I would have predicted just such a response from you John, given that you have exhibited a decided propensity for seeing things only as required to sell your current product du jour; as well as your previously confessed melancholy from having beaten the Evo drum for the last five years.

Geez, Z, feeling sensitive today?!? My point about Evo is that I've sold a ton, I still like the product, but it *is* 5 years old now and it's time *for me* to focus on something different and new. If the Three's driver technology weren't so advanced or were watered down versions of the M5/M6, then sure, Evo would still be top dog, no doubt. But that's not the case.

Your suggestion that the Denon receiver "throws out any advantage the M6 has", is decidedly short-sighted advice IMHO. In fact, you have even contradicted yourself here, as you said earlier in this very thread (Post #664) that:

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

That's not a contradiction. Given that a Denon will be driving either one and the efficiencies are the same, there's no advantage either way when it comes to power. BUT, the Audyssey will compensate for the placement, taking away that advantage as well.

Having already said this, you then suggest that Bob not get the NHT speakers (M6es) that are all ready optimized for in-cabinet placement; speakers that have an additional crossover specifically designed for this purpose, which would not tie him to using a receiver which you have already characterized as "woefully inadequate".

I said *most* Japanese receivers. The 4xxx series Denons are usually sufficient. 3xxx series Denons usually don't do that well. Please reread those sentences.

I think Bob would be far better served by choosing speakers that would allow him a migration path to (say) a more suitable (better) amp and a pre/pro that offers him superior AV quality and functionality for rapidly evolving technologies; especially when those speakers don't require him to be married to an Audyssey EQ to make them work for his placement.

You mean like the NHT preamp/amp that also can deal with this stuff? However, I do believe Bob already bought the Denon.

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

Oh, please. Are you suggesting that, as good as M6s are, that there's no room for improvement? I think you should hear both the Classic series and Xds to see what is possible before assuming that NHT has made no strides in the last 5 years. Used properly as they are, metal drivers have a natural resolution advantage over polypropylene.

It has become obvious to me John, that your motivation for (now) giving the Evolution line the red-headed stepchild treatment, is all about your vested interest in the success of the Classic speaker line roll-out.

If I was worried about vested interests, I would have been dismissing the Classics as they haven't had sufficient availability to make me any damned money. The fact that I'm excited about something from which I can't make much money should be ample proof of my innocence.

As more impartial posters than yourself have already expressed in these pages, the Classics are not exactly the "giant-killers" you once supposed them to be.

For every person that has posted (1? 2?) that say they aren't giant-killers (or, at least, "giant embarrassers"), I can whip out two or three that will state otherwise. Not because they are perfect, but because they are embarrassingly good for such little money. Xd is the *real* giant-killer. Threes just make most other stuff look bad in performance, price, aesthetics or all three.

My only point here, is that in your hurry to move on to the 'next big thing' for your business, you are (IMO) unfairly characterizing the M6, in order to suit your current agenda. While I'm sure the Three is a very good speaker, the fact remains that the M6 (T6) *is* currently a Stereophile Class A rated speaker and the jury is still out on the Threes; a fact which I think is important for AVS readers to not lose sight of, while you are busy trying to throw the M6es under the bus.

Oh, c'mon, that's just crap. I tell lots of people that they should *keep* their Evolutions and not worry about the Classics. And, to be honest, I could make *more* money selling Evos. Why would I talk someone out of spending $1200 or $4000 to spend $800 or $1800? Because I'm so greedy and biased? Bob asked me "if it were you, which would you buy" and the answer was "the 3/3c combo, no doubt". Because that's what I honestly feel. Now, I admit that I do prefer the *tonal* balance of the M6 a little better, but the increase in resolution and clarity and "blackness" to the background is enough to sway me. After all, you can EQ in tonal balance, but you can't EQ in resolution. There are plenty of people who will prefer the Evos over the Threes, no doubt. I also have people trading in Evo, despite my admonitions to "don't worry, be happy". But they come in and listen and some say "I'm still happy" and others say "I have to have them".

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

YOU agreed with yourself that it MDF is plastic. In order to qualify as *a* plastic, it has to be a polymer based product. And I don't believe MDF qualifies exactly. Some of the ingredients of MDF maybe considered to be a plastic, if glue can be considered to be a plastic, but MDF is just.......MDF. I don't know why you'd call it anything else except to be derisive.

I feel compelled to end this stupid plastic stuff.

So here is my four cents:

MDF is not plastic. Just because a milkshake has milk in it, does not make it the same as a glass of milk. That's like saying a bowling ball is plastic. Maybe technically, but it's really not, it's NOW referred to as thermal resin or something (I forget exactly). You can call a chicken "meat", but that's not as detailed as just calling it a chicken. The definition of plastic may have started out broad enough to include these things, but popular use or slag must be considered to a point. People don't call MDF or bowling balls plastic. Fiberglass is fiberglass. Eventually, popular use of slag changes the official meaning of the dictionary, as it is updated to reflect current use. Everyone is looking for the ultimate definition of plastic, but everyone seemingly forgets that our culture creates the definitions as we go. Dictionaries are only updated so fast or so much to reflect our culture.

Or think of it this way. Viridian is a shade of green. But not all shades of green are Viridian. Only Viridian is Viridian. But Viridian is also a shade of green. But in the end, an artist would not call Viridian "green", he calls it Viridian. I call MDF "MDF", not plastic. You go to Home Depot asking for Plastic board, and you will not get MDF.

That said, I have no problem with plastics. As I said, My iMac is plastic, and I would not have it any other way. My Logitech plastic speakers on the other hand aren't quite as nice, as far as the plastic qualities go. But that is with everything. Even a diamond can be cut poorly. It's how well you make something that matters. As long as the material is strong enough for the purpose.

And I agree with John on newer speakers over older ones, as long as the quality is marching forwards not backwards. I don't think anyone here can call the Threes a setback. I would rather have the newer trickle down technology, than buy the older models. It may be all in my head, and I know the Evolution is a slightly higher series and all, but I like getting the latest designs. I only buy speakers so often, so I want the best chance for improvement I can get, NHT only updates speakers so often. I thought about getting a SB3 stereo set on sale, but I would rather just buy the Three stereo set. And if the Evolutions are indeed on the way out with bargain pricing, I would think about waiting for the Evolution 2's more than buying the Evolutions over the Threes.

Well, opinions are like the holes in said bootay, everybody's got one. :p

I heard them both in a side by side, head to head level matched comparison against each other with the same electronics, and I can not lie about what I heard despite the fact that I am an NHT guy through and through.


Considering you just said that the efficiency of the Revels really jumped out at you tends to make me believe you in fact did not have any level matching.To each his own.

YOU agreed with yourself that it MDF is plastic. In order to qualify as *a* plastic, it has to be a polymer based product. And I don't believe MDF qualifies exactly. Some of the ingredients of MDF maybe considered to be a plastic, if glue can be considered to be a plastic, but MDF is just.......MDF. I don't know why you'd call it anything else except to be derisive.

Wow John, you are full of contradictions today. As we have already had this same conversation, I wouldn't have thought you would have such a hard time recalling that; and given that I included the cite from that previous discussion, you were even given the resource to refresh your recollection of that conversation.

The Evolution series cabinets are MDF. The Classic series cabinets are made of what NHT refers to as a Bulk Molded Compound (BMC). Since it is NHT making this distinction, I am fairly certain that the Classic line is *not* made out of MDF.

In the May 2005 newletter found on NHT's web site, here is a lesson on the differnces between the materials and BMC described in greater detail:

"To this day, most of our traditional speakers are constructed with MDF, or medium-density fiberboard. MDF is typically made from saw-cutting waste that results when wood is milled. Chips and sawdust are ground and mixed with resin before being formed into boards by using heat.

Any loudspeaker manufacturer will tell you that MDF is very dense, is cut with precision, and is for the most part acoustically inert. What we feel is as important as MDF's acoustic properties is the fact that it is essentially waste; a byproduct of common "farmed" wood such as pine or fir.

Unlike MDF, wood veneers, beautiful and exotic though they may be, are mostly derived from the world's few remaining rain forests, and have absolutely no effect on sonic output, only the libido.

We are now focusing much of our new product R&D efforts on experimentation with unique materials. The BMC (bulk molded compound) employed in our new NHT Xd line, for example, is constructed of resin, fiberglass, some bits of wood, and even metal powder. This mixture does require tooling to create the proper shapes."

BTW John, here is what you said previously about MDF:

"And as mentioned above, it's a very dense, poured composite, not plastic (and MDF)."

Obviously, you can't state it *is* now made of MDF, having previously stated it is *not* MDF, without having contradicted yourself -- whether your definition of what constitutes plastic differs from the textbook or not.

The Evolution series cabinets are MDF. The Classic series cabinets are made of what NHT refers to as a Bulk Molded Compound (BMC). Since it is NHT making this distinction, I am fairly certain that the Classic line is *not* made out of MDF.

You would be incorrect. It is MDF. The midbass frames are BMC, for good reason.

In the May 2005 newletter found on NHT's web site, here is a lesson on the differnces between the materials and BMC described in greater detail:

"We are now focusing much of our new product R&D efforts on experimentation with unique materials. The BMC (bulk molded compound) employed in our new NHT Xd line, for example, is constructed of resin, fiberglass, some bits of wood, and even metal powder. This mixture does require tooling to create the proper shapes."

Notice they said "in our new Xd line"

BTW John, here is what you said previously about MDF:

"And as mentioned above, it's a very dense, poured composite, not plastic (and MDF)."

No, I was talking about BMC.

Obviously, you can't state it *is* now made of MDF, having previously stated it is *not* MDF, without having contradicted yourself -- whether your definition of what constitutes plastic differs from the textbook or not.

I'm not contradicting myself, you just think I am.

BTW, Zaracsan, all this does is reinforce the fact that you should go listen and look at Classics before presuming to know anything about them or their performance.

You would be incorrect. It is MDF.

You are absolutely right John: my bad!! :o

I was the one not recalling the entire conversation here, as we had digressed in to a discussion on the Xd cabinets, and what we talked about had nothing to do with the Classic cabinets. Please accept my humblest apology for the misstatements and false finger pointing.

I have gone back and looked through NHT's web site and found the relevant Classic cabinet information:

"Our cabinets are made with MDF, a board manufactured primarily of wood residues from the production of lumber and plywood with a low percentage of virgin tree wood. We finish them with 7 coats of hand-finished polyurethane applied in a "solid particle" method thatÍs safe for the environment. This finish is then sealed with 2 coats of automotive grade clear- coat to protect the finish for years. By avoiding exotic wood veneers, and using materials such as MDF in the construction of our cabinets, weÍre not sacrificing scarce natural resources to make acoustically sound, furniture grade cabinets."

"All of the 5.25" and 6.5" woofers in the Classic line feature frames made from BMC (Bulk Molding Compound). Usually a designer has to choose between inexpensive, mechanically sound materials such as ABS plastic and stamped steel, or expensive materials such as machined aluminum or magnesium that are ideal acoustically and mechanically. BMC gives us the best of both worlds: a material that is immensely stiff, and easily shaped into acoustically ideal shapes. "

Mark, I have no problems at all if you like the Revels more or less than the Threes. I wish Charlie wouldn't either.

Charlie, I know Mark well enough to know he's sincere, and it's all subjective. Even though you can predict some things about a speaker based on its design, what you *can't* predict is whether someone will like it or not. One thing I have *always* admired about NHT owners is their lack of snobbery, don't disappoint me on this Charlie. NHT is about owning a good product and enjoying music, not superiority.

I had a young guy who listened to Threes next to B&W 602s and thought the 602s were more "realistic". I may think he's on some new drug heretofore unknown to mankind, but that was his taste. At least he listened. I do wish he'd let me know he was taking them to my competitor's to take abuse rather than to his house. I didn't much appreciate that.

NHT's philosophy is to design the best speaker they can for the money and then *hope* people will like it. I think that is a good philosophy. I heard a $900/pr Legacy bookshelf speaker that I thought wasn't going to be as good as the NHT Twos based on its design and, well, I think it was actually better overall. I'm just glad it was 50% more expensive :)

And, not matter what, the Threes are not as bright or lively as *most* speakers these days (many are just *way* over the top and even the median sound is slightly brighter than the Threes). Therefore, it is natural that many people who are used to a brighter sound will find them to be too warm and/or lacking in presence. I actually would vote for a slightly brighter sound, to be honest. I can appreciate their performance on multiple levels but I would enjoy them even more with a slightly brighter sound.

You are absolutely right John: my bad!! :o


No problem, I just don't want to fight! That's why I have Morbius :D

And, not matter what, the Threes are not as bright or lively as *most* speakers these days (many are just *way* over the top and even the median sound is slightly brighter than the Threes). Therefore, it is natural that many people who are used to a brighter sound will find them to be too warm and/or lacking in presence. I actually would vote for a slightly brighter sound, to be honest. I can appreciate their performance on multiple levels but I would enjoy them even more with a slightly brighter sound.

John have you had a chance to compare the Threes against the SB-3s yet?

I thought the new Threes were a little "brighter" than the SB-3s, but the Threes I heard admittedly did not really have that many hours on them yet.

BTW, Zaracsan, all this does is reinforce the fact that you should go listen and look at Classics before presuming to know anything about them or their performance.

Just for grins, I may actually buy a pair of Threes or Fours for another room, and run them with the NAD Master Series M15 integrated amp and M5 CD player; that is, if I don't put together an Xd 2-channel setup instead.

In my defense here, it should be noted that I have made it abundantly clear that I have not heard the Threes yet, so as to be clear about not inferring otherwise; and my comments were about the M6es for which I have the experience to draw from. Just as you have defended your position about commenting on the 850 sigs that you have not heard by saying that:

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

I feel that discussing some of the pluses and minuses of the Classics can be done here as well; with the similarly absent listening session fully disclosed for all to note. BTW, I got a chuckle out of your note on logic that said: "I may have implied it, you certainly inferred it, but technically, I didn't say it." :)

John have you had a chance to compare the Threes against the SB-3s yet?

I thought the new Threes were a little "brighter" than the SB-3s, but the Threes I heard admittedly did not really have that many hours on them yet.

I compared side by side last weekend, in my room with my equipment, with and without my U1 sub, though only one one song ("Black" by Okkervil River), as I also took the time to compare SuperZeroes, SB1s, and AbsoluteZeroes, all with and without the sub. Also, while the Threes were on their cabinet rails, I had removed the points that my SB3s had been sitting on and didn't bother to add them back for the comparison. And my Threes don't have that much time on them yet either (50 hours?). Speaker position and toe-in were what I had settled on for my SB3s; haven't yet tried to optimize for the Threes.

It's pretty much what everyone's been saying all along. Threes were noticeably brighter and/or more detailed. Increased brightness was particularly noticeable on the cymbals; the increased detail was noticeable there, in the organ/keyboard part, in the snare, and I think in the increased natural sound of the vocals.

Imaging was bigger and more focused. Increased image size was more noticeable in heighth and depth than width, although there was a small improvement in the width.

Sweet spot on the Threes was also noticeably wider; I can now listen when laying on my couch without much penalty when compared to sitting straight up in the center of the couch.

Without the sub, the SB3's increased LF extension was noticeable if not dramatic.

I compared side by side last weekend, in my room with my equipment, with and without my U1 sub, though only one one song ("Black" by Okkervil River), as I also took the time to compare SuperZeroes, SB1s, and AbsoluteZeroes, all with and without the sub.

How did you feel about the AZs compared to the SZs & SB1s?

Just for grins, I may actually buy a pair of Threes or Fours for another room, and run them with the NAD Master Series M15 integrated amp and M5 CD player; that is, if I don't put together an Xd 2-channel setup instead.)

Might as well get an Xd at that price, much as I like any excuse at all to own the M3 integrated.

Might as well get an Xd at that price, much as I like any excuse at all to own the M3 integrated.

Yeah, it probably doesn't make a lot of financial sense to get an M3 [I was thinking M3 but typed M15] versus the Xd system; but NAD sure did put together a benchmark classic analog 2-channel integrated amp with that M3. It would be just the thing to go with those Evolution M6-IIa speakers coming down the pike. :D

How did you feel about the AZs compared to the SZs & SB1s?

Bass: SB1s > AZs >> SZs
Imaging: SZs ~ AZs >> SB1s
Detail: AZs > SB1s > SZs

Whe auditioned with the sub (which was, admittedly, on the large size for blending with any of these speakers), SB1s and AZs were crossed over at 100 Hz; SZs were crossed over at 120. All this really reflects more on the sub than anything. Blending was decent for the SB1s and AZs, but the SZ was pushing it and the midbass got a little boomy. Still, that's an impressively high for the 12" woofers on the U1.

I actually expected a little better showing from the SZ; perhaps I was destracted by the bass issues, but it certainly seemed less lively and detailed than either of the newer models. It could also be that the stands were a bit on the short side for the SZs. They could have stood to be a few inches taller.

I think that about covers it.

Bass: SB1s > AZs >> SZs
Imaging: SZs ~ AZs >> SB1s
Detail: AZs > SB1s > SZs


I concur.

Interesting, so each one does better within a certain area.

But, it seems that, overall, the AZs would best the other two. This would be especially the case when one does not worry about the bass - given the use of a sub. Sound right?

Pretty much.

I'd like to add that the SB1 is more *impressive* than the AZ at first. The SB1, when played for a non-audiophile, blew their mind because the bass was so good and deep and the tonal balance lended itself more to not needing a sub. The AZ is less impressive in its tone, but has more upper midrange and less midbass. It is definitely more accurate, but you notice that the sub isn't on much more easily and it sounds more like the original SZ in tonal balance in that it sounds like it is missing a sub if it is. The SB1 actually had 90% of the people asking what they sounded like without the sub! AZs are too accurate to fake that and aren't the huge "blow my mind" speaker than the SB1s were. But it *is* a better speaker.

After having read numerous postings on this forum about the new Classic Three, I finally got a chance today to audition it at my local dealer. Overall, I must say it was worth the wait.

Due to the time limitation, I didn't do any A/B testing, and the audition was done using different electronics for different speakers in different rooms. So there might be a little bit of comparing apple with oranges.

I first listened to Paradigm Studio 60 and 100 in the first room. These are two speakers that I am familiar and very much liked. Both are floor standers with price tags 2-3 times that of Three. In the second room, I listened to the Three and was impressed by what I heard. The sound is very defined with big sound stage. I can't believe such a small big bookshelf speaker has almost as much sound as the floor standers. I was struck by how similar Studio 60 and Three sounds. The only thing I notices is that Three is a little brighter than Three. But the dealer mentioned that he just opened the Three, so break-in might be a factor here. I have previously listened to Revel M12 on a different occasion. I remembered that it has big sound, but it wasn't as refined as the Paradigm. The mid range is a bit muddy in my opinion. Overall I will rate Three and Paradigm over the M12.

After hearing excellent sound from Three, I am anxiously waiting for the arrival of Fours, which is what I am going to have for front speakers. I hope it again will be a worthwhile wait.

Eric

Here is my .02, a long time NHT user/fan and a Audio/HT NUT with compulsive upgraditus :)

The M6 is a very accurate speaker that is not really "voiced" as a music speaker first, but has very even overall balance. It has great flexibility, and placement can and does effect the sound greatly as it does with any speaker. The adjustable crossover can help though it ways other speakers cannot. It is a very accurate music speaker with no artificial bump to make it sound better on the first listen. It will simply produce what it is feed.

The SB3 music series was "voiced" for music first, had a warmer overall tone and was actually not very accurate in the upper bass/lower midrange. This sounded good though on first listen until you realize that the sound is "voiced" for its target audience. Female vocals are rich and warm. It can sound a little "tubby" after awhile especially when you A/B it against a top grade monitor.

The Classic 3 is a compromise between the two, although it is still "voiced" for a music speaker. It will not play as loud as the M6 and will not have the impact for HT. At moderate volume it may sound better with music, depending on placement of course. The Classic 3 is much more balanced than the SB3, but not more than the M6.

The M6 is simply a monitor that to some will sound a little forward, the Classic 3 a warmer sounding music speaker that gets most things right. Both excellent in there own right.

