appreciated, thanks

Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
I have never seen a receiver that allowed you to set the R & L speakers at different distances, but maybe that is just my ignorance.
------------------------------------------------------

my cheapo Yamaha HTR-5940 lets you set volume AND distance individually for all 7 speakers, so at least it does that, if probably nothing else haha.

not that it seems like a very good idea to set L and R and different distances mind you haha regardless of this setting, haha.



It appears that individual distance settings for every speaker are becoming more common in all sorts of equipment (not just high end). Probably the result of auto calibration schemes working their way into more chipsets.

It could be good to have, or it could be just another item that the average consumer can screw up. Well, at least I now know that there are new receiver options available these days.

Funny thing is, due to my room my left speaker is about 2 feet further away than my right speaker. I am probably one of the people who could actually use that option for the distance setting for the R & L main speakers!

IAR is correct. The woofers are in phase and the midrange and tweeter are both reversed. Stereophile uses the step response to try to determine the drivers various DC phases. In this case, it did not work.
Hi Jack,

I laymans terms could you explain why the midrange and tweeter are reversed in the M6? I just have never heard of a speaker designed this way.

Thanks a lot!
MF

i'm guessing this is the used price? i'm having trouble even finding them on any showroom floors. any recommendations on places to look would be appreciated, thanks


It is, that is what I paid for mine and they where in perfect shape.
Allen

Roy,

Although the A500/EP1500 can serve to power the subs, I'd wait for the X2 for x-over purposes as the Behringer x-overs are not the best choice for this application. Personally I'd pick up the other components for now and add the x2 once it's in stock... you can passively bi-amp the C4s until then.... this way your getting what you want (eventually) and there's no shuffling of components... until the next upgrade itch comes :cool:

Yeah, nothing against Behringer, but IIRC their crossovers are digital and would insert an A/D and D/A into the signal path for the mains. I am far from a purist and don't really have an issue with this for the subs, but I think it may be pushing it for higher frequencies.

Interesting what I am reading about the fours. Why (and this is not a cocky question but is asked seriously) are the fours better than the threes and self powered subs underneath them? What is added and what is missing with the threes?

Bone, that is exactly what I do.

Jack Hidley (above) stated the 6.5" driver is different between the Three and Four and of course the crossover is different. John (Alimental) states the transition between the 2" mid and 6.5" driver in the Four is smoother and better than the Three, likely due to the factors Jack stated.

My threes are high passed with the X2 @ 110 Hz and I believe the mids are cleaner. I can't really quantify, for example if the mids on the Fours are a '10' and the Threes a '6' are my bandwidth limited Threes a '7', '8', or '9'?

It appears that individual distance settings for every speaker are becoming more common in all sorts of equipment (not just high end). Probably the result of auto calibration schemes working their way into more chipsets.

It could be good to have, or it could be just another item that the average consumer can screw up. Well, at least I now know that there are new receiver options available these days.

Funny thing is, due to my room my left speaker is about 2 feet further away than my right speaker. I am probably one of the people who could actually use that option for the distance setting for the R & L main speakers!

that'll teach you for getting high quality equipment ;)

Jack Hidley (above) stated the 6.5" driver is different between the Three and Four and of course the crossover is different.

Did Jack say that? Which post was that? I can't find it. I believe the driver is identical and there are very small changes in the crossover that yield very small, but nice improvements to the midrange. This could be on purpose, or simply a cascade effect from adding the 10" driver into the system.

My threes are high passed with the X2 @ 110 Hz and I believe the mids are cleaner. I can't really quantify, for example if the mids on the Fours are a '10' and the Threes a '6' are my bandwidth limited Threes a '7', '8', or '9'?

I'd say the Fours have, on an absolute scale, an 8.5 midrange, the Threes have an 8. Xd is more like 9.5. Twos are more like a 7. You know, +/-.

Did Jack say that? Which post was that? I can't find it. I believe the driver is identical and there are very small changes in the crossover that yield very small, but nice improvements to the midrange. This could be on purpose, or simply a cascade effect from adding the 10" driver into the system.

(makes tape rewinding sound until we reach post #3538)

The 6.5" drivers in the Three and the Four are different. One is a lower midrange, the other is a woofer. They are in different enclosure volumes. They are loaded by different size baffles. Even if we tried to make the Three and Four sound the same above 100Hz, it wouldn't be possible due to some of these differences.

The other thing is we DON'T want to make them sound the same above 100Hz. If we did, then the Three would sound thin, and/or the Four would sound thick or bass heavy. You can't design two different speakers that cover different bandwidths, give them the same response over the common bandwidth and expect both to sound good.

I was a little bit surprised. Certainly the logic makes sense, but I guess we've all heard that 'the Four is the Three + a 10" passive sub' too many times.

I was a little bit surprised. Certainly the logic makes sense, but I guess we've all heard that 'the Four is the Three + a 10" passive sub' too many times.

Well, the cone and frame appear to be the same, they probably changed the motor structure. This is good and bad, I guess. I'd prefer that the Three be revoiced with a "midbass" driver rather than a bass driver.

Well, the cone and frame appear to be the same, they probably changed the motor structure. This is good and bad, I guess. I'd prefer that the Three be revoiced with a "midbass" driver rather than a bass driver.

Yeah, I'd prefer that too, as I'm sure many around here would who consider subs to be mandatory. Sort of like the old Super Zero "do what you do well and don't even try at what you don't do" philosophy.

But I'd be a little surprised if we represent the majority of the market. But maybe?

Yeah, I'd prefer that too, as I'm sure many around here would who consider subs to be mandatory. Sort of like the old Super Zero "do what you do well and don't even try at what you don't do" philosophy.

But I'd be a little surprised if we represent the majority of the market. But maybe?

especially since so many have dual music-HT setups (and since even for music hardly any bookshelfs really cut it alone), I would be really surprised if adding a sub to bookshelfs was not the majority these days.

Yeah, I'd prefer that too, as I'm sure many around here would who consider subs to be mandatory. Sort of like the old Super Zero "do what you do well and don't even try at what you don't do" philosophy.

My only disappointment with the Three is that I think it could be even better from an "audiophile" perspective and they held back a bit for a) budgetary constraints and b) to make the sound a bit more accessible.

I'll look at the crossovers to see what kind of upgrades might be possible. Probably just capacitors really.

Still, this just reinforces the need for a 3.5 tower speaker.

My only disappointment with the Three is that I think it could be even better from an "audiophile" perspective and they held back a bit for a) budgetary constraints and b) to make the sound a bit more accessible.

I'll look at the crossovers to see what kind of upgrades might be possible. Probably just capacitors really.

Still, this just reinforces the need for a 3.5 tower speaker.

Had the Threes be designed to a be $1500/pair retail speaker, I'm sure it could have been better. But, there are a few $1500/pr bookshelfs that don't sound as good as the Threes (IMO).

The 6.5" woofer in the Three has a longer voice coil, since it needs to produce bass. It has an Xmax of about +/-7mm. The 6.5" woofer in the Four has a shorter voice coil with an Xmax of about +/-2mm. We don't need high excusrion out of the driver since it is crossed over at 125Hz, so it doesn't need as much Xmax. There are other small differences in the steel structures to make the Qes of the drivers be what they need to be to get the correct low frequency response in their respective cabinets.

It makes it much easier to explain to people that the Four is a Three with a 10" woofer. Too damm complicated to start explaining voice coil geometry and physics....

Lots of drivers we have used look like each other, but aren't. They are each optimized for their respective application. In most cases, there is no need to change the frame, cone or surround, so cosmetically they look the same. All of the important stuff in the driver happens inside it, where the customer can't see it. The same is really true of the complete loudspeaker. The most important part (the crosover) you can't see from outside.

Thank you Jack for sharing more 'inside' information than I remember any manufacturer sharing on this board. It gives me an appreciation for your capabilities and attention to detail. Respect.

This is an awesome thread!!! Lots of info being sharred here.

Jack, Thanks a LOT for sharring NHT's inside info. It's really helpful. I have both the Fours and Threes and now it makes sense whey they sound different in the midbass to midrange area.

Much appreciated!!!
Ray

The 6.5" woofer in the Three has a longer voice coil, since it needs to produce bass. It has an Xmax of about +/-7mm. The 6.5" woofer in the Four has a shorter voice coil with an Xmax of about +/-2mm. We don't need high excusrion out of the driver since it is crossed over at 125Hz, so it doesn't need as much Xmax. There are other small differences in the steel structures to make the Qes of the drivers be what they need to be to get the correct low frequency response in their respective cabinets...............

This is the kind of stuff customers (and dealers) LOVE (need) to know. And helps sell product.

This is the kind of stuff customers (and dealers) LOVE (need) to know. And helps sell product.

Indeed. Thanks Jack!

My only disappointment with the Three is that I think it could be even better from an "audiophile" perspective and they held back a bit for a) budgetary constraints and b) to make the sound a bit more accessible.

What are you referring to when you say "accessible"?

What are you referring to when you say "accessible"?

A touch warm in the midbass, a bit rolled off in the upper treble. I wonder if a bit more fiberfill would help. I can certainly see the difference in xmax needed for a midrange vs woofer as you need 4x to get the extra octave. I still wonder what a "mini-Three" would sound like with a 5" midbass and no focus on bass at all. Well, I guess that's more or less a 2C, but I think there's *so* many possible uses for the dome array that my mind boggles just thinking of them all. Verve needs the tweeter from the Three, I'll say that much.

This is the kind of stuff customers (and dealers) LOVE (need) to know. And helps sell product.


Absolutely!!! Thans Jack!!!

Now the question is - does the 3C use the Three or Four driver or a third variant? (I'm betting on the Four driver) And, if a 3.5 existed, would one use two of the Three drivers, two of the Four drivers or another variant? :)

This is an awesome thread!!! Lots of info being sharred here.

Jack, Thanks a LOT for sharring NHT's inside info. It's really helpful. I have both the Fours and Threes and now it makes sense whey they sound different in the midbass to midrange area.

Much appreciated!!!
Ray
X3. Thanks Jack. And thanks, John, too.

Peter

The 6.5" woofer in the Three has a longer voice coil, ... The most important part (the crosover) you can't see from outside.Jack,
When I send my X1 in for the 20 Hz mod, I'd love to at least consider also sending my 3s in for the "change the drivers to the same ones from the 4's, and change the crossover, too" mod. :)
(yeah, I heard what you said about the volume difference, etc., and know it wouldn't be exactly the same).

For now (and probably forever), what would you recommend as the best crossover for 3's and U2s?

Peter

especially since so many have dual music-HT setups (and since even for music hardly any bookshelfs really cut it alone), I would be really surprised if adding a sub to bookshelfs was not the majority these days.Even for music, a speaker like the 3's profits hugely from a sub (or two). Try running the 3 full-range (e.g. set to "large") and have a sub in the room with the gain set to minimum. Gradually increase the gain on the sub until someone in the normal listening position can first feel/hear any difference, and leave it there. Listen to the same music with the sub off, on, and on with the gain turned up just a hair. To me, it's like someone removed the foundation of the music with the sub off. This is significantly more powerful for classical music or newer recordings of rock (which often take advantage of the improved dynamic range of music systems) than for rock from the 70's (note the username OLDears) that I like to listen to...

Peter

Jack,
When I send my X1 in for the 20 Hz mod, I'd love to at least consider also sending my 3s in for the "change the drivers to the same ones from the 4's, and change the crossover, too" mod. :)
(yeah, I heard what you said about the volume difference, etc., and know it wouldn't be exactly the same).

