I wouldn't put any more weight on those opinions than on those of lots of others who posted earlier in this thread how they thought they were. (Many positive, some not so.) And since they listen to them for 1/2 hour, to me it means less than someone who lives with the speakers for a while, tries to get the setup right, etc. Though the direct comparison to other speakers is potentially a big plus.

But speaker shootouts are full of potential problems. Think about how long you spent getting the placement, gear, etc. right for a set of speakers. Then think about what would happen if you changed speakers every 5-30 minutes.

Shootouts are fun, but ultimately can be misleading.

And no matter how hard they try, things can go wrong that make the playing field uneven. Placement, seating, gear, etc.

Somehow many shootouts I've read also have a way of - oh, surprise! The gear I bought / my favorite brands / etc. won!!! Woo hooo! I bought the best [fill in the blank] after all!!!

Finally, I'm not sure why this whole post got deleted, but a quote from the last bookshelf thread ... completely different from later posts. No idea what's going on, but at a minimum it shows how hard it is to do these shootouts in a way that really gets to what the speaker is about. Yes, they are fun to read about, and very useful no doubt to the people doing them - but Craig did not walk down Mt. Sinai with the results engraved on stone tablets, as some seem to believe.

You are right about one thing ... You have no idea what's going on.

The results of the floorstanding loudspeaker test were from other listeners, not me. So do me a favor, and knock off the statements about walking down Mt. Sinai. :rolleyes:

You are right about one thing ... You have no idea what's going on.

The results of the floorstanding loudspeaker test were from other listeners, not me. So do me a favor, and knock off the statements about walking down Mt. Sinai. :rolleyes:Glad I got your attention, but you missed the point. It's about how people interpret those threads, not really what you're saying. (That is, "as some seem to believe" wasn't meant to include you.)

You must be aware of the effect it has, or you ought to be. People do treat it as the last word, quote it, etc. (Perfect example a few posts back - "skewered" will be the only thing that's remembered.) It just isn't the last word. It's fun, interesting, and useful. But in the end, it's just one more opinion, and sometimes under conditions that have pros and cons as mentioned.

As far as what's going on, I still have no idea, and your post doesn't help:

- If I missed the explanation of why you deleted that quoted post from the earlier thread - the real contents of that whole thread - post a link and I'll happily read it.

- In particular, if I missed the explanation of why the results of the current test of the Classic Two are so wildly different from the earlier one ... ditto. The comments in the latest thread absolutely beg that question.

- I do know you were busy with far more important issues when the problems with the switch from the last round were coming to light. But what happened there is another great example of how people remember the original comments, but miss the followup. Unless I missed it there wasn't an equally prominent effort to make the correction / footnote well known. Maybe the resolution is up in the air, and that thread is still to come.

So, what's going on?

Glad I got your attention, but you missed the point. It's about how people interpret those threads, not really what you're saying. (That is, "as some seem to believe" wasn't meant to include you.)

You must be aware of the effect it has, or you ought to be. People do treat it as the last word, quote it, etc. (Perfect example a few posts back - "skewered" will be the only thing that's remembered.) It just isn't the last word. It's fun, interesting, and useful. But in the end, it's just one more opinion, and sometimes under conditions that have pros and cons as mentioned.

As far as what's going on, I still have no idea, and your post doesn't help:

- If I missed the explanation of why you deleted that quoted post from the earlier thread - the real contents of that whole thread - post a link and I'll happily read it.

- In particular, if I missed the explanation of why the results of the current test of the Classic Two are so wildly different from the earlier one ... ditto. The comments in the latest thread absolutely beg that question.

- I do know you were busy with far more important issues when the problems with the switch from the last round were coming to light. But what happened there is another great example of how people remember the original comments, but miss the followup. Unless I missed it there wasn't an equally prominent effort to make the correction / footnote well known. Maybe the resolution is up in the air, and that thread is still to come.

So, what's going on?

OK Buzzy .. Let us start with your main complaint.

You say this:

Finally, I'm not sure why this whole post got deleted, but a quote from the last bookshelf thread ... completely different from later posts.

The results of the NHT's were put right in the first page of the bookshelf speaker thread. Here is a link: bookshelf speaker thread, page 1 (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=821009)

So much for it being "deleted". ;)

Next, let us look at the results: It is pretty clear that the Classic 2's are not a speaker that like to "go loud". In the bookshelf speaker thread, it was said, about the Classic 2's, this:

3. Macrodynamics were lacking. We were using the Emotiva LPA-1 for all the speakers here, which is substantial power. The NHT's just don't like "going loud".
4. Within their limits, vocals, brass, percussive instruments, and guitar were all presented with excellent results.
5. Bass was pretty good, but with dynamics limited. For Home theater, a 100 Hz crossover is recommended

The floorstanding speaker test was done by a group of guys who love good macrodynamics. Therefore, the Classic 2's were not to their liking.

So, it sounds like I have a U1 waiting for me when i get home. Should I still cross this over with my Classic 3s at 80hz or should I bump it up to 115hz or somewhere in that range?

Just talked to guys at highdeflifestyle. There won't be anymore W1,A1s coming from NHT, thus the deal that gets you a free W1,A1 doesn't exist anymore.

Is L5 being phased out also?

Remember...You can't drink all day...If you don't start in the morning!

Where are the speaker comparison threads?

Sorry, just saw link after reading!

The floorstanding speaker test was done by a group of guys who love good macrodynamics. Therefore, the Classic 2's were not to their liking.So it boils down to, it was fun to put it in the floorstanding test, but it really didn't belong there, and the results don't mean all that much.

The real issue is that people are taking away the wrong conclusions, and you're OK with that. That's weak.

Anyway, it seems the NHT part of this is clearer, so we'll skip all the other stuff you blew past for now. The input from those threads on the Classic Two is, read one if you're thinking about it as a bookshelf, and the other if you are deciding between the Classic Two and a sub, vs. a floorstander. :rolleyes:

Is L5 being phased out also?Didn't they say all the Evolutions were being phased out? If so, that includes the L5/M5/M6 and the T5/T6.

Wow. I guess Craigsub is now like American Theater. If you say anything negative, he gets it deleted by a moderator. All hail Craigsub, he is the big fish.

So it boils down to, it was fun to put it in the floorstanding test, but it really didn't belong there, and the results don't mean all that much.

The real issue is that people are taking away the wrong conclusions, and you're OK with that. That's weak.

Anyway, it seems the NHT part of this is clearer, so we'll skip all the other stuff you blew past for now. The input from those threads on the Classic Two is, read one if you're thinking about it as a bookshelf, and the other if you are deciding between the Classic Two and a sub, vs. a floorstander. :rolleyes:

The results only mean that much if you are into a speaker which exhibits good macrodynamics. For example, the AV123 X-LS are very good performers for this type of music and expected performance. In fact, there are several bookshelf speakers here which could easily compete with these floorstanders when used as the Classic 2's were. The SCS-01 from SVS and the PSB Image B-25 also would do quite well.

The Classic 2's were crossed over at 100 Hz to a very good subwoofer. They do precisely what was said in the bookshelf test: they are fine for lower level listening, but just cannot handle loud passages well.

Nuance has mentioned several times that he would like to hear some NHT's, and he got his chance here. His listening style is more hard driving than others.

And, buzzy, let's face it, you are pretty light on facts and heavy on petulant behaviour.

What happened to your false claim that I deleted the post in regards to the NHT's ? :D

It's funny(not really) that if you do post in an effort to participate, you need to use a thesaurus for the precise adjective to describe your personal opinion/experience. Because if you don't, you will get "skewered" by an endless arrray of quotes.
In any thread there will be at least 2 people who in an effort to defend a speaker's reputation will just wear your a** out.

Is it really that important?

And what is the fascination with speakers that play really really loud. Are half the people on this forum still in their teens or just playing movies at uncomfortable levels?
It seems like we've had a lot of posts recently regarding speakers that can play loud. Why? Is it headroom, or do you guys blast the crap out of music/movies for hours at a time?

I must be getting really old and cranky.

Got my X1 and A1 today Looks like They shipped the W1 from a different warehouse and didn't inform me. I should be getting it tomorrow and not today.

craigsub,

In some of these guys defense(as much as they get on my nerves) I think the NHT Classic 2 was a really poor choice to showcase an NHT speaker in a comparison.
There is no buzz on this speaker and nobody cares about.(except buzzy_)
The Classic 3 would have been a much better choice.

With the price range of the bookshelf showdown, I'm surprised the Absolute zeros weren't chosen instead.

craigsub,

In some of these guys defense(as much as they get on my nerves) I think the NHT Classic 2 was a really poor choice to showcase an NHT speaker in a comparison.
There is no buzz on this speaker and nobody cares about.(except buzzy_)
The Classic 3 would have been a much better choice.

I wanted to buy the Classic 3's at the time, and was talked into the 2's by the dealer, who is an NHT authorized dealer. There is no dealer anywhere close to me, so I had to trust this dealer was getting me the best value product for the bookshelf test being done here.

The dealer was made aware of the test, and even provided a link to it.

Sometimes, it appears that regardless how hard one tries to make a test fair and fun, there will be someone who complains about it.

I wanted to buy the Classic 3's at the time, and was talked into the 2's by the dealer, who is an NHT authorized dealer. There is no dealer anywhere close to me, so I had to trust this dealer was getting me the best value product for the bookshelf test being done here.

The dealer was made aware of the test, and even provided a link to it.

Sometimes, it appears that regardless how hard one tries to make a test fair and fun, there will be someone who complains about it.

Weird, my dealer didn't even have the Classic 2s out. Said it wasn't worth getting over the AZ or C3.

And don't let these people get to ya, everyone'll complain about something..and that something sometimes is what you do..or something...yeah..

With the price range of the bookshelf showdown, I'm surprised the Absolute zeros weren't chosen instead.

The AZs actually have a little more resolution and soundstaging, just give up some bass and are $200 less. That makes them the value leader, the Threes are the performance showcase.

Weird, my dealer didn't even have the Classic 2s out. Said it wasn't worth getting over the AZ or C3.

And don't let these people get to ya, everyone'll complain about something..and that something sometimes is what you do..or something...yeah..

I always carried the Twos, but once I heard the Threes, it was all over. Pretty silly to not spend the extra $200 for that level of performance. Sold probably 4 times as many Threes as Twos.

As for Craig, I don't mind what he does, I just don't actually like him, at least, not his online personality. Not that everyone likes mine.......

The company line is 'any NHT speaker is a match for any other NHT speaker'. Not that I would recommend it or anything. :)

Maybe with a Controller to tie them all together. Other than that, you're potentially looking at inverted phases galore, depending on the lines of course.;)

well i pulled the trigger on another u1. at these prices it would be ridiculous not to i couldn't decide whether to buy the u1 or three m6s but since i have only had the classic 3s, 3c and u1 for only 5 months i figured i might as well get my u1 a brother. can't wait to see what it will add to the party. although i wish the 3s played a little louder i have been happy with them but i can't help but think how those m6s would sound in my abode. they may still find their way onto my credit card before this fire sale is over. by the way in my owners manual for the u1 it said to wire it out of phase. is this correct?

Well, look at it like this - you currently have Stereophile Class C rated speakers, which you can cheaply upgrade to Steroephile Class A rated speakers. ;)

As for U1 and U2 owners, at these prices, they ought to be picking up extra sets to stack on top of their current units. :p

Every T5/U2 owner should be picking up another A1 for stereo bass, and every four owner should be picking up a pair of A1s to bi-amp the towers with.

Some of those are gone, but they've added M5s and M00s.

Wow, those Twos and 3Cs sure didn't last long. John said it best before on the Evolution and SD Classic closeout sales - "buy early and buy often".

The 2s are "clearly" not in the same league as the 3.

Well it's all subjective of course, some of us can't stand the super bright ringing of the dome array and actually prefer the warmer sound of the Twos which "you can literally listen to all day long without ever getting listening fatigue". ;)

Next, let us look at the results: It is pretty clear that the Classic 2's are not a speaker that like to "go loud". In the bookshelf speaker thread, it was said, about the Classic 2's, this:

In each "shootout" round between two different models, were they first level matched for direct A/B comparision to adjust for the sensitivity/efficiency differences?

Not doing this is the oldest trick in the book for Klipsch dealers. ;)

So, it sounds like I have a U1 waiting for me when i get home. Should I still cross this over with my Classic 3s at 80hz or should I bump it up to 115hz or somewhere in that range?

Keep 'em at 80Hz unless you have dual W1s, and have each one within a foot or so of it's corresponding L/R main satellite.

craigsub,

In some of these guys defense(as much as they get on my nerves) I think the NHT Classic 2 was a really poor choice to showcase an NHT speaker in a comparison.
There is no buzz on this speaker and nobody cares about.(except buzzy_)
The Classic 3 would have been a much better choice.

Since you can now get the SD Two for $300, I would not hesitate to put it up against any $300 per pair ID brand model.

Ditto for the M5s against any $500 per pair ID models. ;)

Could someone with 4's do me a favor? I need the minimum distance between the front and rear foot on either side. I need to know if you can slide a W2 in the space, or if the feet will get in the way.

the TWO is un-matched to THREE. From the beginning the sound of Guitar, the TWOs was not as clear and real as the THREEs. then to the sound of drum, the TWO was not as tight as THREE.

The difference is like night and day. My friend even think the TWOs are defective. An *un-named* source at nht told me to forget the two's, as they are not really a match for 3s...their only value is, well, as a value speaker; much better off to go with azs for rear/surrounds...and i can confirm that they do work great for that purpose.

Does anybody believe this NHT Classic 3 dark is in stock?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000H70A2O/002-0650108-9018419?ie=UTF8&seller=A2YX14VJRQPZTZ&sn=Atlantic%20Audio%20Sales

Could someone with 4's do me a favor? I need the minimum distance between the front and rear foot on either side. I need to know if you can slide a W2 in the space, or if the feet will get in the way.

It's not nearly enough space to fit a W2. Maybe 8" or something like that.

In each "shootout" round between two different models, were they first level matched for direct A/B comparision to adjust for the sensitivity/efficiency differences?

Not doing this is the oldest trick in the book for Klipsch dealers. ;)

This is hilarious. If I level match, and do direct A/B, someone bitches that it was not long term enough listening, that the switcher introduces unwanted frequency response problems ... etc .... If I don't do instant A/B, but instead let the panel listen for a half hour, then take a break to post notes, then do another round, someone bitches.

Here is an idea, the next time we have a GTG here, the people who were NOT participating can decide how each speaker must have sounded.

There will be no posting of results from the actual panel of listeners.

Everyone can just declare "My speaker was the best", and then everyone will be happy. :D

The set up for this test was clearly laid out in the thread regarding the test. Feel free to read it over, and PM me with any questions.

It's not nearly enough space to fit a W2. Maybe 8" or something like that.

Thanks, John.

One last measurement, if you don't (or someone else doesn't) mind. How wide is the speaker from tip of left foot to tip of right? Alternatively, how much does one foot stick out on either side?

This is hilarious. If I level match, and do direct A/B, someone bitches that it was not long term enough listening, that the switcher introduces unwanted frequency response problems ... etc .... If I don't do instant A/B, but instead let the panel listen for a half hour, then take a break to post notes, then do another round, someone bitches.

Here is an idea, the next time we have a GTG here, the people who were NOT participating can decide how each speaker must have sounded.

There will be no posting of results from the actual panel of listeners.

Everyone can just declare "My speaker was the best", and then everyone will be happy. :D

The set up for this test was clearly laid out in the thread regarding the test. Feel free to read it over, and PM me with any questions.

It was a legitimate question, so don't get so defensive and take it so personally. I didn't read the thread, nor do I intend to, which is why I asked, and the answer is clearly just as I suspected (which obviously must have hit a raw nerve for some reason). :D

Admittedly (and as you yourself also alluded to), there are always pitfalls to pulling off comparison demos such as this, but this much is for sure - when any two pairs of speakers are being A/B demoed against each other, and they are not properly level matched when doing so, then the "test" results are pretty much invalidated and irrelevant, because the more efficient (IE louder) speaker is likely going to make a bigger first impression pretty much every time (especially with the same volume setting on the pre-amp), but that doesn't necessarily make it the "better" speaker model between the two, especially to actually live with long term. This is exactly why Klipsch sells so much. ;)

edit - BTW, you don't need really need a "switcher" to level match, thus not "introducing unwanted frequency response problems".

Does anybody believe this NHT Classic 3 dark is in stock?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000H70A2O/002-0650108-9018419?ie=UTF8&seller=A2YX14VJRQPZTZ&sn=Atlantic%20Audio%20Sales


Keep in mind, that price is for each speaker, not for a pair. :o

Since you can now get the SD Two for $300, I would not hesitate to put it up against any $300 per pair ID brand model.


Thank you for putting things in perspective.

I was looking for a HT/music system for our basement and wanted to keep costs down. I did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that any 5:1 system in the $1000-1200 range is going to have compromises, so it was a matter of finding the system that best matched what's important to me. On the LONG list of factors I considered, ability to play loud was at or near the bottom. Weighing all the inevitable compromises and reading between the lines of a lot of pro reviews, the other day I ordered four Classic 2s, a Classic center and the 12" Classic sub for under $1200, including shipping and tax. For those keeping score at home, that's pretty inexpensive (ie., cheap).

So I'll set it up, play around with it, and live with this system for awhile, and if I feel it's lacking (or even if it's not!) I figure I can pick up a pair of Classic 3s at some point down the road as front speakers for a decent price and end up with a 7:1 system (or put the extra pair of 2s in the exercise room) for about what I would've paid for the more expensive Axiom 5:1 system I was also considering. Again, just to put things in perspective.

Thank you for putting things in perspective.

I was looking for a HT/music system for our basement and wanted to keep costs down. I did a lot of research and came to the conclusion that any 5:1 system in the $1000-1200 range is going to have compromises, so it was a matter of finding the system that best matched what's important to me. On the LONG list of factors I considered, ability to play loud was at or near the bottom. Weighing all the inevitable compromises and reading between the lines of a lot of pro reviews, the other day I ordered four Classic 2s, a Classic center and the 12" Classic sub for under $1200, including shipping and tax. For those keeping score at home, that's pretty inexpensive (ie., cheap).

So I'll set it up, play around with it, and live with this system for awhile, and if I feel it's lacking (or even if it's not!) I figure I can pick up a pair of Classic 3s at some point down the road as front speakers for a decent price and end up with a 7:1 system (or put the extra pair of 2s in the exercise room) for about what I would've paid for the more expensive Axiom 5:1 system I was also considering. Again, just to put things in perspective.

