no, i agree that those two plots look quite similar. what was weird though is how different the plot taken by the home theater mag looked, compared to these two.

http://www.hometheatermag.com/completesystems/407nht/index2.html

this one above that Mark posted, compared to the two I posted.

I see what you're saying now, hadn't before realized you were comparing to HTM.

Sample variation / quality control from NHT, maybe?

I see what you're saying now, hadn't before realized you were comparing to HTM.

Sample variation / quality control from NHT, maybe?

hmm. i wonder if maybe it was grilles on vs. off? i think both of the other two measured with grilles off. though not sure why the upper-mid and top end of four would react to the grilles so differently than the threes. anyway, since the other two agree, i will tend to think either it was grille vs. no grille (although that doesn't quite seem to match what stereophile said the grille should do) or just go with the other two, more chance the odd one out had something weird happen than the other two.

The three measurements of the Three in question here look different because they are completely different measurements. They use different test equipment, using different measurement techniques (MLS, swept sine), with different amounts of smoothing (both frequency and spatial), different measuring distances (5mm, 1m, 2m) and in different environments (anechoic chamber, normal reverberant room). Read the fine print in all of the measurements. About half of the differences can be found there.

Acoustic measurements are very complicated to do correctly and interpret. It would take several pages of text to explain all of the differences between the different measured results of the Three.

Just got received my pair of Threes in the mail. They're incredible. Would Absolute Zeros be a viable solution to use as surround speakers for a 5.1 and eventually 7.1 setup?

Yeah, but if you've got even the slightest inkling that you may enjoy 5.1 music (dvd-a or sacd) now or in the future, I urge you to consider another pair of Threes for your 5.1--there's not much native 7.1 material, so using AZ for the final pair would be reasonable.

mark

QUOTE=TwinTurboJosh]Just got received my pair of Threes in the mail. They're incredible. Would Absolute Zeros be a viable solution to use as surround speakers for a 5.1 and eventually 7.1 setup?[/QUOTE]

one thing i wonder about is how different the traces on HTM for the C3's are from the ones at:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/nht_classic_three/

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

Note that Stereophile always says it gets too much bass from the mic'ing technique, but never does anything to fix it or explain what the real results should be.

Besides sensitivity, another little gripe I have with the C3 is THD+N, which I view as ok but not great. Compare the soundstage C3 measurements to this:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/
particularly in the 50-100Hz region.

A sealed woofer is likely to have more measured distortion, but will be better in ways that aren't measured, mainly transient response. As I understand it, distortion measurement is an instantaneous look at the distortion, as in, there's no time element involved. Much of the distortion that is really audible is the stuff that happens *after* the note, mainly cone resonance. Distortion is more of a function of the voice coil doing its job, but you can get massive cone resonance and still have relatively low distortion. Also, distortion plot probably doesn't take into account the massive amount of sound coming from a port. In the case of the Studio 20 measured in Stereophile, the port noise in the midrange band was only about 20dB down from reference, which is basically 10%. The Studio 20 cabinet is also much more lively than that of the Three. And even when that is measured, it's not an accurate measure of total cabinet radiation, it's about as effective as the knuckle rap test.

A sealed woofer is likely to have more measured distortion, but will be better in ways that aren't measured, mainly transient response. As I understand it, distortion measurement is an instantaneous look at the distortion, as in, there's no time element involved. Much of the distortion that is really audible is the stuff that happens *after* the note, mainly cone resonance. Distortion is more of a function of the voice coil doing its job, but you can get massive cone resonance and still have relatively low distortion. Also, distortion plot probably doesn't take into account the massive amount of sound coming from a port. In the case of the Studio 20 measured in Stereophile, the port noise in the midrange band was only about 20dB down from reference, which is basically 10%. The Studio 20 cabinet is also much more lively than that of the Three. And even when that is measured, it's not an accurate measure of total cabinet radiation, it's about as effective as the knuckle rap test.

Those are interesting points, thanks.

As far as the Sterophile measurements of the Studio/20, that is from a 1998 review of what I assume is the v.1 speaker. Since they are now on v.4, I don't think we should rely on the measurements as being terribly indicative of the current generation product.

Note that Stereophile always says it gets too much bass from the mic'ing technique, but never does anything to fix it or explain what the real results should be.

true, i was ignoring that and also trying to take into account position avg (i had missed the major anechoic vs. live room and how different the GTM distance was though, which are prob very significant), it was more that the whole treble was dropped way down on the HTM test for the three compared to the four (and compared to the other two mags, but as jack said, ref to the other tests that might have been because i think they didn't use anechoic and measured from super close in. still weird how they would get the 3 and 4 to be so different, maybe they measured super close from a different relative height.)

As far as the Sterophile measurements of the Studio/20, that is from a 1998 review of what I assume is the v.1 speaker. Since they are now on v.4, I don't think we should rely on the measurements as being terribly indicative of the current generation product.

Of course, these days, you can't also rely on a subsequent version being better than the original, which is a shame. B&W Matrix 801s measure better in many ways than the current models that cost 3 times as much. I have to say that it surprises me that some speakers measure as well as they do and yet sound so obviously bad, so there's still a lot of missing things in our measurement techniques. On the other hand, I rarely see a speaker that measures badly that really sounds transparent. Good and/or interesting, maybe, but not transparent. NHT Threes, with the exception of little things, really sound pretty transparent. Not Xd level, but they sound very clean and lacking in major coloration. That, of course, isn't what everyone is seeking. I can't wait to see an Evo product based on some of the developments from Classic.

Yeah, but if you've got even the slightest inkling that you may enjoy 5.1 music (dvd-a or sacd) now or in the future, I urge you to consider another pair of Threes for your 5.1--there's not much native 7.1 material, so using AZ for the final pair would be reasonable.

The only music I'll be listening to on this setup is the background soundtrack for movies and games. So I'm more interested in how AZs would perform gaming/movie surround duty.

Of course, these days, you can't also rely on a subsequent version being better than the original, which is a shame. B&W Matrix 801s measure better in many ways than the current models that cost 3 times as much. I have to say that it surprises me that some speakers measure as well as they do and yet sound so obviously bad, so there's still a lot of missing things in our measurement techniques. On the other hand, I rarely see a speaker that measures badly that really sounds transparent. Good and/or interesting, maybe, but not transparent. NHT Threes, with the exception of little things, really sound pretty transparent. Not Xd level, but they sound very clean and lacking in major coloration. That, of course, isn't what everyone is seeking. I can't wait to see an Evo product based on some of the developments from Classic.


John - The Threes are one of the most neutral, balanced and transparent speakers I have ever heard. Note I didn't use the usual qualification, "at their price point." I actually appreciate them more now than when I first got them. I periodically audition other far more expensive speakers and always walk away a little bit smug, because of the flaws that I hear in them. :D Unfortunately the dealer where I got my Threes doesn't have an Xd set-up. How I would love to hear those things!!

Any time you want to stop by ABQ, bring as many discs as you can carry and plan on spending most of the day (and feeling longing as you leave). There was a dealer in NYC that had a demo set, but Roman bought them and I don't think they replaced them. It's such a shame that most dealers simply don't know what to do with them and sell the demos the first chance they get :confused:

The sad thing is that high-end speaker sales are driven by people that concentrate on tiny little flaws in a speaker, while completely ignoring gigantic ones. I don't know how that works, honestly, but, having been married, it seems like audiophiles are too in touch with their feminine side ;)

The only music I'll be listening to on this setup is the background soundtrack for movies and games. So I'm more interested in how AZs would perform gaming/movie surround duty.

In that case, yeah, absolutely, pick up a couple o' pairs of AZs. The only downside is that, as great as the Threes are, you might wish that you'd gone ALL AZs if music's out of the picture...they really are cool little guys. Plus, they wall mount a lot easier.

great as the Threes are, you might wish that you'd gone ALL AZs if music's out of the picture...they really are cool little guys. Plus, they wall mount a lot easier. Have to disagree; AZs are great as surrounds, but you have to run 3s at the front as they're the main drivers, while the rear/surrounds are in use only maybe 10-20% of the time. ;)

Just got received my pair of Threes in the mail. They're incredible. Would Absolute Zeros be a viable solution to use as surround speakers for a 5.1 and eventually 7.1 setup?

I'm very happy with AZs in the back supporting my 3s and 3C up front. But I don't do much 5.1 music. It's fine for movies/video games. Even music sounds pretty good, but I'm sure it could be better.

If I didn't have my rears on the sidewalls and my listening position against the back wall, I might be a little more particular.

I just picked up some AZs two weeks ago. I'm currently using a Velodyne SLR-3750R as my sub. I was wondering what crossover I should set my Receiver to. I'm also going to pick up some classic 3s and make the AZs my rears in about 2-3 months. I'll be keepign the same sub. What crossover should I use for those?

I just picked up some AZs two weeks ago. I'm currently using a Velodyne SLR-3750R as my sub. I was wondering what crossover I should set my Receiver to. I'm also going to pick up some classic 3s and make the AZs my rears in about 2-3 months. I'll be keepign the same sub. What crossover should I use for those?

I've done 100 Hz crossover with AZs and currently have 80 with C3s. Going 20 Hz lower in each cases reduces bass directionality but to my ears gives more even frequency response (U1 sub). Some people are going to prefer higher crossovers and some lower...

The Velodyne is a good size (10", right?) for use with the AZs but you might consider a second or bigger (12") sub with the C3s or you might not see a huge improvement.

yup, the 3750 is 10". It's pretty much last on my long list of components to replace (get the 3s, then 3c, then receiver upgrade, then ps3, then bigger sub).. and I might not upgrading it as I'm moving in a few months and I'm not sure how big the room this will be setup in.

A sealed woofer is likely to have more measured distortion, but will be better in ways that aren't measured, mainly transient response. As I understand it, distortion measurement is an instantaneous look at the distortion, as in, there's no time element involved. Much of the distortion that is really audible is the stuff that happens *after* the note, mainly cone resonance. Distortion is more of a function of the voice coil doing its job, but you can get massive cone resonance and still have relatively low distortion.

I'm not so sure that the C3 woofer's transient response, as you put it, is better than the Studio 20's. Take a look at
fig 8 here: http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1106nht/index3.html
versus fig 7 here: http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/628/index3.html

I'm no expert technically, but the spectral decay of the Studio 20 v.1 looks better to me in the bass region. Granted, they are on v.4 now and we don't know if it is better or worse. But combined with the Soundstage THD+N data on the Paradigm Studio 20 v.3, it is hard to conclude that the NHT C3 has more accurate bass; it looks to me like it could be worse.

I'm not a dealer of Paradigm or anything else and in fact probably won't pick either NHT or Paradigm for my fronts (though NHT is a possiblity for the inwall surrounds and rears), so I think I can be objective about this. BTW I haven't auditioned anything yet.

Several problems with trying to determine the transient behavior from those graphs. Number one, the problem will show up much lower and longer than the graph displays. Two, the Paradigm graph looks better than it is because the tweeter oil can resonance actually pushes the image down by the 6-8dB. The NHT doesn't have said spike, at least one that would show up on the graph. This makes it look like the NHT has more spectral decay, but it's just that you're seeing deeper into what it's doing, like, say, the top 30% of the NHT vs the top 20% of the Paradigms.

That doesn't necessarily make one better than the other, only that you can't really tell definitively.

Number one, the problem will show up much lower and longer than the graph displays.


OK so as you say, we can't tell much about the non-displayed regions.


Two, the Paradigm graph looks better than it is because the tweeter oil can resonance actually pushes the image down by the 6-8dB.

I don't see how something that might be happening in the treble is going to "push the image down by 6-8dB" in the bass region. But maybe that's my lack of engineering training showing. If you're going to get that technical, someone else will have to continue the discussion, not me.

I don't see how something that might be happening in the treble is going to "push the image down by 6-8dB" in the bass region. But maybe that's my lack of engineering training showing. If you're going to get that technical, someone else will have to continue the discussion, not me.

Think of it this way. You're 7' tall and try to walk through a 7' doorway. If you're just 6' tall, no problem. BUT, if you have a 1' tall had on, you have to lower yourself by 1' to fit. Thus, the top part of all these graphs is the biggest FR peak between about 500Hz and 25kHz. The Paradigms are very flat in this area *except* for that treble spike. This means the entire image is down 6-8dB that it wouldn't otherwise be if the spike weren't there. So that means you're not seeing the lowest 6-8dB of decay that will be seen on the NHT graph because it doesn't have a visible FR spike. It's kind of like two icebergs, except the Paradigm is hiding more of its bulk below the surface. So, ironically, the speakers that have the flattest FR actually look the worst in Stereophile's spectral decay.

Another misleading thing that Jack turned me onto (fairly obvious though if you think about it) is that if you get a 20dB resonance off a .5 square foot cabinet wall on a speaker, it is not nearly as "vocal" as a 20dB resonance off a 1 square foot cabinet wall. And since Stereophile just picks whatever cabinet wall is handy, usually the back, you really have no idea what the other panels are doing. So, the cabinet resonance graph just gives you an idea if the speaker is built well and only if you do some extra math can you get an idea of how much energy the cabinet is radiating. So that graph isn't all that useful either as smaller speakers will seem worse than they are and big speakers will often seem better than they are. Imagine a 2' square panel that is 10dB higher in resonance *and* has 4 times the surface area!

Think of it this way. You're 7' tall and try to walk through a 7' doorway. If you're just 6' tall, no problem. BUT, if you have a 1' tall had on, you have to lower yourself by 1' to fit. Thus, the top part of all these graphs is the biggest FR peak between about 500Hz and 25kHz. The Paradigms are very flat in this area *except* for that treble spike. This means the entire image is down 6-8dB that it wouldn't otherwise be if the spike weren't there. So that means you're not seeing the lowest 6-8dB of decay that will be seen on the NHT graph because it doesn't have a visible FR spike. It's kind of like two icebergs, except the Paradigm is hiding more of its bulk below the surface. So, ironically, the speakers that have the flattest FR actually look the worst in Stereophile's spectral decay.

OK, now I get it, you're saying the vertical scale differs between the 2 graphs. I should have noticed that myself before posting them.

One thing about these forums is that they're a good learning experience.

Thanks.