For now (and probably forever), what would you recommend as the best crossover for 3's and U2s?

Peter Where do I start...20hz mod --> DO IT !. Change 3 drivers to four drivers...interesting, but sounds expensive & then you couldn't really use the 3s without the subs. We could use some details if such a 'mod' is even possible. Call it the 3Plus. You then ask what is the best xover?? Evo subs must use X1 exclusively. And don't worry about the vol level after the mod...it's barely measurable with good testing equipment, and the extra bass will knock your socks off. I've never been able to even get close to max gain/volume with an evo sub.

Hello,

I am curious if there is a set crossover for the Classic Three's for the front? I got my Polk PSW650 working and my Yamaha is setting everything to 110? It is also setting the fronts to LARGE and SUB to BOTH and center to SMALL. I know this is wrong, but just trying to figure what would be the ideal setting for the Three's for the crossover?
Thanks

Hello,

I am curious if there is a set crossover for the Classic Three's for the front? I got my Polk PSW650 working and my Yamaha is setting everything to 110? It is also setting the fronts to LARGE and SUB to BOTH and center to SMALL. I know this is wrong, but just trying to figure what would be the ideal setting for the Three's for the crossover?
Thanks



Why do auto setup if you are just going to ignore the results?

Also, how does your system sound with that "wrong" setup? Just wondering.

Why do auto setup if you are just going to ignore the results?

Also, how does your system sound with that "wrong" setup? Just wondering.

I was told on the Yamaha 2700 forum that it should not be set to LARGE & SUB for BOTH to much bass for the THREE's??? I do not want to blow them out.. It should be set to SMALL and SUB to SUBWOOFER..... so I changed it.

Where do I start...20hz mod --> DO IT!. Change 3 drivers to four drivers...interesting, but sounds expensive & then you couldn't really use the 3s without the subs. We could use some details if such a 'mod' is even possible. Call it the 3Plus. You then ask what is the best xover?? Evo subs must use X1 exclusively. And don't worry about the vol level after the mod...it's barely measurable with good testing equipment, and the extra bass will knock your socks off. I've never been able to even get close to max gain/volume with an evo sub.Sorry, I meant what is the best crossover frequency, assuming front set to "small"...

Peter

Even for music, a speaker like the 3's profits hugely from a sub (or two). Try running the 3 full-range (e.g. set to "large") and have a sub in the room with the gain set to minimum. Gradually increase the gain on the sub until someone in the normal listening position can first feel/hear any difference, and leave it there. Listen to the same music with the sub off, on, and on with the gain turned up just a hair. To me, it's like someone removed the foundation of the music with the sub off. This is significantly more powerful for classical music or newer recordings of rock (which often take advantage of the improved dynamic range of music systems) than for rock from the 70's (note the username OLDears) that I like to listen to...

Peter

yes, i agree fully. for music it makes a huge difference (adding a sub),really, IMO, just as important to add the bottom for music as it is for HT.

not that sub placement and crossover is seeming to be easy.

The HK 247 will be enough for them so long as it's not a huge room, and especially if you have them crossed over to a sub at 80 Hz anyway. I ran a pair of Threes for a while with a HK 240 that I got on a Target clearance rack of all places for less than $200 believe it or not.

I know what you mean about the dealer you were talking about. The one here tries to push Revel over NHT at every opportunity he gets. :(

Just food for thought, but if you have a reflective room and like to listen to rock music, I would highly recommended Evolution M5s over anything in the Classic series (or M6s if it's a huge room).

will the m6's play reasonably with a receiver this size? they seem like they'd take a substantial power supply. i've been looking into this(m6's) too, i have the same huge, bright room.

another q i have is, is there anything small that's remotely sonicly related that can be used for rears? i've been considering 3 of them (or an evolution center), but the way i have ot hang my rears, i'd really like to have something closer to the zero size... (the HT thing isn't quite as important to me as the rock...

btw, let me know if this should be taken to another thread, i know this is an owners thread, but there's just so much info here.

will the m6's play reasonably with a receiver this size? they seem like they'd take a substantial power supply. i've been looking into this(m6's) too, i have the same huge, bright room.

another q i have is, is there anything small that's remotely sonicly related that can be used for rears? i've been considering 3 of them (or an evolution center), but the way i have ot hang my rears, i'd really like to have something closer to the zero size... (the HT thing isn't quite as important to me as the rock...

btw, let me know if this should be taken to another thread, i know this is an owners thread, but there's just so much info here.Now that I'm an owner, I can say this is a current and future owners thread. I lurked here and asked questions for about 6 months before I bought.

My room is 13 x 25 (not huge) and I went with 3s for front and AZz for the back, and have a U2 on order. It's a great match, but for a huge room might be a little thin. If the room is huge, why don't you have room for larger speakers? I'd consider the m6's, or maybe 4s for front and 3s for rear, with a sub or two and biamp the 4s. Of course, it's easy for me to spend your money. :D

Peter

i guess i can give some more info, the only thing i'd like to keep small are the rears... i'd love fours, but seeing as i just picked up a hsu sub a couple of months ago, i'd like to keep it incorporated and it seems like the sub in the fours would be a waste of $. because i was recently in a small room, i've been happy with my zeros around (5 places) and my denon 2805, but now i really need to fill the space better. my room is an acoustical nightmare (but nice to look at). 30x22 hard floors and so much glass on the walls that they can't be properly treated.... so, something like the m6's are sounding like they're worth investigating, but i don't think i'll be hanging a pair from my ceiling. stands aren't a good alternative either as the space behind the sofa is pretty open and i'd basically have to run wires across the floor to get to them.


these are from my kitchen renovation, but you kinda get the idea...

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h83/methcat/Kitchen/th_big.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h83/methcat/Kitchen/big.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h83/methcat/Kitchen/th_IMG_2113.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h83/methcat/Kitchen/IMG_2113.jpg)
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h83/methcat/Kitchen/th_IMG_2112.jpg (http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h83/methcat/Kitchen/IMG_2112.jpg)

John,

You're a smart guy. I bet you can figure out what is different about the 3C woofer over the Three or Four 6.5".

The standard crossover of 80Hz will work fine with the Threes. 110Hz is much higher than it needs to be. I would only use this setting if you were trying to get them to play ear bleed loud. By definition if they have a HP filter on them in the surround processor, they must be set to small, not large.

The L5 matches the M5 perfectly and the M6 ok. It is an onwall model that swivels 180 degrees. Its total depth off of the wall is about 7". It has more directional radiation characteristics than anything in the Classsic line.

The balance control changes signal levels (AKA relative volume) between the R & L speakers. The balance control does not set different time delays between the R & L speakers (AKA distance settings).

What is your problem anyways (other than lack of basic knowledge)?


It could be good to have, or it could be just another item that the average consumer can screw up. Well, at least I now know that there are new receiver options available these days. But apparently not old ones. :p

Funny thing is, due to my room my left speaker is about 2 feet further away than my right speaker. I am probably one of the people who could actually use that option for the distance setting for the R & L main speakers!

Or, if your awesome Sony AVR only had a balance control, you could help try to compensate for this obvious shortcoming by effectively moving (or shifting) the sweet spot of the stereo image to the more appropriate spot between the mains, at least for 2 channel. :cool:

But I'm sure your knowledgeable mind already knew this, huh? ;)

Mark and Palmer,

Another BBS I frequent has a "smiley" of a little happy face eating popcorn. I tried to post that here, so symbolize sitting back and watching the two of you go at it. On the other hand, those on my other BBS mostly know each other personally, so slamming one another is basically for fun.

Sorry I couldn't show you the popcorn-eating smiley--laughter is the best medicine.

Peter

Peter, if you really want to see something funny, check out this thread

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=832939

where J_Palmer_ass tries to tell John of all people here all about NHT, when John knows more about NHT than anyone here except for Jack. :D

I'll try to post the settings for the Four later this week. I'm out of the office until Thursday.

Did you by chance get 'em yet Jack?

Thanks for taking your limited time once again to help me out Mark. Yes I know the CA 640R drives the Classic 4's well without bi-amping, I had it demoed for me that way and it convinced me to make the Classic 4's my choice. I did find the bass a little lacking in that visceral effect that you get with a sub in 5.1. This was why I was interested in Jack Hidley's and your talk of X2's and bi-amping. I'm thinking now after all the hassle with the X2/A1 saga and after my wife cautioning me about second hand amps to just go with a more powerful amp like the Yamaha v2700 (which allows the extra channel to do bi-amping) or the Arcam avr 350 which has even more power and also does bi-amping. Both have had glowing reviews with the Yammy having more video bells and whistles while the Arcam being the more musical but with only HDMI switching. Odd that I feel a bit down at not being able to go the X2 route (going to China and thus no time to wait for delivery) since it means I will get a stomping good reciever in the Yammy or the Arcam vs the more modest CA 640R. Oh well I did enjoy the research and shop browsing in the meantime.

In your post you didn't mention whether the pro-audio crossovers like the Behringer COMPOSER PRO-XL MDX2600 would substitute the X2? any words of wisdom or do you think I'm better off learning to walk before I run and just stick with the simple Reciever to speaker route after all?
Thanks Roy

Roy, whatever you do don't get that Yamaha instead of the CA! :eek: I wouldn't even trade my CA 540R for the flagship Yamaha, much less a 640R. :p

I agree with Mike and Eric, hold off till you can get an X2, and if you have to wait for the X2, you'd just as well wait for the A1s too since they match the X2 cosmetically, and have a sweet little row (or bank) of lights on the bottom for the A1 that goes on top of the X2/X1 to illuminate the controls on them. :)

will the m6's play reasonably with a receiver this size? they seem like they'd take a substantial power supply. i've been looking into this(m6's) too, i have the same huge, bright room.

another q i have is, is there anything small that's remotely sonicly related that can be used for rears? i've been considering 3 of them (or an evolution center), but the way i have ot hang my rears, i'd really like to have something closer to the zero size... (the HT thing isn't quite as important to me as the rock...

btw, let me know if this should be taken to another thread, i know this is an owners thread, but there's just so much info here.

Based on your room size dimensions you gave in a subsequent post, no, I'm afraid an AVR such as the HK 24* series would not really be enough for M6s in a room that size. Yes, it would for M5s in a small room, but not in this case.

I'd say get an AVR or amp with at least a good measurable 100 watts per channel minimum such as NAD and HK for just a couple of examples, and preferably even more than 100 watts.

If you have a huge, "bright" such as you say, M6s really would be the best choice. That room would prolly be a little too big for M5s IMO.

Roy, whatever you do don't get that Yamaha instead of the CA! :eek: I wouldn't even trade my CA 540R for the flagship Yamaha, much less a 640R. :p

I agree with Mike and Eric, hold off till you can get an X2, and if you have to wait for the X2, you'd just as well wait for the A1s too since they match the X2 cosmetically, and have a sweet little row (or bank) of lights on the bottom for the A1 that goes on top of the X2/X1 to illuminate the controls on them. :)

Hi Mark, have you had personal experience of the Yammy v2700 with NHT? Obviously I know you have a CA reciever so we both agree it sounds great. Just curious why you are so definite about the Yammy 2700 because reading other threads and forums they seem to have a very dedicated following. I'd love to understand your viewpoint but anyway based on what you're saying I'll drop the Yammy (can't demo the combination here) therefore the choice will now be CA640r vs Arcam avr350. I'm told the Arcam beats the CA hands down but I'd like to see by just how much. If the difference isn't too much I'll go for the CA. The new lot of Arcam 350's have just arrived in Hong Kong. (They have a new agent because they lost their previous one.) The Arcam is likely to cost in the region of 2 to 2.5 times the CA so the sound had better be vastly better :)

I'm going to hold off on the X2/A1 saga for now, enjoy what I will be buying next week and look to further upgrades later. Anyway I want to see what Jack Hidley posts about the Classic 4 settings and continue my learning in this great hobby.
Cheers
Roy

Well Roy, I wish it was possible for you to audition them for yourself if you could so you could see (hear) exactly what I'm talking about here instead of just taking mine or anyone else's word for it. Who knows? - you might actually like the Yammy better than anything else!