Sounds like a plan! Plus the Threes would match your 3C better. Since you've already got one anyway, I would also suggest maybe picking up a second Twelve if you can at these prices. Or, maybe pick up a better sub system down the line, and put the Twelve you have with a pair of Twos in the work out room. ;)

Congrats!

It was a legitimate question, so don't get so defensive and take it so personally. I didn't read the thread, nor do I intend to, which is why I asked, and the answer is clearly just as I suspected (which obviously must have hit a raw nerve for some reason). :D

Admittedly (and as you yourself also alluded to), there are always pitfalls to pulling off comparison demos such as this, but this much is for sure - when any two pairs of speakers are being A/B demoed against each other, and they are not properly level matched when doing so, then the "test" results are pretty much invalidated and irrelevant, because the more efficient (IE louder) speaker is likely going to make a bigger first impression pretty much every time (especially with the same volume setting on the pre-amp), but that doesn't necessarily make it the "better" speaker model between the two, especially to actually live with long term. This is exactly why Klipsch sells so much. ;)

edit - BTW, you don't need really need a "switcher" to level match, thus not "introducing unwanted frequency response problems".

I am not "getting defensive". I am getting tired of people who are too lazy to look into how the actual test is done whining about how it was done.

I understand you did not bother to read the thread. Since you cannot be bothered to read for yourself what we have done, then your commenting on it is pointless.

I can tell you that the test, as done here, was designed to give no advantage to the louder speaker.

If you decide to take the time to research the testing, as done, and have legit questions you would like to discuss, please, PM me.

BTW ... How do you do instant A/B, level matched switches without a switcher ? ;)

As far as the Two - a couple of the posts above really miss the point. The real issue is that it doesn't fill the needs of people as often as the AZ or the Three. (And so there's not a lot of reason for dealers to pay attention.)

- People choose the AZ because they want small and inexpensive.
- People choose the Three because, for a little more size and some more money, you can get a great speaker.

The Two suffers mostly in comparison to those two. There just aren't many situations where the slightly smaller size and cost are going to matter enough. But if you have a situation where it would matter - a desktop or small 2 channel system, for example - worth considering.

I am not "getting defensive". I am getting tired of people who are too lazy to look into how the actual test is done whining about how it was done.

I understand you did not bother to read the thread. Since you cannot be bothered to read for yourself what we have done, then your commenting on it is pointless.

I can tell you that the test, as done here, was designed to give no advantage to the louder speaker.

If you decide to take the time to research the testing, as done, and have legit questions you would like to discuss, please, PM me.

BTW ... How do you do instant A/B, level matched switches without a switcher ? ;)

Don't know about others "whining" about it, but I wasn't. Truth is, I could care less either way. I was merely pointing out a simple fact that should always be used when directly comparing two different speaker models to each other. However, be that as it may, even you must admit that I did nail the conditions that were used in it (or not used in it might actually be a better choice of words here in this case) with nothing but an assumption. :p

As for level matching without a switch box, any power amp, integrated, or receiver with selectable A/B speaker outputs will do the job very effectively, but I have a feeling you really already knew that all along anyway. ;)

Don't know about others "whining" about it, but I wasn't. Truth is, I could care less either way. I was merely pointing out a simple fact that should always be used when directly comparing two different speaker models to each other. However, be that as it may, even you must admit that I did nail the conditions that were used in it (or not used in it might actually be a better choice of words here in this case) with nothing but an assumption. :p

As for level matching without a switch box, any power amp, integrated, or receiver with selectable A/B speaker outputs will do the job very effectively, but I have a feeling you really already knew that all along anyway. ;)

Ok ... So you have an amp with a switchable A/B speaker output. How are you planning on level matching and doing instant switching ? Please, let us see the detail on this. Instant A/B switching, level matched, means that you can flip back and forth between the speakers, with no delays at all, and the same volume between each pair.

I am really looking forward to leanring how you manage this without using a switchbox.

And you "nailed" nothing. I have done speaker tests both ways. And people have whined both ways. That is a fact. My pointing out that people have whined about it does not mean I am singling you out. "People" is a plural term.

I've been reading about the Classic 3's, would these be considered an upgrade to a Paradigm Cinema 90 L&R, 110 center? Anyone bought from "Soundpros" before? They calculate to what seems like a good price for the three 3's.

PS: I just noticed the "Dark" Classic 3 center on Ebay for $199 including freight, this seems like a good deal since I'm placing it in a cabinet with grill, so doesn't matter what color is to me.

Ok ... So you have an amp with a switchable A/B speaker output. How are you planning on level matching and doing instant switching ? Please, let us see the detail on this. Instant A/B switching, level matched, means that you can flip back and forth between the speakers, with no delays at all, and the same volume between each pair.

I am really looking forward to leanring how you manage this without using a switchbox.

And you "nailed" nothing. I have done speaker tests both ways. And people have whined both ways. That is a fact. My pointing out that people have whined about it does not mean I am singling you out. "People" is a plural term.

You don't keep the same volume level setting when you switch (unless the speaker pairs in question at any given time just happen to be identical in their efficiency/sensitivity). That has kind of been exactly the point all along. You simply use an SPL meter to get the the matching volume level settings you will be using to compare the speakers to each other in advance and then simply adjust the volume accordingly each time when you switch between the speakers. Once you have the initial settings, it really takes no more time to do so than when simultaneously changing the A/B speaker output selector. This way there is admittedly a little more work involved, but there will be no switcher in the signal path that anybody can claim is "coloring" the final sound in any way whatsoever. ;)

Since it simply can't be both ways at the same time and has to be one or the other, once and for all, just for the record, which is it - did you do level matching at any point in this particular test in question (the bookshelf shootout), or not? :confused:

You don't keep the same volume level setting when you switch (unless the speaker pairs in question at any given time just happen to be identical in their efficiency/sensitivity). That has kind of been exactly the point all along. You simply use an SPL meter to get the the matching volume level settings you will be using to compare the speakers to each other in advance and then simply adjust the volume accordingly each time when you switch between the speakers. Once you have the initial settings, it really takes no more time to do so than when simultaneously changing the A/B speaker output selector. This way there is admittedly a little more work involved, but there will be no switcher in the signal path that anybody can claim is "coloring" the final sound in any way whatsoever. ;)

Since it simply can't be both ways at the same time and has to be one or the other, once and for all, just for the record, which is it - did you do level matching at any point in this particular test in question (the bookshelf shootout), or not? :confused:

You cannot accurately level match using the method you just listed. You cannot instantly switch speakers and adjust a volume control. There will be a time lag. And, unless you have an extremely accurate SPL meter which has a properly calibrated microphone, you will never get level matched, unless you are lucky.

If you want the answers to your questions, in each test, the protocol is discussed ahead of time. All this info is posted, publically, in each thread.

Go read for yourself, and then PM me with any questions.

Discussing the GTG we had at our place never should have started in this NHT support thread.

However, as "buzzy_" started by posting false allegations, it was prudent to respond to his allegations.

You cannot accurately level match using the method you just listed. You cannot instantly switch speakers and adjust a volume control. There will be a time lag. And, unless you have an extremely accurate SPL meter which has a properly calibrated microphone, you will never get level matched, unless you are lucky.

If you want the answers to your questions, in each test, the protocol is discussed ahead of time. All this info is posted, publically, in each thread.

Go read for yourself, and then PM me with any questions.

Discussing the GTG we had at our place never should have started in this NHT support thread.

However, as "buzzy_" started by posting false allegations, it was prudent to respond to his allegations.

OK ... whatever, but it is a simple yes or no question. If the answer is in fact no, then it looks like I nailed it after all. :D

OK ... whatever, but it is a simple yes or no question. If the answer is in fact no, then it looks like I nailed it after all. :D

No, it is just that you are too lazy to read for yourself. :rolleyes:

No, it is just that you are too lazy to read for yourself. :rolleyes:

You got that right. It would be so much easier and faster for you to simply type out either three letters or two. ;):D:p

The only way to do blind tests is with normal gear is to use two of the same amps with remote switching, such as those made by NAD and to make sure the speakers are subjectively, as well as objectively matched before switching.

No one of which I know has done this in recent memory on AVS.

The only way to do blind tests is with normal gear is to use two of the same amps with remote switching, such as those made by NAD and to make sure the speakers are subjectively, as well as objectively matched before switching.

No one of which I know has done this in recent memory on AVS.

Having something like the multi million dollar Harman labs "speaker turntable" so that the speakers can virtually instantaneously occupy the same point in space wouldn't hurt either. :p

You got that right. It would be so much easier and faster for you to simply type out either three letters or two. ;):D:p

I understand. However, if you are not interested enough in the process to read about it in the actual thread, you don't deserve a single word answer to a question which has been answered repeatedly.

Buzzy_ started in on what occured in the thread about the bookshelf speakers. He said that I deleted the Classic 2 information/summary in the bookshelf thread. This information/summary is in the first post in that thread, along with the other speakers which were tested. I don't know if buzzy was intentionally misleading people about this, but he was misleading.

The methodology is also stated in the bookshelf thread, for anyone and everyone to read, and to participate.

The choice is yours, if you don't want to read the facts, as listed in the thread, fine.

Don't know about others "whining" about it, but I wasn't. Truth is, I could care less either way. I was merely pointing out a simple fact that should always be used when directly comparing two different speaker models to each other. However, be that as it may, even you must admit that I did nail the conditions that were used in it (or not used in it might actually be a better choice of words here in this case) with nothing but an assumption. :p

As for level matching without a switch box, any power amp, integrated, or receiver with selectable A/B speaker outputs will do the job very effectively, but I have a feeling you really already knew that all along anyway. ;)


You could also use two identical receivers, one pair of speakers on each receiver.

Level match each pair of speakers.

Set one receiver to mute ON, the other to mute OFF.

With the remote control located at the listening position, just toggle the MUTE button. You get near instantaneous level matched switching with no fiddle faddling.

Buzzy_ started in on what occured in the thread about the bookshelf speakers. He said that I deleted the Classic 2 information/summary in the bookshelf thread. This information/summary is in the first post in that thread, along with the other speakers which were tested. I don't know if buzzy was intentionally misleading people about this, but he was misleading. You know, I thought I'd give this thread a break and let it go the first time you posted this garbage. But I guess that's not going to work.

As far as that detail about how you deleted the results - I went to where it was posted, it was gone. That's a fact. If you had a shred of reasonableness, you'd have just pointed out where it was and moved onto the real issues that made it even come up in the first place.

Anyone who wants to go back in this thread can see for themselves exactly what happened on that, and on the other issues. You're just being a troll at this point. Your behaviour here completely undermines your credibility.

You know, I thought I'd give this thread a break and let it go the first time you posted this garbage. But I guess that's not going to work.

As far as that detail about how you deleted the results - I went to where it was posted, it was gone. That's a fact. If you had a shred of reasonableness, you'd have just pointed out where it was and moved onto the real issues that made it even come up in the first place.

Anyone who wants to go back in this thread can see for themselves exactly what happened on that, and on the other issues. You're just being a troll at this point. Your behaviour here completely undermines your credibility.

You said the post with the summary about the Classic 2's was deleted.

The post is still there.

It is not gone.

That is a fact.

You can rant about reasonableness and credibility all you want, the summary was never deleted.

You could have PMed me, and asked if I could help you to find it. But you didn't. I would have been glad to help. :)

Sounds like a plan! Plus the Threes would match your 3C better. Since you've already got one anyway, I would also suggest maybe picking up a second Twelve if you can at these prices. Or, maybe pick up a better sub system down the line, and put the Twelve you have with a pair of Twos in the work out room. ;)

Congrats!

Thanks. I think I missed out on the $250 Audio Advisor Threes by a day. Oh well. And yes, I did get the 3C specifically with the possible future upgrade in mind. FWIW, the 2C isn't a much better match for the Two than is the 3C (I'm not sure why they didn't at least match the woofers for the Two and the 2C?), so I figured I'd just get the 3C in case I eventually got a pair of Threes so all the drivers would match up.

I see there's not a ton of love on this site for the NHT 12" sub. Again, I'm more interested in musicality than shaking the house for movies, so hopefully I don't regret that decision. And as you said, there are options down the line. No matter what, I should at least have better sound than the TV speakers I've been listening to up to this point in my life. ;)

Craig I read the floor standing speaker thread and as I would exspect you did a great job. First off the guys who came to listen to the speakers IMO where there to find a speakers that played loud and clear. If I had to guess they turned each speaker up to a point of distortion with their kind of music and then turn it back down to listen to them. Brandon did a great wright up on what he was listen for. The NHT were added just to add another mix into the blind listening test.
Allen

I see there's not a ton of love on this site for the NHT 12" sub. Again, I'm more interested in musicality than shaking the house for movies, so hopefully I don't regret that decision. And as you said, there are options down the line. No matter what, I should at least have better sound than the TV speakers I've been listening to up to this point in my life. ;)

The NHT Twelve is just a little pricey for the performance unless its on sale, partially, I suspect, because of the somewhat expensive cabinetry. And the U1/U2 are obviously better for not a *whole* lot more money, considering how much outboard amps and crossovers cost. However, at a reasonable discount, the Twelsve s a both a good performer and a good bargain overall.

Craig I read the floor standing speaker thread and as I would exspect you did a great job. First off the guys who came to listen to the speakers IMO where there to find a speakers that played loud and clear. If I had to guess they turned each speaker up to a point of distortion with their kind of music and then turn it back down to listen to them. Brandon did a great wright up on what he was listen for. The NHT were added just to add another mix into the blind listening test.
Allen

Allen ... Thanks for the kind words, and I pretty much stayed out of the way. Brandon and the guys like music at moderate to loud levels, and place a lot of value on dynamics. They have been touring a lot of stores, doing listening tests, too, and speakers they liked in stores were Vandy 5A, Paradigm Studio 100 V.4 ... and other speakers which are less limited in macrodynamics.

The Classic 2's are more of a "not their style" than anything else. In the right setting, which was discussed in the bookshelf thread, the Classic 2's are quite listenable, especially for jazz and classical selections.

Anyway, the GTG this weekend was not about what I thought of speakers, it was Brandon, Justin and AJ's show ... and they all did a terrific job. :)

I stumbled onto this thread after finding the closeout prices on the M5's and m6's, these are appealing to me as my future setup will include custom built shelving and I like the flexibility of boundary control adjustment, I will most likely be using these horizontally in a phantom 6.2 configuration (4 surround speakers, 2 smaller sealed subs mounted in cabinet). My room is fairly large (opens to kitchen, hallway, stairs etc + 14foot ceilings.) Based on this information do these speakers make sense as the fronts for my setup and should I go for the m5s or m6s

Admittedly (and as you yourself also alluded to), there are always pitfalls to pulling off comparison demos such as this, but this much is for sure - when any two pairs of speakers are being A/B demoed against each other, and they are not properly level matched when doing so, then the "test" results are pretty much invalidated and irrelevant, because the more efficient (IE louder) speaker is likely going to make a bigger first impression pretty much every time (especially with the same volume setting on the pre-amp), but that doesn't necessarily make it the "better" speaker model between the two, especially to actually live with long term. This is exactly why Klipsch sells so much. ;)

I hear this (or rather see this) being posted in these forums all the time, and it always seems to be coming from those who have neither participated in a blind speaker test, nor a blind level matched speaker test. Have you actually participated in either? And if so, how were they set up and run?

I have actually participated in both, and I'll tell you this: a non leveled matched test doesn't make the results irrelevant, especially if the audition material was 25 minutes long for each round. Sure, if its a 30 second clip or whatever, yeah, kind of useless, but this last GTG wasn't that (the floor standing one). We listened for hours. We listened at the same perceived volume levels (using our ears) but also at soft and loud levels to test the micro and macro dynamics of the speakers. This whole level matched whooey is just garbage. By testing at soft, perceived level matched (using our ears) and reference levels, a speaker's faults will be discovered, especially with a minimum of 25+ minutes of listening material between each round. Now lengthen the listening times and those faults become even more apparent.

With that said, it didn't even take the full 25 minute round to reach a conclusion that certain speakers were pretty bad. I'm not mentioning names (because that's not the point here), but I will say that whether level matched or not, a bad speaker remains a bad speaker. I don't care if it's 2 dB less than speaker "C" while listening. If that speaker performs poorly at 60dB 75dB and 95dB, it's just bad; plain and simple. If a speaker is bad pretty much at any listening level, a few dB isn't going to change that.

Craig I read the floor standing speaker thread and as I would exspect you did a great job. First off the guys who came to listen to the speakers IMO where there to find a speakers that played loud and clear. If I had to guess they turned each speaker up to a point of distortion with their kind of music and then turn it back down to listen to them. Brandon did a great wright up on what he was listen for. The NHT were added just to add another mix into the blind listening test.
Allen

Hi Allen

We were looking for speakers that played "loud and clear," but were also looking for a speaker that could play at quiet levels and still be clear and sweet. In other words, we were looking for a speaker that could do it all at any normal listening level. Our personal preferences are moderate to loud, but we wanted to test them at quiet levels as well. Micro and macro dynamics are very important to us, so we put each speaker through the wringer for sure. In the end, the results are just our opinions and shouldn't be taken for fact.

No matter if people think we are morons and don't know good sound, or if they just don't care about our opinions, we had fun and it was totally worth it.

Hope that helps and thanks for the kind words.

Brandon

I wouldn't put any more weight on those opinions than on those of lots of others who posted earlier in this thread how they thought they were. (Many positive, some not so.) And since they listen to them for 1/2 hour, to me it means less than someone who lives with the speakers for a while, tries to get the setup right, etc. Though the direct comparison to other speakers is potentially a big plus.

But speaker shootouts are full of potential problems. Think about how long you spent getting the placement, gear, etc. right for a set of speakers. Then think about what would happen if you changed speakers every 5-30 minutes.

Shootouts are fun, but ultimately can be misleading.

And no matter how hard they try, things can go wrong that make the playing field uneven. Placement, seating, gear, etc.

Somehow many shootouts I've read also have a way of - oh, surprise! The gear I bought / my favorite brands / etc. won!!! Woo hooo! I bought the best [fill in the blank] after all!!!

Finally, I'm not sure why this whole post got deleted, but a quote from the last bookshelf thread ... completely different from later posts. No idea what's going on, but at a minimum it shows how hard it is to do these shootouts in a way that really gets to what the speaker is about. Yes, they are fun to read about, and very useful no doubt to the people doing them - but Craig did not walk down Mt. Sinai with the results engraved on stone tablets, as some seem to believe.
You are correct; a lot of things can go wrong during a shootout. However, a lot can go right.