I don't see how something that might be happening in the treble is going to "push the image down by 6-8dB" in the bass region. But maybe that's my lack of engineering training showing. If you're going to get that technical, someone else will have to continue the discussion, not me.

Nothing complicated there. John was just saying that the Y axes in the two graphs use different scales.

The NHT goes from -18 to +6; the Paradigm goes from -12 to +12. The Paradigm plot goes higher magnitude because of the magnitude of the 25 kHz resonance. So even though something looks higher in level on the NHT graph, it isn't necessarily. You'd need to them plotted on the same scale to be able to do a good job of comparing visually.

NHT 3's and 3C front. Looking for rec. for ~ grand or less. Music first, and 5.1 HT. Big room 29x36. Will the NAD T754 be enough power? Does it lack HDMI switching? Other candidates? Thanks for the opinions.

NHT 3's and 3C front. Looking for rec. for ~ grand or less. Music first, and 5.1 HT. Big room 29x36. Will the NAD T754 be enough power? Does it lack HDMI switching? Other candidates? Thanks for the opinions.

In addition to the fine NAD here's another suggestion. If you don't necessarily need all of the latest video features of most mainstream brands, try out the Cambridge Audio Azur 640R. While it lacks in some of these latest gizmos, it truly has excellent power coupled with a pleasing, open and airy sound. I have one hooked up to a NHT Classic Series setup and the sound is fabulous on both 2-channel music and surround modes. It might come in at just a bit over your budget however. Highly recommended.

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/product_reviews.php?PID=139&Title=Press+reviews

Not to get off track, but if any of you eagle eye observers see one or more sets of special dark Xds being sold by someone who doesn't know that much about them (in box or out) and don't have the matching stands (except the demo pair), those were probably mine. Lost three sets, plus some scraps.

Controller/Power5 too, but no boxes or remote or mic. NAD Masters M5/M3. A few other things, but those are the big ones that might get sold on the internet.

Not to get off track, but if any of you eagle eye observers see one or more sets of special dark Xds being sold by someone who doesn't know that much about them (in box or out) and don't have the matching stands (except the demo pair), those were probably mine. Lost three sets, plus some scraps.

Controller/Power5 too, but no boxes or remote or mic. NAD Masters M5/M3. A few other things, but those are the big ones that might get sold on the internet.

Jeez, your store was burglarized?? I'm hoping you were insured?

Jeez, your store was burglarized?? I'm hoping you were insured?

It's just too bad that he didn't have a pair of highly trained German Shepard (or Dobermans or Rottweiler) guard dogs in the store when they came in. :eek:

Not to get off track, but if any of you eagle eye observers see one or more sets of special dark Xds being sold by someone who doesn't know that much about them (in box or out) and don't have the matching stands (except the demo pair), those were probably mine. Lost three sets, plus some scraps.

Controller/Power5 too, but no boxes or remote or mic. NAD Masters M5/M3. A few other things, but those are the big ones that might get sold on the internet.

It sounds like they knew exactly what to get. :(

I usually check ebay and a'gon at least every other day or so, and needless to say, I'll let you know if I spot anything. Keep an eye on your local Craig's list too.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was Mark ;)

Well, except that they left the complete VT3 system......

In addition to the fine NAD here's another suggestion. If you don't necessarily need all of the latest video features of most mainstream brands, try out the Cambridge Audio Azur 640R. While it lacks in some of these latest gizmos, it truly has excellent power coupled with a pleasing, open and airy sound. I have one hooked up to a NHT Classic Series setup and the sound is fabulous on both 2-channel music and surround modes. It might come in at just a bit over your budget however. Highly recommended.

http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/product_reviews.php?PID=139&Title=Press+reviews

I concur with dog on this one.

If that is too much $$$, consider the Cambridge Audio Azur 540R for like $700 to $750 retail. It has a toroidal tranny and 24 bit/192 kHz dacs, and is just flat out better than the NAD T753/754 IMO, and I speak from actual hands on experience on that. ;)

If I didn't know any better, I'd say it was Mark ;)

Well, except that they left the complete VT3 system......

Well I was on vacation last week. ;) :D

How much is the Cambridge HDMI model?

John - The Threes are one of the most neutral, balanced and transparent speakers I have ever heard. Note I didn't use the usual qualification, "at their price point." I actually appreciate them more now than when I first got them. I periodically audition other far more expensive speakers and always walk away a little bit smug, because of the flaws that I hear in them. :D Unfortunately the dealer where I got my Threes doesn't have an Xd set-up. How I would love to hear those things!!


Any time you want to stop by ABQ, bring as many discs as you can carry and plan on spending most of the day (and feeling longing as you leave). There was a dealer in NYC that had a demo set, but Roman bought them and I don't think they replaced them. It's such a shame that most dealers simply don't know what to do with them and sell the demos the first chance they get :confused:

The sad thing is that high-end speaker sales are driven by people that concentrate on tiny little flaws in a speaker, while completely ignoring gigantic ones. I don't know how that works, honestly, but, having been married, it seems like audiophiles are too in touch with their feminine side ;)

You mean to tell me that in the largest city in this country population wise, there is not an NHT dealer with Xds on display?

If true, that is pathetic, and it's little wonder they haven't really sold that well. :mad:

How much is the Cambridge HDMI model?

I think it retails for like $1300 or so.

It had some best ever S&V bench test measurement specs. ;)

John, just curious, but what would you consider to be the ultimate non-XD NHT 5,6, or 7 channel surround system?

Probably the new Revel Ultima setup. Best engineered analog speakers I've ever seen and the only one with really well matched center/rears of which I can think.

I think it retails for like $1300 or so.

It had some best ever S&V bench test measurement specs. ;)

7.1 and HDMI for $1300? Seriously? I may be making a phone call.....

The three measurements of the Three in question here look different because they are completely different measurements. They use different test equipment, using different measurement techniques (MLS, swept sine), with different amounts of smoothing (both frequency and spatial), different measuring distances (5mm, 1m, 2m) and in different environments (anechoic chamber, normal reverberant room). Read the fine print in all of the measurements. About half of the differences can be found there.

And that's exactly why one should only compare measurements between different speakers from the same source, and even then, it may be different over time.

In fact, if you look that the M5/T5 review I previously linked, they state in it that they had just switched over to start showing the "5 point listening window response average" that they have used ever since, but they also say something about it shouldn't really be too different for a good speaker from their older method such as I assume they used in their Super Audio review.

Bottom line though, in the same HTM measurements, the T5 bested the Four. ;)

Probably the new Revel Ultima setup. Best engineered analog speakers I've ever seen and the only one with really well matched center/rears of which I can think.

I meant NHT, but anything other than Xds.

7.1 and HDMI for $1300? Seriously? I may be making a phone call.....

Those CA AVRs are both IMO class leading at their respective price points in terms of pure sound quality for music, but they don't have all the bells & whistles features of some Denons, Yammys, etc. though.

Edit - I just checked, it retails for $1400.

Bottom line though, in the same HTM measurements, the T5 bested the Four. ;)

But they weren't remotely comprehensive.

7.1 and HDMI for $1300? Seriously? I may be making a phone call.....
It does not do audio through HDMI though.

I meant NHT, but anything other than Xds.

Depends. In a good room? I'd do Threes with a bunch of U1s. In a bad room, all Evo.

Threes/Fours provide a more involving sense of space, but really don't work in really reverberant rooms.

I'm hoping that there will be a new Evolution tower that is a) good looking, b) uses all metal drivers, c) retains targeted dispersion (or has a switch in the back). Or two versions or something. There's no reason to have plastic/paper cones in Evo with the Fours/Threes sounding as good as they do.

It does not do audio through HDMI though.

I'd rather have component for video and RCA audio cables for audio anyway and let the Hi-def player do the decoding. IMO HDMI is so overrated.

But they weren't remotely comprehensive.

Excuses, excuses. :p

That is the only source I know of that performed the same set of measurements on both models. ;)

Depends. In a good room? I'd do Threes with a bunch of U1s. In a bad room, all Evo.

Threes/Fours provide a more involving sense of space, but really don't work in really reverberant rooms.

I'm hoping that there will be a new Evolution tower that is a) good looking, b) uses all metal drivers, c) retains targeted dispersion (or has a switch in the back). Or two versions or something. There's no reason to have plastic/paper cones in Evo with the Fours/Threes sounding as good as they do.

I thought you'd prolly say Fours for mains and surrounds with a 3C along with a updated Controller/Power5 and dual W1s.

I'd rather have component for video and RCA audio cables for audio anyway and let the Hi-def player do the decoding. IMO HDMI is so overrated.
Yeah...let the player do the decoding, and then pass the uncompressed PCM through HDMI.....but I know where you are coming from.

My point is that the HDMI implementation in the Cambridge was just for video switching.

Usage will be 80% HT/20% music (probably even more towards the HT side). Any preference on (3) M5s or (3) M6s across the front and the u2 subwoofers or is the actual T5 and/or T6 system preferred?

I know in briefly reading this thread someone was saying they prefer the M5 over the M6 - any reason as to why would be appreciated.

Thanks

SCG

That was prolly me you read that prefers the M5 over the M6, but a few others have said that too, including none other than Jack himself.

But, if you have a huge room and/or sit further back from the mains than say 10 to 12 feet or so, then the M6s would prolly be the better choice.

As for subs, dual W1s, with or without the 20 Hz mod on their X1, is the absolute best NHT sub set up you can get (non Xd of course). ;)

In a carpeted room, I'd lean Fours, if music is a/the priority.

See, that's where I differ. I think the Fours are better suited for HT use. I just can't recommend a ported sub over a sealed one for music, which is why I'd suggest Threes with any Evo sub or subs for music if one wants the Classic series. :p

Although a X2 and/or the Controller's Deq will help them out somewhat. ;)

My point is that the HDMI implementation in the Cambridge was just for video switching.

Yes, I gathered that the first time.

re:T5 or T6 system i have them both for sale A1 condition will ship also

NEWBIE here. Local audio/video store has me interested in Classic 3's x2, matching center, zeros x2 as rears, and a Velodyne DD-10 sub, with a Denon-2807. Anyone have a similar setup they can comment on? Initially I thought it was weird to be spending so much of my budget on the sub, but listening to the system in the store several times I am pretty impressed.

OK, so the HDMI 1.3 equipment is finally trickling in and I am tempted by the Integra DTC-9.8 AV Controller, supposedly ~$1600. Does anyone know how this will compare to the Controller in terms of sound quality and can an update to the NHT Controller possibly come close to this feature set?

I am specifically drawn to the Integra DTC 9.8's:
- Four HDMI 1.3a inputs and two outputs.
- Dolby TrueHD/DTS-HD decoding.
- Burr-Brown DACs for audio, Reon VX video processing.
- SACD DSD mode (hopefully my PS3 supports this mode).
- It's only about a week away!

My current stuff:
- Classic Threes + 3C center and four SB2s with SVS PB10-ISD sub
- Anthem PVA-7 seven channel amp. 105w@8ohm, 140w@4ohm
- Optoma HD70 projector + 106" screen

Linky link: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10743635&&#post10743635

Those CA AVRs are both IMO class leading at their respective price points in terms of pure sound quality for music, but they don't have all the bells & whistles features of some Denons, Yammys, etc. though.

Edit - I just checked, it retails for $1400.

Key words are "retails for". I bought mine with the NHT Classic suite (4's, 3C, iC4's) and saved a pile off retail...over 20% alone on the CA unit. ;)

Well I was on vacation last week. On vacation in Albuquerque?? :rolleyes:

Peter

NEWBIE here. Local audio/video store has me interested in Classic 3's x2, matching center, zeros x2 as rears, and a Velodyne DD-10 sub, with a Denon-2807. Anyone have a similar setup they can comment on? Initially I thought it was weird to be spending so much of my budget on the sub, but listening to the system in the store several times I am pretty impressed.I have all of those speakers except I bought NHT's U2 sub system, because it matches the system well (and is cheaper than the Venodyne). It has an X1 crossover/processor, an A1 amp, and 2 12" subs in 14" cube boxes. People on this board prefer 2 U1's, which have larger boxes each with 2 12" subs, and 2 amps. That's a lot more money, though, and I didn't have the space for it. For $50, you can get the X1 modified to bring the base down to 20 Hz (still waiting for mine to come back).

Peter

re:T5 or T6 system i have them both for sale A1 condition will ship also

All right, I know of at least 2 or 3 of you out there who were looking for T5s. Here is your chance. :cool:

NEWBIE here. Local audio/video store has me interested in Classic 3's x2, matching center, zeros x2 as rears, and a Velodyne DD-10 sub, with a Denon-2807. Anyone have a similar setup they can comment on? Initially I thought it was weird to be spending so much of my budget on the sub, but listening to the system in the store several times I am pretty impressed.

The Velo sub is a fine performer. My only reservation about that is the Denon AVR. I would suggest a similarly priced HK, NAD, or CA instead.

OK, so the HDMI 1.3 equipment is finally trickling in and I am tempted by the Integra DTC-9.8 AV Controller, supposedly ~$1600. Does anyone know how this will compare to the Controller in terms of sound quality and can an update to the NHT Controller possibly come close to this feature set?

I am specifically drawn to the Integra DTC 9.8's:
- Four HDMI 1.3a inputs and two outputs.
- Dolby TrueHD/DTS-HD decoding.
- Burr-Brown DACs for audio, Reon VX video processing.
- SACD DSD mode (hopefully my PS3 supports this mode).
- It's only about a week away!

My current stuff:
- Classic Threes + 3C center and four SB2s with SVS PB10-ISD sub
- Anthem PVA-7 seven channel amp. 105w@8ohm, 140w@4ohm
- Optoma HD70 projector + 106" screen

Linky link: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10743635&&#post10743635

All I will say is that if your priority is more towards the audio side, the Controller hands down. If it's more towards video, then that may change the circumstances somewhat.

Key words are "retails for". I bought mine with the NHT Classic suite (4's, 3C, iC4's) and saved a pile off retail...over 20% alone on the CA unit. ;)

Actual street prices, as always, should be less. ;) I would NEVER pay full retail on anything new from a B&M dealer.

With that said though, even at full retail, the CA AVRs would still be incredible bang for the buck compared to their competition. :cool:

There's no reason to have plastic/paper cones in Evo with the Fours/Threes sounding as good as they do.

