Maybe this will be the one, to hold you for a while.

We will see...

Nothing else has wowed me enough to kick the RC-10's out of the house... when I considered cost/value in addition to sound (and I won't lie, aesthetics play a small part too).

The Sierra-1 and Absolute Tower are two speakers I heavily considered keeping over the RC-10's, but in both cases, the much higher cost drove me back to the RC-10's, despite some of the sonic shortcomings in doing so.

Many put the Classic Three up there with the Sierra-1 (some put it ahead, and vice versa of course)... and now we're talking about a much narrower price gap. Plus, I already know I like the Two C, in some ways a little more than the RC-LCR... and I already have it in house.

I anticipate that I'll end up selling the Energy RC's soon... I've already put out some "feelers" to gauge just what resale value I'm looking at right now.

But, it's only right to wait and do a level matched A/B comparison, and report my experiences here. I have alot of notes scattered about of different speaker comparisons, and at some point I need to just compile them into a thread about my speaker journey over the last few years.

^^^ I think you'll be surprised with the Threes. They are pretty amazing speakers and much more detailed in the mid-range than the ATs. Looking forward to your impressions. You'll need to make sure they are on stable stands at the right height. Their imaging is incredible.

What sub are you planning on using with them?

All the drivers are metal (aluminum), so have much different sound signature than any others in the classic line (besides the Fours, which are made the same).

Hi All:

I currently have three NHT Super 1’s in my system for LCR which I mate with an ACI Titan. I would like to upgrade the speakers but keep my current configuration with 3 identical bookshelf speakers. My plan is to audition 3 different brands in my home. The NHT Classic 3’s are on my list and thought I would choose Ascend's Sierra and Aperion’s Verus Grand bookshelf. I was curious if anyone has any experience auditioning any of these speakers vs the NHT?

Thanks Bob

^^^ I think you'll be surprised with the Threes. They are pretty amazing speakers and much more detailed in the mid-range than the ATs. Looking forward to your impressions. You'll need to make sure they are on stable stands at the right height. Their imaging is incredible.

What sub are you planning on using with them?

All the drivers are metal (aluminum), so have much different sound signature than any others in the classic line (besides the Fours, which are made the same).

I am looking forward to hearing them...

I have an Emotiva Ultra-12... for the foreseeable future...

I have a 2C, which I think sounds slightly different than the AT and AZ... and that may be why I didn't get quite the front stage coherence I was after... although, I felt the AT got me a little closer than the AZ. Given the identical mid/tweeter, I expect the C3 will get me what I thought was missing in that regard.

The stands I have are 23" tall stands I had custom made by eD. These stands actually:
http://forum.edesignaudio.com/showthread.php/custom-speaker-stands-73615.html

They're made of 3/4" EFS (MDF), with a 3.5"x6" inch center column that I've filled with sand.

If I keep the C3, I'll likely build a similar design out oak ply, with a larger center column and base plate, more appropriate for the larger speaker.

I talked with someone at NHT awhile back, and he said they don't plan on replacing/updating the classic line for about five years. That of course wasn't set in stone, but it did make me happy.

When they do I will be on board, but until then I will enjoy what I have. I really like the flexibility they offer the consumer in the form of their gift cards, discounts, and annual sales. In this economy and with the uptight consumer who wants more for less it is really worth commending NHT on that.

greetings

I have inherited 2 pairs of NHT model 1 from my father. They are gloss black and are in new looking condition.

One pair was manufactured in 1989 and the other in 1990.
The pair from 1989 is labeled as 6 ohm and the 1990 pair as 8 ohm.
both have serial numbers that begin with A100

I am setting up a new HT (ordered receiver today) and according to the owner’s manual I can use either 6 or 8 ohm speakers.

The questions I have are:

Would either of these pairs work OK as rear channel speakers?

Could I use one of them as a center until I decide on what I want to use for that speaker location?

Can I mix 6 and 8 ohm with the same receiver?

TIA for any help.

greetings


Would either of these pairs work OK as rear channel speakers?

Could I use one of them as a center until I decide on what I want to use for that speaker location?

Can I mix 6 and 8 ohm with the same receiver?

Yes
Yes
Yes

Also, contact NHT for center options

I am looking forward to hearing them...

I have an Emotiva Ultra-12... for the foreseeable future...

I have a 2C, which I think sounds slightly different than the AT and AZ... and that may be why I didn't get quite the front stage coherence I was after... although, I felt the AT got me a little closer than the AZ. Given the identical mid/tweeter, I expect the C3 will get me what I thought was missing in that regard.

The stands I have are 23" tall stands I had custom made by eD. These stands actually:
http://forum.edesignaudio.com/showthread.php/custom-speaker-stands-73615.html

They're made of 3/4" EFS (MDF), with a 3.5"x6" inch center column that I've filled with sand.

If I keep the C3, I'll likely build a similar design out oak ply, with a larger center column and base plate, more appropriate for the larger speaker.

Those stand look great and should work fine. I'm looking forward to your impressions on the Threes.

I talked with someone at NHT awhile back, and he said they don't plan on replacing/updating the classic line for about five years. That of course wasn't set in stone, but it did make me happy.

When they do I will be on board, but until then I will enjoy what I have. I really like the flexibility they offer the consumer in the form of their gift cards, discounts, and annual sales. In this economy and with the uptight consumer who wants more for less it is really worth commending NHT on that.

That actually makes sense since there probably is not much to improve on the recent design unless better drivers come out, or a cosmetic change.

How do the new owners of the Absolute towers feel about them ... I would love to hear what you folks think !

I LOVE 'em! I can not praise them enough, especially for the price I got them for with the Black Friday deal and the gift card discount. Extraordinary detail and imaging with surprisingly deep bass. But, I will admit that I stilll wondered if maybe I should have gone with the Threes instead.

I just saw on NHT's site that they have a limited number of 3's going for $600 per pair which is a really nice price.
If someone has one of those gift cards you could put towards it, and that would be a fantastic deal.

Thanks to this great deal, the free shipping, and the combined balance I had left on my gift cards that covered most of the difference, I've also orderered a pair of the Threes. They are scheduled to arrive Wednesday. :D

^^^ You can make a direct comparison. I also have the AT's. Although very nice, I still prefer the midbass and midrange of the Threes (my preference - just seems more detailed). I also think you be surprised with the bass. The Threes actually go lower than the AT's. Compare them once level matched (I usually level match at 1k Hz, as practically all speakers will easily level match at that point). Then do some comparisons. Be good to hear what you have to say...

>(I usually level match at 1k Hz, <
What is the easiest way to level match at 1k Hz? Do I have to download a file with a 1K Hz tone?

Thanks Bob

^^^ You can make a direct comparison. I also have the AT's. Although very nice, I still prefer the midbass and midrange of the Threes (my preference - just seems more detailed). I also think you be surprised with the bass. The Threes actually go lower than the AT's. Compare them once level matched (I usually level match at 1k Hz, as practically all speakers will easily level match at that point). Then do some comparisons. Be good to hear what you have to say...

The "best" pair of speakers I have or have ever had before now are my current pair of Revel F12s in the family room, and since it was so easy to move the little Absolute Towers around, I did compare them to the F12s. IMHO, the Towers did at least more than hold their own with or even best the Revels in a few ways, namely detail and imaging.

I noticed in your profile that you have Fours too. How do the Threes and Towers compare to them in your view?

TIA

The "best" pair of speakers I have or have ever had before now are my current pair of Revel F12s in the family room, and since it was so easy to move the little Absolute Towers around, I did compare them to the F12s. IMHO, the Towers did at least more than hold their own with or even best the Revels in a few ways, namely detail and imaging.

I noticed in your profile that you have Fours too. How do the Threes and Towers compare to them in your view?

TIA

Revel's are very nice - they make excellent speakers!!! I actually got to listen to the Salan2 Towers, absolutely incredible (should be for over $10K). I also am familiar with the F12', very good also. I do thing the NHT AT's are better for imaging, most likely due to the baffle design.

I actually love the Fours, very nice speakers. They look like Threes with a sub attached, but not quite. The mid-bass is crossover to the midrange at a higher point since there is another XO to the subwoofer. It, IMO, makes both the midrange and mid bass a bit more detailed. But, all in all, the Threes with a good sub will match the Fours with a good sub. As far as the Fours compared to the AT's, again, the Fours come out ahead with better detail in the midrange due to the extra dome driver in that range (just like the Threes). All the drivers are metal in the Fours and Threes, only the tweeter in the AT's are metal. There is a difference in the sound. The AT's sound a bit more laid back.

In the end though, I like them all. They all sound great. And, when using an AVR with Audyssey XT or the like, the playing field is much closer.

>(I usually level match at 1k Hz, <
What is the easiest way to level match at 1k Hz? Do I have to download a file with a 1K Hz tone?

Thanks Bob

Hi Bob,

Yes, I actually have several test CD's with test tones. I've used them for years, but now (within the past 10 years) use a test tone generator - that way I can keep it at a specific freq for as long as I want. I also use REW to help with the best speaker placement (mostly helps in the sub region - for subwoofer placement).

There are test tones available on line if you want to - just Google. Both of the discs that I have may not be available anymore so if you want a copy, I can send one (just PM me) or I can email you an MP3 copy.

Anybody do any mods to the X2 crossover? I am thinking of replacing the two LM833 opamps in the high pass section with something better (maybe LME49720 or LME49860). I also plan on replacing the two 22uf coupling caps (C7 and C17).

What do you folks think? Worthwhile, crazy, or just a waste of time and money? It looks like the hardest part of the whole thing will be getting the board out of the case - there's a ton of screws holding all the connectors onto the back, and most are tacked down with glue.

Mark

I forgot one very important factor and made and assumption - you also need an SPL meter. Sorry about that omission.


Hi Bob,

Yes, I actually have several test CD's with test tones. I've used them for years, but now (within the past 10 years) use a test tone generator - that way I can keep it at a specific freq for as long as I want. I also use REW to help with the best speaker placement (mostly helps in the sub region - for subwoofer placement).

There are test tones available on line if you want to - just Google. Both of the discs that I have may not be available anymore so if you want a copy, I can send one (just PM me) or I can email you an MP3 copy.

Anybody do any mods to the X2 crossover? I am thinking of replacing the two LM833 opamps in the high pass section with something better (maybe LME49720 or LME49860). I also plan on replacing the two 22uf coupling caps (C7 and C17).

What do you folks think? Worthwhile, crazy, or just a waste of time and money? It looks like the hardest part of the whole thing will be getting the board out of the case - there's a ton of screws holding all the connectors onto the back, and most are tacked down with glue.

Mark

Hi Mark,

What sub are you driving with this? I highly doubt, IMO, that you would hear a difference with those changes. If you really want more control, you can pick up a DSP Active XO from Sweetwater.com or Musiciansfriend.com (or like site, there are others).

The main mods made to NHT's outboard XO's were to the X1 in order to drop the lower end from 26Hz to 20Hz (and to give it a fairly steep 98db high pass at 20HZ). Other than that, you may want to consider purchasing an XO with more control (a lot of the DSP Active XO's can have the Freq and slope set your your liking).

I do not have the full schematic to the X2, but do have it for the X1 if you would like a copy.

Jack Hidley use to frequent the AVS Forums and was one of the engineers for NHT. He used to do the mods on these units. You could also contact NHT to see if they will do them. If you DIY, then you loose the warranty. I did my own on my X1's, not too difficult but do not recommend a DIY unless you have some experience with board soldering.

I forgot one very important factor and made and assumption - you also need an SPL meter. Sorry about that omission.

Thanks for the information. I will look for one online. I have the SPL meter. I need to get REW at some point as well.

Bob

Thanks for the information. I will look for one online. I have the SPL meter. I need to get REW at some point as well.

Bob

Sounds good. For REW, your SPL meter can work, but it's best to use a calibrated mic. There is also lots of help available from hometheatershack.com where you download REW. Very helpful folks on the topic there.

Hi Mark,

What sub are you driving with this? I highly doubt, IMO, that you would hear a difference with those changes. If you really want more control, you can pick up a DSP Active XO from Sweetwater.com or Musiciansfriend.com (or like site, there are others).

The main mods made to NHT's outboard XO's were to the X1 in order to drop the lower end from 26Hz to 20Hz (and to give it a fairly steep 98db high pass at 20HZ). Other than that, you may want to consider purchasing an XO with more control (a lot of the DSP Active XO's can have the Freq and slope set your your liking).

I do not have the full schematic to the X2, but do have it for the X1 if you would like a copy.

Jack Hidley use to frequent the AVS Forums and was one of the engineers for NHT. He used to do the mods on these units. You could also contact NHT to see if they will do them. If you DIY, then you loose the warranty. I did my own on my X1's, not too difficult but do not recommend a DIY unless you have some experience with board soldering.

I am using my X2 to biamp my classic fours in a two channel system.

The mods I am contemplating are solely for the high pass output - I am not touching the subwoofer section. I think there is some room for improvement as the signal goes through two mediocre LM833 opamps and a mediocre electrolytic cap.

I am using my X2 to biamp my classic fours in a two channel system.

The mods I am contemplating are solely for the high pass output - I am not touching the subwoofer section. I think there is some room for improvement as the signal goes through two mediocre LM833 opamps and a mediocre electrolytic cap.

Ahh, that makes more sense. Are you using the Fours subs as your main subs or do you also have dedicated subs? At one point in the past I did bi-amp my Fours, but found I much prefer the sound with a dedicated sub and the Fours XO'd at 60Hz with the AVR taking care of the base management.

Anyway, if you are using the Fours as your sol subs, why not let your AVR do the bass management. Use the LFE input of the X2 for the sub portion (so it's basically a level control - which I do with my current X1's).

If you are up for doing the Mod, it's not that difficult as long as the part's you are adding have very close to the same pin configuration as the originals to fit on the board correctly (I did not look into your part replacement). It may, or may not, make an actual difference in the sound and would be hard to know unless you have both an original and modded X2 to compare.

You can call NHT, they are actually pretty open to talk with. They may have an idea if it would be worth the trouble.

I'd be curious about your impressions if you do your mod, keep us posted.

My new Classic 3s arrived yesterday and I set them up last night. The deal was too good to pass up. I've been putting off buying them for a while -- trying out B&W, Dali, and Totems as possible upgrades -- but $600 for the pair was a steal. I was using NHT SB2's in the front and moved those to the rear ( replacing SuperZero's). I also picked up the 3 Center. I love the NHT sound. The sealed design is just hard to beat for detail and imaging. You give up a little on the bottom but that's the sub's job anyway. The other nice thing is that you can place them closer to a rear wall. I' m going to burn them in for a few days but the sound out of the box is already making me smile.

That's great - big upgrade from the SB2's (I had the SB3's, ST's, SB2's back in the day also, they were great for the price but the Classic series is just much more detailed). Keep us posted!!! What sub are you using with them?

I am using my X2 to biamp my classic fours in a two channel system.

The mods I am contemplating are solely for the high pass output - I am not touching the subwoofer section. I think there is some room for improvement as the signal goes through two mediocre LM833 opamps and a mediocre electrolytic cap.I use the X2 to bi-amp my VT-2.4s. I use the method described here to bypass the X2 high pass output: http://www.stereophile.com/content/nht-evolution-t6-loudspeaker-system-postscript-may-2005

It takes some work to balance the everything but it's worth it.

That's great - big upgrade from the SB2's
I was thinking about upgrading from the SuperOne's to the Threes? Do you think I will hear much of a difference?

Bob

I use the X2 to bi-amp my VT-2.4s. I use the method described here to bypass the X2 high pass output: http://www.stereophile.com/content/nht-evolution-t6-loudspeaker-system-postscript-may-2005

It takes some work to balance the everything but it's worth it.

Good find! This is how I actually used my X2 originally when bi-amping my Fours (until I decided just to use dedicated subs).

I was thinking about upgrading from the SuperOne's to the Threes? Do you think I will hear much of a difference?

Bob

Bob,

From the Super Ones, yes the upgrade to the Threes will be pretty large. The Threes can throw an incredibly huge sound stage and the detail is unreal compared to the Super Ones. The deal is awesome now with the reduction in price.

Bob,

From the Super Ones, yes the upgrade to the Threes will be pretty large. The Threes can throw an incredibly huge sound stage and the detail is unreal compared to the Super Ones. The deal is awesome now with the reduction in price.

I keep thinking about Ascend's Sierras as well although they are really in another price bracket now. Bob

I keep thinking about Ascend's Sierras as well although they are really in another price bracket now. Bob

And that extra money sure doesn't buy you better measurements either. ;)

Sierras (http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/ascend_sierra1/)

Threes (http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/nht_classic_three/)

Anyway, if you are using the Fours as your sol subs, why not let your AVR do the bass management. Use the LFE input of the X2 for the sub portion (so it's basically a level control - which I do with my current X1's).

I don't claim to know much about the X2, and I realize that you now the "go to" guy on this thread, so I humbly ask this with all due respect, but shouldn't the Fours be ran as large since they have internal crossovers already built in for the subs?

Also, wasn't there some discussion about 6 months or so ago about an upgraded X2?

I keep thinking about Ascend's Sierras as well although they are really in another price bracket now. Bob

The Ascend Sierras are good speakers, but IMO the Threes are more detailed in the midrange.

I don't claim to know much about the X2, and I realize that you now the "go to" guy on this thread, so I humbly ask this with all due respect, but shouldn't the Fours be ran as large since they have internal crossovers already built in for the subs?

Also, wasn't there some discussion about 6 months or so ago about an upgraded X2?

Well, I don't consider myself the 'go to guy', just trying to help in something I've been doing as a hobby sine in the 4th grade (built my first speakers back then). I've had NHT's since the introduction of the original Super Zeros and have gone through multiple renditions. I've tried many other brands but always come back to NHT because I feel they give the best sound for the money (sure, I love the Revel Salon 2s, but they are way out of my pocket book). I've also set up many, many systems for family and friends - just about all the major brands of speakers, so am familiar with a lot - and still have come down to the same conclusion. The local NHT dealer a couple years ago, but when he was here, we did lot a A/B test comparisons with many speakers (yes, double blind, level matched tests). He also sold Revel, Genesis, and others.

