New NHT Classic line to replace Super Audio [Text View] - Page 19

nhthot

08-21-07, 07:30 PM

last month i bought u1/a1/x1 (along with 3s & 3c) and integrated them into my home theater system. i set them to audio so that when they detected a signal they would automatically come on. i use all when i'm watching tv. they come on and stay on for no certain period of time and go off. sometimes the a1 will come on and usually both do but not always. then 1 will go off and the other will stay on for awhile and go off later. the owners manual states they will turn off after 20 minutes with no signal detection. what gets me is when i turn off my entire system (tv & avr) the a1/x1 will come on and go off at different times. could there be a signal of some kind bleeding over which makes them turn on and then subsequent signal loss and automatic turn off or what? when i'm watching movies and listening to music they come on and stay on as long as i'm watching or listening as they should its just when watching tv and the system is turned off that i get the old on/off. don't think this should matter but i got the 20hz mod. do you all think this is a a1/x1 problem, a phantom signal of some kind or have i hooked something up wrong? should i just keep them on all the time? any advice would be appreciated.

oldears

08-23-07, 11:00 AM

mark russ

08-23-07, 06:39 PM

I think it can vary from system to system, and room to room. For example, I actually had an X1 that had so much hum, it simply wouldn't let it's A1 go into sleep mode unless I turned the gain all the way down. Moved it into another room/system, and the problem vanished.

I've also had A1s that would "wake up" and come on out of sleep mode from lights and/or ceiling fan switches being turned on or off, and, I've had X1/A1 combos that would behave exactly as they should in terms of going into or out of sleep mode.

I say just try 'em all till you find one which you feel works best for you in your situation, and then just let it be.

nhthot

08-26-07, 05:37 PM

how hard can you drive the 3s? the reason i ask is that this weekend while watching a movie the screen went dead and my avr was flashig overload. the owners manual stated it could be 2 things: short circuit of speaker terminals which a visual inspection confirmed was not the problem or the speakers were being played too loud. i was listening to the movie at thx reference level which i have been doing for the last 2 months without any problem. it has done this 3 times now on movies and one time i backed the volume down 5 notches and it did it. it happened while listening to a cd too. the first time it happened i rebooted the avr and played the same cd and it died again on the same song at the same place! i have never listened to anything over reference level. i don't know if it is coincidence or not but i had just redone the speaker levels this weekend using my trusty radio shack sound level meter. the avr is 5 years old, 120 wpc and is thx ultra certified. something else last night while watching a movie my x1 went off for probable 15 minutes. could this be connected? i hate to ask operational questions but who better to ask concerning nht? i want to lay the blame on the avr. what says you all?

Alimentall

08-26-07, 11:12 PM

They're pretty hard to drive, relatively, I've shut down Denon receivers with NHTs during heavy transients. THX certification doesn't mean much, nor does a claimed 120W/ch.

If you look at NAD receivers, they are now saying something like 60W/ch "full disclosure" or 120W/ch FTC rated, if that gives you an idea. Funny thing though is that I've never had anyone shut down a 50W or 60W NAD to my knowledge.

Alimentall

08-29-07, 02:18 PM

Only about a week until CEDIA!

I know what NAD is showing off, but I haven't asked NHT what they're showing off because the stress of keeping the secret would probably kill me.

mark russ

08-29-07, 02:42 PM

I still say a NHT all digital path AVR and a next generation Evolution series can't be too far off.

pcarey

08-29-07, 03:48 PM

All I want is 8 channel PCM over HDMI for the Controller. It would be great via a s/w upgrade but I'll take HDMI 1.3 if it is on offer.

tvsurfer

08-29-07, 04:25 PM

All I want is 8 channel PCM over HDMI for the Controller. It would be great via a s/w upgrade but I'll take HDMI 1.3 if it is on offer.

Ditto here. I plan to have multiple high resolution 7.1 sources and the only way is via HDMI. If NHT releases a new Controller, I'm there. I think the only pre/pros out there are the Onkyo/Integra twins or the megabucks Denon.

Alimentall

08-29-07, 04:30 PM

All I want for CEDIA is my two front channels, my two front channels, my two front channels.........

mark russ

08-29-07, 05:56 PM

Well since we are stating our wish list, I want a next generation Xda that is an actual integrated amp (with it's own pre-amp section w/ volume control) with digital inputs, just as it should have been all along in the first place right from the start.

Pupton

08-30-07, 01:42 PM

Classic 5's :)

mark russ

08-30-07, 01:50 PM

Classic 5's :)

Which would be ......?

I'm guessing like Fours, but with sealed, powered subs?;)

Pupton

08-30-07, 03:29 PM

could be powered or use x1/a2's...sealed with opposing 10" drivers a la W1's...

Pupton

08-30-07, 03:35 PM

and begin selling a modded X1 (X1-a) with the 20Hz mod completed prior to initial sale ...

Alimentall

08-31-07, 12:59 PM

mattwardfh

08-31-07, 01:07 PM

Well, we do know at least one thing being shown at CEDIA:

http://www.cepro.com/article/nhts_absolute_zero_center_offers_dynamic_imaging_and_a_touch _of_style_to_ze/

Don't everyone go crazy at once....

Well, nothing to go crazy over but it certainly makes more sense than pairing them with the 2C.

mark russ

08-31-07, 01:46 PM

Maybe there will be a wall mountable version of the Three like the L5 is to the M5.

mattwardfh

08-31-07, 03:04 PM

Maybe there will be a wall mountable version of the Three like the L5 is to the M5.

Let's hope so; that'd be great. I'd probably upgrade my AZ rears to the "L3".

Alimentall

08-31-07, 03:31 PM

I was told that there would be something "big" at CEDIA, so I suspect it's more than a ZeroC. Of course, my expectations for "big" is greater than theirs, I suspect, so I think there will be something cool, if not big, at least. Fingers crossed!

Alimentall

08-31-07, 03:50 PM

DekPM19

08-31-07, 04:37 PM

Oh. Wait. Maybe this *is* the big news here:

http://www.cepro.com/article/nht_pro_music_and_film_system_brings_studio_level_sonics_int o_the_home/

Sounds like they decided to pursue the custom theater market with the M80Xd rather than the pro side as much. Well, I hope they decide to make grills and a nice paint job for them :eek:

Seem like you are going backwards to me. I mean the speakers may be a great up grade but at what cost. And with evrybody trying to get auto set up NHT is having to have a dealer talk to them for custom eqing. Seems kind of backwards to me.
Allen

TrebleVsBass

08-31-07, 04:38 PM

I am looking for a 5.1 system with a budget around $2000-$2500. (roughly$1000 for the front main speakers) This will be my first HT system, so I am open to suggestions on any of the components.
Given:I have ordered an Onkyo 905 receiver.(still waiting for the shipment :( )
I have almost made my mind on the HSU vtf2 mk3 subwoofer. The system will be used more for movies than music. Room size is >2100 cubic feet with open kitchen and dining room total aroun 4000.

I have been reading the forums a lot lately. Based on various threads and recommendations ,I am looking at these 3 different speakers at the moment. Swan D2.1se, Ascend Sierra, NHT Classic 3.

Since this is an NHT thread, maybe I can get some comments on the classic 3series or any other alternatives. I have read the thread and seen people recommending the M6s over the 3s.

Can anybody comment on these speakers or suggest me a different one?
Any suggestions for a different sub? Thank you.

mattwardfh

08-31-07, 04:43 PM

Tim916

08-31-07, 04:56 PM

The M-80 will probably be around $5k per channel. Each M-80 will be driven by one XdA.

All XdAs are the exact same hardware. Period. The only difference is the filter set that is loaded into it.

The S-80 subwoofer does not need an XdA for it. It uses the XdA that is driving the satellites to get its signal. The S-80 must be driven by an XdA. The S-80 has its own 500W internal amplifier. Retail will probably be $2k.

The M-80 can only be used horizontally. It is designed to be used on the meter bridge of a mixing console.

No stands are available for the M-80.

We won't do a speaker setting in the Controller for the M-80, because the M-80 is a pro product. It is not a consumer product. Everything in its design is optimized for pro use. It is not designed in any way for consumer use.

Sorry, but this is like someone going to Ferrari and asking them to help them certify the Ferrari engine in their F1 car, so they can get it registered in the US. Go out and buy an F360 or an Enzo!!!

:D

mark russ

08-31-07, 05:04 PM

Since this is an NHT thread, maybe I can get some comments on the classic 3series or any other alternatives. I have read the thread and seen people recommending the M6s over the 3s.

Can anybody comment on these speakers or suggest me a different one?
Any suggestions for a different sub? Thank you.

Have you considered the Fours as well and no sub? Might be a good alternative for a home theater setup.

For mostly movies, just get one or 2 SVS subs. No NHT sub will even come close to even SVS's cheapest model in terms of output and extension.

As for monitors, try to listen to them and see what you like better, although as Mat already alluded to, one intangible is that M5s or M6s can help solve some problematic rooms and/or placement situations.

Bone215

08-31-07, 07:45 PM

TrebleVsBass

08-31-07, 09:13 PM

treblevsbass
I am running 5 classic 3's and a center in a room about 2000 cubic feet. I have plenty of clarity, imaging, and volume. I am very satisfied with the system. I have not listened to the other speakers you suggest so I can not compare or contrast.
My previous speakers were JBL studio monitors and -at least in my room- there are not a lot of differences between the two set ups except that the 3s are smaller and nicer looking, which was what I was after and why I made the switch.
Over all flat frequency response in the room, excellent movie experiences, both the JBLs and the 3s get out of the way such that you watch the movie and not have to concentrate on the sound or the speakers or get the impression that the speakers are there, you can just get into the movies.
For my stereo listening, my front left and right 3s are mated to a sub underneath each so they provide a very nice full range stereo image, excellent for jazz, new age, classical, rock, techno.
For the money spent, no regrets.
John (Alimental) has been helpful in all regards when I spoke with him and asked lots of questions.
Hope that helps.
Bone

Thank you for your responses. :)
Since this will be my first setup, I know I'll be happy with any of these speakers but one just wants to make a wise purchase for his money. :D
I am more inclined towards the classic 3s since they are a little cheaper ,smaller and better looking. (WAF really matters for me if I want to have a piece of mind for the next few months) :p

What are your subs? and do you think the absolute zeros would work well with the front 3s?

I wonder if there is anyone following this thread , who has listened to both the ascends and the nht 3s or has used any better sounding speakers with comparable cost. Thanks.

soleblaze

09-01-07, 12:41 AM

I use the 3s with the Zeros as surrounds.. It works out really well imo, but I don't have the most picky of ears :) According to the NHT head engineer they work better than the 2s for surrounds, and I assume they would be better than the 3s for surrounds if you wall mount them. Maybe John is right and we'll get some kinda wallmounted classics to match the 3s..not too much longer.

Speaking of the speakers, I still need to get a center. I'm wondering how much of a difference in timbre matching there'd be going with the zero C or 2C instead of the 3C with the classic threes..

John Rush

09-01-07, 01:55 AM

I currently have two NHT VT-2.4s and 3 VS-2.4 (center & surrounds). My center is currently enclosed in a cabinet with a cutout in the wooden door covered with speaker cloth. I also have an IB sub in-floor that provides a ton of low-end.

I am not happy with my center performance and am looking for a change. It also seems that I may be able to get rid of my floorstanding speakers since I have such a good sub at this point and that would be nice for the room.

I've considered in-ceiling speakers since my only choice for centers is in the ceiling or in the cabinet. But after reading through some of this thread it sounds like I should really consider the M/L5's.

So, I am now thinking about 4 L5's with an M5 center (since it is enclosed). I could go with M5 surrounds if I mount them on the ceiling (as I am currently doing) instead of the rear wall (which I could do with the L5's). Will I be better-off with the M5 surrounds or should I not worry about it? Any idea if this will give my better sound overall than me current setup?

I've only found one on-line retailer that sells the L5's. Does anybody know where I can order these? Any advice welcome. Thank you.

Alimentall

09-01-07, 11:48 AM

Seem like you are going backwards to me. I mean the speakers may be a great up grade but at what cost. And with evrybody trying to get auto set up NHT is having to have a dealer talk to them for custom eqing. Seems kind of backwards to me.
Allen

Perhaps, but I see it this way, they've got a very small market in the pro field, but a much bigger one in consumer. They've got a lot of energy and money in Xd and Xd Pro. I bet I couldn't sell a single pair of M80s to a studio, they're too expensive and frankly, they think "good enough" is "good enough". But a consumer? I could sell quite a few to at least some people. But the big markets like CA, TX, NY, etc, they could sell a lot as consumer speakers.

Personally, it's not the Xd I want, but it's the Xd I'd take. Too ugly to put out front, so it would have to go in wall or on a bookshelf, but that kills a lot of what Xd can do. It really is for a room that is built acoustically for inwall speakers with lots of deadening. A pretty tower would sell a whole lot more. *sigh*

Alimentall

09-01-07, 11:49 AM

:D

You know, I just figured that was Mark being his usual dickish self, but Tim? I expected better from you ;)

Bone215

09-01-07, 01:37 PM

Treble
The front subs are JBL S120IIPs, they are a relatively inexpensive ported 12 inch sub. Their measured response in my room is down to the 22-25Hz range. I have them supplying the base from their lowest point on up to around 150 Hz, I am feeding the 150Hz and above signal to the 3s. This is certainly a relatively inexpensive way to get a full range speaker system up front. I have no complaints so far. I have always wondered if a sealed sub under the 3's and a 100 Hz crossover would be better and I am presently searching for some alternative subs as I have made arrangements with someone for them to 'eventually' purchase the JBLs. For the price I paid, new in box, I am impressed with their abilities. They are no longer being produced by JBL and they were not being produced when I bought them so I took advantage of the price break.
I have an ACI Titan II sub doing LFE duty.
The front L and R are set to large, all else is set to small with 80 Hz crossover setting.
I can't speak to the mixing of zero's as surrounds since I have not heard them. Using 3's all around is consistent, however, in most movies there is sound effects and sometimes sound, but I have to say, they are mostly in the back ground and not obvious. I think I have them set up correctly and that for the most part that is the role surrounds play. I think if you listen to a lot of sacd surround music it may be more benefitial to have all of the same speakers, however, choice, room size and $ have to be factored in. I had the chance to go for all 3s so I did.
Good luck. Considering your choices, I don't think any of the combo's would be a bad choice, it looks like all of your choices are a form of win-win.
Not a bad place to be.
ciao

mark russ

09-01-07, 03:33 PM

You know, I just figured that was Mark being his usual dickish self, but Tim? I expected better from you ;)

Are you still pissed at me for showing where the M5/T5 had a better set of of measurements than the Fours did under the exact same standards right after you tried to claim that the Fours were the best measuring speaker NHT ever made, other than Xd of course? :p ;)

Alimentall

09-01-07, 03:36 PM

I think I said "best sounding" :p

mark russ

09-01-07, 03:37 PM

I wonder if there is anyone following this thread , who has listened to both the ascends and the nht 3s or has used any better sounding speakers with comparable cost. Thanks.

Don't know about the Ascends, but if you can still find a pair of Revel Performa M22s in the now discontinued two-tone maple and black finish for $1000 that originally retailed for like $2200, they are IMO a definite step up from the Threes.

mark russ

09-01-07, 03:45 PM

I think I said "best sounding" :p

Did you?