The wildcard for me is that the Evolution system is just that, a system. The L5 is MADE to be wall mounted and will likely sound much better than an Absolute Zero/Classic 2 that is wall mounted. The Classic series does not have a good surround option. The Evo subs are clearly in a different class also. Lastly, the M5/M6 flexibility will work better in more rooms IMHO as the more accurate sound, but not always the best "liked" sound. A Multi-channel Evo system works better in my HT for placement and accuracy.

I have had T6's/M6's in My HT three different times over the last 2 years. I also have tried the T5's, M5's, SB3's, Monitor Audio GR60's and Gr10's, Silver 9i's, 5i's, 4i's and 3i's, Von Schwiekert VR4jr.s, VR2's, LCR15's and Vr1's. Paradigm 100's, 40's, and 20's. NHT 3.3's 2.9's and 2.5's. Rockets even!! I am forgetting some too :)

I do like trying different things, that it surely part of the fun of this hobby:D

Stumbo: Yeah, exactly right. And as you noticed, the AZ is always *competitive* with the other two even if it's not quite the best in all categories.

Pretty much.

I'd like to add that the SB1 is more *impressive* than the AZ at first. The SB1, when played for a non-audiophile, blew their mind because the bass was so good and deep and the tonal balance lended itself more to not needing a sub. The AZ is less impressive in its tone, but has more upper midrange and less midbass. It is definitely more accurate, but you notice that the sub isn't on much more easily and it sounds more like the original SZ in tonal balance in that it sounds like it is missing a sub if it is. The SB1 actually had 90% of the people asking what they sounded like without the sub! AZs are too accurate to fake that and aren't the huge "blow my mind" speaker than the SB1s were. But it *is* a better speaker.

Yeah, I completely agree. When I first got my SB1s for surround, I started out by hooking them up as fronts, and at first, I wondered why I'd bothered to pay more for the SB3s. But switching back to the SB3s, that went away relatively quickly :-)

As far as the "how does it sound without the sub" question, I asked the same thing about the SB3 when I first auditioned, which isn't quite as remarkable as the SB1, but impressive anyway.

Back to the original subject... funny how there's only 3 Hz difference of bass extension between the AZ and the SB1, according to the specs. But it's suprisingly noticeable.

The wildcard for me is that the Evolution system is just that, a system. The L5 is MADE to be wall mounted and will likely sound much better than an Absolute Zero/Classic 2 that is wall mounted. The Classic series does not have a good surround option.



Could the L5 be used as a surround paired with the Classic 3s?

I had thought about this for awhile. The AZ and C2 are a little bit awkward looking when mounted on the wall (IMO) due to their size. The L5, true, works well on the wall - as it is designed to be. How about the sound difference between the L5 and the AZ and/or C2?

I would say that the classic series has no problem working as surrounds - using C3, C2, or AZ. It is just when wall mounted it becomes less desirable from an asthetic point which is highly subjective.

The badge is definitely a tight fit, but it will go in. It took me about 10 minutes. First spread apart the fabric around the holes large enough so the pegs clear it and then ream the holes with a very small screwdriver. Aline the badge to the holes and turn it upside down on the table, badge side down. Say some prayers and push like hell. Even doing all this, it is still tight. Worth the effort...looks buck naked without it.
Good luck! I got the replacement badge for the 3c today that Jonathan sent; it looks the same on the outside, but the pegs are different. The one that came with the 3c had large round silver pegs; the replacement had smaller round black pegs with star shaped ridges. Pushed into place easily with moderate effort in no time. :)

I have to wonder...what's up with NHT's Monthly News Letter? In the past year they have to my count, posted only ONE.
Call me crazy, but what does monthly imply? Maybe they should consider eliminating this from their web site. This should be an embarrassment to NHT. Good business sense would dictate not to promote your short comings.
Not much need to sign up for the monthly newsletter, but I will be all over the annual newsletter it they offer it.
Just my 2¢

Could the L5 be used as a surround paired with the Classic 3s?


I suspect that it is only a matter of time before the L5 is reworked with the dome array. How *much* time? At least a year probably.

This should be an embarrassment to NHT. Good business sense would dictate not to promote your short comings.

This is part of NHT's new "We still suck at marketing/consumer relations" program.

Here is my .02, a long time NHT user/fan and a Audio/HT NUT with compulsive upgraditus :)

The M6 is a very accurate speaker that is not really "voiced" as a music speaker first, but has very even overall balance. It has great flexibility, and placement can and does effect the sound greatly as it does with any speaker. The adjustable crossover can help though it ways other speakers cannot. It is a very accurate music speaker with no artificial bump to make it sound better on the first listen. It will simply produce what it is feed.

The SB3 music series was "voiced" for music first, had a warmer overall tone and was actually not very accurate in the upper bass/lower midrange. This sounded good though on first listen until you realize that the sound is "voiced" for its target audience. Female vocals are rich and warm. It can sound a little "tubby" after awhile especially when you A/B it against a top grade monitor.

The Classic 3 is a compromise between the two, although it is still "voiced" for a music speaker. It will not play as loud as the M6 and will not have the impact for HT. At moderate volume it may sound better with music, depending on placement of course. The Classic 3 is much more balanced than the SB3, but not more than the M6.

The M6 is simply a monitor that to some will sound a little forward, the Classic 3 a warmer sounding music speaker that gets most things right. Both excellent in there own right.

The wildcard for me is that the Evolution system is just that, a system. The L5 is MADE to be wall mounted and will likely sound much better than an Absolute Zero/Classic 2 that is wall mounted. The Classic series does not have a good surround option. The Evo subs are clearly in a different class also. Lastly, the M5/M6 flexibility will work better in more rooms IMHO as the more accurate sound, but not always the best "liked" sound. A Multi-channel Evo system works better in my HT for placement and accuracy.

I have had T6's/M6's in My HT three different times over the last 2 years. I also have tried the T5's, M5's, SB3's, Monitor Audio GR60's and Gr10's, Silver 9i's, 5i's, 4i's and 3i's, Von Schwiekert VR4jr.s, VR2's, LCR15's and Vr1's. Paradigm 100's, 40's, and 20's. NHT 3.3's 2.9's and 2.5's. Rockets even!! I am forgetting some too :)

I do like trying different things, that it surely part of the fun of this hobby:D

Well said. I can't speak to the SB3/Classic 3 comparison, but you accurately voiced my impressions of the M6, while perhaps understating their virtues. I, too, went with these in large part due to their flexibility. As others have noted, the Classics probably wouldn't look too good (or sound their best) when mounted on a wall--thus, I went with L5s for side and rear surrounds. The U2 and M6 combination across the front also gave me flexibility I didn't think I'd have with the Four, for example. I also like the idea of the external sub amplifier and crossover, which is absent in the Classic subs.

Here is my .02, a long time NHT user/fan and a Audio/HT NUT with compulsive upgraditus :) <snip>

James:

Very nice job of comparing and contrasting the various NHT speaker lines. You have confirmed what I surmised without ever hearing the Threes; that is, (for me) the Evos really are the *just right* NHT speakers for HT applications. Between the Classics, Evos and Xdes; NHT (now) has speakers to fit most every budget, application and desired tonal balance. Your review also serves to remind open minded readers that there is no one *best* speaker; only speakers that best suit your particular needs and individual listening preferences.

<snip> I have had T6's/M6's in My HT three different times over the last 2 years. I also have tried the T5's, M5's, SB3's, Monitor Audio GR60's and Gr10's, Silver 9i's, 5i's, 4i's and 3i's, Von Schwiekert VR4jr.s, VR2's, LCR15's and Vr1's. Paradigm 100's, 40's, and 20's. NHT 3.3's 2.9's and 2.5's. Rockets even!! I am forgetting some too :)

I would be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the other speakers you mentioned. I'm sure others here would find you comments of interest as well. TIA.

James:

Very nice job of comparing and contrasting the various NHT speaker lines. You have confirmed what I surmised without ever hearing the Threes; that is, (for me) the Evos really are the *just right* NHT speakers for HT applications. Between the Classics, Evos and Xdes; NHT (now) has speakers to fit most every budget, application and desired tonal balance. Your review also serves to remind open minded readers that there is no one *best* speaker; only speakers that best suit your particular needs and individual listening preferences. I also generally agree with James assesment. One exception, 'It will not play as loud as the M6 and will not have the impact for HT.' Of course it won't play as loud as an M6, but won't have the impact for HT? That would depend on room size, amplification power, your tastes, etc. For me, Threes are a great improvement over sb3s, and have some refinements not present in M6. I would prefer to have those refinements at the loss of a few dB and save several thousand $ required to jump to Xd, rather than go with old technology. My setup will have 6 Threes, a 3c, and 2 U1's, powered by an nad T973 amp. That should bring it right close in dB and 'impact', while also taking advantage of refinements present in years of developement. If & when nht comes out with evolution level replacements with the newer driver, I'll be right there in line. What a wonderful hobby. Btw, classics have higher waf for sure. :cool:

In the Three's defense, they are much easier on your ears at high volumes - not only a bit warmer, but much lower in midrange/treble distortion (not that M6s are "distorted", but you know what I mean). Whether that takes away from the "impact" or not is up to the person, but I find that the presentation is more natural and less over the top.

Do NHTs represent a difficult load for an amp?

I'm starting to wonder which amp I should buy now.

My 1999 Sony DA333es receiver crapped out on me for the 2nd time in 8 months last weekend. Driving Mirage M3s, 260s and center. I suspect another blown output IC(driver) just like last time.
I don't get it.
Had the thing running for 3 hours at half volume playing the George Harrison DVD and Keb Mo's DVD thru all 5 speakers and the next day it is dead as a doornail.
I'm starting to wonder if the Mirages are presenting to hard of a load for this thing and the NHTs will continue this issue.
Since I have owned it I have never done that amount of volume for such an extended time.

My understanding is that my receiver is better built than the 2000 "V" series was.
So why is it suddenly crapping out after 6-7 years?
Do I drop back and punt and go NAD or Parasound when I do the NHT Fours, Threes and ThreeC?

What do you guys recommend.
This is getting expensive.

John, will a Panasonic xr55 (100 watts per channel) handle Classic threes (pair)?

It all depends on the size of your room and where your listening position is.
86dB efficiency with a 100wpc amp could be fine at 6', but sound like garbage at 10' trying to provide the same SPL. How loud do you like it?

Chas,

I've heard that they do reasonably well with the NHTs, but I've never tried one.

James... Peter here in AZ... you purchased some VR3's from me a while back.

I too would love to hear your thoughts on the others you mentioned, especially the 3.3's & 2.9's

I have 3.3's in my 2 channel system which replaced B&W 801's.

I also have 3.3's as the mains in my 5.1 system... these won over the T6 (M6/B6) system which I had for awhile. Having the oppurtunity to switch back and forth over a period of time between these 2 systems IN MY OWN HOME was a real treat!

That said, I feel that the 3.3 is STILL the benchmark to measure against for ultimate fidelity and newer in not necessarily better... the M6 is a fantastic speaker, but definitely has some design comprimises because of it's role as a modular speaker. The nature of it's design causes a suckout in the mids off-axis on the midrange side of the cabinet and a slight mid peak off-axis on the tweeter side of the cabinet... these are plainly visible in the measured response curves.

I am anxious to hear the THREE's and especially the FOUR's as I am a full range speaker kinda guy.

Those touting the CLASSIC series as some kind of revolutionary design with all this amazing new driver technology must think we were born yesterday. Metal dome mids and tweeters have been around for years... as well as EXCELLENT fabric ones like used by PMC. Metal woofers... I had those in an Axiom speaker 16 years ago! Designers have been aware of the shortcomings involved with material resonances and have succesfully/unsuccesfully implemented them in speaker design. As a NHT devotee, I will assume that they have done an excellent job.

BTW... my M6's are still for sale with the matching P6 pedestals! I just replaced them with 2.9's as the rear speakers in my 5.1 system.

Those touting the CLASSIC series as some kind of revolutionary design with all this amazing new driver technology must think we were born yesterday. Metal dome mids and tweeters have been around for years... as well as EXCELLENT fabric ones like used by PMC. Metal woofers... I had those in an Axiom speaker 16 years ago! Designers have been aware of the shortcomings involved with material resonances and have succesfully/unsuccesfully implemented them in speaker design. As a NHT devotee, I will assume that they have done an excellent job.

Well, if you're talking about me, the only thing about Classic that is revolutionary is the price. The $1800/pr Classic Four is very similar (and it some ways, superior) in design to the $50K+ B&W Nautilus 4-way speaker. And the $20K Vivid Audio speaker. And the ~$6K Energy speaker. And some very expensive Genesis speakers. That's what is revolutionary. I don't think anybody has really suggested otherwise.

In fact, the 3.3s, T5s and T6s still have better bass quality in theory (and likelihood). But then, it doesn't take much to trump the bass on most speakers, so the Classic Fours will still likely beat the tar out of most speakers in bass reproduction. What makes the Classics really special, besides the price, is the combination of ultra-rigid, low profile, low diffraction cabinetry, perfectly proportional drivers and stunningly good looks. Like I said, I think they could be tweaked to be even better, but they're still better than most 4-figure and a few 5-figure speakers I've heard.

I can't wait to hear the FOURS... I am a bit nervous about the porting of the bass... as we all know... ACOUSTIC SUSPENSION RULES!
I love my ST-4's in the bedroom, but the ported bass can be a bit bloated at times. It is one of the best ported designs I have heard though... hopefully the FOUR will follow in suit.

John, I remember you touting how great the CLASSICS were without ever even hearing them! I myself have decided and others might need to just accept that your opinion's and statements may be subconsiously affected by the fact that you are a dealer...
I don't mean to discount your enthusiam for NHT's products as I am as big of a fan as yourself and I believe they produce the best value in speakers... but, sometimes you go overboard with the fluff and tend to turn a blind eye to any potential shortcomings of a product.

It's great to hear more input from real world users like James that have actually owned and had real life experience with the products that are being discussed.

John, could you give your opinion of martin logan speakers?

I can't wait to hear the FOURS... I am a bit nervous about the porting of the bass... as we all know... ACOUSTIC SUSPENSION RULES!
I love my ST-4's in the bedroom, but the ported bass can be a bit bloated at times. It is one of the best ported designs I have heard though... hopefully the FOUR will follow in suit.

The ST4 is a bit overly bassy - a small speaker designed for a big room.

John, I remember you touting how great the CLASSICS were without ever even hearing them! I myself have decided and others might need to just accept that your opinion's and statements may be subconsiously affected by the fact that you are a dealer... creating hype and selling the latest/greatest is the source of your livelyhood...
I don't mean to discount your enthusiam for NHT's products as I am as big of a fan as yourself and I believe they produce the best value in speakers... but, sometimes you go overboard with the fluff and tend to turn a blind eye to any potential shortcomings of a product.

Hmmmm, I suppose you could look at it that way. However, think of it this way, I was excited about the *design*. I stated that it would offer a) more resolution (check!) b) wider dispersion (check!) c) bigger soundstage (check!) than previous NHT designs. And I was right.

I also made sure people understood that the bass of the Twelve sub and the Four woofers weren't going to be quite on the same par as Evolution.

Now, there are three ways to look at progress - 1) it's only an improvement if I like it 2) it's only an improvement if it's equal or better in every way or 3) it's an improvement even if it takes a step backwards in one or two areas, as long as it's a sufficiently large improvement in three or four areas. I believe in #3.

B2R, I think you believe that the T6 wasn't an improvement because it wasn't better in every way. I think it *was* an improvement because it was better *overall*. That is the same thing I think about the Classics. I think they are better in almost every way than SuperAudio and better in more to *most* ways than the Evolution. Some will say Classic is too warm compared to Evo, too bright compared to SA. Some will say that the bass is too slow compared to Evo, too lightweight compared to SA. Hey, you can't get everything better very easily. If you worry about being better in *every* way, you'll end up not making overall progress. I believe in overall progress. If that seem hypey to you, fine, I can live with that. It's my job but more than that, it's my hobby and I enjoy being enthused. After all, look at what B&W or ML or any other speaker company does. They hype like crazy. NHT doesn't hype nearly enough. So, I may get genuinely enthused, but I also think it's *appropriately* enthused. The number of speakers that will have their asses handed to them by Classic far outweighs the number of speakers that can match them. And that is saying something. I'd put them up against B&W 801Ds, for instance, any day of the week.

John, could you give your opinion of martin logan speakers?

Well, I have to admit that I like Quad ESLs much more. The only ML speaker I've ever heard that I've liked are the CLS speakers. I haven't heard them all, but for instance, all the ones under $4K, to me, are too thin and bright with either poorly integrated bass drivers or, lately, ones that are so overdamped that they become essentially useless. I think they are detailed, but the upper midrange wears me out, as though there is a large peaky resonance in the panel. I *want* to like M-Ls, but I don't. I think they are gorgeous to look at and if they sounded as good as Quads, I'd carry them in a heartbeat. I would take a 20 year old Quad ESL 63 over any M-L I've heard thus far. I don't know if that is helpful, but I hope so.

Re: Ported Bass.

My Mirage M3s have a port at the rear and they can be a bit woolly sounding in a smaller room. But the bass quality is still pretty impressive.

I guessing that the Fours at $1800 will be a sonic improvement over my M3s that were in $2500 in 1992. It would be fair to say that if Mirage still made the M3s they would be $4000 now.
I have already noted that the Threes do some things better in both the midrange and treble than the Mirages.
I do feel that the Two at $600 is probably overpriced. Midrange is just too recessed. Speaker is too polite IMO.

Martin Logan Summits are pretty sweet BUT they are $10K.
My dealer feels like their less expensive lines are toys and don't really have much to offer for the $$$.
He carries 3-4 dynamic speaker lines that he would much rather sell you and thinks would bring you more satisfaction.

I guessing that the Fours at $1800 will be a sonic improvement over my M3s that were in $2500 in 1992. It would be fair to say that if Mirage still made the M3s they would be $4000 now.

I think earlier NHTs were too bright to appeal to Mirage fans, but I think the Three/Fours are sufficiently warm/smooth to appeal very well.

I do feel that the Two at $600 is probably overpriced. Midrange is just too recessed. Speaker is too polite IMO.

Well, sure, compared to the Threes, certainly. And maybe even a few really stellar internet direct speakers or a few other very good bargains. If I were NHT, I'd probably replace the Two with a "One" that has a 5.25" aluminum midrange and 24dB/octave crossover. I think the Two is out of sync with the line and everyone who can should get the Three.

John,

Earlier NHTs were too bright.
That is why I didn't buy them.(SuperOnes were even a little too bright for me).
But I think Mirage went the other way and went warm.
So the Classic line kind of splits the difference.
I also feel that the Clasics are more refined than the Superones but without giving up detail.
Which '80s-90s Mirages lacked.
Mirages just had that big soundstage and audible bass down to 25hz.
By the way my M3s are still for sale, but unfortunatley I don't have the boxes.

In the Three's defense, they are much easier on your ears at high volumes - not only a bit warmer, but much lower in midrange/treble distortion (not that M6s are "distorted", but you know what I mean). Whether that takes away from the "impact" or not is up to the person, but I find that the presentation is more natural and less over the top.

While frequency distortion is deservedly part of any speaker comparison, we probably shouldn't ignore amplitude distortion (compression) when discussing HT applications, if we are trying to make a fair comparison. The M6 has an one additional 6.5" woofer than the Threes do; it also has a 4" mid and 1" tweeter to the Three's 2" mid and .75" tweeter. You don't have to be good at math to see that the M6's total cone area is significantly greater than Three's. In a 7.1 surround system this would give you six more 6.5" bass drivers (the 3C having two woofers), plus the additional cone area gained with the bigger mids and tweets. The additional drivers (and cone area) should be helpful, particularly when playing back highly dynamic (and high SPL) movie soundtracks.