Yes, there was a discussion on the X2. Also, many like to run the Fours large (I did that for some time). One thing to remember, and this is important, is that the best place for subwoofer placement (best, most even bass) is rarely the same as speaker placement for best imaging. Also, I've always used Audyssey based AVRs (since their introduction) and there is more power in correcting the subwoofer outputs (with the exception of XT32). If one wants to do a mod to the X2, absolutely go for it. It's not that hard - I'm just curious if there will actually be a difference in the sound, especially if using an AVR with correction. As mentioned above, I only used the X2 to bi-amp the bass of the Fours, the upper portion was not connected through the X2 (I used the LFE input/sub output to the sub). I let the AVR do the XO, which was directly connected to the upper portion of the Fours and found this to be the best way to extract the best sound from my system at the time.

I crossover my Fours at 60Hz. Keep in mind that most XO's built into AVR's are 12db/octave so there is still some energy in the 40Hz range. I like to XO all my speakers at least 20Hz above their rated -3db lower point. For the Fours, Audyssey always sets them as Full Range, I always re-set to 60Hz. They just sound better there and are much more dynamic in the Midbass when doing so. Subwoofers are dedicated to the bass region, so why not let them deal with that portion.

You can always try the Fours full range and then XO'd to a sub and use your preference. It's really about how it sounds to you. I've tried both configuration and many different XO points to get what I like best in our room. I do use and XT32 based AVR and also use the Audyssey Pro Kit to get everything dialed in as much as possible. The room is also acoustically treated with broadband traps (necessary since the room is fairly small).

Hope I did not ramble too much...

Also, many like to run the Fours large (I did that for some time). One thing to remember, and this is important, is that the best place for subwoofer placement (best, most even bass) is rarely the same as speaker placement for best imaging. Also, I've always used Audyssey based AVRs (since their introduction) and there is more power in correcting the subwoofer outputs (with the exception of XT32). If one wants to do a mod to the X2, absolutely go for it. It's not that hard - I'm just curious if there will actually be a difference in the sound, especially if using an AVR with correction. As mentioned above, I only used the X2 to bi-amp the bass of the Fours, the upper portion was not connected through the X2 (I used the LFE input/sub output to the sub). I let the AVR do the XO, which was directly connected to the upper portion of the Fours and found this to be the best way to extract the best sound from my system at the time.

I crossover my Fours at 60Hz. Keep in mind that most XO's built into AVR's are 12db/octave so there is still some energy in the 40Hz range. I like to XO all my speakers at least 20Hz above their rated -3db lower point. For the Fours, Audyssey always sets them as Full Range, I always re-set to 60Hz. They just sound better there and are much more dynamic in the Midbass when doing so. Subwoofers are dedicated to the bass region, so why not let them deal with that portion.

You can always try the Fours full range and then XO'd to a sub and use your preference. It's really about how it sounds to you. I've tried both configuration and many different XO points to get what I like best in our room. I do use and XT32 based AVR and also use the Audyssey Pro Kit to get everything dialed in as much as possible. The room is also acoustically treated with broadband traps (necessary since the room is fairly small).

Hope I did not ramble too much...

Right, I understand all that. I thought you meant to use the AVR's crossover even when not using a sub with them, but evidentally you didn't mean it that way.

I vaugely remember that there was some talk about an upgraded X2 with better high pass outputs that NHT didn't even know about until it was revealed on this thread, but I may be mistaken.

Ahh, that makes more sense. Are you using the Fours subs as your main subs or do you also have dedicated subs? At one point in the past I did bi-amp my Fours, but found I much prefer the sound with a dedicated sub and the Fours XO'd at 60Hz with the AVR taking care of the base management.

Anyway, if you are using the Fours as your sol subs, why not let your AVR do the bass management. Use the LFE input of the X2 for the sub portion (so it's basically a level control - which I do with my current X1's).

If you are up for doing the Mod, it's not that difficult as long as the part's you are adding have very close to the same pin configuration as the originals to fit on the board correctly (I did not look into your part replacement). It may, or may not, make an actual difference in the sound and would be hard to know unless you have both an original and modded X2 to compare.

You can call NHT, they are actually pretty open to talk with. They may have an idea if it would be worth the trouble.

I'd be curious about your impressions if you do your mod, keep us posted.

This is in a two channel music only system. My preamp has no bass management.

I have already modded the Classic Fours a little - I removed the passive crossover from the subwoofer section, so the driver is directly connected to the binding posts. I also plugged up the port. I think the bass is noticeably tighter.

I will post my results after I do the mod.

Mark

Also, wasn't there some discussion about 6 months or so ago about an upgraded X2?

I searched the thread but haven't been able to find anything. Its kind of an issue with these ginormous threads but what can you do?

If anyone finds anything I would be grateful!

Mark

Right, I understand all that. I thought you meant to use the AVR's crossover even when not using a sub with them, but evidentally you didn't mean it that way.

I vaugely remember that there was some talk about an upgraded X2 with better high pass outputs that NHT didn't even know about until it was revealed on this thread, but I may be mistaken.

Sorry, sometimes I'm not so clear when typing fast.

I'm not sure how long ago the X2 discussion occurred as most of the mod discussions were for the X1 (20Hz mod).

This is in a two channel music only system. My preamp has no bass management.

I have already modded the Classic Fours a little - I removed the passive crossover from the subwoofer section, so the driver is directly connected to the binding posts. I also plugged up the port. I think the bass is noticeably tighter.

I will post my results after I do the mod.

Mark

Mark,

That makes a lot more sense now - you do have to rely on the X2 for XO duty then. Yes, I agree when playing the Fours with full bandwidth that the ports plugged do sound a bit tighter (I wish they had designed it as a sealed designed just like the rest of the Classic series - at least the top portion is sealed). When XO'd at 60Hz or above, the issue of the ports is gone - it's extremely tight.

Remove the internal XO is the best way to use an electronic XO - it will give the cleanest signal. Keep us posted on your mod - I'd be curious on your thoughts/experience. I've done several of the 20Hz mods on the X1 - it's not too much work to get the board out. The X2 is designed the same way with only a few resistors and capacitors that are different (specific to NHT's W1 and W2 subs).

Have fun with it!

That's great - big upgrade from the SB2's (I had the SB3's, ST's, SB2's back in the day also, they were great for the price but the Classic series is just much more detailed). Keep us posted!!! What sub are you using with them?

Right now I'm using an old original first gen Sunfire True Sub. That's next on my upgrade and replace list. I'm really surprised at how low the 3s go on their own, though. I knew they'd do better on bass than the SB2s but surprised at how much lower they actually go. Loving the new speakers.

What subs to you recommend? I want to stay with a small form factor like e Sunfire but want it to better for music and deeper for ht. Thanks! I'm jealous of you Four owners. Those are great speakers but a little too big for my living room.

Right now I'm using an old original first gen Sunfire True Sub. That's next on my upgrade and replace list. I'm really surprised at how low the 3s go on their own, though. I knew they'd do better on bass than the SB2s but surprised at how much lower they actually go. Loving the new speakers.

What subs to you recommend? I want to stay with a small form factor like e Sunfire but want it to better for music and deeper for ht. Thanks! I'm jealous of you Four owners. Those are great speakers but a little too big for my living room.

Don't worry - your Threes with a sub really level the playing field and for most the Fours are just not needed. My wife actually prefers the looks of towers over speakers on stands (she's an interior designer and says it's more 'balanced'). Glad you are enjoying them.

As for a sub, the NHT's are small form factor and work well, but can be pricy. There are other you can look at from ID companies like Emotiva (great price), HSU, SVS (very good but pricey - they have some great sealed subs), and others. There are many to choose from. What price range are you looking at? Maybe Sunfire still makes some. I've seen some from Pinnacle speakers that have some very small form factors with dual drivers. One thing to remember, bass is about moving air, so it takes a LOT more power and movement from a small sub then a larger one.

[QUOTE=65 Electra Glide;21582629]And that extra money sure doesn't buy you better measurements either. ;)

Interesting that the sensitivity is about the same for both speakers. I would have thought the NHT's would be less considering the sealed design. Am I reading that correctly? -Bob

[QUOTE=65 Electra Glide;21582629]And that extra money sure doesn't buy you better measurements either. ;)

Interesting that the sensitivity is about the same for both speakers. I would have thought the NHT's would be less considering the sealed design. Am I reading that correctly? -Bob

Yes, you are. Try not to get stuck on the sensitivity issue unless you have a very large room. Then NHT's will easily reach painful, ear piercing levels in average rooms with a medium priced AVR.

I searched the thread but haven't been able to find anything. Its kind of an issue with these ginormous threads but what can you do?

If anyone finds anything I would be grateful!

Mark

I was able to find what I was talking about by using the keyword "revision" in my search, and it was longer ago than I thought, but the discussion began here.

Also, try to get a newer, upgraded X1 made on or after 4/25/07 with the latest revision dated Jan 07 that J Palmer Cass referred to a ways back on this thread. One thing here that I'm not sure about is if the current X1s sold with the gloss black Classic U2 subwoofers are the best match for Evo satellites/monitors since Jack did make a comment about the crossover cup had been changed to better match the Classic series, so I don't know about that though. But even if that's the case, bottom line try to get an X1 made on or after 4/25/07, but before say late '08 and you are golden.

I guess I was one of the beta testers for these upgraded units with a prototype, and it does have upgraded high pass filters, power supply, etc.

Below are some of the key posts.

Yes, the date is written on the PC board.

If you look through the top slots from the rear, the latest PC board has X1/X2 PCB REV 2 marked on it in the upper left corner of the main back PC board. There is also an NHT date 1/08/07 marked on the board in the same place. My new X-1's have the latest board, and that is how I know the dates and numbers.


There are basically three generations of the X1s. The first version had an error in one of the filters, as pointed out in this thread. NHT recalled these units and fixed them. That doesn't guarantee that every single X1 was returned to NHT for rework. The second version of the X1 had new PCBs to fix the filter problem. The third version of the X1 had some modifications to the HP filter, gain structure and power supply.

I can answer this one for Jack - as J Palmer Cass already pointed out long ago, look through the top vents of the unit in good light and you will see what revision you have written in the upper left corner of the PCB. The 3rd (upgraded) generation is dated Jan. '07.

Also, the build date will be on the outside of the X1/X2's box. The 3rd generation was built on or after 4/25/07.

It is cheaper to simply sell your old X1/X2 and buy one of the newer models than to upgrade an old one since the whole PCB would have to replaced.

This also applies to X2s as well as X1s.

I made the emphasis that was not in the original posts.

My Threes arrived yesterday, and I spent a couple hours listening to them last night. I had heard them before, but after spending as much time as I had with the Towers, first impressions are that they do sound different from the Towers. Not quite as forward, but yet no less detailed. They image very well just like the Towers too.

[QUOTE=bob_m10;21585934]

Yes, you are. Try not to get stuck on the sensitivity issue unless you have a very large room. Then NHT's will easily reach painful, ear piercing levels in average rooms with a medium priced AVR.

I am way past the music cranking phase. Rarely do I listen at high volume anymore, plus I am sure my External Outlaw amp can push them fine like it does the SuperOnes. My interests is purely academic. thanks again for your help, Bob

My Threes arrived yesterday, and I spent a couple hours listening to them last night. I had heard them before, but after spending as much time as I had with the Towers, first impressions are that they do sound different from the Towers. Not quite as forward, but yet no less detailed. They image very well just like the Towers too.

Which do you prefer? And if you had to pay the regular price for the Threes plus stands versus the Towers at regular price, which would you choose?

Thanks

Which do you prefer? And if you had to pay the regular price for the Threes plus stands versus the Towers at regular price, which would you choose?

Thanks

I really need to spend some more time with the Threes before I make that call. I will say this much though, I already think the Threes definitely sound better than my pair of Revel M12s that are used as wides in my main HT. Click here (http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/revel_concerta_m12/) to compare Soundstage's measurements of the M12.


At regular price, the cost of a decent set of stands added to the cost of the Threes would make them very close to the regular price of the Towers, so I think one should make his or her choice based on which speaker they like better between the two without using a few dollars difference either way to decide.

NHT does often run that special where they throw in the free center speaker with the Towers, and I've never seen that with the Threes.

I really need to spend some more time with the Threes before I make that call. I will say this much though, I already think the Threes definitely sound better than my pair of Revel M12s that are used as wides in my main HT. Click here (http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/revel_concerta_m12/) to compare Soundstage's measurements of the M12.


At regular price, the cost of a decent set of stands added to the cost of the Threes would make them very close to the regular price of the Towers, so I think one should make his or her choice based on which speaker they like better between the two without using a few dollars difference either way to decide.

NHT does often run that special where they throw in the free center speaker with the Towers, and I've never seen that with the Threes.

It would have been nice if you had the AT's at the same time to do side-by-side listening. They sound a bit different if done that way.

You're right about the specials with the AT's with included center, I've seen that a couple times (that's an awesome deal). The 3C is not cheap, so if working by price, the AT's with an included center can't be beat.

It would have been nice if you had the AT's at the same time to do side-by-side listening. They sound a bit different if done that way.

You're right about the specials with the AT's with included center, I've seen that a couple times (that's an awesome deal). The 3C is not cheap, so if working by price, the AT's with an included center can't be beat.

I do still have the Towers. I'm not the one who sent them back. That was Alphaiii, but I am interested to hear how he thinks they compare to each other.

The free center they throw in that deal is the Absolute Center, not the 3C, although I do think they will let you upgrade to the 3C or 2C if you pay the difference.

Curious, besides NHT, any other major manufacture predominantly use a sealed design for speakers? I can't see to find any. -Bob

I do still have the Towers. I'm not the one who sent them back. That was Alphaiii, but I am interested to hear how he thinks they compare to each other.

The free center they throw in that deal is the Absolute Center, not the 3C, although I do think they will let you upgrade to the 3C or 2C if you pay the difference.

Ah, got it. I did not pay very good attention to those sales at the time. I did pick up the AT's about 3 weeks ago and did some comparisons. You might want to do a side by side comparison:

1) Full bandwidth
2) XO'd at 80Hz, but with the subwoofer off so you can concentrate just on the speakers.

Both are reveling and can help you decide which on you like better - I always try different genres of music for comparisons.

Thanks for sharing.

Curious, besides NHT, any other major manufacture predominantly use a sealed design for speakers? I can't see to find any. -Bob

That's a good question. I think the majority of manufactures use ported designs for their better efficiency. Some, like SVS, give you port plugs so you can make it a 'sealed' speaker. I'm curious now and will need to look into it, but as far as I can tell (just the main speakers I can think of) they are all ported. Back in the 80's there were several sealed designs. My first 'real' speakers were Advent Legacy's which were sealed.

I was able to find what I was talking about by using the keyword "revision" in my search, and it was longer ago than I thought, but the discussion began here.



Below are some of the key posts.








I made the emphasis that was not in the original posts.

Thanks! My X2 is from the last batch close out sale, build date 2010, so it was after the fix.

Mark

I took advantage of the sale and ordered the Classic Three’s. My current Superones will be hard to beat but I hope the Threes can do it.

NHT is pretty unique with their acoustic suspension design and a three way to boot which makes it a fun purchase. Not the same two-way ported monitor that everyone else is peddling. I was initially worried about that extra cross over in such a low priced speaker but it has been well vetted now with positive reviews all over.

BTW, I noticed today that Crutchfield raised their price on the Threes and Amazon only has one left. I believe the sale ends next week so hurry if you want this price.

Bob

congrats Bob! I have no doubt that the Threes will trump your superones, that's a big upgrade. If you take a look at the XO inside, NHT did not skimp. The parts are, for the price, top notch. They could have used more expensive XO parts and drivers, but then that would put it in a very different price range (there are small 2 way speakers out there that cost over $5k, for a reason...and you wonder if it's 10X better in sound - doubt it very much. There is a point of diminishing returns and, IMO, NHT is near that point. You can get better, but will pay a lot of $ for a little improvement.

'Grats!

Like CavCham, I'm confident you'll like the Threes over the SuperOnes. I had budgeted the remainder of my gift card balance to get a SuperZero 2.0 and Super8 sub combination, but the deal on the Threes was just too good to pass up, and I don't regret that decision at all. I decided that I would get them instead of the Super system, pick beween the Threes and the Towers for the bedroom surround system, and then use the other pair for the home office instead of the Supers.

thanks guys:

65: I am curious what you think of the threes (plus sub) vs your Towers? -Bob

thanks guys:

65: I am curious what you think of the threes (plus sub) vs your Towers? -Bob

See post #9799, but I will post more after I've listened to the Threes a lot more than I have so far.

Have a great weekend all.

Will a Denon 1611 be sufficient to drive the Classic Threes in a 13'x20' room with an 8' ceiling? Main LP is about 8 feet. I assume so, but thought I'd better ask. I'd be pairing them with an Outlaw EX sub for music (90%), and probably using them in 4.1 for HT (10%) with phantom center, at least for now anyway. Upgrade from Jamo S606. The current deal on the C3s looks to good to pass up, if I can make it happen.

Thanks, guys.

'Grats!

Like CavCham, I'm confident you'll like the Threes over the SuperOnes. I had budgeted the remainder of my gift card balance to get a SuperZero 2.0 and Super8 sub combination, but the deal on the Threes was just too good to pass up, and I don't regret that decision at all. I decided that I would get them instead of the Super system, pick beween the Threes and the Towers for the bedroom surround system, and then use the other pair for the home office instead of the Supers.

Sweet! You'll have a couple great sounding rooms!

Will a Denon 1611 be sufficient to drive the Classic Threes in a 13'x20' room with an 8' ceiling? Main LP is about 8 feet. I assume so, but thought I'd better ask. I'd be pairing them with an Outlaw EX sub for music (90%), and probably using them in 4.1 for HT (10%) with phantom center, at least for now anyway. Upgrade from Jamo S606. The current deal on the C3s looks to good to pass up, if I can make it happen.

Thanks, guys.

Yes, it should be fine as long as you're not trying to hit 100db. Actually, you don't use that much power for normal listening and when XO'd to a sub (the bass can take 60-80% of the power) the issues is lessened.

The phantom center should be fine also, especially if you're sitting between the two speakers (toe them in slightly). They image extremely well and will give you a pretty nice sound stage. Also, don't have the front baffle behind the front plane of your display, they should be slightly forward of that plane (this is true for any speaker).

See post #9799, but I will post more after I've listened to the Threes a lot more than I have so far.

Have a great weekend all.

You also! Enjoy your toys!!!

Yes, it should be fine as long as you're not trying to hit 100db. ...