That being said, I'd still take Fours over 3.3 any day. Set up properly, they're just flat out better over about 150Hz. You can see this easily in the FR, dispersion and spectral decay measurements vs even the Three. Not better at every note, in every way, of course, but overall, the only thing NHT has made that is clearly equal to or better than the Fours in every way is Xd.

Of course, you did say this as well: ;)

Sound & Vision are utterly clueless when it comes to measuring! Check out the Home Theater Mag measurements of the M5/B5. It remains, as far as I can tell, the most accurate speaker they've ever measured.

mark russ

09-01-07, 04:09 PM

TrebleVsBass

09-01-07, 04:41 PM

Don't know about the Ascends, but if you can still find a pair of Revel Performa M22s in the now discontinued two-tone maple and black finish for $1000 that originally retailed for like $2200, they are IMO a definite step up from the Threes.

Anybody to support this statement?

The lowest I can find them is around $1700 online. Do you know any place selling them for the price you mentioned?

If I have to buy used, it will be a different ball game and I am sure there is going to be a new league of used speakers around that price range. Thanks.

mark russ

09-01-07, 04:45 PM

TrebleVsBass

09-01-07, 05:08 PM

Check the Revel Owner's Thread. You may be too late, which is why I said "if you can still find a pair". :o

I upgraded my Concerta M12s to Perfoma M22s with a pair of SVS PB12 Plus subs in maple finish. I also have Threes, and I assure you, I most definitely like the M22s better (while I personally wouldn't pay $2200 for a pair of M22s however). As always, YMMV

Nice move Mark!! first you cut a wound by telling me about the M22s then you bring out the salt with the long gone deal hahahahahah

Luckily the wound didnt have time to get infected, just heard about m22s. :-)

mark russ

09-01-07, 05:26 PM

You got me all wrong! The point is, there may still be some out there, which is why I said to check the Revel Owner's thread.

I would also check Revel's website for dealers and start calling or writing some of them, and I think there are some advertised on Audiogon as well. But STO sound & vision, which is where I got mine, are most definitely out at this point. :(

mark russ

09-01-07, 05:35 PM

TrebleVsBass

09-01-07, 06:16 PM

BTW, the M22s have a boundary compensation control just like the Evolutions, and a tweeter output level control too, but unfortunately are still rear ported.

I put them in as the mains in my office rig just to try them out in it, and in that small, glassy room mounted on/in bookshelves/bookcases, while they did do better job in that room and placement situation than Threes, they still didn't work in it quite as well as the M5s. ;)

lol Mark... 1 step forward 2 steps back :-) had to stick that in there about the M5s :D

Does that mean I have to keep the speakers a certain distance away from the walls?

What should I use for center and surrounds with them? cs32 and s30s are not on sale and they cost around the regular price for m22s. get 2 pairs of
m22s at the discounted price if I can and which surround?

mark russ

09-01-07, 06:33 PM

In that particular room and placement situation, yes, the M5s were better.

Since the M22s are rear ported, they do need at least a couple of inches from the front wall behind them IMO despite their boundary control, whereas the M5 doesn't since it's sealed.

According to Revel, the Concerta center and surrounds, the C12 and S12 respectively, will match the Performas OK. They are more than adequate IMO on movie soundtracks, but on 2 channel music, which is admittedly my priority, the M22s are a notch above the Concerta M12s.

Keep in mind that if the Concerta Series were made here in the US (in CA) like the Performas are instead of Mexico, they would have higher retail prices. For example, the F12 would prolly retail for at least $2000 - $2500. What I'm trying to say here is that although the Perfomas are better in every way, drivers, crossovers, cabinets, and just plain flat out built to higher standards, there really isn't quite as much difference in them as you might think. ;)

And getting back to the NHT theme of the thread, if the Fours for example were still made in CA, they would prolly retail for around $3000 maybe, give or take.

Bone215

09-01-07, 06:57 PM

from 150Hz on up, what is the difference between the fours and the threes?

Tim916

09-01-07, 07:24 PM

You know, I just figured that was Mark being his usual dickish self, but Tim? I expected better from you ;)

I'm just teasing. :p

I'm pretty excited that NHT is adapting the M-80 to home use. Actually, I think it was my idea, so I should probably be compensated by receiving the first system for free. Jack?

EnvelopedInSound

09-01-07, 09:51 PM

Don't know about the Ascends, but if you can still find a pair of Revel Performa M22s in the now discontinued two-tone maple and black finish for $1000 that originally retailed for like $2200, they are IMO a definite step up from the Threes.

I second that.I have a pair of three's that are just sitting now that I have moved to an apartment and cant wire rear surrounds without looking crappy.I cought a killer deal on a pair of Revel F12's on ePay that are now my front speakers but if I had the money($2200.00) when i was shopping I would have jumped on the M22's as they are superior to the Three's IMO.

Thanks for letting me know they are cheaper now as I may try like hell to sell the F12's and get those as I still have a sub just sitting as well collecting dust that could sound mighty sweet with the M22's :D:D

Alimentall

09-01-07, 10:57 PM

Did you?

Well, that's what I meant.

Of course, you did say this as well: ;)

The T5s measure flatter and do have better bass, but the midrange, treble and imaging/soundstaging go to the Fours.

I happened to check out the M12 measurements in Soundstage and they don't really come close to the Three's measurements, so I guess you just like that extra cone coloration :D

Alimentall

09-01-07, 10:59 PM

Anybody to support this statement?

The lowest I can find them is around $1700 online. Do you know any place selling them for the price you mentioned?

If I have to buy used, it will be a different ball game and I am sure there is going to be a new league of used speakers around that price range. Thanks.

Don't know. The M22 *should* be a little better, at least in some ways, though, I've compared the Threes to other speakers in the $1500-$2500/pr range and haven't found one I like as well at all. They're a "silence" to the speaker that makes most other 2-ways sound "busy" or colored.

Alimentall

09-01-07, 11:03 PM

from 150Hz on up, what is the difference between the fours and the threes?

Mainly that the Four has a little more upper bass/lower midrange detail and better midrange balance/integration.

EnvelopedInSound

09-01-07, 11:26 PM

JRSUB

09-02-07, 07:08 AM

I have had the Classics 3 since they were first available and really enjoyed them. I used them as my front's with an Outlaw 1070 reciever using an 80 Hertz analog crossover. My sub was an SVS pb12 plus/2. Well, I have a NAD integrated C370 that was just being used as an amp with the Outlaw being used as a pre and always thought the NAD was somewhat better sounding for 2 channel listening than the Outlaw So I wanted to separate my 2 channel setup from my HT setup by purchasing a second set of speakers for 2 channel to use with the NAD C370. What I bought were some Tyler Acoustic Linbrook Signature Monitors. I won't getting get into comparing the Tyler' s and the NHT since they are both champions at their different price points.

Anyhow, It turns out I didn't have the real estate and did not care for the asthetics of having two sets of speakers up front so I deligated the Tylers to be the front's and use the NAD C370 for two channel listening and use the Outlaw/NAD combo with a unity gain setup for HT. I was actually somewaht surprised that the Tyler's worked so well with my 3C center being that the tweeter are so different. I was using the NHT absolute zeros as surrounds but replaced them with my Clasisc 3's.

Anyhow, the Tyler/NHT combo sounds great and had NHT had a speaker size somewhere between the Classic 4 and Classic 3 I probably would have bought it.

mark russ

09-02-07, 12:51 PM

Well, that's what I meant.

The T5s measure flatter and do have better bass, but the midrange, treble and imaging/soundstaging go to the Fours.

I happened to check out the M12 measurements in Soundstage and they don't really come close to the Three's measurements, so I guess you just like that extra cone coloration :D

Yeah, and they also measured better than the Xd under Soundstage's criteria. :p

Since it has to be one or the other because you simply can't have it both ways (whichever one is most convenient to you at any given time), which one is it John, is the the speaker with the best measurements the superior speaker, or is it the one which subjectively sounds better to you? ;)

Please do clarify this for all of us here once and for all for the record. I'm sure there are prolly many here who would like to know the answer to that one. :D

mark russ

09-02-07, 12:54 PM

Also,
I would like to point out that I am still a big fan of NHT kit as for the money you will be hard pressed to best it and by me comparing a $800 Three to a $2200 M22 is more than a little unfair.

What about when the M22 is less than $1000 from an authorized dealer? :D

mark russ

09-02-07, 01:09 PM

from 150Hz on up, what is the difference between the fours and the threes?

"The Four's listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +0.75/–2.67 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz. The –3-dB point is at 42 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 35 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 5.24 ohms at 145 Hz and a phase angle of –69.50 degrees at 61 Hz.

The Three's listening-window response measures +1.05/–3.68 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. The –3-dB point is at 69 Hz, and the –6-dB point is at 55 Hz. Impedance reaches a minimum of 4.77 ohms at 143 Hz and a phase angle of –48.61 degrees at 76 Hz."

Taken from:

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

Of course, the M5/B5 did even better than that. I can't copy and paste it, but you can see it for yourself here: :D

http://nhthifi.com/2006/press/reviews/evolution_ht.pdf

Bone215

09-02-07, 01:28 PM

John and Mark
thanks
I am glad I went with the 3s and put my own subs underneath rather than going with the 4s.

mark russ

09-02-07, 01:32 PM

Sleep soundly, for you made the right decision. ;)

What subs BTW?

Alimentall

09-02-07, 01:48 PM

John
wanted to say that I hope you are doing better after your last and final break-in.Im in the market for a preamp and good 2 channel amp but I must have accidentally deleted the email u sent us members of your forum out.Any chance I could get another list of the gear left?

Thanks. I do have a pretty well updated list on the forum. http://forum.adnm.com I don't think I have much in the preamp/amp field left though :(

Also,
I would like to point out that I am still a big fan of NHT kit as for the money you will be hard pressed to best it and by me comparing a $800 Three to a $2200 M22 is more than a little unfair.

Well, I don't think it's *that* unfair. Obviously, if the M22 is better, it needs to be notably better to be worth the extra money. I think it's very likely still that the Three does *some* things better than the M22, so I don't really worry about it that much and it all comes down to what you like for the money anyway. I just think NHT needs to come out with Evo II so we have that $1500/pr or more high-end bookshelf speaker. The ~$15K/pr M80Xd uses the same tweeter/midrange of the Three and the same woofers, I believe, as the Evolution subs.

EnvelopedInSound

09-02-07, 02:15 PM

What about when the M22 is less than $1000 from an authorized dealer? :D

Then the Revel is by far the best bang for the buck out IMHO :)

Gonna call Tuesday and see if my local Revel dealer still has a pair or if they have the demos to sell me at a great price and if so...Anyone need some Revel F12's or Classic Three's?? :D

DekPM19

09-02-07, 03:13 PM

Perhaps, but I see it this way, they've got a very small market in the pro field, but a much bigger one in consumer. They've got a lot of energy and money in Xd and Xd Pro. I bet I couldn't sell a single pair of M80s to a studio, they're too expensive and frankly, they think "good enough" is "good enough". But a consumer? I could sell quite a few to at least some people. But the big markets like CA, TX, NY, etc, they could sell a lot as consumer speakers.

Personally, it's not the Xd I want, but it's the Xd I'd take. Too ugly to put out front, so it would have to go in wall or on a bookshelf, but that kills a lot of what Xd can do. It really is for a room that is built acoustically for inwall speakers with lots of deadening. A pretty tower would sell a whole lot more. *sigh*

If you go back in this thread from the first time I seen the M80 I thought it was a killer looking speakers. But at $5000.00 a channel I just don't see selling to many sets. Don't get me wrong their are plenty of people with tons of money to buy, but with the new Revels comming out and the Aerial LR5 and alot of others that sound great and really look great it just would be hard for me to buy.

Infact here are some speakers from Jim Salk. They start at around $5000 to 5500 a pair these are custom done for someone, but I would gues they are still less than a pair of M80's

http://www.salksound.com/gallery/markyatchak/ht3-crotchmahogany.jpg

And a close up...

http://www.salksound.com/gallery/markyatchak/ht3-crotchmahogany-cu.jpg

Allen

mark russ

09-02-07, 03:27 PM

But at $5000.00 a channel I just don't see selling to many sets.

I agree. If the Xd can't sell for $6000 for 2 channels plus a sub, then the MXD 80 sales will be virtually non-existent at that price.

You could almost put together a complete 6.2 Xd surround system package for the price of a pair of Mxd-80s and a S-80 sub. Certainly for the price of such a system with dual S-80 subs.

mark russ

09-02-07, 03:31 PM

Just bumping this quote up from all the way back on page 2.

The 2" domes in the M-80Xd are the same driver with a different voice coil impedance as used in the Classic series. I wouldn't use an M-80Xd for a center channel with anything else but itself for Lefts and Rights. The M-80Xd gets processed by an XdA which has about 8ms of latency in it. You're going to have a very hard time getting your other channels time delay to match. The dispersion of the M-80Xd will be considerably narrower than any of our consumer speakers. This will make it very hard to match the tonality of it to anything else. The 3C has about the same output as an AC-2. I don't see why anyone would need any more than this unless their room is just huge. Of course if you really want a headbanger/hi-fi HT system, you can buy 5 M-80Xds and a couple of S-80 subs to go with them. Be prepared to bring a pretty fat wallet though:) Ten 8" magnesium cone woofers, ten 2" dome midranges, four 12" long throw woofers, 4kW total amplifier power, etc, etc.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 03:51 PM

If you go back in this thread from the first time I seen the M80 I thought it was a killer looking speakers. But at $5000.00 a channel I just don't see selling to many sets. Don't get me wrong their are plenty of people with tons of money to buy, but with the new Revels comming out and the Aerial LR5 and alot of others that sound great and really look great it just would be hard for me to buy.

Well, sure, but then you have to buy amps. The Aerials and Revels cost almost as much as the M80s but without the amplification or subwoofage.

Infact here are some speakers from Jim Salk. They start at around $5000 to 5500 a pair these are custom done for someone, but I would gues they are still less than a pair of M80's

Again, sure, but that's without a real sub or DEQX or amplification. They have pretty wood, but I don't like the shape of the box much (not that the M80 wins any beauty contests). If you took 5 HT3s, that's $13K or so, bought 3 DEQX boxes for about $9K. Then you need 15 channels of amps for maybe $5K. Then you need to buy a couple of darn good subs for about $3K. Then you might be in the same league as M80s for $30K. Granted, it would be prettier, but you'd have to do all your own measurements and setup. Of course, we just have to hear what the real performance actually is, but a 5.2 Xd system shouldn't be more than $30K. 5 Revel Gem2s, a couple of Revel subs and a 5 channel amp would cost well more than that ($40K or so) and there's no way it could keep up in dynamics and adjustability. I was actually looking at Revels for the last year thinking that I might need to pick them up, but if I can have M80s to sell, there's no way. I just hope they pretty them up a bit.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 03:55 PM

I agree. If the Xd can't sell for $6000 for 2 channels plus a sub, then the MXD 80 sales will be virtually non-existent at that price.

I don't think so. The problem with Xd is that it is too inexpensive for the high-end crowd, too "pedestrian". The big complaints is that it is too small or doesn't play loud enough (mainly perception). I can sell M80s. I would probably do 3 M80s up front with 2 pairs of XdS in the back with dual front and dual rear subs.

You could almost put together a complete 6.2 Xd surround system package for the price of a pair of Mxd-80s and a S-80 sub. Certainly for the price of such a system with dual S-80 subs.