I had a flagship Yamaha AVR about 10 years ago, 2095 I believe it was? Anyways, while it was OK for movies, but I didn't like it at all for music. It was what I believe to be the biggest buying mistake I ever made in this hobby. :o :( :mad:

For NHTs, I personally have always liked NAD and HK amps a lot (in addition to CA), and I believe that you will find that is the majority consensus opinion here among NHT owners, especially NAD.

John,

You're a smart guy. I bet you can figure out what is different about the 3C woofer over the Three or Four 6.5".

Impedance? Or did you redesign the VC (again)?

I'd say get an AVR or amp with at least a good measurable 100 watts per channel minimum such as NAD and HK for just a couple of examples, and preferably even more than 100 watts.

If you have a huge, "bright" such as you say, M6s really would be the best choice. That room would prolly be a little too big for M5s IMO.

that's kinda what i've been thinking. i actaully have the denon 2805 with an "advertised" 100wpc, but i'm guessing that would have to be upgraded eventually.

what about the matching question about the rears? does nht have any rears that are a relative match to the evolutions that aren't m5's or m6's?

An L5 is the rear channel speaker that matches the M5 and M6.

John,

Since the Three has an impedance of 6ohms and the 3C has an impedance of 6ohms, the woofer in the 3C must have an impedance of double the Three woofer, since the two woofers are in parallel. Also the 3C woofer has a slightly shorter voice coil than the Three woofer since there are two of them and they aren't used below 80Hz.

Well Roy, I wish it was possible for you to audition them for yourself if you could so you could see (hear) exactly what I'm talking about here instead of just taking mine or anyone else's word for it. Who knows? - you might actually like the Yammy better than anything else!

I had a flagship Yamaha AVR about 10 years ago, 2095 I believe it was? Anyways, while it was OK for movies, but I didn't like it at all for music. It was what I believe to be the biggest buying mistake I ever made in this hobby. :o :( :mad:

For NHTs, I personally have always liked NAD and HK amps a lot (in addition to CA), and I believe that you will find that is the majority consensus opinion here among NHT owners, especially NAD.

I've got the same dilemna. The Controller/Power5 combo is currently on the backburner (perhaps next year after all the updates) but I've got the green light from my wife to get a decent receiver instead. I too have thought about the Arcam AVR 350, but it is double the price of a Pioneer Elite VSX-84TSXi that I have been looking at. Any thoughts on this unit with the NHT 4's/3C/iC4 that I am about to pick up this weekend? I have a new Pioneer Elite plasma panel awaiting installation and apparently this unit syncs well with the Pio 84. So what is this Cambridge stuff like? I checked and we do have a dealer here. :confused:

I finally started pulling triggers on buying a/v equipment for my town home.

I've purchased a pair of NHT Classic 3's and a Philips 42PF7421D. I have a digital cable box, Wii, XBOX 360 (no HDDVD attachment), and a cheap Toshiba upscaling dvd player that has component, and hdmi outs.

My living room is 17' x 15' and the tv and couch are arranged opposite the 17' length of the living room. My listening habits are probably about 70/30 movies/music .

I'm looking for a receiver to hook everything I have (which isn't much) and plan for future addition. Eventually (next year) I’m going to get a larger tv that will display 1080p so that’s important. HDMI Switching would be great but if there’s no other benefit than not having to push as many buttons to switch sources it’s not that important. I’ll also be getting an HDDVD or the 360 attachment. Also, I’ll be looking at picking up a Classic Three C for the center and a YTBD subwoofer.

I’ve primarily been looking at the Denon 2807 or 2307ci. The upcoming onkyo SR705/805 also look promising. My price range is about ~1k but I wouldn’t be opposed to spending a bit more if I thought it was going to be worth it.

Also posted to the receiver forum. I also wanted to ask here about subwoofer to go with the classics. Possibly not an NHT. Looking to spend around $500 for the sub.

Thanks

Also speaker stand suggestions would be nice too. Black or cherry please. :)

I was told on the Yamaha 2700 forum that it should not be set to LARGE & SUB for BOTH to much bass for the THREE's??? I do not want to blow them out.. It should be set to SMALL and SUB to SUBWOOFER..... so I changed it.


Too much volume may blow a speaker, but how do you make a speaker like that play too much bass??? Just wondering because I have never blown a speaker in my lifetime!

Remember, there used to be a time when BM (or similar) was not used by nearly anyone!

I finally started pulling triggers on buying a/v equipment for my town home.

I've purchased a pair of NHT Classic 3's and a Philips 42PF7421D. I have a digital cable box, Wii, XBOX 360 (no HDDVD attachment), and a cheap Toshiba upscaling dvd player that has component, and hdmi outs.

My living room is 17' x 15' and the tv and couch are arranged opposite the 17' length of the living room. My listening habits are probably about 70/30 movies/music .

I'm looking for a receiver to hook everything I have (which isn't much) and plan for future addition. Eventually (next year) I’m going to get a larger tv that will display 1080p so that’s important. HDMI Switching would be great but if there’s no other benefit than not having to push as many buttons to switch sources it’s not that important. I’ll also be getting an HDDVD or the 360 attachment. Also, I’ll be looking at picking up a Classic Three C for the center and a YTBD subwoofer.

I’ve primarily been looking at the Denon 2807 or 2307ci. The upcoming onkyo SR705/805 also look promising. My price range is about ~1k but I wouldn’t be opposed to spending a bit more if I thought it was going to be worth it.

Also posted to the receiver forum. I also wanted to ask here about subwoofer to go with the classics. Possibly not an NHT. Looking to spend around $500 for the sub.

Thanks

Also speaker stand suggestions would be nice too. Black or cherry please. :)

I have the Classic Three's up front with a Yamaha 2700, and I am very happy with the 2700 with the HDMI 1.2a vs the Denon 2807 at 1.1 The way I see it when the new Denon 1.3 3808ci comes out I will sell the 2700 and go with the Denon for the HDMI 1.3 with my PS3.
I would look at HSU, and SVS for your subs, and check out the Yamaha 1700 & 2700 as well.

A touch warm in the midbass, a bit rolled off in the upper treble. I wonder if a bit more fiberfill would help. I can certainly see the difference in xmax needed for a midrange vs woofer as you need 4x to get the extra octave. I still wonder what a "mini-Three" would sound like with a 5" midbass and no focus on bass at all. Well, I guess that's more or less a 2C, but I think there's *so* many possible uses for the dome array that my mind boggles just thinking of them all. Verve needs the tweeter from the Three, I'll say that much.

I think the Xd showed that you can certainly do great things paring a 5 1/4" midbass with a 10" woofer instead of a 6 1/2" midbass with a 12" woofer if you get the execution right. The "2.5" would be a much better product thatn the 2, I think, though you'd be eating into the market for the 3.

But with that, I do think you've sold me on the 3 in a tower form factor, maybe with an additional woofer (I don't really know about the sonic advantages of that) with a matching acoustic suspension sub. Or do a Classic 5, essentially the 4 with sealed (and maybe opposing) subs. Either one! Can't promise I'd upgrade what with the stuff I've already invested in, but had it been available when I bought this stuff a year ago, it's probably what I would have gone with.

Although... why am I talking about spending more money on passive speakers when I shoudl be saving for my own Xd set? That's certainly my excuse for not saving up for a Controller/Power5!

FYI... BEAUTIFUL pair of sycamore 2.9's on the bay...

http://cgi.*********/NHT-Model-2-9-4-Way-Acoustic-Suspension-Towers-Sycamore_W0QQitemZ320106047867QQihZ011QQcategoryZ14993QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem

Since the Three has an impedance of 6ohms and the 3C has an impedance of 6ohms, the woofer in the 3C must have an impedance of double the Three woofer, since the two woofers are in parallel. Also the 3C woofer has a slightly shorter voice coil than the Three woofer since there are two of them and they aren't used below 80Hz.

That's what I figured. Sounds like the 3C "woofers" would be great as a pair in a set of Classic Fives. :)

FYI... BEAUTIFUL pair of sycamore 2.9's on the bay...

http://cgi.*********/NHT-Model-2-9-4-Way-Acoustic-Suspension-Towers-Sycamore_W0QQitemZ320106047867QQihZ011QQcategoryZ14993QQrdZ1 QQcmdZViewItem

Like those. Nice mahogany set listed too. Makes me miss the wood finishes...

How about the time he deleted all (meaning 100%) of the postings that he made on the NHT web forum. The reason that he gave was that he was "upset" that NHT would not pay him for all the time it took him to post the great news about NHT speakers.

Actually, that wasn't it in the slightest. I don't know where you got that. I was really pissed off about something, but I forget what it was now. Certainly had nothing to do with "payola". I was actually trying to get NHT to assign someone in the company to be the front man on their forum but it didn't have anything to do with that either. I don't remember what it was, but I *certainly* remember what it *wasn't*.

^^^ So which would characterize his flawed theories and/or cassumptions better, misinformed or ignorant? ;)

^^^ So which would characterize his flawed theories and/or cassumptions better, misinformed or ignorant? ;)

Refer to last post made here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10371935#post10371935

Which begs the question, then exactly what have you blown (other than your own mind)? :D


Refer to last post made here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10371935#post10371935

I am quite familiar with John. Just another equipment marketer (and booster).

How about the time he deleted all (meaning 100%) of the postings that he made on the NHT web forum. The reason that he gave was that he was "upset" that NHT would not pay him for all the time it took him to post the great news about NHT speakers.

I know plenty about speakers in general, and more than I (or anyone) should be required to know about the specific NHT models that I (or they) happen to own.

It looks like you have really sucked some of the air out of this thread (which may have been your agenda) in the past few days with your attacks on prolly the single, one biggest contributor to it, as quoted above.

While this thread has had more than it's share of healthy debate, which is usually a good thing, if you really feel that your 15-some year old NHT speakers driven by your awesome Sony AVR in your room where your L/R mains aren't even properly positioned (despite all your self-proclaimed knowledge on set up) are "low performance" (as you called them on another thread), and have nothing else to offer this thread other than your attacks, do feel free to avoid it, as you won't exactly find anybody begging you to stay here on it.

I don't know how to put this exactly, so I'm just going to say it.

<Rant on>

Would ALL of you guys mind ending the pissing contest going on? No last words. Just stop. It was my assumption that this thread was about NHT speakers. If you want to make it about something else, please start a thread elsewhere.

<Rant off>

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

It looks like you have really sucked some of the air out of this thread (which may have been your agenda) in the past few days with your attacks on prolly the single, one biggest contributor to it, as quoted above.

While this thread has had more than it's share of healthy debate, which is usually a good thing, if you really feel that your 15-some year old NHT speakers driven by your awesome Sony AVR in your room where your L/R mains aren't even properly positioned (despite all your self-proclaimed knowledge on set up) are "low performance" (as you called them on another thread), and have nothing else to offer this thread other than your attacks, do feel free to avoid it, as you won't exactly find anybody begging you to stay here on it.