The crossovers in the Evos are much more substantial and sophisticated than the ones in the Classics are or the Super Audios were, and like Jack said:

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 crossover) you can't see from outside.

I know of somebody who did a DIY crossover upgrade to his pair of SB3s to an after market crossover that cost like $150, and that pair of SB3s will absolutely embarrass a new pair of M5s or Threes. :eek:

Still though, can you just imagine the next generation Evos with better drivers? They should really be off the charts! :D

On vacation in Albuquerque?? :rolleyes:

Peter


No, I think Mark should have made that turn their.
Allen

No, I think Mark should have made that turn their.
Allen

Mahhhhhhh, what's up, Dek? :D

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.

John, do you by chance know for sure, or can you find out maybe from Esa if you don't, if the update to the Controller did in fact address this since it wasn't really mentioned in the release notes here?

http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/ControllerSW-1_56.pdf

TIA.

Also, wasn't there a crossover upgrade for 3.3s at one time?

Rather than start a new thread for a simple question, I thought I'd find solidarity with my NHT comrades. Cutting wire for my front three (NHT) speakers -- is there any reason the center speaker wire length should be the same length as my left and right speaker wires? I realize it's all splitting hairs at this point, but is there a conventional wisdom/best practice guideline? I'd assumed I'd just go with the shortest length possible to my center speaker (it's ~10' for my L and R, which would be overkill for the center), but the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked....

The wires can be different lengths without audible issues.

I have all of those speakers except I bought NHT's U2 sub system, because it matches the system well (and is cheaper than the Venodyne). It has an X1 crossover/processor, an A1 amp, and 2 12" subs in 14" cube boxes. People on this board prefer 2 U1's, which have larger boxes each with 2 12" subs, and 2 amps. That's a lot more money, though, and I didn't have the space for it. For $50, you can get the X1 modified to bring the base down to 20 Hz (still waiting for mine to come back).

Peter

Ditto here, except the U1 instead of the U2. I'm thrilled with it; particularly the sub. I'm sure the Velodyne is a great sub, but you should consider the NHT as well.

I love my 3s, and the AZs are a nice complement for surround if you want to save some money or don't have the room for more 3s. I'm happy with them but readily admit that my energies are mostly focused on 2 channel.

... but readily admit that my energies are mostly focused on 2 channel.

As they should be. 2 channel rules! ;)

I recently have started to appreciate the Threes more since I have been spending a lot more time with them. I picked up a new Sony 970 34" tube TV since they are being blown out at ridiculous clearance prices and this will be the final opportunity ever to pick up a new Sony tube HDTV. I set it up in the room with Threes and a U1 driven by an Outlaw Audio RR2150 stereo receiver that has built in bass management.

I received all 5 seasons of Miami Vice recently as a B-day present, and have been watching a lot of it lately on that system, which is right now, 2 channel only. That was prolly my all time favorite cop show, and one of my favorite shows ever of any kind.

Every night without fail, my significant other will ultimately turn on the Lifetime channel where they will invariably have some tear jerking movie playing, and there on that channel that TV will remain for the rest of the night. Well I just can't sit there and watch that crap. I guess I'm just not in tune enough with my feminine side. :o (On a side note, companies who make and market AV equipment prolly just don't realize how much of their sales can prolly be directly attributed to second systems set up because of the lifetime channel). :p

So, I have been watching seasons 1 & 2 of Miami Vice lately on the Three based 2 channel system. If anyone here liked MV, the sound quality on the DVDs is excellent. They always had about 4 songs or so per episode of pop tunes of the day, as well as Jan Hammers always excellent backing scores on each episode, which seemingly always fit the "mood" or tone of each individual show perfectly.

Since I already have another pair of Threes I could use for for surrounds, I plan on picking up a 3C at some point for a Classic surround system.

If anyone needs any spare parts for some older models, check here:

http://home.comcast.net/~jhidley/

.... tell me again what I give up by using a single Classic 3 as a center (3's as mains) under a pj screen, compared to a 3C. Thanks

I don't remember us telling you anything the first time :confused: ;)

I recently have started to appreciate the Threes more since I have been spending a lot more time with them.
Since I already have another pair of Threes I could use for for surrounds, I plan on picking up a 3C at some point for a Classic surround system.

I gained a greater appreciation for the Threes when doing some late night, full-range, two-channel listening. It's almost like the Threes pull you into the music, illustrating why some people use the word "involving" when describing speaker performance.

As far as a the 3C vs Classic 3 debate for the center channel, I went with the 3C since its dispersion characteristics are designed for dead-on vocals and are voice matched to the Classic Threes. I was so impressed at the store with the 3C that I even contemplated three of them for a while, but the NHT engineers are a hell of a lot smarter than me so I went with the Threes + 3C. I ran three SB2s in the front, but no more.

I don't remember us telling you anything the first time :confused: ;)

You didn't, but I'm feeling a bit anal w/ my indecisiveness. But it is a good question others may be interested in as well.

FWIW, here is what the man himself had to say about the Three vs the 2C/3C as a CC speaker all the way back on pages 2 and 3 of this thread:

Why would you use the Three for the center channels? Why not use the 2C or 3C? The Three will work, but it will look funny on your TV. The 2C or 3C will actually have more output capability. Any of them will play plenty loud in an 11x13 room.

In such a small room, I would use the Twos or Threes for all channels, except the centers. In the centers, I would match a 2C with the Twos or the 3C with the Threes. For the low end, a Twelve subwoofer would be plenty.


When you place the Three on your TV, it is going to have significantly different low midrange frequency response than when placed on a stand. It won't sound the sameas the L and R. The center channel produces the highest average level of all the channels in a surround system, thus the need for two woofers. The crossover between the woofers in the center and the midrange is low enough in frequency that the lateral dispersion will still be excellent.

Even if you did use three of exactly the same speaker for the front channels, without a TV, they won't sound the same. The output from the L and R channels is being shadowed by your head differently than a speaker that is pointing straight ahead.


I wasn't arguing in favor of an MTM center channel. The 2C and 3C are both 3-ways with the midrange and tweeter vertical. An MTM center channel will have worse performance than a 2-way L and R in every way except maximum output.

The 2C and 3C are both designed to be either on top of or just below a large TV screen. The effect of the large TV screen is to increase the speakers lower midrange output. If you use the 2C or 3C on a stand without this extra baffle area (TV screen) they will sound thin. In your case I would go ahead and use the Three for the center since you don't have a TV.


The 2C and 3C are designed to sound their best when on top of a large screen TV. Given this fact, when removed from the TV, and put on a stand for use with a projector, they aren't going to sound as good. This is true of any center channel speaker. The designers can optimize it for on TV placement, stand placement or something in between. Unless the speaker has multiple crossovers (a la the M5/M6) it can not be optimiezed for different acoustic environments. The thing that is probably freaking you out here is that almost all other manufacturers will tell you that their center channel will work fine in both applications. They can claim this, but unless it has two crossovers in it that are switchable, they are wrong.

The only real way to know for sure if you like the sound of the 2C or 3C used on a stand is to listen to it. FYI, the closer the 2C or 3C are located to the ground, the better the frequency response will be. The ground will behave somewhat like the baffle that a large TV creates. If you put the 2C or 3C on a 24"-30" tall stand, they will definitely sound different than when placed on a large TV.

Well, there you have it. Thanks Mark, for going to the trouble to assemble these statements.

You didn't, but I'm feeling a bit anal w/ my indecisiveness. But it is a good question others may be interested in as well.

Good question, asked the wrong way. If you are setting up the center on a stand, like your Threes, then a Three will be *better* than the Three C because it better matches your fronts and has better dispersion properties, not to mention costing less. If you have a big screen or need low profile, then you go with the Three C

Mark,

Regarding the software update in the Controller. The bass management still works in a conventional way with respect to my comments above. ie, if you have two small speakers on the L and R and a sub, the L and R get stuff above 80Hz. The sub gets everything below 80Hz and the LFE channel. Also if you have two large speakers on the L and R and a sub, the L and R get all bass in the L and LS, and R and RS, and C. The sub only gets LFE.

The are some complications to making the bass management exactly what we want it to be. We are still working on it.

There was a crossover upgrade for the M3.3. It was only changes that improved the power handling of the crossover. No part value changes.

if you have two small speakers on the L and R and a sub, the L and R get stuff above 80Hz. The sub gets everything below 80Hz and the LFE channel.

If set to 80Hz, is that like a brick wall, i.e., infinite slope? Or is there a rolloff that is centered on 80Hz, and with if so, with what slope? Or is there a rolloff that is centered higher than 80Hz, such that literally zero signal below 80Hz goes to L and R and C?

Thanks.

All, what is the difference between the M3.3, and the 3.3? I have the 3.3 and one of my mid-range speakers was pushed in (not torn) by my 2 year old. I checked that link from an earlier post advertising new speaker replacements for varying NHT lines, but there were only speakers for the "M3.3." BTW, is there a method for "pulling" that driver back out?

There is no such thing as a 3.3. The speaker's name is an M3.3. M stands for Model.

It is easy to pull a dustcap back out. Masking tape may work. If not, you can use a vacuum cleaner if you are very careful. Turn the vacuum cleaner on. Very slowly move the hose closer to the center of the driver. When you are within 3-4" move it really slow. When you get it close enough, it will suck the dustcap back out. The instant the dustcap comes out, pull the hose away from the driver.

I'm looking at getting the Classic Threes next weekend and I'm wondering how far away from the wall and each other they should be. Also should I toe them in or keep them facing straight?

Right now I have a pair of Absolute Zeros 5 feet from each other and 7.5 from the center of my couch. They're toed in and face directly in the center of the couch. Would this work fine for the Threes (or the Zeros for that matter) or is there a better layout?

As they should be. 2 channel rules! ;)

I recently have started to appreciate the Threes more since I have been spending a lot more time with them. I picked up a new Sony 970 34" tube TV since they are being blown out at ridiculous clearance prices and this will be the final opportunity ever to pick up a new Sony tube HDTV. I set it up in the room with Threes and a U1 driven by an Outlaw Audio RR2150 stereo receiver that has built in bass management.

I received all 5 seasons of Miami Vice recently as a B-day present, and have been watching a lot of it lately on that system, which is right now, 2 channel only. That was prolly my all time favorite cop show, and one of my favorite shows ever of any kind.

Every night without fail, my significant other will ultimately turn on the Lifetime channel where they will invariably have some tear jerking movie playing, and there on that channel that TV will remain for the rest of the night. Well I just can't sit there and watch that crap. I guess I'm just not in tune enough with my feminine side. :o (On a side note, companies who make and market AV equipment prolly just don't realize how much of their sales can prolly be directly attributed to second systems set up because of the lifetime channel). :p

So, I have been watching seasons 1 & 2 of Miami Vice lately on the Three based 2 channel system. If anyone here liked MV, the sound quality on the DVDs is excellent. They always had about 4 songs or so per episode of pop tunes of the day, as well as Jan Hammers always excellent backing scores on each episode, which seemingly always fit the "mood" or tone of each individual show perfectly.

Since I already have another pair of Threes I could use for for surrounds, I plan on picking up a 3C at some point for a Classic surround system.


Boy I have thought about programing the lifetime channel off of my cable box. I hate that channel for sure, because like you when it is on I go and do something else.

Now MV with some phil "Air in the night" would be cool will have to look into that set.
Allen

Mahhhhhhh, what's up, Dek? :D


This thread sure slowed down while you where away.

You still planing on going down to Fla. in October.
Allen

bought 3s 3c u1 a1 and x1 with mod and alimnetall's piano black glossy stands. needless to say i am one happy camper. it's been a treat to go back and listen to things differently. but i have a question which maybe shoud be submitted to the receiver forum but it does concern the classics. i have a jvc rxdb10 receiver. it''s nearly 50 lbs thx ultra certified and sounds pretty good for a mid priced receiver and jvc at that. but i am thinking of turning it into a preamp and buying an emotiva lpa-1 amp (63 lbs at 125wpc). do you all think this would be a noticable improvement. you know how it is, upgrade one thing and then you want to do it all. i thought this might be as good and more thrifty than the cambridge 640r.
after all i think most nht ownersare value inclined.

You need an NAD avr my friend, perfect match for NHT speakers; get whatever you can afford, but any current model will do. Excellent speaker selection you have there; plus 20hz mod is so cool. Looks like you need some nht absolute zeros for rear/surrounds, and a second A1/W1 for stereo subs. Yes stereo...the x1 was made for that. :cool:

NEWBIE here. Local audio/video store has me interested in Classic 3's x2, matching center, zeros x2 as rears, and a Velodyne DD-10 sub, with a Denon-2807. Anyone have a similar setup they can comment on? Initially I thought it was weird to be spending so much of my budget on the sub, but listening to the system in the store several times I am pretty impressed.

Your subwoofer should cost about 1/3 t 1/2 of your total surround speaker budget.

There is no such thing as a 3.3. The speaker's name is an M3.3. M stands for Model.

Hogwash. It has, is, always will be the 3.3. M3.3 is just another way of referring to it, something that is only done within NHT headquarters. Kinda like saying "there's no such thing as Xd, just 'The Science Project'". Let's not get pedantic here based on what engineering calls things.

I'm looking at getting the Classic Threes next weekend and I'm wondering how far away from the wall and each other they should be. Also should I toe them in or keep them facing straight?

The front of any speaker should be 2.5-3' (or more is fine) away from any wall or large reflective object. As for toeing in, that is a personal choice since the dispersion of the speakers is so smooth that the only thing that will really change is a slight increase in spaciousness and decrease in image focus if toed out more.

Right now I have a pair of Absolute Zeros 5 feet from each other and 7.5 from the center of my couch. They're toed in and face directly in the center of the couch. Would this work fine for the Threes (or the Zeros for that matter) or is there a better layout?