We don't have comparison graphs to look at here, but it would certainly be interesting (at least to me) to see what the measured frequency response differences of these two speakers would look like, especially when the speakers are pushed to their respective limits. Considering the range of dynamics that are now commonly found in movie soundtracks, how well a speaker can handle the entire spectrum at higher volumes is likely more relevant to judging HT performance, than is trying to compare performance charactersitics based on sensitivity ratings alone.

Maybe you can comment on this for me John: I was told by an NHT tech that the crossovers used in the M6 are a more robust design than those used in the Threes. I'm not sure how much of the speakers weight differences are related to the M6 having two separate crossovers for their boundary switch; but with the M6 weighting 36 lbs. to the Three's 17 lbs.; even if we subtract out the weight of the extra driver, it would seem reasonable to conclude at least some of the extra weight is due to this beefier crossovers.

One last thing John, I'm a little confused about how you can claim that (in the context of HT listening): "I find that the presentation is more natural and less over the top"; when you told me earlier that you haven't listened to any movie soundtracks on the Threes? You did say: "Peter Gabriel stuff is a great emulation for a movie soundtrack", but you still haven't put together a 5.1 or 7.1 system with the Threes. Obviously you are entitled to speculate when those comments are disclosed as such, but I think it only fair to comment about using the Threes in a HT application, when you have actually listened to a Classic Three HT setup.

Earlier NHTs were too bright.

Funny though, listen to earlier NHTs compared to most "detailed" speakers today and they sound mellow by comparison!

I guess there was a hardness to the treble, not really a brightness.
But when you have been listening to Mirages for years and bring
SuperOnes into the house for an audition the difference is noticeable
to say the least.
More of what you are used to hearing, than an actual error with the NHTs.

While frequency distortion is deservedly part of any speaker comparison, we probably shouldn't ignore amplitude distortion (compression) when discussing HT applications, if we are trying to make a fair comparison.

I'm not disputing this at all. In a large to very large room, the M6 will likely be the better speaker. It's one reason why I'm pushing for a "Classic 3.5" with an extra bass driver and an "Evolution M7" to replace the M5/M6. In fact, an "M8" has been bandied about for several years as I've always said the M6 wasn't expensive enough. However, the metal drivers do appear to maintain their composure better at high volumes than plastic drivers and I do believe the Three midbass has longer excursion than the Evo midbass.

Maybe you can comment on this for me John: I was told by an NHT tech that the crossovers used in the M6 are a more robust design than those used in the Threes. I'm not sure how much of the speakers weight differences are related to the M6 having two separate crossovers for their boundary switch; but with the M6 weighting 36 lbs. to the Three's 17 lbs.; even if we subtract out the weight of the extra driver, it would seem reasonable to conclude at least some of the extra weight is due to this beefier crossovers.

Well, maybe beefier in that they can handle more power because they assume that the M6 will be more punished than the Three will be. I don't think that is a big weight difference though. Don't get me wrong here, I've often said that most people simply don't need the output of the M6, but those that do might want to get them. The M6 is even better built than the Three and I'm very much hoping for a new, update version of the M6.

One last thing John, I'm a little confused about how you can claim that (in the context of HT listening): "I find that the presentation is more natural and less over the top"; when you told me earlier that you haven't listened to any movie soundtracks on the Threes? You did say: "Peter Gabriel stuff is a great emulation for a movie soundtrack", but you still haven't put together a 5.1 or 7.1 system with the Threes. Obviously you are entitled to speculate when those comments are disclosed as such, but I think it only fair to comment about using the Threes in a HT application, when you have actually listened to a Classic Three HT setup.

Well, I've been speculating for a long time and I've gotten rather good at it. I'm also passing on comments from Three/3C owners who feel that the Classics actually do better on HT than Evos (within their limits obviously). There are times when, certainly in my smaller demo room, that the M6 is just too bright (it's tuned for you to be further away than the Three) when watching a movie (and yet more mellow than most!) and the Threes slightly warmer tonal balance and more natural sounding presentation, IMO, has a great advantage for movies than for music.

When you talk about small, med and large room sizes what are the basic dimensions to those terms? Thanks

A small room would typically be from about 10'x12'x8' to 14'x18'x8'
A medium room would typically be from about 14'x18'x8' to about 18'x20'x8'
A large room would typically be from about 18'x20'x10' to 20'x24'x10'
A very large room would typically be larger than 20'x24'x12'

T5s did well in most medium sized rooms, T6s did well in large sized rooms but could get a bit swallowed by very large rooms because of the limited dispersion. Classics Three/Fours would do well in medium to large rooms. Xd does well in almost any of these rooms, surprisingly. The AZ/Ten is really for small to medium sized rooms, Classic Twos more for medium sized rooms.

Obviously these are just guidelines and approximates, but they're pretty valid.

Of course, maybe it's better to say that a small room is typically under 2000 cubic feet, a medium is about 2000-3000 cubic feet, a large one is about 3000 to 5000 cubic feet and a very large one is over 5000 cubic feet.

I have experience with both small and medium/big rooms with the ported Mirage M3.

13'X13' X 8.5' ceiling, plaster walls: Prodigous bass with a slight bit of bass heaviness.

14'X15' x 11' ceiling with wood all around and a large opening on one side:
More normal bass but just didn't sound as good overall. Not as focused.
It did seem that the higher ceilings opened up the sound but the 8' wide opening on the side killed everything else.

Current 11'8"X 21'8" X 8' ceiling: Speakers are on the short wall. Perfect amount and quality of bass and the speakers sound fantastic.

I expect the Fours to be even better in this room.

I'm not disputing this at all. In a large to very large room, the M6 will likely be the better speaker. It's one reason why I'm pushing for a "Classic 3.5" with an extra bass driver and an "Evolution M7" to replace the M5/M6. In fact, an "M8" has been bandied about for several years as I've always said the M6 wasn't expensive enough. However, the metal drivers do appear to maintain their composure better at high volumes than plastic drivers and I do believe the Three midbass has longer excursion than the Evo midbass.

I sure hope your product ideas don't get ignored by NHT, as I think a Classic 3.5 or Evo M7 would be killer speakers. I also think your previous suggestion for an acoustic suspension sub that matched the Classic line finish is a solid idea as well. Just curious, what was the M8 speaker idea that they were once tossing about?

No doubt, there are some clear advantages with metal driver; and when designed properly, speaker manufacturers can address the majority of concerns about harshness and ringing that have plagued some lesser design efforts. The tonal differences (metal vs. poly) are interesting to observe as well. I do wonder how much of the disappointment people have voiced with the Twos is related to their polypropylene woofer, rather than the more obvious 2-way versus 3-way design differences.

Well, maybe beefier in that they can handle more power because they assume that the M6 will be more punished than the Three will be. I don't think that is a big weight difference though. Don't get me wrong here, I've often said that most people simply don't need the output of the M6, but those that do might want to get them. The M6 is even better built than the Three and I'm very much hoping for a new, update version of the M6.

I do have to remind myself in these discussions, that because I am using a relatively large (high cube) space, my priorities are necessarily skewed by higher output requirements. FWIW, I got to thinking about crossover weight as a result of reading about the new Krell Resolution and their comments about their speakers being so heavy as a result of using mongo crossovers. Anyway, the M6 is probably overkill for a good number of applications; which brings us to real advantage of having a broad product line: having the right tool for the right job.

Well, I've been speculating for a long time and I've gotten rather good at it. I'm also passing on comments from Three/3C owners who feel that the Classics actually do better on HT than Evos (within their limits obviously). There are times when, certainly in my smaller demo room, that the M6 is just too bright (it's tuned for you to be further away than the Three) when watching a movie (and yet more mellow than most!) and the Threes slightly warmer tonal balance and more natural sounding presentation, IMO, has a great advantage for movies than for music.

I probably didn't word my thoughts very well, but I do give you credit for having above average critical listening skills and an ability to look at a speaker design architecture and predict reasonably well what listening observations later reveal. My chief concern is that sometimes the distinction between observed experiences and that which is conjecture, is not made clear enough to the casual readers of these forums.

I just pulled my classic threes out of the box today. The guy I ordered them from let me borrow his SB2s while I waited. I only had a few minutes to listen to the threes today, but the difference in sound was night and day!

I'm thinking about getting a sub to go along with the threes. Any recomendations for a 12' X 23' X 9' room with a 12' X 12' X 9' seating area? I'm not looking for a lot of power - just one that sounds good. I don't want to offend my new speakers. My budget has gotten tight so I'm looking for value. Are the NHT subs the way to go or is there something else out there?
Thanks for your input.
Josh

I'm thinking about getting a sub to go along with the threes. Any recomendations for a 12' X 23' X 9' room with a 12' X 12' X 9' seating area? I'm not looking for a lot of power - just one that sounds good. I don't want to offend my new speakers. My budget has gotten tight so I'm looking for value. Are the NHT subs the way to go or is there something else out there?
Thanks for your input.
Josh

Save up until you can get one of NHT's Evolution subs (U1 or U2). I think anything that's not acoustic suspension will "offend" them as you said.

I think those Carver Dominator subs being clearanced might be a good musical (if not cosmetic) match since they are acoustic suspension, but if you really want to go all out, get dual U1s! :eek:

I think those Carver Dominator subs being clearanced might be a good musical (if not cosmetic) match since they are acoustic suspension, but if you really want to go all out, get dual U1s! :eek:


Thats what I have, with seperate X1's and A1's!! Sound very nice :D

James

James... Peter here in AZ... you purchased some VR3's from me a while back.

I too would love to hear your thoughts on the others you mentioned, especially the 3.3's & 2.9's

I have 3.3's in my 2 channel system which replaced B&W 801's.

I also have 3.3's as the mains in my 5.1 system... these won over the T6 (M6/B6) system which I had for awhile. Having the oppurtunity to switch back and forth over a period of time between these 2 systems IN MY OWN HOME was a real treat!

That said, I feel that the 3.3 is STILL the benchmark to measure against for ultimate fidelity and newer in not necessarily better... the M6 is a fantastic speaker, but definitely has some design comprimises because of it's role as a modular speaker. The nature of it's design causes a suckout in the mids off-axis on the midrange side of the cabinet and a slight mid peak off-axis on the tweeter side of the cabinet... these are plainly visible in the measured response curves.

I am anxious to hear the THREE's and especially the FOUR's as I am a full range speaker kinda guy.

Those touting the CLASSIC series as some kind of revolutionary design with all this amazing new driver technology must think we were born yesterday. Metal dome mids and tweeters have been around for years... as well as EXCELLENT fabric ones like used by PMC. Metal woofers... I had those in an Axiom speaker 16 years ago! Designers have been aware of the shortcomings involved with material resonances and have succesfully/unsuccesfully implemented them in speaker design. As a NHT devotee, I will assume that they have done an excellent job.

BTW... my M6's are still for sale with the matching P6 pedestals! I just replaced them with 2.9's as the rear speakers in my 5.1 system.

Hi Peter,

The 3.3s I owned (Black and Mahogany) were some of the best speakers I've ever owned. They require a good room that has a good "stiff" rear wall for the best bass support, good amplification, and then they'll image probably better than anything as long as in your in the sweet spot. I think placement with the 3.3 is critical to get the most out of them. When I moved to another home I did not get as good as performance as my previous house. No fault of the 3.3's, it was the room.

That said, for me the 3.3 was not as good for HT as some speakers, as the actual dispersion is not as wide enough for HT. The side firing woofer needs proper room/space/distance. NHT thought the same thing and thus the release of the VT3 system. I always wanted to try a full VT3 system too :)

If I had a 2 channel system with no big RPTV or a FP setup the 3.3 are a much easier setup. 3.3's are still a bargain for a serious music setup.

Having tried several Evolution setups I have come to M6's on pedestals over T6's, and then use dual U1 Subs with seperate X1/A1's to dial in the low end. I could never get the T6's bass to be as clean as I wanted and still have the impact. The U1's are more flexible and are cleaner. I have also M6's on pedestals in the rear only for multi-channel music listening (surround B option on higher end Denon or Pioneer Elite) and 2 pair of L5's for HT sides and rears The best of both worlds!! That is a total of 5 M6's, 4 L5's and Dual U1's. I Know, I'm a lucky lucky bastard :D

James

A small room would typically be from about 10'x12'x8' to 14'x18'x8'
A medium room would typically be from about 14'x18'x8' to about 18'x20'x8'
A large room would typically be from about 18'x20'x10' to 20'x24'x10'
A very large room would typically be larger than 20'x24'x12'

T5s did well in most medium sized rooms, T6s did well in large sized rooms but could get a bit swallowed by very large rooms because of the limited dispersion. Classics Three/Fours would do well in medium to large rooms. Xd does well in almost any of these rooms, surprisingly. The AZ/Ten is really for small to medium sized rooms, Classic Twos more for medium sized rooms.

Obviously these are just guidelines and approximates, but they're pretty valid.

My room is falling in the large category. Although I'm now over 40 I still listen fairly loud on music and HT. Commonly in the -10 to -15db range.

At this volume and in my room, the M6's sing.

Distance from the rear wall in critical to upper bass weight. My M6's are about 20" from the wall to the rear of the speaker. Closer to the wall increases the bass, moving them out decreases it. A velodyne SMS really helps in this regard too and of course in dialing in the dual U1 subs and their X1 crossovers. Phase can make a huge difference and seeing that on-screen blew me away!

James

Alimental,

Whew !!

What a thread! As they say, ignorance is bliss. I just stumbled upon this thread and I have the fortunate benefit of being on the "good side" of months of delay - i.e. no waiting or the associated drama. :)

Early on in the thread, you mentioned the "NEAR" speakers. I currently own the 50 mkII and was drawn by it's speed, detail and controlled bass. Airy like an electrostatic - but with a dynamic punch.

Now that I am moving away from a dedicated 2 channel system - I am seriously considering the NHT 3's + 3C as my 5 in a 5.1 system.

How close are the 3's to the NEARS in terms of sound? And, how hard are they to drive?

I appreciate your passion for NHT - it has convinced me to consider NHT in addition to B&W and ML (the others I am considering).

Hi Trance,
Well, I'm trying to remember the 50M sound. It is rather distinctive. The 50 has a lively, but low distortion top end with distinctive zip to it, similar to the JMlab tweeter. The NHT tweeter is a little more smoother, sweeter and less up front, more like the B&W diamond tweeter. The upper midrange is fairly similar on both as I recall. Detailed, but not harsh or brassy. The lower midrange is more fleshed out on the Fours with a better bass transition (based on my experiences with the Threes). The bass is deeper and more powerful on the Fours. The 50Me sounds more like a really good sub/sat system but the Fours will offer a more neutral sound and better integration. The 50Mes have a very big soundstage, but I think the Fours will match it, but add in a bit more depth. Overall, the 50s are quirkier, but very likable, whereas the Fours are very neutral, more powerful and have a broader appeal.

Hi Peter,

The 3.3s I owned (Black and Mahogany) were some of the best speakers I've ever owned. They require a good room that has a good "stiff" rear wall for the best bass support, good amplification, and then they'll image probably better than anything as long as in your in the sweet spot. I think placement with the 3.3 is critical to get the most out of them. When I moved to another home I did not get as good as performance as my previous house. No fault of the 3.3's, it was the room.

That said, for me the 3.3 was not as good for HT as some speakers, as the actual dispersion is not as wide enough for HT. The side firing woofer needs proper room/space/distance. NHT thought the same thing and thus the release of the VT3 system. I always wanted to try a full VT3 system too :)

If I had a 2 channel system with no big RPTV or a FP setup the 3.3 are a much easier setup. 3.3's are still a bargain for a serious music setup.

Having tried several Evolution setups I have come to M6's on pedestals over T6's, and then use dual U1 Subs with seperate X1/A1's to dial in the low end. I could never get the T6's bass to be as clean as I wanted and still have the impact. The U1's are more flexible and are cleaner. I have also M6's on pedestals in the rear only for multi-channel music listening (surround B option on higher end Denon or Pioneer Elite) and 2 pair of L5's for HT sides and rears The best of both worlds!! That is a total of 5 M6's, 4 L5's and Dual U1's. I Know, I'm a lucky lucky bastard :D

James
Yes, the 3.3's definitely prevail right up against a solid wall... my 2 channel system is in a sunken living room... a few feet of the wall behind them is concrete... about as solid as you can get!
I have found that amplification is essential to allow the NHT's to really shine... that is why the 3.3's never gained the true status they are worthy of... most NHT dealers were on the budget end of the spectrum selling amps like NAD, Adcom, Rotel, Carver, etc...
Dealers of B&W, Theil and othet "high end" speakers tended to be powering them with Mark Levinson, Bouler, Krell, etc...
My amp succession was an Aragon 4004 to a Bryston 4B-ST to a Mark Levinson 23.5 to the current BRYSTON 4B-SST... I am probably one of the most skeptical when it comes to snake oil marketing, but good amplifiers definitely make a difference and each step marked a noticable improvement. That said, the new BRYSTON SST series amplifiers are the only amplifiers I have ever heard that detaches itself from the presentation and seems free from any sort of "electronic" sound... for lack of any better description, the music just seems to flow out of the speakers as opposed to being pushed out by an amplifier.

The M6's are excellent on the P6 pedestals... I can't understand why I am having such difficulty in selling my pair?

I also use a U1 in my 5.1 system... it is a EXCEPTIONAL subwoofer and very compact... it is so good, I preferred it to my B&W ASW4000 which was the absolute best sub B&W has ever made and a true monster with a 15" driver and Matrix cabinet weighing in at over 150lbs! The U1 is about 1/4 the size and it's performance is astounding... I agree with John that NHT shoul make the same sub available with the new CLASSIC cosmetics.

Talk about clean/dynamic bass... my system has a total of four 12"(3.3's and U1) and two 10"(2.9's) woofers... the multiple driver arrangement helps with nullifying nodes and hot spots for a really impactful soundstage.

The M6's are excellent on the P6 pedestals... I can't understand why I am having such difficulty in selling my pair?
Could it possibly be the M6/P6 combos ZERO waf? :p

Talk about clean/dynamic bass... my system has a total of four 12"(3.3's and U1) and two 10"(2.9's) woofers... the multiple driver arrangement helps with nullifying nodes and hot spots for a really impactful soundstage. That is a smokin system! :)

James Elvick, BachToRock, Alimentall, could you comment on whether the NHT P6 pedestals are necessary to get the most out of the M6's, or would any good quality, mass loadable stand of approximately 26 inches suffice?

I'm thinking about getting a sub to go along with the threes. Any recomendations for a 12' X 23' X 9' room with a 12' X 12' X 9' seating area? I'm not looking for a lot of power - just one that sounds good. I don't want to offend my new speakers. My budget has gotten tight so I'm looking for value.
Thanks for your input.
Josh

I have a Hsu STF-2 that cost me $350 and it sounds superb with my Classic Three's.sure a U1 may sound better but at 3X the cost and the fact that you are running low on funds throws out the U1 so you may look into the Hsu line (very musical) or SVS if your wanting more of a movie sub.Good luck and Im glad you love your Three's !!! I sure love mine..... :D

James Elvick, BachToRock, Alimentall, could you comment on whether the NHT P6 pedestals are necessary to get the most out of the M6's, or would any good quality, mass loadable stand of approximately 26 inches suffice?
It would be realistic to say that any stand that can provide stable support at the desired height would suffice.
I think the P6 looks excellent,,, the curved face makes the whole stand speaker combo look more like it is supprting an art piece than a monolithic tower.
I think it would be safe to say that the matching look always win out the pieced together with the ol WAF

Earlier NHTs were too bright.
That is why I didn't buy them.(SuperOnes were even a little too bright for me).


Wow, you must prefer really warm. When I replaced my SuperOnes recently, I couldn't get over how "dull" they sounded in A/B comparison (even when EQ'd).

I've never heard *anyone* ever refer to the SuperOnes as either "warm" or "dull" and I've sold over 300 pair of them. "Neutral" "fun" "zippy" "exciting" "accurate" "a tad edgy" "a little unrefined" but "dull" or "warm"?!? :eek: I think the herd would be more likely to say "wow, you must prefer really bright"

James Elvick, BachToRock, Alimentall, could you comment on whether the NHT P6 pedestals are necessary to get the most out of the M6's, or would any good quality, mass loadable stand of approximately 26 inches suffice?

