Does anyone know exactly what stands the Threes are on in the image way back in post number 15 of this thread ?

At first I thought it was NHT's (discontinued) Last Stand, but somebody posted this on Alimentall's forums:

I believe the ones in the NHT promotional info are:

VTI VSP - VSP Series Speaker Stands

The colors on the promotional photos are the black and silver combo. They can be purchased at Racks and Stands. They can also be loaded with shot and feature cable management.

yes those are the VTI stands I believe.Hey,does anyone know how well the Threes are packaged? Wondering also if they come with any gloves and stuff.

Pure speculation here, but I'd be surprised if they were. I figure something like the current Super Audio packaging. But hey, somebody who's actually bought them should answer.

They're packed similiar to the Evolution line...wrapped in a tissue paper and inside a sealed plastic bag. Interestingly they come with a piece of foam which you need to afix between the tweeter and midrange. According to the manual this is to reduce unwanted reflections between the tweeter and midrange drivers.

Interestingly they come with a piece of foam which you need to afix between the tweeter and midrange. According to the manual this is to reduce unwanted reflections between the tweeter and midrange drivers.

In general, the Grill seems to be a more integral part of the sound philosphy. There are small foam baffles on its side. I wonder if they will be falling off? I used to run my white SuperOnes with the grill off (for looks mainly) which I guess I wouldn't do with the 3s.

In general, the Grill seems to be a more integral part of the sound philosphy. There are small foam baffles on its side. I wonder if they will be falling off? I used to run my white SuperOnes with the grill off (for looks mainly) which I guess I wouldn't do with the 3s.

I don't know, I'm kind of liking the sound with the grills off.

I don't know, I'm kind of liking the sound with the grills off.

Well, I'm sure they will end up that way at my house some times. Just trying to get that last bit of sound out :D

Well, I'm sure they will end up that way at my house some times. Just trying to get that last bit of sound out

Understand. Either way they're great speakers.

I thought you might be interested in this communication I received from NHT last week. I'm glad they are taking the time to make sure the speaker is 100% right when it ships. I think they would do themselves a favor by taking a page from the AV123 folks and give people a periodic general update. In the end...I'm sure the Fours will be awesome.

Dear Steve,

I am sorry for the hold up on the Four. In our first pilot run we were unhappy with the performance of one of the components that make up the loudspeaker so we made a change and the good news is it worked and the speaker is phenomenal.The bad news is it delayed it for a little while. We should have them in our warehouse the end of next week.

Again sorry for the delay, but we wanted the speaker to be as perfect as we could make it

Andy



now hear this, inc.
6400 Goodyear Road
Benicia, CA 94510
USA

Andy Regan
Senior VP Sales and Marketing
Main – 707-747-0122 ext. 700
Mobile – 707-256-9631
Fax - 707-747-1252
www.nhtxd.com
www.nhthifi.com
www.nhtpro.com


On 4/26/06 5:11 AM, "Steve H" wrote:


Hello,

I called NHT in March and was told the Classic Four would be available in late April. I've called 3 dealers and none have any in stock or any idea when they will get a pair.

Can you please update me on the status of the Classic four and when I can expect dealers to stock them.

Thanks,
Steve
Louisville, KY

I thought you might be interested in this communication I received from NHT last week. I'm glad they are taking the time to make sure the speaker is 100% right when it ships. I think they would do themselves a favor by taking a page from the AV123 folks and give people a periodic general update. Since they don't have a forum, how do you propose they do this?

mental telepathy !!!! my gf seems to think I have that ability.....

Since they don't have a forum, how do you propose they do this?

Well.....NHT has a newsletter, people who post in forums, press releases, email addresses, presales inquiries, a dealer network.....it wouldn't be too difficult :)

Cheers,
Steve

I spent about an hour listening to the new threes along with the M6 which I had not heard before. I went to the store ready to buy the Three's and the 3C but left wanting to hear the speakers again after they were broken in. The 3's had about 10 hours of use while the M-6 had been there awhile. My impressions were that while the 3 does have a larger sound stage and more depth, at least with music it sounded empty next to the M6 in the mid range section. I thought it sounded like a two way next to the M6. Even the salesman thought the mid range was much fuller on the M6. I liked the 3C much better than the M6 for the center speaker which makes me feel like my speaker choice will be based on HT or music. I hope the 3 will sound better after 50+ hours when I plan to go back and make my final decision and either buy the 3's and 3C, or 3 M6's. Next is to figure out if I want a Velodyne HGS15X or the NHT U2 subwoofer system. FYI I am not an expert on Audio by any sence of the word, I just go by what my ears were telling me.

I spent about an hour listening to the new threes along with the M6 which I had not heard before. I went to the store ready to buy the Three's and the 3C but left wanting to hear the speakers again after they were broken in. The 3's had about 10 hours of use while the M-6 had been there awhile. My impressions were that while the 3 does have a larger sound stage and more depth, at least with music it sounded empty next to the M6 in the mid range section. I thought it sounded like a two way next to the M6. Even the salesman thought the mid range was much fuller on the M6. I liked the 3C much better than the M6 for the center speaker which makes me feel like my speaker choice will be based on HT or music. I hope the 3 will sound better after 50+ hours when I plan to go back and make my final decision and either buy the 3's and 3C, or 3 M6's. Next is to figure out if I want a Velodyne HGS15X or the NHT U2 subwoofer system. FYI I am not an expert on Audio by any sence of the word, I just go by what my ears were telling me.

Let us know what you think. This is something that has been talked about before but between the m5 & m6. The m6 having a stronger mid. Also with the M6 being 2 6 1/2 verses 1 may be the difference. In fact some were saying that they thought the monitor style M series would be more dynamic over the 3's.
Allen

welcome bob and thanks for your input !! If anyone on this board lives in Oklahoma and has M6's I would love to put my Threes in the same room and see what we can gather from this.Of course,I have to wait till next week when they arrive. :P

I want my....I want my....I want my Classic Threes.

bored so I changed Dire Straits song to suit me :P

I sent this to John (Alimentall), but while I wait for him to check his PM's I'll put it out here publically as well. :)

Awhile back I bought 3 SB-2's which I have finally set up as rears in a 6.1 setup. Soundin' good.

Now I'm wondering what to do for the front stage.

Room: 18 x 20
Listening position: ~13ft from screen.
Purpose: 100% HT
Sub: SVS PB12-Plus/2

I've thought about staying in the SuperAudio line by trying to find a nice deal on a pair of ST-4's or SB-3's and an SC-2, but that center just seems kinda small to me and I can't find any reviews on it. Don't even know if there are many left from this line out there any more, but opportunities do pop up occasionally. If they can be found, would the SB-3's and SC-2 be dynamic enough for reference-level HT?

Well then I thought about the new Classic Threes and a Three C at center.. This would be more money and I don't know if their sound is totally different than the SuperAudio line.. may not blend quite right. But from the looks of things, the Classics are probably a little more 'energetic' and the center looks beefier. Sound is THE most important thing to me.

Any thoughts?

I've thought about staying in the SuperAudio line by trying to find a nice deal on a pair of ST-4's or SB-3's and an SC-2, but that center just seems kinda small to me and I can't find any reviews on it. Don't even know if there are many left from this line out there any more, but opportunities do pop up occasionally. If they can be found, would the SB-3's and SC-2 be dynamic enough for reference-level HT?

Well then I thought about the new Classic Threes and a Three C at center.. This would be more money and I don't know if their sound is totally different than the SuperAudio line.. may not blend quite right. But from the looks of things, the Classics are probably a little more 'energetic' and the center looks beefier. Sound is THE most important thing to me.

Any thoughts?

I think your primary focus should be keeping within the same line to get a good blend. If you really think you would prefer the Classics, you should really sell/trade in those SB2s for Classics.

If you're pleased with your SB2s, stick to the Super Audio line. SB3s or ST4s (I'd go SB3s since you already have a sub). If you're concerned about the SC2 (which I haven't heard), an SB3 makes a fine center (my current setup).

Going with the Classics would probably be an improvement, but you might have better things to do with your money and be plenty happy with Super Audios.

I love my SB3 center. Nice blend with the ST4 towers, which you might still consider based on room size...

What are you driving the stuff with?

Right now I've got a B&K 7270 II amp and Reference 50 S2 proc driving a single system. What I'm looking to eventually do (maybe) is sell those and go with separate systems for HT and 2-channel with the NHT's handling the movie duty if I can find the right speakers for the front stage. Whatever I end up driving them with will be high-current separates, though maybe a little less wattage than I have with the 7270 amp.

I just checked in with the only local authorized NHT dealer (within 200 miles) and they don't have any of the Classics on-hand, but said they could order. I want to listen to them first though.

Okay! Back to the subject. I've just got a chance to do a *little* bit of comparison and the Threes are probably somewhere between "great value" and "giant killer". In a way, I was hoping for the latter, but on the other hand, that would have killed my Xd sales. They aren't Xd. But they are very close, in the same way that a Jetta will give you much of the performance of an A4, but not as much as a perfectionist might want. Detail is top notch, but I wonder what might happen with a "cost no object" budget for the crossover. Soundstaging is excellent! Sweetspot is good, but not nearly in the same league as Xd. Xd is superhuman in this regard. Threes have a better sweetspot than most, however. At this altitude, there is some changes in the acoustic suspension characteristics - the midbass is a bit "oomphy" compared to the lean, clean Xds. It often seemed like the Threes had *more* bass than Xd, but that can't be true. But if that is the case, in use with a sub, it would be easy to tune this out. But the bass clarity is top notch with a lot of "texture" to the notes. One are where the Threes excel, better than anything I've tried, is that, when put in "mono", they really, truly, drop all of the sound into an area about 2' wide and act as though they, themselves, produce no sound at all. Doing this with the Absolute Zeros doesn't work, you can still hear the speakers. With the Threes, it's like you are listening to a single center speaker. That's an indication of exceptionally low distortion! The upper treble is a bit mellow, but that is also just a sign that the tweeter is not making a nuisance of itself. I'm still digesting this. On the other hand, the upper mid/low treble resolution, as expected, is awesome. Way better than conventional speakers. I have no problem putting these up against $5000 European monitors. IMO, Xd wipes the floor with most $10K-$30K speakers, so having the Threes do even reasonably well against them is a big deal. I haven't hooked up the sub yet, that's tomorrow's exercise. They only have 2-3 hours on them, so that's a good thing, I imagine they will be even better by tomorrow. I'll let you know as I get more chance to play. I'm just *so* glad to have these finally.

Okay! Back to the subject. I've just got a chance to do a *little* bit of comparison and the Threes are probably somewhere between "great value" and "giant killer". . . I'll let you know as I get more chance to play. I'm just *so* glad to have these finally.John, are you planning on sending out a pair (or triples) of the threes for a cross-country tour? I know your supplies are very limited right now, but will you be doing this in the future? They sound like a great speaker that I'd like to audition in my home.

Thanks,

Scott

John,
How do you feel the Three's compare to the M6?

Yes I to am interested in this comparison. Because the $$ difference is so small, I am going to make my decision without regard to price. Just sound, Music and HT. Thanks to all who help. How many hours does it usually take for a speaker like the Classic three to break in? Thanks

John, are you planning on sending out a pair (or triples) of the threes for a cross-country tour? I know your supplies are very limited right now, but will you be doing this in the future? They sound like a great speaker that I'd like to audition in my home.

Maybe, I don't know. NHT is apparently allowing only three companies to sell on the internet and then excluding guys like me. They may feel that sending thee around is a violation of the dealer agreement. Not really happy about this, but I'm going to fight it.

John,
How do you feel the Three's compare to the M6?

Don't know yet, but I will have some M5/M6 people listening soon.

Maybe, I don't know. NHT is apparently allowing only three companies to sell on the internet and then excluding guys like me. They may feel that sending thee around is a violation of the dealer agreement. Not really happy about this, but I'm going to fight it.

Even though they are not listed as an online dealer.

When looking for an answer to a question follow the money. :cool:

J&R must be one of the three:

Dear Valued Customer,

We are pleased to tell you that the following items have just become available for shipment, or are expected very shortly. Order now by clicking the link next to the item(s) you wish to receive.

NOW HEAR THIS Bookshelf Speaker Three
http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product_Id=4073005&JRSource=stockalert.NHT+N3B

Order now by clicking the link above.

At the time of this mailing, these items are in stock, or coming in very shortly. Orders will be filled on a first-come, first-served basis.

Due to high volume sales, stock status changes frequently. If this item is not in stock at the time you wish to order it, you may submit an additional request and you will be notified when we receive our next shipment.

If you have any questions, please contact our customer service department using the information below.

Thank you once again for shopping at J&R Music And Computer World.

============================================================ ====================
J&R Music/Computer World TEL: (800) 426-6027
Customer Service Department FAX: (718) 507-3189
59-21 Queens-Midtown Expressway Email: custserv@jr.com
Maspeth, NY 11378 USA To place an order call: (800) 806-1115
Visit our website at http://www.jr.com

Yeah, and those f'ers buy up all the available ones to sit around in a warehouse or to sell into my territory and I'm still trying to catch up with the local demand here. When you factor how much these people add to the mix, it's not that much. Hell, I sold more than Incredible Universe one year in a town 5 times the size of mine. All J&R and OneCall do is take the easy sales while I'm out doing in home demos and setups, A/Bs, etc. I'm not very happy about it. At least B&W has no mail order, no exceptions.

At least B&W has no mail order, no exceptions.

Thats because unfortunately too many people are willing to pay a premium price for :p "not so" :p premium sound just because they are readily available in showrooms in practically every decent size city.

I will be letting everyone know just how much i like or dislike my Threes after school tomorrow !!! :D :D :D :

I ordered a pair of Classic 3's from ListenUp - I should get them on Monday, I also got an email and call from BrandNamez - sounds like they got them in stock as well.

I will be using Omnimount's Cosmic 24 stands, I have NHT SuperZero's that will be used as surround and a Klipsch RC 3 for center channel. Hopefully they match up well.

It is interesting to me that people will order speakers without hearing them.

These are not a $200 pair of throw away speakers, they are $800.

Also thee only person we have heard from who has given us any detailed
review on the SQ of the Threes is John.

Can anybody else give us their review?

Can anybody else give us their review?

Not yet but I can tonight!! I am going to pick them up in a few minutes and Ill hook 'em up after school(3:00 central time).So Ill test with Aeon Flux, and King Kong,then watch some scenes of movies I downloaded online since they arent dvd-quality to see how revealing they are.Then Ill play a few cd's and cd-r's including Pink Floyd sacd-dark side of the moon and the new Gary Numan-Jagged.If you ever liked Gary Numan this is by far his best work !!! Well worth downloading,or buying.

It is interesting to me that people will order speakers without hearing them.

These are not a $200 pair of throw away speakers, they are $800.

Also thee only person we have heard from who has given us any detailed
review on the SQ of the Threes is John.

Can anybody else give us their review?

It is interesting that people will do that, I agree. I did it based on NHT's reputation and my experience with their stuff and honestly I am not disapointed with the sound from these speakers. They have a distinctive sound as compared with my B&W 705's but I wouldn't say either of these speakers are 'better', it depends on what music you listen to and what subleties about the sound you prefer. I still like the looks of the 705's better but that's just me. I have friends that would definately prefer the modern-retro (or whatever) look of the 3's better. With the grills off and the movie lighting on they do look pretty evil. With my wonderful SuperAudio 1's (which the 3's replaced) there was some music I just would not listen to on them because the 705's just outperformed them clearly. Now, it's pretty even. The 705's are paired with a better Amp (Rotel 130W vs Yamaha 130W) and has a sub (B&W ASW700) that goes lower than the NHT SW2Pi's that are paired with the 3's, so as a system the B&W has a little wider range with some music.

The 3's are so good though that I now must upgrade the lowest end on that system so I've ordered a Buttkicker LFE system. I don't have much experience with tactile transducers, so they may not be much good for music but it seemed like a way to add the 15-30 Hz range into the mix. If it works, the system with the 3's will be one incredible system. I can't remember what i paid for the NHT subs, but I'm sure that even with the 2 SW2 subs and the Buttkicker and the 2 three's it would be several hundred less than the 705's and the ASW 700.

I would offer a more nuanced, detailed review of the sound for different types of music but I feel I haven't listened enough yet. And, (unfortunately now the bad news) one of the woofers on the 3's has developed a problem. It has a buzz at certain frequencies and I have eliminated all the simple causes (eg something loose, wire against woofer cone etc.). NHT is looking for a replacement driver to send me. Every new electronic part has a certain probablity of early failure and I think I was just unlucky. I'll let you know more when its back up (hopefully soon).

sorry that happened to you man.

I am going to set up a HT with the new classic series:

L/R: Classic Four
Center: Classic Three C
Surround: Classic Three

I see OneCall is having a sale on the subwoofer from old Super Audio series. SW10II is only $300 and SW12 only $400. I'd like to know whether it will be a good idea to take advantage of the sale. Or I should stick with either the new Classic Ten or Twelve.

Eric

I am going to set up a HT with the new classic series:

L/R: Classic Four
Center: Classic Three C
Surround: Classic Three

I see OneCall is having a sale on the subwoofer from old Super Audio series. SW10II is only $300 and SW12 only $400. I'd like to know whether it will be a good idea to take advantage of the sale. Or I should stick with either the new Classic Ten or Twelve.

Eric

If you're going with the classic Four, you can probably do without the sub. Or, since the Fours are $1000 more than the Threes, and then there's the $300 or $400 you'd spend on a Super Audio sub, you could buy a pair of Threes and pair them with an Evolution sub (U1 or U2).

Or buy the Threes and pair them with a Super Audio subs. The SA subs should be almost identical to the Classic subs in everything but aesthetics, from what I've heard.

But I seriously recommend going with the Evo subs. Two 12" drivers in a sealed enclosure should sound much better than three 10" drivers or 2 10" and 1 12" drivers in ported enclosures.

Oh. And if possible, support your local dealer rather than buying from OneCall!

I second that.Go with Classic Threes and a Evo sub.

I third it. But, if for whatever reason you go with fours, then I would hold off on any sub and see what (if anything) you think you are missing.

What's the MSRP for U1 and U2, may I ask?

What's the MSRP for U1 and U2, may I ask?

$1299 and $1399, I believe. That includes one external crossover and one 250 watt mono amp. Both use two 12" drivers in sealed enclosures; for the U1 they share an enclosure (which lets them be opposed for force cancellation), and for the U2 they are in two different enclosures, which lets you position them to deal with room modes.

As I mentioned earlier, if you take the $1000 difference between the Three and Four, and the $300 or $400 you were look at for a Super Audio sub, well, that entirely covers the price.

$1299 and $1399, I believe. That includes one external crossover and one 250 watt mono amp. Both use two 12" drivers in sealed enclosures; for the U1 they share an enclosure (which lets them be opposed for force cancellation), and for the U2 they are in two different enclosures, which lets you position them to deal with room modes. I have dual U1s, which gives me the best of both worlds. :D

I have dual U1s, which gives me the best of both worlds. :D

At almost the price of both worlds!

The SW12 is essentially the same subwoofer as the Twelve. It would be a good value to buy two SW12s with Threes. It's better not to have the redundancy of the Four with subwoofers, though the Fours are very pretty.

The Target piano black stands are now in the country and I should have mine end of next week. The finish is almost identical to the Classics.