The phantom center should be fine also, especially if you're sitting between the two speakers (toe them in slightly). They image extremely well and will give you a pretty nice sound stage. Also, don't have the front baffle behind the front plane of your display, they should be slightly forward of that plane (this is true for any speaker).

Thanks for the quickly reply, cavchameleon.

I've never run a phantom center before, but I'll have to in order to make this happen. Maybe tomorrow I'll give it a try with the Jamos just for fun. Even though my proposed setup isn't ideal for HT, I still think it'll be a big step up over my current rig for music. Which is the whole point. I figure it should sound better with movies and such as well.

Money is tight right now. But I like good sound, of course. ;)

Thanks for the quickly reply, cavchameleon.

I've never run a phantom center before, but I'll have to in order to make this happen. Maybe tomorrow I'll give it a try with the Jamos just for fun. Even though my proposed setup isn't ideal for HT, I still think it'll be a big step up over my current rig for music. Which is the whole point. I figure it should sound better with movies and such as well.

Money is tight right now. But I like good sound, of course. ;)

Defmoot,

A phantom center will work fine, I've done it that way many times in the past. Great sound it nice to have, but keep your budget safe. You can always build it slowly...

Cav:

A while back we were chatting about the REW for measuring. Can you recommend a good low cost usb soundcard/preamp and Mic. With the new AVR’s coming with room correction algorithms, is this type of measuring still necessary.

Do you have any pic of the inside of a classic Three, would like to see the build quality.

Thanks Bob

Cav:

A while back we were chatting about the REW for measuring. Can you recommend a good low cost usb soundcard/preamp and Mic. With the new AVR’s coming with room correction algorithms, is this type of measuring still necessary.

Do you have any pic of the inside of a classic Three, would like to see the build quality.

Thanks Bob

Hi Bob,

As far as REW, you really need a calibrated mic and a sound card. There's no real cheap ones, but at hometheatershack.com there are a lot of experts on the topic that can give you cheaper ideas. I use a Tascam 144 with a calibrated mic.

To tell you the truth, the newer AVR's with Audyssey do an incredible job. Using REW is mostly for confirmation and speaker placement (mostly for the Subs) and if you are planning on using sound treatment. For most folks (99%), just using the AVR's correction is perfect. REW is for those wanting to extract that last bit of performance out of your room and system. There is also quite a steep learning curve at the beginning. If you want a plug-and-play calibration system, the Dayton one is the easiest.

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=390-790&FTR=390-790

There is a thread here on AVS on it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1293353

I never too pics of the inside of the Threes, so sorry. I always take my speakers (and most of my electronics) apart and treat contacts (internal) with Caigs Pro-Gold contact treatment:

http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=341-235

I know it's not 'necessary' but I've been using this product for years - keeps any contacts from ever oxidizing. You can learn more about their products here:

http://caig.com/

A lot of big companies use their products.

Ray

Cav:

A while back we were chatting about the REW for measuring. Can you recommend a good low cost usb soundcard/preamp and Mic. With the new AVR’s coming with room correction algorithms, is this type of measuring still necessary.

Do you have any pic of the inside of a classic Three, would like to see the build quality.

Thanks Bob

Not the Classic Three, but click here (http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/bookshelf/nht-classic-2/page-2) for some internal pics of the Classic Two from Audioholics. Not too shabby.

It's on NHT's FB page that the 25% off sale on Classic Threes with free shipping will end at midnight Pacific time tonight. PM me for a coupon code to save an additional 15% off on top of that from a fully authorized NHT internet dealer that also still has free shipping. :D

You're making me want another pair with that deal...PM Sent

PM also sent for my friend :). He has been wanting the Three's so this may finally sway him.

PMs answered!

PM also sent for my friend :). He has been wanting the Three's so this may finally sway him.

Yep, if someone is sitting on the fence, that should get them off of it.

Thanks!!!

Thanks!!!

YW, you going to set up a pair in another room?

I ordered a pair of Threes using the coupon code yesterday. What a screaming good deal. Just ridiculous. Now the wait…

In the mean time I need to start looking around for some attractive, quality stands.

Can anyone who's heard the Threes for a decent amount of time give guidance on the ideal height of the tweeter in relation to ear level at MLP (e.g. level, slightly above, or slightly below)? Other considerations?

Thanks.

If you take the height of the Fours and subtract the height of the Threes, there is about a 27" inch difference, so I would try to get 26" to 28" high stands.

YW, you going to set up a pair in another room?

Most likely. I'm actually using Threes for my rears with Fours up front and some Twos for wides. I might swap the twos with the Threes and put the Twos in another room...

If you take the height of the Fours and subtract the height of the Threes, there is about a 27" inch difference, so I would try to get 26" to 28" high stands.

Yep, 65 EG has it right. As long as they are approximately in the plane of seated height level. Don't be to technical with it - different people are different heights. The Classics have a pretty good vertical dispersion - you'll be able to slouch in your chair and hear the same thing (minus the reflection you will get from your chair back).

Yep, 65 EG has it right. As long as they are approximately in the plane of seated height level. Don't be to technical with it - different people are different heights. The Classics have a pretty good vertical dispersion - you'll be able to slouch in your chair and hear the same thing (minus the reflection you will get from your chair back).

Thanks, guys.

Just thinking out loud here - will the old SuperCenter match with the new SuperZero 2.0s? Has anyone tried this yet?

Just thinking out loud here - will the old SuperCenter match with the new SuperZero 2.0s? Has anyone tried this yet?

The drivers are not that much different, but the XO is where they made some big changes. It may work just fine though, have you tried it yet?

It may work just fine though, have you tried it yet?

No, I don't have any of the SuperSeries. It's just that I noticed those old SuperCenters are always for sale on ebay, Craigslist and Audiogon, and I was just wondering in case there may be some people with a surround system of the new Supers but still had to have a horizontal center speaker.

I just finished modding my NHT X2 active crossover. As mentioned earlier, the mods were mostly geared towards improving the high pass filter.

Schematic is available here. (http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff513/mhedges76/Stereo/crossover.jpg)

Included in the mod were:

Removed stock LM833 Op-Amps and installing sockets (currently I have LME49860's in)
Replaced input coupling caps with Solen film caps
Replaced output coupling caps with Nichicon KZ, bypassed with 0.47uF Mundorf MKP
Replaced RCA input and output jacks with "Tiffany" Style jacks.

I finished the mod last night. So far it is too early to say if it sounds better - I am just glad that it seems to work fine with no issues caused by the mod.

Anyway here are some pics:

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff513/mhedges76/NHT%20X2/X2modded1.jpg

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff513/mhedges76/NHT%20X2/X2modded2.jpg

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff513/mhedges76/NHT%20X2/X2modded3.jpg

And a pic of the unit stock, before mods-

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff513/mhedges76/NHT%20X2/X2stock.jpg

It's on NHT's FB page that the 25% off sale on Classic Threes with free shipping will end at midnight Pacific time tonight. PM me for a coupon code to save an additional 15% off on top of that from a fully authorized NHT internet dealer that also still has free shipping. :D

Nice work passing on the code to a few more folks. I had only heard from you and one other in response to my post about it. Glad a few more could get in on a great deal.

Mark,

Great job on fitting some huge caps in a small place. I'm curious if your work proves fruitful. Let us know how it sounds once you have a chance to listen for some time.

Ray

My Three's have arrived. So far I am really happy how they look on my home made stands. I will have to modify the Cabinet to fit a Three for the center, I knew I should have made that center shelf a little taller.

Time to listen!

Bob

My Three's have arrived. So far I am really happy how they look on my home made stands.

Bob

So, how do they sound?

As for me on the Absolute Towers vs the Classic Threes, I do think the Towers image a little better, are a little more forward on the top end, and seem to have "faster" bass if that makes sense. The Threes have more detail in the mid range while not being quite as forward up high, if that makes sense.

Comparing to my SuperOnes and all in my opinion:

First off the speaker really looks nice, big improvement over the plain box shaped SuperOne or many of the other stand speakers I have seen.

Sound wise the two speakers are more similar than different. Perhaps that attests to how good the SuperOnes are or possibly that I don’t have the golden ear. That being said there are differences. The detail is most noticeable. For example with Jesse Cook, the individual plucks of each string are more defined, especially when he really get moving. Imaging is clearer because of the detail. The Three’s also dig deeper which let me set my crossover at 60Hz which I like better. It blends in very nicely with my ACI Titian. I was afraid of the aluminum drivers and Sibilance, this proved not to be a problem at all. It also seems that off axis response is better. While switching speakers back and forth my wife’s first comment was how much clearer the new speakers sounded. She would always be sitting or standing off to the side when she came in for a listen.

Now for the a longer test, I am no longer switching back and forth looking for differences. I want to live with these for a week and then switch back to the SuperOnes and see what I hear.

As it stands now I have very happy.

Thanks all for the help,

Bob

Sears now a dealer for NHT? Click here (http://www.sears.com/nht-absolute-5.1-surround-package/p-SPM1496632501P)

But unauthorized? Click here (http://www.nhthifi.com/US-Internet-Retailer)

Yuck, I don't want speakers from Sears. :) Bob

Sears now a dealer for NHT? Click here (http://www.sears.com/nht-absolute-5.1-surround-package/p-SPM1496632501P)

But unauthorized? Click here (http://www.nhthifi.com/US-Internet-Retailer)



Not sold by Sears. Just a marketplace item from Hidef!

Not sold by Sears. Just a marketplace item from Hidef!

Ah, so it is. I missed that. Then the warranty must be intact since it's via HiDef.

Too bad in a way though. I was planning on going to Sears this weekend to audition some Classic Fours!

66 Electra Glide,

It would be nice for you to listen to the Fours since you have already heard all the others. In my room, the -3db point is 23Hz (even though the rating is 26Hz) due to the room. For 2ch music, you really don't need a sub (although I do use one for both music and movies).

Interesting that Sears will be a route to get them.

So I thought I'd drop in and post a few quick thoughts on the Three's, since I've been listening to them for a bit...

Listening to them full range with music, they certainly impressed me right away. Very clean and detailed sound, solid bass with a touch of warmth, and a depth to the soundstage I don't think I've gotten with any other speaker I've demo'd...

I've demo'd them with a few movies as well, and as expected, the blend with the 2C is seamless, and I think the overall soundstage is a bit larger and more immersive than I was getting with the Energy RC-10/LCR.

I hope to do a level matched comparison with the RC-10 tomorrow... just haven't had any time to do that yet...

In comparison to the Absolute Tower... and I'm completely going off memory here... But I'd say the Three doesn't disappear quite as well, but has that little bit of warmth I wished the AT had... And so far, I haven't found the Three to be too forward up top, whereas with the AT sometimes I felt the tweeter was a bit edgy - I particularly noticed this manifest as overly splashy cymbals on certain tracks.

I can say that I in no way regret returning the AT and getting these for $200 less... I liked the svelte look of the AT, but that complete lack of low end warmth and the slightly hot top end (for my tastes) were what kept me from keeping them at double the price I paid for the RC-10.

I'll give the RC-10's a fair shake and properly compare them... but, aside from looks (personal preference, but that Rosenut veneer is just awesome, and I've never been a big fan of piano black)... so far I think the Three brings more to the table, and at only about 40% more than I paid for the RC-10...

66 Electra Glide,

It would be nice for you to listen to the Fours since you have already heard all the others. In my room, the -3db point is 23Hz (even though the rating is 26Hz) due to the room. For 2ch music, you really don't need a sub (although I do use one for both music and movies).

Interesting that Sears will be a route to get them.

65, not 66. Big difference - Panhead vs Shovelhead. '65 was the last year of the Panhead and first year of the electric starter, hence the "Electra". :)

As Mr Cass discovered, unfortunately, Sears is not a route to get them locally or even demo them.

Even though I don't think I would ever buy a pair of them since I go all in on having separate subs with room correction to the point that even my 2 channel gear, a HK 990 integrated amp, can independently EQ dual subs, I would like to hear them just out of curiousity. I do wonder how they would stack up against Threes with dual B-12d subs. At regular price, there is only $200 difference, not counting any cost for stands for the Threes.

So I thought I'd drop in and post a few quick thoughts on the Three's, since I've been listening to them for a bit...

Listening to them full range with music, they certainly impressed me right away. Very clean and detailed sound, solid bass with a touch of warmth, and a depth to the soundstage I don't think I've gotten with any other speaker I've demo'd...

I've demo'd them with a few movies as well, and as expected, the blend with the 2C is seamless, and I think the overall soundstage is a bit larger and more immersive than I was getting with the Energy RC-10/LCR.

I hope to do a level matched comparison with the RC-10 tomorrow... just haven't had any time to do that yet...

In comparison to the Absolute Tower... and I'm completely going off memory here... But I'd say the Three doesn't disappear quite as well, but has that little bit of warmth I wished the AT had... And so far, I haven't found the Three to be too forward up top, whereas with the AT sometimes I felt the tweeter was a bit edgy - I particularly noticed this manifest as overly splashy cymbals on certain tracks.

I can say that I in no way regret returning the AT and getting these for $200 less... I liked the svelte look of the AT, but that complete lack of low end warmth and the slightly hot top end (for my tastes) were what kept me from keeping them at double the price I paid for the RC-10.

I'll give the RC-10's a fair shake and properly compare them... but, aside from looks (personal preference, but that Rosenut veneer is just awesome, and I've never been a big fan of piano black)... so far I think the Three brings more to the table, and at only about 40% more than I paid for the RC-10...

Even though we used some different words in our descriptions, it sounds like our thoughts are more alike than not in regards to the differences between the Threes and Absolute Towers.

65, not 66. Big difference - Panhead vs Shovelhead. '65 was the last year of the Panhead and first year of the electric starter, hence the "Electra". :)

As Mr Cass discovered, unfortunately, Sears is not a route to get them locally or even demo them.

Even though I don't think I would ever buy a pair of them since I go all in on having separate subs with room correction to the point that even my 2 channel gear, a HK 990 integrated amp, can independently EQ dual subs, I would like to hear them just out of curiousity. I do wonder how they would stack up against Threes with dual B-12d subs. At regular price, there is only $200 difference, not counting any cost for stands for the Threes.


OOPS, sorry about the typo! 65 it is!!!

I doubt there would be that much difference with dual B-12d subs. There is a difference in the mid bass due to the XO, but can't say it would really be discernible in most rooms unless critically listening (which most don't do). As a stand alone w/o subs though, they can dig pretty deep. But, one has to remember that the best place for speaker placement (imaging) is not the same as that for the subs (bass) which is why I XO them over at 60Hz.

Alphaiii,

Keep us posted. Yes, like 65 EG mentioned, we can all describe the 'same' thing differently. Have fun with it!!!

When it comes to large floorstanders for 2 channel, I will never forget the bass the first time I heard NHT 3.3s many years ago. I was floored by it.

Alphaiii,

Keep us posted. Yes, like 65 EG mentioned, we can all describe the 'same' thing differently. Have fun with it!!!

I believe you said you had Threes and Towers too. How would you describe them compared to each other and also with the Fours?

You also mentioned having Twos too. Lets throw them in the mix as well. Do you also have the Absolute Zeros? If so, thought on them?

I realize I'm asking a lot here, but you are in a position to know how they all compare to each other, and I've never heard Fours or Twos.

Alphaiii,

Keep us posted. Yes, like 65 EG mentioned, we can all describe the 'same' thing differently. Have fun with it!!!

Will do...:D

When it comes to large floorstanders for 2 channel, I will never forget the bass the first time I heard NHT 3.3s many years ago. I was floored by it.

I remember those very well, they were pretty large (depth wise). I had their very small brothers at the time (the 1.5's) as I couldn't afford or place something as big as the 3.3's.

I can add a little input on the Absolute Zero, since I have those as well...

While I haven't compared it to the Three directly, I did compare extensively to the RC-10 awhile back...

I thought the AZ was a little cleaner and more detailed in the midrange, although a little edgier in the high end... The RC-10 was smoother sounding in this highs while retaining just a much detail, with a warmer low end and midrange, and as expected, better bass extension/capability...

At low-moderate volumes, I thought the had a more neutral tonal balance. Pushing the volume up, I thought the AZ got a little "clinical" while the RC-10 held up much better.

In terms of imaging, I thought there were on par, and the RC-10 had a slightly larger soundstage. Both have a very centrally focused image, and neither really extends outside of the width of the speakers.

Overall, I prefer the RC-10 and feel it's a more capable speaker. But I like the midrange resolution of the AZ. My point in all of this is not so much to compare the AZ and RC-10, but point out that, to me, they were close - alot closer than I initially expected. I really thought the RC-10 would be an easy pick, since, while I liked the AZ prior to the comparison, they didn't immediately wow me.

On the other hand, the Three immediately impressed me, and while I'm trying to keep an open mind, I think I will outright prefer it to the RC-10 when I do a level matched A/B comparison. So I also think it will be a big step up over the AZ.

Aside from the obvious (more extended/capable bass), I quickly took notice to the size of the Three's soundstage, something that I felt was lacking with the AZ (and RC-10). This was something that impressed me with the AT as well - a wider/taller soundstage than I was used to with the RC-10.

With the Three, I also noticed a depth to the sound that I haven't experienced with other speakers, except for maybe the Ascend Sierra, but it's been quite awhile since I owned them.

I believe you said you had Threes and Towers too. How would you describe them compared to each other and also with the Fours?

You also mentioned having Twos too. Lets throw them in the mix as well. Do you also have the Absolute Zeros? If so, thought on them?

I realize I'm asking a lot here, but you are in a position to know how they all compare to each other, and I've never heard Fours or Twos.

Yes, I do have the Fours, Threes, Twos, Absolute Zeros, AT's, and Super Zeros.

The Two's have a bit of forwardness in the treble - a bit harsher compared to the Threes. Absolute Zeros are pretty much like the Twos - except for for the size, I really think it was a pointless speaker to build with paired with a sub (they should have chosen one or the other). The mid-bass is not as tight as the threes.

I found the AT's to sound pretty much like the twos, with a bit better mid-range (more detail) and of course more mid-bass.

But, I really like the bit more detail the Threes give me in both the treble and mid-rage. I also feel that the mid bass is tighter.