Almost. But I plan on trading in a lot of big, expensive speakers and amps. I mean, really, except for the looks, there's no doubt in my mind that a $15K or $18K M80 system would just crush most everything out there, including some $100K/pr speakers (as long as you like the sound of accuracy, anyway)

Alimentall

09-02-07, 03:57 PM

Just bumping this quote up from all the way back on page 2.

Narrow dispersion, if smooth across the primary sweetspot, can be a plus in the typical dedicated HT room. Speakers can be too close to corners and these will probably perform better on a bookshelf or close to a wall than regular Xd. Regular Xds sound like crap if they're close to anything like a big screen TV, wall, corner, etc or if they're in a bright, undamped and/or narrow room.

TrebleVsBass

09-02-07, 03:58 PM

Thanks. I do have a pretty well updated list on the forum. http://forum.adnm.com I don't think I have much in the preamp/amp field left though :(

Well, I don't think it's *that* unfair. Obviously, if the M22 is better, it needs to be notably better to be worth the extra money. I think it's very likely still that the Three does *some* things better than the M22, so I don't really worry about it that much and it all comes down to what you like for the money anyway. I just think NHT needs to come out with Evo II so we have that $1500/pr or more high-end bookshelf speaker. The ~$15K/pr M80Xd uses the same tweeter/midrange of the Three and the same woofers, I believe, as the Evolution subs.

Here are the links for the reviews and the measurements. (there is a link on every review for the measurements.)

NHT 3:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/nht_classic_three.htm

Revel M20:
http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/revel_performa_m20.htm

Ascend Sierra:
http://www.soundstageav.com/onhifi.html

I am new to this area so please correct me if am wrong.
These are my observations from the measurements alone:
Comparing the frequency response, THD+N, impedance and phase angle curves...
in a 2-speaker setup with no subwoofers:
the overall preference would be...M20 > Sierra > NHT better extension , more punchy at lower frequencies giving you a fuller picture

2.1 setup with a 80 Hz crossover:
at lower frequencies.... M20 = Sierra > NHT
midrange NHT= M20 > Sierra (could even be a very slight edge to NHT, this looks like the 3-way implementation actually helps in the midrange)
tweeter performance M20 > NHT = Sierra

After all, I do not know how refined the M22 is over the M20 but with minimal tweak in the midrange, the M22 would be a complete winner in every aspect.

Of course M22 performance is more demanding on your receiver with a lower nominal impedance (although peak current demands look around the same). These guys test it with high end equipment, so one should take into account the additional THD created from lower-end amplification with the more demanding Revels.

Ok, I know this doesn't mean much since sound preference is subjective and the ears are the bosses.

Please check out the reviews and the measurements and provide some feedback. Thank you.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 04:15 PM

EnvelopedInSound

09-02-07, 04:33 PM

there's no doubt in my mind that a $15K or $18K M80 system would just crush most everything out there, including some $100K/pr speakers (as long as you like the sound of accuracy, anyway)

Is this based on actual listening experience or from what they say on paper or neither?

Not trying to sound like a turd Im just curious as I have been busy lately and dont know anything about these M80's you guys are talking about now.

EnvelopedInSound

09-02-07, 04:42 PM

DekPM19

09-02-07, 04:42 PM

DekPM19

09-02-07, 04:44 PM

I don't think so. The problem with Xd is that it is too inexpensive for the high-end crowd, too "pedestrian". The big complaints is that it is too small or doesn't play loud enough (mainly perception). I can sell M80s. I would probably do 3 M80s up front with 2 pairs of XdS in the back with dual front and dual rear subs.

Almost. But I plan on trading in a lot of big, expensive speakers and amps. I mean, really, except for the looks, there's no doubt in my mind that a $15K or $18K M80 system would just crush most everything out there, including some $100K/pr speakers (as long as you like the sound of accuracy, anyway)

Sorry John didn't read all of this post before posting my last post.
Allen

DekPM19

09-02-07, 04:48 PM

I would probably do 3 M80s up front with 2 pairs of XdS in the back with dual front and dual rear subs.

Here is a question can the contoller run a system like this?

Allen

mark russ

09-02-07, 04:50 PM

Is this based on actual listening experience or from what they say on paper or neither?

Not trying to sound like a turd Im just curious as I have been busy lately and dont know anything about these M80's you guys are talking about now.

EIS, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you have just met the world's greatest dispenser of NHT Kool-aid. :D

Just have a sip and enjoy. ;)

mark russ

09-02-07, 04:52 PM

Here is a question can the contoller run a system like this?

Allen

Allen, in a quote of Jack's which Tim recently bumped back up, Jack said that there would not ever be any software updates for the Controller for the MXD-80s, but this may have recently changed now. Only Jack can say for sure at this point if it has.

DekPM19

09-02-07, 04:55 PM

Here is a link to the M-80
http://nhthifi.com/2006/products/pro/m80.html

I liked the other link funtion where I could name my link instead of having to post the link in.
Allen

mark russ

09-02-07, 04:57 PM

Mark Russ

I am curious to see if you have double blinded the M22's and Classic Three's.From what I am gathering now about seperates vs. my crappy little HK AVR-135 I may just need to upgrade the AVR and go with seperates to get my Three's to shine.

A side note:
I listened to the M22's locally @ a dealers but they were hooked up to about $15K seperates by Lexicon so Im pretty sure the race may be a little closer if I try my Three's with some good quality seperates.

What I was amazed about with the M22's was their abitlity to throw a soundstage about 2-3ft beyond the side walls and the recording I heard being demoed had the female singers voice sounding like it was coming from 10-15ft behind the rear wall which was exactly what I wanted to hear.It was truly the best demo I have experienced in my life.Any thoughts on some <2K seperates that would be able to sound like this with either my Classic Three's or my Revel F12's. I know people say it is mostly in the recording but those M22's were just amazing with everything I threw at them including a burned CD of Deadsy-Commencement.

Well I pretty much subscribe to the theory that virtually any speaker can only benefit from more clean power. At a very absolute minimum, I would suggest a HK AVR (which all have relatively high current at their respective price points), which is what you already have.

For a multi channel power amp, Evmotiva (sp?) makes a 6 channel amp which is rated for like 120 watts I think it is for like $399, or something like that.

I assume your HK AVR does have pre-outs?

Edit - here it is:

http://www.emotiva.com/lpa1.html

6 x 125 watts per, 63 lbs., but it's $499, not $399. Which still isn't half bad at all though. ;)

DekPM19

09-02-07, 04:57 PM

Allen, in a quote of Jack's which Tim recently bumped back up, Jack said that there would not ever be any software updates for the Controller for the MXD-80s, but this may have recently changed now. Only Jack can say for sure at this point if it has.

I would think a controller hooked straight up to everything would make it a lot easier to sell and maybe less boxes in the rack.
Allen

mark russ

09-02-07, 05:02 PM

I guess with what mark is saying some m80 across the front with the xds for surrounds how would that be Mark.
Allen

Allen, actually that is what John said, not me. I have no idea how it would work as I've never heard MXD-80s, but I imagine that Xds would be a fine, much cheaper option (relatively speaking, of course) for less critical surrounds than more MXD-80s back there.

mark russ

09-02-07, 05:05 PM

I would think a controller hooked straight up to everything would make it a lot easier to sell and maybe less boxes in the rack.
Allen

I suspect that at some point in the future, the Controller (or it's eventual successors) will handle the DEQX type processing for future generations of Xd type speakers to make it more cost effective.

TrebleVsBass

09-02-07, 05:20 PM

While I agree that the M20 has lower distortion in the lower frequencies than the Sierra or Three, I'm *not* sure how you're coming to the conclusion that the Sierra beats the Three in much of anything :confused: The Three goes deeper and, as a percentage, the distortion below 100Hz is lower on the Threes and the graph looks like the difference would only increase as the bass got lower. The Three appears to have better dispersion and lower midrange distortion as a bonus.

Further, you're forgetting a big issue here - porting. The NHT is sealed, so it won't have audible port issues (not in the bass, not in the lower midrange) and therefore makes a better selection for use with a sub, all things equal. The NHT also has the advantage of the best matched horizontal center speaker and the best matched inwall speakers. I think the Three is the best *design* of the three speakers and, to be honest, the design is so good, the worst you can really say is that it has yet to reach its full potential. I think the Three is a few tweaks away from making a lot of expensive bookshelf speakers just seem ridiculous.

And even then, you still have to listen.

As I have said, I am totally new to this area. I am just telling what I get out of the measurements, trying to understand them better. That's why I am asking for feedback.

First of all, do you agree that the Sierras seem better without a sub from the frequency response curve?
The curve is flatter, and please check out the SPL numbers around 20-40 Hz etc.. That is probably why people are saying that it extends more and has a lot of tight punchy bass.
Second Point:
You are right, I should be more specific and divide the lower frequency into bass and midbass. (20-140 Hz and 140-400 Hz respectively)
If you look at the THD+N graph (average of 50-140 Hz shown range), the bass range goes to Sierra's favor. Towards the end of the midbass range, NHT takes the crown and carries it all the way to the end of the spectrum.
Between NHT 3s and Sierras:
One definitely has to hear both to decide. Based on the measurements alone.....without a sub for stereo fronts only, I would probably go for the Sierras. (assuming same cost)
With a sub, it comes down to price and music preference. Obviously in terms of WAF and looks, the winner is NHT.
Since you say best matched surrounds, that helps too. :-)
What are the best surrounds for the 3s (not in-wall)?

DekPM19

09-02-07, 06:11 PM

Allen, actually that is what John said, not me. I have no idea how it would work as I've never heard MXD-80s, but I imagine that Xds would be a fine, much cheaper option (relatively speaking, of course) for less critical surrounds than more MXD-80s back there.

Yea I missed Johns post of that and I posted this meanig with the M80s across the front and your post of using xds if you combined them it would make a cost effected way of a high performance HT all xd system.
Allen

Alimentall

09-02-07, 06:31 PM

Is this based on actual listening experience or from what they say on paper or neither?

Well, just theorizing, but it takes Xd to an entirely different level and takes away most of the flaws, real or perceived, that current Xd has. It can move a whole lot more air, goes deeper and goes to a 4-way design. So expect to see amazingly low distortion figures on this puppy. I'd love to see the measurements. My only complaint is the cabinet. I'd far prefer an attractive tower, but I'll take it.

The previous Xd was only really limited by the fact that the technology could only support a 3-way system, so they had to make some compromises, whereas they really don't need to do that here. If it's even a little better than current Xd, but with extra dynamics, that would be pretty unreal.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 06:35 PM

John I was guessing you would bring up amps, but you really don't have to have all of what you said. So the price would be a lot less. I know you are pointing out how the m80 are biamped and they have eq to them.

Well, my point is there's no way the speakers you mentioned could really keep up with M80s unless you DEQXed them.

The M80s are actively tri-amped and quad-amped if you include sub, but also have the advantages of DSP impulse response correction (much more than just EQ) the others don't have.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 06:37 PM

Here is a question can the contoller run a system like this?

No reason not, though I wonder if they'll do a balanced version of the Controller.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 06:39 PM

EIS, in case you haven't figured it out yet, you have just met the world's greatest dispenser of NHT Kool-aid. :D

Hey now! I just know what DEQX can do for a 3-way speaker, so I'm awaiting a 4-way, though, to be honest, the M80 is kind of old news. The only real news is that it sounds like it will be available via retail channels.

If you ask NHT, they'd probably also say that I'm their biggest critic and a huge PITA :)

Alimentall

09-02-07, 07:11 PM

First of all, do you agree that the Sierras seem better without a sub from the frequency response curve?
The curve is flatter, and please check out the SPL numbers around 20-40 Hz etc..
That is probably why people are saying that it extends more and has a lot of tight punchy bass.

Well, maybe. I don't know if we know if that means the bass is actually better or not, but it might mean that they have subjectively a little more bass down low. Objectively, it seems more problematic and erratic to me than the NHT's bass with the bigger impedance fluctuations. I'd say "better without a sub" is going to just be more of how you like the overall bass sound.

You are right, I should be more specific and divide the lower frequency into bass and midbass. (20-140 Hz and 140-400 Hz respectively)
If you look at the THD+N graph (average of 50-140 Hz shown range), the bass range goes to Sierra's favor. Towards the end of the midbass range, NHT takes the crown and carries it all the way to the end of the spectrum.

Well, actually, the NHT is clearly better above 200Hz. From 100Hz to 200Hz, they track almost identically. From about 70Hz to 100Hz, the Sierras are better. But you can see the bass distortion below 70Hz really spike as it goes towards 50Hz at the same time the bass output is dropping off (faster than the NHT is this graph for some reason). The NHT's distortion actually levels off in this area, looking like it's going to hold at a much lower level of distortion below 50Hz. If you look just at 50Hz, the Sierra's bass is about 4dB lower and the distortion is about 4dB higher with a very steep slope. It's pretty impressive for a 5.25" midrange vs a 6.5", but here's the telling thing. Soundstage does 95dB distortion figures if the speaker does pretty well, but typically omits them if it does not. It appears to me that, while the Sierra is very impressive at lower volumes, it may very well fall apart during higher peaks in movies. That's why I'm not as amazed by it I guess.

Between NHT 3s and Sierras:
One definitely has to hear both to decide. Based on the measurements alone.....without a sub for stereo fronts only, I would probably go for the Sierras. (assuming same cost)
With a sub, it comes down to price and music preference. Obviously in terms of WAF and looks, the winner is NHT.

While I would concede that the Sierra might be more powerful in a small room without a sub, I'd more say that I'd be flipping coins without a sub and strongly leaning towards NHT with a sub. If you've ever seen the noise put out by a port in a Stereophile graph, you'll understand why. HOWEVER, all that really gets trumped by what a speaker sounds like overall and you might just prefer the Sierras. I will say that many ported speakers would be preferred to NHTs when I ran them without a sub, but suddenly, with a sub, people preferred the clarity and integration of the NHTs, so a big part of how we perceive a speaker is in the overall bass/treble balance.

Keep in mind, there's a lot of data such as spectral decay, more precise dispersion measurements, cabinet resonance measurements and other things that can give you more information that is missing.

Since you say best matched surrounds, that helps too. :-)
What are the best surrounds for the 3s (not in-wall)?

Not inwall? Threes, so that's a wash. With either brand, you'd want to match the rears with the same speaker if you can. Still hoping for nice on-walls or a smaller version of Threes or Fours.

Alimentall

09-02-07, 10:18 PM

I know, I know, I sound like an NHT 'ho'......

I just like 3-way bookshelfs, 4-way towers, acoustic suspension and digital speakers. Who else gives me that, aside from Meridian at 2-10 times the price?

oldears

09-02-07, 10:50 PM

No affiliation and I would have bought this if I didn't have my 3's/U2 setup. If it's not appropriate to link to ads, please let me know and I won't do it again...

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrfull&1191249184

Peter

Alimentall

09-03-07, 11:22 AM

I never quite understand why anyone in their right mind would sell T5s. You just can't get a system with that caliber of bass and matching and accuracy from most any other company without spending $10K or so and about the only thing you'd get would be more resolution. About the only time people really tried to do this was when they needed to switch to a sub/sat design, so we'd swap the B5s for a W1 or W2s. And then there was always that person that wanted to go from W1s or W2s to B5s so......