I don't know what you are talking about. Do you?




Refer to the last post made here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10371935#post10371935

The "Injectinator" for the Controller is now up on the NHT site.

Jack, did you get the X2/Four settings yet by chance?

I don't know how to put this exactly, so I'm just going to say it.

<Rant on>

Would ALL of you guys mind ending the pissing contest going on? No last words. Just stop. It was my assumption that this thread was about NHT speakers. If you want to make it about something else, please start a thread elsewhere.

<Rant off>

Back to your regularly scheduled programming.



My only response on the matter in the future will be to answer as follows:


Refer to the last post made here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10371935#post10371935

So what is this Cambridge stuff like? I checked and we do have a dealer here. :confused:

The CA Azur 540R retails for like $700, but yet it has a toroidal transformer (the lowest priced AVR on the market that does if I'm not mistaken), along with 24 bit/192 kHz DACs.

Plus it has a great synergy with Evolutions and Classics.

The 640R is even better at like the $1200 price point.

CA is comparable to NAD and Rotel, with honest power ratings and putting the emphasis on pure sound quality over features and bells and whistles.

One AVR brand that IMO is not the best match with NHTs in general is Yamaha. I feel the preamp section of most Yamaha gear is too forward and too hard and bright on the top end (treble). Some people may actually like that better through. As always, YMMV

Well - today I just went ahead and ordered a new Cambridge Audio Azur 640R AVR along with a pair of NHT Classic 4's, the Three C and iC4's. Based on a recent audition (albeit with Focal Chorus 800V series speakers) the little CA sounds fabulous. There are some great reviews on the receiver just as there have been for the NHT speakers! Yes , I would have liked to get Three's or iW4's for the rear channels but they just won't fit my application. I will look at the possibility of adding the X2/A1's later if I find I need more grunt. I can hardly wait. :D

BTW... thanks Ken, Mark, Jack, John and others for your comments, feedback and recommendations. Much appreciated.

Congrats dog! I think you made a great choice on the CA AVR as well as the Fours. :D

If I were in the market for a new AVR, that one would definitely be on the short list.

The "Injectinator" for the Controller is now up on the NHT site.

Me likey! It would be really cool if I could use this with other gear too, but I'm sure that would take significant programming skill that I lack :(

Yep, the Xd updates are a pain in the @$$ at first, but that's just the nature of the beast I guess. :(

I wish NHT would come out with a 2 channel pre-amp version (no video stuff whatsoever) of the Controller with XLRs and maybe with a dual, separate L/R stereo sub output option at about the $1K or so price point.

BTW - here is the link for the injectinator:

http://nhthifi.com/2006/products/ht/injectinator.html

Hey dog, check this out about your new CA 640R AVR: :D

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2216/test-bench-cambridge-audio-azur-640r-av-receiver.html

"The Cambridge Audio Azur 640R was a pleasure to measure, as it consistently delivered expected behavior and declined to snap fuses, smoke circuit boards, or require resetting, despite the usual abuse. Better still, it also set new receiver benchmarks on test after test: perfect (yes, perfect!) scores for PCM-stereo linearity at -90 dB and real-world (dithered) signal-to-noise ratio (plus superb 96-kHz/24-bit S/N), best-ever excess-noise figures, and stereo output power that could probably sneak by on a "150 watts x 2" model. Multichannel Dolby Digital results were just as fine, and the Azur 640R did indeed deliver its full rated power with five channels driven before clipping — and very nearly did so with seven channels stressed. It's quite nice, once in a while, to have test-bench results (acquired, as always, after listening/writing is complete) coincide so well with listening opinions, reconfirming that maybe one really can hear a difference now and then."

Mark,

I'll try to get the X2 settings for the Four posted this week.

Hey dog, check his out about your new CA 640A AVR: :D

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/receivers/2216/test-bench-cambridge-audio-azur-640r-av-receiver.html

"The Cambridge Audio Azur 640R was a pleasure to measure, as it consistently delivered expected behavior and declined to snap fuses, smoke circuit boards, or require resetting, despite the usual abuse. Better still, it also set new receiver benchmarks on test after test: perfect (yes, perfect!) scores for PCM-stereo linearity at -90 dB and real-world (dithered) signal-to-noise ratio (plus superb 96-kHz/24-bit S/N), best-ever excess-noise figures, and stereo output power that could probably sneak by on a "150 watts x 2" model. Multichannel Dolby Digital results were just as fine, and the Azur 640R did indeed deliver its full rated power with five channels driven before clipping — and very nearly did so with seven channels stressed. It's quite nice, once in a while, to have test-bench results (acquired, as always, after listening/writing is complete) coincide so well with listening opinions, reconfirming that maybe one really can hear a difference now and then."

Yeah I saw the review last weekend - just the extra nudge I needed to help make my decision to purchase this little sucker! A most excellent showing on the test-bench! If you go on CA's website they have a link to a bunch of other UK and other magazine tests of the 640R- all of them favorable (see below). A great match for the NHT's methinks!!

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/product_reviews.php?PID=139&Title=Azur+640R+7.1+HDMI+AV+Receiver

Mark,

I'll try to get the X2 settings for the Four posted this week.

OK, good, because I should have my new X2 by the end of this week. :D :cool: :) ;)

Would you suggest using an X2 on Fours with a Controller Jack, or do you feel that they would be better off without the X2/A1s bi-amping them with a Controller/Power5?

Yeah I saw the review last weekend - just the extra nudge I needed to help make my decision to purchase this little sucker! A most excellent showing on the test-bench! If you go on CA's website they have a link to a bunch of other UK and other magazine tests of the 640R- all of them favorable (see below). A great match for the NHT's methinks!!

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/product_reviews.php?PID=139&Title=Azur+640R+7.1+HDMI+AV+Receiver

I'm confident you'll be happy with the Four/CA combo.

Someone else, I think it was Roy, was also considering this AVR to pair with Fours also.

I've used my 540R with both M5s and Threes, and it sounded great with either one. :cool:

An Injectionator for Xd would be a HUGE help to me!!!! (Jack!)

Anybody not understanding why they should limit discussion to NHT speakers....take a look at the thread title. We're lucky the company actually participates on occassion. Take the advice now or you will soon be looking in from the outside with no voice. Worse, people who provide positive, valuable input will just go somewhere else. Let's simplify, if you can't contribute something worth reading, maybe don't say anything at all. Fyi, I've already made a complaint to the mods, so they are watching you...play nice. ;)



Like Jack Hidley said a few posts back, why don't you drop it?



Refer to the last post made here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...35#post10371935

Like Jack Hidley said a few posts back, why don't you drop it?



Refer to the last post made here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/show...35#post10371935

Hey Einstein, do you even realize that you just keep on posting a broken link and/or a non existent post which you keep referring to? :rolleyes:

Congrats dog! I think you made a great choice on the CA AVR as well as the Fours. :D

If I were in the market for a new AVR, that one would definitely be on the short list.




I like that AVR myself. Are you sure that you like it?


http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/re...v-receiver.html


Test Bench: Cambridge Audio Azur 640R A/V Receiver

By Daniel Kumin
May 2007

"Speaker-distance compensation: available for all main channels, but L/R pairs fixed together"! :eek:

An Injectionator for Xd would be a HUGE help to me!!!! (Jack!)

As it would be to all of us with them.

mark russ, where do you see a spec that shows this receiver has a toroidal transformer? I don't see mention of it on the cambridge site. That's a good price if it indeed does.

Hey Einstein, do you even realize that you just keep on posting a broken link and/or a non existent post which you keep referring to? :rolleyes:



Sorry, but the moderators removed that "locked" thread after I posted the link (as you know very well).

Still, why don't you drop it?

mark russ, where do you see a spec that shows this receiver has a toroidal transformer? I don't see mention of it on the cambridge site. That's a good price if it indeed does.

How's this for a "spec"?: ;)

http://www.hifissimo.com/images/cambridge540r-inside.jpg

Photographic proof should suffice, no? :D :cool: :p

That's amazingly NAD-like on the inside (and outside). I would be surprised if there isn't a bit of DNA in common.

I'm confident you'll be happy with the Four/CA combo.

Someone else, I think it was Roy, was also considering this AVR to pair with Fours also.

I've used my 540R with both M5s and Threes, and it sounded great with either one. :cool:





Seems like your own model AVR (CA0540R) does not have individual speaker distance settings either! :eek:

Source material on page 23, Step 2 at link below:

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/AP191181AAzur540RV2UsersManual.pdf


Does that issue really upset you that much?

If so, you should really dump that "older" unit and buy a new NHT controller for your system! ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
The balance control changes signal levels (AKA relative volume) between the R & L speakers. The balance control does not set different time delays between the R & L speakers (AKA distance settings).

What is your problem anyways (other than lack of basic knowledge)?





Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass
It could be good to have, or it could be just another item that the average consumer can screw up. Well, at least I now know that there are new receiver options available these days. But apparently not old ones.

Funny thing is, due to my room my left speaker is about 2 feet further away than my right speaker. I am probably one of the people who could actually use that option for the distance setting for the R & L main speakers!



Or, if your awesome Sony AVR only had a balance control, you could help try to compensate for this obvious shortcoming by effectively moving (or shifting) the sweet spot of the stereo image to the more appropriate spot between the mains, at least for 2 channel.

But I'm sure your knowledgeable mind already knew this, huh?





To finish this insanity up, my speakers are a little off the prime locations because I have to work my way around a fireplace. Speaker levels are all calibrated to 75 dB, and the balance control is centered.

Your AVR (CA-540) sets speaker distances the same way my "awesome" Sony AVR (STR-DA4ES) does, so what is your problem anyhow? If I move over two feet to the right or left of the "perfect seating position", the imaging does not fall apart (at least with my NHT speakers). If your speakers only sound good if you sit in the "perfect" seating postion, then I suggest that you get a new set of speakers!

Seinfeld anyone?

Hey guys, how about going back and deleting the wasted posts and then we can go back to talking about cool stuff! 123 pages and *now* it gets testy? :eek:


I got rid of the one where I mentioned you. You should delete your response to it also!

Ignore it is, Mark, care to join me?

Actually, it is now you who are with me since I was already one step ahead of you in that regard John. :D

Trolls are just like stray cats, if you feed them even once, then you literally can't run them off after that, so we just have to quit feeding it entirely, and it will eventually go away to try to get the attention it so desperately seeks elsewhere. :eek: :p

That's amazingly NAD-like on the inside (and outside). I would be surprised if there isn't a bit of DNA in common.

Yeah, I'd definitely put them in the same league as NAD, only with maybe even slightly better pricing in some instances of comparable product models (much like NAD always seems to have better pricing than Rotel on their similar units).

I've read somewhere that some of their products are designed by former engineers from Tag McClaren (remember them) and Meridian, and also that Michael Creek helped them out a lot on some of their integrated amps, but I don't know how accurate any of that really is though.