The fours definitely go very deep for their size. But where is betters the Threes is in the mid bass. I was really curious about this and when Jack Hidley frequented this forum (he was one of the designers), he said there was a difference. Since the Fours have and XO at 125, the driver for the mid-bass/bass was not the same (even though they look the same and are the same size). The driver for the Threes have to go pretty deep (they play down to 45 Hz). The Fours' same driver only has to go down just lower than 125 Hz, so they used a driver that gave more detail in that range (but cannot play as low as the comparable driver in the Threes, which is did not need to being XO'd to a 10" driver). The outcome is a more detailed mid-bass. I did a lot of A/B testing, with and XO of 80hz on both speakers so that neither was straining and with the sub off. There is clearly a difference - for the better IMO with the Fours ahead.

Of course, all of the above is in my opinion as speakers are the most subjective part of your equipment setup (the room comes in 2nd), then the electronics.

BTW, I'm still using my 'older' NHT Evolutions U1's for subs. I'm using 2 of them (each has 2 - 12" aluminum drivers back to back). They are XO through their own X1's that have a 20Hz mod (so go down to 20Hz, then have a 'brick-wall' XO at 20 that is 98db/octave). I thought about upgrading the subs, they they work very well in my current room. I talked to one of NHT's current engineers and they said that I could change them out to 2 of the B-12d's but would not really gain anything. I was thinking of going with the SVS SB13-Plus (one of their few sealed subs - I prefer sealed), but they are pretty pricy, especially if I want to run 2 subs (I'll never go with one, as 2 subs correctly placed can really tame room nodes/modes).

I can add a little input on the Absolute Zero, since I have those as well...

While I haven't compared it to the Three directly, I did compare extensively to the RC-10 awhile back...

I thought the AZ was a little cleaner and more detailed in the midrange, although a little edgier in the high end... The RC-10 was smoother sounding in this highs while retaining just a much detail, with a warmer low end and midrange, and as expected, better bass extension/capability...

At low-moderate volumes, I thought the had a more neutral tonal balance. Pushing the volume up, I thought the AZ got a little "clinical" while the RC-10 held up much better.

In terms of imaging, I thought there were on par, and the RC-10 had a slightly larger soundstage. Both have a very centrally focused image, and neither really extends outside of the width of the speakers.

Overall, I prefer the RC-10 and feel it's a more capable speaker. But I like the midrange resolution of the AZ. My point in all of this is not so much to compare the AZ and RC-10, but point out that, to me, they were close - alot closer than I initially expected. I really thought the RC-10 would be an easy pick, since, while I liked the AZ prior to the comparison, they didn't immediately wow me.

On the other hand, the Three immediately impressed me, and while I'm trying to keep an open mind, I think I will outright prefer it to the RC-10 when I do a level matched A/B comparison. So I also think it will be a big step up over the AZ.

Aside from the obvious (more extended/capable bass), I quickly took notice to the size of the Three's soundstage, something that I felt was lacking with the AZ (and RC-10). This was something that impressed me with the AT as well - a wider/taller soundstage than I was used to with the RC-10.

With the Three, I also noticed a depth to the sound that I haven't experienced with other speakers, except for maybe the Ascend Sierra, but it's been quite awhile since I owned them.

Thanks for sharing. I agree with the 'edginess' in the treble. I also was surprised with the sound stage difference than the Threes. I expected it to be better with the Absolute Zeros because of the smaller baffle size, but that was not so as you indicated.

Glad you're enjoying the Threes. I have heard better (like the Revel Salon's), but they are much more expensive. For me, IMO, the Threes/Fours are getting the the point of diminishing returns. Yes, you can get better, but then you'll pay a LOT for a little improvement. Also, some out there prefer a 'different' sound. I have some friends that prefer the midrage of B&W's, to me they make music sound 'warm', so not to my liking. Again, personal taste does come in.

I can add a little input on the Absolute Zero, since I have those as well...

While I haven't compared it to the Three directly, I did compare extensively to the RC-10 awhile back...

I thought the AZ was a little cleaner and more detailed in the midrange, although a little edgier in the high end... The RC-10 was smoother sounding in this highs while retaining just a much detail, with a warmer low end and midrange, and as expected, better bass extension/capability...

At low-moderate volumes, I thought the had a more neutral tonal balance. Pushing the volume up, I thought the AZ got a little "clinical" while the RC-10 held up much better.

In terms of imaging, I thought there were on par, and the RC-10 had a slightly larger soundstage. Both have a very centrally focused image, and neither really extends outside of the width of the speakers.

Overall, I prefer the RC-10 and feel it's a more capable speaker. But I like the midrange resolution of the AZ. My point in all of this is not so much to compare the AZ and RC-10, but point out that, to me, they were close - alot closer than I initially expected. I really thought the RC-10 would be an easy pick, since, while I liked the AZ prior to the comparison, they didn't immediately wow me.

On the other hand, the Three immediately impressed me, and while I'm trying to keep an open mind, I think I will outright prefer it to the RC-10 when I do a level matched A/B comparison. So I also think it will be a big step up over the AZ.

Aside from the obvious (more extended/capable bass), I quickly took notice to the size of the Three's soundstage, something that I felt was lacking with the AZ (and RC-10). This was something that impressed me with the AT as well - a wider/taller soundstage than I was used to with the RC-10.

With the Three, I also noticed a depth to the sound that I haven't experienced with other speakers, except for maybe the Ascend Sierra, but it's been quite awhile since I owned them.

While I've never heard Absolute Zeros except only as surrounds, I would certainly hope that the Classic Threes could trump RC-10s. I've never heard the RC10's, but I have their predecessors the C-3s before, and was not at all impressed by them.

Yes, I do have the Fours, Threes, Twos, Absolute Zeros, AT's, and Super Zeros.

The Two's have a bit of forwardness in the treble - a bit harsher compared to the Threes. Absolute Zeros are pretty much like the Twos - except for for the size, I really think it was a pointless speaker to build with paired with a sub (they should have chosen one or the other). The mid-bass is not as tight as the threes.

I found the AT's to sound pretty much like the twos, with a bit better mid-range (more detail) and of course more mid-bass.

But, I really like the bit more detail the Threes give me in both the treble and mid-rage. I also feel that the mid bass is tighter.

The fours definitely go very deep for their size. But where is betters the Threes is in the mid bass. I was really curious about this and when Jack Hidley frequented this forum (he was one of the designers), he said there was a difference. Since the Fours have and XO at 125, the driver for the mid-bass/bass was not the same (even though they look the same and are the same size). The driver for the Threes have to go pretty deep (they play down to 45 Hz). The Fours' same driver only has to go down just lower than 125 Hz, so they used a driver that gave more detail in that range (but cannot play as low as the comparable driver in the Threes, which is did not need to being XO'd to a 10" driver). The outcome is a more detailed mid-bass. I did a lot of A/B testing, with and XO of 80hz on both speakers so that neither was straining and with the sub off. There is clearly a difference - for the better IMO with the Fours ahead.

Of course, all of the above is in my opinion as speakers are the most subjective part of your equipment setup (the room comes in 2nd), then the electronics.

BTW, I'm still using my 'older' NHT Evolutions U1's for subs. I'm using 2 of them (each has 2 - 12" aluminum drivers back to back). They are XO through their own X1's that have a 20Hz mod (so go down to 20Hz, then have a 'brick-wall' XO at 20 that is 98db/octave). I thought about upgrading the subs, they they work very well in my current room. I talked to one of NHT's current engineers and they said that I could change them out to 2 of the B-12d's but would not really gain anything. I was thinking of going with the SVS SB13-Plus (one of their few sealed subs - I prefer sealed), but they are pretty pricy, especially if I want to run 2 subs (I'll never go with one, as 2 subs correctly placed can really tame room nodes/modes).

Thanks! Do you have the new 2.0 version of the SuperZeros or the originals, and how do they stack up to the others?

Interesting about the mid bass detail in the Fours vs the Threes. It seems to me that the Threes would have greater lower mid detail from 125 Hz down since they have an aluminum driver vs a polypropylene driver.

So you feel that the improvement of the Fours over the Threes when they are both crossed over to a sub justifies the far greater expense?

I have Revel F12s in my main system, and they are a quasi-full range tower like the Fours too, but they don't quite extend as deep nor cost as nearly much as the Fours do. I think they do sound much better than their stand-mount counterparts the M12s, but M12s vs F12s aren't quite like comparing Threes vs Fours though.

Thanks for sharing. I agree with the 'edginess' in the treble. I also was surprised with the sound stage difference than the Threes. I expected it to be better with the Absolute Zeros because of the smaller baffle size, but that was not so as you indicated.

Glad you're enjoying the Threes. I have heard better (like the Revel Salon's), but they are much more expensive. For me, IMO, the Threes/Fours are getting the the point of diminishing returns. Yes, you can get better, but then you'll pay a LOT for a little improvement. Also, some out there prefer a 'different' sound. I have some friends that prefer the midrage of B&W's, to me they make music sound 'warm', so not to my liking. Again, personal taste does come in.

My Revel F12s have a relatively wide front baffle, but despite that they still image magnificently.

You are 100% right about the point of diminishing returns too.

While I've never heard Absolute Zeros except only as surrounds, I would certainly hope that the Classic Threes could trump RC-10s. I've never heard the RC10's, but I have their predecessors the C-3s before, and was not at all impressed by them.

Not everyone is a fan of Energy's sound. I will say that the general impression is that the RC-10 is a noticeable improvement over the C-3... even though the C-3 measures a bit flatter down low. Apparently the tweeter on the RC is a good bit smoother than the C's.

But yes, given what I've heard, I fully expect the Three to best the RC-10 when I compare them.

With the Three, I also noticed a depth to the sound that I haven't experienced with other speakers, except for maybe the Ascend Sierra, but it's been quite awhile since I owned them.
Curious, why did you trade out your Sierra's?

Bob

Curious, why did you trade out your Sierra's?

Bob

At the time, I couldn't justify the extra cost of them over the RC-10/LCR setup I already had. Truthfully, I shouldn't have bought them to begin with, since I knew they were over budget.

I definitely thought the Sierra's were better, but actually made the smart financial call and sold them... and I recouped almost all of my original expense (lost about $20) buying them used.

The one gripe I did have was that the Sierra's were very unforgiving of bad source material... and they did not in any way soften sibilance. Since the majority of use would've been movies and TV shows, and not critical listening, it made it even easier to sell of the better speakers in favor of something that was more in line with the upper limit of my budget to begin with.

Not everyone is a fan of Energy's sound. I will say that the general impression is that the RC-10 is a noticeable improvement over the C-3... even though the C-3 measures a bit flatter down low. Apparently the tweeter on the RC is a good bit smoother than the C's.

But yes, given what I've heard, I fully expect the Three to best the RC-10 when I compare them.

Really? Wow! My main complaint with C-3s was that they were too laid back, goosed down, and downright bland, lacking any detail almost as if it had been neutered from them.

If that's the case, then I'm sure I probably wouldn't like the RC-10s either. If that's what you're used to, then no wonder the Absolute Tower's tweeters were too "hot" for your ears.

The one gripe I did have was that the Sierra's were very unforgiving of bad source material... and they did not in any way soften sibilance. Since the majority of use would've been movies and TV shows, and not critical listening, it made it even easier to sell of the better speakers in favor of something that was more in line with the upper limit of my budget to begin with.

Perceptions of our ears really can be different. I heard the Sierra 1s at the same time as I did the Energy Connoisseur C-3s, and while I thought that even the tweeter on the Sierras was more revealing than the C-3's, but I sure wouldn't have called it harsh or unforgiving. In fact, I thought it was more on the laid back side of the ledger too, even if not as much as the Energys.

I haven't heard the NRT Sierras yet, but based on how people describe them as being distinctly more forward than the standard Sierras, you probably wouldn't like the NRTs either.

Really? Wow! My main complaint with C-3s was that they were too laid back, goosed down, and downright bland, lacking any detail almost as if it had been neutered from them.

If that's the case, then I'm sure I probably wouldn't like the RC-10s either. If that's what you're used to, then no wonder the Absolute Tower's tweeters were too "hot" for your ears.

I haven't heard the C3, I'm just going by others' comments. The highs could be smoother/cleaner without actually being more subdued... but there are definitely folks that find the RC's too laid back. Strangely, I've seen others comment that they found the RC's bright. So I guess it's all relative to what you're used to and personal preference.

I don't find the highs to be veiled or lacking detail, but I do feel the upper mid-range is a little laid back. The high end actually does rise a bit (based on the Soundstage measurements), so it's not rolled off. But there is also some mid-bass and lower midrange emphasis that lends and overall warmth to the sound. I plug the ports on mine to counter this a bit, which I feel makes them sound more balanced.

The biggest difference I noticed in the highs between the RC-10 and AT was not a difference in detail, but prominence of certain sounds, in particular splashy cymbals... which I felt were over-pronounced on the AT. Of course, as you mention, I am very accustomed to the sound of the RC-10.

Perceptions of our ears really can be different. I heard the Sierra 1s at the same time as I did the Energy Connoisseur C-3s, and while I thought that even the tweeter on the Sierras was more revealing than the C-3's, but I sure wouldn't have called it harsh or unforgiving. In fact, I thought it was more on the laid back side of the ledger too, even if not as much as the Energys.

I haven't heard the NRT Sierras yet, but based on how people describe them as being distinctly more forward than the standard Sierras, you probably wouldn't like the NRTs either.

Yeah, I wouldn't say the Sierra's tweeter is harsh, just that it doesn't hide things. So revealing, without being forward.

I liked the sound of the standard Sierra, and while it may not have the most extended treble, I didn't find the overall sound too laid back for my own tastes, perhaps due to the the slight midrange boost (roughly 600Hz-2kHz) relative to the rest of the spectrum.

My guess is you're right about the NRT - it's probably not for me.

My Revel F12s have a relatively wide front baffle, but despite that they still image magnificently.

You are 100% right about the point of diminishing returns too.

The Revel F12's do have a wide front baffle, have you heard the Salon's? Their baffle is narrow. They are incredibly seductive speakers...

The Revel F12's do have a wide front baffle, have you heard the Salon's? Their baffle is narrow. They are incredibly seductive speakers...

I can't remember if it was Salons or Studios, but I have heard the Ultima2s. They are incredible beyond description, but at the price, they ought to be!

I haven't read every page and post of this NHT thread, but I have noticed that there has been some love shown for Revels throughout the course of it.

Thanks! Do you have the new 2.0 version of the SuperZeros or the originals, and how do they stack up to the others?

Interesting about the mid bass detail in the Fours vs the Threes. It seems to me that the Threes would have greater lower mid detail from 125 Hz down since they have an aluminum driver vs a polypropylene driver.

So you feel that the improvement of the Fours over the Threes when they are both crossed over to a sub justifies the far greater expense?

I have Revel F12s in my main system, and they are a quasi-full range tower like the Fours too, but they don't quite extend as deep nor cost as nearly much as the Fours do. I think they do sound much better than their stand-mount counterparts the M12s, but M12s vs F12s aren't quite like comparing Threes vs Fours though.

Ahh, just to be clear, the 'sub' driver in the Fours is Aluminum, not polypropylene. And yes, I do feel they are worth the greater expense. That is my opinion though. Even XO'd to a sub, there is much better mid-bass punch. Remember I'm XO'ing them at 60HZ and at 12db/octave, there is still enerty down at 30. So they just really blend well with the subs and the room.

As far as the Super Zeros, yes they are the newer ones. Funny thing is that I did start in the 80's with the original Super Zeros, my introduction to NHT's. I had other speakers also (Advent Legacys, Infinity, Pioneer, JBL and others), but always came back to NHT as I always felt they gave some of the best bang for the buck with sound and build quality. My NHT upgrade route went like this:

Super Zeros all around with a sub, then Super Ones with Super Zeros and Sub, then 1.5's all around (Audio Center-1) and Sub, then the SB/ST series: ST4, SB3, SC2, with 2 Classic 12 subs. I had that for some time until the Classic series came out and did not even flinch at the upgrade as they were worth the trade-up (my dealer at the time would take in the older NHT's and sell them used and give all the funds for the upgrade). Do I have other speakers in the house, well yes. My son's room has a 2.1 system with Pinnacle BD 500 with an Energy Sub, my editing room uses Fosgate Audionics Pro Monitors with a BA Sub (5.1 editing system), the living room uses another set of Pinnacle speakers with a sub and our bedroom has in-wall Parasounds and outboard sub. But, the main system has always had NHT's as I love their sound for the price. Like I mentioned above, I have tried speakers from many, including Infinity, JBL, B&W, and always came back and kept the NHT's.

Have I heard Energy monitors - yes, quite a few. I've set up several 5.1 systems for some friends. I also felt they they were a bit too laid back for my taste, but they do have a decent sound - especially for the price as they are always on sale (got incredible deals when my friends were looking). I do have 2 Energy subs in our house - my son's room as mentioned and our bedroom (again, got great deals on them at the time).

As for the new Super Zeros - absolutely incredible for the price. They also absolutely need a sub - drops off very fast at 85Hz and really sounds best XO'd at 100Hz. For a 'cheap' 5.1 system, Super Zeros all around with the matching sub would be hard to beat - and they have sales on the package at times.

I can't remember if it was Salons or Studios, but I have heard the Ultima2s. They are incredible beyond description, but at the price, they ought to be!

I haven't read every page and post of this NHT thread, but I have noticed that there has been some love shown for Revels throughout the course of it.

Yes - the Ultima 2's are incredible. They are part of the Salon series. Sexy, seductive speakers - and a lot of $$$$. The dealer that was here before (he left a couple years ago after getting married, so we no longer have a true NHT dealer anymore (ListenUp is here, but it's not a brand they really push or demo) used to also carry Infinity, Genesis, and Revel. We did a LOT of A/B testing in one of his rooms, including against others like B&W that people traded in. On one test, we did a level matched listening session with the B&W 802D (we're talking $12k speakers) against the NHT Fours, no sub. After much listening, the customer that brought in his 802D's sold them, and replaced them with the Fours and NAD's top of the line AVR at the time and still pocked some money. The 802D's are incredibly made speakers, but he just couldn't justify the $ and actually preferred the Fours on a level matched double blind test. What did he and the rest of us like better - the mid-range of the Fours was much more detailed and the mid-bass was tighter. Shows that NHT is putting money were it counts and not adding more than needed to keep the price affordable. B&W and Revel use some pretty exotic drivers - but you pay for them. Basically, it seems IMO that you'll pay 10X more for that last 1% actual sound benefit. To some, it's worth it...and they have the funds for it - most of us don't.