Okay, fine, I traded mine towards an Audi A4, but I still ended up with L5s and a U1.

mark russ

09-03-07, 01:55 PM

Yea I missed Johns post of that and I posted this meanig with the M80s across the front and your post of using xds if you combined them it would make a cost effected way of a high performance HT all xd system.
Allen

Well if there is an eventual firmware update for the Controller for M-80s, and if I were going to do up a system with them, I'd just get Threes for surrounds driven by a Power5 or 2 (depending on how many surrounds I had). That would definitely be much more cost effective than even using regular Xds for surrounds.

The Controller would automatically take care of the DSP correction time difference between them.

Then again, I have my own view of priorities. To me, the main L/R speakers (which may or may not include an outboard sub or subs) are the most important for music, cause I only listen to music in 2 channel, and for movies, in my view, the 2 most important speakers in the system are the CC speaker and the sub or subs.

Surrounds to me for movies are just not that critical.

mark russ

09-03-07, 02:00 PM

HOWEVER, all that really gets trumped by what a speaker sounds like overall ...

So, is that the final answer for this: ;)

Yeah, and they also measured better than the Xd under Soundstage's criteria. :p

Since it has to be one or the other because you simply can't have it both ways (whichever one is most convenient to you at any given time), which one is it John, is the the speaker with the best measurements the superior speaker, or is it the one which subjectively sounds better to you? ;)

Please do clarify this for all of us here once and for all for the record. I'm sure there are prolly many here who would like to know the answer to that one. :D

If so, I'm sure that some here will prolly refer to it from now on whenever you break out the old "objective better measurements" standby. :p

Alimentall

09-03-07, 04:57 PM

Well if there is an eventual firmware update for the Controller for M-80s, and if I were going to do up a system with them, I'd just get Threes for surrounds driven by a Power5 or 2 (depending on how many surrounds I had).

Keep in mind that there's no reason to have any firmware update for M80s. There's nothing the Controller could possibly do for them. You simply set the speakers to the same setting as Xd, unless Jack has something to offer there. Or set them as "Non-NHT Large" (or whatever it is, I've never used it ;) )

Alimentall

09-03-07, 05:10 PM

So, is that the final answer for this: ;)

Well, there is no "final" answer. Xds measure better than Evolution, Threes and Fours, especially with the new filters. Flatter, better dispersion, generally lower distortion. Xds are clearly better than the others to me. And, if you measure them side by side, you'll see that Threes/Fours are more accurate in the mid/treble than T6s at least and have better dispersion than Evolution in general. They also just have better midrange/treble resolution IMO and sound cleaner and clearer right up until their limits. If they had the bass of Evo or Xd, the Evo wouldn't even be in the running except for bad rooms/bad setups.

That's why it might be nice to have M80s around. If they can do for a bad room what Xd does for a good one........

Still, they need to make a pretty tower with dual 12" and front/rear firing driver arrays. Imagine a speaker with adaptive dispersion, perhaps in phase in the low bass, dipole in the upper bass/low mids, bipole in the upper mids, monopole in the upper treble, or whatever combination yields the best sound in a room to the owner. THAT is what NHT should be pursuing vigorously, IMO. The high-end audiophile crowd will downplay Xd as long as it is a one size fits all speaker, especially if it's a small cute speaker.

mark russ

09-03-07, 05:39 PM

Keep in mind that there's no reason to have any firmware update for M80s. There's nothing the Controller could possibly do for them.

It would automatically take care of the 8 ms of latency, just as it currently does with Xds when using them with other types. Of course, any benefit at all the speaker wizard could possibly provide in tying mismatched lines together could only be better than none at all. ;)

mark russ

09-03-07, 05:43 PM

Well, there is no "final" answer. Xds measure better than Evolution, Threes and Fours, especially with the new filters. Flatter, better dispersion, generally lower distortion. Xds are clearly better than the others to me. And, if you measure them side by side, you'll see that Threes/Fours are more accurate in the mid/treble than T6s at least and have better dispersion than Evolution in general. They also just have better midrange/treble resolution IMO and sound cleaner and clearer right up until their limits. If they had the bass of Evo or Xd, the Evo wouldn't even be in the running except for bad rooms/bad setups.

That's why it might be nice to have M80s around. If they can do for a bad room what Xd does for a good one........

Did you even read the question that was asked of you, because even your "non-answer" given here has absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. :confused:

That is, unless you were trying to admit that the answer depends on your agenda at the time you use it. :p;):D

Alimentall

09-03-07, 06:07 PM

What's the actual question?!? :eek: If the question is whether I determine "better" by which measures better or which sounds better, it's a bit of both, but Xd measures/sounds better than Evo/Classic. Evo sounds/measures better in the bass, Classic sounds/measures better in the mid/treble.

GlennMaples

09-03-07, 07:16 PM

Mark,
Please stop picking on John. You are just sooooooo mean.
big grin

BTW, I have an idea for a new reality show. 10 couples auditioning for the new Odd Couple. I think you and John would make a VERY competitive team.

-glenn

mark russ

09-03-07, 07:36 PM

What's the actual question?!? :eek: If the question is whether I determine "better" by which measures better or which sounds better, it's a bit of both,

That was the question, but no, it's not always both, and when it's not, the question is - which takes precedence over the other? Again, please answer that question once and for all just for the record, because I have seen you argue it both ways now on this and various other threads. :D

but Xd measures/sounds better than Evo/Classic. Evo sounds/measures better in the bass, Classic sounds/measures better in the mid/treble.

Absolutely not true. While the XdS did best the Fours under HTM's measurement criteria, they did not the M5. :eek:

HTM's XdS measurements:

"The XdS's listening-window response (a five-point average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal and vertical responses) measures +1.47/–1.18 decibels from 200 hertz to 10 kilohertz. An average of axial and +/–15-degree horizontal responses measures +1.61/–1.04 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz".

taken from:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/compactspeakers/1105nht/index2.html

HTM's M5 measurements:

"The listening-window response of the M5 measures +1.29/-0.84 decibels from 200 Hz to 10 kHz. An average of axial and (+/–15-degree) horizontal responses measures +1.41/–0.61 dB from 200 Hz to 10 kHz."

Taken from:

http://nhthifi.com/2006/press/reviews/evolution_ht.pdf

Now, according to HTM's measurements, the M5 sounds more accurate than even the XdS, but I think it's prolly pretty safe to say that the majority of listeners would not necessarily share that view.

mark russ

09-03-07, 07:49 PM

Mark,
Please stop picking on John. You are just sooooooo mean.
big grin

Just tryin' to be my usual dickish self. ;):p:D

Alimentall

09-03-07, 11:55 PM

That was the question, but no, it's not always both, and when it's not, the question is - which takes precedence over the other? Again, please answer that question once and for all just for the record, because I have seen you argue it both ways now on this and various other threads. :D

Ahhhhh. If you're going to make an argument that a speaker is actually a "better" speaker, it had better well measure better too. But when it comes to making a personal choice, you have to pick what you like. Just because you prefer a speaker doesn't mean it's actually better. I hope that calms your fretful mind :D

Absolutely not true. While the XdS did best the Fours under HTM's measurement criteria, they did not the M5. :eek:

Well, it would be hard to beat that one particular measurement of the T5 with anything under most any condition. But the Xd has had a filter upgrade that flattens the response quite a bit. And even so, it's the distortion/dispersion/spectral decay information that would be more indicative. Trust me, the Xd measures better overall than T5s. Keep in mind that the T5 measurement was an average of multiple plots that are each less accurate, but average out very nicely. If you were to show the actual vertical/horizontal dispersion as Stereophile does, and some of the other data, you'd see what I mean. The T6 didn't measure nearly as well as Xd in Stereophile. And even if it did, once you get within a certain target, accuracy takes a big back seat to other factors.

DekPM19

09-04-07, 08:13 PM

I think some people get hung up with the measurments of speakers. I mean I work on some of the largest paper machines in the world I wear ear plugs all day and have to have my hearing tested once a year. So I know I have some hearing loss. Don't get me wrong I have compared speakers and can tell a difference between them. Knowing I have some type of hearing loss I might pick a little hotter speaker than someone else. Plus some people design speakers with certain applcations in mind. And in that set up they may sound great but outside that realm they may not sound as good. I think Craigsub has shown this the best he has had blind listening test and the best speaker they pick is not the one that always measures the best.
Allen

mark russ

09-05-07, 04:38 PM

Ahhhhh. If you're going to make an argument that a speaker is actually a "better" speaker, it had better well measure better too. But when it comes to making a personal choice, you have to pick what you like. Just because you prefer a speaker doesn't mean it's actually better. I hope that calms your fretful mind :D

Actually, it didn't really matter to me which one you said takes precedence over the other in your opinion for whenever it's not both, but it does have to be one or the other. Now, lets see how long you can actually stick to this ;)

Well, it would be hard to beat that one particular measurement of the T5 with anything under most any condition. But the Xd has had a filter upgrade that flattens the response quite a bit. And even so, it's the distortion/dispersion/spectral decay information that would be more indicative. Trust me, the Xd measures better overall than T5s.

So, let me ask you, exactly who has measured the Xd with the new filters installed, much less also ran the same set of measurements on the original filters too? Don't say Stereophile, because the filters with the 150 Hz crossover used in JA's "follow up" measurements were apparently prototypes that might not be exactly identical to the 135 Hz crossover filters now up on and downloadable from NHT's website. You may be right here, and prolly are, at least to a certain extent, but without any conclusive objective proof, it's really nothing more than just sheer speculation on your part. After all, changing the X-over from 110 Hz to 135 Hz is prolly not going to make as dramatic a difference as changing it from 110 Hz to 150 Hz for example, and certainly not as much as the Fours 6.5" drivers being crossed over at 125 Hz as opposed to the Three's 6.5" drivers being ran large/full range.

Keep in mind that the T5 measurement was an average of multiple plots that are each less accurate, but average out very nicely. If you were to show the actual vertical/horizontal dispersion as Stereophile does, and some of the other data, you'd see what I mean

I assume you do realize that both the XdS and the Four were both also subjected to the same standards that the M5 was, yet still did not post as good numbers as the M5 did? I mean, it's not like a single one time standard was created for the M5 here just for the sole purpose of making it's numbers outshine everything else. :p

In fact, if you look at the T5 review previously linked, in the box with it's measurements, HTM had apparently just at that time changed over to the "listening window response" standard they have used since, and appears that they may have the most comprehensive set of all as to what you will actually hear, for it says:

"In an ongoing effort to provide the most meaningful data possible, we've changed our loudspeaker-measurement procedure. In the past, our graphs have shown each speaker's axial response. We are now displaying the listening-window response, which is an average of the axial +/-15-degree horizontal and +/-15-degree vertical measurements. This averaged response more closely represents what a listener in a "normal" listening position is likely to hear, instead of assuming that the listener is directly on-axis with the speaker. For most well-designed speakers, the difference between these two measurements will be slight".

This is as far as I know the only source that has performed the same set of measurements on M5s, XdSs, and Fours. Clearly it shows us that the M5 is actually the most accurate sounding consumer speaker that NHT currently makes, but I personally think the Xds still sound better than M5s/T5s, with or without the new filters.

And finally, could you please clarify this further:

The T6 didn't measure nearly as well as Xd in Stereophile. And even if it did, once you get within a certain target, accuracy takes a big back seat to other factors.

... because it seems to directly contradict this: :D

Ahhhhh. If you're going to make an argument that a speaker is actually a "better" speaker, it had better well measure better too. But when it comes to making a personal choice, you have to pick what you like. Just because you prefer a speaker doesn't mean it's actually better.

Alimentall

09-05-07, 10:05 PM

Actually, it didn't really matter to me which one you said takes precedence over the other in your opinion for whenever it's not both, but it does have to be one or the other. Now, lets see how long you can actually stick to this ;)

Well, point being that people have been saying basically "this is a better speaker because I like the sound of it more". That's basically crap. What they should say is "I prefer this speaker because it sounds better to me, regardless of how it measures" or "I prefer this speaker because it measures better in most ways". As a dealer, my feeling is that it's better to sell a product that is demonstrably and measurably better than simply selling a product because people seem to like it (Bose, Klipsch, JBL, B&W, etc). It's why I am always a small leap away from carrying Revel *but* I may never quite get there because NHT is so darned good. To me, I'm okay with people preferring the Revel M12 over the Three, but the Three sure as heck measures better in most ways.

So, let me ask you, exactly who has measured the Xd with the new filters installed, much less also ran the same set of measurements on the original filters too? Don't say Stereophile, because the filters with the 150 Hz crossover used in JA's "follow up" measurements were apparently prototypes that might not be exactly identical to the 135 Hz crossover filters now up on and downloadable from NHT's website. You may be right here, and prolly are, at least to a certain extent, but without any conclusive objective proof, it's really nothing more than just sheer speculation on your part.

Well, I could sure ask if you're worried about it. I see it this way. Either a) NHT tested the new filter on Stereophile and since it passed very nicely, they gave it to us or b) they kept refining it beyond what they sent to Stereophile and so we have something potentially even better. So I hardly worry about it. Why would they put in a worse filter than what they sent to Stereophile after spending all that time to develop it?

After all, changing the X-over from 110 Hz to 135 Hz is prolly not going to make as dramatic a difference as changing it from 110 Hz to 150 Hz for example

Well, okay, but I'm not getting the point. I suspect that they felt that was where the trade off needed to be for the higher output.

I assume you do realize that both the XdS and the Four were both also subjected to the same standards that the M5 was, yet still did not post as good numbers as the M5 did? I mean, it's not like a single one time standard was created for the M5 here just for the sole purpose of making it's numbers outshine everything else. :p

The M5 measures very flat. However, my point is that there's more deviation in the FR at different angles than there is with Xd. However, they're designed to be complementary in a way, but it may be 3dB up at +15 degrees and 3dB down at -15 degrees. Xd doesn't do that. 10 and -10 add to zero. 3 and -2 add to one. One is a bigger deviation from zero on average, but the latter has a tighter tolerance. Or, put it this way, if you put an arrow exactly 6" to the left and 6" to the right of the target while trying to hit the bullseye, are you a better than a guy who puts two arrows within the bullseye? No.

This is as far as I know the only source that has performed the same set of measurements on M5s, XdSs, and Fours. Clearly it shows us that the M5 is actually the most accurate sounding consumer speaker that NHT currently makes, but I personally think the Xds still sound better than M5s/T5s, with or without the new filters.

Well, by that definition, perhaps, but by other definitions, it would probably be second or even third.

And finally, could you please clarify this further:

FR accuracy, even averaged, is one of a half dozen ways of measuring a speaker. Without distortion or spectral decay or dispersion graphs or anything else, all it tells you is one parameter. Kinda like defining a car simply by its acceleration.

Alimentall

09-05-07, 10:12 PM

Did I mention I'll be listening to M80Xds in a couple of days? :p

Jack Hidley

09-05-07, 10:13 PM

FYI, the Xd 150Hz high output filter on the NHT website is the exact same filter as JA at Stereophile reviewed and measured.

oldears

09-05-07, 10:44 PM

Sure is quiet around here when John or Mark go on vacation... :D

Peter

DekPM19

09-06-07, 12:00 AM

It is just a sign we don't have anything new to talk about so we split hairs on which NHT speakers are the best.
Allen

Alimentall

09-06-07, 01:28 AM

M80Xds, I hope ;)

mark russ

09-06-07, 01:02 PM

Well, point being that people have been saying basically "this is a better speaker because I like the sound of it more". That's basically crap. What they should say is "I prefer this speaker because it sounds better to me, regardless of how it measures" or "I prefer this speaker because it measures better in most ways". As a dealer, my feeling is that it's better to sell a product that is demonstrably and measurably better than simply selling a product because people seem to like it (Bose, Klipsch, JBL, B&W, etc). It's why I am always a small leap away from carrying Revel *but* I may never quite get there because NHT is so darned good. To me, I'm okay with people preferring the Revel M12 over the Three, but the Three sure as heck measures better in most ways.