That's pretty good. You can actually place them a bit further apart if you're a soundstaging fan and can give up a bit of sweetspot, but that's a good, solid setup. If it's 5.1 mainly, I'd spread them out a bit.

bought 3s 3c u1 a1 and x1 with mod and alimnetall's piano black glossy stands. needless to say i am one happy camper. it's been a treat to go back and listen to things differently. but i have a question which maybe shoud be submitted to the receiver forum but it does concern the classics. i have a jvc rxdb10 receiver. it''s nearly 50 lbs thx ultra certified and sounds pretty good for a mid priced receiver and jvc at that. but i am thinking of turning it into a preamp and buying an emotiva lpa-1 amp (63 lbs at 125wpc). do you all think this would be a noticable improvement. you know how it is, upgrade one thing and then you want to do it all. i thought this might be as good and more thrifty than the cambridge 640r.
after all i think most nht ownersare value inclined.

Well, look, I don't know the JVC as I really don't pay attention to them at all. The reality is that, if you're not focused on it, most decent gear is pretty darn similar. You can swap it but I probably wouldn't. For instance, going to a front projection system will give you a bigger performance upgrade than most electronics. Or adding some wall treatments, ditching your glass coffee table or moving your couch forward away from the wall. Or maybe even putting sand in your speaker stands. SO......the reality is, changing the gear should be the thing you do *after* you've tweaked your system and do it when you realize that spending that much more money on speakers really wouldn't get you the sound you want.

You need an NAD avr my friend, perfect match for NHT speakers; get whatever you can afford, but any current model will do. Excellent speaker selection you have there; plus 20hz mod is so cool. Looks like you need some nht absolute zeros for rear/surrounds, and a second A1/W1 for stereo subs. Yes stereo...the x1 was made for that. :cool:

Well, at this point, it does make sense to wait for the latest series coming in August (fingers crossed) if you want NAD.

Good question, asked the wrong way. If you are setting up the center on a stand, like your Threes, then a Three will be *better* than the Three C because it better matches your fronts and has better dispersion properties, not to mention costing less. If you have a big screen or need low profile, then you go with the Three C

And to elaborate on that further, as Jack also confirmed, if you use a 3C, it will actually have better response under the TV (closer to the ground).

If set to 80Hz, is that like a brick wall, i.e., infinite slope? Or is there a rolloff that is centered on 80Hz, and with if so, with what slope? Or is there a rolloff that is centered higher than 80Hz, such that literally zero signal below 80Hz goes to L and R and C?

Thanks.

It won't be a "brick wall', more than likely a 12 db slope if I had to guess.

I'm looking at getting the Classic Threes next weekend and I'm wondering how far away from the wall and each other they should be. Also should I toe them in or keep them facing straight?

Right now I have a pair of Absolute Zeros 5 feet from each other and 7.5 from the center of my couch. They're toed in and face directly in the center of the couch. Would this work fine for the Threes (or the Zeros for that matter) or is there a better layout?


The front of any speaker should be 2.5-3' (or more is fine) away from any wall or large reflective object. As for toeing in, that is a personal choice since the dispersion of the speakers is so smooth that the only thing that will really change is a slight increase in spaciousness and decrease in image focus if toed out more.

That's pretty good. You can actually place them a bit further apart if you're a soundstaging fan and can give up a bit of sweetspot, but that's a good, solid setup. If it's 5.1 mainly, I'd spread them out a bit.

I personally do like them better with a little toe in. Like the M5s, the Threes (when toed in slightly) image so well that if you are sitting in the dead center sweet spot, you don't really have to have a CC. ;)

As John said, it sounds like you already have it pretty much covered.

Boy I have thought about programing the lifetime channel off of my cable box. I hate that channel for sure, because like you when it is on I go and do something else.

Yeah, I feel your pain bro (or is it that you feel mine?). :o

All in all though, I guess I can't complain too much since she doesn't raise too much hell about me having multiple systems around the house, especially when she says that all the speakers sound just the same to her. :p

Now MV with some phil "Air in the night" would be cool will have to look into that set.
Allen

Phil was also in an episode. So was Ted Nugent, Gene Simmons, etc., etc., etc. Virtually every episode had a guest star or two. In fact, the Ted Nugent episode has prolly been my absolute favorite one so far.

But just in general, it has re-exposed me to some music that I normally wouldn't listen to otherwise, such as the Pointer sisters and Aretha Franklin for a couple of examples, and it's on non-hard rock music IMO where the Classics shine better.

As for tube TVs, when I had my Fours, they didn't affect the picture any whatsoever, even when they right up beside of the TV, but the T5s did cause some very noticeable discoloration, even when they were at least 18" away like the manual states. So I can only conclude that the Evo sub magnets are much more substantial the ones in the Four's subs, cause if I remember correctly, the Four's were not supposed to be magnetically shielded either.

It won't be a "brick wall', more than likely a 12 db slope if I had to guess.

Thanks, Mark.

This thread sure slowed down while you where away.

You still planing on going down to Fla. in October.
Allen

So far, so good, and Oct. will be here before we know it. July is already half gone. Just think, another Holiday season and New Year's will on us again before we know it. :o

Thanks, Mark.

You're welcome, but that 12 db slope per octave was just a guess. I don't know for sure, and I don't think it's really specified in the manual or specs either.

but i am thinking of turning it into a preamp and buying an emotiva lpa-1 amp (63 lbs at 125wpc). do you all think this would be a noticable improvement.

How much is that amp, like $399 shipped, or something ridiculous like that? I say go for it! Frankly, you would be hard pressed to make a bigger bang for the buck improvement in your current system. :)

Mark,

Regarding the software update in the Controller. The bass management still works in a conventional way with respect to my comments above. ie, if you have two small speakers on the L and R and a sub, the L and R get stuff above 80Hz. The sub gets everything below 80Hz and the LFE channel. Also if you have two large speakers on the L and R and a sub, the L and R get all bass in the L and LS, and R and RS, and C. The sub only gets LFE.

The are some complications to making the bass management exactly what we want it to be. We are still working on it.

There was a crossover upgrade for the M3.3. It was only changes that improved the power handling of the crossover. No part value changes.

Thanks, Jack.

Rather than start a new thread for a simple question, I thought I'd find solidarity with my NHT comrades. Cutting wire for my front three (NHT) speakers -- is there any reason the center speaker wire length should be the same length as my left and right speaker wires? I realize it's all splitting hairs at this point, but is there a conventional wisdom/best practice guideline? I'd assumed I'd just go with the shortest length possible to my center speaker (it's ~10' for my L and R, which would be overkill for the center), but the only dumb question is the one that isn't asked....

It might not matter, but I like having my CC and main L/R speaker's wire all the exact same length, as well as matching surrounds' all being the same (relative to each other) as well.

Kinda like saying "there's no such thing as Xd, just 'The Science Project'".

So if Xds were called "The Science Project" and NHT does in fact recommend a 6.1 array of them like shown on the Xd HT page of the web site, would this count as something "objective" about reversals on 6.1 systems? :p :D

i have a question for the u1 owners or anybody else that has first hand experience with them. i'm aware that room/contents will dictate placement of it (my room is 22' wide, 17' long with 13' cathedral ceilings totally carpeted with drapes) but i was wondering how liberal you could be with it? is it possible to put it in line with front speakers; how close to wall 1 or 2 feet; or somewhere out in the room? i don't want to start a range war here i just thought some with personal experience could give me some kind of idea on the placement capabilities of the u1.

It might not matter, but I like having my CC and main L/R speaker's wire all the exact same length, as well as matching surrounds' all being the same (relative to each other) as well.

Someone here, a couple of years ago, one of the local EE posted something that talked about the speed of light through the wires I am sure you get the picture. But the thing is at the speeds he posted you would have to have your speakers wires like 300 or 3000 feet different in legths to maybe even hear a difference. But like Mark said I run mine the same length.

But at the price I paid for them from Impact Acoustic they where cheap for 3 all ready made with bannan plugs 14' long they where $50.00 or $60.00 shipped and well made.
Allen

like Mark said I run mine the same length.

I have read that speaker cables (combination of length and gauge) are the overwhelming factor in determining system damping factor. Since people pay up for quality amps in part to get high damping factors, imho it makes sense to use as short a cable as possible, even if that means uneven lengths (and uneven damping factors for the different speakers).

Some of you guys may remember that I brought home the C3s for a few days last Summer and while I liked them, there were some things about them I didn't like.

I have them in my house again, this time with the grilles, which were missing last time. The grille seems to really take the edge of the highs and upper midrange which bothered me last time.

They still have more detail than my Mirage M3s and image really well.
They could fill the room better though.

My wife and I have decided that will will be taking down the real pine paneling in the den as well as the 12' or so of brick that is on the sidewall. She doesn't really like the paneling and I think drywall will be better acoustically.
There is a bit of an echo at the rear of the room which I think the NHTs DON"T
like.

I put in the Killers "Mr. Brightside" and it sounded like a**. His vocals were hollow and the C3s showed up this poorly recorded cd. It was pretty much unlistenable.
Very strident.

I am going to spend a few more days with them, but I think this demo is still making lean the C4s or something else. The C3s do sound worlds better with the
grilles on and my room is definitely a problem.

They could fill the room better though.

How big is the room and how many watts per ch are you driving them with?

i have a question for the u1 owners or anybody else that has first hand experience with them. i'm aware that room/contents will dictate placement of it (my room is 22' wide, 17' long with 13' cathedral ceilings totally carpeted with drapes) but i was wondering how liberal you could be with it? is it possible to put it in line with front speakers; how close to wall 1 or 2 feet; or somewhere out in the room? i don't want to start a range war here i just thought some with personal experience could give me some kind of idea on the placement capabilities of the u1.

As always, the first thing one should do is to check the manual:

http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/EvolutionUserGuide.pdf

specifically section 3.6 where you will find that NHT recommends at least 4' between any driver and the wall for a W1.

Plus, the X1's boundary eq control gives you tremendous flexibility on placement, where you can dial it in properly under virtually any circumstance. This is covered, along with diagrams/illustrations in the boundary eq part of section 8.3 in the Evo manual.

Some of you guys may remember that I brought home the C3s for a few days last Summer and while I liked them, there were some things about them I didn't like.

I have them in my house again, this time with the grilles, which were missing last time. The grille seems to really take the edge of the highs and upper midrange which bothered me last time.

They still have more detail than my Mirage M3s and image really well.
They could fill the room better though.

My wife and I have decided that will will be taking down the real pine paneling in the den as well as the 12' or so of brick that is on the sidewall. She doesn't really like the paneling and I think drywall will be better acoustically.
There is a bit of an echo at the rear of the room which I think the NHTs DON"T
like.

I put in the Killers "Mr. Brightside" and it sounded like a**. His vocals were hollow and the C3s showed up this poorly recorded cd. It was pretty much unlistenable.
Very strident.

I am going to spend a few more days with them, but I think this demo is still making lean the C4s or something else. The C3s do sound worlds better with the
grilles on and my room is definitely a problem.

Yeah, I remember. While I'm not familiar with your particular model of Mirages offhand, the Mirages I've heard before were warmer sounding speakers in general, and if you are used to them, then it's little wonder you find the Threes to sound bright to you.

Since you find the Classics too bright for your tastes, you might want to consider trying warmer sounding (IMO of course) used SB-3s/ST-4s instead. The only problem with them is that they never really had a great CC speaker to properly match them. I would suggest getting an M6 as a CC speaker for them, and reversing the phase to get them to match.

If your room is just bright and reflective, the M5s are the obvious choice, unless it is a huge room where M6s would be better suited, but IMO M6s are a little "hotter" sounding than M5s.

You're welcome, but that 12 db slope per octave was just a guess. I don't know for sure, and I don't think it's really specified in the manual or specs either.

To expand on this further, the reason I guessed it is cause the X1 has 12 db per octave slopes, so it's reasonable to assume this is also the case on the Controller too since it can process/eq Evo subs on it's on without an X1.

mark russ,

The Mirage M3s were the 54" tall and 19" wide bipolar 3 way speakers with an additional midrange and tweeter + bass port that fired rearward. MSRP was $2500.
They are warmer.

Don't think I want to go to the SB3s. Am leaing towards a ful range tower, although the SB3s did go very low.

We are going to make the interior wall changes first before I commit to a speaker.

Hi everyone.
I have a problem with an NHT product and I decided to post here because this looks like the mother off all NHT threads.
Anyways I bought a set of M5, M6, L5 and W1 along with 2 A1 and an X1. The problem that I'm having is that I'm using the A1 amps thru an HK AVR320 as a pre-amp to power the speakers (just evaluating the speakers. HT under construction) and one of the A1 Fault/Protection light is coming on. I'm not even pushing them hard and the other amp is fine. I have checked everything and making sure the speaker wire have not shorted. I though that it was the speaker itself but I moved the amp from L to the R channel and I'm still getting the light.

I'm thinking that the amp needs service and seeing that they have 5 years and 4 since the manufactured date it should not be a problem with warranty service repair. But and a big but here, I bought these thru Audiogon a while back and of course I don't have the original receipt of purchase. If I can't contact the seller for that original receipt of purchase what are my other options for a warranty service repair?

Thanks

Couple Questions:
Are you getting &/or power/trigger lights (green/amber) as well, or is it just the red fault light only? When you switched speaker channels, did you move both the input & output connections?


Hi everyone.
I have a problem with an NHT product and I decided to post here because this looks like the mother off all NHT threads.
Anyways I bought a set of M5, M6, L5 and W1 along with 2 A1 and an X1. The problem that I'm having is that I'm using the A1 amps thru an HK AVR320 as a pre-amp to power the speakers (just evaluating the speakers. HT under construction) and one of the A1 Fault/Protection light is coming on. I'm not even pushing them hard and the other amp is fine. I have checked everything and making sure the speaker wire have not shorted. I though that it was the speaker itself but I moved the amp from L to the R channel and I'm still getting the light.

I'm thinking that the amp needs service and seeing that they have 5 years and 4 since the manufactured date it should not be a problem with warranty service repair. But and a big but here, I bought these thru Audiogon a while back and of course I don't have the original receipt of purchase. If I can't contact the seller for that original receipt of purchase what are my other options for a warranty service repair?

Thanks

Assuming all of your connections are OK, simply try unplugging the A1 to reset it, and then try it again to see if that solved the problem. :cool:

I'm only getting the Fault (red) light and sometimes in switches from green to red and to green again. I never get the amber light. I can go to -15db on the volume knob of my receiver and it will switch off while the other amp keeps going. I have only connected a set of speakers at a time. I have noticed that the higher I get the volume the faster the amp switches off (red fault light). The amp never gets hot and there is plenty of ventilation.