Like NAD, they just seem to go with NHT like peanut butter and jelly. :)

I didn't chip in earlier as I've been away in Beijing China house hunting with the family. It's great that the budget goes a lot further in BJ than in Hong Kong. The Cambridge Audio 640R sounds wonderful with the C4/3C3/C3 combo. I demoed this some weeks back and found the music really mellow but with power. 2 channel music was via a pretty low cost CA 5XX CDP and for me it was amazing how much of a difference a CDP made vs playing music on a DVD player (Naim). I don't know enough about differences between a DVD and CD player but the whole soundstage and instrument positioning really dramatically opened up for me using the CDP. The dealer wasn't trying to sell me a CDP it's just that I casually mentioned I wasn't aware of the difference so he took a CDP out to show me. Both my wife and myself were blown away. If I've got a few schekels left after I buy my speakers & reciever I may well get one of the CA CDPs as well: truly remarkable. I haven't got any audiophile pretences or knowledge, just a pair of ears and I know what they tell me. I think you will be very happy with your CA 640R choice with your speakers. I'm trying to set up a listening session with an ARCAM 350 this weekend to see if the sound quality justifies the price difference with the CA 640R (cost about 2.5 time here in Hong Kong). Close to decision time hooray!!! :D

I'm using a Cambridge 540R with C3's/C3C/SuperZero XU's and it sounds wonderful! IMO it really is a great match with NHT's. I was worried about NAD's reliablility and I went with Cambridge....first unit made a loud ticking from the fan that I couldn't live with...returned for another that went into amp 'schizophrenia' ....all the channels ended up steered in the center..took that back too....and now have the first unit back after the fan was fixed....still in my 30 day trial but we'll see how it works out...but the sound is worth the inconvenience so far.

I'm trying to set up a listening session with an ARCAM 350 this weekend to see if the sound quality justifies the price difference with the CA 640R (cost about 2.5 time here in Hong Kong). Close to decision time hooray!!! :D

List price for the 350 here is 2x the price of the 640R. Let us know what you think. I have heard the 350 with RBH speaker and it is very good.
Allen

I foolishly thought I'd find something about NHT speakers in this thread.

I foolishly thought I'd find something about NHT speakers in this thread.

You missed the first 120 pages?

You missed the first 120 pages?Now that's funny. :D

Peter

Jack - Using your X2 xover recommendation with the C4s as a guideline, where would you place the initial X2 settings biamping a set of 2.9s - around 90 Hz LF & 110 Hz HF w/ 0 phase?

Thanks!

I have made my final decision for my 7.1 media room . N.H.T.speakers. Now my original set up was this: 3's for fronts, 3c for center, az's for side and rear surrounds and the mirage s12 sub. But after hearing superb reviews on the 4's I'm wondering if it's worth saving up for and get them for fronts instead of the 3's. My room is 100% made for hd-dvd, hi-def dish, etc... and what I look for in a speaker set up is clean crisp sound with the nice boom when need from those action movies.
I guess my question is, what is the difference I would be getting between the 4's or 3's upfront. My room is 13 x 20 enclosed and my Powerplant is the Pioneer Vsx-84txi 140wx7. As for the center and rears, I'm happy with these as my choices.
Any input folks!!!!!!!!!!!111 :rolleyes:

Well I now have my X2 as of today. Hopefully I'll get a chance to play around with it this weekend on the Fours and/or 3.3s. :D

Edit - Jack or John, if you have an integrated amp that doesn't have actual pre-outs and ins, like NAD integrateds typically do for example, but it does have a "processor loop", wouldn't this work just the same as pre-outs and ins for the X2/X1 in that the final signal it is being fed to power from it's main speaker outputs is the one which is high passed from the X2/X1?

I'm using a Cambridge 540R with C3's/C3C/SuperZero XU's and it sounds wonderful! IMO it really is a great match with NHT's. I was worried about NAD's reliablility and I went with Cambridge....first unit made a loud ticking from the fan that I couldn't live with...returned for another that went into amp 'schizophrenia' ....all the channels ended up steered in the center..took that back too....and now have the first unit back after the fan was fixed....still in my 30 day trial but we'll see how it works out...but the sound is worth the inconvenience so far.

OG, I noticed on another thread you said you also had a Panny SA-XR55. What are your thoughts on that?

List price for the 350 here is 2x the price of the 640R. Let us know what you think. I have heard the 350 with RBH speaker and it is very good.
Allen

For the double the price difference though, I would get the 640R and use the extra $$$ from the savings to also pick up a CA Azur 840A integrated amp to incorporate into the system for 2 channel and to power the L/R mains while using surround and letting the 640R power the CC and surround speakers along with performing the surround processing duties.

Not knocking the Arcam in any way, but I'll guarantee you that set up would sound better than the 350 for the about the same $$$, if the 640R doesn't already on it's own. :D

I foolishly thought I'd find something about NHT speakers in this thread.

You missed the first 120 pages?

Yeah, it did kind of go for a while there from a pointless, unnecessary pissing contest to now all of the sudden a Cambridge Audio lovefest, but at least in the case of CA, we are talking about driving NHTs with them. :p

Jack - Using your X2 xover recommendation with the C4s as a guideline, where would you place the initial X2 settings biamping a set of 2.9s - around 90 Hz LF & 110 Hz HF w/ 0 phase?

Thanks!

I would think it would be 80 Hz high pass and 105 - 110 Hz low pass.

I have made my final decision for my 7.1 media room . N.H.T.speakers. Now my original set up was this: 3's for fronts, 3c for center, az's for side and rear surrounds and the mirage s12 sub. But after hearing superb reviews on the 4's I'm wondering if it's worth saving up for and get them for fronts instead of the 3's. My room is 100% made for hd-dvd, hi-def dish, etc... and what I look for in a speaker set up is clean crisp sound with the nice boom when need from those action movies.
I guess my question is, what is the difference I would be getting between the 4's or 3's upfront. My room is 13 x 20 enclosed and my Powerplant is the Pioneer Vsx-84txi 140wx7. As for the center and rears, I'm happy with these as my choices.
Any input folks!!!!!!!!!!!111 :rolleyes:

I'm not at all familiar with that AVR, but if you're running Fours as large/full range without a separate outboard sub for movie LFE content, it had better have some serious power behind it to drive them.

You might have to eventually get an X2/A1s to bi-amp them with, or at least a high power separate 2 channel power amp.

I finally started pulling triggers on buying a/v equipment for my town home.

I've purchased a pair of NHT Classic 3's and a Philips 42PF7421D. I have a digital cable box, Wii, XBOX 360 (no HDDVD attachment), and a cheap Toshiba upscaling dvd player that has component, and hdmi outs.

My living room is 17' x 15' and the tv and couch are arranged opposite the 17' length of the living room. My listening habits are probably about 70/30 movies/music .

I'm looking for a receiver to hook everything I have (which isn't much) and plan for future addition. Eventually (next year) I’m going to get a larger tv that will display 1080p so that’s important. HDMI Switching would be great but if there’s no other benefit than not having to push as many buttons to switch sources it’s not that important. I’ll also be getting an HDDVD or the 360 attachment. Also, I’ll be looking at picking up a Classic Three C for the center and a YTBD subwoofer.

I’ve primarily been looking at the Denon 2807 or 2307ci. The upcoming onkyo SR705/805 also look promising. My price range is about ~1k but I wouldn’t be opposed to spending a bit more if I thought it was going to be worth it.

Also posted to the receiver forum. I also wanted to ask here about subwoofer to go with the classics. Possibly not an NHT. Looking to spend around $500 for the sub.

Thanks

Also speaker stand suggestions would be nice too. Black or cherry please. :)

For a sub with a $500 budget for that sized room for mostly movies, you simply can't beat a SVS PB-10 NSD.

It also has the about the flattest frequency response of any SVS sub other than their sealed SB12 Plus too for some occasional music listening.

As for an AVR at about the $1000 price point, I know this is prolly starting to sound like a broken record, but HK, NAD, and CA all sound great with Classics. You could prolly add Marantz to that list too.

OG, I noticed on another thread you said you also had a Panny SA-XR55. What are your thoughts on that?
Mark,
Based on one of your last posts maybe we are getting off topic here (not my opinion though since we are talking about what receivers/amps work well with Classics) but here goes:

I used one for a while with both C2's and C3's. It did a pretty good job powering both setups. If I wanted something really simple just for HT it would be my budget choice. It was pretty good on 2 channel too, but to my ears there was just something 'missing' in the sound....quite good if not played too loudly...but just not what I was 'listening' for, if that makes any sense.

Here is what all the first update for the Controller has:

• Added several Legacy NHT speakers (Model 2.5i, 3.3, 1.5, VT 2, etc.)
and new Verve speakers added to NHT Speaker Wizard
• Filter parameters are further optimized for all speakers in NHT Speaker
Wizard for even better performance with current speaker models
(Classic, Xd, Evolution, Architectural and Verve).
• Improved front panel user interface menu for easier use. Now the
display shows only Sources 1 – 5 and -> to Sources 6-10 with -> to
Setup and Mode options.
• Improved touch wheel navigation and proximity sensor for more
intuitive and robust operation.
• New feature called Maximum Volume setting added to user interface
under Audio Setup menu allows a maximum volume level to be set.
• Smoother playback when skipping CD/DVD tracks and changing TV
channels, etc. (no more hiccups)
• Improved auto calibration performance for more robust operation in
low gain speaker systems or absorptive environments.
• Fixed subwoofer level calibration (6dB hot on previous release).
• Several HDMI improvements for better compatibility with different
devices.
• Zone source names changed to match the analog inputs #1 – 6 plus
Tuner (previously associated with source memories 1 – 7 which causes
confusion).
• Tuner country setting now in Misc Setup allowing a single version of
Controller rather than 3 different International versions.
• Higher available maximum volume when no subwoofer is used (tower
speakers like Classic Four).
• Fixed headphone detection bug. Some Controllers used to detect
headphones when they weren’t connected and low frequency content
was played back loud.
• New menu navigation ability using front panel display touch-buttons as
well as touch-wheel.

The ones I'm most interested in in bold. :D :cool:

Mark,
Based on one of your last posts maybe we are getting off topic here (not my opinion though since we are talking about what receivers/amps work well with Classics) but here goes:

I used one for a while with both C2's and C3's. It did a pretty good job powering both setups. If I wanted something really simple just for HT it would be my budget choice. It was pretty good on 2 channel too, but to my ears there was just something 'missing' in the sound....quite good if not played too loudly...but just not what I was 'listening' for, if that makes any sense.

I've used one on SB3s and M5s in a very small room. Frankly, I think it sounds so good that sometimes I seriously wonder if spending any more $$$ is just a waste of cash.

I plan on trying it next on ST-4s by bi-amping them with it (actually, tri-amping would be more appropriate) with "dual amp" mode on the subs and a single amp mode on the upper frequency drivers.

I have made my final decision for my 7.1 media room . N.H.T.speakers. Now my original set up was this: 3's for fronts, 3c for center, az's for side and rear surrounds and the mirage s12 sub. But after hearing superb reviews on the 4's I'm wondering if it's worth saving up for and get them for fronts instead of the 3's. My room is 100% made for hd-dvd, hi-def dish, etc... and what I look for in a speaker set up is clean crisp sound with the nice boom when need from those action movies.
I guess my question is, what is the difference I would be getting between the 4's or 3's upfront. My room is 13 x 20 enclosed and my Powerplant is the Pioneer Vsx-84txi 140wx7. As for the center and rears, I'm happy with these as my choices.
Any input folks!!!!!!!!!!!111 :rolleyes:


anyone?

Rainman,
I have the 3's and If I could afford them I'd choose the 4's (I'm thinking seriously about upgrading to them). I don't care for a ton of bass, and for me the 4's would deliver all I'd want. If you factor in what a sub will cost you plus the price of the 3's, the 4's probably aren't that much more of a stretch. If you find afterwards that you do want more bass, you can always save up for a sub. My .02.