Also, dual U1s are $350 less because you only need one crossover. So, for around $2K, you get 4 12" woofers, outboard amps, outboard crossover, acoustic suspension and a force-cancellation design that weighs about 200lbs for the system. I don't care what SVS and Hsu people say, there's no substitute for that kind of accuracy and precision and the value is tremendous.

Just got the Threes hooked up and now its time to listen....YAY !!! Will get back to yall tonight.

I'm new to this forum, but I'd like to ask for some advice.

I have an NAD L53 receiver with a Classic 10 sub. I was going to get the Twos, but decided to wait for the Threes. I'm not die-hard audio, but I do appriciate good sound at a price that won't kill me. I think the system I'm moving toward gives me that. It's simple, elegant, afordable, and sounds impressive (with the Twos anyway). By the way, all this fills out a Panasonic 42" HDTV with Tivo.

My question is whether you folks think the extra few hundred for the Threes would be worth it for what I'm trying to hit.

I'm new to this forum, but I'd like to ask for some advice.

I have an NAD L53 receiver with a Classic 10 sub. I was going to get the Twos, but decided to wait for the Threes. I'm not die-hard audio, but I do appriciate good sound at a price that won't kill me. I think the system I'm moving toward gives me that. It's simple, elegant, afordable, and sounds impressive (with the Twos anyway). By the way, all this fills out a Panasonic 42" HDTV with Tivo.

My question is whether you folks think the extra few hundred for the Threes would be worth it for what I'm trying to hit.

I haven't heard the 2's. They are probably very good 2-way. If you listen to a lot of music I would go with the 3's though. The midrange should make a big difference (it impressed me). If you mostly want it for HT then 2's probably would be a good choice and then get the 2C center (you have to get a good center for HT) and what about surrounds ? On the other hand, if you have the opportunity, go listen to them both. My 2cents.

My question is whether you folks think the extra few hundred for the Threes would be worth it for what I'm trying to hit.

In 1 word -----> YES !!!!

I just got mine today and watched Aeon Flux and listened to Chevelle,NIN,Gary Numan,Kittie,Front242 and Staind and the Threes literally stunned the $hit out of me.I really wasnt expecting a $400 speaker to rival an $1100 Revel M22 but it does.The thing that the Revels did so much that I loved was they had a deep,wide soundstage and they played "outside" themselves.Well,the Threes certainly fullfilled my dreams when i was hearing sound well beyond the boundries of the speakers and deep.Something that the B&W 705's,Paradigm's,and every other speaker I auditioned could simply not achieve.

Thank god my dealer talked me into waiting !! ;)

To me,these speakers did everything I wasnt even expecting to get for as little as they cost.Stereophile should have these in Class A in their recommended speaker list next year for sure.All I have to say now to all those that didnt wait on them is--you effed up bad !!! These are definately a big step up from the Two's.

Sorry to not be too precise about the sound of them but damnit Im having too much fun listening to them to sit here and type.

Oh one more thing,they havent caused me any fatigue at all and Ive been listening to them for about 2 hours pretty loud,so that is an achievement considering the high amount of detail Im hearing out of cd's that Ive never heard before.I will elaborate further on my thoughts later tonight maybe,if I can pull myself away from the music long enough. :D

NHT4LIFE,
I am VERY excited for you! Hopefully I'll get a chance to audition the 3's (not an in-home audition) at some point. If I find that i'll like them maybe i'll try and sell all 6 of my SB-2's :p

I just wish I could hear a comparision to the M-6's. When I heard them side by side, the 6's with music sounded much better to me, especially the mids. Will it be the 3's or 6's????

I can tell you this Bob.I was planning on selling the Three's even before I heard them cuz I was that in love with the M6's.Now,the Three's will NOT be leaving my home.The M6's do some things better,but for what I was wanting the Three's came through in spades.Also,I thought the M6 wasnt near as warm in the mids.I loved the sound of the SB-3 mids...Until the Three's came along.Everyone will have their own opinions,but my ears prefer the Three's.I plan on taking my Threes real soon to the local B&W dealer to do a little testing.I think these can hold their own up against ANY Paradigm Monitor and Studio 20,as well as every B&W bookshelf they carry.Unfortunately they dont have the 705's in stock.I will also see if the NHT dealer in OKC wants to hear them since they wont even get a pair to demo and will try to set them up in the "big room" next to the M6's and do a side by side.I will let you know how things go.

That comparsion of 3's/6's would be great. You are able to explain the differences which allows me understand a little better what I am hearing. Thanks for your help. Bob

Can anyone recommend an etailer for the Evo Sub?

Is this it:
Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo Subwoofer

I only see UK sites selling this, also is there a particular model being recommended?

I would be wary of buying the Evo subs from an etailer. I have had several shipped to me, and they all arrived damaged.

Packaging is not very robust.

Can anyone recommend an etailer for the Evo Sub?

Is this it:
Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo Subwoofer

I only see UK sites selling this, also is there a particular model being recommended?
NO...Wrong sub entirely.The one you should look for is NHT Evolution U1 or U2

NO...Wrong sub entirely.The one you should look for is NHT Evolution U1 or U2

Yeah, sorry, should have clarified that. My bad.

I would be wary of buying the Evo subs from an etailer. I have had several shipped to me, and they all arrived damaged.

Packaging is not very robust.

Second that. Oddly, the X1 and A1 are double boxed, as is the SW12, but the actual sub portion of the U1 (W1?) is only single boxed, and heavy.

UPS managed to put a hole in it that was about a square foot in size. Nicked the rear of the cabinet in several places, despite my dealer having added additional packing to try to protect them.

Can anyone recommend an etailer for the Evo Sub?

Is this it:
Acoustic Energy Aegis Evo Subwoofer

I only see UK sites selling this, also is there a particular model being recommended?

I got them from Yawa Online. They're listed on NHT's website as an authorized internet retailer and my experience was great. Everything arrived double boxed, including the U2 cabinets, A1, X1 and other speakers I ordered (M6s and L5s). All in all, an excellent experience, and I wouldn't hesitate to shop with them again.

Note that I did know what I wanted, and did not have a warm and fuzzy interaction with my only local showroom dealer, so there was no guilt puchasing over the net. There is certainly still an important place for dealers with face time to devote with customers, but I didn't feel I had that alternative.

I just got mine today and watched Aeon Flux and listened to Chevelle,NIN,Gary Numan,Kittie,Front242 and Staind and the Threes literally stunned the $hit out of me.I really wasnt expecting a $400 speaker to rival an $1100 Revel M22 but it does.The thing that the Revels did so much that I loved was they had a deep,wide soundstage and they played "outside" themselves.Well,the Threes certainly fullfilled my dreams when i was hearing sound well beyond the boundries of the speakers and deep.Something that the B&W 705's,Paradigm's,and every other speaker I auditioned could simply not achieve.

Thank god my dealer talked me into waiting !!

To me,these speakers did everything I wasnt even expecting to get for as little as they cost.Stereophile should have these in Class A in their recommended speaker list next year for sure.All I have to say now to all those that didnt wait on them is--you effed up bad !!! These are definately a big step up from the Two's.

Sorry to not be too precise about the sound of them but damnit Im having too much fun listening to them to sit here and type.

Oh one more thing,they havent caused me any fatigue at all and Ive been listening to them for about 2 hours pretty loud,so that is an achievement considering the high amount of detail Im hearing out of cd's that Ive never heard before.I will elaborate further on my thoughts later tonight maybe,if I can pull myself away from the music long enough.

Was there ever any doubt?

Was there ever any doubt?
Given the pedigree...no, as I'm sure you know.

Hey, all I can say is that even the B&W guys are mightily impressed. I've got about 5 B&W guys that have already committed or are planning to do home demos. One of them sold his T5s for 705s and has been kicking himself ever since, not because he dislikes the 705s, but because he misses what the T5s did, so he's pretty excited to hear these at home. These aren't perfect, I'm slowly peeling back their layers, but they're stupidly affordable for the performance. A real Volksprecher.

John do you have M-6's in your showroom you can compare the 3's to in a side by side? Thanks Bob

Hi Bob, not yet. I'll have to borrow some back from a customer. I'll try to do that. I have a few people that are candidates.

I am curious as to why NHT didn't install their logo plate to the grill of the center three. I attempted to put it on myself last night, but stopped because I was afraid I would break the thin plastic frame. Seems like a very tight fit. Has anyone successfully installed the badge and how did you do it?

Put the frame on a table and push straight down. I've also used a pair of large pliers (with a piece of cloth over the badge to squeeze it into place.

Since one of my new 3's is out of commission with a blown woofer, I got a little desperate and replaced it with one of the SuperAudio 1's. I ran the Yamaha YPAO auto-setup that balances and equalizes the channels. The results were not too bad... relatively. The paper woofer really has a distinctive sound on the SA1 - you can hear really 'hear' the paper. The tonal balance came out pretty close, with the 3 being much fuller and somewhat smoother. Every NHT speaker I've ever had really takes advantage of an Amp with good dynamic power. The RX2600 Yamaha does an adequate job, but I'm sure the Rotel 130W amp I have would do much better. I used to have that hooked to the SA1's and they were capable of incredible detail for a 2 way. The 3's would benefit even more I think.

OK, the real reason I had to get this back up and running is a received my Buttkicker tactile transducer and set that up. It will be fun for movies, but haven't really seen the light for music. The low pass on the amp only goes down to 40Hz and to match with the SW2 sub it would probably better to get down in the low 30's.

I'm having a party next weekend and was hoping to get the 3 fixed by then, but its not looking good, I haven't heard from NHT since Tuesday on the progress on finding a replacement driver. Anyone have any ideas on what I can do to expidite this ? I think I could have simply returned the whole speaker to onecall, but I thought just getting a driver mailed to me would be easier and quicker.

wattsisky, when you say superaudio 1, are you talking about the SB-1?

wattsisky, when you say superaudio 1, are you talking about the SB-1?

Well, I don't know. I don't think they were called SB-1 when I bought them in 1996. They may not have been called "SuperAudio" but definately SuperOnes. They followed the original Superzero's in around 1995 timeframe. I have two white ones and a black one.

I have 6 new Classic 3's in a 6.1 set up and an SVS 16-46 PC+ sub in a 11x13 room. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I was a little worried that I may have issues with the small room size due to the 3's wide dispersion & large soundfield. But the system sounds awesome! I am powering everything off of a Yammie RX-V2600. I have heard that these like a lot of power, but I have not had any problems. Maybe that is partially due to my small room. I am an NHT virgin so I do not have any other previous models as a reference. I was originally turned onto NHT with the SB-3's and was very impressed with them but heard that the classic series was coming out so I decided to wait. I would be very curious to hear from someone how they compare to the SB-3's and the M6's. All I can say is these 3's were worth the wait!!! I have heard detail in music that I have never heard before! I can not believe the resolution. As a musician I listen to just about everything, and everythng sounds great on it. Boys to Men are so silky smooth it is amazing, and can you say Blue Man Group DVD-Audio! WOW!!! THESE THINGS ROCK!!!!!!!

Congrats!

I'll be making the Three vs M6 comparo tomorrow at a customer's house, so hopefully I'll have something useful to say.

Good news John. And have you campared it to the SB-3?

Good news John. And have you campared it to the SB-3?
I know I have.They are alot better to me in all phases,except maybe bass depth which most everyone has subs these days so its no big deal.I wasnt expecting them to be much better than the SB-3's,but to my ears they are waaay better.Just my opinion but hey,thats the only opinion that matters to me. :D

I know I have.They are alot better to me in all phases,except maybe bass depth which most everyone has subs these days so its no big deal.I wasnt expecting them to be much better than the SB-3's,but to my ears they are waaay better.Just my opinion but hey,thats the only opinion that matters to me. :D

That's great to hear. I'm glad I decided to wait for the Classic 3's. The SB-3's must have had an awesome bass extension. I too have a dedicated sub with an SVS 16-46 PC+. I wanted to test the speakers out though without the sub to see how they handled the bass. "Impressive....... most impressive." (sorry...star wars moment there). But yes, very impressive, to me at least. Does anyone know what the recommended break in time is?

how do you break speakers in? I should be getting my 3's tomorrow

how do you break speakers in? I should be getting my 3's tomorrow

Lots of answers to that question. Pink noise or music at moderate to high volumes over a period of hours, days, or weeks is a good bet.

As to the extent to which they actually need break in, well, that's controversial as well.

Well, I don't know. I don't think they were called SB-1 when I bought them in 1996. They may not have been called "SuperAudio" but definately SuperOnes. They followed the original Superzero's in around 1995 timeframe. I have two white ones and a black one.

The SZ/SO line dates further back than that - at least as far back as 1992 if not further. The SB-* line came after that; and now the Classic line replaces the SB-* line.

On a side note, I personally think speaker "break-in" is a bunch of hooey; more to do with adjusting to the sound than anything changing in the speaker, imo.

I am curious as to why NHT didn't install their logo plate to the grill of the center three. I attempted to put it on myself last night, but stopped because I was afraid I would break the thin plastic frame. Seems like a very tight fit. Has anyone successfully installed the badge and how did you do it? No, I couldn't get it in either & now I have 2 holes in the grill. Look I put ALOT of pressure on it; I think they did that because who really wants a logo under their tv/monitor anyway? Should have listened to instinct & not tried it. Lame for nht to either not preinstall/not provide the logo at all. You can't put it in right.

They are alot better to me in all phases,except maybe bass depth which most everyone has subs these days so its no big deal.I wasnt expecting them to be much better than the SB-3's,but to my ears they are waaay better.Just my opinion but hey,thats the only opinion that matters to me. Yes, they are far better than SB-3s; very detailed, tight & yes power hungry; very musical. Well worth the wait, and an extreme bargain as far as speakers go. These units were never really designed to run by themselves; you need a world class sub & LOTS of power to properly complement them & complete the system.

On a side note, I personally think speaker "break-in" is a bunch of hooey; more to do with adjusting to the sound than anything changing in the speaker, imo.

Agreed.

There has been so much anticipation for these speakers, and yet very little commentary on the performance once they have arrived.

Are you disappointed? Bewildered? Ecstaic? Orgasmic? or simply snuffed?

Please continue your commentaries on these speakers, comparisons, insights, thoughts...

__________________
You deserve to be B1tch$lapped if you don't comment - nht4now

Are you disappointed? Bewildered? Ecstaic? Orgasmic? or simply snuffed?

Please continue your commentaries on these speakers, comparisons, insights, thoughts...

__________________
You deserve to be B1tch$lapped if you don't comment - nht4now

I feel they are Orgasmic....Sorry I havent elaborated yet,finals in one of my books are Wednesday so until that is over i dont have the time.

I feel they are Orgasmic....Sorry I havent elaborated yet,finals in one of my books are Wednesday so until that is over i dont have the time.

Groovy.

It's always good to be orgasmic! Just don't turn on the speakers. That would be kinky.

Now that the 3s have finally arrived, any word on the remaining holdout, the 4s? Given the 3s ultimate lack of bass extension, these would seem like a real killer.

Bass extension isn't an issue when paired with the subs from the Evolution line.

I'm still getting to know the speakers. I'll post my thoughts on them once I'm a little more used to them.

Now that the 3s have finally arrived, any word on the remaining holdout, the 4s? Given the 3s ultimate lack of bass extension, these would seem like a real killer. The fours would be better than just threes if thats all the space you have, but 3s & a U1 would be far better. 4s are 2x10" ported; U1 is 2x12" sealed, plus you get outboard electronics at roughly the same price.

Thanks for your opinions on using a subwoofer with the 3. So, again, any word on the remaining holdout, the 4s?

I am curious as to why NHT didn't install their logo plate to the grill of the center three. I attempted to put it on myself last night, but stopped because I was afraid I would break the thin plastic frame. Seems like a very tight fit. Has anyone successfully installed the badge and how did you do it? Jonathan @ nht thinks they may have put the wrong size logo in the box and will have the warehouse send out the correct part.

*update* He's saying now there is only one size part, just 'tap it in there'. They're sending another one because the orig got scratched with all the...'tapping'. Maybe scrape some material off the pegs first? Frustrating.

Can anyone comment on the differences between the new Classic Two and the SB2. I am trying to decide whether to pull the trigger and buy a 5.1 system with SB2's or get one wiht the new Classic line. My local retailer has some decent pricing on SB@'s but does not have the Classic Two in stock yet. Recommendations?

This thread is typical of the many automotive forums I frequent.

Lots of interest and posts until the car comes out and then almost nothing.

Until somebody comes on and says, "the Mustang is better than the GTO!"

And the flames begin.

The badge is definitely a tight fit, but it will go in. It took me about 10 minutes. First spread apart the fabric around the holes large enough so the pegs clear it and then ream the holes with a very small screwdriver. Aline the badge to the holes and turn it upside down on the table, badge side down. Say some prayers and push like hell. Even doing all this, it is still tight. Worth the effort...looks buck naked without it.
Good luck!

This thread is typical of the many automotive forums I frequent.

Lots of interest and posts until the car comes out and then almost nothing.

Until somebody comes on and says, "the Mustang is better than the GTO!"

And the flames begin.

Yea, it does seem that the B&W 7series does a much better job than this classic line up. Wider sound stage. Deeper acoustics. More invisible sourcing. And definetly in your face sound that never seems to be there with other speakers.

Must have been a fool to wait for these...

Yea, it does seem that the B&W 7series does a much better job than this classic line up. Wider sound stage. Deeper acoustics. More invisible sourcing. And definetly in your face sound that never seems to be there with other speakers.

Must have been a fool to wait for these...

OK...Its on now !!!


I will put my Classic Three's up against the B&W 705's that coincidentally cost $700 more per pair any day of the week and I personally dont think the B&W 705's win, much less win by $700 bucks.Hell,even a fellow member here says that he prefers the NHT's on certain types of music and he has both pairs we are discussing.I bet you anything that he wont say that the B&W's are $700 dollars better no matter what he listens to which would make the Three's clearly a better deal.

el stumbo,
I guess the B&W dealer was an idiot and didnt st up the 705's correctly
when H heard them because all the things you say the B&W's do beter I dissagree strongly.The NHT's have a hell of alot wider soundstage,as well as being much more transparent.Guess you prefer that *muddy* bass that B&W is famous for. :p

I will end by saying that if I had wanted the B&W's,I could have gotten a KILLER deal on them that would have made them cost not much more than the Three's cost me but I waited,I listened,and the Three's are staying here without hesitation or debate.I have thrown every type of music from country to techno at these and they have delivered marvelously.I would be kicking myself in the arse if I would have bought the 705's for $1500(without the dealer discount i could have gotten) and didnt listen to the Three's first.In fact you have now gotten me on the phone to discuss a blind test in the store if they have any in stock.Only the judges will be customers,not me or the B&W dealer just to make it fair.I cant wait to see how this turns out.Then after they answer which they preferred we will see how many would feel that the 705's are worth the extra :eek: $700 :eek: they would be shelling out.I bet the answer to that is= :mad:

Can anyone comment on the differences between the new Classic Two and the SB2. I am trying to decide whether to pull the trigger and buy a 5.1 system with SB2's or get one wiht the new Classic line. My local retailer has some decent pricing on SB@'s but does not have the Classic Two in stock yet. Recommendations?

If you can pinch a few more pennies get the Three's.I listened to the Two's and although they are far better than the SB-2's they arent in the same league as the Three's....They are more than worth the extra $$$

Can anyone comment on the differences between the new Classic Two and the SB2. I am trying to decide whether to pull the trigger and buy a 5.1 system with SB2's or get one wiht the new Classic line. My local retailer has some decent pricing on SB@'s but does not have the Classic Two in stock yet. Recommendations?