I have no idea what could it be. Can it be related to the power coming off the wall?
By the way I love the M5's.

Here's a general question: if a speaker is rated at 86dB at 1 watt at 1 meter, does that mean at 2 watts you get 89dB, 4 watts 92, 8 watts 95, etc?

Without knowing all of the other factors my VERY uneducated guess is that it has some sort of problem switching to the upper voltage rail... best thing to do is to call NHT service as to next steps.

I'm only getting the Fault (red) light and sometimes in switches from green to red and to green again. I never get the amber light. I can go to -15db on the volume knob of my receiver and it will switch off while the other amp keeps going. I have only connected a set of speakers at a time. I have noticed that the higher I get the volume the faster the amp switches off (red fault light). The amp never gets hot and there is plenty of ventilation.

I have no idea what could it be. Can it be related to the power coming off the wall?
By the way I love the M5's.

Hello all, first time poster here...

Can anyone comment on pairing the Threes (2 x threes, 1 x 3C) with two iC4's mounted in the ceiling to each side of you?

I've been looking for a manufacturer that has both bipole or tripole rear in-ceilings and a selection of bookshelf speakers in front. NHT, Polk and Atlantic Technology all qualify.

My room is 20'W x 15'D x 8'H. I'll be using Rotel seperates (or maybe a Marantz AVR as a pre-pro) for 80% cinema, 20% music.

Thanks in advance for your help!

I've been looking for a manufacturer that has both bipole or tripole rear in-ceilings and a selection of bookshelf speakers in front. NHT, Polk and Atlantic Technology all qualify.

Sorry, but NHT does not qualify, as they make no bi or tri-pole speakers of any kind at all.

Are you talking about 2 or 3 ways maybe? :confused:

Sorry, but NHT does not qualify, as they make no bi or tri-pole speakers of any kind at all.

Are you talking about 2 or 3 ways maybe? :confused:

I'm referring to the iC4.

http://nhthifi.com/2006/products/ht/ic4.html

After taking a second look, they're 2 way. :( I wonder if these will be good for surround speakers?

Here's a general question: if a speaker is rated at 86dB at 1 watt at 1 meter, does that mean at 2 watts you get 89dB, 4 watts 92, 8 watts 95, etc?

Yes. For each doubling of power, you should get a 3 dB increase in loudness, up to the point where the loudspeaker reaches its output limits.

Brian

For that matter, no one makes a bi or tripole speaker, since they don't exist. Pure marketing fantasy.

For that matter, no one makes a bi or tripole speaker, since they don't exist. Pure marketing fantasy.

Do you have anything to back up that claim?

Yes. For each doubling of power, you should get a 3 dB increase in loudness, up to the point where the loudspeaker reaches its output limits.

Thanks.

Here's another general question: If a speaker is putting out let's say 105dB at 1 meter, is it 99dB at 2 meters, or what (not counting reflections)?

That's correct. In an anechoic environment, SPL from a point source drops 6dB every time the distance to the source is doubled. Conversely, the SPL increases 6dB when the distance is halved.

Radiation patterns for loudspeakers and microphones come from antenna theory. That is where monopole, dipole, cardioid, etc. come from. In antenna theory there is no such radiation pattern as bipole or tripole.

Marketing departments of some speaker companies decided they wanted to invent some new radiation patterns. They took some prefixes and stuck them to existing words. Neither of these new "terms" are accepted in any area of the loudspeaker industry, except the marketing departments. Radiations patterns are engineering terms to describe real acoustical behavior. If they aren't accepted in this area, they don't exist.

I can get together with 10 of my friends and decide that "fdsgdgfdg" means "have a nice day", but that doesn't change the fact that it is still just gibberish in the English language.

For that matter, no one makes a bi or tripole speaker, since they don't exist. Pure marketing fantasy.

Hadn't noticed you were Director of Engineering at NHT. :eek:

I'll take your word for it. ;)

Hadn't noticed you were Director of Engineering at NHT. :eek:

I'll take your word for it. ;)

Hah, yeah, that's key.

I figured you did notice but wanted an explanation. Which is good, because now all of us are informed.

But that you didn't just makes it funny and informative.

By the way, when I compared Polks to NHTs four years ago when I bought my first stereo, there was no contest. But maybe the higher-end Polks fare better, or perhaps it was the audition setup.

Yes. For each doubling of power, you should get a 3 dB increase in loudness, up to the point where the loudspeaker reaches its output limits.

Brian

Also, for each 3 db increase in speaker efficiency/sensitivity, that is in effect equivalent to doubling the amp power too. :p

Thanks.

Here's another general question: If a speaker is putting out let's say 105dB at 1 meter, is it 99dB at 2 meters, or what (not counting reflections)?

http://www.crownaudio.com/apps_htm/designtools/elect-pwr-req.htm

Did I read somewhere it takes 3db increase in the sound level for a human to sense a change?

This article says room reflection can provide 6db of overhead, reducing the real world calculated need.

http://www.crownaudio.com/amp_htm/amp_info/how_much_power.htm

http://www.crownaudio.com/apps_htm/designtools/elect-pwr-req.htm

Did I read somewhere it takes 3db increase in the sound level for a human to sense a change?

This article says room reflection can provide 6db of overhead, reducing the real world calculated need.

http://www.crownaudio.com/amp_htm/amp_info/how_much_power.htm

Thanks for those links.

I'm referring to the iC4.

http://nhthifi.com/2006/products/ht/ic4.html

After taking a second look, they're 2 way. :( I wonder if these will be good for surround speakers?

You can stop wondering - they sound great! For anyone with room/ceiling design limitations they can be a decent solution. I use a pair for the rears in a 5 channel surround system and they provide excellent dispersion and bass response. Make sure you have enough room between your ceiling framing members for mounting as these are fairly large in-ceiling speakers. That being said, Classic 3's or iW4's mounted properly will likely work better if you are able to accommodate them.

http://www.crownaudio.com/apps_htm/designtools/elect-pwr-req.htm

Did I read somewhere it takes 3db increase in the sound level for a human to sense a change?

This article says room reflection can provide 6db of overhead, reducing the real world calculated need.

http://www.crownaudio.com/amp_htm/amp_info/how_much_power.htm

i've heard all that stuff about only +/-3dB or more can be distinguised and also how one can never level balance speakers to the required precision by ear alone. i once fiddled with this equalizer that jumped by 2dB steps, and it was so easy to hear the difference, which was too large imo to be really useful. it does seem to be true that apparent sound increases aren't as great as measured, jus thow we proces things.

i've got to say that the first is way wrong and the second can be (i test with a SPL meter what i did by ear and i had set them exactly to the +/-1dB).

The smallest difference in SPL that a normal person can detect under ideal conditions is 1dB. This is called a JND (just noticable difference). The original unit for SPL measurement was the Bel, but this was too large, so the unit was divided into tenths, thus the decibel.

At lower SPLs and high or low frequencies it takes more than 1dB to make a JND. At low frequencies and SPLs it may take 6dB or more.

I can get together with 10 of my friends and decide that "fdsgdgfdg" means "have a nice day"

The smallest difference in SPL that a normal person can detect under ideal conditions is 1dB. This is called a JND (just noticable difference). The original unit for SPL measurement was the Bel, but this was too large, so the unit was divided into tenths, thus the decibel.

At lower SPLs and high or low frequencies it takes more than 1dB to make a JND. At low frequencies and SPLs it may take 6dB or more.
See, Jack admits his ability to make up words. I think he's been making all this junk up all along, and we're falling for it. Watch out, Magnus. I must admit, though, that decibel thing sounds soooo real!

Peter :D

Hadn't noticed you were Director of Engineering at NHT. :eek:

Ironically, he's also Director of Marketing :p

[joke]

Besides, even if you define a speaker that radiates equally in opposite directions as "bipole", "tripole" certainly is nonsense any way you try to define it.

The iC4 is a wide dispersion speaker. Wide dispersion is a great attribute, even a critical one for surround sound, but putting speakers in the ceiling is an equally bad idea so you should avoid it if you can. But as inceilings goes the iC4 is a generally good choice.

At lower SPLs and high or low frequencies it takes more than 1dB to make a JND. At low frequencies and SPLs it may take 6dB or more. Certainly explains why the X1 mod works so well for movies, as the loss is only -3db at worst. :)

Besides, even if you define a speaker that radiates equally in opposite directions as "bipole", "tripole" certainly is nonsense any way you try to define it.

The iC4 is a wide dispersion speaker. Wide dispersion is a great attribute, even a critical one for surround sound, but putting speakers in the ceiling is an equally bad idea so you should avoid it if you can. But as inceilings goes the iC4 is a generally good choice.

I'd love to avoid in-ceiling surrounds but my main listening position is up against a wall at the the back of my living room. It's a good compromise considering I was originally planning on in-ceilings all around. :eek:

I found a local place to audition Classic Threes so I may be finalizing my system soon.

Regarding bipoles/tripoles, I've had M&K Surround 550's with drivers on three sides. If they aren't tripoles, then what are they? :confused:

And what makes a wide-dispersion speaker a wide-dispersion speaker? In the case of the iC4, is it the tweeter array?

Polar means equal and opposite or diametrically opposed. Basically, you can have two poles, no more because you can't be the opposite of two different things. So, as Jack was saying, "tripole" may be the marketing speak for the design, but it not only doesn't describe the radiation pattern of the speaker, it's really an oxymoron. You could maybe call it a "variable" or "mixed" or "adjustable" or even "wide" or "erratic" dispersion speaker perhaps. Any speaker that is mounted on the wall by nature can't even really be a "polar" speaker as it can only radiate over 180 degrees, not "equal and opposite".

That's where the problem comes in - a wide dispersion speaker is what is really useful for rear channel (or even front channel) duty and people think that a "bipole" or "dipole" will be better than a "monopole" because it has more "poles", but it's not the case at all. A wide dispersion speaker will almost always objectively outperform a bipole or dipole speaker. That's why many of NHT's efforts lately are in the wide dispersion design category. Targeted dispersion has its uses as the L5/M5/M6 illustrates in a bad room or setup

For your purposes, L5s mounted on the side walls facing in would do better. Or even on the back wall. I have L5s about 2' outside my couch, all along the back wall. Not ideal, but better than inceiling if you can do it. Most of the inceiling sound will get pushed to the front and you won't feel as surrounded as if they're lower near the corners of the room.

OK, who put the VT-3s up for sale on ebay with the picture of the fat lady instead of the speakers? :p :o :(

For your purposes, L5s mounted on the side walls facing in would do better. Or even on the back wall. I have L5s about 2' outside my couch, all along the back wall. Not ideal, but better than inceiling if you can do it. Most of the inceiling sound will get pushed to the front and you won't feel as surrounded as if they're lower near the corners of the room.

I'm sure the L5's are great, but I don't have a full length wall behind me to mount them. My living room is is 15'D x 20'W x 8'H. My main listening position backs up to a wall that is 12' long. So my couch is aligned asymmetrically between the walls. To make matters worst I have no place to mount a surround speaker to the left of my seating position. Sorry if this is difficult to envision. I'll put together a diagram and post it sometime next week. I just don't know if anything other than in-ceiling surrounds will work.

Polar means equal and opposite or diametrically opposed. Basically, you can have two poles, no more because you can't be the opposite of two different things.
....doesn't describe the radiation pattern of the speaker, it's really an oxymoron.

i wouldn't go too far with claims that it is an oxymoron, in general, to talk about greater than dipole patterns of radiation. someone hasn't read their Jackson.
for one among a million other specific cases: quadrupolar nuclei can be important in solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance. nuclear quarupole resonance is being worked on to detect explosives among other things.

nuclear quarupole resonance is being worked on to detect explosives among other things.

They should get a SVS PB12 Ultra2! :eek: :p :D ;) :cool: :)

... but I don't have a full length wall behind me to mount them.

Nor do you need one either. Keep in mind the L5s have the virtual focused image geometry radiation pattern in the direction of the tweeter, whether it is mounted towards the inside vertically, or either towards the top or bottom when mounted horizontally (just like the M5s/M6s, which really works as advertised), plus they can be swiveled and rotated a full 180 degrees to boot. There is virtually no circumstance where they can't be made to work OK. They are the "problem solver". :)

Check their manual out here:

http://www.nhthifi.com/manuals/current/L5_Manual.pdf

For your purposes, L5s mounted on the side walls facing in would do better. Or even on the back wall. I have L5s about 2' outside my couch, all along the back wall. Not ideal, but better than inceiling if you can do it. Most of the inceiling sound will get pushed to the front and you won't feel as surrounded as if they're lower near the corners of the room.

I've attached a diagram of my living room with my intended placement of rear in-ceiling iC4's (marked Ls and Rs). If I were to go with L5's I just don't see where the left surround can be mounted. :confused:

Magnus,

What is on the rear kitchen wall? Is that about 8ft behind the couch?

James

Magnus,

What is on the rear kitchen wall? Is that about 8ft behind the couch?

James

Yes, the kitchen is about 9' wide. However, there are no openings to the kitchen, other than throught the dining area.

Yeah

Magnus,

Move AV system and couch 1 foot to the right (towards the fireplace), and move your left front speaker in 6" (keeping the right speaker where it is). Now you have room for the L5s. or if you want C3s for the front, you could wall-mount AZs above your listening position (but not up by the ceiling).

Peter

Magnus,

Move AV system and couch 1 foot to the right (towards the fireplace), and move your left front speaker in 6" (keeping the right speaker where it is). Now you have room for the L5s. or if you want C3s for the front, you could wall-mount AZs above your listening position (but not up by the ceiling).

Peter

Thanks for the advice. However, I cannot move the couch to the right. I plan on putting a 1-seat chair/recliner in that corner below the Rs.

I say just get a dual sub 2 channel XD system for that room, say the hell with surround sound, and be done with it. :p

That would still sound better than any Evo or Classic surround system you could put together in there. ;)

Yeah

Yeah what, that you are the one with the VT-3s on ebay with a picture of the fat lady in a bikini instead of the speakers? :p

It was supposed to say "Yeah, I understand what you mean" :eek:

Yeah what, that you are the one with the VT-3s on ebay with a picture of the fat lady in a bikini instead of the speakers? :p

Actually a picture of the speakers is there, but that pic was used on another auction, by another guy.