I would take Fours over almost any sub under $1200 or so. They may not go *as* deep, but they're more accurate and lower in distortion than all but a few and the integration/room balance is quite good. They're almost more likely to be a tiny bit too much for your room than too little.

That is what I am wondering, will the fours be too much for my room as compared the 3's with a sub. I've never had the chance of listening to the 4's yet, but I was definitely impressed with the 3's. I'm just not too sure?

Rainman,
I have the 3's and If I could afford them I'd choose the 4's (I'm thinking seriously about upgrading to them). I don't care for a ton of bass, and for me the 4's would deliver all I'd want. If you factor in what a sub will cost you plus the price of the 3's, the 4's probably aren't that much more of a stretch. If you find afterwards that you do want more bass, you can always save up for a sub. My .02.

Why are you thinking of upgrading from the 3's? any particular reason. My room is souly for HT, in your expierence are the 3's enough?

Why are you thinking of upgrading from the 3's? any particular reason. My room is souly for HT, in your expierence are the 3's enough?

So I can get rid of my sub. I'd prefer to have floorstanders vs. bookshelves too. I have no complaints with the 3's at all.

Why are you thinking of upgrading from the 3's? any particular reason. My room is souly for HT, in your expierence are the 3's enough?
What the Three's do, they do incredibly well. Note: I didn't use the usual phrase, "for the money." However, if you want full range sound, you will need a sub.

That is what I am wondering, will the fours be too much for my room as compared the 3's with a sub. I've never had the chance of listening to the 4's yet, but I was definitely impressed with the 3's. I'm just not too sure?

Fours are fantastic and many people who dislike the Threes love the Fours, mainly for the bass, of course. But they're also slightly more coherent and the bass is amazing for a tower and even for a sub. A little better match for the ThreeC too, I think. If you like the Threes, I can't imagine you not being blown away by Fours.

Fours are fantastic and many people who dislike the Threes love the Fours, mainly for the bass, of course. But they're also slightly more coherent and the bass is amazing for a tower and even for a sub. A little better match for the ThreeC too, I think. If you like the Threes, I can't imagine you not being blown away by Fours.

I am running a 2c with my Fours. I find they also match up well.
And, I have made it clear I love my Fours's :D

Mark,

I'll try to get the X2 settings for the Four posted this week.

Any luck on this yet Jack?

If you factor in what a sub will cost you plus the price of the 3's, the 4's probably aren't that much more of a stretch.

Not to mention stands too. :cool:

If you find afterwards that you do want more bass, you can always save up for a sub. My .02.

Or add an X2 and dual A1s. ;)

Here is what all the first update for the Controller has:

[I]• Added several Legacy NHT speakers (Model 2.5i, 3.3, 1.5, VT 2, etc.)
and new Verve speakers added to NHT Speaker Wizard

Jack, are there by chance any specific older models which are not included in this update, and if so, which ones?

I do hope VT3s are good to go.

I wonder if we can get an X1 that has a "20Hz" or "high output" switch on the back!

I would take Fours over almost any sub under $1200 or so. They may not go *as* deep, but they're more accurate and lower in distortion than all but a few and the integration/room balance is quite good. They're almost more likely to be a tiny bit too much for your room than too little.


Fours are fantastic and many people who dislike the Threes love the Fours, mainly for the bass, of course. But they're also slightly more coherent and the bass is amazing for a tower and even for a sub. A little better match for the ThreeC too, I think. If you like the Threes, I can't imagine you not being blown away by Fours.

John, have any of your clients added an X2 to Fours yet?

I wonder if we can get an X1 that has a "20Hz" or "high output" switch on the back!

Yeah, that's an idea, like maybe when in stereo mode since there is obviously dual subs to compensate for the reduced output, which according to SC1000's sweeps, really isn't all that much less anyway.

I am running a 2c with my Fours. I find they also match up well.
And, I have made it clear I love my Fours's :D

Just curious, but why didn't you go with a 3C? :confused:

Why are you thinking of upgrading from the 3's? any particular reason. My room is souly for HT, in your expierence are the 3's enough?

If you're doing only or even mostly HT, get the Fours and don't look back.

Again, you could always add an X2 and one or two A1s later if needed to tweak and custom tailor their bass response to your room and tastes.

John, have any of your clients added an X2 to Fours yet?

No, I usually would just sell them U1s with the Threes. Unless Jack can show me why this really makes a lot of sense because I'm still :confused:

Just curious, but why didn't you go with a 3C? :confused:

I wonder if the 2C would be wired backwards to match the AZ and Two? Have you played with phase? I don't have a 2C. Well, I will if the woofer ever arrives!

No, I usually would just sell them U1s with the Threes. Unless Jack can show me why this really makes a lot of sense because I'm still :confused:


Well, I went ahead and tried it this past weekend with an X2 and dual A1s on my Fours despite not having Jack's final recommended initial settings yet, but I did it with the high pass filter turned down and the low pass filter turned up so that there was no double filtering as Jack actually suggested a few pages back.

But, there are still master gain, phase, and boundary eq adjustments in effect.

I used a CA Azur 640A (V1) integrated amp with pre-outs in 2 channel only, and while I couldn't do quick A/B comparisons between that set up and the Controller, I used material I am VERY familiar with listening to on the Fours with the Controller. The Deq of the Controller IMO does noticeably improve their bass performance on it's own, but what it gives you is what it gives you, and that's that.

With the X2, you can control it and adjust it yourself to your tastes, which may be slightly different from what the Controller does with it.

In fact, I will go ahead and go on record right now before even trying Jack's recommended method and say that I think the X2 is even better than the Controller's Deq for the Fours bass performance, and it does help close the gap somewhat in bass performance between the Fours and T5s.

I wonder if the 2C would be wired backwards to match the AZ and Two? Have you played with phase? I don't have a 2C. Well, I will if the woofer ever arrives!

If you're asking me, and I'm assuming you are since you quoted me, sorry John, but I don't have or ever really even plan on getting Azs and/or Twos.

About the only reason I could ever imagine even possibly getting a 2C for would be as a center channel speaker for Xds maybe.

I meant for Milner's sake.

If you're asking me, and I'm assuming you are since you quoted me, sorry John, but I don't have or ever really even plan on getting Azs and/or Twos.

About the only reason I could ever imagine even possibly getting a 2C for would be as a center channel speaker for Xds maybe.

I could see getting it with the Fours/Threes if you were a) strapped for cash (although I'd say go without a center for a while and save up for the 3C), or b) needed it to go in a TV cabinet where there wasn't room for the 3C.

That's all I can think of.

I could see getting it with the Fours/Threes if you were a) strapped for cash (although I'd say go without a center for a while and save up for the 3C), or b) needed it to go in a TV cabinet where there wasn't room for the 3C.

That's all I can think of.

I could see it about the size issue, but as for price, there is only $100 difference in full retail between them if I'm not mistaken, which should be even a little less than that in "street" prices.

If anything though, it looks like the 2C would actually match the Three/Four even better than it does the AZ/Two. :p

Just curious, but why didn't you go with a 3C? :confused:

Space more than anything....the 3c cnter was just enough bigger I didn't think it would fit....

Yeah, that's an idea, like maybe when in stereo mode since there is obviously dual subs to compensate for the reduced output, which according to SC1000's sweeps, really isn't all that much less anyway. 'Reduced output' of -3db is soley a disclaimer by the company; you will not hear anything like that at all...you might however feel it. They're only asking $50 for the upgrade and your warranty remains intact. :D

'Reduced output' of -3db is soley a disclaimer by the company; you will not hear anything like that at all...you might however feel it. They're only asking $50 for the upgrade and your warranty remains intact. :D

Is everyone who did the 20 Hz mod running dual subs, or is someone doing only one sub?
I'm sure it's been mentioned but I haven't been taking notes.

Seems like if you don't play at high volumes, you should still be able to have one sub cover down to 20 Hz. But maybe not...

1 sub is A-OK...this is what I've been saying. Works perfect.

I think B2R was also running only one W1 with this mod too, and he also said it was much better. That's not just one, but two different people who have basically said the same thing now, so maybe there's something to it, and that the mod would also benefit U2, T5, and single W1 owners as well as T6 and dual W1 owners. ;) :cool:

Our HS60s, in addition to being gloss, have top plates that are smaller so they hide better under the speaker.

John,

Where would I find these gloss black stands you speak of?

TIA,

-E

I usually have them but I ran out. I'll have more or you can try anyone that sells Target. If they don't have them, they should be able to order them.

I usually have them but I ran out. I'll have more or you can try anyone that sells Target. If they don't have them, they should be able to order them.

Thanks, John. For whatever reason, I can only find the matte finishes 'out there'.

Hey John, someone recently asked me to compare the Fours to VT-3s. Just curious, but how would you rank the Four vs the VT-3 (and separately, the T5 vs the 3.3) in the same system as you compared the 2.9, Four, T5, and VT-2.4 before?

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.

Has anyone here wall mounted Classic Three's? If so can you post a photo? I'd like to see some examples of exactly how big they look hanging on a wall w/o having to just drills holes and mount them to find out.

I wouldn't wall mount a Three. Is there any other way around it? If not, I'd go with L5s.

Threes would look huge on the wall. What about iW4s?

Sure wish we had an "L" version of the 2C ;)

I just received my brand new Classic 4's/3C/iC4 & Cambridge Audio Azur 640R package today. It feels like Xmas day! :p

Sure wish we had an "L" version of the 2C ;)

I'd drop everything to buy some "L" classics as surround speakers. I'm sure I could find my current AZ surrounds a nice, loving home.

Guaranteed sale, right here. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Sure wish we had an "L" version of the 2C ;)

Screw that! I want an on wall "L" version of the Threes!

I just received my brand new Classic 4's/3C/iC4 & Cambridge Audio Azur 640R package today. It feels like Xmas day! :p

Congrats dog! :cool:

I'm sure you will be smilin'. :D

I'd drop everything to buy some "L" classics as surround speakers. I'm sure I could find my current AZ surrounds a nice, loving home.

Guaranteed sale, right here. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Same here, but it would also cut down on the sales of Threes though. I don't see why NHT would care though, cause either way, they still move a pair of speakers. :p

Same here, but it would also cut down on the sales of Threes though. I don't see why NHT would care though, cause either way, they still move a pair of speakers. :p

Well, it's up to them what classic speakers to build wall-mount versions of. If they're priced so that they offer comparable profit, who cares?

Plus a lot of us would find other applications for our surround speakers, so these upgrades would represent some truly new sales.

Nah, L5s opened up a whole new arena of speaker sales and a new version would simply reinvigorate the same group.

John- would a Krell 400xi be a good match for the Fours? i have been thinking of simplifying to an integrated as of late.

Cheers,

KeithR

I haven't tried one, but I don't think the Krell is but half the amp the NAD Masters M3 is for $300 more. I'd also pick a YBA Integre or a even the Controller/Power2 for an extra $1000. On a budget, I'd take a less expensive Rotel or NAD or Musical Fidelity. Nothing *wrong* with the Krell per se, but it's really "Krell Lite" and is just there to hit all those people that always wished they could own a Krell rather than really be *the* machine in that range.

John-
I have a choice between Carver A760x, Parasound HCA1200 or an Acurus 200x3 to drive my Fours. Which would you choose? I didn't realize (until recently) that the Fours are slightly less efficient than my 2.9's.

Either the Parasound or Acurus. Probably the Parasound by a nose. That's just me though. I don't like Carver stuff at all.