Well, I could sure ask if you're worried about it. I see it this way. Either a) NHT tested the new filter on Stereophile and since it passed very nicely, they gave it to us or b) they kept refining it beyond what they sent to Stereophile and so we have something potentially even better. So I hardly worry about it. Why would they put in a worse filter than what they sent to Stereophile after spending all that time to develop it?

Well, okay, but I'm not getting the point. I suspect that they felt that was where the trade off needed to be for the higher output.

The M5 measures very flat. However, my point is that there's more deviation in the FR at different angles than there is with Xd. However, they're designed to be complementary in a way, but it may be 3dB up at +15 degrees and 3dB down at -15 degrees. Xd doesn't do that. 10 and -10 add to zero. 3 and -2 add to one. One is a bigger deviation from zero on average, but the latter has a tighter tolerance. Or, put it this way, if you put an arrow exactly 6" to the left and 6" to the right of the target while trying to hit the bullseye, are you a better than a guy who puts two arrows within the bullseye? No.

Well, by that definition, perhaps, but by other definitions, it would probably be second or even third.

FR accuracy, even averaged, is one of a half dozen ways of measuring a speaker. Without distortion or spectral decay or dispersion graphs or anything else, all it tells you is one parameter. Kinda like defining a car simply by its acceleration.

Overall Translation in a nutshell - "I know I previously said that S&V were clueless when it comes to measuring speakers, and that HTM were the experts at it when it supported my agenda at the time (as seen here):

Sound & Vision are utterly clueless when it comes to measuring! Check out the Home Theater Mag measurements ...

... but now that HTM's measurements no longer support my current agenda anymore, now they are totally clueless as well. Then again, this isn't the first time I've done so". (as seen here): :D

But they weren't remotely comprehensive.

mark russ

09-06-07, 01:04 PM

FYI, the Xd 150Hz high output filter on the NHT website is the exact same filter as JA at Stereophile reviewed and measured.

FYI, it says that the x-over is at 135 Hz on the website for both the high output and 20 Hz filters for dual Xdws.

http://nhthifi.com/2006/service-xd-xdsxdw.html

Must be a typo. ;)

Alimentall

09-06-07, 06:52 PM

Overall Translation in a nutshell - "I know I previously said that S&V were clueless when it comes to measuring speakers, and that HTM were the experts at it when it supported my agenda at the time (as seen here):

I wouldn't call HTM "experts", but they certainly are better at measurement than S&V. All they give you is FR. But they do get that part pretty well right.

... but now that HTM's measurements no longer support my current agenda anymore, now they are totally clueless as well. Then again, this isn't the first time I've done so". (as seen here): :D

I said that the measurements were incomplete, not incompetent! Just because you get one measurement right, doesn't mean you have given someone the whole picture. I stand by the fact that M5s, by design, can't fit a tight FR window off axis like Xd unless you average it out. Then, while it could measure flatter on average, it's not as flat at most points.

So........no one to fight with at work or what? ;)

mark russ

09-06-07, 09:00 PM

I wouldn't call HTM "experts", but they certainly are better at measurement than S&V. All they give you is FR. But they do get that part pretty well right.

I said that the measurements were incomplete, not incompetent! Just because you get one measurement right, doesn't mean you have given someone the whole picture. I stand by the fact that M5s, by design, can't fit a tight FR window off axis like Xd unless you average it out. Then, while it could measure flatter on average, it's not as flat at most points.

So........no one to fight with at work or what? ;)

Translation - "I need to leave myself some leeway for if I ever have to use HTM's measurements once again in the future as Kool-aid when it suits my agenda, like when the next generation Evolutions come out with better scores here than the M5 did and I start pimping the new Evo line trying to get my customers who bought Classics and Xds to trade them in". ;):p:D

mark russ

09-06-07, 09:02 PM

I mean I work on some of the largest paper machines in the world I wear ear plugs all day and have to have my hearing tested once a year. So I know I have some hearing loss.

Did you ever take a SPL meter there like you were going to, and if so, results?

DekPM19

09-06-07, 09:08 PM

Did you ever take a SPL meter there like you were going to, and if so, results?

No I had forgotten about that. I will this weekend since I am on nights.
Allen

DekPM19

09-06-07, 09:10 PM

Come on John have you seen the M-80s yet?

Is their anything else NHT has that we don't know about?
Allen

mark russ

09-06-07, 09:11 PM

Alimentall

09-06-07, 11:14 PM

Translation - "I need to leave myself some leeway for if I ever have to use HTM's measurements once again in the future as Kool-aid when it suits my agenda, like when the next generation Evolutions come out with better scores here than the M5 did and I start pimping the new Evo line trying to get my customers who bought Classics and Xds to trade them in". ;):p:D

Classic and Xd measure so well, I can't use future measurements for the most part, unless, for instance, with M80s, I can show how damn loud they play.....

DekPM19

09-06-07, 11:16 PM

Hmm, while browsing through the pro gear on the web site, I just realized that NHT makes a plain old 2 channel pre-amp with XLRs:

http://nhthifi.com/2006/products/pro/pvcpro.html

This might be a good match for a 2 channel Xd system if your only source is a CD player with XLR outputs. :D

Mark you just want it because it is one of the few things NHT sells don't you don't have.:D

With all of the new receivers coming out with HDMI 1.3a and some new Pre/pros coming out with it I would think NHT would have some news for and upgrade for their controller.

Allen

mark russ

09-07-07, 01:37 PM

Classic and Xd measure so well, I can't use future measurements for the most part, unless, for instance, with M80s, I can show how damn loud they play.....

Speaking of which, could you please give us your interpretation of Soundstage's measurements of the Three as opposed to their's of the Xd?

For your convenience, here are links to each. ;)

Three:

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

Xd:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/speakers/nht_xd/

I can't wait to hear this one! :p

mark russ

09-07-07, 01:43 PM

Mark you just want it because it is one of the few things NHT sells don't you don't have.:D

With all of the new receivers coming out with HDMI 1.3a and some new Pre/pros coming out with it I would think NHT would have some news for and upgrade for their controller.

Allen

Jack has said before that there will be a 1.3 upgrade available at some point. :cool:

pierrebnh

09-07-07, 01:56 PM

Jack has said before that there will be a 1.3 upgrade available at some point. :cool:

We don't need it anyway. Keep the costs down and give us features we can use I say! :D

Alimentall

09-07-07, 03:57 PM

Speaking of which, could you please give us your interpretation of Soundstage's measurements of the Three as opposed to their's of the Xd?

Bored much? :D

Hey, it just shows just how damned good the Three is. It would be nice to see the Xd measurements updated with current software. What's interesting is notice how the .75" driver holds its dispersion above 10khz a little better, not that this is necessarily a huge deal for most buyers. The double hump issue that the XdW had was flattened notably on the new software upgrade, though whether that helps or hurts would be room dependent. Those dips and peaks often line up with typical room peaks and dips and could cancel in many rooms and actually sound better. Perhaps they left it that way because they were thinking about the room correction coming up or maybe they just had more time to work on it or maybe they even decided that it would be good marketing to show that the response could be made that much flatter. Notice though how flat the Xd is with the multi-point listening window measurement. It appears to me that the relatively high THD+Noise at 90dB comes from noise in the processing section, so that leaves some room for improvement there. IOW, the driver distortion appears to be below 1% from 200Hz and up, hence the detail, but there's some noise in the DSP/DACs that makes it look a little worse than it is. Hopefully that can be remedied in the future with a new XdA.

I'd really like to see an "XdP" with digital inputs, improved analog section and outboard amps as that would really get rid of the criticisms of the XdA and some small towers would eliminate that whole bias against sub/sats.

mark russ

09-07-07, 04:51 PM

Bored much? :D

Hey, it just shows just how damned good the Three is. It would be nice to see the Xd measurements updated with current software. What's interesting is notice how the .75" driver holds its dispersion above 10khz a little better, not that this is necessarily a huge deal for most buyers. The double hump issue that the XdW had was flattened notably on the new software upgrade, though whether that helps or hurts would be room dependent. Those dips and peaks often line up with typical room peaks and dips and could cancel in many rooms and actually sound better. Perhaps they left it that way because they were thinking about the room correction coming up or maybe they just had more time to work on it or maybe they even decided that it would be good marketing to show that the response could be made that much flatter. Notice though how flat the Xd is with the multi-point listening window measurement. It appears to me that the relatively high THD+Noise at 90dB comes from noise in the processing section, so that leaves some room for improvement there. IOW, the driver distortion appears to be below 1% from 200Hz and up, hence the detail, but there's some noise in the DSP/DACs that makes it look a little worse than it is. Hopefully that can be remedied in the future with a new XdA.

I'd really like to see an "XdP" with digital inputs, improved analog section and outboard amps as that would really get rid of the criticisms of the XdA and some small towers would eliminate that whole bias against sub/sats.

Translation - "What I said here:

Ahhhhh. If you're going to make an argument that a speaker is actually a "better" speaker, it had better well measure better too. But when it comes to making a personal choice, you have to pick what you like. Just because you prefer a speaker doesn't mean it's actually better.

... as well as measurements of any kind in general, are truly valid only when they support whatever my agenda is at the moment". ;):p:D:rolleyes:

mark russ

09-07-07, 05:38 PM

We don't need it anyway. Keep the costs down and give us features we can use I say! :D

Just curious, but what is on your wish list? I'd wouldn't mind seeing room correction at some point.

Alimentall

09-07-07, 05:44 PM

Translation - "What I said here:

... as well as measurements of any kind in general, are truly valid only when they support whatever my agenda is at the moment". ;):p:D:rolleyes:

Not sure how you get that, but ooooookay.

On an objective side, you have to measure everything, you can't cherry pick and point to FR or distortion or dispersion alone, you have to look at the whole picture.

On the subjective side, measurements are difficult to use as an indication of whether you will like a speaker, but it can help you become aware of problems you might not notice on first listen. And even then, some of the more subtle problems with a speaker may go unnoticed in a smoothed FR graph.

You may not see coherence in my beliefs, but I sure do. You're just mad I haven't picked up Revel :p

Alimentall

09-07-07, 05:48 PM

Just curious, but what is on your wish list? I'd wouldn't mind seeing room correction at some point.

I don't know about Pierre, but I'd sure like dual HDMI outputs, another HDMI input, fewer (no?) analog inputs, digital speaker outputs, ethernet control of Sonos, an iPod dock, digital EQ of Zone 2 speakers, a 7" front screen with ability to display OSD information of all attached gear, modular back panel and I could probably think of a few others. Front HDMI input. Dual-zone HDMI output. Remote with all the features possible.

pierrebnh

09-07-07, 06:54 PM

I don't know about Pierre, but I'd sure like dual HDMI outputs, another HDMI input, fewer (no?) analog inputs, digital speaker outputs, ethernet control of Sonos, an iPod dock, digital EQ of Zone 2 speakers, a 7" front screen with ability to display OSD information of all attached gear, modular back panel and I could probably think of a few others. Front HDMI input. Dual-zone HDMI output. Remote with all the features possible.

Room correction would definitely help my situation using my LR as a HT room :(. I also like the OSD idea. The NAD T175 has the data port that works with the NAD Ipod Dock (http://www.hometoys.com/news.php4?section=view&id=11660649), so that one's good enough for me, as a comparison.

Other than that it's pretty perfect for my present wants and needs, I'm chomping at the bit to get my hands on one. :D

tvsurfer

09-07-07, 08:54 PM

An NHT Controller that has at least 4 HDMI 1.3 inputs AND excels at pure two-channel audiophile music listening would empty my wallet in a heartbeat.

DekPM19

09-07-07, 09:36 PM

We don't need it anyway. Keep the costs down and give us features we can use I say! :D

I don't need HDMI at all at this time, but I will in the future. Theirs is more to hdmi than just the audio side too. But with receviers coming out with hdmi 1.3a that are 50 to 75% cheaper than the contoller to stay competive in the market weather you need it now or a time frame for the upgrade to 1.3. Plus it sounds like some people are wanting more than the contoller handle now.The other thing is I think someone looking to upgrade will have buyers remores if their new pre/pro doesn't have hdmi 1.3 or their again not be upgradable. So I think they do need to go ahead and update to it so they can work the bugs out. Also in a few years down the road you will prolly have to have it and want it for the sound up grade. Besides we need to remeber who the parent company is for NHT and for them to do HDMI 1.3a would really be no problem.
Allen

DekPM19

09-08-07, 03:39 AM

Okay here is a shot for everone

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w42/Dekpm19/M80.jpg

Here is a link to the page on Audioholics http://www.audioholics.com/news/trade-show-coverage/2007-cedia-expo/nht-pro-theater

It says pretty much the same thing the NHT press release said but here are a few comments from J. Walker Clarke, Jr.

This is an exciting product - arguably my favorite of the show. The NHT Pro Theater System will be available in November 2007. Pricing for the above configuration plus cables is approximately $40,000.

Mt thoughts are:
At $40,000 it may be out reach for a few people me included.

Allen

DekPM19

09-08-07, 03:50 AM

After I posted the above picture I noticed something. Is that a Controller in that rack. If it is it is bigger than what I thought it would be, because the controller is only 5.75" high.

Okay John let us know.
Allen

Tim916

09-08-07, 11:20 AM

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w42/Dekpm19/M80.jpg

It will be mine...oh yes, it will be mine. Just as soon as I find a briefcase with $40k in it. :)

All things considered, $40k is a deal when you consider that this system will be competing with stuff like Genelec and ATC whose comparable surround systems would easily cost more. Also, the NHT system has the technology built-in to customize the sound to the room and the listener's preference whereas other systems will require the purchase of one or more DSP units like a Dolby Lake which aren't cheap either.

DekPM19

09-08-07, 07:25 PM

I will admit the set up looks pretty cool.
Allen

Jack Hidley

09-08-07, 09:11 PM

That is the Controller in the rack. It looks taller, because it is mounted in a custom trim panel in the rack.

DekPM19

09-08-07, 10:54 PM

That is the Controller in the rack. It looks taller, because it is mounted in a custom trim panel in the rack.

Jack, that is a great look for the controller. When you have to upgrade it in the futrue I think you should have them use that size for it which is about 7" high I would guess maybe 7 1/2. Now that you have pointed it out I see the trim plates with the DEQX or amps what every they are. I gues it is time for me to find somewhere to hear the xd system.

Jack one more thing how about the stands the m80s are on. Will nht sale these are they somthing you will just recomend where to buy.

Also if you are looking at the m80 for a HT what kind of information will you give NHT to help with a custom eq package.
Allen

oldears

09-09-07, 07:38 AM

Jack one more thing how about the stands the m80s are on. Will nht sale these are they somthing you will just recomend where to buy.
We'll wait for the real answer from Jack, but they look like Sound Anchors to me.

Also, what's the reddish thing sitting on the left sub?

Peter

Alimentall

09-09-07, 12:05 PM

DekPM19

09-09-07, 08:19 PM

Also, what's the reddish thing sitting on the left sub?