I don't even wanna know what he was selling! :o :eek:

Any predictions on nht cedia offerings?

Any predictions on nht cedia offerings?

A new AVR and a new Evolution line. ;)

A new AVR and a new Evolution line. ;)


Pinch yourself you are dreaming again. :)

Or

It's your birthday and you are wishing again. :D

Allen

Evolution replacements would have to be a major step up from classics. Also I'm guessing that will come before an upgrade to Xd.

Evolution replacements would have to be a major step up from classics.

I'm sure they will be. ;)

This is my first time on AVA, so I'm not sure I'm jumping in at the right place. Only know or think I'm in an NHT thread. After reading AVS speaker comments from this group I settled on NHT, and just picked up the SuperZero 2 speakers. The speakers are remarkable, and absolutely amazing in the room. Love the clarity, etc.,

I'm working on picking up a center speaker and subwoofer. I found a SB2 center, so that is easy.

What is the SA-1 subwoofer? I imagine I can't go wrong with it, but is this in the same line or a little earlier than the SB2?

Any thoughts about what the price should be on eBay?

harry_maryland,

Welcome as a new NHT owner, you're in the right place. The nht sub you may want to look at is the U1. There are lots of great subs out there, but this one is exceptional. Even if you later upgrade speakers, the U1 will be all you need unless you want to go with stereo U1s....which is the ultimate. :cool:

Harry,

We have never made a speaker called a Super Zero 2. Just look at the serial number label on the back of the speaker. It has the product name on it.

The SA-1 isn't a subwoofer. It is a subwoofer amplifier. It was used in the SW1P subwoofer system. It is only a 60W amplifier. Very small. The subwoofer enclosure had an 8" driver in a ported box. Not very much bass capability because of the small driver, small enclosure and small amplifier. I would look at something much larger.

harry_maryland,

Welcome as a new NHT owner, you're in the right place. The nht sub you may want to look at is the U1. There are lots of great subs out there, but this one is exceptional. Even if you later upgrade speakers, the U1 will be all you need unless you want to go with stereo U1s....which is the ultimate. :cool:

I couldn't agree more. Dual W1s are the bomb! :eek: ;)

I've been researching speaker sytems to replace an existing Snell stereo setup I have powered by Rotel separates.

My room would qualify as large: 15' x 20' with vaulted ceiling about 4200 cu ft. with a full open wall on one 15' end. The TV and mains will face one of the 20' walls. The primary seating is directly against the oppostie wall and cannot be changed. The floor is carpeted and there is a good deal of window treatments and large furniture (not a "live" room).

The WAF consideration is high, no make the very high :( I am able to replace my 15 year old Pioneer RPTV with a new 60" plasma but only if the floorstanding Snells go along with my rack of separates. In short she wants great sound but she does not want to see where it is coming from :rolleyes: Also, no speaker stands permitted in my world. She would prefer a wall unit...I'm holding out for a credenza so the mains would not be enclosed. Ceiling mounts are out due to the ceiling architecture and in-walls are not likely.

We will use the system for 70% movies and 30% music. We actually rarely sit in the same room when playing music. The openess of our home allows for the music to reflect off of the wall and can be heard quite well in most of the living areas.

Budget: I have allocated $2000 +or- for speakers and $1500 for AVR.

I've been researching for about a year now and plan to obtain TV in September so now I have to make a decision. I was leaning toward the KEF 3005 sub/sat because my wife accepted the cosmetics and I thought the speakers were small enough to place on stands on either side of sofa as rears and thus get 5.1.

However, I stumbled across this thread and plowed through all 148 pages and came to the conclusion that NHT might have a solution that I could sell to the wife and upgrade the sound quality significantly. In a perfect setting I think I would get the (2) 4's, (1) 3c, (2) 3's and an Evo sub but that "ain't happenin". So I'm looking for a compromise from you folks given my situation.

I was thinking of perhaps a 3.1 situation: (2) 3's, (1) 3c, and a sub (only if I can find a way to hide it. Perhaps you could comment on this configuration.

I appreciate your reading my request and hopefully you can point me in the right direction.

dp

I was thinking of perhaps a 3.1 situation: (2) 3's, (1) 3c, and a sub (only if I can find a way to hide it. Perhaps you could comment on this configuration.

I appreciate your reading my request and hopefully you can point me in the right direction.

dp

I say just get a 2 channel XD system, preferably with dual subs. That would be much better than a 3.1 Classic configuration. :cool:

I just had my mix all talked up. I should have stated the speakers are SubZero2.

Sorry Harry, still no such product. Do you mean a Super Two? Can you describe the speaker?

Thanks for this info. I will definitely stay away from this specific subwoofer. Glad I asked before wasting a few bucks, and thinking I had a decent subwoofer.

Sorry Harry, still no such product. Do you mean a Super Two? Can you describe the speaker?

Jack,

Yes, Super Two. I'm sorry about being somewhat stupid, but while I like the AVS info I don't care for the interface, plus I had surgery last week and can't climb to check out the speaker name.

But yes they are definitely Super Two

I just had my mix all talked up. I should have stated the speakers are SubZero2.

I've got a Sub Zero 1 in my kitchen!

Jack,

Yes, Super Two. I'm sorry about being somewhat stupid, but while I like the AVS info I don't care for the interface, plus I had surgery last week and can't climb to check out the speaker name.

But yes they are definitely Super Two

Are they floorstanders or bookshelves?

If they're towers, then they are the SuperTwos. If they are bookies, then they are either SuperZeros or SuperOnes.

I say just get a 2 channel XD system, preferably with dual subs. That would be much better than a 3.1 Classic configuration. :cool:

Well, I do appreciate the response but that scenario is definitely not in my price range and the wife thinks they are ugly even without the supposed free stand.

thx dp

If I were you, I'd buy (5) M5/M6's, find a way to integrate them into the room, then build an IB sub firing up from below the room, and plead for her graces - If she loves music/movies - she'll forgive very quickly ;)

I've been researching speaker sytems to replace an existing Snell stereo setup I have powered by Rotel separates.

My room would qualify as large: 15' x 20' with vaulted ceiling about 4200 cu ft. with a full open wall on one 15' end. The TV and mains will face one of the 20' walls. The primary seating is directly against the oppostie wall and cannot be changed. The floor is carpeted and there is a good deal of window treatments and large furniture (not a "live" room).

The WAF consideration is high, no make the very high :( I am able to replace my 15 year old Pioneer RPTV with a new 60" plasma but only if the floorstanding Snells go along with my rack of separates. In short she wants great sound but she does not want to see where it is coming from :rolleyes: Also, no speaker stands permitted in my world. She would prefer a wall unit...I'm holding out for a credenza so the mains would not be enclosed. Ceiling mounts are out due to the ceiling architecture and in-walls are not likely.

We will use the system for 70% movies and 30% music. We actually rarely sit in the same room when playing music. The openess of our home allows for the music to reflect off of the wall and can be heard quite well in most of the living areas.

Budget: I have allocated $2000 +or- for speakers and $1500 for AVR.

I've been researching for about a year now and plan to obtain TV in September so now I have to make a decision. I was leaning toward the KEF 3005 sub/sat because my wife accepted the cosmetics and I thought the speakers were small enough to place on stands on either side of sofa as rears and thus get 5.1.

However, I stumbled across this thread and plowed through all 148 pages and came to the conclusion that NHT might have a solution that I could sell to the wife and upgrade the sound quality significantly. In a perfect setting I think I would get the (2) 4's, (1) 3c, (2) 3's and an Evo sub but that "ain't happenin". So I'm looking for a compromise from you folks given my situation.

I was thinking of perhaps a 3.1 situation: (2) 3's, (1) 3c, and a sub (only if I can find a way to hide it. Perhaps you could comment on this configuration.

I appreciate your reading my request and hopefully you can point me in the right direction.

dp

Take a look at how SOME of Oliver Stone's NHTs were integrated for ideas (this is also a good read for the wife :)

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

Take a look at how SOME of Oliver Stone's NHTs were integrated for ideas (this is also a good read for the wife :)

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

Mike,

Thanks for the link. That has opened given me confidence to pursue speakers contained within a cabinet as a workable solution.

If I could get (3) M6's in a cabinet out of sight I might be able to work on her to hang a couple of L5's :D

I sort of passed over the M6 discussions in this thread and became fixated on the 3's. Guess I'll have to find me another thread to research these.

I am a bit amazed to see the subs in the same cabinet. Somewhere I got the idea that this was a no-no. If I could place a sub in the corner behind a chair isn't (1) sufficient? I'm kinda like Stone, I'm not looking to make a statement I just want an improved audio/video experience that friends and family can enjoy.


Thx Dennis

I am a bit amazed to see the subs in the same cabinet. Somewhere I got the idea that this was a no-no. If I could place a sub in the corner behind a chair isn't (1) sufficient? I'm kinda like Stone, I'm not looking to make a statement I just want an improved audio/video experience that friends and family can enjoy.

Just as the Evo monitors, the M5/M6, have boundary adjustment options for placement in/on stands/cabinets and/or close to the front wall behind it, the Evo subs' X1 crossover also has a boundary eq for such placements, and, I can assure you, both boundary options really work just as advertised.

If you have a room right at or under 3000 cubic ft. (give or take), and/or you site no more than 9 feet away from the front stage in your main listening position, I'd recommend M5s over M6s. Otherwise, M6s. :cool:

I've been researching speaker sytems ....

We will use the system for 70% movies and 30% music. We actually rarely sit in the same room when playing music. The openess of our home allows for the music to reflect off of the wall and can be heard quite well in most of the living areas.

Budget: I have allocated $2000 +or- for speakers and $1500 for AVR.

....

However, I stumbled across this thread and plowed through all 148 pages and came to the conclusion that NHT might have a solution that I could sell to the wife and upgrade the sound quality significantly. In a perfect setting I think I would get the (2) 4's, (1) 3c, (2) 3's and an Evo sub but that "ain't happenin". So I'm looking for a compromise from you folks given my situation.

I was thinking of perhaps a 3.1 situation: (2) 3's, (1) 3c, and a sub (only if I can find a way to hide it. Perhaps you could comment on this configuration.

I appreciate your reading my request and hopefully you can point me in the right direction.

dp

I would suggest (newbe that I am) a pair of 4's a 2C or 3C center and either a pair of classic 2's or Absolute Zero's depending on price point....
I have the 4's with a 2C center and have been critisized for not going with a 3C, but for my room, listening position, and size restraints, the 2C works great! With ample power, I think you may be surprised with the base output of the 4's. By going with a 2C and Zero's you can save some $$ , space, and still have excellent sound....Plus it is a little easier to get WAF with the smaller size of the AZ's....
Alternately you could do a pair of Classic 3's and a sub of your choice along with the AZ's and center....

I would suggest (newbe that I am) a pair of 4's a 2C or 3C center and either a pair of classic 2's or Absolute Zero's depending on price point....
I have the 4's with a 2C center and have been critisized for not going with a 3C, but for my room, listening position, and size restraints, the 2C works great! With ample power, I think you may be surprised with the base output of the 4's. By going with a 2C and Zero's you can save some $$ , space, and still have excellent sound....Plus it is a little easier to get WAF with the smaller size of the AZ's....
Alternately you could do a pair of Classic 3's and a sub of your choice along with the AZ's and center....

Well, the 4's are out because the WAF will not permit towers. Your final suggestion of the 3's, sub, and AZ's is something I was considering however after reading the Oliver Stone installation article I started thinking what is good enough for the the "big shot" ought to be good enough for me.

Of course I cannot afford all the power he is using and 7.1 is out, so dual subs (at least initially). So where I'm at right now is weighing the fit of the (3)M6/(2)L5/sub to something like the idea above.

Keeping in mind in order to get the surrounds I've got to make them discrete or the wife will kill that idea as well. I know I sound like I'm whipped but if you read the latest article on the impact women are having on the accoustic purchases you will see I'm not alone in this struggle.

thx dennis

..., so dual subs (at least initially).

The U2 system, like OS has, is in all actuality one subwoofer system that just so happens to have 2 cabinets. ;)

Having just stumbled into this thread I find it amazing that the director of engineering of NHT would roam this thread. My current speakers are four NHT SuperZeros and a 1.1C combined with an old Aiwa sub. I'm considering new speakers - it would be my first purchase in over 12 years! I use my system mainly for home theater, so clarity of dialog and imaging are the most important factors for me. I had looked at the Energy line a few years back but couldn't "hear" enough improvement to justify the cost. Could the forum members suggest the next step up? I would love to be amazed just like the first time that I heard the SuperZeros! Thanks for any suggestions.

I've always liked the Zero's sound. Have you thought about upgrading your sub and your processor, first, and seeing what you get?

I'll definitely replace the sub but I thought I'd do it all at once. My receiver is the Panasonic SA-XR70, which was purchased fairly recently. I do love the sound of my Zeros as well, just thought there maybe some improvements over the years. :)

..., just thought there maybe some improvements over the years. :)

Oh, trust me on this, there has been. At this point, even the mighty 3.3 now rates as maybe about the sixth-best speaker NHT has ever made. :cool:

Speaking of which though, I recently picked up yet another Controller/Power5 combo on the used market, and this Controller already had the recent software updates installed. Lets just say that I have never heard the 3.3s sound better with any other electronics, even the NAD M3. :eek:

Oh, trust me on this, there has been. At this point, even the mighty 3.3 now rates as maybe about the sixth-best speaker NHT has ever made.

Been a long time since I've looked at NHT's current and recent stuff. My 2-channel system is using the 3.3 (put the system together ~1996) and my HT system is all VS-2s and a Fathom.

What are the top five speakers NHT has ever made?

Without going into the possible sub-sat combos you could put together, I'd rate them like this:

XD
tie, depending on room VT-3/T5
T6
Four

What do you drive your 3.3s with?

parishd,

It is interesting that your wife won't let you have towers.
My wife doesn't like how the C3s look sitting on stands. Or more correctly,
she doesn't like how the stands look. To her the towers look more like furniture
and fit with the decor better than a spindly stand with black boxes on top.