John- would a Krell 400xi be a good match for the Fours? i have been thinking of simplifying to an integrated as of late.

Cheers,

KeithR


I haven't tried one, but I don't think the Krell is but half the amp the NAD Masters M3 is for $300 more.

I agree with John here, the NAD M3 is a much better integrated amp than the Krell kvi-400.

I know you said you wanted to simplify, but allow me to throw another suggestion out there.

Obviously for the Fours you need an amp with a lot of power for bass control. Well, if you were to bi-amp the Fours with an X2 and dual A1s, you simply can't get more bass control than that. ;)

And since the A1s would be handling all the subs' power requirements for everything below 125 Hz, you could put something like a 50 watt per channel NAD C325BEE integrated amp on the top end to handle the tweeters and upper mid/lower mid drivers since it would only have to be driving everything above 125 Hz.

The C325BEE, X2/dual A1 combo would cost something like $1500 give or take a little, at full retail at that (street prices of course, as always, should be even less), and I'd be willing to bet this combo on Fours would top any $1500 - $2000 integrated amp you could put with them.

And if you think you might want real loud volume levels, go with a NAD C352, or for silly loud, the NAD C372 int. amps.

Just an idea. :cool:

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, did the Controller's new update deal with this?

Well, my U2s arrived, minus the back-ordered A1. I initially thought that wouldn't be an issue--I have a Pioneer Elite 56 TXi, which has 7 x 110 W, and I'm only running 5.1, so I figure while I'm waiting, I can use the extra 2 channels to give me 110 W to each W2 unit. BUT, 2 problems, and I'm hoping someone can help.

1) You can't set the "Rear Surround" channel to separately run off the direct amp inputs (you can do everything else with these channels, it seems). So I have to set it as "Multi-Room", which means hitting a switch each time I turn on the amp to turn on "Multi-Room" and also hit the same switch again before I turn the amp off (or it won't go off). Well, this work-around will work okay until my A1 comes in, and would work even better if I had a programmable remote, to set it to turn on or off Multi-Room every time I turned the amp on or off (further question below...).

2) Bigger, and long-term problem. The unit has preamp outs for each channel, and power amp inputs for each channel (which they refer to as "Multichannel Analog Inputs (MCAI)). But there are no hard-wired jumpers to disconnect, and no software switch that will allow you to jump from pre-amp out to MCAI's, which is needed to use the X1 to it's best purpose. I'm currently using just the Subwoofer connection and setting my front channels (in the AVR) to small, but I assume that is not as accurate as setting the front channels to "large" and using the X1 for the crossover control. This will remain a problem when the A1 comes in, because there's no easy way to get the power back from the X1 into the AVR. One work-around would be to bring it back in to the "Multi-Room" rear surround channels, as in #1 above. This would not be ideal, of course, but also would there also be a problem having input into the front channels without speakers hooked up (and they'd be set to "Large." I assume adjusting the "channel level" software setting adjusts the preamp out, not the power level of the power amplifier (otherwise I'd set the fronts to "-80 dB).

Does anyone know a better way to set this up with a Pioneer Elite 56 TXi?
I also have a Yamaha RXV2092, 100 W/channel x 5 (+ 20 W/channel x2)--old but good in it's day. I could switch the receivers because the Yamaha has jumpers for the front speakers, and use the Pioneer Elite where the Yamaha is now (running OLD B&W 805s which truly can't hold a candle to the Classic 3s). The only problem is that the Yamaha runs a serious multi-room setup through a separate power amp and has a nice 2nd remote for the 2nd room, which the Pioneer lacks...


I alluded to another question (I believe this is my longest post ever):
We're going to need a programmable remote for the HT (where the NHTs are), just because there's a lot of equipment and dimmable lights. I thought about Crestor until I saw the prices (a wealthier friend has one--little did I know...) so now I'm thinking of a Harmony 880 or 1000 (new!). I don't think I need the 890's RF functionality because the room is relatively small and we don't plan on closed cabinet doors by the equipment, but I'm open to suggestions... For those who haven't seen it, the 1000 (no RF) is rectangular in a landscape shape, with a much larger touch screen, and almost all functions are done via the touch screen (http://reviews.cnet.com/Logitech_Harmony_1000/4505-7900_7-32068854.html and http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/firstlooks/105/Logitech_Harmony_1000_Advanced_Universal_Remote.html).

Finally, I alluded to the Yamaha being old, but the amp running the multi-room is a Phase Linear 400, purchased used (but only a year old) in 1973! What stories that amp could tell... The best would be running 3 pairs of Bose 901s in a party at the Sala de Puerto Rico at MIT, a room that's about 40 x 80 feet and 2+ stories high. Remember that the 901s use full-range speakers with treble and base boosted a lot by an active equalizer, so it would be quite a strain on most amps, but that room was LOUD!

Peter

I usually have them but I ran out. I'll have more or you can try anyone that sells Target. If they don't have them, they should be able to order them.
Are you going to order more at the "correct" height, smaller tops, "Piano Black?" :D If so, I'll take 2.

BTW, anyone know of stands to mount Classic 3c's above a plasma TV? I could design one, but I'm not a welder and I'd think someone would already make one (large foot, plate on top being mostly forward of vertical post).

Peter

Are you going to order more at the "correct" height, smaller tops, "Piano Black?" :D If so, I'll take 2.

BTW, anyone know of stands to mount Classic 3c's above a plasma TV? I could design one, but I'm not a welder and I'd think someone would already make one (large foot, plate on top being mostly forward of vertical post).

Peter

I agree with everything in this post.

2) Bigger, and long-term problem. The unit has preamp outs for each channel, and power amp inputs for each channel (which they refer to as "Multichannel Analog Inputs (MCAI)). But there are no hard-wired jumpers to disconnect, and no software switch that will allow you to jump from pre-amp out to MCAI's, which is needed to use the X1 to it's best purpose. I'm currently using just the Subwoofer connection and setting my front channels (in the AVR) to small, but I assume that is not as accurate as setting the front channels to "large" and using the X1 for the crossover control. This will remain a problem when the A1 comes in, because there's no easy way to get the power back from the X1 into the AVR. One work-around would be to bring it back in to the "Multi-Room" rear surround channels, as in #1 above. This would not be ideal, of course, but also would there also be a problem having input into the front channels without speakers hooked up (and they'd be set to "Large." I assume adjusting the "channel level" software setting adjusts the preamp out, not the power level of the power amplifier (otherwise I'd set the fronts to "-80 dB).

Peter, those MCAI are prolly inputs for like a SACD/DVD Audio player for example, not actually direct pre-ins straight to the power amp section which by pass the AVR's pre-amp section entirely like on most typical NAD AVRs.

You will have to just continue using connection method #3 in the Evo manual as you already are for this AVR with the U2 set by hooking the sub/LFE out from it into the LFE in on the X1 with all speakers set to small, and the AVR's crossover at 80 Hz. This will work fine since you only have one A1 amp, thus not true stereo bass anyway. Frankly, I see no real need to use any other connection method for the X1 anyway for mono bass (any Evo sub system with only one A1) so long as your receiver or pre-amp has it's own built in bass management with a crossover available at 80 Hz. However the master gain, LFE gain, phase control and boundary eq on the X1 all will still apply.

As for using 2 channels of your AVR to each power a W2, I'm totally unfamiliar with that AVR, but be aware that a single W2 by itself is a 12 Ohm load, so if your AVR is rated at 110 x 7 at 8 Ohms, it might only be something like 75 watts at 12 Ohms, if that even.

And that Yammy AVR you mentioned, the 2092, I believe is the one I had back in the day. My cousin is still using it to this day, and is I think a good match for their Infinity Interlude speakers, which are really laid back sounding. :)

Are you going to order more at the "correct" height, smaller tops, "Piano Black?" :D If so, I'll take 2.

Peter

And I would also then take 6. :D

Peter, those MCAI are prolly inputs for like a SACD/DVD Audio player for example, not actually direct pre-ins straight to the power amp section which by pass the AVR's pre-amp section entirely like on most typical NAD AVRs.

You will have to just continue using connection method #3 in the Evo manual as you already are for this AVR with the U2 set by hooking the sub/LFE out from it into the LFE in on the X1 with all speakers set to small, and the AVR's crossover at 80 Hz. This will work fine since you only have one A1 amp, thus not true stereo bass anyway. Frankly, I see no real need to use any other connection method for the X1 anyway for mono bass (any Evo sub system with only one A1) so long as your receiver or pre-amp has it's own built in bass management with a crossover available at 80 Hz. However the master gain, LFE gain, phase control and boundary eq on the X1 all will still apply.

As for using 2 channels of your AVR to each power a W2, I'm totally unfamiliar with that AVR, but be aware that a single W2 by itself is a 12 Ohm load, so if your AVR is rated at 110 x 7 at 8 Ohms, it might only be something like 75 watts at 12 Ohms, if that even.

And that Yammy AVR you mentioned, the 2092, I believe is the one I had back in the day. My cousin is still using it to this day, and is I think a good match for their Infinity Interlude speakers, which are really laid back sounding. :)

Thanks, Mark.

So if I bought 2 more W2s (to run in parallel for 6 Ohms) or a 2nd A1 (probably better for my 13 x 15 listening area as 4 x 12" subs might be viewed a a little bit of overkill and considerably more expensive than the 2nd A1), it might be reasonable to swap the Yamaha down to the HT, but otherwise keep the Pioneer, use LFE, and leave it at that.

Peter

PS for John: my son graduates on June 9th, and the whole family will be in. Any chance of those speaker stands by then? Pushy, pushy, pushy... :D

Anybody read the Audioholics review of the Xd? I thought it was very well done and extremely thorough. I've owned the system for a year now and there is no other speaker out there near the price that I would take over the Xd. IMO, at this price point all other speaker companies are playing catch-up right now.

Thanks, Mark.

So if I bought 2 more W2s (to run in parallel for 6 Ohms) or a 2nd A1 (probably better for my 13 x 15 listening area as 4 x 12" subs might be viewed a a little bit of overkill and considerably more expensive than the 2nd A1), it might be reasonable to swap the Yamaha down to the HT, but otherwise keep the Pioneer, use LFE, and leave it at that.

Peter, just so we're clear, 2 W2s when put together combine to make a 6 Ohm load. This is why only one A1 is required in a U2 (or T5/B5) set, and it's rated at 250 watts into a 6 Ohm load.

One W2 by itself is a 12 Ohm load. If you add a second A1 to a U2 or T5 set, you really don't get all that much more power. An A1 only puts out something like around real close to 135 to 140 watts (rail voltage limited) into a 12 Ohm load. However, you do then get true stereo bass. It really doesn't make much difference on movies, but if you listen to any 2 channel music at all, it does make a noticeable improvement in imaging and more "fluid" (or "liquid") bass, and is well worth it IMO. In fact, I would highly recommend this for all T5 owners who haven't already done so if they listen to any music at all.

U2s though, I don't know about. I guess it would depend on how close each W2 is to it's respective L/R main channel satellite monitor. In fact, my office rig has a U2 set, and the inner side of each front-firing W2 cabinet is within a half-foot of the outer side of each main L/R M5. There is about 16" difference from the top of each W2 to the bottom of each M5, and the W2s are virtually right beside of the main L/R M5s so that front baffles of each M5 and W2 are flush even with each other. So this is about as close to a being like a "T5" pair as it can possibly get without actually being one, and I'm very seriously considering picking up another A1 to add to the system since 2 channel is the priority on it. ;)

I think a single U2 set is more than enough sub for your 13 x 15 room, but you could always add another U2 set if you wanted to and go for what the Harman white papers claim is the ultimate set up of a sub (a W2) at the midpoint of all four walls since you would have 4 W2 cabinets. :eek:

As for the Yamaha, from what I remember, it is Dolby Digital and plain old vanilla Pro Logic only, no DTS, Dolby PLII, or anything else, and it has no pre-outs and pre-ins whatsoever other than just for the main L/R, so I think you should just stick with Pioneer Elite if you don't add a second A1 to your U2 set.