Peter

I tried zooming in on it but couldn't get a good enough look to tell.
Allen

DekPM19

09-09-07, 08:26 PM

Well, the M80s sounded great as expected, even on the show room floor. I'd have to hear them next to regular Xd, but they did seem to be a little more effortless, detailed, powerful. I don't think they can quite image like Xd because of the cabinet design. Basically being marketed as sort of the ultimate custom installed theater system. I was told 5.2 is $40,000 without the Controller, so I'm going to guess that this means $7000 each for the M80s and $2500 each for the S80s. I'm not thrilled about that price as it will take most of my prospects out of the running, but it is what it is.

That is pretty high.

John I liked your idear of the m80 across the front and the xds for sides and rears. If you add 2 s80 and get the price with in reson that would be a killer system I bet.

Heres hoping for trickle down technology.
Allen

Jack Hidley

09-09-07, 08:32 PM

I'm not sure who made the speaker stands. I'll ask Bob tomorrow.

The red thing on the left S-80 is a photo of a guy using a bullhorn/megaphone which is pointed directly at you. Above the photo, is the text " Now hear this". This same image is on the back of 1/3 of our business cards.

tvsurfer

09-09-07, 10:19 PM

Sorry for the dumb question, but are those the same upper frequency drivers as the Classic Threes? I just want to be able to say that I have the same drivers as the $40k speakers!:D

Jack Hidley

09-10-07, 12:03 AM

All of the drivers in the M-80 and S-80 are unique to those models.

Tim916

09-10-07, 12:44 AM

All of the drivers in the M-80 and S-80 are unique to those models.

Jack,

Does that include the tweeters as well?

Jack Hidley

09-10-07, 12:48 AM

Yes.

DekPM19

09-10-07, 01:37 AM

Did you ever take a SPL meter there like you were going to, and if so, results?

Okay Mark, I brought my Rat Shack meter into work tonight. My main job is to test the paper so I work in a lab with the paper machine about 50' in front of me. I make rounds on the machine and around the building. The building is about as long as a football field and a little over half as wide as a football field and is six stories tall at the highest point.

In the lab I got 68dB. While making rounds I got between 90 & 95 dBs. When we did a turn over (kicking 1 roll of paper weighting 10 tons wrapped on a 6 ton spool 300" wide and bring down an empty 6 ton spool to start building another roll of paper) I got a little over a 100dB when the spool hits the reel.

Lab 68
Rounds on the floor 90 to 95
Turn-ups 100 to 103

We do wear hearing protection.
Allen

DekPM19

09-10-07, 01:42 AM

All of the drivers in the M-80 and S-80 are unique to those models.

How about the new Evolution II speakers what kind of drivers will be in them.;)
Allen

Alimentall

09-10-07, 11:52 AM

It would be nice to get exact pricing on this system. I've heard $40K for 5.2, $40K for 6.3 with Controller, $42.5K for 7.2 and "less than $5K per channel" so far.

Does anyone actually know what the price of the parts and system actually is?

sc10000

09-12-07, 01:02 AM

That's a phenomenal system. Some of us asked for it & there it is.

Alimentall

09-12-07, 01:59 PM

Well, I got the just released official pricing (as opposed to all my looking on websites), so it looks like $45K for 5.2. They didn't have individual pricing yet, but that looks to make it about $8K/ch + $2500/sub, give or take. That would put it at about $65K for 7.2. Interestingly, you could do 7.7 or even 7.14 if you're a glutton for punishment.

Well, it ain't cheap, but when you compare it to almost anything in high-end, it still comes out as a relative bargain. About the closest I can think of to some sort of value/performance/performance range would be the Revel Salon2 at $8000 per channel + subwoofers and you don't get 5500W of power and free cabling with that system. A B&W 800 series system of similar design would also be in the same price range without power or amplification.

I would prefer a different form factor though because high-enders buy on looks as much as sound, much that they'll deny it. I think this system will be popular in most LA, Dallas, NY, etc and other upscale areas where people have the money for it (and the large dedicated home theater room for it) and are looking at stuff like JBL Synthesis, B&W's custom system, etc.

sc10000

09-12-07, 02:40 PM

Stop the insanity! Woke up figuring out how to ebay xzy to get it. Noooooo. :eek:

Tim916

09-12-07, 09:50 PM

sc10000

09-12-07, 11:43 PM

chicomoralessxm

09-13-07, 12:02 AM

Wondering who owns the classic 3's, can these speakers fill mid larger listen room? I'm talking about music 2 channel audio.

Alimentall

09-13-07, 11:31 AM

Exactly. Listen to Jack, these are professional grade units and are not for home use; however for a knowledgeable skilled enthusiast it would be the ultimate. Lots of setup & of course customization *required*. I agree, these are to be heard & not seen, but if you're building that kind of environment you def don't want to see anything besides the screen. Have to give big credit to NHT for even offering such a system. Not everyone can have an F1 Ferrari..but for those that can & know what to do with it, WOW!

Well, they're not "professional grade", they're actually professional units, ported over from NHT Pro. I think they realized that the sales potential is much bigger for large custom theaters than for studios.

That does give me some headache with the form factor though. The kind of people of whom you're speaking are almost completely non-existent in ABQ, so I have a lot of work to do if I want to sell them. Most of my customers simply can't do a separate, dedicated room with hidden speakers. Even so, most people like to show off huge investments in speakers.

From a performance standpoint though, it is the theater of the gods.

ProblemHouston

09-13-07, 12:54 PM

Well, they're not "professional grade", they're actually professional units, ported over from NHT Pro. I think they realized that the sales potential is much bigger for large custom theaters than for studios.

That does give me some headache with the form factor though. The kind of people of whom you're speaking are almost completely non-existent in ABQ, so I have a lot of work to do if I want to sell them. Most of my customers simply can't do a separate, dedicated room with hidden speakers. Even so, most people like to show off huge investments in speakers.

From a performance standpoint though, it is the theater of the gods.

That's not true, as soon as I win the lottery I will be at your store before you...:D

You wouldn't happen to know where I can get some super ones in town would you?

mark russ

09-13-07, 01:46 PM

You may not see coherence in my beliefs, but I sure do.

How can even you see it when you very clearly contradict yourself John?

Ahhhhh. If you're going to make an argument that a speaker is actually a "better" speaker, it had better well measure better too. But when it comes to making a personal choice, you have to pick what you like. Just because you prefer a speaker doesn't mean it's actually better.

HOWEVER, all that really gets trumped by what a speaker sounds like overall ...

The point is, NHT has other current, much cheaper passive speaker models out right now that have posted better numbers than the Xds did on not just one, but two different magazine reviews, and under two totally different sets of criteria at that, the $450 each M5s in HTM and the $400 each Threes in Soundstage. :cool:

Now, I already know that if I didn't go ahead and point out right now in advance what I'm about to say that you would very predictably come back and say yet again that the newer high output filters would improve the Xds numbers in either set of measurements, but I think you seem to be forgetting that they are only available to those who have dual sub version Xds. Those who only have the stock, standard single sub version of Xd simply can't use the newer, upgraded filters.

So, what you said here:

Ahhhhh. If you're going to make an argument that a speaker is actually a "better" speaker, it had better well measure better too. But when it comes to making a personal choice, you have to pick what you like. Just because you prefer a speaker doesn't mean it's actually better.

... just flat out doesn't hold water when taking into consideration that the Xds were pretty much bested by the Threes for the most part in Soundstage and very clearly (if narrowly) topped by the M5s in HTM (although I should point out that the Xds did decisively trump the Threes in the HTM measurements, and unfortunately, Soundstage did not do the M5s), because going by your logic quoted above, the Xds are not the best consumer speaker NHT currently makes, whether anyone likes them better or not.

What was both funny and predictable though was how you tried to claim that the M5 posted better numbers than the standard filter XdS in HTM through an absolute freak, once in a lifetime occurrence (like something akin to ASU beating Michigan) in a flawed, biased system that was obviously weighted to highlight their advantages, while it was actually somewhat semi-legitimate that the Threes bested the standard filter Xds in Soundstage. I already knew in advance that you were going to say that (or some approximate close variation of it, in fact, I could have virtually wrote your response myself in advance). That's why I said "I can't wait to hear this one" in the post I asked you to compare them, and then when I first read your response, I actually sprayed my monitor with some drink I had just taken a sip of which I involuntarily spit out from laughing so hard. :)

Speaking of HTM's measurements of the M5, you said:

The M5 measures very flat. However, my point is that there's more deviation in the FR at different angles than there is with Xd. However, they're designed to be complementary in a way, but it may be 3dB up at +15 degrees and 3dB down at -15 degrees. Xd doesn't do that. 10 and -10 add to zero. 3 and -2 add to one. One is a bigger deviation from zero on average, but the latter has a tighter tolerance. Or, put it this way, if you put an arrow exactly 6" to the left and 6" to the right of the target while trying to hit the bullseye, are you a better than a guy who puts two arrows within the bullseye? No.

And here is what HTM had to say about them in the review itself of the T5:

"In an ongoing effort to provide the most meaningful data possible, we've changed our loudspeaker-measurement procedure. In the past, our graphs have shown each speaker's axial response. We are now displaying the listening-window response, which is an average of the axial +/-15-degree horizontal and +/-15-degree vertical measurements. This averaged response more closely represents what a listener in a "normal" listening position is likely to hear, instead of assuming that the listener is directly on-axis with the speaker. For most well-designed speakers, the difference between these two measurements will be slight".

I think it's prolly safe to say that they know more about their standards they use than you do. ;)

Anyways, enough about that, everyone can decide for themselves exactly how much stock they want to put into your interpretations. :D

This all just goes to show that, and like Allen alluded to before, measurements are not the be all/end all of this game. Of course, you apparently also realize this as well, because after all, you did previously say: :p

HOWEVER, all that really gets trumped by what a speaker sounds like overall ...

Plus, like Jack said:

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.

What would really be interesting to know however, is which one of these magazine's measurement systems that Jack feels are done the best.

Alimentall

09-13-07, 01:47 PM

You wouldn't happen to know where I can get some super ones in town would you?

If only! No one will trade them in. Of course, the used value is so little in theory (<half of original retail :eek: ) that most people just use them in another room.

One wonders how much one could sell them for if they were made in China now. $200/pr? $250/pr? They'd sell like candy. Heck, they did back then at $350. I'd love to have that bargain sku for the masses from NHT, the "not quite high-end, but who cares?" speaker.

mark russ

09-13-07, 01:51 PM

mark russ

09-13-07, 01:52 PM

Other than that it's pretty perfect for my present wants and needs, I'm chomping at the bit to get my hands on one. :D

Are you talking about the Controller or the NAD? :confused:

mark russ

09-13-07, 01:54 PM

An NHT Controller that ... excels at pure two-channel audiophile music listening would empty my wallet in a heartbeat.

For the part of your post quoted here, it does, even as a 2 channel pre-amp. ;)

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:05 PM

Well, the M80s sounded great as expected, even on the show room floor. I'd have to hear them next to regular Xd, but they did seem to be a little more effortless, detailed, powerful. I don't think they can quite image like Xd because of the cabinet design. Basically being marketed as sort of the ultimate custom installed theater system.

I wonder how they do on plain old 2 channel music with their horizontal layout and will their tweeter being sandwiched in between 2 dome mids have any comb filtering issues from this array?

I was told 5.2 is $40,000 without the Controller, so I'm going to guess that this means $7000 each for the M80s and $2500 each for the S80s. I'm not thrilled about that price as it will take most of my prospects out of the running, but it is what it is.

Hey, haven't you been clamoring all this time for a $15K Xd/Classic/Evo hybrid? :p

Alimentall

09-13-07, 02:05 PM

I don't know, but if you have a wish list, pass it on so I can let Esa know!

I'd be happy with just HDMI 1.3 and room EQ on the current model. Any major things will likely just happen on a new model at some point. I can't think of anything major that could easily be added to the existing model.

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:09 PM

Heres hoping for trickle down technology.
Allen

... in the next generation Evolutions maybe. :cool:

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:10 PM

Alimentall

09-13-07, 02:11 PM

I wonder how they do on plain old 2 channel music with their horizontal layout and will their tweeter being sandwiched in between 2 dome mids have any comb filtering issues from this array?

Does okay from what I can tell, but it does seem to have a little bit of that "wide speaker" sound vs the existing Xd. But given where it would be placed, that wouldn't be a big issue.

Hey, haven't you been clamoring all this time for a $15K Xd/Classic/Evo hybrid? :p

Yes, and the only thing missing now is the sellable form factor, the one that looks more like a Classic Four, but sounds like M80Xds. High-end guys equate beauty and price with performance. It's got price to sound good, but if it is to be sold outside a very few, expensive custom installs, they just need a different box for the drivers.

It's kind of what I don't understand, I guess. DEQX is so *easy* to program and get the results you want (well, compared to passive crossovers), that building 4-5 different form factors for Xd and using the same box, but with different filters makes just too much sense. You could take an XdA and make it power any of a number of different speakers of different shapes and driver configurations just by changing the software. You can't do that in the passive domain. IOW, one box, but 4 or 5 different speakers to go with it. I see almost limitless possibilities for the XdA driving all manner of product designed to fit aesthetic and pricing expectations. Heck, an XdA driving a pair of Threes would be sweet.

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:12 PM

Okay Mark, I brought my Rat Shack meter into work tonight. My main job is to test the paper so I work in a lab with the paper machine about 50' in front of me. I make rounds on the machine and around the building. The building is about as long as a football field and a little over half as wide as a football field and is six stories tall at the highest point.

In the lab I got 68dB. While making rounds I got between 90 & 95 dBs. When we did a turn over (kicking 1 roll of paper weighting 10 tons wrapped on a 6 ton spool 300" wide and bring down an empty 6 ton spool to start building another roll of paper) I got a little over a 100dB when the spool hits the reel.

Lab 68
Rounds on the floor 90 to 95
Turn-ups 100 to 103

We do wear hearing protection.
Allen

How long is the duration, just a couple of seconds at the most, and how often do they occur?

Alimentall

09-13-07, 02:12 PM

Wondering who owns the classic 3's, can these speakers fill mid larger listen room? I'm talking about music 2 channel audio.

Within reason, sure. The bass is deep, but not exactly over blown as is normal with most bookshelf speakers. But the dispersion is right for a larger room. If you really want the bass balance in a big room, it would make sense to get Fours. Or add a sub.

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:15 PM

Does okay from what I can tell, but it does seem to have a little bit of that "wide speaker" sound vs the existing Xd. But given where it would be placed, that wouldn't be a big issue.

Yes, and the only thing missing now is the sellable form factor, the one that looks more like a Classic Four, but sounds like M80Xds. High-end guys equate beauty and price with performance. It's got price to sound good, but if it is to be sold outside a very few, expensive custom installs, they just need a different box for the drivers.

It's kind of what I don't understand, I guess. DEQX is so *easy* to program and get the results you want (well, compared to passive crossovers), that building 4-5 different form factors for Xd and using the same box, but with different filters makes just too much sense. You could take an XdA and make it power any of a number of different speakers of different shapes and driver configurations just by changing the software. You can't do that in the passive domain. IOW, one box, but 4 or 5 different speakers to go with it. I see almost limitless possibilities for the XdA driving all manner of product designed to fit aesthetic and pricing expectations. Heck, an XdA driving a pair of Threes would be sweet.

Maybe the next Evo series will have a similar but vertical driver layout better suited for music and movies on the main L/R speakers with defeatable crossovers and a DEQX firmware update for the Controller to turn them into Xds.