The Two is warmer and more refined, but actually more detailed with a bigger soundstage and wider sweetspot. It's actually an upgrade from the SB3. But it should be almost twice the price of closed out SB2s, so you have to factor that in.

Hell,even a fellow member here says that he prefers the NHT's on certain types of music and he has both pairs we are discussing.I bet you anything that he wont say that the B&W's are $700 dollars better no matter what he listens to which would make the Three's clearly a better deal.



OK, I think you are talking about me. You talkin bout me? I would tell people that if you base your life around 'what's the better deal' then a pair of $1500 B&W 705's is probably not for you. The $1300 ASW700 subwoofer probably isn't for you either. I love mine, and I loved my 3's until the woofer blew. So, right now I love my 705's even more.

The 3's are 'a good deal' though. They seem like terrific speakers. From what I was able to listen to before the woofer failure, there was not anything I could throw at them that they didn't handle by putting a smile on your face. I listened to some Son House-great, some Nathaniel Townsley - awesome, some Erin Mckeowen - amazing, some White Stripes - terrific, the whole Philadelphia Experiment CD (Uri Caine,Christian McBride,Ahmir Thompson) - soulful. Then Fzzzzt. No more fun.

I'm a bit worried since I haven't heard from NHT for a week on how it was going with the replacement woofer. I'm having about 100 people at my house for a 40th birthday this weekend and they are going to get my bastardized SuperOne/Classic3 system, which in a way is kind of interesting since you can walk in front of them one at a time and hear the difference, but not much of an advertisement for NHT. Perhaps not fair to NHT but it is reality.

MN Dan

-Let me start by saying I haven't heard the classics yet nor do not doubt their abilities...But for those thinking about going with close-out SB-2's THEY ARE A STEAL. Do not for a second think the SuperAudio series of speaker will disappoint, if possible audition for yourself. You may find that you like the sound of the superaudio line and may be able to save a ton of money on a system that will keep a smile on your face like mine does :D

W, I'll contact Jonathan and see if a driver exists. It's early, they might not have gotten parts in. On the other hand, there's got to be some drivers in the engineering department.

Charlie, I think El Stumbo was just trying to torque you and he did ;)

Charlie, I think El Stumbo was just trying to torque you and he did ;)

Ya i know.We're just having fun :)

Thank god he did,I prolly saved another 2-3 people $700 bucks !!! :D :D

I know I am truely amazed at the sound quality of the 3's. The smile from listening to Blue Man Group (last night) is STILL on my face!! As others have said, there can be some great deals on some of the old SuperAudio line. You obviously have to go with what the budget allows for. I have heard the SB-2's and SB-3's. Both are great sounding speakers. I have not however done an A/B test to compare them. After hearing the 3's though, they are my favorite. They have such an excellent soundstage, imagining, and resolution and detail! I've thrown it a good mix with no problems. I'm amazed at how detailed the midbass is. My suggestion is to give the 3's a good listen before you buy anything.

Ya i know.We're just having fun :)

Thank god he did,I prolly saved another 2-3 people $700 bucks !!! :D :D


I just had to do it, given your signature line and all....

Peace & love :)

I know I am truely amazed at the sound quality of the 3's. The smile from listening to Blue Man Group (last night) is STILL on my face!! As others have said, there can be some great deals on some of the old SuperAudio line. You obviously have to go with what the budget allows for. I have heard the SB-2's and SB-3's. Both are great sounding speakers. I have not however done an A/B test to compare them. After hearing the 3's though, they are my favorite. They have such an excellent soundstage, imagining, and resolution and detail! I've thrown it a good mix with no problems. I'm amazed at how detailed the midbass is. My suggestion is to give the 3's a good listen before you buy anything.


:D DITTO :D

:D DITTO :D Double Dittos. :) :)

I've been to every high end dealer in town over the last year and listened to all the speaker systems; have never heard a bad NHT, just some NHT speakers that are better. Get the most you can afford; then there's no crying, and your buddies who dropped mega $ on their 'elite' speakers will look at you so green. :eek:

The threes are really breaking in nice & sound alot better than they did 4 days ago. What is break in for speakers? Hell if I know, but its happening, and the 3s are a happening pair speakers no doubt.

John did you get a chance to compare the 3's to your customers 6's on Sunday??

All this talk of the 3's (which I still haven't heard) is great.. what about the Three C center? Any impressions out there on it? 100% wowed? Disappointing in any way?

And how about a comparison between the 3s and the 2s and the AZs? Is the bang for the buck worth it?

And the 3C with the 2C? Can the 2C rock as well as the 3C?

Thanks.

OK, I think you are talking about me. You talkin bout me? I would tell people that if you base your life around 'what's the better deal' then a pair of $1500 B&W 705's is probably not for you. The $1300 ASW700 subwoofer probably isn't for you either. I love mine, and I loved my 3's until the woofer blew. So, right now I love my 705's even more.

A better comparison might be the CM-1's now , as many have reported that they like them better than the 705'S (800 SERIES CROSSOVER) , BUT IT IS ALL IRRELEVANT UNLESS YOU ,PERSONALLY, DO SIDE-BY-SIDE to see which you might prefer, happy auditioning to all!

A better comparison might be the CM-1's now , as many have reported that they like them better than the 705'S (800 SERIES CROSSOVER) , BUT IT IS ALL IRRELEVANT UNLESS YOU ,PERSONALLY, DO SIDE-BY-SIDE to see which you might prefer, happy auditioning to all!

I think a fair comparison would be a B&W that costs the same as the Three but Im still not afraid of the Threes getting beat out. .How much do the CM-1's cost? If anyone here lives in oklahoma and had the B&W's I would be willing to drive with the Three's and do a side by side.The local B&W dealer only has 600 series speakers in stock.I really cant wait to show people what they got for the extra $700 bucks :p

John did you get a chance to compare the 3's to your customers 6's on Sunday??

I'm sorry, the Threes went on and never went back off! I'll let you know what he thinks because he still has his M6s, but he was floored by the detail and didn't seem to want to put the M6s back on. I expect I'll get someone to bring in some M6s soon though to A/B test.

And how about a comparison between the 3s and the 2s and the AZs? Is the bang for the buck worth it?

Well, I think the Threes are a better value than the Twos or AZs, if that's what you mean. It's like you're getting 3 times and 2 times the speaker for about 2 times and 1.5 times the price. The Zeros and Twos are great, but you can hear the limitations of them.

And the 3C with the 2C? Can the 2C rock as well as the 3C?

By design, no, the 3C would be able to move about 50% more air than the 2C. To be honest, there really isn't a good reason for the 2C to exist.

All this talk of the 3's (which I still haven't heard) is great.. what about the Three C center? Any impressions out there on it? 100% wowed? Disappointing in any way? The 3c is an excellent unit. It comes across so loud & clear that I had to turn the level way down. Only disapoinment, a minor one at that, is the logo was not pre installed on the cover and it's very difficult to pop into place. I wouldn't even consider anything else after hearing this one, including the 2c.

How much do the CM-1's cost?

$850 A PAIR

John did you get a chance to compare the 3's to your customers 6's on Sunday??

Well, by luck, a customer traded in his M6s this morning for Threes and a 3C (not that I have any!). So I've spent the last hour or two listening to the differences on about a dozen or more different CDs. Here's what I can say thus far:

On a tonal balance, the Threes are a bit deeper, the lower midrange is pretty similar, the upper midrange/treble a little smoother and warmer. Overall, the Threes are definitely warmer/smoother, but I don't think they're *too* warm. I'd say the M6s actually sounded *too* bright most of the time. I've traded in a lot of B&Ws, JMlabs, etc, and the M6s sound fairly mild by comparison, so having the Threes make them sound bright was a bit surprising. Of course, it also seemed to me that the M6 was about 1-2dB louder which may have something to do with it.

Here's the thing though. CD after CD, the Threes sounded more "liquid", more refined, easier on the ears, more inviting, and, less "there". With the M6, you could tell the speaker was there. The Threes disappeared and did so in a way that just let the music flow naturally from them. The M6s, by comparison, was harsher with more "white noise" in the sound, more cacophonous, more aggressive. When in mono mode on my NAD amp, the M6s had more stuff coming from the speakers whereas the Threes essentially disappeared with the only sound coming from a small 1'-1.5' wide area between the speakers.

When I switched between speakers, with 80%+ of the CDs, I was *glad* to get back to the Threes - by comparison, the M6s made me wince and the hair stand up on the back of my neck, mainly at higher levels though. This is the same exact thing I get when comparing the M6s to B&Ws. The B&Ws sound more in your face and "WOW!!!" and the M6s sound warmer, smoother, more natural. But now the M6 was the B&W and the Three was the smooth, low distortion, natural sounding speaker. The sound of kevlar, to me, is about 2-3 times as prevalent as the sound of the plastic drivers in the M6, but the M6 sound was 2-3 times as prevalent as the sound of the Three's aluminum midrange. Every once and awhile on some notes, I'd wonder "was that the sound of the driver?", but it always was mild and fleeting.

With virtually every CD, the Threes sounded more delicate, more nuanced, more resolving, lower distortion, more natural. When playing the dark sounding Seal CD and electronic Deep Forest I CD, the M6 overall sounded better - the brighter tonal balance made these CDs come more alive, but at the expense of subtleties and "space". With the M6, the sound was "busy", with more "white noise" in the sound, but the Threes had layers of black behind the music that gave everything more depth and 3-dimensionality.

With classical, it was like the M6 was closer to the orchestra in a very live hall. With the Three, it was like being close, but in an outdoor amphitheater where the sound was richer and more direct, with less reflection from the hall impinging on the sound. But the instruments were more separated, more nuanced, more natural sounding to me. Less sound of the speaker. It was not so much that the M6 produced the hall better, but more that the forward sound was more "impressive".

When I put on a drum-only CD, I have to say M6 was better overall. It has more pop, more "there" sound, but, for instance, in Everything But The Girl's Walking Wounded, the percussion was bludgeoning except at low volumes. So, the short and sweet of it is that the M6 is more forward sounding, more in your face (which some will like), the Three is a bit softer and much more nuanced with more resolution and a less "boxy" sound. At lower volumes, the M6's forward sound improved. The M6 also had less motor distortion in the bass at high volumes, but the metal cone of the Three had less coloration to it. The upper treble on the Threes was better, smoother, more extended, but I'd say there was a bit of stuff missing in the low treble, near where the domes cross over. The M6 had a bit too much low treble presence, the Three a bit too little. This made the M6 subjectively more impressive, but a bit more blunt. The Three's lack of presence made it less impressive, but the more you listened into the music, the lack of sound of the drivers made up for it. The Three also uncovers a lot of reverb and space that the M6 rolls right over.

I listened to and preferred:
Yello - Baby - Three (M6 treble too much)
Pink Floyd - The Wall - Three (more nuanced, spacious)
Patricia Barber - Modern Cool - Tie (M6 more presence, tighter bass/Three more detailed/nuanced)
Was (Not Was) - Three (smoother, more resolution)
Mana - Three (I could really crank these and still enjoy them!)
Nora Jones - Three (better female voice but who cares anyway?)
Everything But the Girl - Amplified Heart - Three (better voice, more refined)
Seal - M6 (more upper midrange presence on a dark sounding CD)
Carmina Burana - Tie (depends on how you like your presentation)
Deep Forest - M6 (for some reason, these just worked on this disc though the Threes imaged better)
Patricia Barber - Verse - Three (a little more capable of dealing with the subtleties of this disc)
Everything But the Girl - Walking Wounded - Three (the M6s beat you to death on this one)
Sade - Love Deluxe - Tie (M6 had better percussion, the Three more space/subtle)
Maple Shade sampler - mostly Three (depended on song)
Alanis Morissette - Three (M6 too over the top for this disc)
Drum concerto at Dawn - M6 (all drums, no subtleties, the M6 was like you were on the kit)
Peter Gabriel - Up - Three (more resolving, more spacious, better voice)

Anyway, hopefully that helps. I can see people of different tastes going either way. Like a B&W guy said about the Threes "it's.......black, like there's something missing" which is to say you really can't hear the speakers and the errors are all of subtraction. The one improvement I would make in the Three would be to get just a *tad* more lower treble presence, between about 3KHz and 5khz or thereabouts. I think that is where you might see just a bit of a recessed sound in the measurements. Or maybe I'm just used to everything else being a little hot there.

Actually, that was just about my prediction when I heard about the Three & the newer Xd tech used in them. I really resisted hard going for M6, because the logic was the three would just be a finer, less exhausting experience. And I did expect some loss of presence & 'boom' due to the single woofer, and can't say that it's missed anyway. After listening to them for what 5 days now, I would have to agree on just about all the points John made. Maybe someday nht will redesign the evolution with some of the Xd stuff & then you can get the dual woofer big bang.

Couldn't be happier with the threes; very good high quality speakers and a great value. :)

BTW the tonal balance of the Xd and M6 are almost identical. However, the Xds, while they have tons of presence, can play *very* loud without any fatigue. So, you get the exiting tonal balance of the M6, but also with more resolution, "speed", refinement. All the best attributes of the Threes *and* the M6s and a few more things on top of it.

Well, by luck, a customer traded in his M6s this morning for Threes and a 3C (not that I have any!). So I've spent the last hour or two listening to the differences on about a dozen or more different CDs. Here's what I can say thus far:

Can you share with us some of the test details; like the associated electronics, room size, speaker placement, subs used (or not), etc.?

I realize you don't have enough spare Threes to put together a 5.1 system yet; no less a 7.1 surround set up; but for many here, HT is a priority over 2-channel listening; so I think it would be instructional to compare how the Threes handle very dynamic movie sound tracks and dialog versus the M6es. But until you can get your paws on more Threes and a 3C to put together a Classic HT, I guess we will be left to speculating about the differences between these speakers in the HT arena.

Stopped by my dealer today and wanted to spend about 10 minutes listening.
Ended up sitting there for about 30.

NAD CD player did not have SACD so couldn't use my Keb' Mo' "The Door" SACD I used to listen to the Twos.
Amp and Preamp were Parasound Halo.
Had the volume on 44 for those familiar with the 2 channel Halo.

Listened to the Cars "Lets Go" and ran thru every song on Mark Knopfler's "Shang ri la."

First the caveat:
Heard a honkiness, hootiness or presence on the first consonant of the first word of each line. Suspected an echo, and when I hit the stop button after 30 minutes there was a half second echo at the back of the room. Clapped my hands and there was definitely an echo in the room and an delayed echo coming from the room adjacent that was thru an open 4' doorway.
I think I also heard some distortion possibly from Knopfler's microphone.
I hear this a lot on Norah Jone's first recording too.

OK, The Cars:
Vocals were great as was guitar. The rack toms on Let's Go came through loud and clear and with some punch.
Hihat sounded great also and felt like the speaker did this rock song justice and
would be good for extended listening.
Bass is definitely better than the Two.
Three seems a big step up over the Two. Easily worth the extra dollars.

Now for Mark Knopfler:
I think the first track is called "5:15"(?)
This song had the vocals and drums squarely between the speakers.
Center image so strong that it is almost not to be believed.
They basically were invisible.
The only time I was aware that there was a left and right speaker is
when a rhythm guitar or overdub was added in one speaker or the other.
The snare drum was popping right in the middle. as was the ride cymbal.
The speakers were not forward in any way.
The image was right there between the speakers and not way out front.
Seemed to handle the vocals perfectly with inner detail. His voice wasn't too high or too low.
Hi hats sounded great. Ride cymbal sounded great. Bass sounded great.
I could listen to these speakers for hours.
They seemed pretty refined.

Some of the other songs didn't have the strong center image but the Threes did a great job on them and I heard some stuff I hadn't heard with my Mirage M3s.

I think the thing that struck me the most was that they sounded a little bit more expensive than their price point. I would not be stepping down in quality(M3s were $2500 in 1992). They were incredibly easy to listen to, but still had great resolution. Imaged great. Weren't forward.
Basically everything that I am looking for.
Great job NHT!



Would like to hear the Fours now.

It's great to hear that 3s are worth the wait. Is there any word on when the Four will arrive?

Eric

Can you share with us some of the test details; like the associated electronics, room size, speaker placement, subs used (or not), etc.?

NAD M55 Universal, M3 Integrated with A/B switch, 18.5'x8.5'x14.5' room, wide wall, speaker fronts ~3' from front wall, not subs, Straightwire cable

I realize you don't have enough spare Threes to put together a 5.1 system yet; no less a 7.1 surround set up; but for many here, HT is a priority over 2-channel listening; so I think it would be instructional to compare how the Threes handle very dynamic movie sound tracks and dialog versus the M6es. But until you can get your paws on more Threes and a 3C to put together a Classic HT, I guess we will be left to speculating about the differences between these speakers in the HT arena.

Well, the Threes can definitely handle lots of output when a sub attached. Peter Gabriel stuff is a great emulation for a movie soundtrack and they *thrive* on that kind of stuff, playing with high output with very low distortion. The fact that every speaker has the same drivers in an HT system leads me to believe that it will be a stunning achievement in affordable HT. And, yeah, it's going to be close to a month before I can get a full 5.1, let alone 7.2 setup going, unless I get more Fours than I think I will.

It's great to hear that 3s are worth the wait. Is there any word on when the Four will arrive?

There should be a small amount of Fours arriving at stores within 2 weeks. 100 pair, anyway. Not enough to cover demand, but hopefully enough to get some demos going. More coming.

BTW, as B4Z alludes, I found that when I hear a typical speaker playing a single acoustic guitar, it often comes from both speakers, as though it is mixed in stereo. With the Threes, the guitar centers much more effortlessly and sounds like a single guitar. This is a sign of very low driver and acoustic distortion (driver/cabinet interactions).

NAD M55 Universal, M3 Integrated with A/B switch, 18.5'x8.5'x14.5' room, wide wall, speaker fronts ~3' from front wall, not subs, Straightwire cable

I'll bet that combination sounds mighty good; something of a match made in audio heaven. Still haven't seen (or heard) the NAD Master Series in person yet, but since its release, I have thought the M3 might just be the perfect integrated amp for a 'budget' audiophile 2-channel set up.

I don't recall your comments on Peter Moncreiff's review of the Evos, but it might be worth mentioning here that (as Mr. Monceiff's testing revealed) the Evos do provide a more tuneable presentation; that is, you can play with reversing the NHT provided inverted polarity and change the "warmth region" characteristics more to your liking; as well as flipping the speaker to move the tweeter orientation from inboard to outboard. Also worth noting, the Evos have two different crossover selections that allows for boundary correction, which some see as yet another sonic tweaking possibility.

Well, the Threes can definitely handle lots of output when a sub attached. Peter Gabriel stuff is a great emulation for a movie soundtrack and they *thrive* on that kind of stuff, playing with high output with very low distortion. The fact that every speaker has the same drivers in an HT system leads me to believe that it will be a stunning achievement in affordable HT. And, yeah, it's going to be close to a month before I can get a full 5.1, let alone 7.2 setup going, unless I get more Fours than I think I will.