I am not in the mood to argue, but I will say that 30 minutes is enough time for most to determine if a speaker's sound is "right" for them. Ultimately one should determine this using their own electronics in their own home, but this just isn't possible some of the people auditioning. Sure, I recommend spending as much time as possible before making a decision, but that's what 30-day trial periods and in-home dealer auditions are for. For those who buy used, well, it's a risk; a worthy risk for many due to the cost savings.

While I do disagree with some of what you said, I do agree that these shootouts shouldn't be taken as fact or writing in stone. They are just the opinions of a few. If they help you - cool. If not it's not a big deal. Either way, I highly recommend participating in an event such as Craig's GTG. If nothing else, the food and fellowship is well worth the travel.

Allen ... Thanks for the kind words, and I pretty much stayed out of the way. Brandon and the guys like music at moderate to loud levels, and place a lot of value on dynamics. They have been touring a lot of stores, doing listening tests, too, and speakers they liked in stores were Vandy 5A, Paradigm Studio 100 V.4 ... and other speakers which are less limited in macrodynamics.

The Classic 2's are more of a "not their style" than anything else. In the right setting, which was discussed in the bookshelf thread, the Classic 2's are quite listenable, especially for jazz and classical selections.

Anyway, the GTG this weekend was not about what I thought of speakers, it was Brandon, Justin and AJ's show ... and they all did a terrific job. :)

This is what I thought



Hi Allen

We were looking for speakers that played "loud and clear," but were also looking for a speaker that could play at quiet levels and still be clear and sweet. In other words, we were looking for a speaker that could do it all at any normal listening level. Our personal preferences are moderate to loud, but we wanted to test them at quiet levels as well. Micro and macro dynamics are very important to us, so we put each speaker through the wringer for sure. In the end, the results are just our opinions and shouldn't be taken for fact.

No matter if people think we are morons and don't know good sound, or if they just don't care about our opinions, we had fun and it was totally worth it.

Hope that helps and thanks for the kind words.

Brandon

I saw this in your review of each speaker.



I would like to say this, Mark has listen to a lot of speakers, and I am sure he has done all kinds of listening test on speakers. I think if you had been using movies more than music then level match would have been a bigger deal. When looking for a speaker to rock the house down, just crank it up.

Just my thoughts.
Allen

The NHT Twelve is just a little pricey for the performance unless its on sale, partially, I suspect, because of the somewhat expensive cabinetry. And the U1/U2 are obviously better for not a *whole* lot more money, considering how much outboard amps and crossovers cost. However, at a reasonable discount, the Twelsve s a both a good performer and a good bargain overall.

Thanks for the reply. I got the NHT Twelve for $399 new from an authorized dealer, which is a nice discount compared with $900+. If it sounds half as good as it looks I'll be very happy.

Doublechili, U2 is selling for 499 in case you didn't know.


And how well does the xds sound by itself? Much better than the classic3? If I just buy the speakers, is it a good match with the u1/u2?

I stumbled onto this thread after finding the closeout prices on the M5's and m6's, these are appealing to me as my future setup will include custom built shelving and I like the flexibility of boundary control adjustment, I will most likely be using these horizontally in a phantom 6.2 configuration (4 surround speakers, 2 smaller sealed subs mounted in cabinet). My room is fairly large (opens to kitchen, hallway, stairs etc + 14foot ceilings.) Based on this information do these speakers make sense as the fronts for my setup and should I go for the m5s or m6s

anyone?

i now have left and right and center threes after buying the 3C for $199.

cant wait to get it to try it out!

anyone?

The M5/M6 speakers are exactly what you are looking for based on your proposed setup. The choice between the M5 and M6 boils down to the size of the room and how loud you like to listen. The M6 is designed for larger rooms and will simply play louder. The M5 is smoother is its presentation too.

Does that help?

James

He didn't ask - but if you have any comments about amplification/receiver or other things that might be unusual - it would probably help him and some other people. That is, are there any quick tips he should know (that he wouldn't need to know with a typical set of surround speakers), for this part of the Evo line? Not the setup you'd get, but the setup of somebody coming in because price is a factor.

Or another way to put it - baltik, did you have a receiver/amp setup in mind?

And you might want to post the room size & distance from the mains to the listening position.

I hear this (or rather see this) being posted in these forums all the time, and it always seems to be coming from those who have neither participated in a blind speaker test, nor a blind level matched speaker test. Have you actually participated in either? And if so, how were they set up and run?

I have actually participated in both, and I'll tell you this: a non leveled matched test doesn't make the results irrelevant, especially if the audition material was 25 minutes long for each round. Sure, if its a 30 second clip or whatever, yeah, kind of useless, but this last GTG wasn't that (the floor standing one). We listened for hours. We listened at the same perceived volume levels (using our ears) but also at soft and loud levels to test the micro and macro dynamics of the speakers. This whole level matched whooey is just garbage. By testing at soft, perceived level matched (using our ears) and reference levels, a speaker's faults will be discovered, especially with a minimum of 25+ minutes of listening material between each round. Now lengthen the listening times and those faults become even more apparent.

With that said, it didn't even take the full 25 minute round to reach a conclusion that certain speakers were pretty bad. I'm not mentioning names (because that's not the point here), but I will say that whether level matched or not, a bad speaker remains a bad speaker. I don't care if it's 2 dB less than speaker "C" while listening. If that speaker performs poorly at 60dB 75dB and 95dB, it's just bad; plain and simple. If a speaker is bad pretty much at any listening level, a few dB isn't going to change that.

No, I've never done it and don't know anything about it at all - I just fell off the audio turnip truck yesterday and I'm just talkin' out my @$$ here. The comments I made before about the louder speaker being that one that makes the bigger first impression but not necessarily being the best speaker to live with long term, and about it being the oldest trick in the book for Klipsch dealers to use and why they sale so well - the KLF-30s that have been sitting unused in a spare closet for the last 5 years or so (what I still to this day consider to be the worst buying mistake I ever made in this hobby) have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. ;)

I could also go on about how somebody else was ready to buy some Klipsch RF-5s right there on the spot over Boston VR-3s after hearing them A/B compared to each other, but ultimately did an about face and went with the BAs instead after I insisted they should hear them played with matched levels first, but frankly, I'm simply not going to spend the time it would take to type out the details about it.

"Blind" test? How was it blind?

But as for this:

This whole level matched whooey is just garbage.

... the fact that you've already admitted that you were mainly looking for speakers that play "loud and clear" says it all here since a a speaker will always sound exactly that way at first impression when it is compared to one that is less efficient/sensitive without first being level matched. I stand by the level matching being needed - a more efficient (louder) speaker will make the bigger first impression every time. While that doesn't necessarily mean it's not the better model of the two being compared, it also doesn't necessarily mean that it is either, and especially for living with on a long term basis.

But as for a GGT, you're right, I've never participated in one which music was the main priority where I was sitting two or three rows to the back and way over to the side of the sweet spot to evaluate the speakers. You got me there on that one! :D

I understand. However, if you are not interested enough in the process to read about it in the actual thread, you don't deserve a single word answer to a question which has been answered repeatedly.

Buzzy_ started in on what occured in the thread about the bookshelf speakers. He said that I deleted the Classic 2 information/summary in the bookshelf thread. This information/summary is in the first post in that thread, along with the other speakers which were tested. I don't know if buzzy was intentionally misleading people about this, but he was misleading.

The methodology is also stated in the bookshelf thread, for anyone and everyone to read, and to participate.

The choice is yours, if you don't want to read the facts, as listed in the thread, fine.

Doesn't matter now anyway cochise, the answer is crystal clear - and, I nailed it. ;)

You could also use two identical receivers, one pair of speakers on each receiver.

Level match each pair of speakers.

Set one receiver to mute ON, the other to mute OFF.

With the remote control located at the listening position, just toggle the MUTE button. You get near instantaneous level matched switching with no fiddle faddling.


Good point. There is always more than one way to skin a cat. ;)

However, you would need a CDP (or whatever source) with dual outputs, or at least a Y splitter, and it'd still be a good idea to have all the same wires and cables with equal matching lengths too, or somebody would complain about that. Even then, someone may complain that either receiver or some wires and cables were not "broken in" as much as the other. :p:o

And how well does the xds sound by itself? Much better than the classic3? If I just buy the speakers, is it a good match with the u1/u2?

FWIW - you would need the XdA and the XdW for the XdS.

He didn't ask - but if you have any comments about amplification/receiver or other things that might be unusual - it would probably help him and some other people. That is, are there any quick tips he should know (that he wouldn't need to know with a typical set of surround speakers), for this part of the Evo line? Not the setup you'd get, but the setup of somebody coming in because price is a factor.

Or another way to put it - baltik, did you have a receiver/amp setup in mind?

And you might want to post the room size & distance from the mains to the listening position.

Only that it should be at least a good measurable 50 watts per minimum (and preferably even more in a larger room) like HK, NAD, Cambridge, Rotel, etc.

The M5/M6 speakers are exactly what you are looking for based on your proposed setup. The choice between the M5 and M6 boils down to the size of the room and how loud you like to listen. The M6 is designed for larger rooms and will simply play louder. The M5 is smoother is its presentation too.

Does that help?

James

As usual, James summed it up very accurately and eloquently. About the only thing I would add to that is the distance between the speaker plane and listening position might also be a factor. I really wouldn't go any further back than an absolute max of 12' from the M5s, despite the room size. Anything over that, I'd recommend M6s instead.

Doublechili, U2 is selling for 499 in case you didn't know.


And how well does the xds sound by itself? Much better than the classic3? If I just buy the speakers, is it a good match with the u1/u2?

I think that NHT has pretty much sold out of the Evo line so act quickly if you find a dealer who has stock.

No, I've never done it and don't know anything about it at all - I just fell off the audio turnip truck yesterday and I'm just talkin' out my @$$ here. The comments I made before about the louder speaker being that one that makes the bigger first impression but not necessarily being the best speaker to live with long term, and about it being the oldest trick in the book for Klipsch dealers to use and why they sale so well - the KLF-30s that have been sitting unused in a spare closet for the last 5 years or so (what I still to this day consider to be the worst buying mistake I ever made in this hobby) have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. ;)

I could also go on about how somebody else was ready to buy some Klipsch RF-5s right there on the spot over Boston VR-3s after hearing them A/B compared to each other, but ultimately did an about face and went with the BAs instead after I insisted they should hear them played with matched levels first, but frankly, I'm simply not going to spend the time it would take to type out the details about it.

"Blind" test? How was it blind?

But as for this:



... the fact that you've already admitted that you were mainly looking for speakers that play "loud and clear" says it all here since a a speaker will always sound exactly that way at first impression when it is compared to one that is less efficient/sensitive without first being level matched. I stand by the level matching being needed - a more efficient (louder) speaker will make the bigger first impression every time. While that doesn't necessarily mean it's not the better model of the two being compared, it also doesn't necessarily mean that it is either, and especially for living with on a long term basis.

But as for a GGT, you're right, I've never participated in one which music was the main priority where I was sitting two or three rows to the back and way over to the side of the sweet spot to evaluate the speakers. You got me there on that one! :D

You're certainly grasping at straws here, that's for sure (especially the part where you try to tell me the manner in which I participated in a blind test and at the same time left out portions of what I said to make your point. That's just sad man...). It's funny that someone who has never participated in a blind test is so quick to call into question the methods used during the ones I have attended; as if you even know what was all involved in them. Due to this, you aren't even worth debating with. Try to educate yourself in the facts before debating with someone.

We can agree to disagree, but based on your own admissions, I'm leaning toward you just being wrong; something you can't argue until you've performed all of the above for yourself. Yup, that's my opinion, but at least it's based on experience. ;)

Perhaps one day we can actually debate this subject after you've participated in one and actually have merit/experience behind your comments. Until then, I'm outta here. Good day!

You're certainly grasping at straws here, that's for sure (especially the part where you try to tell me the manner in which I participated in a blind test

So where did I try to tell you the manner in which you participated? I didn't mention anything that was or was not done that you and/or your cohort hadn't already confirmed or denied anyway. Talk about grasping for straws here. I can't wait to hear this one.

and at the same time left out portions of what I said to make your point. That's just sad man...).

No, what's really sad here is that you obviously must be so starved for attention as to have expected me to address each and every single word in your post. In case you didn't notice it the first time, we were actually agreeing on at least one thing. :rolleyes:

It's funny that someone who has never participated in a blind test is so quick to call into question the methods used during the ones I have attended; as if you even know what was all involved in them. Due to this, you aren't even worth debating with. Try to educate yourself in the facts before debating with someone.

We can agree to disagree, but based on your own admissions, I'm leaning toward you just being wrong; something you can't argue until you've performed all of the above for yourself. Yup, that's my opinion, but at least it's based on experience. ;)

Perhaps one day we can actually debate this subject after you've participated in one and actually have merit/experience behind your comments. Until then, I'm outta here. Good day!

Since you clearly didn't figure it out the first time, I was being sarcastic when I said hadn't. Well, except for the part about sitting so far off axis when doing so anyway. That much at least was the truth. :D

Until then, I'm outta here. Good day!

Bye bye! This crap never belonged in this thread in the first place.

I think that NHT has pretty much sold out of the Evo line so act quickly if you find a dealer who has stock.

Did you nab anything else other than the SD Classic 3C? Weren't you maybe thinking about some Evo subs too?

I will be using these speakers with my newly acquired Onkyo 805, rears and surrounds will most likely be triad inwall mini silvers and M6's for the fronts, room is about 600sq feet but is open on the sides and rear to over 1,000 sq feet of space and also the 14ft ceinlings add to it. as I mentione before it is very difficult to incorporate a center into my setup so i am leaning towards phantom

We still have a fair amount of stock on the T5 and T6 systems and a few of the U1 and U2's but they're being scooped up fast. NHT is completely out of stock on all these pieces now.

Doublechili, U2 is selling for 499 in case you didn't know.


I didn't know that, thanks. I haven't even received my Classic speakers yet (four Twos, a Three C and a Classic 12 sub). Of course now I'm wondering if I would've been better off spending 50% more and getting five M5s and a U2 sub. Can you have upgrade-itis before you even get your speakers?

I didn't know that, thanks. I haven't even received my Classic speakers yet (four Twos, a Three C and a Classic 12 sub). Of course now I'm wondering if I would've been better off spending 50% more and getting five M5s and a U2 sub. Can you have upgrade-itis before you even get your speakers?

I purchased the classic fours and a threeC due to the sale. Once I know about the discount that's available on the evo line, I bought a bunch of those too. My entertainment room is long and relatively narrow so m6 and m5 should do well. My bedroom is actually wider, so I guess that's where the classics are going.

If you can unload the classic 12 for around the same price you bought, I'd definitely get the twin 12" of U2 over that.

Anyone knows if the L5 makes a good surround if placed horizontally instead of the normal vertical configuration? It would look better in my room and that's why I ask.

The L5 (like the M5 and M6) are made to be placed either horizontally or vertically. Just make sure the tweeter is up if the speaker is below your ears or down if it's above it.

No, I've never done it and don't know anything about it at all - I just fell off the audio turnip truck yesterday and I'm just talkin' out my @$$ here. The comments I made before about the louder speaker being that one that makes the bigger first impression but not necessarily being the best speaker to live with long term, and about it being the oldest trick in the book for Klipsch dealers to use and why they sale so well - the KLF-30s that have been sitting unused in a spare closet for the last 5 years or so (what I still to this day consider to be the worst buying mistake I ever made in this hobby) have absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever. ;)

I could also go on about how somebody else was ready to buy some Klipsch RF-5s right there on the spot over Boston VR-3s after hearing them A/B compared to each other, but ultimately did an about face and went with the BAs instead after I insisted they should hear them played with matched levels first, but frankly, I'm simply not going to spend the time it would take to type out the details about it.

"Blind" test? How was it blind?

But as for this:



... the fact that you've already admitted that you were mainly looking for speakers that play "loud and clear" says it all here since a a speaker will always sound exactly that way at first impression when it is compared to one that is less efficient/sensitive without first being level matched. I stand by the level matching being needed - a more efficient (louder) speaker will make the bigger first impression every time. While that doesn't necessarily mean it's not the better model of the two being compared, it also doesn't necessarily mean that it is either, and especially for living with on a long term basis.

But as for a GGT, you're right, I've never participated in one which music was the main priority where I was sitting two or three rows to the back and way over to the side of the sweet spot to evaluate the speakers. You got me there on that one! :D

How was it blind ? This was already detailed, but apparently the complainers in this thread cannot be troubled to actually go to the thread about the test to read it. ;)

1. All grills were removed from test speakers, and a speaker cloth used across the room, within 1 inch of the face of each speaker pair.

2. The panel knew we had appx. 20 pairs of speakers from which to choose. This eliminated the possibility of the guys guessing which speakers were on. An example of how blind this was: They panel was told that the Salk Songtowers had not arrived, when they were actually here. They had NO idea which speakers were being heard. They listened to the Salks, which are among the finest $1500 towers I have ever heard, and picked them as tied for first.

3. Each test would start at a low volume, and be increased until the volume was comparable to the other speakers (using the SPL section of the TrueRTA software and the TEF microphone). This, combined with a 5 minute break between sessions, keeps out the "louder is better" issue. By giving the guys 30 minutes with tracks with which they were quite familiar, they were able to effectively listen for differences between the speakers.

4. The room was also kept dark, to further ensure the blind element. It was dark enough that I had to help the guys to their listening chairs.

This test did showcase macrodynamics, along with soundstaging, microdynamics, mid range clarity, etc ... but it was not a "let's trick the panel" by switching to a more efficient speaker.

Hello,

I broke one of the binding posts on one of my NHT ST-4's this morning. I bought a new receiver and wanted to bi-amp them. The plastic on the post that broke would not spin, it was like it was fused the the metal. Anyways trying to get it loose the post snapped.

So here is my question for you guys. Will I be ok if I just solder the speaker wire to what is left of the post? It broke at the wire hole so the wire could sit in it soldered to the post. Or can I replace the post itself? It looks as though the post plate would come of quite easily after taking the screws out. Is there anything I need to know to replace the post. I'm sure I'll need to call NHT Monday to order a new post if it can be replaced.