The P6 works really well with the M6. I've had the M6 on stands before and did not like it as well aesthetically or functionally. The M6 is a big speaker, more of a monitor than a bookshelf and weighs 36lbs. Make sure it is a good "beefy" stand if you go that route :)

Hi John (Alimental)

Any pic's of the stand your using with the Classic Three? A gloss black that matches?

James

Any pic's of the stand your using with the Classic Three? A gloss black that matches?


Not yet, I'll take some though and post them up this weekend. It matches very well. It's not quite as smooth, but close enough to look fantastic.

Hey John, would a set M5s or M6s laying horizontally (like a center channel) with the boundry switch set accordingly actually be better in a 10 x 10 x 10 room than a pair of SB3s or Classic Threes since they HAVE to go on/in bookshelfs inside a bookcase?

I'd say Threes vertically by a little bit. The M5s could help with the small room if they're vertical, but won't help much horizontally. And the boundary switch is nice, but not all that useful. In fact, I would argue that three 2Cs or 3Cs would be better than the M5s for a small room with horizontal placement, but the Threes would work really well. I used to be worried that the Three's dispersion would be so wide that it could cause problems in narrow rooms, but while the dispersion is coherent through a pretty wide area, it's not quite like Xd where they crave wide walls and being away from the front wall. In fact, they seem to be pretty forgiving of placement.

In fact, I was expecting the Threes to have more of a "take no prisoners" sound, very revealing and somewhat tweaky and unforgiving. But they're actually a little smoother, more forgiving, easier to place than I thought. It's like they have the performance I was expecting, but a bit more plush and less critical.

This question was sparked by the other hot thread du jour, but I thought it would be better placed here due to the plethora of NHT fans.

It appears I have cut my speaker wire holes too wide for proper FL placement of my L5s. I read that they should be no more than six feet apart and I placed them at 8'. No worries, I am early in the process and can correct that issue. It has got me thinking that I may have some other mistakes that need correcting as well, however. So, if you please:

Room is 12' x 15' x 8' with seating at 9' of the 15' length. Plans are for 7 L5s and 1 U1. Source is Denon and display is a 50" PDP.

How high should the FL be?
Should CC be above or below the PDP?
How high should the surrounds be?
Rears are locked at 4' from side walls due to room issues, but how high?
Should I scrap the whole idea and spend the money on a Bahamian vacation?

Thanks in advance!

It appears I have cut my speaker wire holes too wide for proper FL placement of my L5s. I read that they should be no more than six feet apart and I placed them at 8'. No worries, I am early in the process and can correct that issue.

Well, don't get me wrong, 8' isn't horrible or anything, but it's a little wide. 7' is a good compromise and 6' is about ideal. You don't get huge soundstaging from an on-wall speaker (I have L5s too), and if you're almost always using multi-channel, you can stretch it out by 1'-2'. 6' is ideal for stereo listening. My L5s are 8' apart, I'm at 12-13' back and, I have an 8' wide screen in the middle. The speakers are so tight, they drift over the frame a bit :)

How high should the FL be?

I have the bottoms of mine at about 3' off the ground.

Should CC be above or below the PDP?

Below, almost definitely below.

How high should the surrounds be?

About 3' off the ground if you can.

Rears are locked at 4' from side walls due to room issues, but how high?

About 3'-4' off the ground. 3' if you only have one row of seating.

Should I scrap the whole idea and spend the money on a Bahamian vacation?

hell no! You do both ;)

How high up is the PDP?

Hey John, would a set M5s or M6s laying horizontally (like a center channel) with the boundry switch set accordingly actually be better in a 10 x 10 x 10 room than a pair of SB3s or Classic Threes since they HAVE to go on/in bookshelfs inside a bookcase?
The M6's response is optimal in the horizontal position... they would work excellent in a bookcase and the boundary switch would let you fine tune them to your preference of response!

Well, it appears I have 7 new holes to cut and 7 old ones to patch. :)

The surround and back channel wires are within a foot of the ceiling.

As far as doing both the room and the vacation...my accountant would have my nuts in a vice. I suspect she would vote for the vacation if I gave her the choice, though.

The PDP location is a variable, so long as the top of it is at least 54" from the floor. That is where the component video and 120 VAC outlet is located. I am not calling back the electrician to move them.

I budgeted 10K for this little project...doesn't look like it will be enough.

edited to change location of electrical outlet...got off of my lazy arse and actually went to measure it.

So John,
Which speakers are in your home? Im sure Xd's sit happily in the main room but im curious if you have Three's or Evo's anywhere as well.

So John,
Which speakers are in your home? Im sure Xd's sit happily in the main room but im curious if you have Three's or Evo's anywhere as well.

Actually, I'm in transition. I had Xds in my bedroom, but I ended up getting conned into loaning those to a customer as he's buying huge amounts of stuff. For the main system which is really all about the 110" projector, I've got 5 L5s running of an NAD T762 until the NHT preamp/amp comes in. I'll eventually get my Xds back and in the bedroom *unless* I decide to just do Fours there, which I might do for now. A friend of mine wants to sell me his Ducati Monster this summer, so I am willing to make sacrifices :) Besides, unless I sat on the end of the bed, I didn't get the sound from the Xds. They sounded AWESOME if I was sitting straight up, but I couldn't figure out a way to kick back and listen and enjoy and I don't have a place for them in the living room :(

I may have to put that NHT NAD combo purchase off...The new 13"ws Macbooks are out (The Intel iBook replacement)! Then I could browse and post here from bed, instead of dragging my bed to my desk at night! I see headphones in my future.

I may have to put that NHT NAD combo purchase off...The new 13"ws Macbooks are out (The Intel iBook replacement)! Then I could browse and post here from bed, instead of dragging my bed to my desk at night! I see headphones in my future.

A friend of mine was rolling through town yesterday and had just purchased one.

I have to say, it puts my 15" 2004 AlBook to shame. Faster processor, almost identical resolution. Only thing it's missing is the backlit keyboard.

I'm still a little iffy on the glossy screen. Also, I saw the white one. I think the black or the silver finish on the MBP look better.

I have a pair of Classic threes on the way and I need to know how far the rubber feet are apart to make sure they will fit on my Omnimount Cosmic stands. Thank you

I have a pair of Classic threes on the way and I need to know how far the rubber feet are apart to make sure they will fit on my Omnimount Cosmic stands. Thank you

The spacing from tip to tip is 5" and about 8" long. Too large a top plate makes the speakers look awkward and a smaller top plate is a accident waiting to happen. I pulled out a pair of Atacama 22" stands from storage and fashioned 2 top plates out of black 1" pvc that measured 6" x 8". On the top of the plate I routed a pair of .2" wide by .15" deep grooves 5" apart for the rails to rest in. I used the holes in the top plates of the stands to secure the pvc with 3/4 in screws and black hinged screw cover caps. The Threes look great on these plates, a real custom look.
This was easy to do especially if you have a computer driven CNC router and a fully stocked sign shop as I do. If you don't, this can be accomplished with a table saw, but I'm not sure where you will find 1/2' or 1" black pvc.
I also painted the sand filled column silver to match my NHT last stands that I am using for the rears with AZs. (I probably bought the only pair of last stands that NHT sold.)
With spikes in place the finished product finished out at about 24", Perfect for my needs.

Good Luck, Lee

Lee, thanks for the info looks like I have some work to do.Chas

I have black vti-vsp 29" stands filled with sand. The top plate is just the right size for the 3s. Center the 3s foot rails on the top plate and place (2) 1/2" square rubber bumpers on the outside of each rail; this will prevent any side to side motion. Finish up with a big blob of blu-tak and they're not going anywhere. :cool:

BTW, I have pics of the Target stands with the AZs and Threes if anyone wants to see. I'll post them in a day or two, I just have to upload them, but if anyone wants a peak in the meantime, e-mail me at john@adnm.com

Just spent a couple hours listening to the 3's at my local dealer here in Minnesota. I ran through the 5 CDs I brought with me and frankly I liked what I heard. However, I was concerned that some of the deep bass I get with my current speakers was missing, but felt I could live with it. So, I work the deal for the 3's, the 3C, and SANUS stands, get to the counter and they find that 3's are out of stock. I was disappointed, but at the same time I thought that it was probably a good thing since all along I have thought that I need the 4's. Anyways, when I got home I listened to my big Polk RTI 150s, and yea, although full of sloppy bass, I think I would miss the low end on the 3's. So now I am waiting for the 4's.

Oh John, I started using MacTheRipper (MTR) again. Here is what you do, since you were asking B4:

1. pop in dvd
2. open MTR
3. select your rip settings in MTR, refer to the MTR PDF manuel for what the settings mean
4. wait for the DVD rip to be done, it will rip to a folder on your desktop.
5. keep in mind I usually rip only the feature without the menus and extras, for fast playing, and lower storage footprint. If you rip the entire disc, the ripped movie folder may be a bit different, but not much. but here is what I do. you can't rename the "VIDEO_TS" folder, or it won't play. That needs to be named "VIDEO_TS". But you can rename a/the folder in front of that. I rename it to read the title of the movie, say "Spiderman 2" for example. I then keep all my movies in a yet another folder, titled "DVD Movies" say. I put that folder anywhere really, but I know were it is.

6. I keep the Apple DVD Player in my dock, and I click on that (with no disc in the drive) to open it, when I feel like watching the ripped movie.

7. I go to "File" for the Apple DVD Player application, and I select "Open DVD Media", or I use the keyboard shortcut for that. I then find my file under the file navigation menus, and I select a VIDEO_TS folder. I hit the "Choose" button.

8. I hit the space bar, and it plays! No warning screens, no previews, the movie just starts. Of course, the space bar is just the keyboard shortcut for the "Play" button on the Apple DVD Player controls. Or you can use the Front Row remote, or the Keyspan remotes. Lots of ways to "Push Play".

I am sure there are ways to optimize this process, but its pretty fast as it is, and much faster than finding a disc and loading it up. I also seem to think the chapter skipping is more instant, as it is all coming off the hard drive. And it's FULL DVD quality. I then store the movie for safe keeping, so no harm comes to it, and I use my DVD as backup or master. So I still buy all my titles, as it would be silly to back up my movie collection, when DVDs run under $20 a movie. Also, it's kind of neat that OS X's built in Apple DVD Player plays these files, no need to find weird playback software. As far as the Apple DVD Player is concerned, I am playing a normal DVD, and all the controls work like normal.

Since I am watching the DVD File from a hard drive instead of a disc, if you are on a laptop, it draws far less energy than a DVD drive spinning with a laser on. So you can watch many more movies before your forced to recharge; I fail to see why anyone would want to use the dvd drive, when you have this low power alternitive. I plan on keeping my movies on a 500GB hard drive or two, and transfer a few of the 4-7 GB movie files, and get them on my laptop (which has less space to play with) when I want to watch something on the go (again at full DVD quality, in fact they are still DVD files, just off the disc, and unlocked now).

You can even get a USB remote from Keyspan (which simulates the keyboard shortcuts for the Apple DVD Player), or use the Front Row Apple Remote that comes with the newer Macs. Of course, you have to think about which movies you really want to rip, as even 500GB hard drives are only so big, but that is room for about 100 movies or so per 500GB hard drive. I guess I could make them lower quality (but smaller file size) Quicktime files or burn them with Toast, but I have no need, as all I want is a Full DVD Quality Video Movie Server, and have all my Macs in the house connected, and I can watch those movies from any computer in the house.

With EyeTV 200/250/500 products, I have TV recording/viewing covered as well (which I can also edit out commercials, and burn out to a DVD). I keep my music on the hard drive, ripped at full CD quality. My Mac really is the center of my entertainment world. That's why I want a nice pair of speakers and a nice intergrated amp connected to my 20"WideScreen Intel iMac (which has that built in 500GB hard drive too, spinning at a full 7200RPM's). The 20" LCD iMacs are the perfect dorm or bedroom entertainment system. And there is always that 30" HD Apple Cinema LCD Display for the living room...

I purchased the classic Three's and the 3C center last week and I could not be happier. They sound great and yes I think they sound better after being broken in a little. I also got the U2 subwoofer after much deliberation. I was concerned that it would not have the punch, but after watching the scene on finding nemo when the little girl taps on the fish bowl, I knew I made the right decision. It really lets you know it's there, as well as the items on my shelves and mantle. I had to buy them in Portland OR as the local Seattle dealer is not carrying them. I did hire the NHT Seattle store to set everything up but I wish that John lived closer because they kind of went through the motions, and I wonder how much better they would sound with John tweaking them. Thanks again John for your invaluable advice and I am glad I purchased the three's over the 6's. I would also like to thank Mick at Home Video Library in Portland Oregon, he was great to work with and yes they have several pairs in stock. I was his first sale of the 3's. Bob H.

:) Congrats! I'm just glad you're happy!

I purchased the classic Three's and the 3C center last week and I could not be happier. They sound great and yes I think they sound better after being broken in a little. I also got the U2 subwoofer after much deliberation. I was concerned that it would not have the punch, but after watching the scene on finding nemo when the little girl taps on the fish bowl, I knew I made the right decision. It really lets you know it's there, as well as the items on my shelves and mantle. I had to buy them in Portland OR as the local Seattle dealer is not carrying them. I did hire the NHT Seattle store to set everything up but I wish that John lived closer because they kind of went through the motions, and I wonder how much better they would sound with John tweaking them. Thanks again John for your invaluable advice and I am glad I purchased the three's over the 6's. I would also like to thank Mick at Home Video Library in Portland Oregon, he was great to work with and yes they have several pairs in stock. I was his first sale of the 3's. Bob H.

An old friend of mine--the guy who actually inspired me to get into audio five or six years ago with his Polk RT55i setup--was in town last week and came by to check out my new setup (Threes/AZs/U1/NAD T753; 3C isn't here yet). He'd previously heard my old setup (Onkyo 501 receiver/SB3/SB1/SW12).

"Holy ****."--first words out of his mouth.

:D

John and others I liked the classic three so much, I want to get some NHT's for our bonus room which will be mainly used by the kids (Movies/ Xbox) and a few poker parties. The room is about 16' deep and 25' wide. The TV and speakers will be in the middle on the long wall. I am considering either used Classic 2's and 2C, and SW12, or new SB2's, SC2 and SW12. Both sets are about the same price, within a $100 total. I know everyone likes the 3's as I do, but I don't want to spend those $$ for that room. Suggestions between these two sets? Because of the movies and game use, I think the center is very important. Differences between 2C and SC2? Thanks again.

Maybe I am looking at this wrong. I said after listening to the threes I wanted to wait and hear the fours because I thought I would lose some of the low end with the three's. However, at the dealer I was listening to 2 channel with no sub. Most of my listening is multi-channel SACD and movies using an 80 Hz x-over. I have a large SVS Plus/2 sub. Since the x-over I use is 80 Hz, would I even benfit from the fours or would it possibly cause worse performance because of competition from my sub? Are the threes's possibly a better fit for my environment than the fours?

"Holy ****."--first words out of his mouth.


How do you pronounce that - "asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, asterisk"? Or is there a short version? ;)

Maybe I am looking at this wrong. I said after listening to the threes I wanted to wait and hear the fours because I thought I would lose some of the low end with the three's. However, at the dealer I was listening to 2 channel with no sub. Most of my listening is multi-channel SACD and movies using an 80 Hz x-over. I have a large SVS Plus/2 sub. Since the x-over I use is 80 Hz, would I even benfit from the fours or would it possibly cause worse performance because of competition from my sub? Are the threes's possibly a better fit for my environment than the fours?

Some would probably say that you want to run all channels full range if at all possible, and there are advantages to this.

But I say if you're happy with the bass you have now, buy the Threes and don't buy your bass twice.

John and others I liked the classic three so much, I want to get some NHT's for our bonus room which will be mainly used by the kids (Movies/ Xbox) and a few poker parties. The room is about 16' deep and 25' wide. The TV and speakers will be in the middle on the long wall. I am considering either used Classic 2's and 2C, and SW12, or new SB2's, SC2 and SW12. Both sets are about the same price, within a $100 total. I know everyone likes the 3's as I do, but I don't want to spend those $$ for that room. Suggestions between these two sets? Because of the movies and game use, I think the center is very important. Differences between 2C and SC2? Thanks again.

Here's where it gets tricky. First off, the Classic 2/2C *should* be costing you a lot more than the SB2/SC2. If not, you'd want to go for the Classics for sure. On close out, I'd expect more like a $300-$400 difference, not $100. BUT the 2C doesn't *go* with the Two, even though NHT will say it does. It *is* a much better center than the SC2, however. If you buy the 2C, you might as well pony up for the Classic Threes.

Another option to save money, what about just using 3 Twos or 3 Absolute Zeros? Or three SB2s?

How do you pronounce that - "asterisk, asterisk, asterisk, asterisk"? Or is there a short version? ;)

There was a short version before the censors ****ed with my post.

I think there was a T in there, perhaps an S and an accompanying H, maybe even an I somewhere in between. If we had been in my car, it would probably have been easy to misunderstand what he said as "holy shift!". ;)

There was a short version before the censors ****ed with my post.


Actually, it's part of the software. For instance, you can say things like "Holy shiite!!!!" and the computer thinks I'm talking about an imam :)

Actually, it's part of the software. For instance, you can say things like "Holy shiite!!!!" and the computer thinks I'm talking about an imam :)

Yeah, that was a joke. Sometimes I forget that deadpan delivery doesn't come across well over the internet.

Either that or it comes across too well :-)

Yeah, that was a joke.

Don't give up your day job ;)

On closeout, I can get the SB2, SC2 and SW12 for $900 (new). I can get a slightly used Classic 2's, 2C and SW12 for $1,025, so $125 more. The classic's are used but under warranty, the SW12 new.

Here are the pics of the piano black Target HS60 and custom HS70:

http://www.adnm.com/images/stand1.jpg
http://www.adnm.com/images/stand2.jpg
http://www.adnm.com/images/stand3.jpg
http://www.adnm.com/images/stand4.jpg
http://www.adnm.com/images/stand5.jpg
http://www.adnm.com/images/stand6.jpg
http://www.adnm.com/images/stand7.jpg

I am looking for recommendations on wall mounting the pair of classic 3 I just purchased. I also need to wall mount the AZ I purchased for the surrounds. Any recommdations. NHT recommends Omnimounts but I noticed a thread where they were trashed and b-tech was recommended. Thanks.

I am looking for recommendations on wall mounting the pair of classic 3 I just purchased. I also need to wall mount the AZ I purchased for the surrounds. Any recommdations. NHT recommends Omnimounts but I noticed a thread where they were trashed and b-tech was recommended. Thanks.

I've got a pair of AZs wall mounted using the Omnimounts.

They were a pain to set up (more so than with the AZs than the SB1s due to the positioning of the mounting hold on the AZs). It's hard to get the speakers positioned the way you want them and get them to stay that way, and it's hard to access the speaker binding posts once they're up, and the range of motion of the speaker is limited by the relatively short bolt that attaches to the speaker.

But once they're set up, they do the job, holding the speaker reliably in place. And the price isn't bad either.

I've got a pair of AZs wall mounted using the Omnimounts.

They were a pain to set up (more so than with the AZs than the SB1s due to the positioning of the mounting hold on the AZs). It's hard to get the speakers positioned the way you want them and get them to stay that way, and it's hard to access the speaker binding posts once they're up, and the range of motion of the speaker is limited by the relatively short bolt that attaches to the speaker.

But once they're set up, they do the job, holding the speaker reliably in place. And the price isn't bad either. Also using the recommended omnimounts. It was a pain to setup & stay in place, and it takes 2 people. Forget about using the included allen wrench; you need a 5/32 long allen with a socketed end and no ball on the tool end. That way you can crank it down real tight. Let it set for awhile; the polymer ball takes time to form, then crank it down again. I placed my high at the top of a wall, and tilted them up just enough to keep the edge of the speaker from touching the wall. Also put a small vinyl bumper on the wall for a spacer. Once it's in place & locked down, they aren't going anywhere.