And the C3s on stands are the same height as the C4s.
We are only talking about 41" in height. Not a very tall tower.

Obviously I don't know your setup but, she may want to rethink if height is her main concern.

EDIT:

OOPs! Just read back another page and saw that she wants everything hidden and does not want speaker stands, towers, etc. Nevermind.

b4z

Well at least it sounds like you had to deal with the WAF component. My wife contends electronic devices are detrimental to the room asthetics and should be relegated to the basement; problem is I don't have the money to fix up the basement.

Picking out all other elements of the system has been fun, albeit a long journey. Addressing this speaker issue has been a pain and in fact is about to delay the installation of everything else.

Per my first comment, I have her acceptance on the KEF 3005 system but the room is 4200 cu ft and I think it's going to sound like a tin can. So here I am at yet another specialized forum searching for the holy grail.

I thought the 3's were the answer (she tolerated them but they are bigger than the KEF's and her nose did turn up a bit) with perhaps the zero's for surrounds. However, the credenza she wanted won't hold the 3c center. The M5's and M6's seem like a good solution but that means finding a wall unit that will hold them. She'd love the Accoutic Art solutions but those are for the rich and famous. The Artison solution is another one she'd probably rally around but that costs as much as the TV alone.

I'm just venting....sorry and thanks again for the reply.

Dennis

While I agree that compromise is needed in a successful relationship, there comes a time that "a line in the sand" must be drawn. Refusing to consider towers at all does not sound like compromise, it sounds like an ultimatum! In my house I agreed to let the wife have her way with decorating, colors, etc. in all rooms save two: my garage and my HT room! I enlisted her aid for the HT, but reserved veto power over anything I didn't like. In terms of equipment, however, I alone made the decisions. Sometimes a mans gotta do what a mans gotta do... and no way does she get any say with my garage!

b4z

Well at least it sounds like you had to deal with the WAF component. My wife contends electronic devices are detrimental to the room asthetics and should be relegated to the basement; problem is I don't have the money to fix up the basement.

Picking out all other elements of the system has been fun, albeit a long journey. Addressing this speaker issue has been a pain and in fact is about to delay the installation of everything else.

Per my first comment, I have her acceptance on the KEF 3005 system but the room is 4200 cu ft and I think it's going to sound like a tin can. So here I am at yet another specialized forum searching for the holy grail.

I thought the 3's were the answer (she tolerated them but they are bigger than the KEF's and her nose did turn up a bit) with perhaps the zero's for surrounds. However, the credenza she wanted won't hold the 3c center. The M5's and M6's seem like a good solution but that means finding a wall unit that will hold them. She'd love the Accoutic Art solutions but those are for the rich and famous. The Artison solution is another one she'd probably rally around but that costs as much as the TV alone.

I'm just venting....sorry and thanks again for the reply.

Dennis


New wife?

:)

That's what I did. Life is sooooo much better :)

Some things magically bypass the approval process & one day just happen to be there. ;)

Unfortunately, that has been exactly why bose has sold so well, WAF with guys who caved over it. :( :mad: :o

What do you drive your 3.3s with?

I use VTL 225 (watt) tube monoblocks for the mids and the tweeters, and I use an Aragon 4004MKII for the woofers. System's sort of in mothballs right now, though, because of my 2 year old and the VTLs.

What's really funny is I just put together my HT system (5 VS-2s and a Fathom 113) and I found I'm missing a fuse to my B&K EX442 that I use to drive my two rears. Since the 2-channel rig is dormant, I grabbed the Aragon -- those rears don't know what hit them, lol! Kudos to B&K, who are sending me a bunch of fuses and the fuse holder.

BTW, since you asked, the EX442 (200w dual monoblock) was my first amp, and that originally drove the 3.3s. It was pretty obvious at the outset I needed a more powerful amp, and I eventually arrived at the VTL/Aragon combo.

Some things magically bypass the approval process & one day just happen to be there. ;)

Ah, my approach! Better to ask for forgiveness than for permission, I always say.

I use VTL 225 (watt) tube monoblocks for the mids and the tweeters, and I use an Aragon 4004MKII for the woofers. System's sort of in mothballs right now, though, because of my 2 year old and the VTLs.

What's really funny is I just put together my HT system (5 VS-2s and a Fathom 113) and I found I'm missing a fuse to my B&K EX442 that I use to drive my two rears. Since the 2-channel rig is dormant, I grabbed the Aragon -- those rears don't know what hit them, lol! Kudos to B&K, who are sending me a bunch of fuses and the fuse holder.

BTW, since you asked, the EX442 (200w dual monoblock) was my first amp, and that originally drove the 3.3s. It was pretty obvious at the outset I needed a more powerful amp, and I eventually arrived at the VTL/Aragon combo.

I'll bet that combo sounded great, with tubes on the top end and a SS muscle amp on the subs. ;)

How did you match the gain, do you by chance have an X2 crossover? If not, if you ever get a chance, try picking up an X2 crossover and maybe a couple of A1 amps too for their subs to biamp them with. IMO, much better than the old SA2/3 bass amp/crossovers, but at least the SAs did give you option to hook them up through speaker wire leads if you had to while the X2 does not. :( :mad: Plus getting a couple of A1s would free up the Aragon for something else. :)

The Power5 (when in 2 channel mode) certainly has plenty of power for them on it's own though. So much so that bi-amping them is an option, not a necessity. :D

I'm not really sure if it was more a case of the Controller's model specific Deq for them, the Power5 amp, or maybe a combination of both, but I have never heard the 3.3s sound better, and I already had mine right up against a real solid wood (not paneling) wall with brick behind it. :cool:

The 3.3s/2.9s IMO are still to this day dynamite rock music speaker. :eek:

Ah, my approach! Better to ask for forgiveness than for permission, I always say.

Truer words have never been spoken! :D

I wound up with an AudioControl Richter Scale (remember, this system was built ~1996 - 1997 -- and as I recall, I opted out of equalization but as I recall, the Richter Scale had a pretty pure crossover design). Much of the system went into storage (the tube amps were on amp stands right by the 3.3s) when son #1 arrived in 2000, and just when it was safe to get back in the water, son #2 came along two years ago, so my 2-channel system remains in hibernation. Building the HT system I just completed reminded me how much I love audio (and the fun of chasing gear), so I'd say I'm about 2 years out from updating that system.

You hit the nail on the head regarding the premier status of the 3.3s as a rock speaker. WHAT a project that was, buying those. I visited stores all over the hinterlands, and while I really liked the open, transparent sound of a really good Maggie set-up, the punch just wasn't there for rock. In the end, after spending quality time with many well regarded loudspeakers (Thiel, Dunlavy, Aerials, a few others), the 3.3s wound up giving me the most well-rounded design I could find at the time.

When I quickly realized the 200w B&K wasn't going to get it done, and snapped up the Aragon, that immediately gave me the punch I heard in the store, but not quite the open, sweet sound I knew the 3.3s were capable of: enter the VTLs, and the rest was history.



I'll bet that combo sounded great, with tubes on the top end and a SS muscle amp on the subs. ;)

How did you match the gain, do you by chance have an X2 crossover? If not, if you ever get a chance, try picking up an X2 crossover and maybe a couple of A1 amps too for their subs to biamp them with. IMO, much better than the old SA2/3 bass amp/crossovers, but at least the SAs did give you option to hook them up through speaker wire leads if you had to while the X2 does not. :( :mad: Plus getting a couple of A1s would free up the Aragon for something else. :)

The Power5 (when in 2 channel mode) certainly has plenty of power for them on it's own though. So much so that bi-amping them is an option, not a necessity. :D

I'm not really sure if it was more a case of the Controller's model specific Deq for them, the Power5 amp, or maybe a combination of both, but I have never heard the 3.3s sound better, and I already had mine right up against a real solid wood (not paneling) wall with brick behind it. :cool:

The 3.3s/2.9s IMO are still to this day dynamite rock music speaker. :eek:

kitchener - what source & preamp were you using with your setup? just curious as I always love to hear what others use for 2-ch...

Regards,

My pre-amp in the 2-channel system is nothing more than the very neutral Acurus RL-11. I home auditioned several heavy hitters, with the Classe CP-60 standing out most in my mind, but the performance difference was so negligible, I considered the Acurus the best buy in my system. For source, I used a Sony ES player strictly as a transport, patched through an array of Audio Alchemy's best gear of the day (about $2k's worth). I suspect, though, when I'm ready to up this system, I'll be starting at the source.

just curious as I always love to hear what others use for 2-ch...

Regards,

Mike, I once borrowed a Music Hall Mambo integrated amp:

http://www.musichallaudio.com/mmf_products.asp?show=true&prolook=mambo

and the matching Music Hall Maverick CD/SACD player:

http://www.musichallaudio.com/mmf_products.asp?show=true&prolook=maverick

for about a week or so, and the 2.9s really, really sounded good with them. A very synergistic match.

That amp is only rated at 50 watts (x 2), but it is a very conservative 50 watts. It really seems a lot more like 200. That Class A amp gets hot though! :eek:

It also actually had a digital input, believe it or not.

I didn't try them with the 3.3s, but I have no doubts that the Mambo could effortlessly drive them to very loud levels. ;)

The only thing I didn't like about the amp is that it didn't have pre-outs/main ins, so unfortunately, it simply couldn't be used with the T5s :( (which, as you know, are better than the 2.9s). :cool: If not for that, I wouldn't mind having one.

The CD player was top notch too, definitely a step up from the likes of the NAD C542 and Cambridge Audio 640C, which themselves are pretty good.

I've got a Music Hall now in my 2-ch 2.9 system along with an older John Curl designed Parasound pre... it does mate fairly well for the price.

I really like the Mambo but like you said it does run hot.

kitchener - It would be interesting to dust off your Audio Alchemy gear and put it to the test... I bet it will still hold up well even in today's market. :)

kitchener - It would be interesting to dust off your Audio Alchemy gear and put it to the test... I bet it will still hold up well even in today's market. :)

It's interesting -- as I've been building my HT system in the past few months, I've of course been watching for gear on Audiogon, and noticed the Audio Alchemy gear selling usually the day it goes up for sale, telling me there might yet be something to this nearly 10 year old digital audio gear.

I've got a Music Hall now in my 2-ch 2.9 system along with an older John Curl designed Parasound pre... it does mate fairly well for the price.

I really like the Mambo but like you said it does run hot.

Which MH do you have Mike?

And did you decide to keep a pair of 2.9s? :D

BTW - just in case anybody hasn't noticed it yet, there is now a dedicated 2 channel forum here at AVS.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=173

It's also good to see some fellow NHTers that are still into 2 channel as well. :D

Which MH do you have Mike?

And did you decide to keep a pair of 2.9s? :D

I've tried the MH Maverick and the Shanling CDT-100, and a currently have a basic modded MH CD25 - I couldn't hear a difference on regular CD's so I stuck with the CD25 - you can upgrade it pretty easy (I actually just ordered some newer 627 opamp boards in just the last week. Here's an article on boards I'm installing: http://www.underwoodhifi.com/6moonscd25.html)

For SACD's I use a modded Samsung HD-841 of all things ;)

And to get me back to the original thread, yes I did keep one set of 2.9's :)

All, to keep from taking this thread off-topic and into a 2-ch discussion, I took Mark's hint and started an NHT owners thread over in the 2-CH area:

NHT Owners - What are you using as a 2CH System?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885154

All, to keep from taking this thread off-topic and into a 2-ch discussion, I took Mark's hint and started an NHT owners thread over in the 2-CH area:

NHT Owners - What are you using as a 2CH System?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=885154

Oh, I wasn't trying to insinuate that we were taking the thread off topic, if that's the way it came across. Lets face it, if this thread hadn't went off the original topic of it's title and pretty much evolved as it has into the all inclusive "official" NHT owners thread, it would have simply ran it's course and been dead like a year and half ago. :p

Oh, I wasn't trying to insinuate that we were taking the thread off topic, if that's the way it came across. Lets face it, if this thread hadn't went off the original topic of it's title and pretty much evolved as it has into the all inclusive "official" NHT owners thread, it would have simply ran it's course and been dead like a year and half ago. :p

Yeah - I meant it tongue-in cheek --- my smilies missin :) --- I thought it would be nice to have a list of all of our NHT systems in one nice thread...

Oh, I wasn't trying to insinuate that we were taking the thread off topic, if that's the way it came across. Lets face it, if this thread hadn't went off the original topic of it's title and pretty much evolved as it has into the all inclusive "official" NHT owners thread, it would have simply ran it's course and been dead like a year and half ago. :p
Okay. How many people who weren't on the thread when it started have done what I did - spent HOURS reading through hundreds and hundreds of posts? Thank God I did it a year ago, when the thread was only half as long as it is now.

Peter

Tom,

I picked up the NHT VS-1.2A center speaker to go with the SB2. The center speaker works, but I'm having trouble getting any sound from it with the SB2 pair. I have a Sony STR DE975.1 5.1 Channel 550 Watt receiver. Any idea on what my problem is? Are these speakers compatible?
I know the VS-1.2A was made for tower speakers, but thought this config should be ok?

Appreciate any help you can provide.

Who's Tom? :confused: If you're talking about the guy who started this thread, he quit participating long ago. :o

(vote for NHT's top five of all time)

Without going into the possible sub-sat combos you could put together, I'd rate them like this:

XD
tie, depending on room VT-3/T5
T6
Four


What is the vintage of each of these? And, which are smallest? Thanks!

Xds and Fours are both current models.

VT-3s only had like a single year or two run, from like late 2000 to late 2001/early 2002 if I'm not mistaken, and are prolly the rarest (although there's prolly even more of them out there than there are Xds at this point).

T6s and T5s are no longer available since the B5 and B6 subs were discontinued, however, even better options still are for the same or even less $$$ than the T5 and T6 costed. You can still get either M5s or M6s on their corresponding P5 or P6 pedestal stands, along with either a U1 or U2 subwoofer. The U1 and U2 both definitely have some advantages over each other, but if you get dual W1s (basically two different U1s but with only one X1 crossover since only one is needed), you will have the best of both worlds. I would also recommend Threes with any Evolution sealed sub or subs over Fours too if you wanted the Classic Series.