Thanks for your help.
Joe

need to get some some input from the experienced ears out there. my situation is that i have 3s, 3c and 2 u1s. my room has 11.5 ft vaulted ceilings is 20ft wide and 17 ft long which opens into another large room. i listen to 50/50 movies-music. i know this is all very subjective but i have never had the opportunity to hear the m6s and i am sure there are many of you that have heard them and the classics. to you that have do you think it would be significant enough difference to switch to the m6s and if so could i use the classic 3s for surrounds with them. i have not had the classics long but at these close out prices i may never get another chance like this if there is a big enough difference. it seems it has a lot of us thinking!

Hello,

I broke one of the binding posts on one of my NHT ST-4's this morning. I bought a new receiver and wanted to bi-amp them. The plastic on the post that broke would not spin, it was like it was fused the the metal. Anyways trying to get it loose the post snapped.

So here is my question for you guys. Will I be ok if I just solder the speaker wire to what is left of the post? It broke at the wire hole so the wire could sit in it soldered to the post. Or can I replace the post itself? It looks as though the post plate would come of quite easily after taking the screws out. Is there anything I need to know to replace the post. I'm sure I'll need to call NHT Monday to order a new post if it can be replaced.

Thanks for your help.
Joe

The post can easily be replaced. Call NHT for the replacement or call Parts Express and get something similiar.

Also, have you tried using a locking banana plug instead of a spade?

James

need to get some some input from the experienced ears out there. my situation is that i have 3s, 3c and 2 u1s. my room has 11.5 ft vaulted ceilings is 20ft wide and 17 ft long which opens into another large room. i listen to 50/50 movies-music. i know this is all very subjective but i have never had the opportunity to hear the m6s and i am sure there are many of you that have heard them and the classics. to you that have do you think it would be significant enough difference to switch to the m6s and if so could i use the classic 3s for surrounds with them. i have not had the classics long but at these close out prices i may never get another chance like this if there is a big enough difference. it seems it has a lot of us thinking!

Mark will be the one who I know has heard both. He likes the M5 over the 3s. I know you said m6 but it will depend how far back you plan to sit from the tv that will tell which m speaker to get. You can use the 3 for surround but the great thing about the m5 you get 5 identical speakers all around. And if you use m6 up front then m5 for surrounds will work. That is what I have now.
Just for the recorded I haven't heard the new classics but I have talked with Mark enough to know he got rid of them for something else. But I think he may have keep a pair of 3 for a small music system.
Allen

i sit approximately 11 ft from my tv.

M5s have a somewhat softer, less revealing sound compared to the Classics, but perform better in troublesome rooms. Classic Threes offer greater performance than M5/M6s in terms of resolution, imaging, soundstaging. I found them to be superior overall, but will miss the flexibility and steady solid performance of he M5/M6s. They sound good everywhere, whereas Classics can sound better or worse depending on the room/setup.

4. The room was also kept dark, to further ensure the blind element. It was dark enough that I had to help the guys to their listening chairs.

OK, truth be told here, that was along the lines of the obvious answer I was expecting, but I was merely trying to bait nuance into replying about the room being dark so I then could ask him if the panel wrote "pages and pages" of notes, and if so, how did they do it in the dark. He didn't fall for it however. I was not too long ago searching the speaker forum for something, and I specifically remember coming across a post of yours (or more than likely a subsequent quote of it perhaps) where you mentioned about all the handwritten notes you had about it that was far too much to post.

First nuance said the 'level matching" was done on a "perception by ear" basis, and then you are now saying that the TrueRTA/TEF combo was used. It would have been interesting if the test had some level matched direct A/B comparisons in it at some point, especially since it already had the TrueRTA/TEF anyway. It could have been done without a switcher for someone to complain about by some of the suggestions already mentioned by J. Palmer Cass, John, and myself, and we didn't even mention them all either. Another option would have been virtually any AVR or pre-pro with an independent volume zone 2 (some Denon AVRs for example, allow the re-assignment of amp channels with independent volume levels).

At any rate, while I can appreciate the time you took to make the post partially quoted here, as you yourself have repeatedly stated, there is already at least one existing thread about this test, and anyone who wants to read about and/or comment on it can do so on that particular thread, so lets get the attention of this one back on what it is supposed to be about.

OK, truth be told here, that was along the lines of the obvious answer I was expecting, but I was merely trying to bait nuance into replying about the room being dark so I then could ask him if the panel wrote "pages and pages" of notes, and if so, how did they do it in the dark. He didn't fall for it however. I was not too long ago searching the speaker forum for something, and I specifically remember coming across a post of yours (or more than likely a subsequent quote of it perhaps) where you mentioned about all the handwritten notes you had about it that was far too much to post.

First nuance said the 'level matching" was done on a "perception by ear" basis, and then you are now saying that the TrueRTA/TEF combo was used. It would have been interesting if the test had some level matched direct A/B comparisons in it at some point, especially since it already had the TrueRTA/TEF anyway. It could have been done without a switcher for someone to complain about by some of the suggestions already mentioned by J. Palmer Cass, John, and myself, and we didn't even mention them all either. Another option would have been virtually any AVR or pre-pro with an independent volume zone 2 (some Denon AVRs for example, allow the re-assignment of amp channels with independent volume levels).

At any rate, while I can appreciate the time you took to make the post partially quoted here, as you yourself have repeatedly stated, there is already at least one existing thread about this test, and anyone who wants to read about and/or comment on it can do so on that particular thread, so lets get the attention of this one back on what it is supposed to be about.

You make a good point on getting this back to NHT products ... now how did the listening thread get here (buzzy) in the first place ? :p

As for your laments about methodology, let's just say we seem to only get complaints from people who were not here. ;)

Mark will be the one who I know has heard both. He likes the M5 over the 3s. I know you said m6 but it will depend how far back you plan to sit from the tv that will tell which m speaker to get. You can use the 3 for surround but the great thing about the m5 you get 5 identical speakers all around. And if you use m6 up front then m5 for surrounds will work. That is what I have now.
Just for the recorded I haven't heard the new classics but I have talked with Mark enough to know he got rid of them for something else. But I think he may have keep a pair of 3 for a small music system.
Allen

Comparing the Threes to the M5s, I'd put it like this in a nutshell:

The Threes have a much wider soundstage and are brighter, thus more detailed (which might be either a good or bad thing, depending on your personal taste and preference).

The M5s are warmer sounding (again, tastes and preferences), thus less listening fatigue, but yet have better dynamics (will play louder and cleaner at high volume levels). Plus they will sound great in literally any room and/or set up situation. Even though the Threes have more detail, I don't think you will exactly find the M5s muffled sounding by any means. They too are very detailed, just not as much as the Threes, but you can literally listen to them all day long without your ears starting to hurt.

John always claims the Threes image so much better, but I would strongly disagree with that. They image equally well IMO, but the M5s are much easier to set up for great imaging. They are virtually foolproof to set up for great imaging, in literally any room, whereas the Threes need an optimal set up/placement situation with just the right toe-in in an ideal room (wide and well damped).

The Threes have arguably better drivers, but the M5s have arguably better crossovers (which Jack Hidley has stated that crossovers are the most important part of a speaker). Cabinets I'd rate as even, but different. The Threes are designed for wide dispersion (soundstaging), the M5s for virtual focused image geometry. IOW, they intentionally have a narrow soundstage to reduce reflected sound, which works better in narrow and/or reflective rooms. The M5s will still sound great in a wide and/or well damped room, but the Threes will not sound as good in a narrow and/or reflective room

Intangibles are that the Threes just flat out look better IMO, but the M5s have a perfectly matching wall mountable surround speaker in the L5, whereas there simply is not a good wall mountable surround option for the Threes. Also NHT makes a pedestal stand for the M5 that it bolts to, the P5, which looks and functions great, while the Threes can be a little trickier to find a suitable stand for because of their rails.

That is my honest, unbiased take on comparing the two models to each other.

Since I'm mostly into movies and rock music, I like the M5s better. If I were mostly into, say a 70-some piece symphony orchestra music, I'd prolly like the Threes better because of their soundstaging. I also find the Threes to be a little too bright and hot for my tastes. For example The Who's lead singer, Roger Daltrey's vocals were literally painful to my ears with the Three/Fours.

need to get some some input from the experienced ears out there. my situation is that i have 3s, 3c and 2 u1s. my room has 11.5 ft vaulted ceilings is 20ft wide and 17 ft long which opens into another large room. i listen to 50/50 movies-music. i know this is all very subjective but i have never had the opportunity to hear the m6s and i am sure there are many of you that have heard them and the classics. to you that have do you think it would be significant enough difference to switch to the m6s and if so could i use the classic 3s for surrounds with them. i have not had the classics long but at these close out prices i may never get another chance like this if there is a big enough difference. it seems it has a lot of us thinking!


Since you're looking at almost 4000 cubic feet in that room, and 11' away from the speaker plane to the listening position, I'd suggest M6s over M5s. ;)

You make a good point on getting this back to NHT products ... now how did the listening thread get here (buzzy) in the first place ? :p

Yes, we are well aware of that. I mean after all, you've only mentioned it now like a dozen times or so. :rolleyes:

Apparently, there was a post moved or something that he thought was deleted, but honestly, who really cares anymore? Whatsa matter, don't you get enough attention on the actual thread in question? :p

BTW, thanks for the PM. Glad to see you care so much. ;)

HiDefLifestyle1 are you an authorized dealer for NHT?

HiDefLifestyle1 are you an authorized dealer for NHT?

Yes, we're authorized in store and online.

Does anybody know where to still find Classic Three's in Special Dark (therefore at the cheap prices)?

I have so far purchased 2x U1's, 1 pair of Classic Fours and a Classic Three C.

Still need to get surrounds and probably will also get back surrounds for a 7.1 system.

Classic Four surrounds would be overkill, right?

What should I get for back surrounds, if I decide to go that far?

now how did the listening thread get here (buzzy) in the first place ? :pWrong again. Link to b4z's post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12201849&highlight=skewered#post12201849) - "If you have read the floorstander speaker faceoff by craigsub they basically skewered the Twos w/ sub."

As I said before, anybody who's interested in the topic should just read the posts that are already in this thread.Yes, we are well aware of that. I mean after all, you've only mentioned it now like a dozen times or so. :rolleyes:What's really interesting is that his approach of ignoring the facts and posting misinformation actually works, even on somebody who's probably paying more attention to this thread than anybody.

Does anybody know where to still find Classic Three's in Special Dark (therefore at the cheap prices)?

I have so far purchased 2x U1's, 1 pair of Classic Fours and a Classic Three C.

Still need to get surrounds and probably will also get back surrounds for a 7.1 system.

Classic Four surrounds would be overkill, right?

What should I get for back surrounds, if I decide to go that far?

Even if you can't find a pair of SD Threes, another pair of Fours for surrounds is only like $500 more anyway, plus you wouldn't need stands for them either. :cool:

Comparing the Threes to the M5s, I'd put it like this in a nutshell:

The Threes have a much wider soundstage and are brighter, thus more detailed (which might be either a good or bad thing, depending on your personal taste and preference).

The M5s are warmer sounding (again, tastes and preferences), thus less listening fatigue, but yet have better dynamics (will play louder and cleaner at high volume levels). Plus they will sound great in literally any room and/or set up situation. Even though the Threes have more detail, I don't think you will exactly find the M5s muffled sounding by any means. They too are very detailed, just not as much as the Threes, but you can literally listen to them all day long without your ears starting to hurt.

John always claims the Threes image so much better, but I would strongly disagree with that. They image equally well IMO, but the M5s are much easier to set up for great imaging. They are virtually foolproof to set up for great imaging, in literally any room, whereas the Threes need an optimal set up/placement situation with just the right toe-in in an ideal room (wide and well damped).

The Threes have arguably better drivers, but the M5s have arguably better crossovers (which Jack Hidley has stated that crossovers are the most important part of a speaker). Cabinets I'd rate as even, but different. The Threes are designed for wide dispersion (soundstaging), the M5s for virtual focused image geometry. IOW, they intentionally have a narrow soundstage to reduce reflected sound, which works better in narrow and/or reflective rooms. The M5s will still sound great in a wide and/or well damped room, but the Threes will not sound as good in a narrow and/or reflective room

Intangibles are that the Threes just flat out look better IMO, but the M5s have a perfectly matching wall mountable surround speaker in the L5, whereas there simply is not a good wall mountable surround option for the Threes. Also NHT makes a pedestal stand for the M5 that it bolts to, the P5, which looks and functions great, while the Threes can be a little trickier to find a suitable stand for because of their rails.

That is my honest, unbiased take on comparing the two models to each other.

Since I'm mostly into movies and rock music, I like the M5s better. If I were mostly into, say a 70-some piece symphony orchestra music, I'd prolly like the Threes better because of their soundstaging. I also find the Threes to be a little too bright and hot for my tastes. For example The Who's lead singer, Roger Daltrey's vocals were literally painful to my ears with the Three/Fours.


All that was obviously subjective on my part, but to add something objective to it, the only source I know of that has ran the same set of measurements on both the Threes and M5s is HTM, and if you look, you will find that the M5s/T5s bested the Threes and Fours in accuracy. ;)

M5/T5:

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

Three/Four:

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

Even if you can't find a pair of SD Threes, another pair of Fours for surrounds is only like $500 more anyway, plus you wouldn't need stands for them either. :cool:

That's what I have been thinking...

Which speakers should I get for back surrounds, if I have two pairs of Fours and can't find Threes?

At this point I kind of will be stretching my budget though, as the thing that I really wanted to get was a new HD projector. These NHT closeouts sounded too good of a deal to pass. A pair of two's I could get for $300. But I don't know how they would match this set-up?

Thanks for all of your advice!

Has anyone tested the Classic 3's against any of the Paradigm line? If so, which would they compare to (Cinema-Studio-Monitor?). I'm upgrading my Cinema's and want a more laid back, mellower sound. 99% HDTV/DVD listening.

Wrong again. Link to b4z's post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12201849&highlight=skewered#post12201849) - "If you have read the floorstander speaker faceoff by craigsub they basically skewered the Twos w/ sub."

As I said before, anybody who's interested in the topic should just read the posts that are already in this thread.What's really interesting is that his approach of ignoring the facts and posting misinformation actually works, even on somebody who's probably paying more attention to this thread than anybody.

Ok, so b4Z brought it here first. Had you PM'ed me, I would have suggested that he remove the post.

Edit - b4Z PM'ed me that he removed the post. That is a textbook example of class. :)

I still think he should remove that post, because what happened at the GTG has nothing to do with this thread.

But, instead of going the PM route, you decided to post that I had deleted the bookshelf summary of the NHT Classic 2's.

I had not deleted it. This is pretty simple, as the summary is still there.

Here is something you seem to be missing: I own NHT Classic 2's. I also like them.

The reason I included them in the first place was because Brandon (Nuance) had mentioned that he would like to hear a pair of NHT's in some of his conversations with John Ashman (Alimentall). As I don't have floor standers, I crossed the Classic 2's @ 100 Hz, and put them into the test.

They really did not like them .. which is the opinion of 3 guys. They listened under totally unbiased conditions.

Does this mean everyone who hears Classic 2's will not like them ? Nope.

All that was obviously subjective on my part, but to add something objective to it, the only source I know of that has ran the same set of measurements on both the Threes and M5s is HTM, and if you look, you will find that the M5s/T5s bested the Threes and Fours in accuracy. ;)

M5/T5:

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

Three/Four:

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



The M-5's and M-6's are selling for real cheap right prices right now. Talk about dumping speakers.

I am seriously thinking about the M-5's. Maybe even three M-6's up front, with whatever for surrounds!

So, I ended up with 2 pairs of classic four's, a classic 3 center, 1 pair of classic 2's, 2 U1's and 7 M6's. That should make 2 pretty good sets, right? I'll see which setup I'll like more and sell the rest to friends or family if I decide not to keep all of them.

Has anyone tested the Classic 3's against any of the Paradigm line? If so, which would they compare to (Cinema-Studio-Monitor?). I'm upgrading my Cinema's and want a more laid back, mellower sound. 99% HDTV/DVD listening.

I don't know if the Threes are more laid back, (though I'd suspect they are just a bit), they are more refined and more resolving and less colored sounding to my ears. The Paradigms sound a bit rough and boxy by comparison.

Oliver Stone used three M6's and a pair of U2's in his system. The surrounds are the L's.


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

The NHT brochures say the U1 is 1" wider than the W1 (13.5" vs 12.5"). Can anyone verify this with a measurement?
Aside from packaging the X1/A1 with the U1, are there any other differences, esp in sound quality?

Is there a white paper on the 20 Hz mod? How steep is the slope on the subsonic filter (below 20Hz)? The IAR review criticizes the standard subsonic filter below 27Hz as too steep, causing overshoot and ringing in the transient response.

The NHT brochures say the U1 is 1" wider than the W1 (13.5" vs 12.5"). Can anyone verify this with a measurement?

I guess you didn't believe me.

From the Evolution owners manual:

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

Free Standing Subwoofers
W1 - The cabinet portion of
the U1 Powered Subwoofer
system. The W1 subwoofer
module employs dual, opposing
12" aluminum cone
woofers in a surprisingly compact enclosure.

Get it?

I ordered four Classic 2s, a 3C and a 12sub, and before they were delivered I realized the surround 2s were going to be too big (for WAF anyway) for where they need to go. So, I changed my order and substituted a pair of 3s and a pair of AZs to serve as fronts and surrounds. Aside from the size issue, I think the extra money will be well spent.

Now I need to pick a receiver. I know most everyone here would advocate a higher end unit like NAD. But what about Yamaha? I've read some good things about the amp sections of their receivers, and I've had some great Yamaha products through the years. Some of their high-end units can be had for good prices as they're getting older.

Now that I see the 13.5" width measurement for the W1 in the Evolution User Guide, I realize the 12.5" spec in the W1 brochure is a mistake. Thanks for clearing this up Tony.
The M5 and M6 brochures also contain some discrepancies. The brochure crossover frequencies are M5 380Hz, 2.4kHz; M6 400Hz, 2.3kHz. It is unlikely that the woofer/mid xover is lower in the M5 than in the M6 with its larger woofers. The User Guide states a more logical M5 450Hz, 3kHz; and M6 400Hz, 2.3kHz.

The M-5's and M-6's are selling for real cheap right prices right now. Talk about dumping speakers.

You sure got that right! With these Evo and the SD Classic closeout prices, you couldn't even get Polk speakers being blown out at Circuit City much cheaper than this! :eek:

I am seriously thinking about the M-5's. Maybe even three M-6's up front, with whatever for surrounds!