I'll bet they would literally sell as many as soon as NHT could turn them out! ;)

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:20 PM

The M-80 is clearly as speaker to be heard and not seen so I don't see the system as competing directly with speakers like Revels and Wilsons etc. I see this as a system to be used in theaters where the client wants film soundtracks to be reproduced as accurately as possible with the LCRs placed behind the screen. NHT needs to demo these for dealers who install stuff like Genelec and JBL in the personal screening rooms of Hollywood bigwigs.

In the dark, you can't see how they look anyway, sort of like an ugly woman. :o:eek:

Alimentall

09-13-07, 02:28 PM

It's what I'm pushing!

I also really believe in the "SuperXd" concept with completely tunable dispersion.

M80Xd addresses one small, but potentially lucrative, market for Xd (high-end custom theater), regular Xd addresses another different market (upscale stereo music lovers). That leaves the high-end stereo market (SuperXd), the entry level high-end market (<$5K Xd towers), mid level custom theater (Xd inwalls), and the big one, middle level *non* custom plug'n'play home theater with high-end sensibilities (Xd towers + matching sub/center/rears).

Like I said, M80s aren't the Xd I truly wanted first and foremost, but it's the Xd I'll take because it at least kicks major booty for the few that still really care about ultimate performance above all else.

mark russ

09-13-07, 02:50 PM

DekPM19

09-13-07, 03:08 PM

How long is the duration, just a couple of seconds at the most, and how often do they occur?

We turn up about every hour and it is only seconds for the 100 plus unless we miss the turn up.
Allen

DekPM19

09-13-07, 03:16 PM

I wonder if a speaker with a driver layout like the M5/M6 could be done with the dome array where, like the in-walls that have the dome arrays, the tweeter is positioned to the inside when mounted vertically as a main L/R, and either above or below the mid (depending on height relative to ear level) when positioned horizontally, such as when used as a CC speaker?

IOW, would it still be possible to have VFIG (preferably with a defeatable option) with the domes?

This is what I was thinking. If you have the xd for 2 channel and you have the m80 for super high end HT I would think something on the lines of M5 for a in between HT systems. In fact the sub for the m80 system looks like the B6 to me. And the price of it at $2500.00 is not that bad. So if you just upgrade the m5 to a xd M5 that mounts on top of the S80 sub at half the price of the M80 I bet it would be very close to the performance and we would have out Evolution II system that we want.

Allen

mark russ

09-13-07, 03:21 PM

This is what I was thinking. If you have the xd for 2 channel and you have the m80 for super high end HT I would think something on the lines of M5 for a in between HT systems. In fact the sub for the m80 system looks like the B6 to me. And the price of it at $2500.00 is not that bad. So if you just upgrade the m5 to a xd M5 that mounts on top of the S80 sub at half the price of the M80 I bet it would be very close to the performance and we would have out Evolution II system that we want.

Allen

You just hit the nail right on the head.

Jack should hire you Allen! :D

ProblemHouston

09-13-07, 04:21 PM

If only! No one will trade them in. Of course, the used value is so little in theory (<half of original retail :eek: ) that most people just use them in another room.

One wonders how much one could sell them for if they were made in China now. $200/pr? $250/pr? They'd sell like candy. Heck, they did back then at $350. I'd love to have that bargain sku for the masses from NHT, the "not quite high-end, but who cares?" speaker.

Just between Chris and I we bought about 15 or so. I ended up with 7 of them and who know how many speakers he went through.

tvsurfer

09-13-07, 07:15 PM

Sorry to sound like jerk, but while $40K speakers are nice, is there any word on an HDMI 1.3a enabled NHT Controller? Even 1.2a with 7.1 ch PCM would be acceptable since I don't care about deep color or bitstream.

Alimentall

09-13-07, 07:26 PM

Esa's working on 1.3 upgrade, but I'd say it's about 3-4 months away anyway.

mark russ

09-13-07, 07:28 PM

There is an AC-1 on Audiogon right now. I vaguely seem to remember someone here was looking for one not too long ago?

http://cls.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?spkrmoni&1194735008

mark russ

09-13-07, 07:30 PM

Esa's working on 1.3 upgrade, but I'd say it's about 3-4 months away anyway.

I wonder how the logistics of that will play out, everybody will have to ship their Controllers to CA?

Alimentall

09-13-07, 08:41 PM

Probably, though I'm hoping they'll let us do it in house, not that this is very fun. They put the thing together with about 20 screws, but the inside is nice and clean, so it shouldn't be that hard to do.

I "bricked" a Controller a few days ago when I accidentally yanked the Injectonator out. Esa sent me a chip and it was a breeze to swap out and get running.

tvsurfer

09-13-07, 08:51 PM

Esa sent me a chip and it was a breeze to swap out and get running.

Who or what is Esa?:confused::o

pierrebnh

09-13-07, 09:31 PM

Are you talking about the Controller or the NAD? :confused:

I would take either with an edge to the Controller if it can do HDMI 1.2a at some point, but I realize my answer was poorly composed. Apologies for the confusion.

chicomoralessxm

09-14-07, 03:50 AM

Within reason, sure. The bass is deep, but not exactly over blown as is normal with most bookshelf speakers. But the dispersion is right for a larger room. If you really want the bass balance in a big room, it would make sense to get Fours. Or add a sub.

Well i had them on my list earlier, but well took them off, i'm looking for a bookshelf seen some sterling reviews on the 3's. I find their 3 way design also appealing. But since i'm looking at only bookshelves, i'm hoping to do without a sub for now. Have any of you compared them to the Polk Lsi9's the Era D5's. I've been also told they are a tad bit difficult to drive

Alimentall

09-14-07, 10:51 AM

I've heard the D5s and like them, though I still prefer the Threes. The D5s go very deep and have a very nice midrange, the Threes have, IMO, better treble quality, more resolution, better soundtaging/imaging and an overall more focused sound. The D5s go deeper, but I don't think they can keep up with the Threes as far as far as dynamic output as they can get a bit "huffy". The Polks, if they're the ones of which I'm thinking, have dual midbass drivers. Dual midbass is good because you do get more output with lower distortion, typically, but I think the NHTs are notably better than the typical Polk. Used NHT VR3s could be the real deal too. I'm assuming no sub? If you're using a sub, just forget about everything I've said above as it won't matter.

Alimentall

09-14-07, 10:53 AM

Who or what is Esa?:confused::o

Esa's the Chief Technical (?) Officer of Vinci Labs. Cool guy, very bright.

mark russ

09-14-07, 01:29 PM

Used NHT VR3s could be the real deal too.

Good luck finding a pair of those! It would be far easier (and almost cheaper) just to get a pair of VT-3s! :p

However, used SB-3s are not only fairly plentiful, but a genuine bargain at the used prices they can now be had for and might be a viable option for him. ;)

mark russ

09-14-07, 01:37 PM

I would take either with an edge to the Controller if it can do HDMI 1.2a at some point, but I realize my answer was poorly composed. Apologies for the confusion.

The NAD looks like it's going to be top-notch, no doubt about that, but I would still take the Controller over it for use with any NHT speakers, and if the Controller ever gets HDMI 1.3 and room correction too, then all bets are off when comparing the two models. :cool:

Alimentall

09-14-07, 02:05 PM

mark russ

09-14-07, 03:27 PM

From a raw performance with NHT speakers, you'd be right. With Xd, I don't think it would matter.

NAD's new unit does have more capabilities when it comes to whole house audio, such as iPod docks, XM radio docks, 4-zone, etc, so it's certainly no slouch.

BTW, I was told that M80Xds would be added to next generation Controller software ;)

Good! That will make it just that much easier to have 3 MXD-80s across the front stage and be able to use much cheaper surrounds with the Controller matching them all together as well as they possibly can be.

Not that I'm ever going to, but if I were to ever do up a M-80 based surround system, I would prolly use two to four Threes as surrounds driven by a Power5 (or Power2) amp since that would be far cheaper than using even regular consumer Xd models as surrounds.

Also, I seem to remember that Jack gave very slightly different latency figures for Xds and MXd-80s before. I think the M-80s are about 8 ms off and the XDs 8.5, or something like that. :p

Tim916

09-14-07, 06:08 PM

Hey guys,

If anyone has any A1's, X1's, or W2's that they want to part with shoot me a pm. Thanks.

oldears

09-14-07, 07:03 PM

Well i had them on my list earlier, but well took them off, i'm looking for a bookshelf seen some sterling reviews on the 3's. I find their 3 way design also appealing. But since i'm looking at only bookshelves, i'm hoping to do without a sub for now. Have any of you compared them to the Polk Lsi9's the Era D5's. I've been also told they are a tad bit difficult to driveIf you want my 2 cents, go with the 3s, with the understanding that you'll be getting subs later. I had 3 months of listening to my 3's without subs (6 weeks before subs, then with subs for 2 weeks, then 6 weeks after subs again). When listening to them alone, they're certainly not as good as 4s or as 3s with subs, but they're very good, esp. when you consider how small a speaker they are. They're able to generate very nice bass for music, without distorting, in a small-medium size room (listening area 13' across, 14' deep with another 11' of open space towards the back wall; 7.3' ceiling).

When you're ready for a sub, get 2. The threes match REALLY well with the NHT Evolution U1 and/or U2 sub systems (the U1 has one unit with 2 subs, the U2 has 2 units with 1 sub each). The latter allows placement to minimize any room disturbances you can't dial out with the excellent X1 crossover, and also allows stereo bass with the addition of an extra channel of amplification. Most on this board like the U1, but it wasn't my preference.

If you've read the prior thousands of posts, you might remember my mentioning the Tannoy TS10. A friend who had very little space for a sub purchased one on my recommendation and I got to listen to the 3s with it. It was an excellent match and the TS10 is really tiny, but it can't compare with my U2s (but it is about 1/2 the price and smaller than a 12" cube). The U2s can be put in a cabinet and supposedly dialed-in to sound great--not something many other subs can do.

To summarize, if your price range is <$1000 for a pair of bookshelf speakers, you're not going to do better all around, spacial imaging, clean and clear high end (that's what saves me from a headache), etc. than the NHT 3s. But adding an excellent sub will improve it no end. If cost is your consideration, either buy the sub later or try plan B below. If space/asthetics is your consideration, either put U2s in your cabinet or try the Tannoy TS10 (or TS12 but not the TS8).

Plan B (and this is really subjective, but I was happy with this). If cost is your consideration, and you're limiting yourself to $850 or so for your stereo speakers:
Buy the NHT Absolute Zeros and the Tannoy TS10. I think the AZ is an unbelievable piece of engineering, and I (personal taste) like it better than the 2. I have AZs for my rear channel, and tried them with the little sub, and it was a pretty amazing system for very little $. Again, not in the class of the 3s and the U2.

So what are your limitations. Why don't you want subs? What do you want?

Peter

pierrebnh

09-14-07, 07:34 PM

The NAD looks like it's going to be top-notch, no doubt about that, but I would still take the Controller over it for use with any NHT speakers, and if the Controller ever gets HDMI 1.3 and room correction too, then all bets are off when comparing the two models. :cool:

Agreed, my ST4s and SB3 would certainly benefit from some NHT-spec'd attention, especially in this room.

I don't need HDMI 1.3, only multi-channel PCM.

Alimentall

09-15-07, 12:43 AM

Also, I seem to remember that Jack gave very slightly different latency figures for Xds and MXd-80s before. I think the M-80s are about 8 ms off and the XDs 8.5, or something like that. :p

Yes, but the Controller would adjust for that automatically.

BrianWilson

09-15-07, 03:08 AM

If only! No one will trade them in. Of course, the used value is so little in theory (<half of original retail :eek: ) that most people just use them in another room.

One wonders how much one could sell them for if they were made in China now. $200/pr? $250/pr? They'd sell like candy. Heck, they did back then at $350. I'd love to have that bargain sku for the masses from NHT, the "not quite high-end, but who cares?" speaker.

I have a pair that has been sitting boxed for 3 years. Kinda too good to sell at $150, but they're not really a 'kid' speaker, so giving them to my 18 yr old son isn't all that viable. So there they sit. I need to just say farewell, I reckon.

Alimentall

09-15-07, 09:44 AM

Well, at 18, he's not really a "kid" anymore, technically. Besides, they're the perfect sze for college, they handle lots of power and have good bass kick. Seems perfect for him, unless he thinks they're too small and weeny and don't do P.Diddy well........

oldears

09-16-07, 01:11 AM

By the way, all, the stands the M-80s are on in that photo are SoundAnchors. I got this from a very reliable source. Even a broken clock is right twice per day (unless it's digital).

Peter

Alimentall

09-16-07, 11:44 AM

nhthot

09-16-07, 11:08 PM

stereophile gave the 3s a C and the reviewer felt it should be a high c and also given the designation that they performed much better than would be expected at that price. the xd earned an A although not all agreed with it. this pretty much seems to be what most expected here even though most felt the 3 should get a B. let the games begin.

Alimentall

09-16-07, 11:43 PM

Eh, it's just politics as usual. Nothing surprising there. Threes didn't get B because they're too cheap. But as much as I tweak Kal for not quite getting just how good Xd *really* is, I think he was the one that got Xd in Class A, despite being too cheap.

Alimentall

09-17-07, 01:21 AM

DekPM19

09-17-07, 09:29 AM

John if the controller can handle the m80 would you need all the other amps and processing that was used at CEDI. That would help in the overall cost of this system.
Allen

DekPM19

09-17-07, 09:38 AM

BTW, as expensive as the M80Xd system is, I've been looking at the competition in that class and the NHT is basically entry level for high-end custom theater. I wonder how many of these $50K-$150K systems are getting installed every year. JBL alone has 3 or 4 systems more expensive than M80s :eek: On the other hand, most of these complete systems don't get a whole lot of press. I haven't seen a thing on B&W's $50K (not including amps) installed system or reviews of JBL's system. Meridian's new system is up about $100K too. And then you have PMC and Genelec and a bunch of other pro systems. Not trying to justify the price as I wish they were less expensive (and they're pretty well out of our league out here), but there must be a market out there [somewhere] because lots of companies are doing it.

Aerial has a cc-5 which people say is one of the best center channels out their for around $4500.00. Then they have the LCR-5 around $8000.00 for the pair. Then they have some other speaker for surronds that will work. When all said and done $15,000.00 - $20,000.00 will get you a killer 7.0 set of speakers from A.A.. The other thing is they sound good on amps like parasound Halo amps or Bryston amps which want break the bank.
Allen

Alimentall

09-17-07, 09:56 AM

John if the controller can handle the m80 would you need all the other amps and processing that was used at CEDI. That would help in the overall cost of this system.
Allen

Well, all they're doing is putting the M80 in the speaker setup wizard, which is a *far* cry from what the XdA DSP/amp units do. There are dual SHARC processors for each channel just to do crossover and impulse response correction. Now, someday, yes, as processors get faster and cheaper, you could have a Controller that had all of the DEQX processing built in and separate preouts for tweeter, midrange, midbass and woofer for each channel and that would help bring the price down. Also, there are new breeds of full digital amplifiers that could have something like DEQX put right on their processing section and that would delete a whole bunch of circuitry.