I forgot to mention, the dealer I was talking about was Audio Designs run by John Ashman. His alias on AVS was Alimentall and was highly involved in this and other forums (you probably noticed a lot of response from him in most of this NHT forum prior to when he left. He was a great guy to work with and his place was setup so that you could drop by anytime and just listen to equipment without being pushed to buy.

I forgot to mention, the dealer I was talking about was Audio Designs run by John Ashman. His alias on AVS was Alimentall and was highly involved in this and other forums (you probably noticed a lot of response from him in most of this NHT forum prior to when he left. He was a great guy to work with and his place was setup so that you could drop by anytime and just listen to equipment without being pushed to buy.

I second the nod to John. He was a good guy and very knowledgeable.. He expressed his opinions and then backed them up.. His posts lured me towards NHT and what sealed it was his passing around a pair of 3's about five years ago.

I had the sample pair for about a week and switched them back and forth with my Polk lsi-9's. I liked the Polks, but I thought the 3's highs were more extended and it's bass was tighter and cleaner.

I second the nod to John. He was a good guy and very knowledgeable.. He expressed his opinions and then backed them up.. His posts lured me towards NHT and what sealed it was his passing around a pair of 3's about five years ago.

I had the sample pair for about a week and switched them back and forth with my Polk lsi-9's. I liked the Polks, but I thought the 3's highs were more extended and it's bass was tighter and cleaner.

I remember very well when John did that. For us here, it was even easier. John would always let us preview equipment in our own home - many times he never got the equipment back as customers just paid for it. He was a real easy going guy - we used to call his store the Tim-The-Toolman version of Audio Stores. A lot of us use to drop by just to hang out and he really liked that. It was very casual place to discuss anything audio - or other things. I really miss that as there is no other place like it here in Albuquerque anymore.

Ahh, just to be clear, the 'sub' driver in the Fours is Aluminum, not polypropylene. And yes, I do feel they are worth the greater expense. That is my opinion though. Even XO'd to a sub, there is much better mid-bass punch. Remember I'm XO'ing them at 60HZ and at 12db/octave, there is still enerty down at 30. So they just really blend well with the subs and the room.

So they are. My mistake. There was a post by Mr Hidley on the first page of this thread I got mixed up. Turns out he was talking about the 10" driver frames.

Still, even though I also do it myself in my main system by having Revel F12s for L/R and Revel B12 subs, there is something that just doesn't seem right about crossing over ported speakers to a sealed sub. This has always bothered me for some reason even if it shouldn't.

there is something that just doesn't seem right about crossing over ported speakers to a sealed sub. This has always bothered me for some reason even if it shouldn't.

I agree, were the old 2.5 ported or sealed? I wonder if the next version of the 4's will be a sealed cabinet? That seems to be the new path with their subs? -Bob

Yes - the Ultima 2's are incredible. They are part of the Salon series. Sexy, seductive speakers - and a lot of $$$$. The dealer that was here before (he left a couple years ago after getting married, so we no longer have a true NHT dealer anymore (ListenUp is here, but it's not a brand they really push or demo) used to also carry Infinity, Genesis, and Revel. We did a LOT of A/B testing in one of his rooms, including against others like B&W that people traded in. On one test, we did a level matched listening session with the B&W 802D (we're talking $12k speakers) against the NHT Fours, no sub. After much listening, the customer that brought in his 802D's sold them, and replaced them with the Fours and NAD's top of the line AVR at the time and still pocked some money. The 802D's are incredibly made speakers, but he just couldn't justify the $ and actually preferred the Fours on a level matched double blind test. What did he and the rest of us like better - the mid-range of the Fours was much more detailed and the mid-bass was tighter. Shows that NHT is putting money were it counts and not adding more than needed to keep the price affordable. B&W and Revel use some pretty exotic drivers - but you pay for them. Basically, it seems IMO that you'll pay 10X more for that last 1% actual sound benefit. To some, it's worth it...and they have the funds for it - most of us don't.

Actually, Salons are part of the Ultima2 series, not the other way around, and while Revel does make some very expensive speakers, they also offer the more affordable Concerta series that definitely competes very well with anything in their price range, including the NHT Classic series.

I agree, were the old 2.5 ported or sealed? I wonder if the next version of the 4's will be a sealed cabinet? That seems to be the new path with their subs? -Bob

Don't know about the old model, sorry.

I know this has already been said several times before on this thread, but if NHT made a tower that is to the Three as the Absolute Tower is to the Absolute Zero, I'd buy a pair. I'm envisioning basically a Three on the top part of a sealed low profile tower with at least two additional front mounted 6.5' drivers for the lower bass that extended to 39 Hz or so priced around $1500 per pair. That would be cool.

Or maybe if NHT came up with some port plugs for the Fours if using a sub or two with them.

I second the nod to John. He was a good guy and very knowledgeable.. He expressed his opinions and then backed them up.. His posts lured me towards NHT and what sealed it was his passing around a pair of 3's about five years ago.

I had the sample pair for about a week and switched them back and forth with my Polk lsi-9's. I liked the Polks, but I thought the 3's highs were more extended and it's bass was tighter and cleaner.

High praise indeed for the Threes. I've never heard Lsi9s, but always wanted to. I have heard LSi7s before though and thought they were a nice little speaker.

So they are. My mistake. There was a post by Mr Hidley on the first page of this thread I got mixed up. Turns out he was talking about the 10" driver frames.

Still, even though I also do it myself in my main system by having Revel F12s for L/R and Revel B12 subs, there is something that just doesn't seem right about crossing over ported speakers to a sealed sub. This has always bothered me for some reason even if it shouldn't.

I agree with you and bob - wish they were fully sealed. But, I don't have a problem XOing to a sealed sub, they sound fine. There are no port noise issues at all, especially since the woofers from the Fours are not moving a whole lot with the set XO.

Actually, Salons are part of the Ultima2 series, not the other way around, and while Revel does make some very expensive speakers, they also offer the more affordable Concerta series that definitely competes very well with anything in their price range, including the NHT Classic series.

OOPS, yes, you are correct! I also agree with our statement of the Concerta series being on par with the Classic's. JBL has always made excellent speakers from all their lines (pro and consumer). Another competitor that I've always like also is JM Labs. Excellent speakers, even on their lower line.

I agree, were the old 2.5 ported or sealed? I wonder if the next version of the 4's will be a sealed cabinet? That seems to be the new path with their subs? -Bob

Bob,

Yes, the 2.5i's were also vented for there woofer. I would love the Fours sealed. Back when Jack was active here, I posed the question of stuffing the port on the Fours and he highly recommended not to as they were designed with that port in place. But, the way the port was designed, there is not cuffing sounds, even when run full range and they still sound pretty tight. I did run them full range when I first purchased them and actually bi-amped using the X2. But, in the end, I much prefer the use of a subwoofer that can be placed in an ideal location for bass which is not the same position of the main speakers (really one of the arguments against using any full-range speaker).

65 Electra Glide,

One thing I did try with the Fours was to lightly pack poly-fill in the port (not a 'port plug', but just wanted to hear the results). When XO'd to a sub, I really could not hear any difference, so pulled out the stuffing as it was designed to be that way.

My ideal speaker from NHT would be a fully sealed and powered (like the Xd's). If you ever heard them, they were absolutely amazing. They had an incredible sound stage that just outdid any other speaker I've heard. Since it had full DSP and electronic XO's, their XO's were set at 96db/octave (very steep - basically a brick wall XO) which let them optimize for the drivers used. The cabinets were also immaculately built. The only issue - the color was Ugly IMO. They were also expensive, so did not sell well and most folks still want to control the amplifier portion (AVR or outboard amps). In the studio world, almost everyone used powered monitors where the amps and XOs are optimized for the drivers and cabinets.

OOPS, yes, you are correct! I also agree with our statement of the Concerta series being on par with the Classic's. JBL has always made excellent speakers from all their lines (pro and consumer). Another competitor that I've always like also is JM Labs. Excellent speakers, even on their lower line.

Some of my other favorite brands besides Revel & NHT in no particular order are PSB, Monitor Audio, Dynaudio, and RBH. I have always liked Boston Acoustics too. They have never made a bad speaker.

Back when Jack was active here, I posed the question of stuffing the port on the Fours and he highly recommended not to as they were designed with that port in place.

Any idea why Jack left NHT? Just curious, Bob

Some of my other favorite brands besides Revel & NHT in no particular order are PSB, Monitor Audio, Dynaudio, and RBH. I have always liked Boston Acoustics too. They have never made a bad speaker.

Agreed, all great speakers. I still have a Boston Acoustic Sub in my home. They did make good speakers, not sure how the current ones sound since they were bought off (can't remember by whom at the moment).

Any idea why Jack left NHT? Just curious, Bob

Not sure, but it happened about the same time NHT did the most recent re-org several years ago. It's also the time John left the country with his recent wife (still married - they moved to Baja Mexico where's she's from).

I think Jack was hitting the retirement age, so not sure if he did.

Agreed, all great speakers. I still have a Boston Acoustic Sub in my home. They did make good speakers, not sure how the current ones sound since they were bought off (can't remember by whom at the moment).

They're owned by D&M Holdings now... along with Snell... and I believe both now function out of the same factory in MA.

They're owned by D&M Holdings now... along with Snell... and I believe both now function out of the same factory in MA.

I thought Snell was shut down, unfortunately.

My ideal speaker from NHT would be a fully sealed and powered (like the Xd's). If you ever heard them, they were absolutely amazing. They had an incredible sound stage that just outdid any other speaker I've heard. Since it had full DSP and electronic XO's, their XO's were set at 96db/octave (very steep - basically a brick wall XO) which let them optimize for the drivers used. The cabinets were also immaculately built. The only issue - the color was Ugly IMO. They were also expensive, so did not sell well and most folks still want to control the amplifier portion (AVR or outboard amps). In the studio world, almost everyone used powered monitors where the amps and XOs are optimized for the drivers and cabinets.

It is a shame that the Xd technology never really got off the ground. Maybe Xd was just a little too far ahead of it's time and someday it will take off.

I thought Snell was shut down, unfortunately.

I think Snell still makes the stand speaker for Outlaw. -Bob

I thought Snell was shut down, unfortunately.

Yep, you're right. D&M discontinued Snell in 2010.
http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/d-m-holdings-discontinues-snell-escient

I don't know where else to ask. I'm thinking about upgrading from my NHT VT-1.2 towers, VS-1.2 satellites and VS-2a which I've had for about 12 + years. I was looking at the Absolute Towers, center and surrounds for 5.1 set up. Is this a step up in SQ or the same with what I've got thanks.

Yep, you're right. D&M discontinued Snell in 2010.


Their web site looks fresh, and they are mentioned on D&M site.

http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/brands/snellacoustics/

Bob

Their web site looks fresh, and they are mentioned on D&M site.

http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/brands/snellacoustics/

Bob

I saw that... That's why I thought they were still around.

After 65 Electra Glide's post, I did a quick search and found that Audioholics article saying the brand was done away with.

Maybe D&M brought back the brand?

Their web site looks fresh, and they are mentioned on D&M site.

http://www.dm-holdings.com/eng/brands/snellacoustics/

Bob

Interesting, I wonder if they are keeping true to the Snell philosophy. I did like their speakers - a bit pricy, but nice.

It is a shame that the Xd technology never really got off the ground. Maybe Xd was just a little too far ahead of it's time and someday it will take off.

Yeah, was a great speaker. Unfortunately the company that made their DSP and Amp portions was not NHT. The DSP portion was made by DEQX and the amplifiers by PowerPhysics (now out of business due to the economy). Even though this technology has been used in the pro world for a long time, the consumer market was just not ready for it. I've mixed on $80K Genelecs before and the XD's could keep up with the detail (not the shear volume/impact though as the Genelecs were huge). But, for consumer speakers, we did put them up against Meridian (which John also sold) and they easily matched ones costing 4x as much, so he stopped carrying the Meridians. In the end though, most of his customers, and I suspect most customers period, prefer having non-powered speakers.

I don't know where else to ask. I'm thinking about upgrading from my NHT VT-1.2 towers, VS-1.2 satellites and VS-2a which I've had for about 12 + years. I was looking at the Absolute Towers, center and surrounds for 5.1 set up. Is this a step up in SQ or the same with what I've got thanks.

Hi Jsil,

The NHT VT's are pretty good speakers. What you'll get with the upgrade is a bit better detail (especially in the mid-range) and much better imaging. If you current speakers are working well though, it would be good for you to find someone with the AT's and just listen first to see if the upgrade is worth it to you. For me, I would say definitely, but that's my opinion. As for the center, get the TwoC as it's more detailed than the Absolute center and worth the extra cost. For the surrounds, the Absolute Zeros will work great.

I think Snell still makes the stand speaker for Outlaw. -Bob

IIRC, Outlaw's Saloon is where I found out about Snell closing. It was only after then that Outlaw finally stated publicly that Snell did in fact make their speakers for them, although it was really no big secret prior to that.

Maybe D&M brought back the brand?

Lets hope so. More good competition like that can only make every other speaker company better.

For the surrounds, the Absolute Zeros will work great.

Or the new Absolute On-wall speakers that are coming out soon.

Interesting post on NHT's facebook page about Audyssey copied, pasted and quoted below.

"Jay Doherty, our Chief Engineer has been playing with Audyssey in a Marantz SR6006. We found really random results when moving the mic around as suggest which resulted in improper setup. Here's the hack: take multiple measurements from a single listening point, then reverse the sub phase 180 and turn the sub down (it's always too loud). That's it! The setup was better sounding and technically more correct in every way..."

XT is the version on that AVR.

Interesting post on NHT's facebook page about Audyssey copied, pasted and quoted below.

"Jay Doherty, our Chief Engineer has been playing with Audyssey in a Marantz SR6006. We found really random results when moving the mic around as suggest which resulted in improper setup. Here's the hack: take multiple measurements from a single listening point, then reverse the sub phase 180 and turn the sub down (it's always too loud). That's it! The setup was better sounding and technically more correct in every way..."

XT is the version on that AVR.

I double-dog dare them to post that in the Audyssey thread. :-)

Brian

I double-dog dare them to post that in the Audyssey thread. :-)

Brian

That's sort of what I was thinking too.

Even though I can't find it now on their FB page to reference, at one time, NHT actually recommended against using Audyssey, but must have endorsed Trinnov by association since they were selling Sherwood Newcastle at the time instead of Marantz.

On a side note, for anyone that ever had any interest in Trinnov, Accesories4less is now selling new, not refurbished, Sherwood R772 AVRs with 3 year warranty and free shipping for an almost ridiculous price.

Yep, that's very interesting about what NHT states about Audyssey. I'm very curious about the room they did it in. I've never had any problems with Audyssey and will actually never buy an AVR w/o Audyssey. My main system used Audyssey XT32 with a pro-kit. It's absolutely incredible. Also, the recommended positions for the mic on manufactures manuals are not always the best, better straight from their sight or get it from the Audyssey thread (look at the link below my sig). It has a great outline on the best ways to set up with Audyssey.

You can always confirm afterwards using REW or Omnimic, or XTZ. You'll realize that Audyssey really gets rid of a lot of nodes/modes in the room.

Or the new Absolute On-wall speakers that are coming out soon.

Absolutely...pun intended...
I forget about that one since it's fairly new to their line.

My main system used Audyssey XT32 with a pro-kit. It's absolutely incredible.

Hey Cav:

What is the deal with the pro-kit, is that a device or and option that is unlocked on the AVR? Have you ever compared it to Yamaha's YAPO or any of the others? Bob

Hey Cav:

What is the deal with the pro-kit, is that a device or and option that is unlocked on the AVR? Have you ever compared it to Yamaha's YAPO or any of the others? Bob

Bob,

This is not a brief answer, but will try. Yes, I have used all the other types (set up a lot of AVR's for friends and family). I've used Yamaha' YAPO, Pioneer's MACC, Sony's Version and H & K's Version. Basically all of them use some form of Parametric EQ, which will have anywhere up to 32 bands. Also, there bass section is hardly corrected (it's the hardest part to correct) which is why some folks feel that Audyssey is 'lean' since they are used to large modes in the room (it's easy to have a +12db room mode in the bass). Audyssey does not use this technology.

Audyssey uses and equivalent (in XT32) of over 10,000 'bands' in the midrange/treble and the same 10K in the bass. To read more about it, read this:

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/215529-multeq-vs-other-equalization-methods

It does a much better job of room correction IMO than all the others (except the higher levels of Trinnov - but they are very expensive, and both Trinnov and Audyssey seem to sound the same once optimized). Once optimized, if one does have a 'preference' for more bass, it can be turned up, but will still be nice and smooth. I also find Audyssey integrates the mains and subs better.

Now, with the on-board XT32 and mic, you can measure 8 positions. This will really fit 99% of most users. Some us us are anal about it and want to extract every bit we can - I'm one of them. The Pro-Kit is an extra purchase. There is a specific thread on this:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1346723

The Pro-Kit come with a professional calibrated mic, cables, mic amplifier, and necessary connections to connect to specific AVR's (which have to be Pro-Ready, not all are). You also connect a computer to the system for calibration (laptop or desktop) to use the computers processing power - much more powerful than in any AVR. What does it give you: more flexibility (you can tweak the curves a bit), change the settings in Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, give better integration from Sat to Subs (even gives you the best choices in descending order of best XO but let's you choose), and just seems to give at better 'surround bubble'. It feels like it's all around you.

You may want to read the above thread and also the Audyssey thread to get more on it. Usually you have to hire a pro to come in and do it. But, if you're like me and others on this forum, I like to calibrate every time I make changes to the room since that does change the sound.

Cavcham, do you have any experience with HK's Ezset Eq, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?

Emotiva is coming out with a new unit with Eq called TACT, although I'm not at all familar with it.

You are the main one I specifically had in mind when I mentioned the Trinnov equipped Sherwood AVR on sale at A4L in my last post. It is said that Trinnov greatly benefits large/full range speakers like your Classic Fours, even just for 2 channel, and you seem to be the only one here with Fours. I ordered one, so I will test it out on my Revel F12s. It came in yesterday, and I plan on getting set up and playing around with it this weekend. I figure it's time I start to take full advantage of the big, bad-a$$ speakers I have.

Has anyone here ever heard both the NHT Classic Threes or Fours and the most previous generation of Energy Veritas, like the 2.2i? The real Veritas and not the current line being passed off as Veritas? I wonder how the Veritas "dome module" compares to the "dome array" NHT Classics?