As I understand it, L5s and P5/P6 stands were never offered at the closeout prices (even though somebody, one call I think it was, was offering L5s for 50% off at least at one point if they still aren't anymore) simply cause there wasn't that many of them left in stock to begin with. Maybe John could shed some more light on this.

However, one great thing about the M5s/M6s is that even as surrounds, they can be placed horizontally if need be. If you can't get L5s to hang on the wall or P5/P6 stands to mount the M5s/M6s on, you can always go to like a Big Lots or something, and get some relatively cheap, but halfway descent looking matching bookcases that are quick and easy to put together to place around the room's walls to set the M5s/M6s on. ;):cool:

Edit - forgot to mention that you could also obviously use their built in boundary compensation for exactly such placement as this too. :o

So, I ended up with 2 pairs of classic four's, a classic 3 center, 1 pair of classic 2's, 2 U1's and 7 M6's. That should make 2 pretty good sets, right? I'll see which setup I'll like more and sell the rest to friends or family if I decide not to keep all of them.

Congrats! And just the think of the flexibility of options you have at your disposal here! You can set up two full 7 speaker surround systems, one 7 and one 5 speaker surround system and one dedicated 2 channel rig, or two 5 speaker surround systems and two dedicated 2 channel rigs. The combination possibilities here are virtually limitless. :D

I ordered four Classic 2s, a 3C and a 12sub, and before they were delivered I realized the surround 2s were going to be too big (for WAF anyway) for where they need to go. So, I changed my order and substituted a pair of 3s and a pair of AZs to serve as fronts and surrounds. Aside from the size issue, I think the extra money will be well spent.

Now I need to pick a receiver. I know most everyone here would advocate a higher end unit like NAD. But what about Yamaha? I've read some good things about the amp sections of their receivers, and I've had some great Yamaha products through the years. Some of their high-end units can be had for good prices as they're getting older.

Me personally, I feel the pre-amp section of most typical Yamaha gear is too bright, especially to mate with Classic Threes, which IMO are a little on the bright side anyway. You didn't really mention a price range, but for under $1000, the non-NAD AVR short list I'd recommend is HK, Cambridge Audio, Marantz, etc.

Is there a white paper on the 20 Hz mod? How steep is the slope on the subsonic filter (below 20Hz)? The IAR review criticizes the standard subsonic filter below 27Hz as too steep, causing overshoot and ringing in the transient response.

No white papers that I know of, but I would assume that the 20 Hz mod would at least put the 4th order roll-off down just that much a little bit lower than the stock, unmodded X1.

What's really interesting is that his approach of ignoring the facts and posting misinformation actually works, even on somebody who's probably paying more attention to this thread than anybody.

Actually, I did know that, but sort of forgot about it like 5 pages later. Sorry about that. My bad. :o

So who should I talk to about getting the 20hz mod done?

NEED ADVICE!

I have U2s (and C3s, C3C, AZ rears). My X1 has the 20-Hz mod.

I want to take advantage of the sale, and either buy another U2 setup (to place on top of my current U2) or buy 2 U1's, and sell my U2 (I'd sell the new electronics from one of the U1's in new, sealed boxes). What do people think? I do not really have room to put 2 W2's in the rear, although I realize that 4 W2s placed 2 front, 2 rear might be interesting...

Peter

I think I'd go with another pair of W2s. The 20hz mod really will overtax two W2s.

So who should I talk to about getting the 20hz mod done?

Normally you get that done directly at NHT.

I think I'd go with another pair of W2s. The 20hz mod really will overtax two W2s.

And TG would know from experience too since he had them. ;) That's exactly the reason I haven't had any of my X1s modded yet. However, I just picked up two more W1s (and two more A1s) to stack on top of a pair of existing W1s, and will now have the mod done to this system's X1. :D

I have put together some of Jack's "greatest hits" posts about Evo subs from this thread as it may pertain to people's recent questions here:

The Evolution subwoofers have a -3dB point of 26Hz. If you really must have the last 6Hz, it is fairly simple to modify the X1 crossover to drop the -3dB point to 20Hz. However, once you do this, the subwoofer won't be able to play as loud. To keep SPL constant as frequency drops one octave (40Hz to 20Hz), the driver excursion increases 4 times! Keep in mind that as frequency decreases, the ears sensitivity decreases also. This means that you have to generate a 20Hz signal at a higher SPL than a 40Hz signal, just for it to have the same loudness. This means that you end up wasting a large amount of amplifier power and woofer excursion just to get the last 6Hz. The vast majority of people are happier with a subwoofer that produces 26Hz, louder and with lower distortion.

We definitely recommend to not add a subwoofer to a T6 system. It will be impossible to ge the two systems sum correctly. If you need more bass output than a T6 system has, just add a U1 or U2 subwoofer to it. This is guaranteed to add correctly.

You can definitely hear down to 20Hz and feel down to 2Hz. If the recording contains information at or below 20Hz, you will definitely be able to hear/feel the difference, but NOT because the subwoofer can go down to 10Hz. It is because any subwoofer that has enough driver volume displacement (bore x stroke) and enough amplifier power, to produce 10Hz loud enough to be useful, is going to sound so much better producing 40Hz than a regular subwoofer.

It is very easy to build a 6.5" two-way to have flat response down to 20Hz. Does it sound good? No. It sounds awful. As soon as you try to get anything more than 65dB out of the speaker, the midrange is so modulated that it is unlistenable.

When designing any speaker you must balance the low frequency cutoff against the speakers volume capability. To make a speaker system that has useful output at 10Hz requires lots of drivers (or excursion), lots of enclosure volume and lots of amplifier power.

There is a second issue that people tend to ignore. Assume that you have a speaker system that can produce frequencies down to 2Hz with unlimited SPL at low distortion. What monitor system was used to make the recording? It is extremely unlikely that the monitor system has a large signal -3dB point lower than 30Hz. The engineers making the recording are likely to have boosted things between 10 and 40Hz to compensate for this. When you play this recording back on your system, suddenly there is 10-15dB more SPL at 15Hz than the engineers intended. Does this mean that your playback system is more or less accurate than a system that cuts off at 30Hz for the purposes of reproducing the soundtrack? The system may be perfectly accurate at reproducing the tonal balance that is on the recording, but is that what you want hear? Does it sound best? In the case of music, I think it's usually close. In the case of movie soundtracks it usually sounds awful.

Zaracsan,

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

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

*note- I think Jack actually meant W2 cabinets in this particular post and accidently called them W1s, or it could have been a typo*

Powered subwoofers are not that simple.

The reason that a lot of the very small subwoofers on the market use very or claim to use very high power amplifiers, is that they must. For a given amount of woofer cone displacement (area x stroke) a smaller cabinet will have a much larger pressure increase and decrease. To cause the larger pressure increase and decrease takes more amplifier power. Note that in both a large and small cabinet, a given driver has the same maximum low frequency output, given infinite amplifier power. In a sealed box, the low frequency output is simply a function of area x stroke. If a given amplifier can move the driver to its maximum stroke limits, then a larger amplifier is only going to bottom out the driver.

This is the case with the Evolution subwoofers. the 250W amplifier is enough power to move both drivers to their +/-11.5mm maximum stroke.

To put a driver in a small sealed box and make it have ANY low frequency output, it must have a very low efficiency, unless you use a lot of eq.

Some of the subwoofers out there that claim to be powered by 1-2kW amplifiers have woofers that are only 75dB@1W at 25Hz. However, the only thing that SHOULD matter to the consumer is "Does the subwoofer play loud enough at the frequencies I want to hear?" How much amplifier power the subwoofer has is mostly irrelevant.

Mr, guy,

All of the Evolution 12" woofers are glued into the cabinet. There is glue on the back of the motor structure attaching it to the opposite cabinet wall or a brace, depending on which model. It is not possible to remove the woofer without destroying it.

Since each driver only receives 125W and has a long 2" diameter coil with an aluminum former, the drivers never fail. The only normal reason to remove the driver is if someone has damaged the cone or surround. In both of these cases, the driver needs to be replaced.

Me personally, I feel the pre-amp section of most typical Yamaha gear is too bright, especially to mate with Classic Threes, which IMO are a little on the bright side anyway. You didn't really mention a price range, but for under $1000, the non-NAD AVR short list I'd recommend is HK, Cambridge Audio, Marantz, etc.

Thanks Mark. I really appreciate the info. Your guess-timate of my price range was correct - I'd love to spend $500 but will probably draw the line at $750, which I know isn't much for a receiver to match with the Threes. Is reliability an issue with any of the brands you mention? HK has a website and Ebay store where they sell remanufactured units - not sure if that's risky at all. I don't know Cambridge, but I looked and saw some nice looking units online.

Any other suggestions from within the "etc."? ;)

Now that I see the 13.5" width measurement for the W1 in the Evolution User Guide, I realize the 12.5" spec in the W1 brochure is a mistake. Thanks for clearing this up Tony.
The M5 and M6 brochures also contain some discrepancies. The brochure crossover frequencies are M5 380Hz, 2.4kHz; M6 400Hz, 2.3kHz. It is unlikely that the woofer/mid xover is lower in the M5 than in the M6 with its larger woofers. The User Guide states a more logical M5 450Hz, 3kHz; and M6 400Hz, 2.3kHz.

The more you read NHT manuals/brochures the more you see errors that will go uncorrected. For instance in the Evolution Manual it talks about how to hook up the subwoofer. Method #1 mentions at the end 'this method is preferred over method #1' It looks like method #1 and #3 were switched, but some of the verbiage wasn't changed correctly. It also refers to method #1 later in the manual, when it should be calling it method #3.

Thanks Mark. I really appreciate the info. Your guess-timate of my price range was correct - I'd love to spend $500 but will probably draw the line at $750, which I know isn't much for a receiver to match with the Threes. Is reliability an issue with any of the brands you mention? HK has a website and Ebay store where they sell remanufactured units - not sure if that's risky at all. I don't know Cambridge, but I looked and saw some nice looking units online.

Any other suggestions from within the "etc."? ;)


For a new from an authorized dealer $500 AVR for pure sound quality over video features, you simply will not beat this right here:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CA540RV2.

As mentioned, it is light on some bells and whistles, but it has what really counts - a toroidal transformer and 24-bit/192 kHz DACs.

I know this will sound extremely opinionated on my part, but IMO there is absolutely NO other AVR even close to that price point by anybody that can touch it for playing music. Plus, CA goes with NHT like peanut butter and jelly. ;)

I've been looking at the Cambridge Audio stuff for about a year now and that is an excellent price.

Btw, there are classic 4's on Audiogon for $899. Shameless plug :D

I felt like I lost some family members yesterday as a lucky guy drove away from my house with a pair of 2.9's and an AC2... :-(

I guess I am officially stuck with the new Classic 5.1 setup... signature changed Mark!

Still have one pair of 3.3's left to sell...

The other pair of 3.3's are NEVER leaving the 2-channel room!

J Palmer... I would highly recommend the system I currently invested in if you are in the market...

Classic Fours - Front and Rear
Classic 3C - Center
Classic 12 - Subwoofer

I would recommend this over a T6 M6 system... I have had both and would take the Classics any day...

You could always buy my 3.3's and use M6's for Center and Rears with a U1 Subwoofer... that would kick some A

For a new from an authorized dealer $500 AVR for pure sound quality over video features, you simply will not beat this right here:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CA540RV2.

As mentioned, it is light on some bells and whistles, but it has what really counts - a toroidal transformer and 24-bit/192 kHz DACs.

I know this will sound extremely opinionated on my part, but IMO there is absolutely NO other AVR even close to that price point by anybody that can touch it for playing music. Plus, CA goes with NHT like peanut butter and jelly. ;)

Thanks Mark. I love the idea of sound like Cambridge provides, especially for music, but I might want the bells and whistles for HT. Is it possible (or practical) to get a full-featured AV receiver from Yamaha/Onkyo etc., and then get a Camridge amp or integrated amp run through the receiver or connected directly to the front speakers to use for music? Best of both worlds?

Thanks Mark. I love the idea of sound like Cambridge provides, especially for music, but I might want the bells and whistles for HT. Is it possible (or practical) to get a full-featured AV receiver from Yamaha/Onkyo etc., and then get a Camridge amp or integrated amp run through the receiver or connected directly to the front speakers to use for music? Best of both worlds?

I don't know the answer to your question but I see CA is comming out with a 840W a 2 channel amp I think around 200 watts. Makes you wonder if they may make a multi-channel amp down the road. As far as bells and whistles they seem to have what you will really use day in and day out.
Allen

I picked up a pair of SD Classic Twos for $299 shipped that I've had a little over a week now, and I've spent plenty of time listening to some 2 channel on them.

They are in a smaller room with a NHT Controller as a pre-amp, and a NAD C325BEE integrated amp acting as the power amp only (via it's main-ins from the Controller's main-outs), crossed over at 80 Hz (I assume) via the Controller's speaker wizard to a U2 sub set.

First of all, about the SD finish, I originally would have preferred to have Gloss Black, but the SD almost has a sort of chameleon-like quality of changing color tones to blend in with it's surroundings, and I actually like it far better than I would have anticipated.

Bottom line, I love 'em! I do like them better than both the Threes and the SB-3s! They are "warmer" sounding and don't have the overly aggressive (IMO of course) "bite" of the Threes (which is a plus to me - I've always preferred the "warmer" sounding NHTs like the M5/T5, SB-3s, VT-3s, etc.), and while they might not be quite as detailed as the Threes are with the dome array, they do image and soundstage equally about as well IMO.

They are IMO definitely a major upgrade over the SB-3s in every way except obviously for bass extension, and even then, if you've got them crossed over to a sub (as I do to a U2), even that is mostly irrelevant. They clearly do everything else better than the SB-3s though. They both image and soundstage better, and are definitely more detailed/resolving. They sound more "liquid" than and nearly not as "syrupy/sludgy" as the SB-3s, but again, yet they are not as "bright" and fatiguing as Threes are. Like the SB-3s, the Twos are very easy to listen to, and you can do so literally all day long without ever getting fatigued. I like 'em a lot!

As for dynamics, they clearly will not play as loud and uncompressed as M5s (much less M6s), but in a smaller room (as they were obviously designed and intended for) crossed over to a sub (again, I assume at 80 Hz on the Controller) with a 50 watt NAD amp (which is prolly very conservatively rated), they will play plenty loud enough since I've been blasting a lot of vintage DLR era Van Halen after seeing them live recently. I mean, how much louder than to the point of where one would eventually start to go deaf does anyone need them to play anyway? :p

Btw, there are classic 4's on Audiogon for $899. Shameless plug :D

I will personally vouch for James as a seller you can deal with in the highest of confidence too. It would take up a whole page to list all the stuff I've bought from him over the past couple of years. :p

The other pair of 3.3's are NEVER leaving the 2-channel room!

Never say never! ;)

Thanks Mark. I love the idea of sound like Cambridge provides, especially for music, but I might want the bells and whistles for HT. Is it possible (or practical) to get a full-featured AV receiver from Yamaha/Onkyo etc., and then get a Camridge amp or integrated amp run through the receiver or connected directly to the front speakers to use for music? Best of both worlds?


Yeah, that's an idea, but I can't think of any integrateds off hand for around $500 or so with an HT bypass (although there are ways around that), much less with any kind of bass management. The Outlaw Audio RR2150 stereo receiver might would fill the bill for about $600 though. ;)

I would almost recommend this:

http://www.emotiva.com/lmc1.html

and this:

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

... since you can now get them both for $799 shipped! That will be all the power amp you will likely ever need, and then you could always upgrade the pre-pro (or get an AVR to use a pre-pro) later. :D

I don't know the answer to your question but I see CA is comming out with a 840W a 2 channel amp I think around 200 watts. Makes you wonder if they may make a multi-channel amp down the road. As far as bells and whistles they seem to have what you will really use day in and day out.
Allen


Where have you seen that Allen? I sure hope they do. I like CA a lot. :cool:

Where have you seen that Allen? I sure hope they do. I like CA a lot. :cool:

Here is a link http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/English.pdf

Noy sure if the link goes right to it but it will be on page 6. (P.S. Link works)

Here is what it says:
840W – Class XD™ power amplifier
The 840W employs Cambridge Audio’s second generation Class XD active crossover
displacement technology for a ‘best of both worlds’ audio experience. Class XD
manages to fuse the musicality and expression of Class A with the dynamism and
rhythmic drive of Class AB whilst cleverly sidestepping many of the pitfalls of both
technologies. Delivering a breathtaking 200 watts per channel into 8 Ohms in stereo,
the 840W can also be used in either bi-amped or bridged mono configurations. When
bi-amping, one 840W (of the pair) powers each speaker so that the tweeters and
woofers each have their own dedicated amplifier channel. Alternatively the bridged
mono mode allows the use of two 840Ws with each configured as a 500 watt
monobloc. In fact combinations of the two regimes allow the use of 1, 2, 4 or even
more 840Ws to be used, taking the 840W into the truly stratospheric high-end.
The 840W isn’t just about power and flexibility, it’s been designed by the same team
that created the refined sound of the 840A V2 and 840C and despite the massive
power reserves and load driving ability, features a highly detailed naturally musical
performance. Truly an iron fist in a velvet glove!


Allen

Re:CA540VR2

Since it is light on the bells and whistles, what would be the best way to hook up a BluRay(that i haven't bought yet) w/ TrueHD, a CD player, and a Comcast box?
I am guessing optical for the Comcast box?
RCA for the CD player?
And individual RCAs for 5.1 for the Blu ray?
But will I get TrueHD output on the analog out of the Blu Ray?

My '99 Sony ES receiver doesn't have enough inputs, and I am listening to everything out of my SACD player in 5.1 and have no control over L, R, C, Rear right now.

I am clearly not up on all the things HDVD, Blu Ray offers and have been waiting, like everybody else for HDMi 1.3.
But have really never felt the need to run video thru my AVR.

Talked to a sales guy at Audi Advisor and he pretty confirmed what I expected about the inputs. In all likelihood I wouldn't be able to get True HD but there are 2 coaxial inputs and 1 set of analog 6.1s.

So I bought the damn thing. An $800 receiver for $500 bucks-with CA's pedigree doesn't come around too often.
Shipping is $31 because they can't offer free shipping on closeouts.

So, I ended up with 2 pairs of classic four's, a classic 3 center, 1 pair of classic 2's, 2 U1's and 7 M6's. That should make 2 pretty good sets, right? I'll see which setup I'll like more and sell the rest to friends or family if I decide not to keep all of them.