Alimentall

09-17-07, 10:06 AM

Aerial has a cc-5 which people say is one of the best center channels out their for around $4500.00. Then they have the LCR-5 around $8000.00 for the pair. Then they have some other speaker for surronds that will work. When all said and done $15,000.00 - $20,000.00 will get you a killer 7.0 set of speakers from A.A.. The other thing is they sound good on amps like parasound Halo amps or Bryston amps which want break the bank.
Allen

Oh, sure, of course, but you could say that about Evolution, which would get you pretty close to the Aerial system. M80 (or even regular Xd for that matter) is in a different league from the Aerials. I'd much rather have regular Xd in 6.3 than just about any conventional analog system I've heard at any price, even in a big room. I've done 6.3 Xd demos in small auditoriums and even large TV studios and they are amazing in dynamic output and the ability to fill a room.

I was talking about the whole genre of complete, top to bottom tri and quad-amped systems with matching preamps, amps, etc. The JBL Synthesis system at $150K or so is touted as being incredibly advanced, but it's nothing like the M80Xd system. The point being that, while I think M80Xd at $45K is risky, if NHT can *successfully* (and that means WAY better and more *serious* marketing materials than I took home) market the M80Xd in the same way Synthesis or Meridian or PMC or Genelec systems are being done, they could actually pull this off. But it won't be easy. The first thing I'd do is find out every place there's a Synthesis, Meridian, semi-pro dealer in every large city and then find their competition and put M80Xds there. Of course, we have none of those people here.

mark russ

09-17-07, 12:39 PM

I don't know, but if you have a wish list, pass it on so I can let Esa know!

How about an X1 option on the main L/R Speaker Wizard menu for something other than T5/T6?

IOW, like if you are using dual W1s for example as subs with Threes, M5s, SB-3s, etc. as mains. Or even a U2 set as subs (either with or without an additional extra 2nd A1 for stereo bass, this could also apply to dual A1 T5s as well).

That way, you could dial in stereo bass for the main L/R channels for music, and yet still have the sub out going into the sub/LFE in on the X1 for movies.

Also, maybe an X2 option as well for if you are bi-amping Fours, 3.3s, 2.9s, etc. as well for the very same reasons, although this would obviously be less critical than the X1 option.

mark russ

09-17-07, 12:43 PM

Hey guys,

If anyone has any A1's, X1's, or W2's that they want to part with shoot me a pm. Thanks.

What are you up to now? You don't want W1s? :confused::eek:

mark russ

09-17-07, 12:44 PM

Agreed, my ST4s and SB3 would certainly benefit from some NHT-spec'd attention, especially in this room.

What are you using for a CC speaker and subs?

mark russ

09-17-07, 12:49 PM

Yes, but the Controller would adjust for that automatically.

Yes, I know, as already stated here:

Well if there is an eventual firmware update for the Controller for M-80s, and if I were going to do up a system with them, I'd just get Threes for surrounds driven by a Power5 or 2 (depending on how many surrounds I had). That would definitely be much more cost effective than even using regular Xds for surrounds.

The Controller would automatically take care of the DSP correction time difference between them.

The post of mine which you quoted in your post that I'm subsequently quoting in this one here was in response to this previous one of yours: :p

Keep in mind that there's no reason to have any firmware update for M80s. There's nothing the Controller could possibly do for them. You simply set the speakers to the same setting as Xd, unless Jack has something to offer there. Or set them as "Non-NHT Large" (or whatever it is, I've never used it ;) )

mark russ

09-17-07, 12:58 PM

Keep in mind that NHT wouldn't normally expect people to put these on stands, they'd probably be placed in wall cavities built to size and then covered with grill cloth. IOW, I'm sure they just grabbed those for the show because they're the right size/design for the speakers.

It's almost a shame that these don't have a boundary adjustment option and the ability to be placed vertically for music as well as horizontally like the M5s/M6s have. :(

Maybe the dome arrays could eventually be made "flippable", like the speaker wire binding posts on the back of the M5/M6 are.:p

As Jack already stated:

The M-80 can only be used horizontally. It is designed to be used on the meter bridge of a mixing console.

No stands are available for the M-80.

We won't do a speaker setting in the Controller for the M-80, because the M-80 is a pro product. It is not a consumer product. Everything in its design is optimized for pro use. It is not designed in any way for consumer use.

Sorry, but this is like someone going to Ferrari and asking them to help them certify the Ferrari engine in their F1 car, so they can get it registered in the US. Go out and buy an F360 or an Enzo!!!

Of course, the last two paragraphs of that quote apparently no longer apply anymore. :cool:

mark russ

09-17-07, 01:04 PM

Eh, it's just politics as usual. Nothing surprising there. Threes didn't get B because they're too cheap.

Revel F12s are Class B, despite being only about $400 more than the Threes at full retail even though they are quasi-full-range towers. :p

But as much as I tweak Kal for not quite getting just how good Xd *really* is, I think he was the one that got Xd in Class A, despite being too cheap.

T6s/M6s also got Class A before, and they are even cheaper than Xds. ;)

mark russ

09-17-07, 01:12 PM

Now, someday, yes, as processors get faster and cheaper, you could have a Controller that had all of the DEQX processing built in and separate preouts for tweeter, midrange, midbass and woofer for each channel and that would help bring the price down.

I've long said that I believe that will be the eventual future of Xd if it is to not just survive, but ever actually thrive in the marketplace .

Also, there are new breeds of full digital amplifiers that could have something like DEQX put right on their processing section and that would delete a whole bunch of circuitry.

Yeah, but then you would only be right back at square one with the main design flaw problem in the current Xds with the DEQX processing occurring in the signal path after the volume control. That is, unless you were maybe talking about an integrated amp, preferably with digital inputs, as opposed to just a power amp as the current Xda basically is.

Alimentall

09-17-07, 01:36 PM

It's almost a shame that these don't have a boundary adjustment option and the ability to be placed vertically for music as well as horizontally like the M5s/M6s have. :(

They do have boundary, but it's in software.

Maybe the dome arrays could eventually be made "flippable", like the speaker wire binding posts on the back of the M5/M6 are.:p

They wouldn't fit. NHT would really have to make some changes to the M80 or, better, simply design a different model for that.

Of course, the last two paragraphs of that quote apparently no longer apply anymore. :cool:

NHT doesn't really have a unified vision as such, which is why there's often a strange mixed message coming out them. It's kind of like, Jack comes up with something, then other people try to figure out what to do with it.

Alimentall

09-17-07, 01:39 PM

Revel F12s are Class B, despite being only about $400 more than the Threes at full retail even though they are quasi-full-range towers. :p

Well, last I checked, they were $700/pr more.

T6s/M6s also got Class A before, and they are even cheaper than Xds. ;)

Which is all the stranger because, as I've said, T6s are really Class B full range speakers, not Class a limited range speakers. So, it can go in just about any direction. Stereophile is completely incoherent at times.

Alimentall

09-17-07, 01:43 PM

I've long said that I believe that will be the eventual future of Xd if it is to not just survive, but ever actually thrive in the marketplace .

You would have liked my original concept for Xd.

Yeah, but then you would only be right back at square one with the main design flaw problem in the current Xds with the DEQX processing occurring in the signal path after the volume control. That is, unless you were maybe talking about an integrated amp, preferably with digital inputs, as opposed to just a power amp as the current Xda basically is.

Well, I don't think it matters too much where digital volume is done, but that could also be done digitally in the amp modules, in theory.

mark russ

09-17-07, 02:05 PM

Well, last I checked, they were $700/pr more.

Well if that's true, then Revel has actually raised the MSRP of them, because I know for a fact they did retail for either $1200 or $1250.

Which is all the stranger because, as I've said, T6s are really Class B full range speakers, not Class a limited range speakers. So, it can go in just about any direction. Stereophile is completely incoherent at times.

Maybe they just flat out liked the Evos and Xds better than the Classics and Super-Audios? :p;):D

mark russ

09-17-07, 02:08 PM

They do have boundary, but it's in software.

Which still isn't nearly as convenient as simply flipping a switch like on the M5/M6 if your placement situation for them changes. :(

Alimentall

09-17-07, 02:35 PM

Well if that's true, then Revel has actually raised the MSRP of them, because I know for a fact they did retail for either $1200 or $1250.

I've only ever seen the actual retail as $1500 personally, since the very first day they were announced.

Maybe they just flat out liked the Evos and Xds better than the Classics and Super-Audios? :p;):D

Maybe, but it's more likely the result of the fact that they really don't do much real comparison with this stuff. Look at how Kal reviewed the Xd. They weren't A/Bed against the Revels or B&Ws or, I don't believe, were even in the same house, let alone the same room. Given that he didn't review them in his main house or even his main room, I suspect he put them in a room that was too small for them even. So a "review" is really just an impression based on how that speaker *seems* to sound in a particular room to that person, rather than a real comparison to a known and sensible standard in a single environment.

mark russ

09-17-07, 03:00 PM

I've only ever seen the actual retail as $1500 personally, since the very first day they were announced.

You are definitely wrong here John.

Click here and then scroll down a little to the "value" block of the review summary to verify for yourself that they retailed for $1198 per pair (which, as far as I know, they still do, unless Revel has in fact actually raised their MSRP): :p

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/revel_concerta_f12.htm

Also, be sure to check out their measurements while you are there too. ;)

Edit - I just checked, and they have in fact been raised to $1498 per pair now, but they were originally $1198 per pair.

So a "review" is really just an impression based on how that speaker *seems* to sound in a particular room to that person, rather than a real comparison to a known and sensible standard in a single environment.

BINGO! We have a winner!

Don't forget though that JA also reviewed them as well for Stereophile, with the dual sub high output filters at that.

Alimentall

09-17-07, 03:10 PM

Well, I always recall them as being $1500, but I've now been able to find $1200, $1300 and $1500/pr, the latter being in Stereophile.

parishd

09-17-07, 04:05 PM

What would be a better pairing with L/R fronts (Classic 3's), L/R rears (Zeros), SVS SB12 Plus; a 2C or an M5? The 3C or M6 will not fit in the center channel speaker area. :( Large room.

Thx :confused:

mark russ

09-17-07, 04:07 PM

2c! :)

mark russ

09-17-07, 04:09 PM

..., but I've now been able to find $1200, $1300 and $1500/pr, the latter being in Stereophile.

Maybe they wouldn't have been rated by Stereophile as Class B if they were still only $1200 per pair? :p

Alimentall

09-17-07, 05:13 PM

Maybe they wouldn't have been rated by Stereophile as Class B if they were still only $1200 per pair? :p

The real problem with Stereophile is that products like the NHT Classic and Revel Concerto should be no higher than Class C (or even Class D) and everything that is recommendable above that price should have to match or surpass that level of performance, but sadly, that's no where near the case.

b4z

09-17-07, 06:43 PM

Class C is probably a fair bracket for the C3s.
Although after reading the review I thought they would be in
Class B. But it was just one guy's opinion and I am sure the other
editors brought him back down to earth with the Class C rating.

Several months ago, after my 2nd in home demo I felt like that
they were still not for me but that I would give them one last audition
before I moved on. In my last post our den's paneling was to be ripped out and drywall and
large baseboards and crown moulding were to be added in hopes of taming
the reflections. The work has been 90% completed and the clap test now shows much reduced echoes. I will be re-re-trying the C3s again in a few weeks.
here's some pics: before and during.

Obviously I am still concerned that the C3s may energize my room to much, and it may be that their voicing is just not for me. But I will have certainly given them a fair chance.

I am in at $3K for the room redo and that does not includes the 2" blinds we have not bought yet.

mark russ

09-17-07, 09:34 PM

Class C is probably a fair bracket for the C3s.

See, that's where I have to respectfully disagree.

The SB-3 was also rated as Class C if I'm not mistaken, and RR (who reviewed them both) stated that he felt the Three was pretty much an across the board upgrade over the SB-3 in just about every way, so why shouldn't the Three have gotten a Class B if all the other previous Class C models didn't also get replaced with newer, "better" units from their brand?

Here were his exact words:

"Concluding
I applaud NHT, who have updated the already excellent SB3 to create a smaller, more elegant performer that exceeds the performance of the older speaker in every important parameter. That's real progress. At $800/pair, the Classic Three is a superb value, particularly for those listening rooms in which size and cosmetics are important but whose owners are reluctant to give up performance in bass definition and extension and in high-level dynamics. In every one of my listening sessions, the NHT Classic Three sounded like a larger, more expensive speaker. Keep up the good work, guys."

taken from:

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

mark russ

09-17-07, 09:46 PM

DekPM19

09-17-07, 10:22 PM

Allen there was a guy who used to post here, I want to say his screen name was DJJohnnyV, or something like that I think it was, who said he went from either 2.9s or 3.3s and an AC-2 to T5s/M5s and he thought it was a definite upgrade. Then he went from the Evos to Aerials, and he said that he thought the Aerials were in fact slightly better than the Evos, but certainly not enough so much so as to justify the big difference in price between them. In fact, he said the NHTs still did rock music as good or even better than the Aerials. :D

When I was looking at my 2.9s I listen to some Aerials. I wanted to buy the AA speaker but I was buying new receiver and some other things so I really didn't have the case for A.A. speakers and other things. But to my point the Aerials did evrything the 2.9s did but much smoother. In fact I felt like they sounded close to each other but with the Aerials just being so much nicer. In fact when I listen to c complete 5.1 aerail setup it was right after hearing the big Revel sytem they use to sell with a complete proceed front end driving them. My wife and I couldn't belive we liked the aerials over the revels for lest than half of what the revel system cost.

Their was another guy here named psujohn I think he had M5s and replaced them with aerials his thoughts were the M5, are good speakers in fact they are so good I have to spend 5 times as much to find and improvment over them.

Here is a link to it. I was off just a little. It was fun to read some of the old NHT post from so of the old NHTers from long ago.

http://archive.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?postid=4281558#post4281558

Allen

b4z

09-18-07, 09:39 AM

Alimentall

09-18-07, 10:48 AM

And you guys have told me before that I might prefer the SB3 because it is a little more laid back..

Or Twos.

Milner

09-18-07, 10:56 AM

2c! :)

Agreed, I have the 2c center with 4's and zeros. It has worked out very well for me. (same issue, just not room for 3c)

mark russ

09-18-07, 11:42 AM

mark russ,

For a speaker to even be on the list is an accomplishment.
A Class C speaker is probably better than 80-85% better than
all of the speakers built and probably 95% better than those in it's price bracket.
I have had 2 Stereophile recommended speakers: Spica TC-50s (1985)and Mirage M3s(1992)). Both of them gave me years of enjoyment. And I still own both.

I fear that the hardness in the upper midrange that I hear in the C3 will stop me from buying it. This is not something that the SB3 exhibited, but the previous gen SuperOnes did exhibit that hardness(treble region).
And you guys have told me before that I might prefer the SB3 because it is a little more laid back.

I think that the fact that the C3 appears in the recommended components
is a coup for NHT.

I am also trying to find some discontinued Von Schweikert VR-1s. They seem to be selling for around $5-550 on audiogon.

Actually, I agree with what you said here you for the most part. Overall, I still like the SB-3s better than the Threes, although the Threes obviously do some things, in fact, most things better.

I also happen to hear a little trace of ringing from the Classics too, but at least it's not as fatiguing as Klipschs for example. :p

My whole point though, was that if the same writer who reviewed both models feels that the Three is a significant upgrade in pretty much every way over the SB-3, and the SB-3 was Class C, then why isn't the Three rated higher? Again, this is assuming that all the other speakers previously rated as Class C weren't also updated as well like the SB-3 was, which I highly doubt.

I also used to have a pair of Spica TC-50s and a pair of the matching Kinergetic subs (that also had a separate outboard amp/crossover) which also served as stands that was made specifically for them, but I kept blowing out tweeters on them. :o