Also using the recommended omnimounts. It was a pain to setup & stay in place, and it takes 2 people. Forget about using the included allen wrench; you need a 5/32 long allen with a socketed end and no ball on the tool end. That way you can crank it down real tight. Let it set for awhile; the polymer ball takes time to form, then crank it down again. I placed my high at the top of a wall, and tilted them up just enough to keep the edge of the speaker from touching the wall. Also put a small vinyl bumper on the wall for a spacer. Once it's in place & locked down, they aren't going anywhere.

I made do with the included allen wrench, but it would be much easier to do with longer wrench.

I couldn't get it cranked tight enough with the speaker on; I had to guess, crank it tight, and then screw the speaker on, and then try to get the wire in. Not fun...

I made do with the included allen wrench, but it would be much easier to do with longer wrench.

I couldn't get it cranked tight enough with the speaker on; I had to guess, crank it tight, and then screw the speaker on, and then try to get the wire in. Not fun... The instructions say you should have someone hold the speaker up to take the weight off the mount while tightening; the first one we had to do twice, after figuring out how it works the second one went ok, but it's not easy. I sure wish they would use a metal ball; sure would take some of the concern away from the stability issue.

The instructions say you should have someone hold the speaker up to take the weight off the mount while tightening; the first one we had to do twice, after figuring out how it works the second one went ok, but it's not easy. I sure wish they would use a metal ball; sure would take some of the concern away from the stability issue.

Well, I did but the problem was that I couldn't get it tightened enough, even using pliers to turn the wrench, when the wrench is oriented vertically. I had to have it horizontally to get enough torque, which meant doing it without the speaker on there.

With the SB1s, I didn't have that problem, I think because the wrench stuck out low enough below the bottom of the speaker to get a good grip on it with the pliers...

All of the comments about the difficult time mounting the speaks with the omnimounts are giving me second thoughts about using those mounts. I have Outdoor Ones outside and they are a pain to mount every spring. Has anyone mounted the 3s' with the omnimount 20?

Has anyone mounted the 3s' with the omnimount 20?

I personally haven't, but the O1s are now coming with 20s instead of the plastic ones.

Took the plunge, bought the Classic 3 and 3C today. I haven't even unboxed them yet but hope to get some listening time later this weekend. Got a great deal from a local authorized dealer so I am happy.

Hey John I couldn't help but notice there were a pair of SuperAudio series speakers atop the Target stands in one pic. Are those the SB1's 2's or 3's?

Took the plunge, bought the Classic 3 and 3C today. I haven't even unboxed them yet but hope to get some listening time later this weekend. Got a great deal from a local authorized dealer so I am happy.

Congrats on your purchase.

My threes should arrive soon, I hope. It is funny, here in HK, we have had the Classic Fours for a couple of weeks now, but no Threes yet. It is the opposite in the states. What gives?

Would like to hear your thoughts regarding the difference in sound of the Classic 3s with and without the 3C. Does the 3C make much of a difference?

Hey John I couldn't help but notice there were a pair of SuperAudio series speakers atop the Target stands in one pic. Are those the SB1's 2's or 3's?

Those are SB1s.

The 3C is the center channel so yea, it does make a difference if it is not being used for surround formats.

But, it would be nice to try with and without the 3C to see how much of a difference does it makes. Given the reported wide soundstage of the Classic 3s, it may in some cases be not necessary to have the 3C in centre. Thoughts?

But, it would be nice to try with and without the 3C to see how much of a difference does it makes. Given the reported wide soundstage of the Classic 3s, it may in some cases be not necessary to have the 3C in centre. Thoughts?If you sit right on center and don't mind the comb filtering produced by 2 speakers that are attempting to trick your ear into thinking the sound is coming from one source, it won't be necessary.

Congrats on your purchase.

My threes should arrive soon, I hope. It is funny, here in HK, we have had the Classic Fours for a couple of weeks now, but no Threes yet. It is the opposite in the states. What gives?

Would like to hear your thoughts regarding the difference in sound of the Classic 3s with and without the 3C. Does the 3C make much of a difference?

el stumbo, did you get a chance to listen to the Four?

JRSUB, did you get yours in St. Paul? I got a good deal there. I have not even opened my yet as I am waiting to finish my room, wall mount my speakers and buy a reciever.

My dedicated HT is complete, and I had a chance to put my HT system throught its paces over the last couple of evenings (late into the night, of course). My room is a 16.5x20x9 (roughly) dedicated HT room with seating at ~12 and 18'. There is no acoustical treatment, per se, but there is heavy carpet and padding, and a room-within-a-room construction approach with excellent insulation. No treatment for primary reflections, yet.

The speakers are M6 (x3, for fronts and center, on stands), U2 sub (boxes placed slightly assymetrically in the front), and L5 (x4) at side and rear surround positions. Source equipment includes Sony SACD and DVD players, with most music coming from a MacMini containing a music library ripped using Apple Lossless via digital out. A Denon 2807 is being used as pre/pro (with Audyssey auto-room calibration) and a BA7200 (clone of Sherwood Newcastle A965) as 7-channel amplifier. All cables are 12g (O2 free--not that I think it matters).

Using a wide variety of 5.1 video sources, SACDs, DVD-A and lossless digital tracks, I'm blown away by the sound I'm experiencing. I won't try to throw out words--I think audiophiles often sound like enophiles, and throw out words that can't convey to a reader what they really experienced (kind of like saying "the cabernet had traces of almond, currant and rubber tire flavors"). I'll say in comparison that the 5.1 PSB Image system (6T fronts and 9C center, 3LR surrounds) in my living room isn't remotely in the same league.

I was concerned about whether the L5s would be sufficient to keep pace with the M6s, and was very happy to hear that they really did match from a tonal perspective and fit my ideal compromise between aesthetics and sound quality, as I was not willing to have stand or omnimount-ed speakers at the side and rear positions.

From a HT perspective, I'm also glad that the M6s have the finish that they do, as they are on stand mounts just at the front and sides of our FP screen. I am very glad that I didn't go with glossy piano black speakers at those positions--the Evos pick up some light, but after all of the efforts to use flat paint and satin wood trim in a theater and picking a reasonably dark color scheme, I believe putting three incredibly shiny speakers at the screen borders would have been distracting visually.

As I've said before, I auditioned the Twos (unimpressed--perhaps similar in quality to my PSBs) and a T5 system. I have absolutely no regret that I didn't put together a Classic system. The M6s at a discount are a steal when mated with the U2, IMO, and I don't think there is a Classic speaker that mates the visual and acoustic properties of the L5. I'd still like to hear more impressions of the Classics from Evo M6 owners looking to "upgrade" as I believe that will be the acid test of where the new line fits into NHTs overall scheme. If the Threes really sound like $20K speakers, then I expect we should be hearing from people with systems like mine salivating over the Threes--if not, the silence might be telling. We should know soon enough as these speakers start to fill showrooms.

el stumbo, did you get a chance to listen to the Four?

No. I've been waiting for the Threes. The Fours are too big for my space. I will, however, listen this next week if the Threes arrive.

MN Dan, almost bought them in Richfield, was ready to buy, got to the counter and got the out of stock response. Lucky me.

Can anyone comment on "clarity" of the classic series compared to the super audio series?This is one area I feel my SB-2's are strong, clarity. They also blend extremely well with my sub.

I think the Classics are more "clear" but have a little different sound too. I don't think people should push their SuperAudio speakers off a cliff. If you had an itch before Classic came out, then yes. If not, relax, enjoy.

Maybe I am looking at this wrong. I said after listening to the threes I wanted to wait and hear the fours because I thought I would lose some of the low end with the three's. However, at the dealer I was listening to 2 channel with no sub. Most of my listening is multi-channel SACD and movies using an 80 Hz x-over. I have a large SVS Plus/2 sub. Since the x-over I use is 80 Hz, would I even benfit from the fours or would it possibly cause worse performance because of competition from my sub? Are the threes's possibly a better fit for my environment than the fours?

I have 6 Classic 3's in a 6.1 setup with an SVS PC+ 16-46. Let me just say I am a new NHT fan. I heard about NHT, heard the SB3's, almost bought (last October) but heard the Classics were coming out so I waited. I am sure some NHT fans in here may be cringing at the thought of a ported SVS sub, but I wanted a sub that went extremely deep. And let me say the system rocks!! I would get the 3's and just use your SVS sub. It's a good one.

All of the comments about the difficult time mounting the speaks with the omnimounts are giving me second thoughts about using those mounts. I have Outdoor Ones outside and they are a pain to mount every spring. Has anyone mounted the 3s' with the omnimount 20?


I have. And like meantioned before it was a bit of a pain to do it until you figured it out. I would say it is a two person job, and to definitely use a socket adapter with a long extension. I found one of those flexible extensions at Home Depot. Attach that to your cordless drill and the allen wrench bit on the opposite end. Attach the one half to the wall and the other half to the speaker. Then attach the bottom part to the wall half, but barely attach it that way the ball will slide in. Now have someone hold the speaker with you guiding the ball in. Once it is in, tighten it down with your cordless drill. In my 6.1 setup the back three are wall mounted and the 1st one was a real pain until I discovered this much simpler way to do it. Once mounted, they are not going anywhere.

I've just started listening to with my 3s and 3C. My first impression is that they are very clear and clean. My source is a Denon 3910, Outlaw 1070 receiver with the front pre-outs going to a NAD 270 amp. The center and rears are powered by the Outlaw. I would almost go to the point of saying the 3C sounds bright being powered buy the Outlaw. I am going to try using another NAD amp to power the center.

I also want to say that the three's blend incredibly well with My SVS Plus/2 sub. I use a fixed 80 Hz analog cross over and you'd think the front speakers had 12 inche woofers it blends so well.

I think that NAD and NHT are a good combo. My local High-end dealer uses the NAD amps for demos of the NHT speakers. I now have the fronts and center powered by NAD amps and am using using the Outlaw as the pre-amp and to power the surrounds. I used to always use a separate NAD integrated amp for two channel listening but now I am doing it all with the Outlaw/NAD combo. I believe a lost a little bit fidelity by doing this but gained a lot of flexibility.

How's it all sound? Stellar. Surround music is incredible. Once again I am amazed how well they blend with my SVS sub. Haven't listened to a movie yet but I have no doubts that NHT will shine here as well. Two channel SACD listening was unbeleivably good. Diana Krall, Patricia Barber, John Legend, they all sounded great. I thought I'd miss the bottom end with the Classic 3s but I think I prefer their tight accurate bass to my old tower speakers heavy sloppy bass. Prior to listening the my setup I was pretty sure I would have to eventually get the fours, now I am not so sure.

Cheap pair of new Omnimount 20.0 wall mounts on ebay today. Auction # 9733504868.

What is up with the Classic 4? OneCall still lists them as "On Order." We are coming up on a year since these things were first announced.

Any RELIABLE information?

Nope. I've been trying to get something concrete all week. I've heard they're in, but I keep getting "I'll call you back" on when I ask when I'll get some.

Just saw AudioAdvisor has the Four listed as available. Wondering why they are always the first kid on the block to have new Classic speaker in stock.

Supposedly I have some small quantity that has left or is about to leave. Who knows.

I thought someone here might appreciate an opportunity to snag a pair of Classic Threes and a 3C center channel for cheap. Look on audiogoN dot com under NHT for details; but basically the seller is asking half of retail, with the caveat that two of the mid drivers had the dust caps 'poked' by a one-year-old child. Seller says the damage doesn't impact the sound quality. You decide if it is really a *deal*; I'm just passing along the heads up.

And before someone asks...

For the record, I have zero personal interest in this deal.

I wonder just how well the Four tower is going to sell. They damn near doubled the price from the ST-4.

For what the Four retails for, you could just about get the Threes with stands and dual Ten subs, or even a U2 set, or some other brand of serious woofage for a grand. The sub or subs will already have the ampage for the deep bass built in and be that much ahead of the game, cause a strong amp will be required for the Fours if they are driven large or full range (and if they are not, then it is kind of defeating their purpose in the first place).

For what the Fours with an A1/X2 cost, you could get T5s. :eek:

[QUOTE=zaracsan]I thought someone here might appreciate an opportunity to snag a pair of Classic Threes and a 3C center channel for cheap. Look on audiogoN dot com under NHT for details; but basically the seller is asking half of retail, with the caveat that two of the mid drivers had the dust caps 'poked' by a one-year-old child. Seller says the damage doesn't impact the sound quality.


Does a poked dust cap change the sound?? I was told it is only an appearance issue?

I have a friend that had a Three with a partially "dented" midrange. Surprisingly, we were able to perfectly restore the shape by using a vacuum.

Using a toilet paper tube held to the dome, we carefully brought the vacuum hose to the back end of the tube to be able to control the amount of suction. We were able to closely monitor progress from the side. The dome began to vibrate, and then made a "tink" sound and popped back into it's proper shape -- and we immediately pulled the vacuum away from the tube.

I'm not saying that this was not a very risky procedure, and I don't know if it would be effective for a dent larger than the penny-size in our case. But I wanted to let you know that it is at least possible, and the results are indistinguishable from normal.

There are three authorized dealers near me. One has never seen the Threes, and the other two have never heard of them.

If there is anyone in the Los Angeles area who reads this, perhaps I could listen?

One of the dealers with whom I talked said that the speakers the three replaced (sb3?) are somewhat similar. Would those be worth listening to in order to decide whether it's worth waiting for the threes? This guy was also pushing a solution (created by a wall unit) where special type of speakers would be installed in the ceiling. Have any of you heard of this?

There are three authorized dealers near me. One has never seen the Threes, and the other two have never heard of them.



Ah, the benefits of a good B&M dealer network.... :rolleyes: And NHT HQ's is in California, no less.

I wonder just how well the Four tower is going to sell. They damn near doubled the price from the ST-4.

Yes, but it's *way* above the ST4 in performance. It's really more of a belated replacement for the VT-2.4/2.9 which were $2000/$2500.

For what the Four retails for, you could just about get the Threes with stands and dual Ten subs, or even a U2 set, or some other brand of serious woofage for a grand. The sub or subs will already have the ampage for the deep bass built in and be that much ahead of the game, cause a strong amp will be required for the Fours if they are driven large or full range (and if they are not, then it is kind of defeating their purpose in the first place).

This is true, but for most people, the svelte looks of the Four are going to outweigh other factors. Besides, the bass of the Fours is, in theory, better than a single Twelve and deeper than two Ten subwoofers.

For what the Fours with an A1/X2 cost, you could get T5s. :eek:

You could, but the A1/X2 option doesn't make much sense for most people, leaving the Classic Four much more attractive, less expensive and, in many/most ways, better performing. If you want to bi-amp them, I'd recommend something like an NAD C272 (has gain control) because the X2 adds a redundant crossover and the A1 isn't stereo.

There are three authorized dealers near me. One has never seen the Threes, and the other two have never heard of them.

That's really pathetic. Of course, with the minimal availability of these, I'm not surprised dealers don't want to talk about them. It's really hard to believe they haven't *heard* of them, but they may be lying about it so they can sell what they have.

One of the dealers with whom I talked said that the speakers the three replaced (sb3?) are somewhat similar. Would those be worth listening to in order to decide whether it's worth waiting for the threes?

Maybe a bit similar, but not really. Of course, if you liked the SB3 and wished for more resolution and better imaging, you'd love the Threes. What I can't understand is how dealers still *have* SuperAudio speakers. I sold out of mine more than 6 months ago.

This guy was also pushing a solution (created by a wall unit) where special type of speakers would be installed in the ceiling. Have any of you heard of this?

You mean inceiling speakers? No, you don't want that. Speakers should be as close to ear level as you can stand.

Yes, but it's *way* above the ST4 in performance.

It had damned well better be! :eek:

It's really more of a belated replacement for the VT-2.4/2.9 which were $2000/$2500.

I thought the T5 already did that. ;)

This is true, but for most people, the svelte looks of the Four are going to outweigh other factors.

I will concede that the FOUR definitely looks a lot better.

Besides, the bass of the Fours is, in theory, better than a single Twelve and deeper than two Ten subwoofers.

In theory, yes, but it will never have the placement flexibility of separate subs for the best sweet spots for both imaging AND bass in most rooms.

You could, but the A1/X2 option doesn't make much sense for most people, leaving the Classic Four much more attractive, less expensive and, in many/most ways, better performing. If you want to bi-amp them, I'd recommend something like an NAD C272 (has gain control) because the X2 adds a redundant crossover and the A1 isn't stereo.

Actually, I meant the A2 amp, which is stereo. The cost of a new C272 will STILL push the total cost to within $100 of a pair of T5s though (at retail on all counts that is). The X2 would still add more tweaking and fine tuning ability though, despite the outboard crossover being unnecessary because of the FOUR's own internal fixed crossover. Actually, I think a used pair of the old SA-2 or SA-3 bass amps work great here for that.

John, do you by chance know the crossover point from the low mid to the built in passive subs on the FOURS? I can't find that info anywhere. I was just wondering out of curiosity, and it's not even on the down loadable owner's manual from NHT's website.

Bottom line, I hope it does sell well enough so that NHT and (and other brands as well) will always continue to make and market these full range towers to give us the option to buy them if we want to in today's sub/sat world, but I will be surprised if it does do very well from a volume standpoint for the very reasons stated in my previous post.

In theory, yes, but it will never have the placement flexibility of separate subs for the best sweet spots for both imaging AND bass in most rooms.

So then why would you lament the cost of the towers? I always tell people that the one way of outperforming the Four would be Threes with dual Twelves.

Actually, I meant the A2 amp, which is stereo.

The A2 is pure vaporware and has no real chance of ever seeing production.

The cost of a new C272 will STILL push the total cost to within $100 of a pair of T5s though (at retail on all counts that is). The X2 would still add more tweaking and fine tuning ability though, despite the outboard crossover being unnecessary because of the FOUR's own internal fixed crossover. Actually, I think a used pair of the old SA-2 or SA-3 bass amps work great here for that.

C272. Otherwise, just get the sub/sat.

John, do you by chance know the crossover point from the low mid to the built in passive subs on the FOURS? I can't find that info anywhere. I was just wondering out of curiosity, and it's not even on the down loadable owner's manual from NHT's website.

I think it's at 80Hz if NHT is true to form, but it could be as high as 125Hz. I'll try to find out.

Bottom line, I hope it does sell well enough so that NHT and (and other brands as well) will always continue to make and market these full range towers to give us the option to buy them if we want to in today's sub/sat world, but I will be surprised if it does do very well from a volume standpoint for the very reasons stated in my previous post.

I sold 50 pairs of ST4s over 5 years, but I'll be surprised if I don't sell 100+ pairs of Fours. The *POW* good looks and the weak competition will make it an easy sale. These things will decimate everything in my neck of the woods.

So then why would you lament the cost of the towers? I always tell people that the one way of outperforming the Four would be Threes with dual Twelves.

The A2 is pure vaporware and has no real chance of ever seeing production.

C272. Otherwise, just get the sub/sat.

A pair of FOURs and a NAD C272 amp would cost just about the exact same as a pair of THREEs and dual Twelves. A pair of THREEs and a U2 set would cost even less, as would dual Tens instead. Not to even mention T5s (or M5s with a U2). Which is all EXACTLY my point about the price.

However, I think these subs right here might would be a great match for the THREE since they are acoustic suspension: http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?sku=DOMD12&product_name=Dominator%20Woofers%20by%20Bob%20Carver or these: http://www.audioadvisor.com/store/productdetail.asp?Variant=1&AttribNum=1&pf_id=8925&sku=DOMD12&selAttribute_1=10%22+Woofer

I am seriously thinking of picking up a pair of the 10" version to put with my pair of SB-3s since U2s would be way too big for the limited space I have in the room. What crossover point would you suggest for the SB-3s or THREEs John? I was thinking like maybe 45 to 50 Hz or so.

I think it's at 80Hz if NHT is true to form, but it could be as high as 125Hz. I'll try to find out.

Thanks. See if you can find out the same info on the VT-2.4 as well when you do if you can.

I sold 50 pairs of ST4s over 5 years, but I'll be surprised if I don't sell 100+ pairs of Fours.