Based on the specs alone, the M6es will output far more sound in HT applications than the Classics Threes will allow. The Threes are rated for 150w versus the M6's 250w capability. Obviously the extra mid-bass driver is there in the M6, as well as the larger midrange and tweeter. Both the Evos and Classics give you matched drivers for multi-channel set ups, so that is really not anything new for NHT. An all M6 multi-channel HT is pretty damn impressive; and for those wanting to play dynamic material at reference levels; and even if we concede certain sonic nuances found in the Threes; the M6es will likely remain the better NHT speaker choice for full-on HT applications.

Do note: I am not trying to let the air out of the ballons at the Three party; as I am really very happy to see that everyone is finally getting their hands of these speakers, after what has been an excruciating waiting period for many. Both speakers lines have their advantages, and it remains for the individual to decide what their listening priorities are, and which speakers best fit their individual needs.

Party on Garth! :D

zaracsan,
What material did you listen to when you auditioned the Three's?
Because if your just saying this without even listening to the Three's then your basing your reasoning on pure speculation and should post that fact so people dont think you've actually listened to them and your making a post based on your actual listening experiences.

zaracsan,
What material did you listen to when you auditioned the Three's?
Because if your just saying this without even listening to the Three's then your basing your reasoning on pure speculation and should post that fact so people dont think you've actually listened to them and your making a post based on your actual listening experiences.

Is this a trick question, or did you just not understand what I said here? You must have somehow overlooked the part where I qualified my comments by saying, "Based on the specs alone". I don't believe I have ever posted, nor have I ever eluded to, having listened to the Threes.

Just to be clear: I have not yet heard the Threes. However, this does not mean I am disqualified from stating my opinion here, subjective or otherwise. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether they find merit in what I have to say on the subject; and will thank you not to stifle the openness of the dialog. I do believe what Peter Moncreiff noted about the tunability of the the M6es in his review is relevant to a discussion that is making direct comparisons between these two speakers. You are, of course, free to think otherwise.

Based on the specs alone, a Corvette should knock the doors off a 911. But then...oh forget it. :rolleyes:

Based on the specs alone, the M6es will output far more sound in HT applications than the Classics Threes will allow. The Threes are rated for 150w versus the M6's 250w capability.

That's about 2dB.

the M6es will likely remain the better NHT speaker choice for full-on HT applications.

Depends on the desires and placement. I think the Threes sound better with a DVD. They won't go quite as loud, but they do it more gracefully and smoothly. I think the improved spacial/imaging performance is a big plus. I've switched to the Three/3C based on this and also to minimize customer confusion. If (when) there is an M5/M6 replacement with updated, Classic-level drivers, then I'll definitely carry that. Of course, I've beaten the "buy Evolution" thing into the ground for 5+years, time to move on. The M6s still kick ass though and have some advantages if they are recessed in a cabinet or too close to a side wall.

zaracsan,
can i have a link to this pro review of the 2 speakers by Peter?

Just to be clear: I have not yet heard the Threes. However, this does not mean I am disqualified from stating my opinion here, subjective or otherwise.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If thats not disqualification then I have no clue what the word means.Im not trying to be harsh or offensive but how in the heck can you have an opinion of how a speaker sounds without ever hearing the speaker?I think you should say that its not your opinion at all...It's Peter Moncriefs.OK,now lets be friends :)

John,
Im curious what the guy traded in the NHT M6's for the other day.Thanks.

One of the things I noticed when I auditioned the Threes yesterday was that the serial # on one was 564 and the other was 580.
I have not seen that before.
usually they are sequential. Don't know if it means anything.

Hopefully next week I can get back to the store with my Keb' Mo SACD and actually pick out a few more characteristics than I did with those CDs I wasn't as familiar with. Although I do own Knopfler's Shangrila.
My "review" was admittedly general and hastily written.

john you said M6 if recessed in a cabinet, in my case, the speaker will be in a cabinet just behind the fabric door, not necessarily recessed as I will have them as close to the door as possible. I have about 4 to 5' on either side of the cabinet until the side wall of the room. Does the M6 make more sense, or classic 3? Thanks

zaracsan,
can i have a link to this pro review of the 2 speakers by Peter?

As mentioned above, the Moncreiff review was for the Evos speakers systems and included no mention of the (then) unreleased Classic line.

See: http://www.iar-80.com/page103.html

Can you share with us some of the test details; like the associated electronics, room size, speaker placement, subs used (or not), etc.?

I realize you don't have enough spare Threes to put together a 5.1 system yet; no less a 7.1 surround set up; but for many here, HT is a priority over 2-channel listening; so I think it would be instructional to compare how the Threes handle very dynamic movie sound tracks and dialog versus the M6es. But until you can get your paws on more Threes and a 3C to put together a Classic HT, I guess we will be left to speculating about the differences between these speakers in the HT arena.

I have a 6.1 HT setup that uses 6 new Classic 3's. AMAZING!!! I must admit, that my favorite so far is BLUE MAN GROUP on DVD-Audio. All of the resolution of the format with the extra resolution performance of the 3's. The drums are AWESOME!! The room is only 11x13 but with the wide sweet spot and soundstage of the 3's, it sounds great! I was a little worried about the large soundfield and wall reflections since my rear three 3's are wall mounted up high. I thought about getthing 2's in the rear, but at CES Jack Hindley suggested that the 3's would still be better that the 2's in the back. He said that any small negative in reflections would be overshadowed by the larger positive of the better sounding 3's. I am glad I took his advise. The 3's ROCK!!!

I've been reading this thread for quite some time and wanted to ask how would the LSi9 would compare to the M6 or the 3's? The first time I heard the Polks were at the Home Entertainment 2003 in San Francisco and I was mighty impressed by their midrange clarity and bass output for such a small speaker. I then listen some more at a local dealer in Dallas and was still impressed. By that time I start hearing about the SB3 and decided to check them out. I wasn't as impressed as I was with the polks. I asked the local NHT dealer to audition the Evolution line and they didn't have anything in stock. The salesman even commented on the evolution on being inferior to the SB3 and ST4. So I have not had a chance to audition a pair of M6s. Has anybody here has ever listened to both of these speaker? I'm in the market for a HT 5.1 setup and wanted to see how the NHT Evolution or the Classics compare to the polks.

heres how I would rank them.....

1.NHT Classic Three
2.NHT M6
3.Polk LSi9

I dont think the Polk is even close to being in the same league,but thats just my opinion.Dont care for speakers you can get at Best Buy and Circuit City.I have both the SB-3's and the Classic Three's and I think the Three's are WAAAAAY better than the SB-3's.Its really not even close.

I have a 6.1 HT setup that uses 6 new Classic 3's. ..... I was a little worried about the large soundfield and wall reflections since my rear three 3's are wall mounted up high.

How high up do you have them mounted?

What is the positioning of the back speakers relative to the main listening positions? Just right above on the wall or...?

I'm probably going with the AZs in the back - your thoughts?

How high up do you have them mounted?

What is the positioning of the back speakers relative to the main listening positions? Just right above on the wall or...?

I'm probably going with the AZs in the back - your thoughts? All at ear level; rears right behind you, surrounds to your sides. Get the same speakers for rear/surrounds as fronts; all 3s would be best.

All at ear level; rears right behind you, surrounds to your sides. Get the same speakers for rear/surrounds as fronts; all 3s would be best.

Not enough space to do that. Sofa against the back wall; surround speakers will have to be mounted on the wall above, and I will probably need to have smaller sized speakers up there.

One problem will be the mounts, the omnimounts won't let me point the surround speakers too much - given the mount bolt and size of speakers which makes the speaker hit the wall after just a bit of movement. Not sure though if this is a problem.

el stumbo,

You could place them about 2.5 - 3' in front of the back wall and pointed at the wall.

The sound will wash across the back wall and give a pretty good rear image.

el stumbo,
I had the same problem(or so I thought) mounting my SB-3's.I used the omnimount 20's in the top corners (in studs of course) and I like the effects coming from up there.Most of the effects are rain and helicopters so it sounds good to me.Good Luck man.

How high are you guys placing these speakers?

Mine are in the corners all the way to the ceiling(8ft) . I have door in the corner and a fireplace in the middle so I didnt have any other options,but Im not dissapointed with the way it sounds.

Has anyone had a chance to compare these NHT Classic's to the Kef iQ series? I was waiting for the 4's, but was impressed with the iQ9's and decided to go that route. I'm not displeased with the Kef's, but I'm curious to hear opinions of those that have both. I'm using an Arcam AVR300, and was also wondering if anyone has listened to the NHT Classic's with this receiver.

I always liked Kef and Mission Speakers, for SQ, imaging, etc......

I am curious, I saw on brandnamez.com that they are selling the NHT 3 for $275, the 3C for $410, and the 4s for $615. I assume they are not an authorized dealer , so how do they get a hold of those speakers to sell? At those prices it makes one think about forgetting about the local dealer.

Do you mean this?

http://www.brandnamez.com/merchant.ihtml?pid=31208&lastcatid=155&step=4

I'm sure they aren't authorized.

I am curious, I saw on brandnamez.com that they are selling the NHT 3 for $275, the 3C for $410, and the 4s for $615. I assume they are not an authorized dealer , so how do they get a hold of those speakers to sell? At those prices it makes one think about forgetting about the local dealer.

Hey, I'm selling Porsche 911s for $5000. Give me your credit card :D

Jack Hindley told me that when you think about speaker placement, also think about the math behind it. Ideally, your seating will be in the middle of the room equal distance between all speakers. Now think about it this way. If you sit 6 inches away from the speaker and then move 12 inches away, the volume seems to be that much less. If your seating position is in the back of the room, you could be very close to the speakers. Just moving your head could change the apparent volume. Ideally the speakers will be at ear level. But if puting them at ear level will put them too close to you, it is better to do something else. If for example you have a HT set up with front projection and a large screen, and a 20' x 30' room, sitting in the middle of the room would put you 15' from the screen and also 15' from the rear speakers. If you have a 10' x 15' room, would you want to sit 7' away from the screen? I put the rear speakers up high near the ceiling, and point them down toward the sitting position, IF it is needed to put distance between you and the speaker.

Well it's all done! FR/FL - 3s, 2C center and AZs for rear surround, powered by a Denon AVR-886S with a Denon DVD 756S. All said and done it was about $2,200. I'm extremely happy with the system. It's my first set up beyond the junk stuff sold everywhere and I can say it makes me happy! I never knew I could imagine how clear a song on the radio in the car would sound at home... which brings a smile just imagining them throughout the day! Talk about bang for your buck.

I don't believe I have decerning ears... after listening to loud music during my teens and 20's I know other people hear better than me. Hence I would not say the 3s to me sound orgasmic but they are definatly a good jump from the AZs in quality. No regrets would do it all the same again.

What's important to me is that the sound quality of the NHT system is near or better than a big screen theater. (I used to project manage those going in so I've heard more than the average Joe.) Those systems were based on Crest Amplifiers and EAW cinema speakers using the commercial grade DTS CD disc player sync'd to film via SMPTE time code. Obviously the differences in the size of room are huge.

Well that's my opinion.

That's all good advice. I generally like to keep the speakers at ear level if they're 5' or more away. Closer than that and it begins to get too close, so you have to start to get other ways of making up the distance. If your couch is up against the back wall, the speakers should be on the side walls facing each other at ~5-6' off the ground, rather than on the back wall or above you.

That's all good advice. I generally like to keep the speakers at ear level if they're 5' or more away. Closer than that and it begins to get too close, so you have to start to get other ways of making up the distance. If your couch is up against the back wall, the speakers should be on the side walls facing each other at ~5-6' off the ground, rather than on the back wall or above you.

Sounds good, BUT...In my case, one side has a large window and the other side is a walkway / dining area. They speakers cannot be placed on these walls or on stands at ear level in these areas. Hanging from the ceiling also will not work. The only space is on the back wall.

NHT4LIFE seems to find no problem having the surrounds up on the back wall. I think this is what I will have to do. Hope it works...NHT, are your speakers pointed down or at an angle or???

srowin: glad you are happy with your set up - that is the set up that I was thinking of, but now I might go with the 3C if I get a center; John seems to think it is much better; I haven't been able to listen to the difference yet myself. I'll start with the 3s and AZs, and then progress...

In a perfect world, put the speakers at ear level on stands. In the setup I have, that would mean one of the speakers being around 3ft away, hence the high mount and pointed towards the listening position.

El stumbo, my rears are on my back wall and sound great! Again, it is better to have them at ear level. but if that would put them too close to you.....pick the lesser of two evils, in which case I believe the rear wall is the lesser evil. Not ideal, but more ideal that too close. BUT......listen to YOUR ears. It's your call. You can do some great things with room time delay and set up with the receiver to set it up to your sitting position. But in my demo room I could have several people listening.

el stumbo - you might consider just going with a 3.1 system; it will still sound awesome. Get the 3c, its well worth the few extra $.

el stumbo - you might consider just going with a 3.1 system; it will still sound awesome. Get the 3c, its well worth the few extra $.

I would like to have the sorround speakers - I think they should be fun to have.

Money is not an issue. It is just spacing that is a problem. The 3C may well find a nice place by my telie - am strongly considering.

Then again, maybe money is an issue, I can't afford a million dollar home which would give me the space I need. Does anyone have some cash they wish to donate to a good cause?

But, for the speakers...NHT Classic speakers are very reasonably priced with everything I need for listening to be very happy. I agree with srowin.

Ill take it step by step - I'm in no big hurry. Obviously as I waited for these bloody things to appear from the relms of the universe.

LOL. I had to join after reading this long thread. I use to be a big NHT fan, and I am hoping to be again. I just got off of a stint with Von S. VR1 speakers. I felt they were great, but lacked the bass of the SB3s, which I missed, and the VR1s finish sucked compared to the SB3s NHT Gloss Black. I did like the overall tone of the VR1s over the NHT SB3s. More on that in a bit. But I am betting that I will like the NHT Threes most of all.

BTW, is the finish on the Threes like the SB3s or different? I thought the finish on the SB3 was seemingly like a solid block of onyx, seemless and perfect. The NHT Three pictures show a "line" towards the front on the sides. like it was a separate panel or something. I would have to see it in person to tell if that would be an finish "Downgrade" if you will.

I just found out about the NHT Three speakers. So for me the timing was perfect. Product delays didn't phase ME! Now I just need to save up 800 dollars. Hopefully a dealer can do 10% off, and shorten my saving up time. If I buy the Threes, I will pair them with a Nad Amp. I was thinking the c325bee. Or do you think I need or signifigantly benifit from the power (and added expense *Sigh*) of the c372 (anyone)?

I don't want a sub. I prefer my movies and music without one, at least in the setting of a bedroom or small living room. I like tight fast musical bass, but I could care less about the bass thumping of subs, they are never fast enough to keep up. But I DO like bass when done right. It does not need to be picture shaking to be tight, fast, deep, and musical. And lets face it, quality subs that meet my needs are too dam expensive, and then housemates complain anyway. I would rather just buy the Fours, still skip the subs, and at least then I would have a better blend of bass and other ranges. But I can not afford the Fours, nor do I have a big room to enjoy them in, and they would be overkill. So I am hoping the Threes will have enough bass for me not to miss the bass, ya know? I felt the SB3s had enough. How does the SB3s bass compare to the Threes?

The nice thing about floorstanders is that you dont need speaker stands, which I hate the looks of. Plus it is hard to find a good set of stands that will not break the bank, making you wonder why you did not go for the floorstanders in the first place. I would often just place my SB3s or whatever on a dresser or something! I wish they would make a cheaper tower that is just the Three with a stand built in, like the Supertwo was (like that little bottom woofer did anything!). The Supertwo was only $750 at one point, but the Fours are too expensive for my buget.

I also like the vocals to be airy and somewhat forward. Or at the very least not overpowered by the other ranges. I also like alot of treble it seems. Very few speakers can please me in the mid to upper ranges it seems. I feel that the Superones had this down right (the VR1s too), and was a fun speaker because of it. Lively. But the SB3/4 seemed vocal or treble recessed compared to the Superone, but the SB3 bass was better. And the Super Audio series had more detail overal it seemed, was a better speaker series perhaps, but at the expense of the airy vocals and treble of the superones. Perhaps I have the wording wrong, but the Superone did have something the SB3 lacked, and I missed it. And the VR1's had it too. But I also found that I could no longer enjoy the Superone or VR1s as much. I need another octave of quality bass, at least what the SB3 had or a bit more. the SB3 had better/more bass slam too. The Superones/VR1s excelled in that they were just extra Airy and Clear when it came to the vocals in songs. I used to think this was because of the tweeter change from fabric dome to metal. Perhaps there was more to it than I thought, perhaps it was an upper midrange issue. The NHT Three has me excited about a hopeful improvement in this area. Like combining the best of the Superone and SB3, and adding that next level of refindment/improvement too. All this is just my opinions of course, and with my limited understanding to explain it.

So I am going to use my Nad NHT combo with my iMac Intel Core Duo. Does that sound strange? Well the thing has a BLING worthy 20" Widescreen LCD built in, and a good one too. My 500GB hard drive stores all my ripped (Full Quality) dvds. A click of the space bar and they play. Fade in, no previews. I rip a itunes jukebox full of songs (also full quality), and the thing even has a digital out, and I can get a projecter later, with extended desktop support. My Front Row remote and Bluetooth keyboard takes care of the controls from my easy chair or bed. What more can a man ask for? Of course the DAC and Projector would be an upgrade I would only do much later, but its a plan anyways. I even got the thing to act as a decent Tivo with my eyetv 200 (the eyetv 250 even lets you play lagless PS2 games on your LCD!). Its my all in one bat computer. I record the tv shows, edit it in minutes, and pump out a dvd for friends and family. Now I just need good sound for it. Computer speakers suck.

So thats where I am, hopefully the Threes are up to the task of what I crave sound wise. Sounds like they are, but I need a demo, or I guess I could order a single speaker to try them out with lower risk. Any thoughts on my situation?

Hey, I'm selling Porsche 911s for $5000. Give me your credit card

You CAN actually deliver?

Most grey market sellers WILL actually get you new product, they just lack service support, of course, the real question is what happens when you send it directly to the manufacturer without a receipt (saying it was a gift and you don't know where it was purchased) or send the receipt from the unauthorized seller and see if the manufacturer will fix it anyway.
The surprising thing is that they have found a dealer to sell it to them sideways for so little.
Of course, there are usually no shortage of dealers who need cash now and will pay the manufacturer on the speakers 90 days out.

NHT4LIFE seems to find no problem having the surrounds up on the back wall. I think this is what I will have to do. Hope it works...NHT, are your speakers pointed down or at an angle or???



The only way Icould place the SB-3 above the door was to put it sideways :(

It stills sounds good though.Im not complaining.

I have a small room also. I'm using Classic Threes in the front but opted for the superzero's on the back wall mounted near the ceiling. Works fine as I only use the surrounds for the occasional movie. Chose the superzero's because there only 5" deep. This allows me to get the couch a lttle further back towards the wall and out of the center of the room.

I don't want a sub. I prefer my movies and music without one, at least in the setting of a bedroom or small living room. I like tight fast musical bass, but I could care less about the bass thumping of subs, they are never fast enough to keep up. But I DO like bass when done right. It does not need to be picture shaking to be tight, fast, deep, and musical. And lets face it, quality subs that meet my needs are too dam expensive, and then housemates complain anyway. I would rather just buy the Fours, still skip the subs, and at least then I would have a better blend of bass and other ranges. But I can not afford the Fours, nor do I have a big room to enjoy them in, and they would be overkill. So I am hoping the Threes will have enough bass for me not to miss the bass, ya know? I felt the SB3s had enough. How does the SB3s bass compare to the Threes?