I've owned the system for a year now and there is no other speaker out there near the price that I would take over the Xd. IMO, at this price point all other speaker companies are playing catch-up right now.

I agree 110%. I know I sure wouldn't trade my dual sub Xd set for even a pair of Revel Performa F52s at about the same price point. A single sub Xd costs about the same as a pair of F52s, so a dual sub Xd obviously will cost more than the Revels, but I figure that is more than balanced out by the fact that you get speaker wire and all power amplification included with the Xd. :D :cool:

Well after months of searching around for the best speakers for my home theater I finally settled on five M5s for my living room. I placed my order this past Friday and I expect I'll have them all in about two weeks or less. I found a good dealer who really knows the NHT product line and I'm thankful for that. I'll let you know how it goes once I get them setup in my home.

I can't wait! :) Thanks to everyone who helped me out here with all my NHT questions.

Well after months of searching around for the best speakers for my home theater I finally settled on five M5s for my living room. I placed my order this past Friday and I expect I'll have them all in about two weeks or less. I found a good dealer who really knows the NHT product line and I'm thankful for that. I'll let you know how it goes once I get them setup in my home.

I can't wait! :) Thanks to everyone who helped me out here with all my NHT questions.

That was a long time coming, congrats!

I looked in the owner's manuals for both the Classic 4s and the A1 amplifier.

I would guess that the minimum bi-amped impedance would be at least twice the nominal 6 ohm impedance listed in the Classic 4 manual.

So, is the answer 12 ohms?

Thanks,

just some quick comments on running 3s and having them mounted on wall.
my set up is one 3 center under the tv tilted up
my left and right 3s are sitting on top of the front left and right sub woofers
my surround left and surround right 3s are wall mounted, above ear height
my center rear 3 sits on a shelf above ear height
I don't care how large they are, I care how they sound in my room, the warden doesn't bitch so it can't be that bad.
They sound very nice.
Get what you want and put them where you want them.
caio

Well after months of searching around for the best speakers for my home theater I finally settled on five M5s for my living room. I placed my order this past Friday and I expect I'll have them all in about two weeks or less. I found a good dealer who really knows the NHT product line and I'm thankful for that. I'll let you know how it goes once I get them setup in my home.

I can't wait! :) Thanks to everyone who helped me out here with all my NHT questions.

Yes, finally! Hallelujah! :D

Congrats!

Now if we can just get Zarascan to actually get his system up and running! :p

That was a long time coming, congrats!

I wanted to audition a number of speakers before I decided on anything. I listened to a number of different products along the way. I started with the Klipsch Reference Series, then the NHT Classic 3s, the BG Z Series, then the NHT Evos, next the KEF iQ Series, back to the BG's again, and the HSU HB-1s before going back to the NHT Evos.

NHTs were the top performers in all of my tests. The KEF iQs were a close second (to my ears). The imaging with the BGs planer ribbon tweeter was very good but they were lacking in other areas.

I really feel that the Evo M5s are going to work out best for my less than optimal room. Some of you may remember that I plan to place the front three speakers in my entertainment center. The sealed enclosure instead of a rear ported design will be better in my entertainment center and and boundary compensation switch will give me a little control that other speakers don't offer.

I looked in the owner's manuals for both the Classic 4s and the A1 amplifier.

I would guess that the minimum bi-amped impedance would be at least twice the nominal 6 ohm impedance listed in the Classic 4 manual.

So, is the answer 12 ohms?

Thanks,

Hopefully Jack will clarify if I'm wrong, but they're still nominal 6 Ohm loads when bi-amped, at least the subs anyway.

I do know they are not 12 Ohms when bi-amped, but I suspect the upper portion of the Fours when bi-amped may be closer to an 8 Ohm load like a Three is. Again, maybe Jack can shed some more light on this.

I wanted to audition a number of speakers before I decided on anything. I listened to a number of different products along the way. I started with the Klipsch Reference Series, then the NHT Classic 3s, the BG Z Series, then the NHT Evos, next the KEF iQ Series, back to the BG's again, and the HSU HB-1s before going back to the NHT Evos.

NHTs were the top performers in all of my tests. The KEF iQs were a close second (to my ears). The imaging with the BGs planer ribbon tweeter was very good but they were lacking in other areas.

I really feel that the Evo M5s are going to work out best for my less than optimal room. Some of you may remember that I plan to place the front three speakers in my entertainment center. The sealed enclosure instead of a rear ported design will be better in my entertainment center and and boundary compensation switch will give me a little control that other speakers don't offer.

You made the right choice. I swapped out a pair of Threes for M5s in a situation very similar to yours (in a cabinet up against a wall, in a reflective room at that), and the M5s were far superior to the Threes in this case (pun unintended). :D

IMO, the M5 is the true gem in all of the current non-Xd NHT speaker line. :cool:

Refresh my memory, what sub(s) and amps or AVR did you have?

just some quick comments on running 3s and having them mounted on wall.
my set up is one 3 center under the tv tilted up
my left and right 3s are sitting on top of the front left and right sub woofers
my surround left and surround right 3s are wall mounted, above ear height
my center rear 3 sits on a shelf above ear height
I don't care how large they are, I care how they sound in my room, the warden doesn't bitch so it can't be that bad.
They sound very nice.
Get what you want and put them where you want them.
caio

Yeah, for surrounds, wall mounting a Three is much less critical than mains.

Congrats! :)

You made the right choice. I swapped out a pair of Threes for M5s in a situation very similar to yours (in a cabinet up against a wall, in a reflective room at that), and the M5s were far superior to the Threes in this case (pun unintended). :D

IMO, the M5 is the true gem in all of the current non-Xd NHT speaker line. :cool:

Refresh my memory, what sub(s) and amps or AVR did you have?

Nothing too exciting. I am using a Pioneer VSX-1015TX. Here is the specs sheet (http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pio/pe/images/portal/cit_3424/279393100VSX-1015TX-Tear-sheet.pdf). It's 120 x 7, or so they claim. THX Select 2. Eventually, I would like to replace it with something nicer but that will have to wait a while.

I also have a HSU Sub, the VTF-3 MK2, here's the link (http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/vtf-3.html) to the subwoofer. It's not a bad sub. It's good for movies but I have heard better subs (with tighter bass) for music.

So, is the answer 12 ohms?,

Huh. I'm stumped, I never thought of that one. I suspect that, with the crossover in place, it should maintain a 6ish ohm impedance at all the frequencies connected or disconnected, but not sure. Jack!!!!!

Heheheh, I just saw the Broodwich episode of Aqua Teen again and just made that connection :)

Movie is fun, but not worth $30 on a date.........

Heheheh, I just saw the Broodwich episode of Aqua Teen again and just made that connection :)

Movie is fun, but not worth $30 on a date.........

I started watching Adult Swim when they first started airing Aqua Teen Hunger Force, The Brak Show and Sealab 2021. Some of the episodes are pretty weak but there are a lot of good ones in there too. It's off-the-wall humor. I didn't get out to see the film, I figure it will be available on DVD soon enough.

Normally, I use this image as my avatar but AVS doesn't let you use avatars unless you pay them money.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v354/keysman/Other/broodwich_avatar_100px.jpg

It's just a name that I find I can normally use on the boards. Broodwich doesn't seem to be taken as a username on a lot of boards. :)

Hey John,

Since you're on the board, how about those stands (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)?

Peter

I agree with John and Mark. I forgot about the cross over networks. Speakers are after all frequency dependant beasties!

So, the 12-dB per octave filter slopes ensure that the amp only sees 6 ohm inside the band pass region of the cross-overs.

This is good news for me. I plan to bi-amp my Classic 4s with an Onkyo 805 and a Crown XLS402D. I expect the Onkyo will provide >130 watts to the high frequency drivers and the Crown will provide ~375 watts to the low frequency drivers.

I hope that will be enough for my 1600 cubic foot room! (10'x20'x8')

Thanks,

IMO, the M5 is the true gem in all of the current non-Xd NHT speaker line. :cool:


I sat down and played with my m5's and m6's in 2 channel. After some back and forth with the speakers I feel the M5 does have some details that the m6 just didn't pick up. In fact what I keep saying was the m5 was not holding the sound together and would break up some. Playing with the 5s and 6s I think my problem with the m5 as LCR was I didn't try the boundary switch for the center channel. This may have been my problem because the center is what I thought was giving up. Its no big deal though I have my m6 for lcr and the m5 for surrounds and I like the way they sound. But I will say, I could see how a set of m5 with a set of u1 would be killer for music.
Allen

Huh. I'm stumped, I never thought of that one. I suspect that, with the crossover in place, it should maintain a 6ish ohm impedance at all the frequencies connected or disconnected, but not sure. Jack!!!!!


It should only be so simple.

Here is a link to the impedance / phase curve for the model three. Not sure what the impedance is for those speakers, but the lowest impedance tends to count more as far as amplifier "quality" is concerned. The model four has a subwoofer interfaced with what is close to a model three.


http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1106nht/index3.html


I can't find a model 4 review.

Model 4 review, but no impedance curves.

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/1206nht34/index5.html

I sat down and played with my m5's and m6's in 2 channel. After some back and forth with the speakers I feel the M5 does have some details that the m6 just didn't pick up. In fact what I keep saying was the m5 was not holding the sound together and would break up some. Playing with the 5s and 6s I think my problem with the m5 as LCR was I didn't try the boundary switch for the center channel. This may have been my problem because the center is what I thought was giving up. Its no big deal though I have my m6 for lcr and the m5 for surrounds and I like the way they sound. But I will say, I could see how a set of m5 with a set of u1 would be killer for music.
Allen

Sweet. :D Since the xD is out of my price range right now. Do you think the U1 is a good sub compared to the other offerings out there in the market? There are a lot of different subwoofer choices. I know this has been discussed here before. I heard a Velodyne sub I believe it was the MiniVee. It sounded pretty good to my ears. I wasn't there to demo subwoofers so I didn't ask about it but I put it in the back of my mind to remember to look at later on. It was tiny and it sounded very musical to me.

You would probably need two of them though. I don't know. Like I said I wasn't there to listen to the sub so I didn't really check it out.

Sweet. :D Since the xD is out of my price range right now. Do you think the U1 is a good sub compared to the other offerings out there in the market? There are a lot of different subwoofer choices. I know this has been discussed here before. I heard a Velodyne sub I believe it was the MiniVee. It sounded pretty good to my ears. I wasn't there to demo subwoofers so I didn't ask about it but I put it in the back of my mind to remember to look at later on. It was tiny and it sounded very musical to me.

You would probably need two of them though. I don't know. Like I said I wasn't there to listen to the sub so I didn't really check it out.

I love my U1 but to be fair I've never heard any of the subs from the big names. Only other decent subs I've used have been NHT ported models, the SW12 and the SW1P. But the U1 has several nice features to recommend it, including the opposing woofers which minimizes cabinet vibrations, the flexibility of the X1 for bass management, and the fact that it is an acoustic suspension design.