I sincerely hope u are right and do for reasons mentioned in my last post.

The *POW* good looks and the weak competition will make it an easy sale. These things will decimate everything in my neck of the woods.

I'll be very interested to hear the FOUR against the $1200 per pair Revel F12s.

I think it's at 80Hz if NHT is true to form, but it could be as high as 125Hz. I'll try to find out. I've wondered about this as well. The bass-mid x-over point for the ST4s was 135hz

For the person that asked above, the midrange/bass crossover for the VT2.4 is 125 Hz according to my owners's manual.

A pair of FOURs and a NAD C272 amp would cost just about the exact same as a pair of THREEs and dual Twelves. A pair of THREEs and a U2 set would cost even less. Not to even mention T5s (or M5s with a U2). Which is all EXACTLY my point about the price.

Yes, but there are tower customers and sub/sat customers. And few, if any, of my Four customers will bi-amp. It's not really necessary for most people. And for those that are, we recommend the sub/sat.

However, I think these right here might would be a great match for the THREE since they are acoustic suspension

Not all sealed subs are created equal and Bob Carver subs generally are dreadful, non-musical subs

I am seriously thinking of picking up a pair of the 10" version to put with my pair of SB-3s. What crossover point would you suggest for the SB-3s or THREEs John? I was thinking like maybe 45 to 50 Hz or so.

Well, with a Carver sub, the lower the better, but about 80Hz with a good sub.

Thanks. See if you can find out the same info on the VT-2.4 as well when you do if you can.

NHT typically uses about 120-130Hz on 3-way towers, about 80Hz on 4-ways.

I'll be very interested to hear the FOUR against the $1200 per pair Revel F12s.\

Me too. I'd argue that the NHTs are a better design, but you never know on subjectivity. I've also heard that some of the Revels are relatively bright. I wouldn't know, I can't get the lazy ass rep to bring any by for me to try. The Revel rep suuuuuuucks out here.

For the person that asked above, the midrange/bass crossover for the VT2.4 is 125 Hz according to my owners's manual.

Thanks!

So how does "Child In Time" sound on them? ;)

Not all sealed subs are created equal and Bob Carver subs generally are dreadful, non-musical subs

Well, with a Carver sub, the lower the better, but about 80Hz with a good sub.

So what do you feel is the problem with these Carver subs I linked above John? Have you even ever heard one?

I doubt you would say it is the amps since none other than NHT themselves have recently used Carver licensed amps in some of their subs, including the (at the time) flagship VT-3.

I dont think you could honestly and realistically say it is the drivers since these use TC Sounds custom drivers like SVS used to (and still does for the moment on their Ultra series) and HSU still does. In fact, I am pretty sure it is safe to say that the drivers used in these are more expensive and better than any current NHT sub drivers.

And finally, that leaves the cabinets. They are already so small to begin with, thus very obviously leaving much less smaller surface area to flex and/or resonate, plus they are sealed, braced, 3/4"-thick MDF cabinets.

So what exactly do you not like about them?

Me too. I'd argue that the NHTs are a better design, but you never know on subjectivity.

I definitely liked the F12 Concerta much better than the ST-4, and I liked the M12 better than the SB-3 *(and I even own a pair of SB-3s). I thought for sure that I was going to like the THREE better than the M12, but I didn't. Maybe it will be a different story with the FOUR against the F12, but there again, it goes back to price as the FOUR will cost as much and half again as the F12.

So what do you feel is the problem with these Carver subs I linked above John?

Bob Carver. He's deaf.

Have you even ever heard one?

No, but I've heard and traded in a lot of Sunfire subs. Let's just say I wouldn't order this without hearing it first.

I doubt you would say it is the amps since none other than NHT themselves have recently used Carver licensed amps in some of their subs, including the (at the time) flagship VT-3.

And it was a huge mistake. The amps were unreliable and not all that good anyway. They'd never use them again.

I dont think you could honestly and realistically say it is the drivers since these use TC Sounds custom drivers like SVS used to (and still does for the moment on their Ultra series) and HSU still does. In fact, I am pretty sure it is safe to say that the drivers used in these are more expensive and better than any current NHT sub drivers.

Thats just it - "custom". That means they Carver can have them make them the way they want and Carver doesn't have a good track record with sub sound quality. I'd rather have a Hsu or SVS sub any day, let alone an NHT.

And finally, that leaves the cabinets. They are already so small to begin with, thus very obviously leaving much less smaller surface area to flex and/or resonate, plus they are sealed, braced, 3/4"-thick MDF cabinets.

Sealed doesn't make it better unless it's *better*. A strong cabinet is good, but it's the tuning and the driver behavior that is important. You can read between the lines of the advertising copy - this is designed to play loud first, sound good second. Go ahead and order one (I dare you!) and then I'll try to refrain from saying "I told you so" :)

I definitely liked the F12 Concerta much better than the ST-4, and I liked the M12 better than the SB-3 *(and I even own a pair of SB-3s). I thought for sure that I was going to like the THREE better than the M12, but I didn't. Maybe it will be a different story with the FOUR against the F12, but there again, it goes back to price as the FOUR will cost as much and half again as the F12.

Well, you might just like the Revel sound. The Threes have a slightly warm tonal balance that isn't going to be for everyone. I'd like to see them brighter myself. But when you add in the impact of the woofers, it does make them really kick a lot more butt. Many ported speakers sound better until you add in the sub and then things often reverse.

That is just pathetic. I seem to vaguely remember you mentioning this before, that he no-showed an appointment for you. They ought to fire his sorry ass for that. :mad: Seriously.

Yeah, well they keep going through employees. The rep firm called me the other day and I lectured them about missing the meeting and they just said "well, we have another person for the territory, we'll have him call you because he'll be your way in the next week or so. That was a month or more ago. Nothing. My NHT rep is the single best rep I have, no contest.

Thanks!

So how does "Child In Time" sound on them? ;)Pretty nice. I like the studio version from In Rock the best. FYI, I biamp my VT2-4s with a NAD C370 and C270. Sounds pretty good.

Bob Carver. He's deaf.

No, but I've heard and traded in a lot of Sunfire subs. Let's just say I wouldn't order this without hearing it first.

And it was a huge mistake. The amps were unreliable and not all that good anyway. They'd never use them again. Never had any problem with mine. ;)

Thats just it - "custom". That means they Carver can have them make them the way they want and Carver doesn't have a good track record with sub sound quality. I'd rather have a Hsu or SVS sub any day, let alone an NHT.

Sealed doesn't make it better unless it's *better*. A strong cabinet is good, but it's the tuning and the driver behavior that is important. You can read between the lines of the advertising copy - this is designed to play loud first, sound good second. Go ahead and order one (I dare you!) and then I'll try to refrain from saying "I told you so" :) I just might do that, not just one, but two! Worst case scenario, they do have a 30 day return policy, no questions asked, so I'd only be out maybe $20 per sub for return shipping if I don't like them. I currently have a single SW12 in there.

Well, you might just like the Revel sound. The Threes have a slightly warm tonal balance that isn't going to be for everyone. I'd like to see them brighter myself. But when you add in the impact of the woofers, it does make them really kick a lot more butt. Many ported speakers sound better until you add in the sub and then things often reverse. This statement only applies in the comparision of the bookshelf models. The ST-4 was and the Four will be vented just as the F12's bass is.

Yeah, well they keep going through employees. The rep firm called me the other day and I lectured them about missing the meeting and they just said "well, we have another person for the territory, we'll have him call you because he'll be your way in the next week or so. That was a month or more ago. Nothing. My NHT rep is the single best rep I have, no contest.

;)

Pretty nice. I like the studio version from In Rock the best. FYI, I biamp my VT2-4s with a NAD C370 and C270. Sounds pretty good.

I liked the live version on Made In Japan best myself. :cool:

I'll bet those VT-2.4s will really THUMP and POUND with those amps! :eek:

. Never had any problem with mine.

Lucky guy!!! I think I had about a 50% failure rate eventually. Fortunately, once they were fixed, they seemed to hold.

I just might do that, not just one, but two! Worst case scenario, they do have a 30 day return policy, no questions asked, so I'd only be out maybe $20 per sub for return shipping if I don't like them. I currently have a single SW12 in there.

:confused: Why would you do such a thing? Well, tell me how much better they sound! But I don't think you've shipped anything lately if you think a sub can be shipped for $20 :eek:

This statement only applies in the comparision of the bookshelf models. The ST-4 was and the Four will be vented just as the F12's bass is.

Of course. But the Four is also crossed over much lower which means no low midrange notes venting through the port. Lots of added advantages to the 4-way design.

Obviously they must feel their business is so good that they don't need to try growing it. :rolleyes: That is just plain stupid in my view. Why would they not jump at the opportunity to sign you (or any other new dealer) on? :confused:

Hey, I don't get it. The "wonder boys" they had before are out of business. I actually had reps rubbing it in how great these guys were, the "go to guys", etc but they lasted about 2 years and I've been here for 12. Oh well. I guess I'm not the fancy new "place to be" or something. I just sell lots of product.

And finally, that leaves the cabinets. They are already so small to begin with, thus very obviously leaving much less smaller surface area to flex and/or resonate, plus they are sealed, braced, 3/4"-thick MDF cabinets.

So what exactly do you not like about them?


They are extremely tiny, high-Q sealed alignments using MASSIVE EQ to try to get a flat response out of them to low frequencies. You could put the best driver in the world in that situation and it would sound like ****, just like all the Sunfire subs (or their numerous copies).

Oh well. I guess I'm not the fancy new "place to be" or something. I just sell lots of product.

John, you know what's funny is that NHT HQ is less than 40 miles from me....and there are NO show room NHT dealers here! Just the cursed install companies. San Francisco bay area....3+ million people and not one show room dealer anymore....40 miles from HQ. What gives? I'd really like to listen to the 3s and 4s (when they come out).

:confused: Why would you do such a thing? Well, tell me how much better they sound! But I don't think you've shipped anything lately if you think a sub can be shipped for $20 :eek:

They are less than 1 cubic foot each and weigh 34 lbs. each, so even when double boxed they couldn't be too much more than that. Plus AA is in the same time zone region as me. Couldn't cost but so much.


Of course. But the Four is also crossed over much lower which means no low midrange notes venting through the port. Lots of added advantages to the 4-way design.

So, I take it that means you found out the crossover point on them? If so, do tell us what it is.

Hey, I don't get it. The "wonder boys" they had before are out of business. I actually had reps rubbing it in how great these guys were, the "go to guys", etc but they lasted about 2 years and I've been here for 12. Oh well. I guess I'm not the fancy new "place to be" or something. I just sell lots of product.

Like I said, why would they (or anyone for that matter) not be looking at every opportunity to grow their business? My local NHT dealer is also a Revel dealer too (he used to be PSB before Revel).

Thats just it - "custom". That means they Carver can have them make them the way they want and Carver doesn't have a good track record with sub sound quality. I'd rather have a Hsu or SVS sub any day, let alone an NHT.

Take a look at the following reviews by the same guy in the same room, associated system, measurements taken, test material, etc. of the NHT SW12 and the almost half the price of the SW12 SVS PB10 ISD (IOW, one could almost buy two of the SVSs for about the same cost as a single SW12 or TWELVE, thus adding an additional 6 Db more output to advantage the SVS already has anyway).

Particularly notice the pics available of the drivers and the very obvious difference between them. The SVS's TC Sounds driver alone weighs half as much as the entire NHT sub does. Keep in mind too that this was the absolute cheapest TC Sounds driver that SVS used at that.

NHT SW12 http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_1/nht-sw12-subwoofer-3-2005.html

SVS PB10 ISD http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/svs-pb10-subwoofer-10-2004.html

That's all fine Mark, but I'm telling you, if you try to get deep bass out of a small enclosure, you lose performance elsewhere and Carver has yet to build a sub (that I've heard, and I've most of'em). Regardless of what you think of SVS vs NHT or whatever, there's no way a Carver is even close. Its designed to be small and loud, but not terribly accurate or light on its feet.

Based on what I have read, it seems that there is not an overwhelming reason to buy a NHT sub if one were to buy the other speakers--they are separate beasts, unlike buying front speakers and a center, which are supposed to be integrated.

ASSUMING the above is accurate, what non-NHT subs do people like with NHT speakers?

So where did you get the massive EQ from? :confused:

They simply have to use higher amp power since they are so small and sealed (inefficient as compared to ported and large). They have absolutely no built in active equalization.

Well, they would roll off at 50 Hz then....all of the Sunfire subs use massive amounts of eq to flatten the response. Many powered subs available use some internal eq to flatten the response....just not the amount required to eke 20 Hz out of small driver in a small cabinet.

Based on what I have read, it seems that there is not an overwhelming reason to buy a NHT sub if one were to buy the other speakers--they are separate beasts, unlike buying front speakers and a center, which are supposed to be integrated.

ASSUMING the above is accurate, what non-NHT subs do people like with NHT speakers?

If I had the extra money, I'd get 2 Velodyne DD-18 subs to go with my M6 and M5/L5 based surround systems for either movies or music (or even DD-10s or DD-15s for that matter). They are also sealed acoustic suspension subs, and would be a perfect match.

It would be very hard to possibly top that. :eek:

Also, I do want to point out that the Evolution subs, whether B5, B6, U2s, and especially U1s are a whole different animal from the SW10/SW12 and the new TEN and TWELVE subs. The Evolution subs are not half bad at all, especially musically. In fact, they are actually quite good.

But as for the non-Evolution (ported) NHT subs, IMO, you can clearly do MUCH better for the money.

The sub will be in a smallish room, and the size of the sub matters--I could use the NHT 10'', not the 12''. Given that, do you think Velodyne makes something better in the $800-1200 range?

Not all Sunfire subs have or use any EQ. Only the top dog models have a built in room correction EQ.
Don't think they're talking about room eq, but the eq needed to get low bass out of a box too small to reproduce it naturally, i.e. the Sunfires have to boost the low end to make up for the too small box. NHT subs (the U1 and U2) also need eq to get low bass out of their box size, but nothing like the massive amounts the Sunfires require.

The sub will be in a smallish room, and the size of the sub matters--I could use the NHT 10'', not the 12''. Given that, do you think Velodyne makes something better in the $800-1200 range?

http://www.velodyne.com/main.aspx


In that case, I'd also consider the Rocket subs as well. http://www.**********/products_category_brand.php?section=subwoofers&brand=10

You couldn't do a NHT U2 set?

Yes, I'm aware of that. I was pointing out that was the ONLY type of EQ that they came with at all. The others have no active bass equalization of any sort, not even what the X1 provides.

No kidding. I was pointing out the massive INTERNAL eq that is required to get reasonable low frequency extension out of such a small cabinet is a major con to the design. Massive eq used to boost the signal is not good for sound quality....

Subwoofers designed with PROPERLY sized cabinets for the driver being used only need minimal eq to flatten small response irregularities, and should have a lower Q. This just plain sounds better.

I can't comment on most of the subs mentioned here but I have a DD-18 and absolutly love it. The internal EQ has really cleaned up my sound. It even sounds good at low volumes. Highly recommended.

I’ve been watching this thread for a while. After researching around and talking with my buddy that’s an installer, I decided to go with the classic series. I received my 3c and 2s for the rears a few weeks ago. Today I got a call from him and my fours just made it in! Time to go have some fun! Ill post back after i've had a chance to listen to them for a while. :)

http://www.velodyne.com/main.aspx


In that case, I'd also consider the Rocket subs as well. http://www.**********/products_category_brand.php?section=subwoofers&brand=10

You couldn't do a NHT U2 set?

Would the U2 work well with the Classic threes?

I've checked out the rockets. I'm thinking about Velodynes too. Of course, if I liked the NHT sub, I'd go with that. I just wonder what people think of the subs.

With the Velodyne, I'm looking at the SPL1000R.

I’ve been watching this thread for a while. After researching around and talking with my buddy that’s an installer, I decided to go with the classic series. I received my 3c and 2s for the rears a few weeks ago. Today I got a call from him and my fours just made it in! Time to go have some fun! Ill post back after i've had a chance to listen to them for a while. The Fours look gorgeous. However, you might want to rethink placement. I'm afraid that close to the wall and one sitting directly in a corner, the bass will be way too prominent.

My buddy got the SPL1200R . Very nice sub. It did everything very well but not world class in a huge room. In any case, it's hard to go wrong with the stuff you are looking at.

The Fours look gorgeous. However, you might want to rethink placement. I'm afraid that close to the wall and one sitting directly in a corner, the bass will be way too prominent.


Your definitely right, I just unpacked them and really don’t have time to re-arrange my living room right now. My options are going to be some what limited though. Ill have to play around with it this weekend and see what I can come up with.

Would the U2 work well with the Classic threes?

I've checked out the rockets. I'm thinking about Velodynes too. Of course, if I liked the NHT sub, I'd go with that. I just wonder what people think of the subs.

With the Velodyne, I'm looking at the SPL1000R.

I've got a U1 with the Threes and love it. U2 should be pretty similar.

I have classic three's, 3C and the U2 sub. It sounds great and the U2 sounds great for music and very good for movies. I would like to add some KICK at the lower end just for movies, my wife wants everything in my built-in cabinet. I need the sub to be slightly smaller than the 14" U2 cubes. Again just some low punch for movies. Because it is in a cabinet with cloth door, it can not be bottom firing or rear ported. Thanks for your thoughts

I have classic three's, 3C and the U2 sub. It sounds great and the U2 sounds great for music and very good for movies. I would like to add some KICK at the lower end just for movies, my wife wants everything in my built-in cabinet. I need the sub to be slightly smaller than the 14" U2 cubes. Again just some low punch for movies. Because it is in a cabinet with cloth door, it can not be bottom firing or rear ported. Thanks for your thoughts

This is getting off-topic (way off), but you should look at the Earthquake MK-V 12. I think you are being very unrealistic in wanting to add VERY low bass in a size smaller than 14x14 though.

I've never heard a good-sounding $1500 Carver subwoofer, who would possibly want a $500 one? I've traded in about 6 Sunfires for NHTs, some as affordable as the SW10 because people couldn't stand the sound after awhile.

Still, I say "go for it!!!" :)

Velodyne HGS or the DD or a Paradigm Signature or Reference subs are really good, they are the most accurate, which is more than I can say for SVS or Hsu. NHT's will not be able to touch them for accuracy, no servo feedback loop (yes another form of response correction, aren't feedback loops wonderful!). If you don't care about accuracy and like distortion and think the esthetic issues (wife factor) should win out over all else go with the "matched" subs that the speaker manufacturers sell with their speakers. Although the wife factor is the main reason I got a Sunfire (the HGS series wasn't out yet).

Although my Sunfire is fine as well despite Alimentall's comments, even if it is not as good as Velodyne's or Paradigm's best subs. Mine is a Sunfire True Subwoofer version IV, I just keep it away from walls (really, despite directions to the contrary) and under 80 hertz if you want accuracy. Distortion at normal listening levels is still under 3 percent although the passive radiator creates some phase issues, but that is pretty minor considering the wavelengths of bass notes. When you push a Sunfire it gets a bit thumpy (10 to 20 percent distortion near its limits), music doesn't push it so that works fine unless you are a big pipe organ fan, action movies can push it but I am no where near as critical about that as I am about music.

Compare this with 10 to 20 percent distortion much below 80 hertz for full range speakers at modest volumes and most cheap subs. Not that any of the NHT bookshelf speakers can produce much below 80 hertz that you would want to hear, but that is what a sub if for isn't it.

The other issue with Sunfires and Velodynes has to do with ground loop hum because of the lack of a transformer to block the noise. I went through our house wiring with a fine tooth comb to eliminate it and put a ground breaker in (I am a bad boy). No noise any more, but it was a pain.

Finally stay away from main speakers with built in subs, the positioning compromise between what is good for a sub and what is good for your main speakers makes them untenable in most real world rooms.

I can't comment on most of the subs mentioned here but I have a DD-18 and absolutly love it. The internal EQ has really cleaned up my sound. It even sounds good at low volumes. Highly recommended.