I have a relatively small room with the Classic Threes and IMO you'll be fine without a sub. However, if you can afford it, match them with a NHT Evo sub, as I am, and you'll be even more impressed.

According to NHT, they've dropped a few dealers lately for such things. I was telling Andy that I was not the source for Brandnamez (because I'm selling/ordering so much) and he said "don't worry, we know, we've plugged that leak". I don't see what a dealer gains except turning his credit line or getting back some invested money. If a dealer can't sell all the Classic he can get, he shouldn't be in the business anyway.

BTW, is the finish on the Threes like the SB3s or different? I thought the finish on the SB3 was seemingly like a solid block of onyx, seemless and perfect. The NHT Three pictures show a "line" towards the front on the sides. like it was a separate panel or something. I would have to see it in person to tell if that would be an finish "Downgrade" if you will.

The Classic is much more elegant and has an even nicer finish than the SuperAudio. The line is there as an accent and it also, they said, helps deal with possible imperfections in the baffle/cabinet attachment. If that wasn't perfect, you could get a ripple in the finish, so they designed this little setoff that looks really good and solves the issue and looks great in person.

The nice thing about floorstanders is that you dont need speaker stands, which I hate the looks of. Plus it is hard to find a good set of stands that will not break the bank, making you wonder why you did not go for the floorstanders in the first place. I would often just place my SB3s or whatever on a dresser or something! I wish they would make a cheaper tower that is just the Three with a stand built in, like the Supertwo was (like that little bottom woofer did anything!). The Supertwo was only $750 at one point, but the Fours are too expensive for my buget.

We've got the new Target stands in piano black for $150 :) Match up perfectly. I had to special order these, May Audio wasn't going to import them any longer. Now they are again because I ordered 20 pair with a promise of more. They look great together. I am trying to convince NHT to build a "3.5" tower version of the Three with an extra woofer and deeper bass. You might send NHT an e-mail!

The NHT Three has me excited about a hopeful improvement in this area. Like combining the best of the Superone and SB3, and adding that next level of refindment/improvement too. All this is just my opinions of course, and with my limited understanding to explain it.

I think you'll be impressed. Much more detailed with a bigger soundfield than the S1, but with the deep bass and refinement (more actually) of the SB3.

My 500GB hard drive stores all my ripped (Full Quality) dvds. A click of the space bar and they play. Fade in, no previews. I rip a itunes jukebox full of songs (also full quality), and the thing even has a digital out, and I can get a projecter later, with extended desktop support.

Using what software!?! Inquiring minds want to know :)

According to NHT, they've dropped a few dealers lately for such things

As well they should...and they should provide you with these dealers names so you can verify that NHT isn't just giving lip service as they happily sell more.

As well they should...and they should provide you with these dealers names so you can verify that NHT isn't just giving lip service as they happily sell more. Always verify with the manufacturer for authorized dealers status before purchasing. Always, always, always. :)

Always verify with the manufacturer for authorized dealers status before purchasing. Always, always, always. :)

Assuming you know you are getting a new product, the reason to buy from an authorized dealer is so you can receive warranty service from the manufacturer. One might consider this independent of whether the retailer is a 'reputable' dealer which to me means that they have policies such as 30 day return and otherwise operate in an ethical way. Some may consider selling a product they are not authorized to sell unethical, but I guess it also may depend on whether they say or imply that they are authorized when they are not.

I typically (always) buy from authorized dealers just because I like the piece of mind of the warranty.

Here's what happened to me:

Bought two Classic Three's from Onecall (authorized dealer).
After 3 days of use, one speaker blows woofer.
I think - how can I get this up and running quickest (I miss the music, and I have large event coming)
I contact NHT by email
NHT says they will look for a woofer to send me which I would install myself
I think - surely this is quicker than RMA product back to either NHT or Onecall (I was wrong)
I wait, emailing NHT for estimated time to find woofer
It's been 2 weeks, no word from NHT
Large event is tomorrow, so too late to get speaker back
I call Onecall today - they agree to cross-ship a replacement
Problem solved, lesson learned.

I don't blame NHT too much for not having spares stocked on such a new speaker. But, I think they could be a whole lot more aware and communicative of the status of things. Hopefully, I will not ever need it, but if I do, I hope NHT gets their support in a little better shape over time. Otherwise, what is the advantage of buying from an authorized dealer ?

Incidently, I would normally buy from a local dealer as well. But actually the local dealer here seems to be pushing another brand over NHT which for some reason turned me off (too bad, its the same dealer i bought my Superones and SW2Pi from back in 1996-7). Plus they moved their store further out into the exurbs so its almost 40 miles away.

I decied to head to my local dealer today to hear the Three and see what the fuss is about.

I have been into this hobby for ~12 years, my first pair of real speakers being Paradigm 3seMKIIs, then Defintive DR7s, then Monitor Audio (forget), ACI Sapphire III, Sapphire 25th Anniversary, Sapphire XL (a lot of Sapphires), Onix Ref 1s, Onix Rocket Sig 850s.

While most of my most recently purchased speakers are from online vendors, I still check out the local shops to see what B&W, Paradigm, Canton, etc are up to.

The Classic threes were demoed on Linn equipment worth way more than the Threes. The room was fairly small, I'd guess 12x12. Music was Norah, Patricia Barber, Disturbed, Annie Lennox, and a few others (I did not have all of my normal demo CDs with me today).

I found the Threes to be an overall good speaker for $800, but they are no 'giant killer'. At first I wasn't happy with them at all, but I had to put it into perspective - my main speakers are $2000 and these are $800, they are not going to be as good.

Telling myself that, I focused on what they did well vs B&Ws and the like of a similar price range. Female vocals were done well, although a bit recessed. One thing that I cannot stand is a 'bloomy' lower midrage where the singer has a lot of unnatural weight to their voice. The Threes did not exhibit this issue at all (most speakers in this price range have this issue IMO). While they did not have a bloated lower end, the upper midrange was not as pronounced as I would have liked. Jones and Barber's voices were not as 'real' sounding as I am used to.

The bass on the Threes is impressive. It is quick and wasn't boomy at all. With the 12" NHT subwoofer the system really rocked, but they did fine by themselves in a small room.

My biggest issue with the Three was that the vocals and instruments tended to be smashed together and not as distinct as I am used to. They threw a soundstage but it wasn't as well defined as I am used to. The Sapphire XLs or Onix Refs throw a much more accurate and wide soundstage than the Three, but they are also both $1500 speakers (ie: another reason why these are not 'giant killers').

I tried the Classic Two, and for $200 more one would be dumb to not get the Three. If you don't have the $200, wait a few months so you can get it. It is quite a bit better of a speaker for very little more money.

I can see the posts coming "but you didn't compare them in your room", etc. True. What I did was compare them to pair of Martin Logan Mosaics (edit: ~2000 MSRP). Yes, twice the price but it puts it into perspective of my speakers at home. The Mosaics were quite amazing. So amazing I am going to go back and listen again next week with more demo material. They did what the Threes didn't do well IMO (more defined midrange, much better separation of instruments, better clarity). They grabbed me and said "listen to me Kevin", the Threes did not.

This might seem negative, but I really don't mean it to be. For $800 the Three is a good speaker. If you are looking at the B&W 700 series I would recommend listening to the three. I heard the 705 a few months ago and while in different rooms, I prefer the three quite a bit more (the 705 mangled female vocals quite a bit). In their price range they definitely keep up and can suprass the competition, just don't think that they hang with speakers twice their price, they don't.

I heard the 705 a few months ago and while in different rooms, I prefer the three quite a bit more (the 705 mangled female vocals quite a bit). In their price range they definitely keep up and can suprass the competition, just don't think that they hang with speakers twice their price, they don't.

Ummmm, didn't you just say they sounded better than the 705s (twice the price)? Giant killer is always a "to me" POV if you're talking about sound quality. I think there'd be plenty of people who would have a different opinion.

I *do* think they are at least "quasi-giant killers" only because a lot of the speakers that many people think of as "giants" would get their asses handed to them by the Three or Four. Will they "kill" the best speakers at 2-5 times the price? No. But they'll match them or come darn close. A lot of it comes down to preference. For me, a ported bookshelf speaker is a non-starter. And M-Ls are close to unlistenable to me as they are too bright and thin. If you want to hear a *good* ESL, listen to modified Quads.

Quick update to the blown woofer story - in case anyone cares.

I emailed NHT to let them know I wouldn't be needing the replacement. I received a nice response with apologies for the delay. As I suspected the replacement parts have not come in yet. I was very appreciative that NHT was willing to just ship me out a woofer, but of course that plan only works if you have them in stock. I suspect that once the three's have been around a while, the service you get from NHT will be pretty good.

I think I mentioned this before, but it actually has been interesting with the one Classic 3 and one SuperOne as left/right on the same amp. In my opinion, the SuperOne is still one of the great bargains in speaker history.

Anyway a friend and I were listening to the Modern Drummer Weekend DVD (great material). Steve Smith and his band Vital Information was on and we were standing in front of the SuperOne. My friend says - 'that sounds great, it sounds just like a real snare drum. Then we walked in front of the Three, and we both looked at each other and she says, 'I take that back, THIS is what a real snare drum sounds like!'

The 705 is not a good speaker IMO so saying the Three is better isn't saying much. The 705 has 'B&W' on the front and a lot of mark up. There are a lot of speakers with hype that do not deserve it.

Better than a speaker 2-5x the cost? Maybe two, but five? $4000? Those are some terrible $4000 speakers (and I'm sure they exist). Lets be realistic, to me Canton, Revel, Onix, ACI, Paradigm all make speakers better than the Three at the $1500 price point. What you are saying can be said about almost any speaker. My xyz speaker is better than abc that costs twice as much! There is always a case where someone likes a speaker that is cheaper than another.

The Mosaics I heard were far from bright and thin. I found them to be very "natural" sounding and smooth. Hence the reason there are different speakers, one person's bright is another's neutral.

Hey guys..... I was really into the HT setups back in the late 90's to early 00's. I recently moved out to a place with a much bigger living room and looking to setup an HT here. Now I currenty have an all NHT HT setup back at the old place which consists of.....

Front R/L - NHT SuperOnes
Back R/L - NHT SuperZeroes
Center - SuperCenter
Sub - Klipsch
Yamaha Receiver - HT5860 I believe...Sorry I forgot the model...It's 1yr old.

The speakers are about 7-9 years old now.

Anyway, I noticed that the Yamaha is way to bright musically and don't think works well with the NHT's. At least not a $400 receiver, but since I am looking to now build a new HT....Should I keep these NHT's and maybe pair them up with a better receiver? Any advice and recommendations?

Lets be realistic, to me Canton, Revel, Onix, ACI, Paradigm all make speakers better than the Three at the $1500 price point.

Sorry, you *completely* lost me at Paradigm. I haven't heard all of these other ones. But the Threes remind me *very much* of the Gems I heard. I'll have the chance to test that theory. Also, from a technical POV, there are simply things a 3-way can and *does* do that a 2-way can't. Lower upper midrange distortion, lower spectral decay, wider dispersion.

The Mosaics I heard were far from bright and thin. I found them to be very "natural" sounding and smooth. Hence the reason there are different speakers, one person's bright is another's neutral.

Exactly. Besides, as I said, the Threes won't blow away a good $4000 speaker, but I've heard plenty of them that aren't as good. They do many things better than the JMLab Utopia speakers I used to sell, for instance, imaging, soundstaging and bass accuracy for a few. Most monitors have too many built in flaws than the Threes simply don't have. How you interpret that is up to you.

BTW, my post card that is getting done now leads exactly with the headline "Giant Killers". :D

Hey guys..... I was really into the HT setups back in the late 90's to early 00's. I recently moved out to a place with a much bigger living room and looking to setup an HT here. Now I currenty have an all NHT HT setup back at the old place which consists of.....

Front R/L - NHT SuperOnes
Back R/L - NHT SuperZeroes
Center - SuperCenter
Sub - Klipsch
Yamaha Receiver - HT5860 I believe...Sorry I forgot the model...It's 1yr old.

The speakers are about 7-9 years old now.

Anyway, I noticed that the Yamaha is way to bright musically and don't think works well with the NHT's. At least not a $400 receiver, but since I am looking to now build a new HT....Should I keep these NHT's and maybe pair them up with a better receiver? Any advice and recommendations?

Depends on your budget of course. But if re-use is desireable, consider:

3's in the front (keep or replace your center with 3C, depending on budget)

Move SuperOnes to surround and SuperZeros to Rear (7.1 system)

Get a better/bigger subwoofer if needed. Probably is.

I have three Yamaha receivers, my latest being an RX-V2600. Yamaha are decent, but my Superones definately sounded better hooked to a Rotel RB-981 amp. Your Yamaha probably has preouts for all channels so if you want to upgrade the amplifier sections of each channel, you can usually do that. I think if you get 3's they will appreciate a good separate amp with lots of power.

My 2cents

John, to rip my dvds to my Apple iMac (with built in 20"widesceen LCD) Intel 2 Ghz Core Duo (duel core) with built in 500 GB HD ... heh, I love my macs ... you need a free program called MacTheRipper, which can be found at versiontracker dotty commy. (Like how I got around that? New forum user limitations. Heh.)

MacTheRipper is not Universal yet, meaning that it will run at half speed on the new Intel Macs, but it they are working on it. Most of my Apps are already Universal, or going Universal this year, the progress has been snappy on this in the Mac community. MacTheRipper is free, but the developer uses donations to continue his work. It's a very streamlined Mac like program, which means other than a few terms you need to learn, it's a no brainer to use, and does not complicate you with it's simple yet powerful controls.

What MacTheRipper does is removes User Operation Prohibitions (you know, the "you can't hit fast forward or chapter skipping now" signs), ARccos protection, CSS encryption, Macrovision protection, and sets the region code to "0" for region free playback. It can remove RCE region protection too. You can store the file in a folder, and play it back (without the disc) by selecting it with your Apple DVD Player that comes with the iMac, and it just plays Full DVD Quality, just like that. It can rip only the main feature if you want (or any portion of the disc), so when you hit the button, it fades in with just the movie. No warning screens, no previews, and no menus. I have found that a movie like Spiderman 2 takes up about 5 GB, thats just the main feature. With everything, it jumps up a few GBs. Hard Drive space is limited even with my 500 GB hard drive, so I only plan to rip the main features of my favorite 50 or so movies. I may add an ethernet based 500 GB Hard Drive, giving me a Terabyte to work with. Movies like the Matrix Trilogy, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Spiderman 1-2, Superman Returns when it comes out, Batman Begins, MI 2-3, King Kong...you know the epics. No Meg Ryan stuff. Like I said, space is limited!

The new 750 hard drives with vertical stacking (instead of the space hogging flat stacking of norm) of the magnetic data storing "dominos" on typical hard drives has me excited. With 750 GBs, now we can all store our dvds on a "video server" if you will. No more scratched discs, and far more easy access to you collection, and at the same full quality to boot. Who needs HD DVDs? Until High Def comes standard in my Macs, I will not jump on HD DVDs.

This is all just to play DVDs, and you could burn them too if you wanted, as everything is decrypted, with other software afterwards. But I don't have the need. Another main feature about watching DVDs from a hard drive is for laptops. It takes far less juice to read a movie from a hard drive than to spin a disc and shoot lasers at it. So your battery will last much longer. Cool eh? I don't have a laptop though...Yet! I need a 12" Macbookpro when they come out, ya know for late night bedside internet browsing and avsforum posting ;)

If you were to do cool things like edit together all your episodes of a fav TV show into a more epic "movie" style cut, you could use cinematize 2.0 (or the Universal version when that comes along) to transcode you DVDs to a editable format (DVD files are not editable without transcoding), which a video editing program could then tackle. Mpeg 2 Stream seems to be the best quality, DVD quality or near. Then you could reburn your final cut or clips to DVD or store it on your hard drive. How bout puting all the lightsaber battles together? All The Matrix fights together? Lots of fun there.

So I want a Nad NHT combo, I have to start saving. In the meantime, I will head down to my local dealer, get some prices, and hear the NHT Three Speakers. Oh and music ripping is a no brainer, iTunes does everything you need and is free.

Oh and JOHN, can I get a picture of these Target NHT Three matching stands, and who can I buy them off of (Hint Hint).

Oh and just for fun my email is superclarkmode@mail.com

Oh, and how bout speaker wires, what does everyone recommend? Or interconnects for a mini stereo to a RCA stereo. and better jumpers for the Nad and or NHT Three's. Jumpers are the part that connects bi ampable speakers and pre amp and power amps sections.

NHT ROCKS! Ok, now I can post websites (it's my 5th post).

While Paradigm is stretching it, the S2 isn't bad (although almost 2K for plastic is a lot of cash).

"things a 3-way can and *does* do that a 3-way can't"
I'll ignore the error. :)

There are also things a three way can do wrong that a two way won't. It is all dependent upon the speaker designer's talent. From what I heard I prefer vocals on the XL and Ref 1 over the Three, and they are both two way designs (and ported :eek: ). The number of drivers does not mean it is a better speaker (nor does a port). There is a lot more to it than that. My Sig 850s (3-way) are better at vocals than my Refs or XLs. I'd rate them as Three (3-way)<Ref/XL(2-way)<Sig 850(3-way).

Anyway, this isn't a speaker building theory thread. In summary: The Three is good, and anyone looking in the $500-$1500 range should take a listen and compare it to everything else they can hear in the price range.

Or interconnects for a mini stereo to a RCA stereo.

What are you connecting using this? Not the computer, I hope. It has optical out, right?

and better jumpers for the Nad and or NHT Three's. Jumpers are the part that connects bi ampable speakers and pre amp and power amps sections.

Threes aren't biampable, have only one pair of binding posts, and thus no jumpers.

Oh, Nad has this new amp c325bee on the website, do you guys know when its coming for real? Nad dealers seem to not now about it at all. Is the C325bee enough, or should I just go with the c372 and be safe. I like smaller componets, but hey, I like power better. But not overkill. Sigh, what to do? The c325bee has 50 real watts (and its a newer design than the c372, some trickle down tech), and the c372 has 150 real watts. What do the NHT Three's need to play right? Will I see a jump in quality at normal listioning levels with the extra 100 watts? Then there is the massive price difference between the two amps. I'm so poor, but I will save (IE wait longer) for the best if I have too. Either way, I will have this buttoned up by the end of this year wallet wise. Hopefully by the end of summer.

For $800 the Three is a good speaker. If you are looking at the B&W 700 series I would recommend listening to the three

Try the CM-1's, or ERA's Design5's, or Revel M12's...all are in the same price range.

The 705 is not a good speaker IMO so saying the Three is better isn't saying much.

Many feel that way, and, imo, there are much better $1500 speakers. However, I prefer the CM-1's to the 705's and they are $850 ...this happens from time to time in the speaker world.


The 705 has 'B&W' on the front and a lot of mark up.

No more so than most any other speaker.

Just for fun, check out this keyboard (That will go with my iMac/Nad/NHT setup). Of course the long range bluetooth Apple keyboard will be there for across the room keyboard shortcuts and serves great as a "remote", as does Apple Front Row Remotes, and the Keyspan Remotes.