Could someone more experienced suggest me what to power up the M6 and U1 set up with and what to use with the C4s, C3 and C2s and U1. So both will be 7.1.

They will be used 95% for movies. I will be using them with a not yet purchased HD projector, so compatibility is important. Budget around $1000-$2000 per set-up.

Here is a link http://www.cambridgeaudio.com/assets/documents/English.pdf

Noy sure if the link goes right to it but it will be on page 6. (P.S. Link works)

Allen

Hmm, very interesting. Thanks Allen.

I also saw where they are coming out with an Azur 340R AVR too with 50 watts per.

Wish they offered a $500 CD player to go with the 540.
I guess I'll wait for the $1099 player to be cleared out at $599.
It's gonna be a long wait.

Can anyone comment how is the U1 or U2 Compare to the SVS PB12 Plus?

Also, If I am getting the NHT Sub, I should get U1 or U2?


My room is not that big. 13' X 12'. but is open to the kitchen which is aoubt 16' by 13'.


Thanks.

Where can i find the M5/M6 at closeout prices?
I see classic fours in SD, but none from the evolution line.

Where can i find the M5/M6 at closeout prices?
I see classic fours in SD, but none from the evolution line.

We have the T5's in stock and a few extra M5's and M6's. Not many though.

We have the T5's in stock

And for what used 3.3s are going for, one can actually get new SD Fours or T5s cheaper (while they last).

IMO, Fours are just flat out better overall than 3.3s above at least 125 Hz, and the T5s are over 27 Hz when also compared to the 3.3s. ;)

And anyone who gets T5s and listens to any music at all, I would highly recommend adding a second A1 to them for true stereo bass.

I received my two sets of U-2's, and tested them out. Nice clean sound, and a perfect blend with my older NHT speakers. However, they are not to be used on that system (or in that room). I just wanted to make sure everything worked.

Just for a trial, I connected my old SW-2P speakers (2 stacked) to the X-1 A-1 combination. The results were not good, the SW-2P needs to have a high pass filter in circuit, and the X-1's HP filter is not very steep. In other words, the SW-2P's driver was unloading for very low frequencies.

I then tried the X-1 with the SW-2P's original subwoofer amplifier. I modified that subwoofer amp from a 27 Hz HP to a 20 Hz HP filter a few years ago. The results were very good. Since I have a spare X-1 now, I think I will leave it in the system with the SW-2P's. I could buy an external EQ, but why? The X-1 is perfect for the job.

I received my two sets of U-2's, and tested them out. Nice clean sound, and a perfect blend with my older NHT speakers. However, they are not to be used on that system (or in that room). I just wanted to make sure everything worked.

Just for a trial, I connected my old SW-2P speakers (2 stacked) to the X-1 A-1 combination. The results were not good, the SW-2P needs to have a high pass filter in circuit, and the X-1's HP filter is not very steep. In other words, the SW-2P's driver was unloading for very low frequencies.

I then tried the X-1 with the SW-2P's original subwoofer amplifier. I modified that subwoofer amp from a 27 Hz HP to a 20 Hz HP filter a few years ago. The results were very good. Since I have a spare X-1 now, I think I will leave it in the system with the SW-2P's. I could buy an external EQ, but why? The X-1 is perfect for the job.

You probably don't want to use the X1 with the SW2P, as the X1 contains equalization specific to the U1/U2, boosting frequencies below the natural rolloff point (mid 40s or 50s?) to keep flat response down to the mid 20s before a sharp dropoff. So those frequencies will now be unnecessarily boosted on the SW2P. Can't imagine it'd sound good and might even be bad for the speaker.

You want the X2, which has all the crossover functionality of the X1 without the Evolution-specific EQ.

You probably don't want to use the X1 with the SW2P, as the X1 contains equalization specific to the U1/U2, boosting frequencies below the natural rolloff point (mid 40s or 50s?) to keep flat response down to the mid 20s before a sharp dropoff. So those frequencies will now be unnecessarily boosted on the SW2P. Can't imagine it'd sound good and might even be bad for the speaker.

You want the X2, which has all the crossover functionality of the X1 without the Evolution-specific EQ.



As you said, "the X1 contains equalization specific to the U1/U2, boosting frequencies below the natural rolloff point (mid 40s or 50s?)". Look at the SW-2P response curve. The upper curve is the combined port and driver FR, and that curve starts to roll off at 50 to 60 Hz. The X-1 is the correct unit for this old subwoofer as long as you have the correct HP filter in the power amplifier.


http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/NS0FIG13.jpg


Kind of hard to hurt that speaker when the subwoofer power amplifier has a soft clipping circuit built in. I also can calibrate the subwoofer lower than before and get decent deeper bass. Even if it eventually hurts the speaker, who cares. They don't sell for big money on E-bay, so what is the potential loss?

It sounds pretty good to me, but I only use it from 60 Hz on down. A stacked pair of SW-2P's are also required. Adding an outboard EQ unit instead of an X-1 would do the job also, and would be less expensive!

Talked to a sales guy at Audi Advisor and he pretty confirmed what I expected about the inputs. In all likelihood I wouldn't be able to get True HD but there are 2 coaxial inputs and 1 set of analog 6.1s.

So I bought the damn thing. An $800 receiver for $500 bucks-with CA's pedigree doesn't come around too often.
Shipping is $31 because they can't offer free shipping on closeouts.

Good choice. Cambridge Audio product offers amazing performance for the money - kind of like NHT speakers! I have the slightly more expensive CA640R and I am amazed at the sound and build quality. Yes, the new HD sound codecs are missing, but for everyday HT use and 2-channel music listening, this thing is just plain awesome. Enjoy your new receiver!

NHT Classic 4's, 3C, iC4's, CA Azur 640R, Pioneer Elite DV-46AV DVD/1540 HD 60" Plasma

I received my two sets of U-2's, and tested them out. Nice clean sound, and a perfect blend with my older NHT speakers. However, they are not to be used on that system (or in that room). I just wanted to make sure everything worked.

Congrats. Are you gonna stack them in two sets of two, co-locate all four, spread each of the four out over the room (like the Harman white papers), or what?

Can anyone comment how is the U1 or U2 Compare to the SVS PB12 Plus?

Also, If I am getting the NHT Sub, I should get U1 or U2?


My room is not that big. 13' X 12'. but is open to the kitchen which is aoubt 16' by 13'.


Thanks.

I have them all, and I would take a PB12 Plus over either the U1 or U2 if forced to choose.

As for the U1 vs the U2, they both definitely have some advantages over each other, but if you were to get dual W1s, which is simply adding a single W1 sub cabinet and A1 power amp to an existing U1 (you only need one X1), then you will have the best of both worlds. FWIW, I would take a dual W1 set up over a single PB12 Plus. ;)

If you have to have corner placement, or in a cabinet/EC, the U2 is a better option than the U1.

So I bought the damn thing. An $800 receiver for $500 bucks-with CA's pedigree doesn't come around too often.
Shipping is $31 because they can't offer free shipping on closeouts.

Great choice for the $$$. I used one on my T5/M5/L5 surrounds set for a long time until I added a second A1 to the T5s for stereo bass.

I also have or had a couple of CA Azur integrateds, the 640A and 340A, and the 540R absolutely smokes the 340A and more than holds it own with the 640A (V1). ;)

Could someone more experienced suggest me what to power up the M6 and U1 set up with and what to use with the C4s, C3 and C2s and U1. So both will be 7.1.

They will be used 95% for movies. I will be using them with a not yet purchased HD projector, so compatibility is important. Budget around $1000-$2000 per set-up.

There are many options, but I'd suggest just making sure that at least one set, if not both, has pre-outs/main-ins of some sort for the X1 and in case you ever wanna add an X2 to the Fours.

As you said, "the X1 contains equalization specific to the U1/U2, boosting frequencies below the natural rolloff point (mid 40s or 50s?)". Look at the SW-2P response curve. The upper curve is the combined port and driver FR, and that curve starts to roll off at 50 to 60 Hz. The X-1 is the correct unit for this old subwoofer as long as you have the correct HP filter in the power amplifier.


http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/NS0FIG13.jpg


Kind of hard to hurt that speaker when the subwoofer power amplifier has a soft clipping circuit built in. I also can calibrate the subwoofer lower than before and get decent deeper bass. Even if it eventually hurts the speaker, who cares. They don't sell for big money on E-bay, so what is the potential loss?

It sounds pretty good to me, but I only use it from 60 Hz on down. A stacked pair of SW-2P's are also required. Adding an outboard EQ unit instead of an X-1 would do the job also, and would be less expensive!

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to insult your intelligence. That's a pretty clever idea, actually. I'd probably worry about damaging the speaker but since that's not a concern for you, sounds like a good solution!

Good choice. Cambridge Audio product offers amazing performance for the money - kind of like NHT speakers! I have the slightly more expensive CA640R and I am amazed at the sound and build quality. Yes, the new HD sound codecs are missing, but for everyday HT use and 2-channel music listening, this thing is just plain awesome. Enjoy your new receiver!

The 640R set new all time best ever marks, even including a perfect score or two, on S&V's bench-test measurements. :eek:

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

from:

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

There are many options, but I'd suggest just making sure that at least one set, if not both, has pre-outs/main-ins of some sort for the X1 and in case you ever wanna add an X2 to the Fours.

What are pre-outs/main-ins? Never had to use those before? :o

I could get some A1's for around $250, should I get some of those now that they are cheap? To power which channels? What is required of my receiver then?

Sorry for the stupid questions. I've so far used a Denon 3802 and never had to worry about anything more complicated.

Can somebody post pics of Classic 3's mounted to a wall. I would like to mount these next to a flat panel and a 3C above the tv on a shelf of some sort.

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to insult your intelligence. That's a pretty clever idea, actually. I'd probably worry about damaging the speaker but since that's not a concern for you, sounds like a good solution!



No problem. Here is a chart of the X1 EQ. 60 to 30 Hz = plus 10 dB.


http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/NHTFIG08.jpg



Compare it to the SW-2P FR curves. 60 to 30 Hz = minus 10 dB.


http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/NS0FIG13.jpg


On paper it looks like a near perfect match of EQ to me (10 dB - 10 dB = 0 dB). It is kind of hard to damage two 200 watt rated speakers with a 150 watt RMS amplifier. The X-1 is kind of an expensive way to do this, but I have a spare one.

Congrats. Are you gonna stack them in two sets of two, co-locate all four, spread each of the four out over the room (like the Harman white papers), or what?


That is why I bought the U-2s. I can try them all and see what works best.

The 4 corners seems like it has potential.

4 stacked together has potential.

A pair stacked in both front corners has potential.


I am thinking about M-5's and M-6's up front. This is not a financial issue, but at lower volume levels which unit seems to sound the best?

What are pre-outs/main-ins? Never had to use those before? :o

I could get some A1's for around $250, should I get some of those now that they are cheap? To power which channels? What is required of my receiver then?

Sorry for the stupid questions. I've so far used a Denon 3802 and never had to worry about anything more complicated.

Basically, it separates the pre-amp section from the power amp section just like true separates, even on an integrated amp or receiver.

Like here on the Outlaw audio RR2150 stereo receiver, you can clearly see them joined together by their jumpers:

http://www.outlawaudio.com/images/2150R_Huge.jpg

and here on the NAD C325BEE integrated amp:

http://nadelectronics.com/image.php?x=88

Some AVRs also have these for at least main L/R, if not all channels.

You can use these to insert the X1/X2 in between them if you so choose to integrate the subs with the satellites, as well as running the sub/LFE out into the X1/X2 to dial in flat response for two channel music, and to add a little extra "uumph" to the LFE channel on movies.

That is why I bought the U-2s. I can try them all and see what works best.

The 4 corners seems like it has potential.

4 stacked together has potential.

A pair stacked in both front corners has potential.


I am thinking about M-5's and M-6's up front. This is not a financial issue, but at lower volume levels which unit seems to sound the best?

You know, if you have them each all spread out over the room, you might wanna consider using that spare X1 for two of them.

I highly recommend M5s over M6s if the extra volume is not needed, and so does Jack: ;)

The M5 and M6 have the same basic design as each other. The M6 is larger and is designed to have more output for larger rooms. The M5s would be fine in your room.

The M6s have a little "blip" that Jack has even acknowledged that luckily, for whatever reason, doesn't exist on the M5s:

The M6 has a slight 2kHz resonance in the midrange that we weren't able to get rid of. This bothers me both because I know it is there, and I hear it in the speaker. Or maybe I only hear it, because I know it's there:)

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


I prefer the M5 over the M6.

You know, if you have them each all spread out over the room, you might wanna consider using that spare X1 for two of them.

I highly recommend M5s over M6s if the extra volume is not needed, and so does Jack: ;)



What is the reason for that? EDIT: Ha, Ha, already answered. We were both typing at the same time!

Anyhow, my room is about 14 feet wide, room is about 18 feet deep, and seating area should be a 12 foot distance from front wall.

What is the reason for that? EDIT: Ha, Ha, already answered. We were both typing at the same time!

Anyhow, my room is about 14 feet wide, room is about 18 feet deep, and seating area should be a 12 foot distance from front wall.

M5s for that room all the way. ;)

You also might wanna check out Twos and/or Threes to see if maybe you like them better since volume level isn't really an issue.

I will consider the M-5's. They are pretty cheap right now, and they have the right look right to mate with the U-2s.

The problem is I have way to many speakers right now.

M 2.9's. I could use those for the R & L speakers.

M 2.1's and matching 1.1's. They still sound nice. They sound even better with the U-2s in a trial setup. Picked up a spare set on E-bay for cheap money (AKA no other bidders). I may sell the spare set to relatives.

4 Super Zero XU's for future surround use.

Still have my old large Advents, although I do not use them.

M 2.1's

I've never heard those before, but, if I'm not mistaken, John has spoken very highly of them, unless I'm confusing them with something else, but I'm pretty sure that was them.

Look at it this way, for what a used AC-2 would cost you to match the 2.9s, you could just get three new M5s for about the same $$$ and actually be upgrading in the process. :cool:

I came to know the fire sale of Evolution line of speakers through this forum (thanks for the good info, everyone), and couldn't resist from picking up a U1 subwoofer. Now the U1 is here, the question to how to best wire it into my existing system.

I am using Classic 4 as L/R, 3C center, and 3s as surround right now. I preamp-out the L/R from my receiver into NAD C272 power amp. I use the receiver as amp for the other three channels.

I could simply set everyone speaker to small, and connect the LFE output of receiver into X1. The crossover frequency of X1 will be set very high in this case. But this configuration pretty much made the 10" woofer in C4 useless.

Is there a better way, NHT gurus?

Eric

I came to know the fire sale of Evolution line of speakers through this forum (thanks for the good info, everyone), and couldn't resist from picking up a U1 subwoofer. Now the U1 is here, the question to how to best wire it into my existing system.

I am using Classic 4 as L/R, 3C center, and 3s as surround right now. I preamp-out the L/R from my receiver into NAD C272 power amp. I use the receiver as amp for the other three channels.

I could simply set everyone speaker to small, and connect the LFE output of receiver into X1. The crossover frequency of X1 will be set very high in this case. But this configuration pretty much made the 10" woofer in C4 useless.

Is there a better way, NHT gurus?

Eric

You could do that. You could also run the Fours large and the rest small, crossed over at 60 or 80. You'd get some use out of the Fours' woofers, but maybe not as much use of the U1.

But something fun to try would be to run the L/R pre-outs through the X1 and then to the power amp. Set the high pass to something fairly low (40 or 50 Hz? Mark probably remembers Jacks' recommended frequency). Run the left and right channels as large, the surround and center as small with a crossover of 60 or 80 Hz. That way the low frequencies from the rears and center go to the Four/U1 combo.

Of course you could use that same setup, but tell the AVR you have a sub and run the LFE to the X1. But then you'd have a conflict between what the low pass should be for the U1, since there would be a conflict between the Fours and the rest of the speakers. By setting the no sub option, you avoid that neatly.

I've never heard those before, but, if I'm not mistaken, John has spoken very highly of them, unless I'm confusing them with something else, but I'm pretty sure that was them.

Look at it this way, for what a used AC-2 would cost you to match the 2.9s, you could just get three new M5s for about the same $$$ and actually be upgrading in the process. :cool:



Here is a link to older NHT speaker specifications. The 2.1's and 2.3A's were the last update of the original model 2's. These last update used the same soft dome tweeter as the super zeros.

http://www.slfhemmabio.nu/htm/hardware/index.html



Just wondering, are the SuperZero XU's a decent phase match for the M-5s? Three M5s up front with 4 SuperZero XU's for surrounds could work. Since they are surrounds they need not be a perfect match. M5s and L5s for surrounds a a little big for the wall mounting locations that are avaialable to me.

I came to know the fire sale of Evolution line of speakers through this forum (thanks for the good info, everyone), and couldn't resist from picking up a U1 subwoofer. Now the U1 is here, the question to how to best wire it into my existing system.

I am using Classic 4 as L/R, 3C center, and 3s as surround right now. I preamp-out the L/R from my receiver into NAD C272 power amp. I use the receiver as amp for the other three channels.

I could simply set everyone speaker to small, and connect the LFE output of receiver into X1. The crossover frequency of X1 will be set very high in this case. But this configuration pretty much made the 10" woofer in C4 useless.

Is there a better way, NHT gurus?

Eric

Here's a link to Jack Hidley's comment on the Ultimateavmag review. Your answer is here:

http://ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/1206nht34/index6.html

Here's a quote of the germane text:

Regarding comments made about low-end output, NHT recommends a couple different options if users want to extend bass output or extension.

If listeners want more bass output or control, do what Michael did, bi-amplify the towers with the X2 crossover and two A1 power amplifiers. This will give them more control of the bass as well as more output capability by increasing the amplifier power available to drive the 10" subwoofers over that of what a typical receiver can supply.

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

We don't recommend using the Classic Fours with an external subwoofer covering the same frequency range. At some frequencies, the output from the external subwoofer(s) will add to that of the Fours and at some frequencies it will cancel the output from the Fours. The results will be worse than having no external subwoofer at all.

Any new info on what is going on at NHT? Any official news?
Nothing new has been posted for a while....

^^^ The silence is deafening. :(

I came to know the fire sale of Evolution line of speakers through this forum (thanks for the good info, everyone), and couldn't resist from picking up a U1 subwoofer. Now the U1 is here, the question to how to best wire it into my existing system.

I am using Classic 4 as L/R, 3C center, and 3s as surround right now. I preamp-out the L/R from my receiver into NAD C272 power amp. I use the receiver as amp for the other three channels.