Congrats! I'd love to have 1 or 2 of ANY of that series 10 - 18.

I’ve been watching this thread for a while. After researching around and talking with my buddy that’s an installer, I decided to go with the classic series. I received my 3c and 2s for the rears a few weeks ago. Today I got a call from him and my fours just made it in! Time to go have some fun! Ill post back after i've had a chance to listen to them for a while. :)

Congrats!

BTW, John, didn't you say that there was going to be an on wall surround coming out for this series like the L5?

Would the U2 work well with the Classic threes?

I've checked out the rockets. I'm thinking about Velodynes too. Of course, if I liked the NHT sub, I'd go with that. I just wonder what people think of the subs.

With the Velodyne, I'm looking at the SPL1000R.

Frankly, I very seriously doubt that Velodyne would have anything at the same price points significantly better than NHT's subs.

The U2 would be excellent with the THREEs

But if you somehow can, audition, audition, audition.

I have classic three's, 3C and the U2 sub. It sounds great and the U2 sounds great for music and very good for movies. I would like to add some KICK at the lower end just for movies, my wife wants everything in my built-in cabinet. I need the sub to be slightly smaller than the 14" U2 cubes. Again just some low punch for movies. Because it is in a cabinet with cloth door, it can not be bottom firing or rear ported. Thanks for your thoughts

I doubt that you will find much at that size that will kick much lower than the U2s.

The SVS PB10 ISD is a GREAT sub for movies at the $400 price point in terms of output and extension. In fact, you can't beat it, and it is front ported (which can even be plugged if you so chose) but it is definitely somewhat bigger than the U2s.

This is getting off-topic (way off), but you should look at the Earthquake MK-V 12. I think you are being very unrealistic in wanting to add VERY low bass in a size smaller than 14x14 though.

Not really getting too much off topic here as we are discussing subs to go with this line of speakers.

Not that any of the NHT bookshelf speakers can produce much below 80 hertz that you would want to hear, but that is what a sub if for isn't it.

NHT SB3, -3 db at 39 Hz in a sealed enclosure, so typical room gain should realistically push even a little lower than that.

Frankly, I very seriously doubt that Velodyne would have anything at the same price points significantly better than NHT's subs.

The U2 would be excellent with the THREEs

But if you somehow can, audition, audition, audition.

Mark:

Your answer is exactly what I'm looking for. Fortunately for me the place where I'm likely to purchase the Classics also carries the Velodynes. The only "problem" is that the sales people will try to get me into DDs, which really cost more than I want to spend.

I called NHT today, and I was told that more Classic Threes are arriving at the end of this month. Given history, I understand this falls into the vaporware category. I'm willing to wait to try them out, which is rare for me--I usually just buy something that seems to fit my needs. Of course, that's how I bought the Def Tech sub in the first place. I also bought my Denon receiver and DVD that way. I got lucky enough there. I'm inclined to take my time on the speakers, especially since they will be my last purchase for a long time.

OT, I returned the sub to Magnolia. I must say that they were extremely friendly and cooperative. Unfortunately the only speaker there in which I'm interested is a Monitor Audio Bronze.

NHT SB3, -3 db at 39 Hz in a sealed enclosure, so typical room gain should realistically push even a little lower than that.

And you believe that number? My Energy Veritas 2.3s claim 35 Hz at the -3 db point (it is more like -10 db at that frequency), the reality is more like 70 or 80 and they are floor standers with considerably more bass potential.

Here is its next bigger brother's real numbers:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/energy_veritas_v24i/

Energy claims 29 Hertz at the -3 db level.

Now that speaker is a waste of money, why add a little more bass extension, wall interactions (it has a rear port) and an extra $1000 for something the subwoofer can do better?

Even if they did go that low, which I really don't want, it is probably a bad idea to use it, it draws a lot of extra power, and is usually accompanied by lots of distortion once you start getting any volume. I cut my speakers over at the THX spec using a THX crossover (although the slope isn't a THX slope because the speakers are full range, THX requires that they start falling off around 80). The bass is much tighter that way, especially the mid-bass.
You can also tune the bass around your room resonances by moving the sub around and putting absorbant materials where they will do some good. I have a plus 10 db room gain at 90 db at 60 Hz, so I tune the sub around it. You can't really do that if you run your speakers full range unless your preamp/controller is doing it.

BTW I would get a used Velodyne HGS sub over a new NHT one any day (in fact over most subwoofers). The cost would be about the same but the quality is much better if you value accuracy.

I doubt that you will find much at that size that will kick much lower than the U2s.

The SVS PB10 ISD is a GREAT sub for movies at the $400 price point in terms of output and extension. In fact, you can't beat it, and it is front ported (which can even be plugged if you so chose) but it is definitely somewhat bigger than the U2s.

Again for movies only, would you choose the SVS PB10 over the Earthquake MK-IV 10 or 12? They are $399 and $499 respectively at one shop. Both front firing, no port and rear amp which will work in my cabinet system.

And what exactly, pray tell, is "INTERNAL" EQ? :confused: Are you trying to talk about the native tuning point?

No. There is equalization applied to the input signal before it is internally amplified. The equalization is applied to achieve a certain frequency response or even for excursion protection below the tuning point. This eq is not a user-adjustable function, it is internal to the sub.

In the case of these tiny sealed boxes, the manf is applying a crap load of eq to get flat response out of them, otherwise they would roll off at 50 Hz or whatever.

BTW I would get a used Velodyne HGS sub over a new NHT one any day (in fact over most subwoofers). The cost would be about the same but the quality is much better if you value accuracy.

Sounds to me like you have done very little actual research on NHT subwoofers. If you had, then you would have surely known that accuracy is not a shortcoming commonly attributed to NHT subs. The NHT Evolution subs are some of the most accurate subs that money can buy. While there are certainly subwoofers that can produce higher SPL readings in the very lowest octave, than does a U1 or U2 sub; there are very few subs that can deliver a better measured frequency response; which should be of import to someone purporting to value musical accuracy.

Here is what Brent Butterworth said in his NHT Evolution U2 review for the December 2003 issue of the Robb Report:

"Normally, I would specify U2’s frequency response as ±3 dB from 21 to 250 Hz, which is an outstanding measurement. But it is more illustrative to state U2’s frequency response as ±0.2 dB from 26 to 180 Hz. This is, in essence, perfect subwoofer performance—useful response down to 20 Hz, and dead flat response far past the point where the U2 will be crossed over to the main speakers. I have measured more than 100 subwoofers, and this is easily the best frequency response I have ever measured from any subwoofer, at any price."

Here is the accompanying graph of the U2 frequency response measurements from the above cited review.

http://www.hemagazine.com/Measurements/2003/December-2003-Issue/asset_upload_file747_4329.jpg

Close-miked frequency response of the U2 subwoofer, measured from 10 Hz to 500 Hz, unfiltered (purple trace) and with 80 Hz low-pass filter engaged (green trace).

I am more interested in harmonic distortion which is relatively high in subwoofers without servo controls and is definitely audible for the higher harmonics and really does a number on things like cellos, kettle drum, basses, pianos etc. The reason subs like the DD line have equalizers isn't do to non-linear response in the sub but because of the room.

The reason for the +- 3 db norm is the relative insensitivity of our ears to differences in loudness (although we can hear a 6 decibel range difference) and with subwoofers especially room interactions due to resonances and sound bouncing around can easily outweigh any ideal frequency response in an anechoic chamber measured a meter away from the driver.

due not do, sorry

And you believe that number?


Yes, Robert Reina's measurements in his Stereophile review pretty much confirmed that they are very, very close to spec.
http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/721/index4.html then scroll down.

Again for movies only, would you choose the SVS PB10 over the Earthquake MK-IV 10 or 12? They are $399 and $499 respectively at one shop. Both front firing, no port and rear amp which will work in my cabinet system.

Well, I have never heard the Earthquakes, so I can't really comment on how they sound, but the PB10's specs are clearly better than either FWIW, and I have heard (and own 2 of them stacked) it.

Close-miked frequency response of the U2 subwoofer, measured from 10 Hz to 500 Hz, unfiltered (purple trace) and with 80 Hz low-pass filter engaged (green trace).

Not trying to downplay this any, but do keep in mind when he says close-miked, he REALLY means it, as the measurement was taken with the mike a whopping 1/4" away from the driver.

http://www.hedmag.com/Measurements/2003/December-2003-Issue/NHT-Evolution-U2-Subwoofer-Measurements.asp

The signal in these particular models I am talking about only goes straight to the crossover from the input. There is no EQ.

If you think so.

The signal in these particular models I am talking about only goes straight to the crossover from the input. There is no EQ.A small sealed (or vented for that matter) box CANNOT reproduce bass below resonance with power. They roll off at between 12db (in the case of sealed) or 24 db (in the case of vented) per octave. EQ is necessary and is inversely proportional to that roll off. If the design is down 3db at 50, the electronics apply a boost of 3db at 50 to compensate for it. The downside to all of this is: need for crazy amp power (the greater the boost) and output limitations as you reach the excursion limit of the driver. It's simple physics.

Even the relatively large U1 needs the X1 to apply that boost or it craps out around 35hz.

And boy does it soak up amplifier power and cone excursion fast as noted here:

http://sound.westhost.com/linkwitz-transform.htm

:)

Isn't this thread supposed to be about the Classics?

Isn't this thread supposed to be about the Classics?
I feel somewhat responsible here, since I did post a question regarding NHT subs.

In the meantime, with no Classic Threes around, there's not much to talk about.

This is all relevent to the Classics as well since they are probably pretty similar. The point is don't try to run these things down to the limits of their useful bass response unless you want distortion and very limited dynamics. Use that 80 Hertz THX crossover and let the sub do the heavy lifting.

BTW, 1/4" what sort of SPL was used in that frequency response test? That doesn't look like a low excursion woofer on that subwoofer.

Not trying to downplay this any, but do keep in mind when he says close-miked, he REALLY means it, as the measurement was taken with the mike a whopping 1/4" away from the driver.

Evolution subs have been measured in 2 or 3 other magazines and have been +/-.5dB.

Also note that, in order to lower distortion dramatically, they come in pairs of woofers, so two woofers are doing the job of one. This is much more reliable than servo systems. The Evolution subs are the most reliable subwoofers I've ever sold by a huge margin, especially over [Genesis] servo subs I've sold, which have had close to 100% failure rate over a 5 year time frame (not that they can't be fixed).

Also, for $2350 retail, you get 2 enclosures, (4) 12" woofers, dual monoblock amps and outboard crossover and a system weight just shy of 200lbs and it won't stop running, almost regardless of what you do to it.

Note that servo-control eats up a large chunk of power "eqing" via feedback. When they fail because the amp can't put out enough power to compensate for driver non-linearity, the sound is *ugly*. They have to be used within their parameters because they don't fail gracefully. A system such as Evolution will have slowly rising distortion, but will let you know when you're about to do something bad. One is not better than the other, just different approaches to the same problem. Both have downsides. But the fact that Evo can match servo subs in distortion and accuracy is a pretty amazing feat because it won't suffer from the downsides of servo subs.

And you believe that number? My Energy Veritas 2.3s claim 35 Hz at the -3 db point (it is more like -10 db at that frequency), the reality is more like 70 or 80 and they are floor standers with considerably more bass potential.

Unlike many companies, NHT is very serious about its numbers and often rates speakers that are +/- 1dB as +/-3dB. When reviewing the SW12, Keith Yates said that NHT deserved an award for so precisely meeting the printed specs. So, if NHT says "39Hz", you can believe it. The SB3 will embarrass the bass on many towers, they just won't play as loud. The new Three is "only" rated to 45Hz.

I do agree, however, that one should use an 80Hz crossover with them for high output theater. The Three will breakup quite obviously reproducing powerful music at high volumes with not crossover to protect it.

BTW, John, didn't you say that there was going to be an on wall surround coming out for this series like the L5?

I'm *predicting* it, but there's been no information so far supporting such a prediction. I think it will happen simply because that's the direction NHT seems to be going and the demand is rising for such a product and will rise more dramatically once Threes and Fours are shipping in larger quantities.

BTW I would get a used Velodyne HGS sub over a new NHT one any day (in fact over most subwoofers). The cost would be about the same but the quality is much better if you value accuracy.

Of course I value accuracy--I teach high school English and journalism (insert witticisms here)!

I am finding the adjectives people use to describe speakers not very useful (eg., warm, accurate, crisp, neutral, etc.).

So far, I just listen, and try to decide what I like. Here's what I like so far, in order of preference (remember there are some apples and oranges here):

1. Ascend 340s--by far my favorite, but perhaps not appropriate for my room
2. Vienna Acoustics Hyden (too expensive)
2. Paradigm 20s
3. M&K (not sure which model, about 1200/pair, too expensive)
4. Monitor Audio Bronze b2--not bad
5. B&W (a bookshelf from 600 series)--by far my least favorite

I'm still dying to try the Classic Threes-Alimentall and NHT4Life are certainly into the product and they have been effective evangelists.

Of course I value accuracy--I teach high school English and journalism (insert witticisms here)!

Adjectives, here is accuracy for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_harmonic_distortion

Of course being an English teacher you are probably innumerate and don't care :)

I also majored in sociology, so at times I'm 95% comfortable with numbers.

Unlike many companies, NHT is very serious about its numbers and often rates speakers that are +/- 1dB as +/-3dB. So, if NHT says "39Hz", you can believe it.

Unlike some companies, NHT doesn't appear to take the trouble to publish these FR graphs on their web site?

evangelists.

I.....well...ah....nevermind.

Unlike some companies, NHT doesn't appear to take the trouble to publish these FR graphs on their web site?

They're not into specsmanship, though they certainly could be. There's so much more to speaker design than one or two graphs. Unless you measure about 5 or 6 different parameters, one graph is largely useless. It's really easy to design a speaker that measures beautifully in one or two areas, but it's really difficult to make one that does everything well and sounds really great.

here is accuracy for you:


I think you'll find that the distortion figures for Evolution subs are quite low. NHT once told me the figures years ago, it was something like less than 2.5% at reasonably normal volumes, but I can't remember the specifics.

I think you'll find that the distortion figures for Evolution subs are quite low. NHT once told me the figures years ago, it was something like less than 2.5% at reasonably normal volumes, but I can't remember the specifics.

That is usually below audibility in a subwoofer except for second and third harmonics where you will hear it as muddied sound. That is what a servo can pretty much eliminate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic

Unlike many companies, NHT is very serious about its numbers and often rates speakers that are +/- 1dB as +/-3dB. When reviewing the SW12, Keith Yates said that NHT deserved an award for so precisely meeting the printed specs. So, if NHT says "39Hz", you can believe it. The SB3 will embarrass the bass on many towers, they just won't play as loud. The new Three is "only" rated to 45Hz.

I think it is irrelevent (don't want it anyway), but the graph didn't look any better for bass extension versus the quoted number than it does for my Energy Veritas 2.3s. I like my floorstanders for their superior dynamic capabilities rather than absolute bass extension, you really can hear the difference on things like kettle drums or an orchestra's bass and cello sections when there is a crescendo.

Purchased 3 Classic Two's which will be arriving early next week. These speakers will be used for L-C-R. I have an HK AVR-635 and an Acoustech H100 sub for 3.1.

1. Is burn-in needed for the Classic Two's?
a. If yes, what is the best way to do this?
b. How long until they are burned-in?

Let me know if "burned-in" is not the correct terminology for this process.

Secondary question:
L-R speakers will be placed in stands. Center will be placed in a "cubby" above the TV in a built-in entertainment center which should be done by end of the month.

2. Will tilting center slightly downward improve sound?
a. Since it is in an enclosed space, is batting behind the speaker recommended? Speaker depth is ~ 9" and space depth is ~ 20".

Also from what I have read, the speakers should be as close vertically as possible to achieve better sound stage. Will ~ 24" of vertical difference be too much? Current stands are 24" but can get 31" stands if needed.

Many thanks,
alinski..

That is usually below audibility in a subwoofer except for second and third harmonics where you will hear it as muddied sound. That is what a servo can pretty much eliminate.

Eliminates inaudible distortion? Cool!

BTW, a servo can't reduce cone resonances, only those related to the motion of the voice coil.


I think it is irrelevent (don't want it anyway), but the graph didn't look any better for bass extension versus the quoted number than it does for my Energy Veritas 2.3s. I like my floorstanders for their superior dynamic capabilities rather than absolute bass extension, you really can hear the difference on things like kettle drums or an orchestra's bass and cello sections when there is a crescendo.

Irrelevant bass extension? How so? It just makes for a smoother, more predictable crossover when it a 5.1 system and solid, full sound in a 2.0 system. There's nothing wrong with having floorstanders for higher output, but it's an inefficient and costly way of building a system with lots of redundancy and lots of potential for bass cancellation issues unless you cross out the bass of the towers anyway.

I'll take good acoustic suspension monitors with dual subs over any tower/sub combination I think I've ever heard.

1. Is burn-in needed for the Classic Two's?
Not much.
a. If yes, what is the best way to do this?
Listening to music. Or, if you're more anal, just switch the FM tuner to interstation noise and leave the room for a day.
b. How long until they are burned-in?
A couple of days at the most of full time playing.
2. Will tilting center slightly downward improve sound?
Probably
a. Since it is in an enclosed space, is batting behind the speaker recommended?
It wouldn't hurt.
Will ~ 24" of vertical difference be too much? Current stands are 24" but can get 31" stands if needed.

It would help a bit to get the taller stands, especially if the speakers are close to the TV.

John my U-2's are in an enclosed space as it is 3C, what do people use for batting? I have fabric in the cabinet doors so you won't see the batting, but I am not sure what to use if anything?? Thanks

Hi Bob,
batting won't do much for low frequencies. However, you might put some dynamat or similar on the cabinet panels to prevent cabinet vibration.

Irrelevant bass extension? How so? It just makes for a smoother, more predictable crossover when it a 5.1 system and solid, full sound in a 2.0 system. There's nothing wrong with having floorstanders for higher output, but it's an inefficient and costly way of building a system with lots of redundancy and lots of potential for bass cancellation issues unless you cross out the bass of the towers anyway.

I'll take good acoustic suspension monitors with dual subs over any tower/sub combination I think I've ever heard.

I basically agree, with some minor differences:

My point is that the extension is irrelevent if you use speakers designed with a THX roll off slope of the bottom end and a subwoofer and controller designed to match them.

Dual subs can create their own interaction issues given the wavelengths involved (not a big fan of that solution).

One bigger or more capable sub is simpler to tune by far but you get back to an issue with the inertia and mass with the drivers/amps in them, also if you have low 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion from the sub it shouldn't be localizable used according to the THX spec any way. If you can pinpoint it you are hearing harmonic distortion or have your ears right next to the sub.

I agree, most towers are not set up to meet the THX high pass crossover spec, so yeah a bookshelf size speaker usually works better for that aspect of performance. But my controller can do the right thing with the roll off of my towers so it is a non-issue.

What is an issue is that the towers have significantly better dynamics than a bookshelf above and around the high-pass frequency (the port doesn't really come audibly into play until until around 60 hertz) right to the lower midrange where they are rolled off (one starts to roll off around 300 Hertz the other at around 550). I don't want my sub going too high because of the localization issues and it just ain't its job, the drivers are too slow and big for that. so towers with active drivers just do a better job with music and movies with strong dynamics, it is simply a matter of physics, sound waves need a physical medium (always loved sound effects on space based science fiction, no matter to transmit the sound, there would be no sound heard!).

All other things being equal a bigger enclosure and more cubic inches of air moved accurately by the drivers means better dynamic capabilities, smaller sealed enclosures have issues with the backwave EMF distorting low frequencies, compressing dynamics and potentially setting off cabinet resonancies that can be audible (that can be solved through proper construction though, it looks like the 3s do it right on that count). A proper crossover as you point out negates that problem.

The THX system expects a 2nd order (12 decibel per octave) 80 hertz roll off on the speakers (looks like the NHT Classic 3s don't do this properly either, they roll off too slowly according to their specs), my 2.3s have a 1st order roll off which is similar to the 3s, the controller compensates for it with the high pass used for the speakers so the the matchup is quite good. I still get the correct blending, no audible cancellation or other phase issues and get the dynamics in the mid to upper bass that are not available in a bookshelf.