The Deck LED Backlit Legend Keyboard, (The LED lights last 20 plus years) and it uses mechanical metal switches. One for each keycap. They type out of this world, and the super high quality mechanical keyswitches last about as long as the lights. Great positive and negitive resistence for the "clicky buckling spring keyboard" fans and better feedback when you type. Improves your typing speeds, accuracy and just feels better, esp. when gaming. Comes in green, red, gold, blue. I like the Deck Legend USB Mac Toxic Green Keyboard (Pronounced Deek). Don't worry, it comes in windows too if you like battling viruses.

http://www.deckkeyboards.com/

Oh, Nad has this new amp c325bee on the website, do you guys know when its coming for real? Nad dealers seem to not now about it at all. Is the C325bee enough, or should I just go with the c372 and be safe. I like smaller componets, but hey, I like power better. But not overkill. Sigh, what to do? The c325bee has 50 real watts (and its a newer design than the c372, some trickle down tech), and the c372 has 150 real watts. What do the NHT Three's need to play right? Will I see a jump in quality at normal listioning levels with the extra 100 watts? Then there is the massive price difference between the two amps. I'm so poor, but I will save (IE wait longer) for the best if I have too. Either way, I will have this buttoned up by the end of this year wallet wise. Hopefully by the end of summer.

How big is the room and how loud do you listen?

Revel M12's


The M12 is a very nice speaker, as is the M20 if one can stretch the budget (as is always the case).

How big is the room and how loud do you listen?

That may change alot, so I would rather just buy whats good for the NHT, and future proof my system. Again, price creeps its way into what's nessasary, and what's overkill, and that is something I don't know. Most times, I would just buy the best and be done with it. But when I owned the c370, I rarly moved the volume up past 35% if that. But I know that the power also helps overall clarity too. Also, the c325bee is much smaller than the c372. It's a very small point, but something to consider, for those of us with limited desktop space.

So if I had to describe my current situation, although I move around quite a bit, I would say small bedroom to medium living room, and moderate to medium high volumes. I don't rock out, and blast alot, but I like to "Hear" the vocals at an energetic volume. And I like to watch movies with some volume too. But sometimes, I am just listioning at lower volumes, as to not disturb my housemates. So it needs to be clear on lower volumes, dialog vocal wise, something I feel the SB3 was weaker in than say the Superone. I hope the Three's can play moderate low volume and still have a fun sound where the vocals come accross strong as well (like the Superone did).

Right now all I have is Logitech Z-2300 pc speakers. Don't even get me started with the trebleless boomy warm sound of these "Top Rated" PC speakers.

What are you connecting using this? Not the computer, I hope. It has optical out, right?



Threes aren't biampable, have only one pair of binding posts, and thus no jumpers.

For now, I was going to do analog from the iMac. But thats just untill I can afford a decent DAC, as it does do digital out. Baby steps, my wallet is fragile. One nice thing is that Apple hardware tends to be of higher quality parts seemingly, and less noisy on the analog audio out than most PCs I tried.

Can anyone recomment a very good DAC that us mere mortals can afford? That looks good too? And can do the dishes, wash my car?

There was this one 50WPC intergrated amp that I know of that has a DAC built-in, perhaps I should get it. It's the Music Hall Mambo. But I was afraid it's not as good as a NAD. Certainly it has better looks than the NAD, but that's not hard. More research is needed for sure. I remember the Mambo reviews not being perfect (what product is?), but I forget the details. Does everyone agree that I should get a DAC off the bat, or can it wait a year while I save for a good one (IE, get the NAD and NHTs now, get the DAC next year). Of course, saving up for a DAC too, or an intergrated amp with a DAC built in takes alot longer, and thats more time I spend listioning to my craptastic Logitech Z-2300 PC speakers. Even analog iMac to NAD to NHT is better than that. One probelm with buying an amp that has the DAC is built-in is that it's a rare type of product, and therefore automatically limits my WPC and brand options (But again, 50WPC may be enough, who knows. But I did prefer NAD intergrated amps in the past. I will say I remember being more excited about the NAD C370 Reviews vs the Mambo reviews, and that I KNOW I like NADs sound, so there is less risk going with the NAD brand for me. But there is the off chance that the Mambo sounds better still). Plus with the intergrated DAC, like in the Mambo, there is no changing your mind or picking a different quality DAC. But of course, it's supposed to be much cheaper and stylish than buying separates, or so they claim. I am torn between getting a separate DAC, or trying to find an intergrated solution like the Mambo. The Music Hall Mambo runs 1300 dollars, here is some cut and paste about it:

The mambo is a 50 watt/channel class A integrated amp with 24-bit/96kHz PCM upsampling. Hidden behind the mambo’s sleek, yet brutish face is a technologically advanced assemblage of components. music hall’s mambo is the perfect complement to the maverick Super Audio CD player.

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

Features:

• 24-bit/96kHz Upsampling
• Crystal CS8420 sample rate converter w/Burr-Brown PCM1738 DAC. Processes all standard digital audio signal rates from 32kHz to 96kHz
• Digitally-controlled analogue audio volume control IC by Texas Instruments, PGA 2311 The highest performance available today
• 50 watt/channel class A amplifier
• Robust 600 Watt specially designed power transformer
• 6 pairs of K1529/J200 MOS-FET output transistors
• Two digital inputs: 1 optical/1 coaxial
• 5 analog inputs
• 5-way insulated gold binding posts
• High quality gold input jacks
• Full remote-control operation
• Heavy-duty detachable power cord.

Dimensions: W17 x D16.5 x H5
Weight: 50lbs.

US Suggested Retail:
$1295

*
*
*
*
*

Or there is also this one from the same company, but it's not a PURE intergrated, here there be radio parts, possibly lowering the music purity. But having FM can be somewhat convienent, but it's really nonessentual. I am worried that the 50WPC of the above Mambo is not enough, and this one is 100WPC (Of what quality though?), and has some sort video switching (I don't know which kind of video switching. Hopefully componet and S-video). Lets not get started that both are very expensive for me, and this one is that much more. The NAD NHT DAC lego approach is looking better all the time wallet wise.

Hell, I can even buy one NHT Three at a time (any break-in disadvantage to this?)

The maven is a classic two-channel stereo receiver designed for the music lover. We chose a select group of technologically advanced components to create this powerful 100 watt/channel receiver with 24-bit/96kHz upsampling and video switching. music hall’s maven is the perfect complement to the maverick Super Audio CD player.

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

Features:

• 24-bit/96kHz Upsampling
• Crystal CS8420 sample rate converter w/Burr-Brown PCM1738 DAC. Processes all standard digital audio signal rates from 32kHz to 96kHz
• Digitally-controlled analogue audio volume control IC by Texas Instruments, PGA 2311
• 100 watt/channel amplifier
• A, B, and A+B speaker selection
• AM/FM tuner with 99 presets and Sleep Timer.
• Two digital inputs: 1 optical/1 coaxial
• 5 analog inputs; 3 with video switching
• Pre-amp out/subwoofer connection
• 5-way insulated gold speaker binding posts
• High quality gold input jacks
• Full remote-control operation
• Heavy-duty detachable power cord
• Dimensions W17 x D16.5 x H5 in.
• Weight: 43 lbs. pkg.

US Suggested Retail
$1495.00

Copyright Music Hall 2001 - 2005

I have a question. If I buy a stereo set of NHT Three's a single speaker at at time, due to buget, will I suffer anything, or should they allways be run in unison for matching or breaking-in factors? Will I harm the set in any way musically if I buy one now, and another a few months to a year down the road? Or does it not matter at all?

BTW, thanks to everyone who responds to my posts ahead of time, your help is invaluable. Us NHT and NAD fans got to stick together! (Mac fans? Anyone?). And thanks to NHT for teaching us all how to count! How many times did I type out "Three" or "Four" in my short time here?

Sorry I am posting so much, I had alot to cover. After all, you guys had 30 pages of posts, I'm just getting here! Oh look! the NHT Three's just came out! Perfect timing!

I am surprised the Four is not out though. I guess I could wait a bit if I really really wanted them. I am still leaning towards the Three's over the Four's. Money being the biggest factor. Is it just me or does the "foot bars" on the new Four's look dumb? The ST4's "foot bars" look better IMHO. The biggest advantage of the Four's (To me) is the "Built-in stands".

I need to start hearing Three's/Four's I think. The Fours would be very expensive to just try out! Whereas the Three, I could order a single speaker for 400 dollars or less, and give it an in house audition. Sell it off on Ebay if I don't like it. I sure somebody will need a center channel! Or I guess I could try a Three, then buy the Fours, and keep that Three in the closet for surround sound someday. For now, it's all about stereo for me. I feel that I would rather buy the best two speakers I can, rather than 5 or more lesser ones. Then you add in the additional cost of the amps, etc. My wallet would rather save for a phat projector and kick ass stereo. I guess it's just me. The mass market seemingly just wants subpar surround sound.

Any chance that a NHT Three US Tour can commence? I would be in line for sure. How do I get in on that?

For now, I was going to do analog from the iMac. But thats just untill I can afford a decent DAC, as it does do digital out. Baby steps, my wallet is fragile. One nice thing is that Apple hardware tends to be of higher quality parts seemingly, and less noisy on the analog audio out than most PCs I tried.


Oh yeah... Although it's predominately used for stereo, I went ahead and went with a complete home theater setup, so it didn't really occur to me that a stereo receiver might not have digital in.

You could buy one of NAD's home theater receivers; perhaps a T743. Plenty of power (particularly in stereo mode), built-in DAC, bass management if you add a sub later... for less than an NAD receiver or integrated + DAC.

For now, I was going to do analog from the iMac. But thats just untill I can afford a decent DAC, as it does do digital out. Baby steps, my wallet is fragile. One nice thing is that Apple hardware tends to be of higher quality parts seemingly, and less noisy on the analog audio out than most PCs I tried.


Oh yeah... Although it's predominately used for stereo, I went ahead and went with a complete home theater setup, so it didn't really occur to me that a stereo receiver might not have digital in.

You could buy one of NAD's home theater receivers; perhaps a T743. Plenty of power (particularly in stereo mode), built-in DAC, bass management if you add a sub later... for less than an NAD receiver or integrated + DAC.

And yes, there are those of us around who are NHT/NAD/Apple fans...

Oh yeah... Although it's predominately used for stereo, I went ahead and went with a complete home theater setup, so it didn't really occur to me that a stereo receiver might not have digital in.

You could buy one of NAD's home theater receivers; perhaps a T743. Plenty of power (particularly in stereo mode), built-in DAC, bass management if you add a sub later... for less than an NAD receiver or integrated + DAC.

*High Fives All Apple/NAD/NHT Fans* !

Hmmm. Are the NAD home theater receivers as good sounding as the NAD intergrated amps? They say more circuity detracts from the sonic purity. But a NAD home theater amp does leave me open for surround sound upgrading, even if that's quite a ways off for me. And also takes care of my DAC problem. Then the real question is this. Is the built-in NAD DAC as good an option as my other options, factoring in the price performace ratio. I guess your right, a NAD DAC home theater amp sounds best for me (as a NAD fan), even if I want my dollars to maximize stereo right now, I do need a DAC for the iMac ... Research Time!

Plus, I wonder if my 20" Intel iMac even does surround sound? Now where is that Google link ... ahhh here it is ...

*CLICK*

Ah yes, it does include optical Dolby Digital out. Though I may need a special kind of optical cable or wire adapter, but that's ok. I am unsure if it's already decoded Dolby Digital audio or if the audio needs a Dolby Digital Decoder. No big deal, as any Nad home theater amp would have one too. But WOW. This info was harder to find than it should be. You would think that a 20" widescreen LCD iMac with a Dolby Digital out would promote this very clearly ...

Now I need to figure out which NAD home theater amp is best for me. Man, this is like ... work or something!

I've owned the 320bbe and 752 and 753 HT receivers. While not in my system at the same time, they all sound incredible. I preferred the 752/753 because of bass mgmt, the great DACs, etc.

If you don't have a decent NAD dealer there are authorized dealers on the net that discount quite a bit. I purchased both units from them, needed warranty work on the 753 and since they were authorized it wasn't an issue.

Are the NAD home theater receivers as good sounding as the NAD intergrated amps? They say more circuity detracts from the sonic purity. But a NAD home theater amp does leave me open for surround sound upgrading, even if that's quite a ways off for me. And also takes care of my DAC problem. Then the real question is this. Is the built-in NAD DAC as good an option as my other options, factoring in the price performace ratio. I guess your right, a NAD DAC Home Theater Amp sounds best for me as a NAD (and movie) fan, even if I want my dollars to maximize stereo right now (especialy since I need a DAC for the iMac)

I'll let somebody else speak about the DAC and the integrated vs. home theater, but I'm plenty pleased with my setup. I use an Airport Express rather than direct digital connection from the computer, but other than that, we're trying to incorporate similar things.

Ah yes, it does include optical Dolby Digital out. Though I may need a special kind of optical cable or wire adapter, but that's ok. I am unsure if it's already decoded Dolby Digital audio or if the audio needs a Dolby Digital Decoder. No big deal, as any Nad home theater amp would have one too. But WOW. This info was harder to find than it should be. You would think that a 20" widescreen LCD iMac with a Dolby Digital out would promote this very clearly ...

iMac outputs the umodified DD (and probably DTS as well) digital stream, which the receiver then decodes. If it was decoding the DD, it would have 5.1 analog out, like most sound cards with surround processing.

The adapter's cheap; uner $5, or you can buy an optical cable with it built in.

Now I need to figure out which NAD home theater amp is best for me. Man, this is like ... work or something!

For your current situation, I think the 743 would be fine. I have a 753 that I use with 5.1 and stereo, and I doubt I ever really push it that hard. But if you want to future proof against moving into a bigger place and filling out your surround sound, you might consider stepping up a level or two. But the 743 is reasonably comparable in pricing to the integrateds that your'e looking at, particularly if you can get a dealer to give you $100-150 off.

I'll let somebody else speak about the DAC and the integrated vs. home theater, but I'm plenty pleased with my setup. I use an Airport Express rather than direct digital connection from the computer, but other than that, we're trying to incorporate similar things.

Can you comment on how your using the Airport Express, I get confussed over that thing's capabilities.


iMac outputs the umodified DD (and probably DTS as well) digital stream, which the receiver then decodes. If it was decoding the DD, it would have 5.1 analog out, like most sound cards with surround processing.

That appears to be the case, as the only way to get the surrond sound is through the optical out.


For your current situation, I think the 743 would be fine. I have a 753 that I use with 5.1 and stereo, and I doubt I ever really push it that hard. But if you want to future proof against moving into a bigger place and filling out your surround sound, you might consider stepping up a level or two. But the 743 is reasonably comparable in pricing to the integrateds that your'e looking at, particularly if you can get a dealer to give you $100-150 off.

Thanks for all the help Matt. I am not sure I will even get the extra speakers for now, I might still just get a stereo set. I am 90% sure I will just get a middle road NAD home theater amp, just so I can use the optical connection to my iMac. Then I can get the NHT Three's or Four's. Still researching ...

I've owned the 320bbe and 752 and 753 HT receivers. While not in my system at the same time, they all sound incredible. I preferred the 752/753 because of bass mgmt, the great DACs, etc.

If you don't have a decent NAD dealer there are authorized dealers on the net that discount quite a bit. I purchased both units from them, needed warranty work on the 753 and since they were authorized it wasn't an issue.

Thanks for the quality vote for the NAD home theater amps. Sounds like they are right up there with NADs intergrated ones. Anyone else out there that can share a comparson story between the NAD intergrated and home theater amps, for stereo music amplications?

Can you comment on how your using the Airport Express, I get confussed over that thing's capabilities.

Yeah. It basically acts as a wireless optical out for iTunes. I turn something on in iTunes, it radios the digital signal to the Airport Express, and the Airport Express outputs PCM through an optical cable to my receiver.

Essentially the same as what you're looking at, except it only works in iTunes (well, there is a hack, but there's a slight delay, so it doesn't work well for video...)

Thanks for all the help Matt. I am not sure I will even get the extra speakers for now, I might still just get a stereo set. So maybe I will just get a middle road NAD home theater amp, just so I can use the optical connection to my iMac. Then I can get the NHT Three's or Four's. Still researching ...

Sure. Your proposed setup is similar enough to mine that I thought you might benefit from what I've learned in putting it together. I think it's entirely acceptable to start out with a stereo set and add on to it. That's what I did. Started with an Onkyo home theater receiver and 2 SB3s, added SB1s, then an SB3, then an SW12, upgraded to an NAD T753, and then traded in all the satellites for their Classic equivalents and the SW12 for a U1... It's taken a while and a lot of money to get to its current state, but it sounded good at every point along the way.

There are also things a three way can do wrong that a two way won't. It is all dependent upon the speaker designer's talent. From what I heard I prefer vocals on the XL and Ref 1 over the Three, and they are both two way designs (and ported :eek: ). The number of drivers does not mean it is a better speaker (nor does a port). There is a lot more to it than that. My Sig 850s (3-way) are better at vocals than my Refs or XLs. I'd rate them as Three (3-way)<Ref/XL(2-way)<Sig 850(3-way).


Hey, sure, but you know, like I said, when I think of the term "giant killer", I don't necessarily think of "giants" as being "the best" (if they were, how would they get killed? ;) ). I think of them as being the popular known "references". If NHT can build an exceptional high-end monitor for $800, certainly other companies can do it for $1500. But *most* companies don't. Especially the popular brands - they don't have to do it, they're selling on the name. The Signature 850 makes sense, with the 4" aluminum mid as a speaker that could match and even outdo the Three/Four in at least one or two areas. I've never heard them. Of course, the Four should very well outdo the 850 in deep bass. I'm not a fan of ring radiator tweeters, however. Too soft, not enough dispersion, at least those I've heard.

So, all I'm saying is that there's a big margin of error here. I had a guy that swore that B&W 703s are way better than Xd (and the Threes of course) on Thursday, then I had another guy who came just after auditioning the 801 Diamonds and was convinced that the Three/Twelve combo outperformed them in most every way. However, I *will* get some really surprising trades for these and I'm going to endeavor to put them up against every speaker I can get my hands on, especially ones that aren't sold here. Could they be better? Sure. I bet if NHT did really expensive 4th order crossovers (in what external box?!?) I bet they'd do even better. I forwarded a few comments on areas for improvement to NHT. And if the speakers cost $2500, I'd be pushing for some tweaks, but they're not and I feel like they're going to make a lot of people very, very happy ;)

Could they be better? Sure. I bet if NHT did really expensive 4th order crossovers (in what external box?!?) I bet they'd do even better. I forwarded a few comments on areas for improvement to NHT. Threes with dual woofers & better crossovers would be the giant killer if not the giant; surely they realize this & are working on a solution. Hopefully, the evolution replacements won't be announced prematurely ala classics.

For you doubters, I have never heard a NAD/NHT system that didn't sound excellent; some combinations of these two sound even better. Try to say that about any other setup for even close to this price range; ain't no way. :cool:

Receivers I had a good look at the NAD Home Theater Receivers (To mate with a stereo set of NHT Classic Three's or Four's, plus I need the built-in DAC), and I noticed a few things.

The lineup consists of:

T743
T753
T763
T773

The T743 and T753 does not list a High Current Holmgren Toroidal Power Transformer as a feature. That's something both my old NAD integrated amps had (The C370 and C372). This feature is only on the T773 and T763. I wonder how important that is to that NAD sound I know so well. I have never heard low end NADs, only the C370 and C372. Both of which I bought on reviews and faith alone, through the mail, as there were no dealers around.