Audyssey uses and equivalent (in XT32) of over 10,000 'bands' in the midrange/treble and the same 10K in the bass. To read more about it, read this:

So you are saying 20,000 bands vs 32 of the others? That is a big difference in resolution?? thanks for the detail Bob

So you are saying 20,000 bands vs 32 of the others? That is a big difference in resolution?? thanks for the detail Bob

it's 32x more "bands" than regular Audyssey

http://www.audyssey.com/ca/node/507

it's 32x more "bands" than regular Audyssey

http://www.audyssey.com/ca/node/507

Thanks for the link warpdrive, I should have added the link!

Has anyone here ever heard both the NHT Classic Threes or Fours and the most previous generation of Energy Veritas, like the 2.2i? The real Veritas and not the current line being passed off as Veritas? I wonder how the Veritas "dome module" compares to the "dome array" NHT Classics?

No, I have not heard the new Energy Veritas - did hear the older ones so cannot really make a comment on them.

Cavcham, do you have any experience with HK's Ezset Eq, and if so, what are your thoughts on it?

Emotiva is coming out with a new unit with Eq called TACT, although I'm not at all familar with it.

You are the main one I specifically had in mind when I mentioned the Trinnov equipped Sherwood AVR on sale at A4L in my last post. It is said that Trinnov greatly benefits large/full range speakers like your Classic Fours, even just for 2 channel, and you seem to be the only one here with Fours. I ordered one, so I will test it out on my Revel F12s. It came in yesterday, and I plan on getting set up and playing around with it this weekend. I figure it's time I start to take full advantage of the big, bad-a$$ speakers I have.

I have not used the newest version of HK, the last one I set up was 3 years ago and I know it has changed.

The Trinnov I was more familiar with is the Anthem - very expensive. I have not heard the Sherwood version. But, the previous one was impressive so expect the one in the Sherwood to be very good. The thing that puzzles me is "how does it really see the whole room with one measurement spot". It uses (at least the one I've seen) a single 'multiple microphone array', but as we know, if we just move 1 - 2', the freq response changes drastically which is why I like more measurements to represent the room's response.

I forgot to mention, with Audyssey XT32 you measure 8 positions (as with XT). With the Pro-Kit, you can measure 32 positions (not really necessary for most though).

I have not used the newest version of HK, the last one I set up was 3 years ago and I know it has changed.

The Trinnov I was more familiar with is the Anthem - very expensive. I have not heard the Sherwood version. But, the previous one was impressive so expect the one in the Sherwood to be very good. The thing that puzzles me is "how does it really see the whole room with one measurement spot". It uses (at least the one I've seen) a single 'multiple microphone array', but as we know, if we just move 1 - 2', the freq response changes drastically which is why I like more measurements to represent the room's response.

AFAIK, Anthem doesn't have Trinnov. They have their own ARC. :confused:

Click here (http://www.cahoyt.com/trinnov/r972Trinnov.pdf) for the release notes about Trinnov on the Sherwood R972.

The Trinnov mic pod with the shorter height of the triangular array surrounding the taller center one supposedly can derive information from the room in both horizontal & vertical dimensions and also the angular position of each speaker with measurements taken from only one spot at the favored listening position.

I forgot to mention, with Audyssey XT32 you measure 8 positions (as with XT). With the Pro-Kit, you can measure 32 positions (not really necessary for most though).

Now that's bordering on OCD! :eek:

No, I have not heard the new Energy Veritas - did hear the older ones so cannot really make a comment on them.

That's what I was asking, the older Veritas, not what's now being passed off as Veritas by Klipsch.

Since you heard the older Veritas, the real Veritas, how do they compare to the NHT Three/Four?

TIA

AFAIK, Anthem doesn't have Trinnov. They have their own ARC. :confused:

Click here (http://www.cahoyt.com/trinnov/r972Trinnov.pdf) for the release notes about Trinnov on the Sherwood R972.

The Trinnov mic pod with the shorter height of the triangular array surrounding the taller center one supposedly can derive information from the room in both horizontal & vertical dimensions and also the angular position of each speaker with measurements taken from only one spot at the favored listening position.

OOPS, you're correct.

I'm still having problems understanding how one mic position, even with and array, can really 'read the room'. But, it works from what I've read. I'd like to hear it. Let us know how it sounds.

Now that's bordering on OCD! :eek:

Yep! I fall into that group in certain areas (I think a lot on the AVS Forums and the like do). I'll sometimes do 12 at listening height, then 10 at 6" higher and the other 10 and 6" lower (for seating higher and slouching). I feel it gives a better representation of the listening area/room.

That's what I was asking, the older Veritas, not what's now being passed off as Veritas by Klipsch.

Since you heard the older Veritas, the real Veritas, how do they compare to the NHT Three/Four?

TIA

Got it. For me, the Veritas are a bit 'warmer' in character. I find the Threes more detailed in the mids and highs. But, if using an Auto-correction like Audyssey, they sound similar. There is one area that the Threes/Fours surpass the Veritas and that's in imaging, you get a much larger, deeper sound stage with the NHT's. Again, it will come down to ones preference. I like the NHT's better, others may like the Energy's better.

^^^ I have not kept up with the newer Energy's. Interesting that Klipsch. Have you listened to them? Are they more Klipsch in sound signature?

it's 32x more "bands" than regular Audyssey

http://www.audyssey.com/ca/node/507

Ok but how many bands does YAPO have? If something has 10,000 bands, is that something you would even atempt to tweak manually?

Bob

Ok but how many bands does YAPO have? If something has 10,000 bands, is that something you would even atempt to tweak manually?

Bob

Bob,

YPAO and MACC have 32 bands, and yes, you can 'tweak' them. With Audyssey, the point is getting your room to 'Reference' so no tweaking. You can increase the bass level if you want, but not actual 'curve' adjustments. With the Pro, there is some lea way on minor adjustments, but again, Audyssey is about matching reference as recorded in a studio. If you want adjustment (preference), then you can do manual EQ, but then Audyssey is no longer engaged. Once you get used to 'reference' it just seems much cleaner (no longer 'one-note-bass' like when there is a large mode at 50 Hz or so).

Bob,

YPAO and MACC have 32 bands, and yes, you can 'tweak' them. With Audyssey, the point is getting your room to 'Reference' so no tweaking.

Ok, interesting. If you switch to manual are you back to a reasonable number of bands? I am waiting for the new Outlaw prepro which should have XT32 from what I read.

Thanks Bob

Ok, interesting. If you switch to manual are you back to a reasonable number of bands? I am waiting for the new Outlaw prepro which should have XT32 from what I read.

Thanks Bob

Well, yes. But if you do manual tweaking with only 32 band, you really have a lot of modes/nodes that will not be addressed. Try first running Audyssey (you can bump up the bass afterward if you prefer it a bit heavier) and live with it for a couple weeks. Then go back w/o Audyssey with the same material and listen to the difference in detail of instruments/voice, etc.

Bob,

I just looked at the Outlaw sight. Looks like a nice pre-pro with XLR connections. What amps will be you using with it?

Bob,

I just looked at the Outlaw sight. Looks like a nice pre-pro with XLR connections. What amps will be you using with it?

I already have an Outlaw 7100 that I am currently using. I'm hoping my amp will last a good number of years, that was the plan when I moved to separates to justify the cost over an avr. Bob

I already have an Outlaw 7100 that I am currently using. I'm hoping my amp will last a good number of years, that was the plan when I moved to separates to justify the cost over an avr. Bob

Amp technology changes little, the processing part changes regularly. So, you made the right decision. Some buying the Denon 4311/A100 are actually using it as a pre-processor (it can be switched as pure-pre-amp mode and will shut down the internal amps). Denon did not make just a pre-processor for this one, would have been nice.

Let us know when you get it and how you like it.

Amp technology changes little, the processing part changes regularly. So, you made the right decision. Some buying the Denon 4311/A100 are actually using it as a pre-processor (it can be switched as pure-pre-amp mode and will shut down the internal amps). Denon did not make just a pre-processor for this one, would have been nice.


Too bad they don't do that with AVR's at all levels and supply the preamps for the external amps. I know I can't hear a difference between a $600 AVR and a $1500 one so I would be happy. Now room correction might be another story but I bet in another year will have xt32 in the lower Denon models. In the end I am sure I will own the OutLaw.You can't beet the support from Outlaw and the peer support the unit is sure to have.

Bob

Too bad they don't do that with AVR's at all levels and supply the preamps for the external amps. I know I can't hear a difference between a $600 AVR and a $1500 one so I would be happy. Now room correction might be another story but I bet in another year will have xt32 in the lower Denon models. In the end I am sure I will own the OutLaw.You can't beet the support from Outlaw and the peer support the unit is sure to have.

Bob

Well, I suspect that 99.9% of those buying them will never buy a pre-pro, they want an 'all-in-one' box. Also, most will never hear the difference (actually, played within their limits, doing a DBT, pretty much no one can hear the difference between a good avr and outboard amps). If the amp clips in an AVR, then there is a problem, but most will never reach that point (I know it will be pretty painful for me if I even try).

Can I tell a difference in my system with an outboard amp? Nope, not being played within their specs (and when they are level matched - the Emotiva amp has a higher gain structure, so will sound louder, but once level matched, it's hard to tell the difference). But, if I want to play at reference levels, which I rarely do since it's pretty painful, then yes, the AVR can run out of steam on some movies - and that's hitting over 110db. NHT's are really not that efficient so when played at very high levels they do need power. Again, most will never play it that loud and most will not be in a room that super large. My room is small with a lot of treatments so does take a bit more energy to hit specific levels.

Now room correction might be another story but I bet in another year will have xt32 in the lower Denon models. In the end I am sure I will own the OutLaw.You can't beet the support from Outlaw and the peer support the unit is sure to have.

Bob

I wouldn't hold my breath for XT 32 trickling down to lower tier Denons/Onkyos anytime soon. Maybe in a few years.

Outlaw is great to deal with. If I were in the market for a new multichannel power amp, or for dual ported subs at the $1000 price range, I would most likely go through Outlaw whenever they have one of their promotions. I was interested in one or even both of their forthcoming pre/pros, but gave up on waiting for them and now have a Denon 4311 for XT 32 and a Sherwood R972 for Trinnov.

I wouldn't really have a use for one now, but at one time, I seriously considered their RR-2150 2 channel receiver.

I would also really like to hear their Snell-made speakers too.

I can't believe it, but my Outlaw 950 prepro will no longer turn on. Just happened yesterday. I called Outlaw and they will repair, cost about ~200 with shipping. They really have excellent service on what they sell. Since the 950 is almost 10 years old I decided to purchase an interim AVR. I found a Yamaha Rx-A700 (bottom Aventage Line) on sale at Amazon for $400 (list ~650). A nice feature with the A700 is it has all the pre-outs (7.2) to hook into my external amp, backed by a 3 year warrantee and HDMI switching. That should hold me until the Outlaw is out later this year.

-Bob

I can't believe it, but my Outlaw 950 prepro will no longer turn on. Just happened yesterday. I called Outlaw and they will repair, cost about ~200 with shipping. They really have excellent service on what they sell. Since the 950 is almost 10 years old I decided to purchase an interim AVR. I found a Yamaha Rx-A700 (bottom Aventage Line) on sale at Amazon for $400 (list ~650). A nice feature with the A700 is it has all the pre-outs (7.2) to hook into my external amp, backed by a 3 year warrantee and HDMI switching. That should hold me until the Outlaw is out later this year.

-Bob

Bob, if you can, cancel that Yamaha ASAP and order a new Sherwood R972 with Trinnov from A4L for only $200 more. That AVR originally retailed for like $1800 or so. It has pre-outs, HDMI switching, and 3 year warranty too, and is in a whole other class entirely as far as sound quality. Since you already have the Outlaw amp, you could actually have Trinnov set up in two rooms using the AVR's amps in one and the Outlaw in the other, or have 5.1 or 7.1 in one room and 2-channel in another. The possibilities are only limited by imagination.

LINK (http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/SHERR972/SHERWOOD-R-972-Newcastle-7.1-A/V-Surround-Receiver-w/Dolby-TrueHD-DTS-HD/1.html)

Bob, if you can, cancel that Yamaha ASAP and order a new Sherwood R972 with Trinnov from A4L for only $200 more. That AVR originally retailed for like $1800 or so. It has pre-outs, HDMI switching, and 3 year warranty too, and is in a whole other class entirely as far as sound quality. Since you already have the Outlaw amp, you could actually have Trinnov set up in two rooms using the AVR's amps in one and the Outlaw in the other, or have 5.1 or 7.1 in one room and 2-channel in another. The possibilities are only limited by imagination.

LINK (http://www.accessories4less.com/make-a-store/item/SHERR972/SHERWOOD-R-972-Newcastle-7.1-A/V-Surround-Receiver-w/Dolby-TrueHD-DTS-HD/1.html)

Sold out but thanks. Isn't this the one Outlaw was teaming up with for their failed processor? Bob

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=82784#Post82784

Interesting article Bod. I did not know that.

As 65EG mentions, A4Less is a pretty good site. I've purchased several items from them with no issues.

Sorry about your pre-pro. Have you contacted Outlaw to get an ETA on their new Pre-Pro? I wonder if they are teaming with another company on the build (using their amp circuitry of course).

Interesting article Bod. I did not know that.

As 65EG mentions, A4Less is a pretty good site. I've purchased several items from them with no issues.

Sorry about your pre-pro. Have you contacted Outlaw to get an ETA on their new Pre-Pro? I wonder if they are teaming with another company on the build (using their amp circuitry of course).

Folks are begging Outlaw for an update in the Saloon but they remain silent. My guess is it will not be out until the summer. I would think they need to hit the market before EMottiva’s release.
Bob

Sold out but thanks. Isn't this the one Outlaw was teaming up with for their failed processor? Bob

http://ubb.outlawaudio.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=82784#Post82784

To quote the great Homer Simpson - DOHHHHHH! Sorry you missed out on that one Bob, that was the AVR deal of the new millennium so far.

Yes, that was the one which the Outlaw platform was to be based upon. One of the things Outlaw mentioned in that post you linked was HDMI 1.4, which Sherwood was evidently able to bring with an update. All issues the R972 originally had have now been eliminated for the most part by firmware, and it is now stable. Too bad Outlaw abandoned it when they did. If they hadn't, it would likely be on the market and stable right now.

Folks are begging Outlaw for an update in the Saloon but they remain silent. My guess is it will not be out until the summer. I would think they need to hit the market before EMottiva’s release.
Bob

Well, that may not be too long if it'll bring you exactly what you want. But, waiting can be hard...

Well, that may not be too long if it'll bring you exactly what you want. But, waiting can be hard...

I think he will get a $200 trade in credit on his old processor. That will help make the wait a little more bearable. :D

I think he will get a $200 trade in credit on his old processor. That will help make the wait a little more bearable. :D

Very true...unless he wants to move the 'old' one to another room. Seems like that's what happens at my house. Even my 5yo son has a 2.1 system in his room, nothing expensive. The AVR was a Marantz SR3001 re-ferb for under $200. He's happy with it (he actually has the attention span to listen to music for over an hour - especially in our main media room and claps between songs).

Very true...unless he wants to move the 'old' one to another room. Seems like that's what happens at my house. Even my 5yo son has a 2.1 system in his room, nothing expensive. The AVR was a Marantz SR3001 re-ferb for under $200. He's happy with it (he actually has the attention span to listen to music for over an hour - especially in our main media room and claps between songs).

Does he yell "Play some Skynyrd man!" yet? :)

Does he yell "Play some Skynyrd man!" yet? :)

Ha...do you mean Skylanders? We just got him a Wii for this past X-mass and some games, including Skylander. But, it's not attached to the living room - it's in the living room on a smaller display for stuff like games. He knows not to use the media room without an adult yet (some sensitive, easy to break equipment).

The Revel F12's do have a wide front baffle, have you heard the Salon's? Their baffle is narrow. They are incredibly seductive speakers...

I missed this the first time around, but the F12's front baffle is narrower than the Salon's and Studio's are by more than an inch.

I missed this the first time around, but the F12's front baffle is narrower than the Salon's and Studio's are by more than an inch.

And so it is, the Salon Ultimas 'look' like a narrower baffle due to the shape. There were no F12's in stock when I was listening to the Salons. The Salons are actually pretty big speakers (fairly deep) but because of the shape of the baffle, do not seem intrusive.

And so it is, the Salon Ultimas 'look' like a narrower baffle due to the shape. There were no F12's in stock when I was listening to the Salons. The Salons are actually pretty big speakers (fairly deep) but because of the shape of the baffle, do not seem intrusive.

Yeah, the Ultimas sure do look sexy, don't they? Especially when compared to the Concertas.

I think the Absolute Towers also look great. Classic Fours too judging from the pics of them.

My ideal speaker from NHT would be a fully sealed and powered (like the Xd's). If you ever heard them, they were absolutely amazing. They had an incredible sound stage that just outdid any other speaker I've heard. Since it had full DSP and electronic XO's, their XO's were set at 96db/octave (very steep - basically a brick wall XO) which let them optimize for the drivers used. The cabinets were also immaculately built. The only issue - the color was Ugly IMO. They were also expensive, so did not sell well and most folks still want to control the amplifier portion (AVR or outboard amps). In the studio world, almost everyone used powered monitors where the amps and XOs are optimized for the drivers and cabinets.

Per NHT's FB page, they now have 3 final Xd dual sub sets for sale for $4800 each when a single sub system advertised as new in box just closed for a little over $500 plus $300 shipping on ebay.

Hmm Not that I would buy it even if I could afford it but I wonder how a 6.6 Xd system would sound with Trinnov?

Yeah, the Ultimas sure do look sexy, don't they? Especially when compared to the Concertas.

I think the Absolute Towers also look great. Classic Fours too judging from the pics of them.

Yep, the Classic Fours are just as good looking as the Absolute Towers, they just have deeper cabinets and are twice as heavy (and play way deep for a speaker their size).

Per NHT's FB page, they now have 3 final Xd dual sub sets for sale for $4800 each when a single sub system advertised as new in box just closed for a little over $500 plus $300 shipping on ebay.

Hmm Not that I would buy it even if I could afford it but I wonder how a 6.6 Xd system would sound with Trinnov?