A pair of M6s, P6s, two W1s, two A1 amps, and a single X1 actually go for a little less than a pair of T6s did.

The T6 and Xd were both recently rated as Class A by Stereophile FWIW.

The smallest is the Xds, followed by Fours and T5s.

The VT3s and T6s are huge! :eek:

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I just finished building an HT-only system in my family room. I'd taken the old top-of-the-line VS-2 center that was designed to match my 3.3s and added four more of them, and of course a Fathom 113 sub. I always liked the VS-2 (same tweeter as the 3.3s) -- it's a great center channel speaker. I'd read others using the VS-2 all the way around as I've done, and liking the NHT "house sound" I figured with such a high-end sub, not to mention it being an HT-only system, it wouldn't matter if my left and right speaker weren't quite as "musical" as they could be.

Problem is, now that everything is assembled and all but calibrated, the high-end gear upstream of them are really revealing their shortcomings, at least at the left and right channels. I'm probably hard to please, but I suppose having the 3.3s as a reference in my mind, the VS-2s, even in just HT-only duties, are missing that musical (or lively), vivid sound that I've grown use to. Within the next few months I'll be inlaying my rack into the wall and buying a wall-mounted plasma, so all that'll be left in the real estate area currently consumed by my stereo gear will be the left and right speakers on their stands (plan to wall mount the center below the display) -- hence, I have no desire for towers, not to mention my predilection for the open, transparent sound that Maggies are known for (and have heard done quite well by some really nice monitor-sized speakers on stands...). I suppose I could wait until the gear and tv are gone from the soundfield between them, but I suspect that will help a little, but not a lot....

So I guess the crux of my question is if I wanted to shop the pre-owned market for smaller NHT speakers (doesn't have to be SuperZero-sized, as remember, these VS-2s are 19.5" tall), would any of your top five fit the bill? And, of those, do they need to be on NHT stands, and if so, are they shot-fillable? My StudioTechs are filled with shot not so much for sound characteristics but to repel my 2 year old!

The AC-2 was the true matching CC speaker for 3.3s/2.9s. The VS-2 is woefully inadequate for them, plus it's polarity is reversed from theirs.

Of course, considering what used AC-2s go for, instead of getting AC-2s for a CC and surrounds, it may actually be cheaper just to get one of them for the CC and to simply pick up yet another pair of 3.3s for surrounds. :p

Assuming you already have power amps, and since you already have the JLA Fathom sub, that pretty much rules out Xds (even though they are NHT's best ever speaker), so I'd suggest comparing Classic Threes to either Evolution M5s or M6s (depending on how big your room is and how far you sit from the front stage in the main listening position) to see which you like better.

One other thing is that there is no true on-wall surround option for the Classic series, while the Evolutions have the L5, which is basically a M5 in a wall mount version.

Also, if you have a bright, reflective and/or narrow room, the Evolutions will definitely sound better in it than the Classics.

The Evolution monitors bolt to their matching pedestal stands, which also have stabilizer bars at the base, so they are pretty much safe and tip proof for toddlers, pets, etc. They will work on other stands though, while the Threes can be kind of tricky to find a proper stand for. The base has to be big enough for it's rails.

I'd suggest comparing Classic Threes to either Evolution M5s or M6s (depending on how big your room is and how far you sit from the front stage in the main listening position) to see which you like better.

One other thing is that there is no true on-wall surround option for the Classic series, while the Evolutions have the L5, which is basically a M5 in a wall mount version.

About 10' from the left and right speakers. I'll keep an eye out for them.

Note that my wall-mountred rears are mounted via pedestal-style, directional brackets, so the rears of the speakers are ~6" from the wall. In any case, I have no other option for the rears -- they cannot be on the floor or on floor stands, in other words.

About 10' from the left and right speakers. I'll keep an eye out for them.

Oh, that's either a tough one, or an easy one, depending on your perspective. That's just about the exact point where IMO it almost starts to get too far away for the M5s, but yet is almost too close for M6s if you happen to prefer the Evolutions over the Classics, so really, either would work. How big is the room?

Note that my wall-mountred rears are mounted via pedestal-style, directional brackets, so the rears of the speakers are ~6" from the wall. In any case, I have no other option for the rears -- they cannot be on the floor or on floor stands, in other words.

No problemo, the M5s/M6s still have a boundary compensation feature for being close to walls. :D

How big is the room?


13' X 21', but for reasons not having to do with audio, I'm backed up to the long wall, with the short walls being on the side -- hence my being ~10' from my front three speakers.

Harry,

From you description, the VS-1.2a speaker is working correctly. The problem must be upstream from the speaker. The center channel output from your Sony receiver is not sending out a signal. This could be for a number of reasons.

In the receiver speaker setup menu, make sure that the center channel mode is set to small or narrow. If it is set to phantom, you will not get any signal out of the center channel output. Make sure that the surround mode on the receiver is set to a mode that has center channel output, ie. Dolby Digital. Make sure that you have a signal source going to the receiver that is surround encoded. In the main menu on your DVD player, make sure that the DVD player is set to bitstream output, NOT PCM output. This is the most common cause of this problem. Also, you must have a digital connection between your DVD player and receiver. If none of this resolves your issue, I would call Sony tech support.

The AC-2 was the true matching CC speaker for 3.3s/2.9s. The VS-2 is woefully inadequate for them, plus it's polarity is reversed from theirs.

Of course, considering what used AC-2s go for, instead of getting AC-2s for a CC and surrounds, it may actually be cheaper just to get one of them for the CC and to simply pick up yet another pair of 3.3s for surrounds.


Mark is right of course. You can't compare the VS-2 with the AC-2 (had them both).
After exchanging e-mails with Jack I decided to sell my two AC-1's and AC-2, in favor of the C-3/CC3 (along with C4's). I sold my AC-2 for more than I paid for it.
I'm not sure I would do it again. I really miss the AC-2. It may have been one of the best centers...ever!

what is the minimum power i can get away with for Classic 4s? considering trying a tube amp at 50 watts....87db into 6ohms isn't too hard a load, but i'm not sure. (and tube watts seem to equate to double in terms of ss watts)

thanks,

KR

Mark is right of course. You can't compare the VS-2 with the AC-2 (had them both).
After exchanging e-mails with Jack I decided to sell my two AC-1's and AC-2, in favor of the C-3/CC3 (along with C4's). I sold my AC-2 for more than I paid for it.
I'm not sure I would do it again. I really miss the AC-2. It may have been one of the best centers...ever!

In retrospect, you feel the AC-2 outperformed the center you replaced it with?

I used an AC-2 with my 2.9's for center channel. I also used 1.5 on their stands for rears system sound really good. IMO

I replaced it with a M5 system which was smoother. With your f113 that is what you should do.
Allen

I replaced it with a M5 system which was smoother. With your f113 that is what you should do.
Allen

Thanks Allen. Good feedback. I take it you mean the M5 system is what I should do?

Thanks Allen. Good feedback. I take it you mean the M5 system is what I should do?

If they're good enough for Oliver Stone... :)

13' X 21'

M5s would prolly suffice in that room, that is, unless you have Cathedral ceilings, or something like that. :p

I sold my AC-2 for more than I paid for it.

I'm sitting on four of them right now. I've been stockpiling them over the last couple of years everytime I've seen one that was going for under marker value. One day, I'm gonna clear them all out. :D

what is the minimum power i can get away with for Classic 4s? considering trying a tube amp at 50 watts....87db into 6ohms isn't too hard a load, but i'm not sure. (and tube watts seem to equate to double in terms of ss watts)

thanks,

KR

That should drive them OK. You nailed it yourself as quoted above in bold above. I just wouldn't expect it to drive them to the levels of a Kiss concert in Madison Square Garden though. :p :o

Edit - if you feel like it's not quite enough power for them, and if the amp has a set of pre-outs, you could always bi-amp them with an X2 and a couple of A1s on the subs.

In addition to more power and output, it would also give you complete and total control over the bass to dial it in exactly how you want it. ;)

If it doesn't have pre-outs, you could pick up a couple of old SA-2 or SA-3 bass amp/crossovers since they can be hooked up by speaker wire leads. They wouldn't give you quite as much control over the bass that an X2 would, but they would still give you more than not having them does nonetheless.

Just an idea.

In retrospect, you feel the AC-2 outperformed the center you replaced it with?

Well there you have it! Wrager replaced an AC-2 with a Classic 3C and didn't feel it was really an upgrade.

Allen replaced an AC-2 with a M5, and felt that it was.

Sometimes it's good to feel like I'm not always alone here and that some others think the same things occasionally. :o :p

If they're good enough for Oliver Stone... :)
Not to be "critical", but Ollie is actually using the M6's. Little different sound (some say the m5 sounds a little better), and the M6 can fill a much larger space. :)

Yes -OS is using (3) M6's in the front & (4) L5's for the surround.... given this, I still think each person should choose the speaker based on their layout / needs... for most typical HT systems I think the M5/L5's will work great. M6's (or classics) for larger rooms with multiple seats.

Yes -OS is using (3) M6's in the front & (4) L5's for the surround.... given this, I still think each person should choose the speaker based on their layout / needs... for most typical HT systems I think the M5/L5's will work great. M6's (or classics) for larger rooms with multiple seats.
That and the fact I have heard many (including Jack H. from NHT) recommend the M6's for a more reflective room that has less room treatments, etc. as they are more "directional" than the M5's.

That and the fact I have heard many (including Jack H. from NHT) recommend the M6's for a more reflective room that has less room treatments, etc. as they are more "directional" than the M5's.

You must be mistaking the M5s for the Classic Series. The M5s also have "virtual focused image geometry" just like the M6s, and will work just as well as M6s in reflective rooms, albeit smaller reflective rooms (when compared to the M6s).

(some say the m5 sounds a little better), and the M6 can fill a much larger space. :)

Bingo! You hit a bullseye here on this one though. ;)

I still think each person should choose the speaker based on their layout / needs... for most typical HT systems I think the M5/L5's will work great. M6's (or classics) for larger rooms with multiple seats.

And Mike also hit a bullseye (as usual). :D

You must be mistaking the M5s for the Classic Series. The M5s also have "virtual focused image geometry" just like the M6s, and will work just as well as M6s in reflective rooms, albeit smaller reflective rooms (when compared to the M6s).
I'm pretty sure I have read where Jack mentions that even though the M5 and M6 have the same layout, he recommends the M6 over the M5 in a highly reflective room. Or maybe that was John (maybe both). In fact I thought at one point you even said it, Mark. Maybe I'm hallucinating, could be after all those years experimenting with drugs. :)

MF

I'm sitting on four of them right now. I've been stockpiling them over the last couple of years everytime I've seen one that was going for under marker value. One day, I'm gonna clear them all out. :D

Camping outside the "showroom" waiting to purchase... ;)

I'm sitting on four of them right now. I've been stockpiling them over the last couple of years everytime I've seen one that was going for under marker value. One day, I'm gonna clear them all out. :D

I think it's time to admit you have a problem.

I think it's time to admit you have a problem.

What, should I have only bought those that were going for full market value instead? :rolleyes:

Camping outside the "showroom" waiting to purchase... ;)

You seriously want to do up a Music Series surround system Mike?

If so, what would you want for surrounds? When I was running one, I simply used more AC-2s as surrounds.

I imagine L5s would work OK too.

I'm pretty sure I have read where Jack mentions that even though the M5 and M6 have the same layout, he recommends the M6 over the M5 in a highly reflective room. Or maybe that was John (maybe both). In fact I thought at one point you even said it, Mark. Maybe I'm hallucinating, could be after all those years experimenting with drugs. :)

MF

Well if any of us, John, Jack, or myself ever said that, we were wrong. :o :p

It's not the "reflectivity" of the room that should decide between them, but rather the size of it instead. The M5 will work as good in a reflective room as a M6.

Well if any of us, John, Jack, or myself ever said that, we were wrong. :o :p

It's not the "reflectivity" of the room that should decide between them, but rather the size of it instead. The M5 will work as good in a reflective room as a M6.
Yeah, I just did a short search (in this thread at least), and did not come up with anything saying the M6 was better than the M5 for reflective rooms (obviously should have done that in the first place :o ). It must have been a comparison of the M6 to the Classic 4 or something. I did find this quote from Jack stating that the M6 does have less compression and distortion at any given playback level though:

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

Which I thought was interesting, because I would have thought that would only be the case at louder listening levels.

Anyway thanks!
MF

Well there you have it! Wrager replaced an AC-2 with a Classic 3C and didn't feel it was really an upgrade.

Allen replaced an AC-2 with a M5, and felt that it was.




I really just compared the 2.9 to the M5. Crossed the 2.9s over at 80 hz and ran the M5s the same way. I felt that the little forwardness from the 2.9s was harder on the ears than the m5 smooth sound so I went with the m5. I also wanted matching speakers all the way around because I am more into HT than music now days. But with that said the M5s with the NHT sub do good on both. With 2.9 or 3.3 I would use an AC-2 for sure for the center. If you have to wall mount something I would do the M5/6 because of the L5. I wouldn't suggest getting rid of your 3.3s though I plan on setting my 2.9s up with some tube gear somewhere down the road.

I would also like to say just to keep things straight I now run M6s across the front and M5s in the back. I felt the M6 gave me more dynamics in my room which is real open to other rooms. Most of this improvment came from the center. IMO
Allen

mark - I still have my 1st "budget" HT system at my dad's - consisting of 2.5s, 1.3s & a VT-1C... I never really liked the VT-1C & always thought I'd pick up the AC-2, bring in the 2.9s for L R duty & move the 2.5s to surrounds. Not being satisfied I would then get a 2nd set of 2.9s or p/u 2 more AC-2s :) but that pipe dream never totally happened....

Seriously, is it at all possible to obtain an AC-2 these days? Everyone says yeah, they come up on audiogon/ebay periodically, but what appeared to be a steady trickle last 1-2 years appears to have dried up entirely recently. I have 2.9 mains/1.5 surrounds and have been longing to replace my AC-1 for AC-2, but haven't seen any in a long while.

Mark, any chance you'll be unloading your surplus any time soon?

cheers,
dave

Only one post in a week? People hurry back from vacation. :)