The T773 does not list Stereo Bypass as a feature, but all the others do. Since this is the flagship model, what gives? Is this a reason to go with the T763 over the T773?

At this point, I feel safe with the T763 (Once I hit the T763's 130 WPC stereo mode, and the 100WPC 6-channel modes, I feel pretty future proof on power). The T773 seems to have allot I don't need (Just a little more power and an extra channel apparently), I can't find a reason to go up to the T773, other than to say I have the flagship model. Anyone want to comment on the T773 vs the T763? Any major difference in sound quality? What am I paying extra for in the T773? Does one have better or more recent technology? I guess I could step down to the T753, but then I lose the High Current Holmgren Toroidal Power feature, so I dunno.

Would the NAD T763 be enough to fully power the Four's (130 WPC Stereo)? Would the NAD T753 be enough to fully power the Four's (90 WPC Stereo)? I am currently thinking I want to buy the NAD T763 with a stereo set of the NHT Four's, and call it a day (Or a year, to my wallet). Surround Sound will have to wait until like 2008 (If I do that at all), but at least I will have the power to do it, without upgrading the receiver. I will most likely get a projector for my iMac before I would get the other speakers. And with the T763, I am in upper end NAD world, with a DAC for my iMac. Now, can anyone lend me $3000.00 to get started? Anyone? No? Well, at least I have a goal to strive for this summer. Of course, I could cut costs allot by going with the Three's, but then I need speaker stands, and they don't look like sexy pillars of Onyx. Please, no gutter jokes. This is serious hi-if stuff here. Man, those Four's have ugly foot bars. Well, everything sounds the same when the lights are off!

Seriously, the Four's look great in the pictures. Do the Four's sound that much better than the Three's? Oh, I forgot, nobody knows! When are they coming out again?

I think the perfect setup I'm aiming for would consist of the following:

An Intel iMac or Intel Powermac
A projector for my iMac, one good for movies
2 500GB Hard Drives to act as my ripped music and ripped DVD servers
Apple Remotes/Keyspan Remotes/Apple's Bluetooth Keyboard, to serve as easy chair controls
A NAD T763 Receiver
A set of stereo NHT Four speakers
Cables and crap that I will never really notice improving my audio
The End!

I guess there is something in the mindset of NHT afficionados that also gravitates them toward Macs. I have also used Airport Express to stream audio, with all my CDs now encoded in Apple Lossless. While the sound is generally great, I'm going to go with a dedicated Mac Mini in my new HT, with a direct optical connection to the receiver/amp that will power my NHT Evolution speakers (M6/U2/L5). Less potential for dropouts which, while quite rare (unlike in the first iterations of this technology) are annoying nonetheless. The FrontRow interface will also be an improvement (for rapid access of tunes and playlists) over the old way of accessing iTunes directly.

I guess there is something in the mindset of NHT afficionados that also gravitates them toward Macs. I have also used Airport Express to stream audio, with all my CDs now encoded in Apple Lossless. While the sound is generally great, I'm going to go with a dedicated Mac Mini in my new HT, with a direct optical connection to the receiver/amp that will power my NHT Evolution speakers (M6/U2/L5). Less potential for dropouts which, while quite rare (unlike in the first iterations of this technology) are annoying nonetheless. The FrontRow interface will also be an improvement (for rapid access of tunes and playlists) over the old way of accessing iTunes directly.

The iMac has a better video card, if your plans include HD video somehow. Go for the 17" or 20"! But stay away from the current generation of Macbookpro laptops, I read bad things on the internet. Give Apple another generation to work out the kinks. Stay away from the old G4 and G5 Macs, Universal everything is coming soon. The new Intel Mini is cool, but only when maxed out, and then its too close to the price of the Intel 17" iMac for me. And it does not have nothing on my 20" iMac Intel 2Ghz Core Duo. My hard drive speed is tons better too than the Mini's, not to mention capacity. But if your looking to ditch the screen, the Mini is the only way to go until the Intel PowerMac's arrive this winter. Plus the Mini is small and all. And DAM, that powerplug on my old G4 Mini came off too easy though, I hope they strengthened that connection grip with the Intel versions. Very Happy with my iMac so far. Get the Mini direct from Apple with at least a 1GB of RAM. You should get 2GB, the thing is too hard to open later. And with Apple direct, you can configure other things too.

Well I finally heard the Threes, and as much as I hate to admit it, I thought The Revel M12s sounded better in a head to head comparison with Marantz electronics for both and volume adjusted for the efficiency/sensitivity difference between the two pairs.

Now admittedly, the Threes were not "broke in" nearly as much as the M12 display models if you subscribe to that theory, but .... :( :mad:

So I hear that 50WPC (if they come from NAD) is enough for the NHT Three's. What amout of NAD Power do I need for the Four's?

You guys know what, I still don't know what to get, BUT I know what I am choosing from. I will ether get the NHT Three's or Four's, and I will get one of the NAD T7XX receivers. Finances will play the ultimate role in choosing I'm sure.

I'm just going to download the season finale of Smallville and not think about it for a while!

Well I finally heard the Threes, and as much as I hate to admit it, I thought The Revel M12s sounded better in a head to head comparison with Marantz electronics for both and volume adjusted for the efficiency/sensitivity difference between the two pairs.

Now admittedly, the Threes were not "broke in" nearly as much as the M12 display models if you subscribe to that theory, but .... :( :mad:
Could you describe the differences that you heard? In what way did the M12 sound better? No doubt Kevin Voecks is a great designer, so it's no surprise that the M12 sounds good.

Threes with dual woofers & better crossovers would be the giant killer if not the giant; surely they realize this & are working on a solution. Hopefully, the evolution replacements won't be announced prematurely ala classics.

I'm working on them. Like water on sandstone, I'm working on them. A floor-standing, dual woofer version of the Three would sell like hotcakes.

You guys know what, I still don't know what to get, BUT I know what I am choosing from. I will ether get the NHT Three's or Four's, and I will get one of the NAD T7XX receivers. Finances will play the ultimate role in choosing I'm sure.!

If you won't do surround sound or a sub for years, I wouldn't buy a surround receiver to run the speakers. Just get a C320 for the Threes or a C372 for the Fours. Buying a surround receiver for "someday" is like buying a computer and putting it in a closet until you need it. A good used DAC might be a good addition though. The Music Fidelity looks like a nice piece - I've been trying to convince NHT to build something similar, like a C720BEE with digital inputs, some DSP and some basic video switching.

I guess there is something in the mindset of NHT afficionados that also gravitates them toward Macs.

We're all rebels!!! High correlation of VW owners too for some reason, at least around here.

If you won't do surround sound or a sub for years, I wouldn't buy a surround receiver to run the speakers. Just get a C320 for the Threes or a C372 for the Fours. Buying a surround receiver for "someday" is like buying a computer and putting it in a closet until you need it. A good used DAC might be a good addition though. The Music Fidelity looks like a nice piece - I've been trying to convince NHT to build something similar, like a C720BEE with digital inputs, some DSP and some basic video switching.

But the sound is coming straight from my iMac, so it's get a DAC to use the iMac optical out (Or a NAD with a DAC, like the NAD home theater receivers), or use the analog audio out, and iMac analog is only so good right? The only reason I want the NAD home theater receiver is for the DAC. Trust me, I prefer the intergrated's and simple setup of stereo. However, an intergrated NAD has no DAC, and DACs are expensive. Crap. Why can't NAD just do an intergrated with a digital-in. I guess I could think about just getting the C325bee (New Model Baby), and the Three's, then get the DAC next year, and suffer through a year with iMac analog. Otherwise, it just gets too expensive. I will choose between the C325bee and the C372, and look into the DACs, at least that way I can build it up more slowly, and get the power I want, and possibly a better DAC. Then there is the choice between the Four's and the Three's. I will see if Musical Fidelity has anything I could use, I have been to the website many times in the past. MF stuff runs a pretty coin though, and also, do the tube based DAC's (MF stuff has them often) have a shorter lifespan? I don't like the idea of replacing tubes or wondering how long that tube will last. That's why I always go solid state. That, and tubes are stupid expensive.

I'm just saying that if you're going to by a surround receiver, plan on using the sub, center, rears as soon as possible to get all of your money's worth. Of course, it's amazing how fast your start to allocate money for the next step once you start :)

The T743 is actually a very good receiver, even as a stereo one and I use it to demo the AZ/Ten combo in stereo.

That seems to be the choice, have a few extra channels to waste, or buy an expensive DAC...

We're all rebels!!! High correlation of VW owners too for some reason, at least around here.

Crap, I must've missed a meeting, I went with Audi!! :p

Crap, I must've missed a meeting, I went with Audi!! :p

Same thing :p

I lost my A4 in the divorce and got stuck with the aging Jetta III. Bitch sold it 6 months later too.

I really messed up.
I bought a Pontiac GTO AND a Cadillac SRX. I am a 2 time loser.
Maybe I should be in the Revel or Ascend thread. LOL.

ANYone know the release date for the NHT Four's?????????????????? Are they out?

Also, what does anyone think of the Benchmark DAC1 (The Silver Faced Model). That product seems to be ideal, as I can buy that first, it's a DAC (which I need for the iMac), and I can use it with some nice headphones (which I want anyway on the side, for those times I can't rock out), as it has a built in headphone amp (I guess a good one), get decent high end sound, and then save for my NADc372/NHT Four's. In the meantime, I still get some decent audio. And I end up with my much needed DAC. Whatyathink?

I'm thinking about getting the Benchmark DAC1 and nice set of powered studio monitors for my computer setup. However, for the price of the DAC1 you can get an NAD T753 AV receiver.

ANYone know the release date for the NHT Four's?????????????????? Are they out?

They're getting 100 pair in next week. If you want a set, you'd better find a dealer and put a deposit down and make sure they sell you the first pair in before they put them on demo. I suspect they won't be caught up on backorders until next month :(

I bought a Pontiac GTO AND a Cadillac SRX

The Caddy seems pretty nice.

The SRX has been a great vehicle. V6, base. Drives like a car.
And handles well whether in the twisties or at 90 on the highway.

But the GTO is the shiznet. The car mags missed the whole point of this
car. It is waaay better than any midsize performance car GM has ever produced.

With all this talk of the Threes I guess it is time for us to obsess about when the
Fours will be out. Anyone? Anyone?

The iMac has a better video card, if your plans include HD video somehow. Go for the 17" or 20"! But stay away from the current generation of Macbookpro laptops, I read bad things on the internet. Give Apple another generation to work out the kinks. Stay away from the old G4 and G5 Macs, Universal everything is coming soon. The new Intel Mini is cool, but only when maxed out, and then its too close to the price of the Intel 17" iMac for me. And it does not have nothing on my 20" iMac Intel 2Ghz Core Duo. My hard drive speed is tons better too than the Mini's, not to mention capacity. But if your looking to ditch the screen, the Mini is the only way to go until the Intel PowerMac's arrive this winter. Plus the Mini is small and all. And DAM, that powerplug on my old G4 Mini came off too easy though, I hope they strengthened that connection grip with the Intel versions. Very Happy with my iMac so far. Get the Mini direct from Apple with at least a 1GB of RAM. You should get 2GB, the thing is too hard to open later. And with Apple direct, you can configure other things too.

You're preaching to the choir--though I concur with all of your recommendations. I'm an academic Mac user, and already have several other machines at home and at work, and have been an avid Apple user since the Apple II+. The Mini will be dedicated to the HT, and it will primarily be used for playing lossless music through the NHT system, with some occasional web browsing and iChat (on a front projection system--should be cool). I see no point (right now) at using it as a primary source for digital video, so the overall limitations of the Mini don't really concern me. When and if things change in that department, I haven't shelled out enough dough to mind upgrading the HT computer.

If NHT can build an exceptional high-end monitor for $800, certainly other companies can do it for $1500. But *most* companies don't. Especially the popular brands - they don't have to do it, they're selling on the name. The Signature 850 makes sense, with the 4" aluminum mid as a speaker that could match and even outdo the -----------------------Three/Four in at least one or two areas.

To be fair regarding price the Ref 1 is $1100 with a tube amp (SP3) that you can flip for $500, and it is a better speaker IMO. Other companies make speakers as good as or better than the Three at $600 (M12), $800, $1500, etc. Price means nothing in regards to how a speaker sounds.

"could match and even outdo the Three/Four in at least one or two areas". [snip] So, all I'm saying is that there's a big margin of error here

IMO, having actually heard both, they are a better speaker than the three in all areas. Those comments you made, without having ever heard the Sig 850, make no sense to make. If you have not heard a speaker it is absurd to make a claim such as you did. It seems you are basing it upon generalizations of the design and drivers, and as you have to know there is much more to it than that. Give me the same drivers and parts and the speakers will sound like B?ze.

The Three is good, but not that good to be making claims like that. Even if the Three were terrible, it still is not right to make the claim you did without having heard the other speaker.

I agree with the "margin of error" comment - speaker preferences are just that, preferences, and there is a huge difference between what person A likes vs B.

Listen before comparing. Specs/design/price/etc mean nothing, nor does a brand line (the Sig 850 sounds nothing like the 750, 550, 250, 150).

I'm thinking about getting the Benchmark DAC1 and nice set of powered studio monitors for my computer setup. However, for the price of the DAC1 you can get an NAD T753 AV receiver.

Yes, the NAD T753 is nice, but I doubt the DAC's in it are as good as the Benchmark DAC1. That Benchmark got me thinking, what if I just want high end Headphones sometimes, without the bulky equipment. Say, toting your MacBookPro on vacation, where it would be nice to have a DAC with a built in headphone amp. Anyone know of what quality the headphone amp parts are? As good as a high end stand alone?

So if I get that, I could use it in applications without a full sized amp, in addition to using it with my stereo. But if it's built into the AMP, then you can't do stuff like that later on. And I think that the C372 is nicer than the NAD home theater receivers sound wise. At the very least, the C372 must have less heat as it is only two channels. So I can have more freedom/choices with the Benchmark. But the Benchmark path is more costly.

It's still a hard choice...

To be fair regarding price the Ref 1 is $1100 with a tube amp (SP3) that you can flip for $500, and it is a better speaker IMO. Other companies make speakers as good as or better than the Three at $600 (M12), $800, $1500, etc. Price means nothing in regards to how a speaker sounds.

Yes, but one person's opinion doesn't make any product better or worse. I'm talking about design elements here. And, of course, it will really come down to what the market says. You don't like B&W, but more people like B&W than Rockets, so that would mean that B&Ws are superior to Rockets. At least, that's if we gauge things the way you want to gauge them.

IMO, having actually heard both, they are a better speaker than the three in all areas. Those comments you made, without having ever heard the Sig 850, make no sense to make.

Neither does the comment "better in all areas". There are a lot of "areas". No well designed speaker is "better" than another is "all areas". It's simply not possible. I think the Three is better than the M6 in *most* areas. Certainly not all. Even NHT's Xd is not better than the Three in *all* areas, just most of them. If you couldn't hear an area where the Three's outdid these other speakers, it seems you're letting your own biases get the best of you.

It seems you are basing it upon generalizations of the design and drivers, and as you have to know there is much more to it than that.

I'm simply acknowledging that driver/crossover choices will have somewhat predictable effects on distortion and dispersion.

The Three is good, but not that good to be making claims like that. Even if the Three were terrible, it still is not right to make the claim you did without having heard the other speaker.

Making what claims? That they will do some things better because of design? Look, I have one guy who says that the Threes are better than the B&W 801Ds and another says they aren't. Who's right? Neither? Both? In the absence of agreement, I'd rather talk about design and what the pros and cons are.

Listen before comparing. Specs/design/price/etc mean nothing, nor does a brand line (the Sig 850 sounds nothing like the 750, 550, 250, 150).

Actually, design (and execution) means a *lot*. It's not a terribly great predictor of how well it will be liked by anybody, but you can get a really good idea of what some of the pluses and minuses will be.

BTW, since I opened up another pair of Twos, I got a chance to do a bit of A/Bing. The Threes are a huge upgrade over the Twos. The Twos sound fine, but when you turn on the Threes, *wow*. Totally different league. Much more detail, more presence, deeper bass, a bunch of other things. Kinda depressing, actually.

Neither does the comment "better in all areas". There are a lot of "areas". No well designed speaker is "better" than another is "all areas". It's simply not possible. I think the Three is better than the M6 in *most* areas. Certainly not all. Even NHT's Xd is not better than the Three in *all* areas, just most of them. If you couldn't hear an area where the Three's outdid these other speakers, it seems you're letting your own biases get the best of you.

Making what claims? That they will do some things better because of design? Look, I have one guy who says that the Threes are better than the B&W 801Ds and another says they aren't. Who's right? Neither? Both? In the absence of agreement, I'd rather talk about design and what the pros and cons are.

Actually, design (and execution) means a *lot*. It's not a terribly great predictor of how well it will be liked by anybody, but you can get a really good idea of what some of the pluses and minuses will be.

From the entire frequency spectrum, soundstage and imaging I prefer the 850 Sig vs what I heard in the store. I'm sure in an A/B comparison the Three might do better in an area, but it didn't seem like it. It is possible for something to be better than something else in 'all areas'.
FYI: My 850s are for sale. There is always something "better". I'm not a Rocket fanboy (it might sound like it, but I'm not. I dislike the majority of the line).

What claims? "could match and even outdo the Three/Four in at least one or two areas". That is a claim that the Three is better than the 850 in two or three areas. How do you know? Why can't the 850 be better across the board? You have not heard it so it is rediculous to make a statement. You are basing that off of design, and I think that is crazy. Best Buy has some speakers designed just like the Three or 850. I guess they are on par sound wise with them. Actually they might be, I haven't heard them so I'm not going to make the statement that they are worse.

BTW, since I opened up another pair of Twos, I got a chance to do a bit of A/Bing. The Threes are a huge upgrade over the Twos. The Twos sound fine, but when you turn on the Threes, *wow*. Totally different league. Much more detail, more presence, deeper bass, a bunch of other things. Kinda depressing, actually.

I agree 100%. Save up $200 and get the Threes.

From the entire frequency spectrum, soundstage and imaging I prefer the 850 Sig vs what I heard in the store. I'm sure in an A/B comparison the Three might do better in an area, but it didn't seem like it.

Maybe you should be more thorough and A/B the speakers rather than listening to them in different rooms at different times with different systems and different music? :) What I heard at CES wet my appetite, but gave me nothing but impressions. Hearing them side by side in an A/B situation is what is amazing.

It is possible for something to be better than something else in 'all areas'.

Possible, but about as unlikely as winning the lottery. I supposed if you so broadly define areas as "treble" or "soundstaging", maybe. But put the Rockets and the Threes on the test bench and you'll find out how wrong that statement is. Very wrong.

What claims? "could match and even outdo the Three/Four in at least one or two areas". That is a claim that the Three is better than the 850 in two or three areas. How do you know? Why can't the 850 be better across the board? You have not heard it so it is rediculous to make a statement. You are basing that off of design, and I think that is crazy.

Kevin, shall we go take a course in logic and language? I may have implied it, you certainly inferred it, but technically, I didn't say it :) However, do you don't think the Four goes lower in the bass than the 850? It does. What about having better treble extension? They do. What about having better treble dispersion? Guarantee they do. What about measurable noise midrange noise coming from the ports? NHT doesn't have that.