Nice, but still too expensive for my blood. Even though their sound just kills, I did not like their look (color). They did try a dark version, but decided it looked too much like Dark Vader (I thought it looked really cool). One other thing, even though they are amazing (very clear, incredible imaging) you still need another sub that can go deeper if used for watching movies. For music, they are perfect already. Yes, I would like a full system with Trinnov or Audyssey XT32, would sound absolutely incredible (and add a couple Seaton Submersives for the low end - those guys can go extremely deep with incredible headroom). With this (addition of subs) I'd run the XD system as a 3-way (since they have their own electronic XO's and Audyssey will do full correction) and XO the system at 40 Hz to the Seatons. Awesome!!!

Nice, but still too expensive for my blood. Even though their sound just kills, I did not like their look (color). They did try a dark version, but decided it looked too much like Dark Vader (I thought it looked really cool). One other thing, even though they are amazing (very clear, incredible imaging) you still need another sub that can go deeper if used for watching movies. For music, they are perfect already. Yes, I would like a full system with Trinnov or Audyssey XT32, would sound absolutely incredible (and add a couple Seaton Submersives for the low end - those guys can go extremely deep with incredible headroom). With this (addition of subs) I'd run the XD system as a 3-way (since they have their own electronic XO's and Audyssey will do full correction) and XO the system at 40 Hz to the Seatons. Awesome!!!

I must admit that I don't really know much about Xd and have certainly never heard them, but according the NHT website, there is a 20 Hz filter for the subs if you have duals?

I must admit that I don't really know much about Xd and have certainly never heard them, but according the NHT website, there is a 20 Hz filter for the subs if you have duals?

Yep, those filters can be used to lower the -3db point, but at the expense of headroom (this is the same with the W1's that I have, the normal -3 was at 26Hz and I did the 20Hz filter mod to bring it down to 20Hz, but at the expense of headroom). Now, for my room, that didn't matter as I do have more than enough headroom (can easily hit over 110db), but in a larger room I would need a sub that could go lower. Some of the subs out there can hit 10Hz with a lot of energy. The NHT subs are very good, but cannot go super low (also remember size though, for their size they are Awesome - the subs I'm talking about are Much larger).

One thing to remember with the 20Hz filter, after that it drops off very steeply to protect the drivers and not push the amp too hard. It's a 96db/octave filter.

I do like NHT's sealed designs for their subs. SVS, HSU, and other also make some sealed versions. Seaton subs are a class themselves and Triad also makes great one. JL Audio - Sweet, but extremely expensive. There are more...

Center channel Q,

My wife (and I) have decided to do some remodeling, and one of the consequences of this may be a push from her to downsize our speakers. Currently using M5 L-C-R, but we are moving our tv/home theater setup to a smaller room and I may have to compromise and use my SuperZeros as mains.

If I do agree to downsize to the SuperZeros as my mains (I already use them as surrounds) am I better off grabbing an old SuperCenter as my center channel, or will one of my M5s work well as a center?

Then my next dilemma will be mounting. I'd like to use the center channel directly under the TV (closer to ear height), but then I'll have to rehang the plasma (50", about 100 lbs) which is more work than setting it on the stand and putting the center channel on a shelf over the tv. We'll be closer to the TV/center in this new room setup, so I think having it (the center channel) at (or closer to) ear level will be more crucial.

Do you guys think the Classic 2 bookshelves and Classic 2 center would blend well with Absolute Towers? Also, do you think these speakers would be an upgrade over what I have now which is the Mirage OMD speakers? Thanks

Do you guys think the Classic 2 bookshelves and Classic 2 center would blend well with Absolute Towers? Also, do you think these speakers would be an upgrade over what I have now which is the Mirage OMD speakers? Thanks

Personally, I like the Absolute Zero better than the OMD-5 and the TwoC better than the OMD-C1. The NHT speakers just sound more balanced to me. The OMD-5 and OMD-C1 are a little thin sounding in comparison... although I do still like the OMD-5, even if it is really bass shy.

For some reason, I never really like the sound of the C1. I love how it was almost impossible to localize as a source, and it made dialogue really seem to emanate from the screen in a way no other monopole center I've owned, including the TwoC, has done... but the sound was never quite rite for me.

The Absolute Towers are really nice as well, and I feel a big step up over the Absolute Zero. I prefer the Three's over the Towers though. I haven't heard the OMD-15 though, so I don't know how those would compare.

One thing to note is that the Towers and Two's are not as easy to drive as the OMD-15 and OMD-5. What AVR would you be driving them with?

As far as them blending, I think the Towers and TwoC blend just fine. I might recommend getting the Absolute Zero's as surrounds (or Absolute On-Wall if you want wall mounting) to save some cash. As surrounds, I don't see any point in getting the Two's. The Absolute Zero is already has more low end than the OMD-5, and as a surround speaker would be perfectly fine with 80-90Hz xover.

Center channel Q,

My wife (and I) have decided to do some remodeling, and one of the consequences of this may be a push from her to downsize our speakers.

Just say no! :D

As far as them blending, I think the Towers and TwoC blend just fine. I might recommend getting the Absolute Zero's as surrounds (or Absolute On-Wall if you want wall mounting) to save some cash. As surrounds, I don't see any point in getting the Two's. The Absolute Zero is already has more low end than the OMD-5, and as a surround speaker would be perfectly fine with 80-90Hz xover.

I concur.

Don't give up using the M5s - they're terrific!!!!

I have 3 or them, L-C-R and and 2, L5s for the Surrounds.

Could not be happier.

Personally, I like the Absolute Zero better than the OMD-5 and the TwoC better than the OMD-C1. The NHT speakers just sound more balanced to me. The OMD-5 and OMD-C1 are a little thin sounding in comparison... although I do still like the OMD-5, even if it is really bass shy.

For some reason, I never really like the sound of the C1. I love how it was almost impossible to localize as a source, and it made dialogue really seem to emanate from the screen in a way no other monopole center I've owned, including the TwoC, has done... but the sound was never quite rite for me.

The Absolute Towers are really nice as well, and I feel a big step up over the Absolute Zero. I prefer the Three's over the Towers though. I haven't heard the OMD-15 though, so I don't know how those would compare.

One thing to note is that the Towers and Two's are not as easy to drive as the OMD-15 and OMD-5. What AVR would you be driving them with?

As far as them blending, I think the Towers and TwoC blend just fine. I might recommend getting the Absolute Zero's as surrounds (or Absolute On-Wall if you want wall mounting) to save some cash. As surrounds, I don't see any point in getting the Two's. The Absolute Zero is already has more low end than the OMD-5, and as a surround speaker would be perfectly fine with 80-90Hz xover.

Thank you for that detailed write up, I would be driving them with an AVR-4311ci.

I'm still trying to decide between NHT and KEF.

Just discovered this thread after lurking on the official Denon's owner thread. Purchased a Denon's 2112, 2 NHT superzeroes and a SA-w2500 10" Sony sub.
I have a listening room 10'x15' room with carpeting,curtains and stuffed couch. Music 30% Movies 70%

I've been listening to a really bad 10 year old HTIB system that just crapped out. Someone earlier in the thread recommended getting 4 superzeroes and a matching sub and call it a day. Since I have the SZ's I could spend $500 more appx and get 2 SZ and the 8"woofer from Crutchfield's. That is where I purchased the SZ's and the woofer and got them shipped free and it was 5 days. I live on Kauai so the free shipping was a big plus.
OR
I could get 2 Three's and have the SZ's for the rear and muddle along for now with the Sony sub. Spending app. $700. I like this option because it gives me the Threes for my 2.1 music

Questions. Best place and way to buy NHT? Put myself on special lists at NHT? Crutchfield has good prices and free shipping here. How does Crutchfield sell cheaper than NHT? Recomendations for the central speaker down the road?
Ok mahalo ahead of time. Used to Live in Santa Fe, seemed to be a lot of ALB people here.
Oh Yeah, been very happy with my SZ's and want more!

Since I have the SZ's I could spend $500 more appx and get 2 SZ and the 8"woofer from Crutchfield's.

Recomendations for the central speaker down the road?



If you just purchased a Sony sub, why do you want to purchase an 8" woofer?

You would want the matching center from NHTdepending on which NHT mains you select. BTW, I love my Threes and use them for LCR.

Bob

Just say no! :D
:) I would agree! If at all possible, keep the M's. They are MUCH better speakers and will fill the room. For the center, Sanus makes a stand for center's that have adjustable bolts that will tilt your speaker correctly. Look at my pics, I'm using that stand for my center.

I'm still trying to decide between NHT and KEF.

Slickman,

This would really be a preference issue. They both sound different, speakers are really the most subjective part of the audio chain. One of my brothers bought both (couple sets of NHT and KEF) and we did to a side-by-side test run. We both ended up liking NHT more. He didn't get rid of the KEFs, they ended up in other rooms while the NHT's were used in their main media room and their master bedroom.

You really need to listen to them somewhere if you can to make the comparison.

Just discovered this thread after lurking on the official Denon's owner thread. Purchased a Denon's 2112, 2 NHT superzeroes and a SA-w2500 10" Sony sub.
I have a listening room 10'x15' room with carpeting,curtains and stuffed couch. Music 30% Movies 70%

I've been listening to a really bad 10 year old HTIB system that just crapped out. Someone earlier in the thread recommended getting 4 superzeroes and a matching sub and call it a day. Since I have the SZ's I could spend $500 more appx and get 2 SZ and the 8"woofer from Crutchfield's. That is where I purchased the SZ's and the woofer and got them shipped free and it was 5 days. I live on Kauai so the free shipping was a big plus.
OR
I could get 2 Three's and have the SZ's for the rear and muddle along for now with the Sony sub. Spending app. $700. I like this option because it gives me the Threes for my 2.1 music

Questions. Best place and way to buy NHT? Put myself on special lists at NHT? Crutchfield has good prices and free shipping here. How does Crutchfield sell cheaper than NHT? Recomendations for the central speaker down the road?
Ok mahalo ahead of time. Used to Live in Santa Fe, seemed to be a lot of ALB people here.
Oh Yeah, been very happy with my SZ's and want more!

Hi, as Bob mentions, you would need to pick the matching center depending on what you get. Crutchfield does have free shipping. OneCall also does. You would need to check if they will ship free out of the continental US though, not sure about that.

Also, as bob mentions, you already have a sub. You may want to hold off on getting a new one and in the future if funds permit, you can get a sub that can really hit lower with more energy.

My choice, if it were me, would be to go with the Threes and forgo the center for now. they image extremely well and you may not even need a center. They are Much better that the SZ's. Again, dependent on your funding. You can get 2 SZ's and the matching center for cheaper than the Threes and still be just as happy IMO.

:) I would agree! If at all possible, keep the M's. They are MUCH better speakers and will fill the room. For the center, Sanus makes a stand for center's that have adjustable bolts that will tilt your speaker correctly. Look at my pics, I'm using that stand for my center.

I have a TV stand that all of the A/V equipment goes in, so I'll just place the M5 center channel on that, and wall mount the Plasma so the bottom is about 8" over the top of the tv stand/cabinet.

I agree with you guys, (and my wife also loves the sound of the M5s) and I think we'll accommodate them. Our viewing couch will be right up against the back wall though, so my next decision will be where to relocate my SuperZero XU surrounds - right above the couch behind us (ceiling height), or in the adjacent corner/wall, aimed near the couch.

Glad your keeping your wife and the M5s!

Glad your keeping your wife and the M5s!

+1, the best option!!!

Hi, as Bob mentions, you would need to pick the matching center depending on what you get. Crutchfield does have free shipping. OneCall also does. You would need to check if they will ship free out of the continental US though, not sure about that.

Also, as bob mentions, you already have a sub. You may want to hold off on getting a new one and in the future if funds permit, you can get a sub that can really hit lower with more energy.

My choice, if it were me, would be to go with the Threes and forgo the center for now. they image extremely well and you may not even need a center. They are Much better that the SZ's. Again, dependent on your funding. You can get 2 SZ's and the matching center for cheaper than the Threes and still be just as happy IMO.
Great thank you. The sub can wait and the Three's will give me the movie and music experience I desire for now without the center. My idea with funding at present is to build a quality system to be happy with for years to come and I think the three's r it for now.
Now, where do I look for the best deal? Are NHT's ever on sale somewhere.? There is nothing here on the island as far as a craigslist - used good speakers etc. Used stereo stuff is usually for cars. Very limited. We do have a Sears,Costco and Walmart.:mad:

Checked onecall, no NHT 3's. Audiophile liquidator had some at a good price. Anyone know about APliquidator? Thought I saw some disparaging remarks concerning that company somewhere on AVS.

Great thank you. The sub can wait and the Three's will give me the movie and music experience I desire for now without the center. My idea with funding at present is to build a quality system to be happy with for years to come and I think the three's r it for now.
Now, where do I look for the best deal? Are NHT's ever on sale somewhere.? There is nothing here on the island as far as a craigslist - used good speakers etc. Used stereo stuff is usually for cars. Very limited. We do have a Sears,Costco and Walmart.:mad:

The Three's were just on sale in Feb everywhere for $299. NHT was running a sale. That is when I picked up 3 of the Threes. Sorry you missed it.

I think you will be happy with the Three's, they image like crazy. I tested 2-threes (Phantom center) and had excellent results.


Bob

Never mind. Pulled the trigger,shot those bad 3's down direct from NHT, John Johnson, and got them both shipped here for $700. Exactly my budget!!!

Awesome Kauaigoug!

Keep us posted once you set them up and have time to listen. What speaker stands will you be using?

Awesome Kauaigoug!

Keep us posted once you set them up and have time to listen. What speaker stands will you be using?

Hadn't gotten that far. Any suggestions?

Hadn't gotten that far. Any suggestions?

Hi,

You just have to keep in mind that the bottom of the Threes (actually all the Classic series monitors) have railings for feet, so the top of the stands have to be large enough to support them. There are a lot out there that can from different sites. What type of furniture do you have in your room that these are going in? Some place them on 'book shelves' and if you do, make sure the front baffle is slightly forward of the front face of the book shelf or what ever furniture you are placing them on, but you will loose some imaging compared to placing them on speaker stands (which is the best option).

Kauaidoug,

NHT's website has stands from Sanus that would work perfectly. If you want cheaper, Audio Advisor has some from Pangea that would work (the width is perfect, but the depth would be slightly short - not an issue if the speaker hangs off a bit on the front and back as the width is the determining factor):

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PGLS02

You of course can make your own if you're handy with tools...

I use the twin-pillar Sanus SF-26 stands with my Classic Threes and like them quite a bit.

The top plate is 6" wide x 6.5" deep. The rails/feet on the Threes are 5" wide x 8.25" long. I centered the speakers front to back. The overhang looks fine and works to advantage in that the top plate doesn't interfere too much, visually, with the curved bottom of the speaker. There are some round, black rubber bits with posts included in the box that I used to stabilize the speaker from side to side movement should they get bumped. The top plate has a hole in each corner. I simply pushed them up through the hole from the bottom, then wedged the speaker between them. It's a tight "fit," but with a little give. I'd like to find something with a little bit more integrity, but this works well enough for now.

They're pretty solid as is. I suppose you could fill them with sand or lead shot if needed. The paint on the stands appears semi-gloss black in my room. Not as matte as others I've seen. The base has a gentle curve from front to back which imo works nicely with the curves on the speaker itself. YMMV. There are four plastic feet that screw into the corners of each base. Because of the curve, they are corner specific. Spikes or rubber inserts attach to the bottom of the plastic feet. Note that if you use the rubber inserts instead of the spikes the stand will be one inch shorter than spec'd. Also, there is no internal cable management. There are some plastic tabs that are supposed to attach to the top and bottom of the pillars to thread the wire through, but I just used black cable ties on the rear pillar. They're less bulky and more secure.

Hope this is helpful.

One more thing. I can't express how much I love these Threes. The highs took a little time to mellow out, but now, music I've been listening to for 30+ years has come to life again. I've only had them for a short time, but I'm really excited. A new journey through old forests so to speak.

Thanks to all here for their informative contributions and specific help. Perhaps after I get more time with them I'll be able to offer up some useful observations.

Gee, thanks guys. My house is all kind of eclectic ,semi hippie Hawaiiana. Once I get the 3's(can't wait but I guess I have to) I will settle everyone in and think on it. I rent but have a long term situation. I need to mount my 42" Plasma up on the wall , I think, and may decide to have a friend build something around the TV that is also attached to the walls. My place is small but I live alone and don't throw too many wild parties like in the old light up and listen days. Don't need to worry about bumping etc.
Do I want the speakers to sit away from the wall? How far? Thanks again for your helpful posts.
Doug

Also, when I listen to my superzeroes I have noticed at times a funny pressure in my ears that i associate with the treble. I think I read something about this. Is this because they are new ? Do the speakers need breaking in because it is a little concerning.

I had some monster 16 gauge shipped with my sub. Now that I have 2 more speakers coming I'm short on wire.
My question is would it matter if I used a different brand but same gauge of wire in my speaker set up? I just don't have enough for the last of 3 speakers(not counting the sub)
I can run to Sears and get regular ol 16 gauge clear speaker wire and be ready to go when my Three's arrive this Monday. :)
Is there really a difference in wire as long as it is the same gauge?

I use the twin-pillar Sanus SF-26 stands with my Classic Threes and like them quite a bit.

The top plate is 6" wide x 6.5" deep. The rails/feet on the Threes are 5" wide x 8.25" long. I centered the speakers front to back. The overhang looks fine and works to advantage in that the top plate doesn't interfere too much, visually, with the curved bottom of the speaker. There are some round, black rubber bits with posts included in the box that I used to stabilize the speaker from side to side movement should they get bumped. The top plate has a hole in each corner. I simply pushed them up through the hole from the bottom, then wedged the speaker between them. It's a tight "fit," but with a little give. I'd like to find something with a little bit more integrity, but this works well enough for now.

They're pretty solid as is. I suppose you could fill them with sand or lead shot if needed. The paint on the stands appears semi-gloss black in my room. Not as matte as others I've seen. The base has a gentle curve from front to back which imo works nicely with the curves on the speaker itself. YMMV. There are four plastic feet that screw into the corners of each base. Because of the curve, they are corner specific. Spikes or rubber inserts attach to the bottom of the plastic feet. Note that if you use the rubber inserts instead of the spikes the stand will be one inch shorter than spec'd. Also, there is no internal cable management. There are some plastic tabs that are supposed to attach to the top and bottom of the pillars to thread the wire through, but I just used black cable ties on the rear pillar. They're less bulky and more secure.