I use bookshelves for the surrounds and want to replace my bookshelves with the Classic 3s and the center with the 3c if I don't have to drive 50 miles to audition them. It should work pretty well without giving up the dynamics in the main speakers where most of the action is.

Unless you measure about 5 or 6 different parameters, one graph is largely useless.

One graph would be enough to see if a 6.5" 2-way is actually -3db down @ 39HZ.

And speaking of that, some companies don't just provide "one" graph.

One graph would be enough to see if a 6.5" 2-way is actually -3db down @ 39HZ.

And speaking of that, some companies don't just provide "one" graph.

Yeah, but what's really amusing to me is that many companies that brag about their graphs will say "-3dB at 85Hz" but their own published graphs show that it is more like -3dB at ~100Hz. But NHT's graphs are generally duplicable by most anyone and their own graphs don't contradict their literature. In fact, they tend to show that they are very much soft-peddling.

Dual subs can create their own interaction issues given the wavelengths involved (not a big fan of that solution)

Actually, set up properly, they *reduce* interaction by helping to cancel one or more room modes. And the wavelengths are far too large to produce problems. And you get lower distortion and greater output. You can stack subs, but that does nothing to reduce room modes, just distortion.

One bigger or more capable sub is simpler to tune by far but you get back to an issue with the inertia and mass with the drivers/amps in them, also if you have low 2nd and 3rd order harmonic distortion from the sub it shouldn't be localizable used according to the THX spec any way. If you can pinpoint it you are hearing harmonic distortion or have your ears right next to the sub.

Bipolar! You can sense large pressure differentials if the sub is beside you. At least I can. Having dual subs, however, "cancels" the localization effects of a subwoofer by creating a symmetrical effect.

I don't want my sub going too high because of the localization issues and it just ain't its job, the drivers are too slow and big for that.

That's why it's good to have two slightly smaller subwoofers. The drivers aren't "too slow and too big" and you can crossover higher, get lower distortion and lose nothing except bad sound. It's why I like selling NHT subs. Smaller, faster, more agile, more accurate than most subs.

so towers with active drivers just do a better job with music and movies with strong dynamics, it is simply a matter of physics, sound waves need a physical medium (always loved sound effects on space based science fiction, no matter to transmit the sound, there would be no sound heard!).

Sure, but at a much greater cost *and* it's hard to get the precisely matched center/rears like you can with smaller models. All things equal, you'd want 5 or more with a big ponderous sub or two crossed over at 50Hz or less.

The THX system expects a 2nd order (12 decibel per octave) 80 hertz roll off on the speakers (looks like the NHT Classic 3s don't do this properly either, they roll off too slowly according to their specs), my 2.3s have a 1st order roll off which is similar to the 3s, the controller compensates for it with the high pass used for the speakers so the the matchup is quite good. I still get the correct blending, no audible cancellation or other phase issues and get the dynamics in the mid to upper bass that are not available in a bookshelf.

Better to rolloff too slowly than not fast enough. However, there's no reason why the Threes would *not* roll off at less than 12dB/octave, not sure how you could determine that from published specs.

BTW, I'm pushing very hard for a "3.5" tower speaker that is basically a floor-standing Three with dual midbass drivers for higher output, lower distortion and a lower crossover option for front/rear speakers. I love the design of the 2.3s, except that I'd maybe have preferred a 4" or 5" mid.

The dome midrange/tweeter modules on the 2.3s are great, that is what interested me in the NHT Classics, a good match. The Energy center and surrounds don't have them and the 2.2 is just too big for a surround in our room.

The bass and lower midrange is fantastic and very tight on them within their range, almost like electrostatics. It is probably because the woofers are so small (not even the surround molding on the woofers is the stated 6.5" the woofers cones are more like 5" and very quick with lots of power handling capabilities. Probably due to the dual voice coils and very large heat sinks.

Imaging works very well as well. As far as dual subs I would have to try it out but I really don't have a need for it with the 2.3s. I would really like to ditch the Sunfire for a nice HGS-12 or 15 or something equivalent, it would clean up the response a bit, more of a lateral move on price if it is used.

Oops, sorry, I thought you were speaking of NHT 2.3s, not Energy 2.3s.

Good thing about the Sunfires is that people still want them because they're small.

I went and listened to the Classic 3's today here in the D/FW area at a place called Home Concepts. It is the only dealer in the D/FW area for NHT.

I will start with the setup because I think it definitely limited the audition.

They had the classic 3's setup in a room maybe 8'x8' maybe 9x9'. A tiny room with door openings on either side. They had the speakers at different lengths away from the wall. The center channel was 10 inches off the ground (not tilted up). They had m&k small speakers as the rears. It was running off a Pioneer Elite 52 (?) receiver. I was very disappointed in the way they had them setup.

We started off with a dts recording of the Eagles Concert DVD Hell freezes over. The rears were so loud they were covering the mains. Not to mention in such a tiny room the rears were less than 1' foot from your ears. You could scarcely make out the center because of the positioning near the floor. Not a good demo so far. The saleswoman put it into stereo on a dts disk which made it even worse.

Finally, We just got it to 2 channel with some disks I had brought. My impressions were that the 3 was a non-fatiguing and a pretty neutral speaker. It reminded me a lot of NHT's I had heard in the past. It didn't immediately grab my attention ,but does everything well. I left the audition with a collective shrug I guess. I wasn't blown away, but I couldn't help feeling that I had not seen anything close to it's potential because of the setup. I am still intrigued anough to hear the 3's (4's) again in a good setup. All this said , the 3 is a good buy at 400$a piece, and I personally liked it more than the small Dynaudio Audience bookshelf and the B&W 705.

Now to my main gripe. Please bear with me as I think this is important.

I have not ever been in a mid-fi to hi-fi shop that not only was setup so poorly but also the staff/owner? was so unknowledgeable. Sure, she was nice enough as a person ,but my buddy and I were telling her how to setup her equipment (receiver) . She commented many times on her lack of knowledge. She didn't know anything about the Classic 3 design or how they compared to past NHT generations at all. This must be a NHT rep's nightmare. In a metroplex region of 3-4 million people this is the only place to show your speakers and not only are they setup poorly, but the dealer can't tell a customer anything about them or about audio in general. We went to a Magnolia HT/BB down the street , and both commented on the fact that the teenager there was more audio knowlegdable than at the dedicated B&M NHT dealer. Who knows, She may have been the wife, but the 3 times I have called there she has picked up every time.

Redfive.
I went to the exact same place to audition the 3's. I think that the way they were setup were horrible. And yes it was her who gave the demo and she was with her mom :rolleyes: . The 3's were running on some Jamo electronics, which I've never seen nor heard. I only listened to couple of stereo tracks that I brought along. I was not impressed but I could definately hear that there was a lot of sound that can come out of the 3's. On a proper setup Im pretty sure the can do way better. I heard the potential of the speakers. I remember listening to the SB3 last year at Stereo East in Dallas, which by the way moved to Frisco and no longer carry NHT or NAD, and was not impressed at all. Actually the Polk LSi 9 were way better speaker IMO than the SB3, but of course at a different price range.

Next thing Im planning to do is fly to Alburquerque, NM and go and listen to the 3's and hopefully the M6/5 at John's hobby shop :D

By the way. Does she runs that bussiness by herself or does she has a husband and they run the thing together? Just curious

Lol .... I'm not sure if it's her business or what ... I have a buddy who I've been trying to coerce into to opening a HT/Audio store, and he's always kind of blase' about it. Of course , he has connections to HT builders , is a sound engineer and a salesman by trade. I think it maybe opened up his eyes to the HT competition in the area.

It's funny you mention that I've been considering contacting John myself and maybe looking at the 4's when they come out at his shop. I have to wait until I'm more in a position to buy though financial wise.

A lot of it comes down to price , I suppose. I can get an NHT setup and a good sub for the price of a Revel or Dynaudio 5 speaker set without sub. One of the nice things about the NHT, at this point, I would not have to upgrade to a separate amp. I could just use my Pioneer Elite tx-45.

The Classic 4 is now listed as "Available" at OneCall

http://www.onecall.com/ProductDetails.aspx?sHist=12-110%2c6-28&menu=true&Page=1&id=32962

Who will be the first to offer a detailed evaluation of what they hear from these?

Who will be the first to offer a detailed evaluation of what they hear from these?

Probably me again ;)

Well, I supposedly have some coming. I won't hold my breath.

But, anyone who wants to visit little old ABQ is more than welcome any time. But be prepared for 2400 sq ft of stuff in a 1200 sq ft store, used gear piled up everywhere and about 50 sq ft of desk space covered by paperwork.

I plan on going to Dallas in a few weeks. Maybe I'll offer NHT to give some sales/product training to their new dealer so things won't be so embarrassing. I wasn't the most knowledgeable person in the world when I picked up NHT 14 years ago, though I'm pretty sure I was a little ahead of that, having worked for Bose (yeah, yeah, shut up!) and two other stereo stores first. Opening a stereo store is nothing like opening a Subway, it's about 20 times as hard.

Opening a stereo store is nothing like opening a Subway, it's about 20 times as hard.

Probably not as tasty as either, unless you hand your customers an italian BMT when they walk through the door...

But there are other benefits :)

Probably not as tasty as either, unless you hand your customers an italian BMT when they walk through the door...

Having lived in Philly and Pittsburgh, it's not very exciting having a Subway next door :(

I Got a chance to listen to my new 3's this afternoon. This is my first high end speaker that I've purchased and i'm truely impressed.

The receiver I'm using is an old Sony 2 channel 40watt that I've had for at least 17 years that was powering a set of Bose bookshelf's 2.2 As soon as I popped in a couple of my favorite CD's (stevie ray vaughn, black keys, Cat Power...etc) I was blown away how much a speaker upgrade can do to a crappy old receiver. I now understand the term "soundstage" that everyone is talking about....and how big it appears with this setup.

If anyone is on the fence regarding this speaker don't be. I think this is the best purchase I've made in quite some time.

I do have a question for those that have had these for a while.

How are you securing these to speakers stands ? What size top base plate are you utilizing ? NHT didn't provide any threaded inserts on the bottom of the speaker......

Thanks,
JHall

I've taken the plunge yesterday and bought a NHT setup yesterday from a local dealer. After we arrived at the dealer, he told me he only had one pair of Four in stock and was willing to put it on demo. So we based on our decision on listening to Three. I had listened to Three before and is still amazed by how well and how big it sounds from such a small bookshelf speaker. We compared it to Paradigm Studio 100, and I would say the Three sticks neck to neck with it except a bit lack of bass extension, which is very much expected. The dealer, by change, also has XD on demo, and I would say Three performed very close to Xd. An amzing achievement considering the huge price difference between them.

So here is my setup:

Front: Classic Four
Center: Three C
Surround: Three

I will be setting up my treasuries this and maybe next weekend. I would like to ask some questions to other NHT fans:
1) what speaker wire to use. I have to route the surround speaker wire in the basement. The length is most likely to exceed 20 feet.
2) bare wire connection or some type of connector
3) I currently have a Pioneer 1015TX receiver. I have no budge left to update to a complete separate system this year. Given the constraint, will I get more bang for the buck by getting a new preamp or an amp? I can reuse half of my receiver this way.

Thanks,
Eric

Received my Classic Two's yesterday for my L-C-R and they sound great paired with the HK 635. Currently using Sanos BF-24B stands for L-R which I had before. What stands are other Classic Two/Three owners using? Hard to buy a stand for the Classic since the footprint is not the entire surface.

alinski...

Received my Classic Two's yesterday for my L-C-R and they sound great paired with the HK 635. Currently using Sanos BF-24B stands for L-R which I had before. What stands are other Classic Two/Three owners using? Hard to buy a stand for the Classic since the footprint is not the entire surface.

alinski...

I'm using Sanus Steel Foundations SF26b, the same thing I used for my old SB3s. They seem to wokr really well, much better than my old Natural Foundations (which were also the wrong height).

I will be setting up my treasuries this and maybe next weekend. I would like to ask some questions to other NHT fans:
1) what speaker wire to use. I have to route the surround speaker wire in the basement. The length is most likely to exceed 20 feet.
2) bare wire connection or some type of connector
3) I currently have a Pioneer 1015TX receiver. I have no budge left to update to a complete separate system this year. Given the constraint, will I get more bang for the buck by getting a new preamp or an amp? I can reuse half of my receiver this way.


1) I use the Acoustic Research wire that Best Buy sells. 16 gauge, white. Seems to work OK, but I'm not all that knowledgable about wire.
2) AR banana plugs, again, work fine, but don't know much about the subject.
3) I say go for the power amp. Or buy an NAD receiver, which some people will claim provides the performance of sepparates.

Oh dear lordie, they say they've shipped me 3 pairs of Fours to arrive Thursday. Medic!!!

I also found that the SANUS steel foundation stands work and look great with the threes. I bought the 30 inchers which work well. Filled each one with 25 lbs of shot.

I'm using Sanus Steel Foundations SF26b, the same thing I used for my old SB3s. They seem to wokr really well, much better than my old Natural Foundations (which were also the wrong height).

Yep, the 24" speaker stand is too short. I was thinking of getting the SF-34B since my center will be placed above the TV at 60" in a built-in entertainment center. Thoughts?

In the pic:
* The left speaker is on the 24" stand.
* The right speaker is at 32" height (24" stand + 8" speaker).

Testing the different height placements before purchasing the new stand.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a338/alinski/5d1a8035.jpg

alinski...

Yep, the 24" speaker stand is too short. I was thinking of getting the SF-34B since my center will be placed above the TV at 60" in a built-in entertainment center. Thoughts?

In the pic:
* The left speaker is on the 24" stand.
* The right speaker is at 32" height (24" stand + 8" speaker).

Testing the different height placements before purchasing the new stand.
alinski...

Actually, I found my 26" stands to be a substantial improvement over my old 30" stands. I originally bought the 30" stands to but the tweeter of my old SB3s at ear height, not realizing that they weren't supposed to be that way. The new stands improved imaging and balance quite a bit. Although it does increase the height difference between my center channel (on top of the TV) and my L/R.

But of course, some of this will depend on the height of the listener and the height of the seating.

NHT gurus...

I've ran across a good deal on some T5s that would save me a fair amount of coin over the original plan of using 3 L5's across the front (when I factor in the U1 that I will no longer need). However, I have some reservations about the placement in my smallish room. So, if you please:

Room is 12'W x 15'L x 8'H.
Seating is 9.5' back.
PDP is on the 12' wall.
L5s will be used for surrounds.

Will I be better served by using a LCR arangement of:
T5 L5 T5
T5 M5 T5
L5 L5 L5 (with the U1)?

Thanks in advance!

T5 M5 T5 if you can. The added distance from the wall provides a much more natural experience with better imaging.

they say they've shipped me 3 pairs of Fours to arrive Thursday.Well. . . . .? What's your impression?

The shipper had a delay, they're showing up today.

Okay, *first* impression is "holy CRAP, these are powerful!" As in, more powerful than the Twelve, at least as I had it set up and the bass sounded tighter and more in sync. We'll see what happens over the weekend as I'm cranking the heck out of them now. The mid/treble sounded a bit different, but the Threes are well broken in. I suspect most of the differences will disappear over the next hour or so.

But, no doubt, I think very few people will need to run a sub with these! I just can't imagine it. They may be a bit too powerful for small room, but the bass could be padded down with a resistor and bi-wiring.

Okay, *first* impression is "holy CRAP, these are powerful!" As in, more powerful than the Twelve, at least as I had it set up and the bass sounded tighter and more in sync. We'll see what happens over the weekend as I'm cranking the heck out of them now. The mid/treble sounded a bit different, but the Threes are well broken in. I suspect most of the differences will disappear over the next hour or so.

But, no doubt, I think very few people will need to run a sub with these! I just can't imagine it. They may be a bit too powerful for small room, but the bass could be padded down with a resistor and bi-wiring.How do the fours compare to the threes paired with a good subwoofer? Are there other sonic benefits?

Scott

There are some subtle mid/treble differences I hear, but I'm letting the speakers break in over night on some Maná at high volumes. 90%+ of the differences are bass related. I've said that only dual Classic subs or the Evo sub would be *better* than the Fours and the Fours have proven that pretty well the moment I plugged them in. The bass is more integrated than I've achieved thus far with the dual subs or at least integrate better into the room. The bass is faster, cleaner, "punchier". The Twelve, by comparison, sounds like it's a partial beat behind the Threes (probably my fault, but I've been mentally occupied elsewhere). My demo room is far from perfect in the bass and has some boom to it. The Fours just work better. I am getting a bit of a boom at one frequency, but I'm pretty sure it's the room.

In order of performance, lowest to highest, IMO:

Three with one Ten (why?!?)
Three with one Twelve
Fours or Threes with two Tens
Threes with two Twelves or Evolution U1/U2 (depending on room)
Threes with dual U1 setup.

I can't easily comment on other subs, but, by far, most subwoofers can't touch the bass quality of the Fours. The few that can would be getting a hell of a run for the money.

My dealer is kind of down on both the last gen and new NHT subs.
They are recommending the $600 and next higher up Martin Logan.

But when I look at the cost of 2 Martin Logans with the Threes, the Fours
are the ticket.

Especially when John says they are more integrated sounding, which I suspected.

I have good news/bad news and may have to retract or modify the above post.

Bad news? The Three's aren't quite as good in the midrange/treble as the Fours.
Good news? The Fours are even better than the Threes in the midrange/treble :)

Listening to the Threes prior to the Fours, I'd thought that NHT could have done a slightly better job integrating the two domes and it was as though the midrange dome took a bit of prominence and sometimes I felt that the "ding" of a cymbal wasn't quite right. I'd mentioned this to NHT. Now, this is nitpicking, especially at this price. As good as the Threes are, they still aren't perfect. Compare to the Xds and they still get a bit of a butt-whooping. But they're still, IMO, head and shoulders above most speakers in their class and share many of the Xd's great attributes. Slight imperfections rather than obvious, glaring ones. You have to listen for them, ponder on them, listen again.

So, the Fours come in, sounding somewhat different. I played them at very high volumes for the last 16 hours or so. I think they're pretty well broken in. Most break in takes place in the first hour anyway. But the somewhat different sound was still there. Better sounding than directly out of the box, but still different from the Threes. But the deep bass is distracting from A/Bing them. So I cut in the 100Hz crossover on the NAD M3 integrated to make it fair and isolate the mid/treble. Yep, there's a slight difference between the two. Not huge, but notable and appreciable. The treble/midrange seems a bit more integrated. The "ding" of a cymbal is better and the cymbals sound less "wispy". The mid/midbass transition is also a tad better. The voice sounds a bit flatter with a slightly richer tone and slightly more fleshed out.

But why? They shouldn't be different at all. Thankfully, I have a hex wrench! As I suspected, there are crossover differences. All of the inductors are slightly different, as are one or more of the resistors. The slopes are the same, but it looks like they've either been tweaking *or* the addition of the sub required other changes. Or, maybe they wanted to alter the overall sound because of the addition of the woofer. I don't know. But I do think the changes are for the better. I do like the Fours better than the Threes by just enough. If the Four were a just bookshelf with no sub, I think it would be worth a $200 premium over the Three.

I don't know if this muddies the waters, but my two big observations are:

1. The bass on the Four is much more powerful, dynamic and punchy than I'd expected
2. The midrange/treble is slightly smoother, more integrated, more neutral.

I do have one caveat. I do think that, with some effort and skill, one might be able to achieve a slightly better bass/midbass transition with the Three/U1 combo and, of course, a bit tighter, more precise bass. But given the overall qualities of the Four, I just realized that I'm going to have to increase my pre-orders from about 38 pair to more like 75. :)

When I listened to the Threes last month I noticed that when the drummer went to the bell of the ride cymbal it sounded different than what I was used to hearing.
And that the hihats when closed also had a differnet sound. A lighter less focused sound.
Perhaps this is what John heard also.