Why can't the 850 be better across the board? Because that's how reality works. I'm sure it's a great speaker, but let's not get carried away. Overall performance is different from "better across the board" which is more like a fantasy. Also, I'm assuming that the 850s measure substantially better than the 750s did.

Best Buy has some speakers designed just like the Three or 850. I guess they are on par sound wise with them. Actually they might be, I haven't heard them so I'm not going to make the statement that they are worse.

How could Best Buy have speakers that are designed "just like" two completely different designs? The Rockets and Threes have almost nothing in common with each other except for some aluminum.

I'm sorry to keep giving you hell, but you're saying that speakers you own are better "in every way" than the Threes because you heard them in a completely unscientific way somewhere else, then are critiquing me for talking about basic physics and good speaker design and how that relates to performance. If you're going to make useless subjective statements, at least take the time to A/B them so they come across as marginally reasonable. I just sent the Threes home for the weekend with a young B&W fan so he could learn a little bit more about his Nautilus 804s. He thinks his 804s spank the NHTs, but I kept talking physics until he got curious enough to A/B them. One of the things I've always liked about NHT, love'em or not, is that they are very good at pointing out technical flaws in other speakers. The Threes are very much in the spirit of the 3.3 in this regard.

I was initially looking at 3 x SB2's across the front but now thinking of getting either the Two or Three. I have the HK AVR-240. Is this good enough to power 3 x Three's or 3 x Two's for L-C-R? What does the 6 ohms impedance of the Two's mean vs the 8 ohms of the Three's?

Thanks,
alinski..

Edit:
Wanted to add that I am using the H100 subwoofer. Center bookshelf will be placed above the TV in an entertainment center. L-R bookshelves will be placed on stands.

I think the Three is a much better speaker than the Two.
The Two is more polite while the Three has the correct midrange and overall balance.
Perhaps NHT is charging $1-200 too much for the Two.

The Three is the better value.

I was initially looking at 3 x SB2's across the front but now thinking of getting either the Two or Three. I have the HK AVR-240. Is this good enough to power 3 x Three's or 3 x Two's for L-C-R? What does the 6 ohms impedance of the Two's mean vs the 8 ohms of the Three's?

Thanks,
alinski..

Edit:
Wanted to add that I am using the H100 subwoofer. Center bookshelf will be placed above the TV in an entertainment center. L-R bookshelves will be placed on stands.

Alinksi - yes that rec will work. Listen to everyone here; even kendrid & alimentall agree on at least one thing - if you're going for nht, get the threes. If you can't afford them now, wait until you can.

I didn't hear the Threes before deciding on the M6/U2/L5 combination, but did audition the Twos. I was not very impressed. Fine budget speaker, perhaps, but not even close to the T5s I heard at the same time. Perhaps the Threes are a reasonable replacement (or even better) than the M5 or M6, but I would have been very disappointed with Twos being the backbone of a HT.

I see Kendrid and John go at it about if the Three's/Four's are better than this, or many time better than that, or not. Having not heard the NHT Three's/Four's yet, but having owned (in the past) the NHT Superone's/SuperTwo's/SB3's/ST4's, I can say a few things.

One, that NHT's speaker finish's look stylish, and FEEL better than most speakers I have seen for even double my price range. And yes, I have been to high end audio stores, and seen what is out there. NHT's might be fingerprint magnets, but they are solid and good looking. You may not like the black onyx look, but I think most people do. That counts for something, as I am a Mac fan, and I love stylish products. I go out of my way to find them. Of the top of my head, I can't think of any speakers under 2 thousand dollars that look/feel as good as the NHT Four's or ST4's.

Two, you may or may not like the NHT sound, which I would say is more neutral than emotional (but therefore more accurate and therefore possibly more detailed, as the sound is not as colored to be warm or sound like something it's not), but no one can say they are not good speakers for the price. They may be many times better, or just simply well worth the money they cost, but NHT's consumer speakers (the range the Classic series now resides in, and it's predecessors) always had/have great performance per dollar ratio, compared to what you can get for the same price. Then you factor in the looks and build quality, and you have winning formula. You have to ask yourself how much more are you willing to drop on speakers, and are they going to sound THAT much better than the Three's/Four's. Because from my experience, they certainly won't have a better finish.

The last speakers I did own were the Von. S. VR-1s. I sold them because at the time I needed the money, and for a few other reasons. They sounded great, but a touch too light on the bass for me to keep them. At the time, I believed them to sound overall better than the SB3s, but not THAT much better. In retrospect, the SB3s had better bass slam, and more of it than the VR1s, but the SB3s was harder to enjoy at lower volume levels somehow. Like I had to turn it up a touch louder for the magic to kick in. But the VR-1s had a big flaw for me. They had this finish that bubbled up on me in a few spots. Like it was separating. I'm like WTF, These retail for $1000.00! I didn't feel as though a new pair of VR-1s would have a better finish unless they changed it completely.

On a side note, today I was seriously considering simply getting the NAD c325bee and the NHT Threes (The combo would cost me very little compared to the NHT Fours and a NAD C763/or/C372 + DAC). Screw the stands for now, screw the DAC for now, and just use my iMac Analog out (instead of the iMac digital out). How bad could it be next to my crappy sounding Logitech Z-2300's, which are currently cranking out my music and movies. I just want good sound now, and I am tired of saving. Mac analog out's are much less noisy than PC counterparts most times anyway. Then I could sell the C325bee later, and upgrade to a C763 (which has a DAC) + 3 more Threes for surround sound.

I was never really big on surround sound, as I felt that I would rather just pump all the money into a better stereo only setup, but a part of me wants a decent surround setup for a change. Although I do like the built-in speaker stands in the Fours, the Fours are 1800.00 retail, which is a pretty coin. Instead, it would be interesting to try and buy 5 Threes, and a NAD C763 home theater receiver, no sub, and just run a moderate surround sound setup. I might be able to do that for around 3 grand delivered if I got a deal. Compared to buying a set of the Fours + C372 + DAC for a stereo only setup, it's about the same money more or less. That again would be screwing the stands. Where are those milk crates ...

Perhaps I will just build my own stands. Store bought stands suck unless you pay for the super expensive ones.

One time I had this idea that I would build these speaker table stands thingys with media shelves built in (with a back, like a mini tower bookshelf). I could put my speakers on top (built to tweeter ear level of course), and my DVDs/CDs on the shelves. Of course, that was before I decided to put everything on my hard drives. Books perhaps. Magazines? I could always buy a few nicknacks ...

Because from my experience, they certainly won't have a better finish.

Sort of "Urushi-like".

Sort of "Urushi-like".

Many layers of Lacquer I believe. Piano Black Gloss Finish? Seals up the MDF, makes the speaker feel like a block of onyx, and that kind of finish would never separate on me like the VR-1's finish did on me (unless the whole speaker fell apart). Mind you, The VR-1s still looked great, but they had several spots on them that carried flaws, or bubbled up. Solidly built otherwise. The imperfections didn't stand out glaringly, but I would always think about it when I looked at them, or moved them around. Not the primary reason I sold them, but a good reason to consider the finishes a little more when speaker shopping. Between being too light on the bass for me, and the finish issues, I would not buy the VR-1s again. I would rather try something else, buy the SB3s/ST4s again on clearance, or try the new NHT Classic series.

Clark,
What about the "plastic"?

Screw the stands for now, screw the DAC for now, and just use my iMac Analog out (instead of the iMac digital out). How bad could it be next to my crappy sounding Logitech Z-2300's, which are currently cranking out my music and movies. I just want good sound now, and I am tired of saving. Mac analog out's are much less noisy than PC counterparts most times anyway.

I've been using the analog out from my Airport Express for some time (due to lack of digital passthrough for second zone with my receiver) and have been quite happy. I will be using a direct digital connection from a Mac Mini to the pre/pro and amp that will sit in our dedicated HT/listening room, but I don't think you'll be disappointed.

In fact, when I set up the M6s/U2 in the living room to preview them (before putting them back in boxes for the agonizing wait until the HT is done) I streamed lossless music through the airport express via analog out and they sounded awesome. I'm sure there would have been better digital to analog processing in the high-end receiver, but I think the limiting factor is probably not there.

In following the debate about the Threes, I would add again that people should at least consider the Evolutions in the equation, given the good prices to be had. I don't think there's any comparison between a discounted M6 and a Two. I would still love to hear more impressions of the M6s and Threes compared A/B. For someone who wants great NHT sound, that's probably the real choice to be made right now.

Yes I am waiting for someone to compare the three M-6's in a HT setup vs. Classic three and ThreeC center. I am buying something this week, just don't know which way to go for 75% HT, 25%, speakers installed into a built-in cabinet. Thanks

Clark,
What about the "plastic"?

Now although I have not seen the new Classic series, I would trust NHT to not let me down. The old NHTs have great finishes. Plastic is not a bad material necessarily, my iMac is made of plastic, but it's made well. My iMac feels nice.

I've been using the analog out from my Airport Express for some time (due to lack of digital passthrough for second zone with my receiver) and have been quite happy. I will be using a direct digital connection from a Mac Mini to the pre/pro and amp that will sit in our dedicated HT/listening room, but I don't think you'll be disappointed.

In fact, when I set up the M6s/U2 in the living room to preview them (before putting them back in boxes for the agonizing wait until the HT is done) I streamed lossless music through the airport express via analog out and they sounded awesome. I'm sure there would have been better digital to analog processing in the high-end receiver, but I think the limiting factor is probably not there.

In following the debate about the Threes, I would add again that people should at least consider the Evolutions in the equation, given the good prices to be had. I don't think there's any comparison between a discounted M6 and a Two. I would still love to hear more impressions of the M6s and Threes compared A/B. For someone who wants great NHT sound, that's probably the real choice to be made right now.


Yep, I plan to do just analog for now. Save some money for another day. I will Google some M6s to see what they are. Thanks.

I kind of like the looks of the Three more than the M6. Unless it's alot better (without the dual sub thingy underneath), I would just go with the Three's. Not to mention it's 200 bucks more.

Yes I am waiting for someone to compare the three M-6's in a HT setup vs. Classic three and ThreeC center. I am buying something this week, just don't know which way to go for 75% HT, 25%, speakers installed into a built-in cabinet. Thanks


Although I have yet to listen to the Threes, I can tell you that the M6 has a two position boundary switch that changes the crossover (there are two) to one that is specifically designed and optimized for near-wall and in-cabinet installations. The Threes have just one crossover and do not include any sort of boundary switch. I have heard a complete M6 HT setup with the front line all mounted in a sizeable wall unit and was taken aback by how good the M6es sounded, inspite of the in-cabinet placement. Even absent a Three audition, there is no doubt in my mind that the M6 is the better speaker choice for your application.

I kind of like the looks of the Three more than the M6. Unless it's alot better (without the dual sub thingy underneath), I would just go with the Three's. Not to mention it's 200 bucks more.

$200 more is retail. As I said, there are deals to be had, even from authorized dealers. While you're searching, also search Evolution T6. The T6 is the M6 with powered base modules, and you'll see how well they were received by audiophile critics.

Perhaps the Three will impress critics as well, but there's no doubt about the track record of the M6s.

Even absent a Three audition, there is no doubt in my mind that the M6 is the better speaker choice for your application.

I think you should listen to the Threes before making up your mind. I spoke with Bob today and he has a Denon receiver with Audyssey. This pretty well throws out any advantage the M6 has. The Audyssey system will very well deal with any placement issues and do it better than the boundary switch on the M6. He is also concerned about vocal intelligibility and this is where the Classic shine, closer to Xd than the M6.

Although I have yet to listen to the Threes


:eek: :eek: :eek:
.....Damn man thats is as a shame.There is no way in hell Im giving up my Three's !!At least until I can afford Xd's or the next line.

$200 more is retail. As I said, there are deals to be had, even from authorized dealers. While you're searching, also search Evolution T6. The T6 is the M6 with powered base modules, and you'll see how well they were received by audiophile critics.

Perhaps the Three will impress critics as well, but there's no doubt about the track record of the M6s.

Can't you get the same deal on both, therefore it will still be 200 dollars more?

Can't you get the same deal on both, therefore it will still be 200 dollars more?

Although it doesn't appear that NHT is ready to say it, I suspect that the Evolutions will not be produced indefinitely. Perhaps that's why I found better deals on the M6 than on the Threes. Anything new usually comes with a premium, at least during the "early adopter" phase.

John has already admitted in this thread that the B5 and B6 base modules appear to have been discontinued. If that is a harbinger of things to come, then perhaps the remaining Evolution speakers' days are numbered. This may be pure speculation on my part, but I'd bet my nickel that this is the way things are going--when production is ramped up on the Classics, let's see if M6s become scarce.

While John has added a great deal of valuable input to this thread and I believe he is being honest in relating his impressions of the Threes, realize that dealers may have a conscious or subconscious incentive to extoll the virtues of newer products vs. the old.

Although it doesn't appear that NHT is ready to say it, I suspect that the Evolutions will not be produced indefinitely. Perhaps that's why I found better deals on the M6 than on the Threes. Anything new usually comes with a premium, at least during the "early adopter" phase.

John has already admitted in this thread that the B5 and B6 base modules appear to have been discontinued. If that is a harbinger of things to come, then perhaps the remaining Evolution speakers' days are numbered. This may be pure speculation on my part, but I'd bet my nickel that this is the way things are going--when production is ramped up on the Classics, let's see if M6s become scarce.

While John has added a great deal of valuable input to this thread and I believe he is being honest in relating his impressions of the Threes, realize that dealers may have a conscious or subconscious incentive to extoll the virtues of newer products vs. the old.

NHT probably has something in the works, R&D, already. Classics are in the swing of things, so the boys and girls at NHT must have been on to the next project awhile ago. How long has the Evolutions been around? Might be time for Evo IIs...

Plastic is not a bad material necessarily, my iMac is made of plastic, but it's made well. My iMac feels nice.

Very true.

What plastic?!?

I think they are confused with the new molding on baskets of the drivers....If they arent,Im as lost as you John.

And whoever the poster was that said that the Revel M12 is a better speaker than the Three is talking out their bootay.To my ears they arejust about equivalent to the Revel M22's at $1400 less.


Oh PS. John,
I truly couldnt be happier with my Three's.Thanks for the advice.You couldnt have been more right about them.Glad I didnt go the Revel M12 route.

I think you should listen to the Threes before making up your mind. I spoke with Bob today and he has a Denon receiver with Audyssey. This pretty well throws out any advantage the M6 has. The Audyssey system will very well deal with any placement issues and do it better than the boundary switch on the M6. He is also concerned about vocal intelligibility and this is where the Classic shine, closer to Xd than the M6.

I would have predicted just such a response from you John, given that you have exhibited a decided propensity for seeing things only as required to sell your current product du jour; as well as your previously confessed melancholy from having beaten the Evo drum for the last five years. Your suggestion that the Denon receiver "throws out any advantage the M6 has", is decidedly short-sighted advice IMHO. In fact, you have even contradicted yourself here, as you said earlier in this very thread (Post #664) that:

"Well, the Japanese receivers struggle a lot more with NHT than stuff like NAD, Rotel, Arcam. Most of them are so woefully inadequate with current that any kind of really difficult scene in at high volumes can shut them down or make them sound strained and anemic."

Having already said this, you then suggest that Bob not get the NHT speakers (M6es) that are all ready optimized for in-cabinet placement; speakers that have an additional crossover specifically designed for this purpose, which would not tie him to using a receiver which you have already characterized as "woefully inadequate". I think Bob would be far better served by choosing speakers that would allow him a migration path to (say) a more suitable (better) amp and a pre/pro that offers him superior AV quality and functionality for rapidly evolving technologies; especially when those speakers don't require him to be married to an Audyssey EQ to make them work for his placement.

Furthermore, your intimation that the M6 is somehow lacking in "vocal intelligibility" is a misleading assertion, as my personal listening experiences have shown me that the M6 does a terrific job at making dialogue very clearly understood. You can prattle on all you want about the nuances of the Threes in the music realm, but I think you are way off base in trying to dismiss the M6, by intimating they have some sort of short coming with regard to reproducing dialogue. Fact is, nothing could be further from the truth; and stating otherwise, only serves to further diminish your credibility.

It has become obvious to me John, that your motivation for (now) giving the Evolution line the red-headed stepchild treatment, is all about your vested interest in the success of the Classic speaker line roll-out. As more impartial posters than yourself have already expressed in these pages, the Classics are not exactly the "giant-killers" you once supposed them to be. My only point here, is that in your hurry to move on to the 'next big thing' for your business, you are (IMO) unfairly characterizing the M6, in order to suit your current agenda. While I'm sure the Three is a very good speaker, the fact remains that the M6 (T6) *is* currently a Stereophile Class A rated speaker and the jury is still out on the Threes; a fact which I think is important for AVS readers to not lose sight of, while you are busy trying to throw the M6es under the bus.

Could you describe the differences that you heard? In what way did the M12 sound better? No doubt Kevin Voecks is a great designer, so it's no surprise that the M12 sounds good.

Much better bass is the most obvious difference that jumps out at you right off the bat in the M12s (the bass on them will rival or exceed the SB3's), but also more detail, slam, and dynamics. Imaging/sound-staging was much more equal.

The Revels higher efficiency/sensitivity really jumps out at you at first in a direct A/B comparison without changing the volume setting, but once the level is adjusted to compensate for the difference, it is a lot closer.

I own a set of SB3s, and I hate to admit it, but I thought the M12s bested them, so I was anticipating hearing the Revels against the new Threes, but, same result.

Overall, I just flat out liked the sound of the Revels better, and when you throw in the cost difference (or, in effect, a free set of stands, however you want to look at it), it is a no brainer in my view.

But with that said however, I still would not buy the M12s simply because of how BIG they are compared to the Threes/SB-3s, and the fact that they are rear ported and would not work as well actually on/in a bookshelf like either the SB3s or the newer Threes would as I have to use them in my office rig.

I would have predicted just such a response from you John, given that you have exhibited a decided propensity for seeing things only as required to sell your current product du jour; as well as your previously confessed melancholy from having beaten the Evo drum for the last five years. Your suggestion that the Denon receiver "throws out any advantage the M6 has", is decidedly short-sighted advice IMHO. In fact, you have even contradicted yourself here, as you said earlier in this very thread (Post #664) that:

"Well, the Japanese receivers struggle a lot more with NHT than stuff like NAD, Rotel, Arcam. Most of them are so woefully inadequate with current that any kind of really difficult scene in at high volumes can shut them down or make them sound strained and anemic."

For a while I had to run my M5/L5 surround set up with a Denon 3803 (crossed over at 80 Hz), and it did VERY well driving them.

I have a NAD T753 on them now, but the change was most definitely NOT any kind of huge, drastic, night and day kind of difference.

I think they are confused with the new molding on baskets of the drivers....If they arent,Im as lost as you John.

Let me help you find the path...

The entire line of Classic line of speakers have cabinets that are made of plastic. While John does not like the "highly negative connotation" that plastic carries with it, the fact remains that by definition the cabinets are exactly that: plastic. Personally, I don't find that to be a negative, given the performance possibilities, but others may find that to be problematic in terms of perceived value and aesthetics.

Let's please not waste the bandwidth arguing the truth or falsity of this point, as we already hashed this out months ago, starting back on Page 19 of this thread, somewhere around my Post #561. After much discussion, it was agreed that the Classic cabinets are indeed made of plastic.