I could simply set everyone speaker to small, and connect the LFE output of receiver into X1. The crossover frequency of X1 will be set very high in this case. But this configuration pretty much made the 10" woofer in C4 useless.

Is there a better way, NHT gurus?

Eric

Matt and Tony have already touched on it, but unless you get the 20 Hz mod for the U1's X1 (which, BTW, Jack only recommends for if when there are a total of at least four Evo sub drivers in the system, in any combination of sub cabinets), the U1 doesn't really have much, if any, deeper extension than the Fours already do on their own anyway.

I'm sure Jack would prolly recommend to add an X2 and dual A1s to bi-amp the Fours with instead of adding a U1 to them:

Mr. Dog,

You do not need or want to use the Ten subwoofer with the Fours. We keep telling the dealers this, but they have been trained by Dolby for 15 years, that you must have a subwoofer.

If you want better bass, more output capability and more control over the bass in your room, get an X2 crossover with one or two A1 power amps and use this to biamp the Fours. This will give you very high output with an inexpensive receiver. It takes less floor space, will sound better than having a separate sub and gives you much more control over the bass in your room.

Just wondering, are the SuperZero XU's a decent phase match for the M-5s? Three M5s up front with 4 SuperZero XU's for surrounds could work. Since they are surrounds they need not be a perfect match. M5s and L5s for surrounds a a little big for the wall mounting locations that are avaialable to me.

Just invert their phase, or, better yet, get a Controller to automatically do it for you. ;)

Are you gonna get the 20 Hz mod done to at least one of your X1s since you do have the recommended 4 driver minimum for it?

That is why I bought the U-2s. I can try them all and see what works best.

The 4 corners seems like it has potential.

4 stacked together has potential.

A pair stacked in both front corners has potential.


I am thinking about M-5's and M-6's up front. This is not a financial issue, but at lower volume levels which unit seems to sound the best?

I received and set up my 2nd U2 setup yesterday. OMG, they sound great. It's totally true of the need for 4 drivers for the 20-Hz modification, because even thought I've adjusted the volume down (A LOT!) to match the previous level, the difference in how the system, now with 4 x 12" bass drivers, sounds (and feels with movies) is impressive.

Based on recommendation of a friend, I stacked them on top of the other pair, in the front corners of the room. I had suggested 4 corners, or 2 subs behind the listening area, and he strongly suggested against that. Having bass come from 2 source locations sounds much better than from one (i.e. 4 boxes stacked on top of one another). That all said, he's coming back to truly set up the room (adjusting relative outputs, using sound-diffusing panels, etc) and I'll let you all know if there are any issues and what the final placements are. Rest of system: Front C3s and C3C, Surround AZ. I actually have an 8" Boston Acoustics sub we may play with to make the surrounds more full-range.

My friend is Lewis Lipnick of LipnickDesign (www.lipnickdesign.com). You really need to check out the HT he did (see "Samples of our work") which is really unique. All those speakers are custom-built. He knows a bit more than I do on this, but he's the one who suggested NHT to me when I told him my budget for my HT.

Peter

So, I ended up with 2 pairs of classic four's, a classic 3 center, 1 pair of classic 2's, 2 U1's and 7 M6's. That should make 2 pretty good sets, right? I'll see which setup I'll like more and sell the rest to friends or family if I decide not to keep all of them.

Reading the recent posts, do I understand correctly that I will be better of NOT using the other U1 with the 4 Classic 4's, C3C and 2 Classic 2's?

Instead I should get 2 A1's and an X2 to use on the front Classic 4's? What if I get 4 A1's and 2 X2's to use on all 4 Classic 4's? Is it even possible to hook two pairs like this through a new Onkyo, Denon or similar receiver? Any sense in it?

It seems the more I read this thread the more confused I get sometimes. :)

Reading the recent posts, do I understand correctly that I will be better of NOT using the other U1 with the 4 Classic 4's, C3C and 2 Classic 2's?

Based on what Jack has said (which none of us should question too much since nobody else here knows more about these NHT products than he does), yes, you do understand correctly that you should not use a U1 with the Fours.

Instead I should get 2 A1's and an X2 to use on the front Classic 4's? What if I get 4 A1's and 2 X2's to use on all 4 Classic 4's? Is it even possible to hook two pairs like this through a new Onkyo, Denon or similar receiver? Any sense in it?

It seems the more I read this thread the more confused I get sometimes. :)

I would get an X2 and A1s for the front pair of Fours if I were you, but I wouldn't for the surround pair. It would just be a waste of $$$ IMO as there usually isn't much low frequency content put into the rear channels anyway (Dolby, for example, doesn't allow the LFE channel to be steered to the rear channels under any conditions).

However, if you ever set up a separate 2 channel rig with the other pair of Fours, then yes, it would be worth the $$ to get the X2/A1s for them then. ;)

Besides, by keeping your pair if W1s together, you could then get the 20 Hz mod for their X1 (you would only need one X1). :D

As for the AVRs, again, the X1/X2 as a general rule of thumb needs to have the pre-outs/main-ins previously mentioned for best results.

For hookup options, check out the X2 manual here:

http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/X2_Manual.pdf

and the X1 in starting in Section 6 here:

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

Are you gonna get the 20 Hz mod done to at least one of your X1s since you do have the recommended 4 driver minimum for it?


Not sure, but that will be the final potential tweak after everything else is done.

I received and set up my 2nd U2 setup yesterday. OMG, they sound great. It's totally true of the need for 4 drivers for the 20-Hz modification, because even thought I've adjusted the volume down (A LOT!) to match the previous level, the difference in how the system, now with 4 x 12" bass drivers, sounds (and feels with movies) is impressive.

Based on recommendation of a friend, I stacked them on top of the other pair, in the front corners of the room. I had suggested 4 corners, or 2 subs behind the listening area, and he strongly suggested against that. Having bass come from 2 source locations sounds much better than from one (i.e. 4 boxes stacked on top of one another). That all said, he's coming back to truly set up the room (adjusting relative outputs, using sound-diffusing panels, etc) and I'll let you all know if there are any issues and what the final placements are. Rest of system: Front C3s and C3C, Surround AZ. I actually have an 8" Boston Acoustics sub we may play with to make the surrounds more full-range.

My friend is Lewis Lipnick of LipnickDesign (www.lipnickdesign.com). You really need to check out the HT he did (see "Samples of our work") which is really unique. All those speakers are custom-built. He knows a bit more than I do on this, but he's the one who suggested NHT to me when I told him my budget for my HT.

Peter

Congrats Peter. I'm looking forward to JPC trying all of his out in various placement scenarios in his room and hearing his impressions of each. He's one who definitely isn't afraid to experiment. :D

BTW, I will have a system with two pairs of W1s stacked - IOW - eight 12" drivers and four A1 amps in the same room/system, with the 20 Hz mod to boot. :eek:

Not sure, but that will be the final potential tweak after everything else is done.

The great thing about it, is that if you decide to do it, you could have one done with no "down time" since you would still have an X1 to use in the meantime while the other is way getting modded. :cool:

Based on recommendation of a friend, I stacked them on top of the other pair, in the front corners of the room. I had suggested 4 corners, or 2 subs behind the listening area, and he strongly suggested against that. Having bass come from 2 source locations sounds much better than from one (i.e. 4 boxes stacked on top of one another).

Peter


I pretty much agree with all of that. You pick up 6 dB by locating in a corner, and you gain an additional 6 dB by stacking two units.

I run LFE and redirected bass through my large R & L mains speakers (NHT 2.1s, f-3 about 45 Hz), and crossover at around 60 Hz to the dual subwoofer(s) stacked in one corner of the room. Bass above 50 Hz or so sounds best when it is sent from multiple speakers, but sub 50 Hz bass can be single point if you have a good location.

A sub in the rear of the room can help with length modes, but that setup requires a lot of work with uncertain results.

I actually have an 8" Boston Acoustics sub we may play with to make the surrounds more full-range.

BTW, FWIW, Jack recommends not to mix any other kind of sub or subs with Evos, and that if you want more output, simply add more Evo subs to the system. I quoted it like a page or two back in the post where I put together a bunch of Jack's quotes in this thread specifically about Evo subs.

Congrats Peter. I'm looking forward to JPC trying all of his out in various placement scenarios in his room and hearing his impressions of each. He's one who definitely isn't afraid to experiment. :D




First I have to put up the walls in the room.:) I may hide the subwoofers behind some walls, so I am going o do some extra prewiring to leave my options open.

Note that I try to research everything first so I have a good idea of what I am doing.





BTW, I will have a system with two pairs of W1s stacked - IOW - eight 12" drivers and four A1 amps in the same room/system, with the 20 Hz mod to boot. :eek:


At least your system will not suffer from compression at loud volume levels!

Can somebody post pics of Classic 3's mounted to a wall. I would like to mount these next to a flat panel and a 3C above the tv on a shelf of some sort.

Prolly not going to find anyone here who has them mounted that way. Most use L5s or AZs in that case instead.

At least your system will not suffer from compression at loud volume levels!

Dramatic understatement there! ;)

I already have the extra W1s/A1s, and I'll prolly set them up this weekend. :D

I would get an X2 and A1s for the front pair of Fours if I were you, but I wouldn't for the surround pair. It would just be a waste of $$$ IMO as there usually isn't much low frequency content put into the rear channels anyway (Dolby, for example, doesn't allow the LFE channel to be steered to the rear channels under any conditions).

Do the new lossless surround formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio send more low frequency sound to the rear channels?
The IAR M6 review describes a 4 corner M6/W1 dream setup. I guess he meant it for SACD and DVD-Audio as opposed to home theatre.

Can a Velodyne SMS-1 be substituted for an X1 crossover?
If not, how would inserting it upstream of the X1 affect the sound? Adding another AD/DA conversion might outweigh the benefits?

You could do that. You could also run the Fours large and the rest small, crossed over at 60 or 80. You'd get some use out of the Fours' woofers, but maybe not as much use of the U1.

But something fun to try would be to run the L/R pre-outs through the X1 and then to the power amp. Set the high pass to something fairly low (40 or 50 Hz? Mark probably remembers Jacks' recommended frequency). Run the left and right channels as large, the surround and center as small with a crossover of 60 or 80 Hz. That way the low frequencies from the rears and center go to the Four/U1 combo.

Of course you could use that same setup, but tell the AVR you have a sub and run the LFE to the X1. But then you'd have a conflict between what the low pass should be for the U1, since there would be a conflict between the Fours and the rest of the speakers. By setting the no sub option, you avoid that neatly.

Thanks mattwardfh. This is a good plan. Just make sure I didn't miss anything. I will set AVR to no sub and crossover at 80Hz. L/R as large, center and surround as small. Then I will connect L/R preamp out into X1 with high pass at 40Hz. I don't need to connect the AVR LFE output, right?

Eric

Here's a link to Jack Hidley's comment on the Ultimateavmag review. Your answer is here:

http://ultimateavmag.com/speakersystems/1206nht34/index6.html

Here's a quote of the germane text:
Thanks Tony. The content at the link is very helpful.

Matt and Tony have already touched on it, but unless you get the 20 Hz mod for the U1's X1 (which, BTW, Jack only recommends for if when there are a total of at least four Evo sub drivers in the system, in any combination of sub cabinets), the U1 doesn't really have much, if any, deeper extension than the Fours already do on their own anyway.

I'm sure Jack would prolly recommend to add an X2 and dual A1s to bi-amp the Fours with instead of adding a U1 to them:

If I knew there would be a fire sale of U1 this year, I would have bought C3 instead of C4. But too late now. Is the addition of U1 to my system so meaningless?

Thanks mattwardfh. This is a good plan. Just make sure I didn't miss anything. I will set AVR to no sub and crossover at 80Hz. L/R as large, center and surround as small. Then I will connect L/R preamp out into X1 with high pass at 40Hz. I don't need to connect the AVR LFE output, right?

Eric

Yeah, I think you've got it. Except you'd want a low pass on the X1 too, at around 40 Hz as well. The Evo manual has a good method for how to set up the sub. It's just you'll be setting it up to work with Fours instead of M5s or M6s. So of course you'll be using a smaller crossover. So that will help you pick the high pass and low pass on the X1 and set the phase and boundary controls. Then you set your center and surrounds as small and the AVR's crossover to 80 Hz, so that their low frequencies go to the Four/Evo sub combo.

A potential problem is having two crossovers in the signal path for the center and surround channels. If you don't like that the option is to not run the Fours through the X1, keep the Fours as large, turn the sub to "on", and just send the AVR's LFE channel to it.

What you don't want to do is to set all the speakers to small and have to compromise between the ideal crossover points of the Fours and the other speakers. You also don't want to have any of the same signal going to the Fours and U1, as they could end up being out of phase and cancel out, particularly by the time you consider the Fours' port.

So to summarize, in my opinion you've got the right idea; just set the X1 so your U1 integrates well with the Fours. But there are other options too.

If I knew there would be a fire sale of U1 this year, I would have bought C3 instead of C4. But too late now. Is the addition of U1 to my system so meaningless?

Nah. John has commented that he thinks the Fours are actually a bit better than the Threes. So theoretically a Four/U1 setup could beat a Three/U1 setup. It's just not the most cost effective thing in the world because you're paying for a full range speaker when you don't need a full range speaker. But with your Fours paid for and your U1 at a bargain price, there's no reason to stress.

My Three/U1 combo would have listed at $2100 before the old price increase. I'm guessing you spent $2300 or so? That extra $200 might have been well spent...

BTW, FWIW, Jack recommends not to mix any other kind of sub or subs with Evos, and that if you want more output, simply add more Evo subs to the system. I quoted it like a page or two back in the post where I put together a bunch of Jack's quotes in this thread specifically about Evo subs.True, and I saw that. In this case (which I probably won't do because I listen to music 2-channel, and there isn't a lot of bass sent to the surrounds in movies), it would be to just add a low end to the surround channels, not connected to the LFE or front channels. But the system sounds really good, and an easily audible improvement, with the addition of the 2nd U2 setup.

Peter

Just got my U1's and the cabinet was damaged. I'm VERY bummed. Already contacted HiDefLifestyles and also NHT. We'll see what happens. Uggh.

http://www.mmsean.com/sale/U1.jpg

That's why we open them up and repack them if we have to ship them, including and especially bracing corners and adding bubble packing on the sides. They're not shippable as boxed, not that this stops anyone. I learned that the hard way.

Anyone know what's up with NHT 800 line? It goes to someone's voicemail??

If I knew there would be a fire sale of U1 this year, I would have bought C3 instead of C4. But too late now. Is the addition of U1 to my system so meaningless?

At the price they're going, not meaningless. It hurts to cross over the Fours so high, but it's worth it to get the performance of the Evo bass.

Can a Velodyne SMS-1 be substituted for an X1 crossover?
If not, how would inserting it upstream of the X1 affect the sound? Adding another AD/DA conversion might outweigh the benefits?

I wouldn't use one of those. It's a parametric EQ, not the contour the Evo subs need. Audyssey *might* do it. But at the price things are selling, it makes sense for everyone to get the X1 and then add any other processing they like on top.

Do the new lossless surround formats like Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio send more low frequency sound to the rear channels?
The IAR M6 review describes a 4 corner M6/W1 dream setup. I guess he meant it for SACD and DVD-Audio as opposed to home theatre.

The first year Evo came out, I sold so much I won enough points in a sales contest that I would have gotten T6s + 5 U1s and 5 M6s, but since I didn't have the space or need (T5s sounded fantastic), I didn't do it and cashed in the points towards my credit line. But I was oh so tempted!

Just got my U1's and the cabinet was damaged. I'm VERY bummed. Already contacted HiDefLifestyles and also NHT. We'll see what happens. Uggh.




Make a claim with UPS right now. Use the tracking number that HiDef sent to you.

That's why we open them up and repack them if we have to ship them, including and especially bracing corners and adding bubble packing on the sides. They're not shippable as boxed, not that this stops anyone. I learned that the hard way.



That is one of the reasons I bought U-2s. They are not that heavy, and are easy to handle (for shipper and for me) and stack in whatever form you desire. Moving 40 pound boxes around is easy enough for most people, and 80 pounds is on the heavy side.

I pity the people who buy those 150 pound (and up) subwoofers. Who wants to move those things around the house.

Make a claim with UPS right now. Use the tracking number that HiDef sent to you.

I can do that but there was NO damage to the box or packaging. Ugggghhhh.

Can a Velodyne SMS-1 be substituted for an X1 crossover?
If not, how would inserting it upstream of the X1 affect the sound? Adding another AD/DA conversion might outweigh the benefits?

If I'm not mistaken, James has used one before in conjunction with a dual X1, dual W1/A1 (IOW, literally a dual full U1 set up) to dial in the proper settings for literally ruler flat response, then simply took the SMS-1 out of the loop entirely.

If I knew there would be a fire sale of U1 this year, I would have bought C3 instead of C4. But too late now. Is the addition of U1 to my system so meaningless?

Well all I can tell you is that in addition to Jack's UAV comments that TG linked and quoted about adding a sub to Fours, he has also recommended to not add any other kind of non-Evo sub(s) to a system with Evo subs (to simply just add more Evo subs instead), so you would clearly be running contradictory to his advice in not just one, but two different ways here if you do this. I don't know about you, but I would listen to what Jack says far and away first and foremost over anyone else here about this. ;)

Anyone know what's up with NHT 800 line? It goes to someone's voicemail??

That can't be good. :( Was it during normal business hours?

That is one of the reasons I bought U-2s. They are not that heavy, and are easy to handle (for shipper and for me) and stack in whatever form you desire. Moving 40 pound boxes around is easy enough for most people, and 80 pounds is on the heavy side.

I pity the people who buy those 150 pound (and up) subwoofers. Who wants to move those things around the house.

That's what I hate about the 3.3s and VT-3s, the fact that they are so damned heavy and hard to move. I can literally walk around the house while military pressing a 2.9 at the same time, but I'd like to see anybody try that with a 3.3! :eek:

But the system sounds really good, and an easily audible improvement, with the addition of the 2nd U2 setup.