Hope this is helpful.

One more thing. I can't express how much I love these Threes. The highs took a little time to mellow out, but now, music I've been listening to for 30+ years has come to life again. I've only had them for a short time, but I'm really excited. A new journey through old forests so to speak.

Thanks to all here for their informative contributions and specific help. Perhaps after I get more time with them I'll be able to offer up some useful observations.

Defmoot,

Glad you love your Threes, they are really nice speakers. What are you driving them with? If you have something like Audyssey, MACC, YAPO, or the like, the highs can be tamed down (it's automatically done with Audyssey).

Keep us posted and just enjoy them!!!

Gee, thanks guys. My house is all kind of eclectic ,semi hippie Hawaiiana. Once I get the 3's(can't wait but I guess I have to) I will settle everyone in and think on it. I rent but have a long term situation. I need to mount my 42" Plasma up on the wall , I think, and may decide to have a friend build something around the TV that is also attached to the walls. My place is small but I live alone and don't throw too many wild parties like in the old light up and listen days. Don't need to worry about bumping etc.
Do I want the speakers to sit away from the wall? How far? Thanks again for your helpful posts.
Doug

Also, when I listen to my superzeroes I have noticed at times a funny pressure in my ears that i associate with the treble. I think I read something about this. Is this because they are new ? Do the speakers need breaking in because it is a little concerning.

Hi Doug,

If you're mounting your display on the wall and want to mount your speakers, OmniMount does make some that can handle it. But, if you built a shelf deep enough, it should work just fine (remember to leave enough room for the wiring on the binding posts on the back). As long as the front baffle is ahead of the display, you'll have no problems (the speakers are a LOT deeper than the display). Also, mount them at or just above ear height (the tweeter is the listening plane).

As in the above post, what AVR are you driving them with and have you run it's auto-eq? The SuperZeros should not be that 'shrill' in the highs, they have a soft dome. It may be your room being very lively (it would help to know what you have as far as furniture, rug, carpet, curtains, etc.)

As with any speaker system, the ROOM is extremely important. It has more influence on the sound, besides the speakers, than any part of the audio chain (actually very good speakers in a bad room will sound worse than less capable speakers 'good' room). There is no 'magic' room and any room can be treated or at least 'optimized' as much as possible for the best sound you can get out of your system (of course within constraints of budget, WAF, etc.). Most of the time changing placement of speakers (especially the sub) will make the most difference/improvement.

I had some monster 16 gauge shipped with my sub. Now that I have 2 more speakers coming I'm short on wire.
My question is would it matter if I used a different brand but same gauge of wire in my speaker set up? I just don't have enough for the last of 3 speakers(not counting the sub)
I can run to Sears and get regular ol 16 gauge clear speaker wire and be ready to go when my Three's arrive this Monday. :)
Is there really a difference in wire as long as it is the same gauge?

Doug,

Go ahead and get the wire from Sears, they'll work just fine! You won't hear any difference between the 16 AWG wire from there or the 16AWG Monster cable - pretty much the same quality OFC cable.

The sub will use a low level cable, not speaker cable (I'm assuming a powered sub here).

Ray

Defmoot,

Glad you love your Threes, they are really nice speakers. What are you driving them with? If you have something like Audyssey, MACC, YAPO, or the like, the highs can be tamed down (it's automatically done with Audyssey).

Keep us posted and just enjoy them!!!
I've got a Denon 1611, which has enough power considering my MLP is only about seven feet. I listen to music 2.1 with an Outlaw EX, and movies 4.1 with phantom center. The imaging on the Threes is excellent. I don't really miss the center channel much, although at some point I'm sure I'll get a TwoC center and some better surrounds. Just because. :D

85% of my serious listening is music. I've run Audyssey a bunch of times on various speakers and like it, although I do play most music Flat with DynEQ off or set to -5. Depends on the recording. I haven't decided if I like the Audyssey curve for music yet. Time will tell. For movies I always use Audyssey and DynEQ. I rarely use DynVol simply because I don't need it.

I will say that the Threes have really opened up the soundstage a ton compared to previous speakers I've owned, and the clarity of voices and instruments is just crazy good. For years I owned a pair of KEF 105s and really liked them. It was some time ago, and memory betrays, but I don't remember them sounding anywhere near as sweet as these Threes. :cool:

I've got a Denon 1611, which has enough power considering my MLP is only about seven feet. I listen to music 2.1 with an Outlaw EX, and movies 4.1 with phantom center. The imaging on the Threes is excellent. I don't really miss the center channel much, although at some point I'm sure I'll get a TwoC center and some better surrounds. Just because. :D

85% of my serious listening is music. I've run Audyssey a bunch of times on various speakers and like it, although I do play most music Flat with DynEQ off or set to -5. Depends on the recording. I haven't decided if I like the Audyssey curve for music yet. Time will tell. For movies I always use Audyssey and DynEQ. I rarely use DynVol simply because I don't need it.

I will say that the Threes have really opened up the soundstage a ton compared to previous speakers I've owned, and the clarity of voices and instruments is just crazy good. For years I owned a pair of KEF 105s and really liked them. It was some time ago, and memory betrays, but I don't remember them sounding anywhere near as sweet as these Threes. :cool:

Nice setup! Outlaw makes some awesome subs. I would suggest going with the Three C just to keep the front sound stage the same. But, if you feel fine without a center and it works, just keep it that way. The Threes do image very well.

I also keep DynVol off, seems to make the bass too boomy in most cases. I also rarely use DynEQ, but it has it's place. The Audyssey curve has a gentle roll-off in the high end which helps if your speakers seem too bright, but it's just a matter of preference. If you prefer the Flat setting, use it. I use the Audyssey curve for movies, but like you prefer it Flat for music.

Enjoy your setup - that's what it's all about!!!

Anybody have comments on the Absolute On Walls, now that they are finally shipping?

Anybody have comments on the Absolute On Walls, now that they are finally shipping?

Have not heard them, of course. But I'm willing to bet they sound pretty much the same as the regular Absolute Zeros being wall mounted. The XO's are most likely designed to take into account that they must be wall mounted and will take care of boundary gain issues.

True, but (as you know) one can't really predict the performance of a speaker from the name on the box or the drivers in the box.

For most people using them as surrounds, it wouldn't be critical. I was actually thinking about an unconventional use, for a desk listening setup (I'd have to figure some way to aim them at me) so they'd be mains.

I imagine there will be some people using them as L/R, they should do a lot better than most little mountable speakers.

True, but (as you know) one can't really predict the performance of a speaker from the name on the box or the drivers in the box.

For most people using them as surrounds, it wouldn't be critical. I was actually thinking about an unconventional use, for a desk listening setup (I'd have to figure some way to aim them at me) so they'd be mains.

I imagine there will be some people using them as L/R, they should do a lot better than most little mountable speakers.

Agreed - have to always listen to them first. But NHT has a reputation of being very consistent and I'm sure this one won't deviate.

If using them for a desk listening, wouldn't the standard Absolute Zeros suit you better? I figure that the on-wall version is really only good for that intended purpose (can be used for L/R if mounted next to a flat panel). But, for anything away from the wall, which it's not made for, there may be some freq dip/peaks added. Just thinking out loud...

Buzzy,

I also forgot to add, in the past we compared the M5 to the L5 (made for on-wall) and you really did need the M5 if placed away from a wall as the L5 tended to sound 'thin'. the L5's were awesome though when mounted and not that deep.

Agreed - have to always listen to them first. But NHT has a reputation of being very consistent and I'm sure this one won't deviate.

If using them for a desk listening, wouldn't the standard Absolute Zeros suit you better? I figure that the on-wall version is really only good for that intended purpose (can be used for L/R if mounted next to a flat panel). But, for anything away from the wall, which it's not made for, there may be some freq dip/peaks added. Just thinking out loud...

But if his desk is against a wall, and he's going to mount them... it makes perfect sense - speaker in its intended placement, and nothing on the desk taking up space.

I considered the Absolute Wall for this very purpose... but didn't come up with a simple way to toe them in toward my listening position... so never really pursued the idea.

Thanks for the comments. I was trying to free up desk space. And get some NHTs back in the rotation.

Toe in is the challenge for that kind of setup. All the desktop speakers I've had really needed to be aimed at my ears, for nearfield anyway.

But if his desk is against a wall, and he's going to mount them... it makes perfect sense - speaker in its intended placement, and nothing on the desk taking up space.

I considered the Absolute Wall for this very purpose... but didn't come up with a simple way to toe them in toward my listening position... so never really pursued the idea.

Got it, that makes sense. I don't see a mounting bolt for such mounts as the OmniMount on the back to be able to do that. It still may work pretty well mounting flush to the wall in this instance since the dispersion of the Classic Series is very good. It'll be interesting to here someones thoughts on this once they try it, I curious also.

What if the mounting bolt were long, i.e. sticking out of the wall about 1", and then on the outside back portion of the speakers you place 1/2" rubber feet (top and bottom)? Would that be enough of a toe-in? Just thinking of other possibilities. Won't look as clean though.

Toe in is the challenge for that kind of setup. All the desktop speakers I've had really needed to be aimed at my ears, for nearfield anyway.

The only speaker that I haven't had to toe in on a desktop is the Mirage OMD-5... but it's not my preferred speaker for nearfield, since I feel it sounds a little too bright in that setting.

I have a pair of Peachtree DS4.5' on my desk now... and like them quite a bit - very smooth sounding speaker with relaxed high end, which makes them easy on the ears in a nearfield setting. For some though, they might sound dark/dull. My only real issue with them is that they sound a tiny bit boxed in, and need angled in quite a bit to sound good... Even then, they don't truly "disappear."

I think the NHT Absolute Zero images better on my desk, but still requires a good amount of toe in to do so. The downside for me is that it's more neutral sonic character makes for a less relaxed presentaion when sitting so close... The other issue is that, if fed a full range signal, they really need to be up off the desk a good bit, or they get overly full in the upper bass.

So I keep going back in forth on which I like better for nearfield... Either way, sitting so close, and having the speakers so close to the rear wall, makes it really tough to get a convincing soundstage, and the right sonic balance.

My Absolute Wall speakers arrived Friday, and I finally was able to finish up the complete NHT surround system in the bedroom this past weekend. My old M&K system anchored with S125s on their matching M&K column stands for main L/R and a S125C for the center has served me well for many years for movie surround sound (and they are still quite capable and more than adequate for that purpose), however the last few years they were just for an occasional movie as a secondary system in the bedroom and not really getting that much use.

The whole point of replacing that M&K system was to be able to get back to doing more 2 channel music listening since that's not really the M&K's forte` (IMHO of course), and also because that room is actually better for music than the family room where the main system is located, while still being able to watch an occasional movie in the bedroom. Ever since late November/early December when the Absolute Towers arrived followed by the Threes in January getting back to 2 channel was exactly what I've been doing. It was a real treat to listen to CDs again that I hadn't played in a long, long time since the last few years were mostly for movies more than music.

I have finally reached a decision on the Classic Threes vs the Absolute Towers. I was actually expecting quite the opposite going in to it, but my choice between them is the Towers. I just feel that they have more detail and better imaging than the Threes (not that the Threes lack in imaging and detail in any way), and I also feel the Towers also have better dynamics.

So the speaker system is -
Absolute Towers Front L/R
2C center speaker
Absolute Zero wides
Absolute Wall surrounds and heights
dual B-12d subs

The only speaker that I haven't had to toe in on a desktop is the Mirage OMD-5... but it's not my preferred speaker for nearfield, since I feel it sounds a little too bright in that setting.

I have a pair of Peachtree DS4.5' on my desk now... and like them quite a bit - very smooth sounding speaker with relaxed high end, which makes them easy on the ears in a nearfield setting. For some though, they might sound dark/dull. My only real issue with them is that they sound a tiny bit boxed in, and need angled in quite a bit to sound good... Even then, they don't truly "disappear."

I think the NHT Absolute Zero images better on my desk, but still requires a good amount of toe in to do so. The downside for me is that it's more neutral sonic character makes for a less relaxed presentaion when sitting so close... The other issue is that, if fed a full range signal, they really need to be up off the desk a good bit, or they get overly full in the upper bass.

So I keep going back in forth on which I like better for nearfield... Either way, sitting so close, and having the speakers so close to the rear wall, makes it really tough to get a convincing soundstage, and the right sonic balance.

Nearfield is a tricky thing and many use speakers made for this purpose. I have NHT's though out the house, but for my office where I need nearfield speakers, I'm using ones made specifically for this purpose from Fosgate Audionics (Fosgate no longer makes them and they shut down this part of the business to focus on Non-OEM and OEM car speakers). The stands are from Sweetwater (or Musicians Friend) - by Stand Design which are designed for this purpose and are height adjustable (mine are quite high to clear the monitors). With the use of Audyssey, they are dialed in pretty well. You do need to EQ for nearfield, it's a very different 'room' for the speakers as you are pretty much listening to close, very direct sound. The surrounds are on the same type of stands to the back of the room. I do not have any room treatments yet in this room like I have done in my Media room, but will in the future.

Here is a pic of my setup to give you an idea:

http://gallery.avsforum.com/data/502/Office.jpg

My Absolute Wall speakers arrived Friday, and I finally was able to finish up the complete NHT surround system in the bedroom this past weekend. My old M&K system anchored with S125s on their matching M&K column stands for main L/R and a S125C for the center has served me well for many years for movie surround sound (and they are still quite capable and more than adequate for that purpose), however the last few years they were just for an occasional movie as a secondary system in the bedroom and not really getting that much use.

The whole point of replacing that M&K system was to be able to get back to doing more 2 channel music listening since that's not really the M&K's forte` (IMHO of course), and also because that room is actually better for music than the family room where the main system is located, while still being able to watch an occasional movie in the bedroom. Ever since late November/early December when the Absolute Towers arrived followed by the Threes in January getting back to 2 channel was exactly what I've been doing. It was a real treat to listen to CDs again that I hadn't played in a long, long time since the last few years were mostly for movies more than music.

I have finally reached a decision on the Classic Threes vs the Absolute Towers. I was actually expecting quite the opposite going in to it, but my choice between them is the Towers. I just feel that they have more detail and better imaging than the Threes (not that the Threes lack in imaging and detail in any way), and I also feel the Towers also have better dynamics.

So the speaker system is -
Absolute Towers Front L/R
2C center speaker
Absolute Zero wides
Absolute Wall surrounds and heights
dual B-12d subs

Nice setup!!! Bet is sounds great! So you finally settled for the Absolute Towers. It's good that you could make the comparison in your own room - the only way to do it.

By the way, how do the Absolute Walls compare to the Absolute Zeros? Have you tried a side-by-side test? I'm curious if there is a lot of tweaking in the XO for wall mounting. From the 'looks' of them, the internal volume seems to be about the same since they are taller but less deep.

Nice setup!!! Bet is sounds great! So you finally settled for the Absolute Towers. It's good that you could make the comparison in your own room - the only way to do it.

By the way, how do the Absolute Walls compare to the Absolute Zeros? Have you tried a side-by-side test? I'm curious if there is a lot of tweaking in the XO for wall mounting. From the 'looks' of them, the internal volume seems to be about the same since they are taller but less deep.

No, I haven't compared them to each other as front l/r or anything.

As for all the recent discussion about desktop systems, has anyone else here tried the new NHT DeskStands (http://www.nhthifi.com/DeskStand-for-SuperPower?sc=12&category=6062) that were designed for the still as yet to be released SuperPowers yet?

Got my Three's 4 days ago. Unpacked and they r very handsome slick pieces of audio equipment. They compliment my 42" Pana perfectly in the looks dept. So on that they rate very happy.
Hooked em up as the fronts, no center , then the superzeroes for rear plus my 10" Sony sub. Did all the Audyssey stuff with my Denon 2112, played with that, then the coaxial on my TV so I can watch American Idol. Once I discovered the music, cinema, rock arena settings I was thrilled.
AI was fun but then I played "TorchWood". Great soundtrack. That was when I heard what I think You guys mean by the stage. With just the TV on for light it was like there were no speakers and the instruments and special effects were just there on a stage in my living room. I had to play and point the speakers for a couple of nights to get just the right balance.
THAT'S what I was wanting to achieve. It was very satisfying. Thank you people for the help. The Three's sound fantastic, and I have really only just begun. I would highly recommend these speakers. ;)

Kauaidoug,

Glad you like your new toys and that it satisfied your craving. Play more music that you know well and movies also, you might be surprised that there is more there than you heard in the past. They are very revealing speakers.

Enjoy!
Ray

No, I haven't compared them to each other as front l/r or anything.

As for all the recent discussion about desktop systems, has anyone else here tried the new NHT DeskStands (http://www.nhthifi.com/DeskStand-for-SuperPower?sc=12&category=6062) that were designed for the still as yet to be released SuperPowers yet?

Those are some pretty expensive small stands, but if they do the job and they look nice, then might be worth it. I'd like to hear the SuperPower somtime.

No, I haven't compared them to each other as front l/r or anything.

As for all the recent discussion about desktop systems, has anyone else here tried the new NHT DeskStands (http://www.nhthifi.com/DeskStand-for-SuperPower?sc=12&category=6062) that were designed for the still as yet to be released SuperPowers yet?

I use these for my AZ's, and they are not much cheaper than the NHT Stands. Given that they are just foam rubber, I would say that they are over priced, but they did do what I needed them to do.

http://www.guitarcenter.com/Auralex-MoPad-Monitor-Isolation-Pads-101676609-i1134516.gc

You can combine the individual pads to get the angle you need, but in truth they don't look all that great if that is something that matters to you.

Brian

Great, now that i just bought the three's they are on a really good sale. They are $399-150= 251.00 Now my great price 2 weeks later not so hot. In fact I'm a little pissed. Would like to have spent $500 instead of $700. Hmm still need a center speaker. Would another three work as the center?

Great, now that i just bought the three's they are on a really good sale. They are $399-150= 251.00 Now my great price 2 weeks later not so hot. In fact I'm a little pissed. Would like to have spent $500 instead of $700. Hmm still need a center speaker. Would another three work as the center?

It would be preferred over the horizontal center channel. A matching vertical speaker will give you superior off axis response.

Go for it. That is a great price on these speakers.