Peter

It was well worth picking them up at the closeout prices. Everybody should be picking up more W1s or W2s (and the appropriate number of A1s to drive them with) to stack on top of and/or add to their current W1s and W2s. Also, all T5 owners should be picking up a second A1 too. ;)

Just got my U1's and the cabinet was damaged. I'm VERY bummed. Already contacted HiDefLifestyles and also NHT. We'll see what happens. Uggh.

http://www.mmsean.com/sale/U1.jpgI have two U1s. I actually needed 5 shipped to me to get to the two I have. Three were damaged like yours, and one of the two good ones needed a new binding post assembly which was very easy to switch out. I actually corresponded with NHT regarding this and they claimed they shipped a bunch from a warehouse in Ohio to California to test my theory regarding poor packaging and had no problems. I frankly don't believe it by they sure didn't change the packaging. They need an extra inch or two all around to really withstand the rigors of UPS, but at this point, it doesn't seem that's going to happen.

That's why we open them up and repack them if we have to ship them, including and especially bracing corners and adding bubble packing on the sides. They're not shippable as boxed, not that this stops anyone. I learned that the hard way.Indeed you did.

Indeed you did.

No kidding. I had the same problem but John handled it quite well :-)

There was actually a huge gash in the side of the box. I can't believe they would deliver it like that and think it was OK. I was worried the damage would be worse than it was.

The things definitely need to be double boxed. Even with John having reinforced the corners it wasn't enough.

Based on what Jack has said (which none of us should question too much since nobody else here knows more about these NHT products than he does), yes, you do understand correctly that you should not use a U1 with the Fours.



I would get an X2 and A1s for the front pair of Fours if I were you, but I wouldn't for the surround pair. It would just be a waste of $$$ IMO as there usually isn't much low frequency content put into the rear channels anyway (Dolby, for example, doesn't allow the LFE channel to be steered to the rear channels under any conditions).

However, if you ever set up a separate 2 channel rig with the other pair of Fours, then yes, it would be worth the $$ to get the X2/A1s for them then. ;)

Besides, by keeping your pair if W1s together, you could then get the 20 Hz mod for their X1 (you would only need one X1). :D

As for the AVRs, again, the X1/X2 as a general rule of thumb needs to have the pre-outs/main-ins previously mentioned for best results.

For hookup options, check out the X2 manual here:

http://nhthifi.com/2006/manuals/current/X2_Manual.pdf

and the X1 in starting in Section 6 here:

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

I checked out that X2 manual. In the examples they talk about having 3 or 4 amplifiers, not 2. ???

With an X2 and 2 A1's for the front Classic 4's, is it worth to use just the A1's to power the rear Classic Fours without an X2 to feed them more power? My receiver will likely have MAX 130w per channel...

I checked out that X2 manual. In the examples they talk about having 3 or 4 amplifiers, not 2. ???

I think they mean 3 or 4 channels of amplification. Most likely you'll be using 2 channels from your AVR (or whatever) to drive the upper drivers, and 2 A1s to drive the lower drivers.

I have them all, and I would take a PB12 Plus over either the U1 or U2 if forced to choose.

As for the U1 vs the U2, they both definitely have some advantages over each other, but if you were to get dual W1s, which is simply adding a single W1 sub cabinet and A1 power amp to an existing U1 (you only need one X1), then you will have the best of both worlds. FWIW, I would take a dual W1 set up over a single PB12 Plus. ;)

If you have to have corner placement, or in a cabinet/EC, the U2 is a better option than the U1.

Thanks Mark.

Hum.... given the price of U1 going now, and W1 going now, it seems getting 2 U1 is a better choice. I can only find the W1 going for about ALMOST same price as the U1 and I still need to get another A1 which is $200. (or maybe I overlooked? can someone give me any hint for where to get W1 for better price? But there is still a $200 A1 price on top of the W1 price)

I do plan to place the woofer in the corner, is that means U2 is better to me?

Thanks Mark.

Hum.... given the price of U1 going now, and W1 going now, it seems getting 2 U1 is a better choice. I can only find the W1 going for about ALMOST same price as the U1 and I still need to get another A1 which is $200. (or maybe I overlooked? can someone give me any hint for where to get W1 for better price? But there is still a $200 A1 price on top of the W1 price)

I do plan to place the woofer in the corner, is that means U2 is better to me?


That's true - for no more than it costs now, it wouldn't hurt anything to pick up an extra X1. As I mentioned a few posts back, I know that James at one time was running dual X1s in the same system so that each sub cabinet had it's own independent X1. Plus, if you ever decide to send at least one of them in for the 20 Hz mod, you wouldn't have any "down time" since you would still have an X1 you could use in the meantime while the other was away.

As for corner placement, yes, I would recommend just getting dual U2s (four W2s/2 A1s) instead like both Peter (oldears) and J_P_C did. You don't exactly hear them complaining. :D

Besides, in some ways, four W2s would have some advantages over dual W1s just like two W2s do have some advantages over one W1. Like if you wanted to spread them around the room a la the Harman white papers, and in that case, it would prolly actually be beneficial to have 2 X1s in the system then, one on the front two and one on the back two, or one on two sides and the other on the other two sides.

Russ -

Just out of curiousity I am looking for guidance on hooking up my 2-U1's. This is what I have:

Rotel RSX-1057 Receiver (used as pre-amp only)
Rotel RMB-1075 5 channel Amp
NHT Classic 3's
NHT Classic Three C

Currently I was running pre-amp out from the 1057 to the 1075 and then running speaker cables out to the 3's. I have two sub preouts on the receiver/pre-amp. I had my old Velodyne SPL1200 attached to the Sub1 output.

So I now have 2-X1's and 2-A1's for amping my U1's. Just going through the Evo manual I'm a bit confused on how to connect my U1's in conjunction with both A1's and X1's.

Do I hook up each X1 and A1 through the LFE subwoofer and then also the L/R Front Preouts?

Any suggestions?

First of all, you only need 1 X1. Best way is to send the 1057 L/R pre-amp outs to the stereo in of the x-1 and then the stereo hi pass to the L/R of the 1075 and the stereo low pass to the the left and right A1s.

So you don't recommend using both X1's for possible adjustments on each subwoofer due to placement?

Both of my U2s were shipped (the first drop-shipped and the latter shipped from HiDefLifestyles). they each ship in 5 boxes, so actually lighter (per box) than U1s. My 2nd set was interesting - UPS left off 1 W2 box but couldn't find the others on his truck, and left the other 4 boxes on our front porch later. The other W2 box had a significant gash (4") on an upper edge, but the speaker was untouched.

By the way, I have an X1 and an Evolution Install Kit (the screwdrivers, hex-wrench, and famous white cotton gloves) each in unopened boxes. Any interest in those?

Peter

Just out of curiousity I am looking for guidance on hooking up my 2-U1's. This is what I have:

Rotel RSX-1057 Receiver (used as pre-amp only)
Rotel RMB-1075 5 channel Amp
NHT Classic 3's
NHT Classic Three C

Currently I was running pre-amp out from the 1057 to the 1075 and then running speaker cables out to the 3's. I have two sub preouts on the receiver/pre-amp. I had my old Velodyne SPL1200 attached to the Sub1 output.

So I now have 2-X1's and 2-A1's for amping my U1's. Just going through the Evo manual I'm a bit confused on how to connect my U1's in conjunction with both A1's and X1's.

Do I hook up each X1 and A1 through the LFE subwoofer and then also the L/R Front Preouts?

Any suggestions?

First of all, you only need 1 X1. Best way is to send the 1057 L/R pre-amp outs to the stereo in of the x-1 and then the stereo hi pass to the L/R of the 1075 and the stereo low pass to the the left and right A1s.

^^^ Right, and also run the sub/LFE out of the AVR/pre-pro to the sub/LFE in on the X1 too. Set main L/R to large, and all the rest to small with a 80 to 120Hz crossover on your AVR. Set X1 to stereo, and both it's high and low pass crossovers to 80 Hz, then go from there.

So you don't recommend using both X1's for possible adjustments on each subwoofer due to placement?

Only if maybe you have them real far apart in the room or something, like one on front, and the other in the back where their phase and/or boundary eq settings might be significantly different.

Well one sub is closer to the wall and one is wider open, I'll try it both ways since I already have the extra X1.

Why not since you have them both anyway? Sure wouldn't hurt anything to at least try it both ways and see. ;)

I'm hoping to hear back from HiDefLifestyle and also NHT regarding my damaged W1 cabinet, I'm very hopeful.

Does any dealer still have any "low priced" stock left on the U-1 and U-2's?

Just wondering.

Well one sub is closer to the wall and one is wider open, I'll try it both ways since I already have the extra X1.


I would use one X-1. You will gain nothing but complications if you use two of them. They are not EQ units. If you need to EQ each subwoofer, you would run the two EQ's off of the single X-1 output anyhow.

Keep the other X-1 as a spare. Maybe mod one for 20 hz, and keep the other stock.

I'm hoping to hear back from HiDefLifestyle and also NHT regarding my damaged W1 cabinet, I'm very hopeful.


Notify UPS for hidden damage also. If you delay, UPS has an out. They will just tell you to have HiDef make the claim, but it puts UPS on notice that there was shipping damage.

Notify UPS for hidden damage also. If you delay, UPS has an out. They will just tell you to have HiDef make the claim, but it puts UPS on notice that there was shipping damage.But given the improper packing, I think UPS will have an out anyway. The fact of the matter is that the W1 is inadequately protected by the standard NHT box. These woofers need to be double boxed as there is way too much weight in a very small package with 1" foam at the corners. Not good.

Ordered the CA 540R V2 on Monday received it Wednesday. It has a compact chassis but it pretty hefty. Have not hooked it up yet. Wish that it had been boxed a little better. Double boxed but no styrofoam in the second box.

Okay I'm sorry for buggin but I want to make sure I have this right:

From the pre-pro - Front L&R Pre-Out to RCA Input on X1
From the pre-pro - Sub 1 Pre-out to LFE Input

From the X1 - L&R Hi-Pass Pre-Out to AMP Front L&R
From the X1 - L&R Sub Out to each A1 input

In the Pre-Pro - Set L&R to Large with the rest to small with 80-120hz crossover
On the X1 - Set to Stereo on the mode switch
On the X1 - Set High Pass Filter and Low Pass Filter to 80hz

Well I set it up but it just doesn't seem to have much bass. Much less than my SPL1200. Anyone have any suggestions?

Does any dealer still have any "low priced" stock left on the U-1 and U-2's?

Just wondering.

Did you check HiDefLifestyle? They're not on their site anymore. Hey, the price of my X1s for sale (I have 2 extras) might be going up :D

Peter

Well I set it up but it just doesn't seem to have much bass. Much less than my SPL1200. Anyone have any suggestions?

Less look at the obvious first - any fault indicator lights on either the X1 or A1s? Assuming that is not the issue, the master gain and LFE gain settings on the X1, and sub level control trim on the AVR (or dynamic range compression/"late night" mode engaged)?

Look over the recommended basic initial settings in the Evo manual covered in section 7.0 (except that you would have the X1 set to stereo instead of mono since you have dual W1s).

Then use the fine tuning flow chart in 8.5.

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

I recommend AC/DC songs to do this with, seriously. Big fat bass lines that are easy to follow. ;)

Well I set it up but it just doesn't seem to have much bass. Much less than my SPL1200. Anyone have any suggestions?


Make sure that the R & L main speakers and the subwoofer are set to the exact same distance in the receiver regardless of the actual speaker measurements. If you use different distances, the two inputs will interfere with each other (AKA mixed out of phase).


As an alternative that I would use, do not connect anything to the LFE input. Set the R & L mains to large, other speakers to small, subwoofer to OFF or NONE. Then pick whatever crossover point works well with your main speakers. LFE and redirected bass will be sent to the R & L main channels, so don't worry about missing anything. I use 50 hz myself, but my main speakers are good to about 40 Hz (3 way, not 2 way bookshelf).

Upper LFE will go to the mains, and lower LFE (and other bass) will go to the subs. That is why a single corner location for stacked subwoofers can work very well. Bass under 50 Hz is best reproduced from a corner location. Bass above 50 Hz is best reproduced from elsewhere. HSU uses this for their MBM concept. No need to go to the extreme of buying an MBM, but you have a similar frequency distribution by crossing over at 50 Hz with an X-1.



http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/mbm-12.html

hello everyone...i'm considering the Classic 3. im looking into a pair of them for 2.1 use. i was wondering if anyone has heard these matched up against any of the following speakers or is aware of a comparison thread with the following. please let me know. thank you

Dana 630
Ascend Acoustics 340SE
Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1
RBH MC-6C
Klipsch RB-81
Usher S-520
B&W 685

i'm especially concerned with the dana, 340SE, Klipsch's, and 685s

i'd like a speaker with great midbass that can fill the WHOLE room with sound - say the room is 20x20. i listen to rock, rap, country, and trance. no metal, no jazz, no classical, etc. 90% music, 10% HT. loud is good also. thanks!

Depends on your tastes. I don't think any of those speakers will give them a serious tussle in terms of resolution *and* imaging *and* dispersion *and* accuracy at the same time. Some may play louder, some may be more efficient, some may sound "sweeter" or have more "pow" factor. I *personally* would rule out the 340s, Klipschs and B&Ws as possible real contenders. I hear enough good things about the others that they could be preferred based on your own tastes, though each of those would likely do some things not as well. Also, it depends on "great midbass". The Threes have very clean, detailed midbass, better than most any ported bookshelf I've heard, though maybe not quite as good as some high-end HT speakers that have dual sealed drivers. If there is a downside to the Threes is that they've been accused of being somewhat "cold" sounding, though I hear that personally as a simply less colored and that is a benefit with most any well recorded CD regardless of genre. It could be a liability with badly recorded CDs, mainly older early 80s stuff or overly electronic stuff. They really stand out on country though, because of how well they resolve the voice while keeping it controlled and lacking in resonances. They may fall flat for you on some stuff, but that's just the reality of speakers. They wouldn't be my first choice for Van Halen or Euro pop, for instance. On the other hand, mated with a really good sub and they largely leapfrog all these limitations. You can't get a sub that's "too good" for these.

Well I set it up but it just doesn't seem to have much bass. Much less than my SPL1200. Anyone have any suggestions?

Set the rear gain to +10 and also make sure that, if you have two subs, they're both in phase. I'd also let them break in for a day, despite what Jack says. You might also want the 20Hz mod.

U1's and U2's are gone forever, no one has stock.

There are a few hundred of the A1's and X1's in stock though...

U1's and U2's are gone forever, no one has stock.Ahhh... Got 'em just in time. Thank you HiDefLifestyle!

Peter

tC_skier,

I wonder if the 3Cs might be too unforigiving on the kind of music you listen too.
I am sure that some of your music may not be recorded that well, and the 3Cs resolve a lot of detail, both the good an bad.



If you like things loud I am sure the Klipschs would do well.

U1's and U2's are gone forever, no one has stock.

There are a few hundred of the A1's and X1's in stock though...

Um, yes, mr opportunist, don't speak for me, I wasn't whoring them out on the internet, so I have stock, mainly for my local avid NHT customers, but a few for other people should they need them. But then, as you can see, I don't come here with the purpose of making money.

Um, yes, mr opportunist, don't speak for me, I wasn't whoring them out on the internet, so I have stock, mainly for my local avid NHT customers, but a few for other people should they need them. But then, as you can see, I don't come here with the purpose of making money.

Although you have sold a few speakers to posters on this thread, no?

Very few and not by trying, nor pushing product (just as you aren't on AVS just to look for deals). Certainly not by showing up on page 190 of a 2.5 year old thread. I think you know that.

Um, yes, mr opportunist, don't speak for me, I wasn't whoring them out on the internet, so I have stock, mainly for my local avid NHT customers, but a few for other people should they need them. But then, as you can see, I don't come here with the purpose of making money.

That actually took longer than I thought it would. :)

WOW! :eek:

OK sort of off topic, but I have been reading on head-fi all week and can't decide so I thought I'd through the question out here.

Since we all like the "NHT sound" here (Better, or else why would you be in a 200 page thread??)

I am looking for some better iem's/canal phones. Looking to stay in under or around $200....not customs. But I want a good sound stage, good full range, not too anylitical, good bass, not too bright, and good seperation of instruments....Basically what I have with my Classic 4's;)

For the price I like the cx300's I have, but that is like comparing Bic to NHT:eek:
Not as easy to audition iem's....

What are you guys using?

OK sort of off topic, but I have been reading on head-fi all week and can't decide so I thought I'd through the question out here.

Since we all like the "NHT sound" here (Better, or else why would you be in a 200 page thread??)

I am looking for some better iem's/canal phones. Looking to stay in under or around $200....not customs. But I want a good sound stage, good full range, not too anylitical, good bass, not too bright, and good seperation of instruments....Basically what I have with my Classic 4's;)

For the price I like the cx300's I have, but that is like comparing Bic to NHT:eek:
Not as easy to audition iem's....

What are you guys using?

Great question. I've thought about starting something like this before.

I'm use UE super.fi pro 5 for my IEM, but I find them a little dark, the highs a little restrained compared to my Classic 3/U1.

I've also got Grado SR60s and AKG K701s, both of which I find brighter than the Classic 3. Which doesn't answer your question but should give you a little more data.

When it comes to auditioning, Headroom has a nice 30 day return period. You just pay return shipping back and as long as they're in good shape, no restocking fee. You wouldn't want to abuse it, but I see no reason not to order, say, your two top picks and send the lesser of the two back...

I'm use UE super.fi pro 5 for my IEM, but I find them a little dark, the highs a little restrained compared to my Classic 3/U1.


That helps, they were on the short list along with the EB's. I like what I am reading about the Shure E530's....
Any experience with Ety's ER6 line?

That helps, they were on the short list along with the EB's. I like what I am reading about the Shure E530's....
Any experience with Ety's ER6 line?

I think you'll want a dual or triple driver design, which you won't get from the Ety 6. I'd skip the EBs, too; increased bass aside I get the impression they aren't as good as the 5 pro.

I'd consider the upper end of the Shure line (including the 530), the super.fi 5, and the triple.fi. I'm guessing the Shures probably get closer to the NHT sound, but I haven't heard them.

There's also other things like the Westones that I know almost zero about.

Westones get pricey....but as always, the more I read and listen, my budget has to increase....Damm you guys and the Head fi guys!!!!:D
I have been reading reviews of LiveWires a custom for $250, I am intrigued....

U1's and U2's are gone forever, no one has stock


I have 2 extra U1 setups. Send me a PM if you needing one, or two :D

James

James I PM'd you.

I have an extra X1 (actually I might have two extra X1s, one in a sealed box) but will need an X2 if I get Classic 4s (which I'd like in black, but I have a hard time paying DOUBLE for black over SD). Anybody interested in a trade?

Peter

Has anyone ran their system off of the A1 Amps and used them for mains and surrounds? Just curious their specs seem pretty robust.